Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Ashy Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa, 28080-28084 [E8-10790]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28080
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Flooding source(s)
* Elevation in feet (NGVD)
+ Elevation in feet (NAVD)
# Depth in feet above
ground
Location of referenced elevation **
Effective
Modified
Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Spencer Road
(SR 1385).
At the confluence with North Deep Creek Tributary 2 ...
None
+1,065
None
+860
Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence
with North Deep Creek Tributary 2.
North Deep Creek Tributary
2A.
Communities affected
None
+877
Unincorporated Areas of
Yadkin County, Town of
Yadkinville.
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
# Depth in feet above ground.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for
exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.
Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.
ADDRESSES
Town of Boonville
Maps are available for inspection at Boonville Town Hall, 110 North Carolina Avenue, Boonville, NC.
Town of East Bend
Maps are available for inspection at East Bend Town Hall, 108 West Main Street, East Bend, NC.
Town of Jonesville
Maps are available for inspection at Jonesville Town Hall, 136 West Main Street, Jonesville, NC.
Town of Yadkinville
Maps are available for inspection at Yadkinville Town Hall, 213 Van Buren Street, Yadkinville, NC.
Unincorporated Areas of Yadkin County
Maps are available for inspection at Yadkin County Manager’s Office, 217 East Willow Street, Yadkinville, NC.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)
Dated: May 7, 2008.
David I. Maurstad,
Federal Insurance Administrator of the
National Flood Insurance Program,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8–10868 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R8–ES–2008–0049; 1111 FY08 MO–
B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Ashy Storm-Petrel
(Oceanodroma homochroa) as
Threatened or Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding and initiation of status review.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:04 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
homochroa) as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the
ashy storm-petrel may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a status review
of the species to determine if listing the
species is warranted. To ensure that the
review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting information and data
regarding this species. We will make a
determination on critical habitat for this
species, which was also requested in the
petition, if, and when, we initiate a
listing action.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct this review, we request that
information be submitted on or before
July 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–
ES–2008–0049; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all information received at
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Information Solicited section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Long, Field Supervisor, Arcata
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon
Road, Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 707–
822–7201; facsimile 707–822–8411. If
you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that
substantial information is presented to
indicate that listing a species may be
warranted, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species. To ensure that the status review
is complete and based on the best
available science and commercial
information, we are soliciting additional
information on the ashy storm-petrel.
We request information from the public,
other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties on the status of the
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ashy storm-petrel throughout its range,
including but not limited to:
(1) The historical and current status
and distribution of ashy storm-petrel;
the species’ biology and ecology;
ongoing conservation measures for the
species and its habitat; and threats to
the species and its habitat.
(2) The effects of potential threat
factors that are the basis for a listing
determination under section 4(a) of the
Act, which are:
(a) Present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
species’ habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
(3) Timing within year, type, and
amount of human activities (e.g.,
commercial and recreational fishing,
tourism) at locations where ashy stormpetrels are known or suspected to breed,
including but not limited to: Van
Damme Rock (Mendocino County); Bird,
Chimney, and Double Point Rocks
(Marin County); the Farallon Islands
(San Francisco County); Castle and
Hurricane Point Rocks (Monterey
County); San Miguel Island, Castle
Rock, Prince Island, mainland locations
and offshore islets at Vandenberg Air
Force Base, Santa Cruz Island, Santa
Barbara Island, Sutil Island, and Shag
Rock (Santa Barbara County); Anacapa
Island (Ventura County); Santa Catalina
Island and San Clemente Island (Los
Angeles County); and Islas Los
Coronados and Islas Todos Santos,
Mexico.
(4) Projected changes in sea level
along the coast of California during the
21st century, specifically at the
locations listed in (3) above.
(5) Elevations of known and suitable
breeding habitat at the locations listed
in (3) above.
(6) Projected acidification of oceanic
waters of the California Current during
the 21st century.
(7) Locations of oil tanker routes, and
timing and frequency of oil tanker traffic
along the coast of California and
Northern Baja California, Mexico.
(8) Nighttime observations of ashy
storm-petrels, other storm-petrels, other
nocturnal seabirds (e.g., Xantus’s
murrelets (Synthliboramphus
hypoleucus)), and other seabirds (e.g.,
gulls (Larus sp.)) on or near boats
(commercial or recreational) off central
and southern California and Baja
California, Mexico.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:04 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
(9) Measured and observed nighttime
lighting, and timing within year of
nighttime lighting by boats (commercial
and recreational) at locations listed in
(3) above.
(10) Daily and seasonal activity
patterns of ashy storm-petrels and avian
predators of ashy storm-petrels (e.g.,
western gull (Larus occidentalis),
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)) at
breeding locations in general and,
specifically, in relation to light intensity
at night.
(11) Abundance and distribution of
predators of ashy storm-petrels at ashy
storm-petrel breeding locations.
(12) Observations of ashy stormpetrels or other storm-petrels at night on
offshore oil platforms, or additional
evidence that ashy storm-petrels are
attracted to or have collided with
offshore oil platforms.
(13) Locations of proposed offshore
liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities
along the coast of California and
Northern Baja California, Mexico.
(14) Evidence of organochlorine
contamination of ashy storm-petrel eggs
and birds.
(15) Ingestion of plastics by ashy
storm-petrels, and distribution and
abundance of plastics in the California
Current.
(16) Military activities at sea and on
islands off the coast of California and
northern Baja California, Mexico.
(17) Factors that pose a threat to ashy
storm-petrels (those listed above, and
otherwise) and the potential cumulative
effects of these factors that may threaten
or endanger ashy storm-petrels.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is a threatened or endangered
species shall be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’ Based on
the status review, we will issue the 12month finding on the petition, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
You may submit your information
concerning this finding by one of the
methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. We will not consider
submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to
an address not listed in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28081
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Information and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files at the time we
make the determination. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to
make this finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition and publish our
notice of the finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information within the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
If we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information was presented,
we are required to promptly commence
a status review of the species.
On October 16, 2007, we received a
formal petition, dated October 15, 2007,
from the Center for Biological Diversity,
requesting that we list the ashy stormpetrel. The petition also requested that
critical habitat be designated
concurrently with the listing. The
petition clearly identified itself as a
petition and included the requisite
identification information as required in
50 CFR 424.14(a). Included in the
petition was supporting information
regarding the species’ taxonomy and
ecology, historical and current
distribution, present status, and
potential causes of decline and active
imminent threats. In response to the
petition, we sent a letter to the
petitioner dated January 11, 2008,
stating that we had secured funding and
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
28082
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
that we anticipated making an initial
finding as to whether the petition
contained substantial information
indicating listing the ashy storm-petrel
may be warranted in Fiscal Year 2008.
We also concluded in our January 11,
2008, letter that emergency listing of the
ashy storm-petrel was not warranted.
Species Information
The ashy storm-petrel is a seabird
species belonging to the order
Procellariiformes, family Hydrobatidae.
The ashy storm-petrel is one of five
storm-petrel species (including forktailed (O. furcata), Leach’s (O.
leucorhoa), black (O. melania), and least
(O. microsoma) storm-petrels) that nest
on islands along the west coast of North
America (Harrison 1983, pp. 272–278).
The ashy storm-petrel is a smoke-gray,
medium-sized bird with long slender
wings, a long forked tail, and webbed
feet (Ainley 1995, p. 2).
Ashy storm-petrels have been
confirmed to breed at 26 locations on
islands and offshore rocks from Marin
County, California, south to Todos
Santos Islands, west of Ensenada, Baja
California, Mexico (Carter et al. 1992,
pp. 77–81; Ainley 1995, p. 2; Carter et
al. 2006, p. 6; Carter et al. 2008, p. 118).
In addition, ashy storm-petrels possibly
breed at five locations from Mendocino
County south to San Clemente Island
(Carter et al. 2008, pp. 118–119). The
species breeds primarily in two
population centers at the Farallon
Islands and in the California Channel
Islands (Sowls et al. 1980, p. 24; Ainley
et al. 1990, p. 135; Carter et al. 1992, p.
86). Ashy storm-petrels do not excavate
burrows; rather, they nest in crevices of
talus slopes, rock walls, sea caves, cliffs,
and driftwood (James-Veitch 1970, pp.
87–88; Ainley et al. 1990, p. 147; McIver
2002, p. 1).
The breeding season is protracted,
and activities at nesting locations occur
from March through January (JamesVeitch 1970, p. 71). Clutch size is one
egg per year (Ainley 1995, p. 6). The
egg-laying period extends from late
March to October, peaking in June and
July (James-Veitch 1970, p. 243; Ainley
et al. 1990, p. 148; McIver 2002, pp. 34–
36). The average period of incubation is
44 days (James-Veitch 1970, p. 244).
Hatchlings are ‘‘semi-precocial’’ (JamesVeitch 1970, p. 128). The term semiprecocial describes young that have
characteristics of precocial young at
hatch (open eyes, down, capacity to
leave the nest), but that remain at the
nest and are cared for by parents until
close to adult size (Sibley 2001, p. 573).
Chicks are brooded and attended by
adults for approximately the first week
of life, after which time they are left
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:04 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
unattended in the nest during the day
(James-Veitch 1970, p. 141). Chicks are
fed irregularly, once every 1 to 3 nights
on average (James-Veitch 1970, pp. 180–
208). At Southeast Farallon Island,
James-Veitch (1970, p. 212) reported a
mean of 76 days from hatching to
fledging; Ainley et al. (1990, p. 152)
reported a mean of 84 days from
hatching to fledging. Fledging occurs at
night, from late August to January, and
once they leave the nest, fledglings are
independent of their parents (Ainley et
al. 1974, p. 303; McIver 2002, p. 36).
Nonbreeding ashy storm-petrels also
visit breeding locations during the
breeding season (James-Veitch 1970, pp.
242–243). Although visitations are
reduced during the months of January
and February, ashy storm-petrels visit
nesting locations throughout the year,
and most intensely from February into
October (Ainley et al. 1974, p. 301).
The nocturnal activity (return to and
departure from nest) and crevice nesting
of this species are adaptations to avoid
predation by diurnal predators such as
western gulls, burrowing owls,
peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus),
and common ravens (Corvus corax)
(Ainley 1995, p. 5; McIver and Carter
2006, p. 3). Ashy storm-petrels are
susceptible to predation at night by barn
owls (Tyto alba) (McIver 2002, p. 30).
Nesting in crevices and burrows on
remote headlands, offshore rocks, and
islands generally reduces predation of
storm-petrels by mammalian predators
(Warham 1990, p. 13). Known
mammalian predators of ashy stormpetrels and their eggs include house
mice (Mus musculus), deer mice
(Peromyscus maniculatus), and island
spotted skunks (Spilogale gracilis
amphiala) (Ainley et al. 1990, p. 146;
McIver 2002, pp. 40–41; McIver and
Carter 2006, p. 3).
Ashy storm-petrels are nonmigratory
and forage primarily in the California
Current from northern California to
central Baja California, Mexico; birds
forage in areas of upwelling, seaward of
the continental shelf, near islands and
the coast (Ainley et al. 1974, p. 300;
Briggs et al. 1987, p. 23; Mason et al.
2007, p. 60). Four thousand to six
thousand ashy storm-petrels are usually
observed in the fall in Monterey Bay,
approximately 3 to 10 miles (5 to 16
kilometers) off the town of Moss
Landing, California, and as many as
10,000 ashy storm-petrels were
estimated to be present in Monterey Bay
in October 1977 (Roberson 1985, p. 42).
Storm-petrels feed on small
invertebrates and fish picked from the
ocean surface (Warham 1990, p. 186).
The diet of ashy storm-petrels has not
been extensively studied, but includes
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
euphausiids (spp. Euphausia,
Thysanoessa), other crustaceans,
unidentified fish and squid (G.
McChesney, personal communication,
1999).
Obtaining direct population counts of
ashy storm-petrels is difficult, because
the species nests in often deep,
inaccessible crevices (Carter et al. 1992,
p. 77; Sydeman et al. 1998b, p. 438).
The world population of ashy stormpetrels has been estimated to be on the
order of 10,000 birds (Sowls et al. 1980,
p. 24; Ainley 1995, p. 1); estimates of
breeding birds for California have
ranged from 5,187 (Sowls et al. 1980, p.
25) to 7,209 (Carter et al. 1992, p. 87).
Results from Sydeman et al. (1998b, p.
445) indicate a reduction in ashy stormpetrel population size at Southeast
Farallon Island from 1972 to 1992,
ranging from 28 to 44 percent. Sydeman
et al. (1998b, p. 445) report that this
decline occurred in prime nesting
habitat and was apparently greater for
breeding birds. Sydeman et al. (1998b,
pp. 445–446) suggest that this decline in
population size at Southeast Farallon
Island may be due, in part, to an
increase in the predation rate on ashy
storm-petrel adults and sub-adults by
western gulls, which expanded into
prime ashy storm-petrel nesting habitat
over the course of their study.
Research on reproductive success of
the ashy storm-petrel has been
conducted at Southeast Farallon Island
(James-Veitch 1970; Ainley et al. 1990;
Sydeman et al. 1998a; Sydeman et al.,
unpublished data) and Santa Cruz
Island (McIver 2002; McIver et al., in
preparation). Reported productivity
values have been variable. For example,
on Southeast Farallon Island, reported
productivity values are: 0.40 chicks per
pair during 1964 to 1965 (James-Veitch
1970, p. 235); 0.69 chicks per pair
during 1972 to 1983 (Ainley et al. 1990,
p. 155); 0.73 chicks per pair during 1971
to 1995 (Sydeman et al. 1998a, p. 20)
and 0.52 chicks per pair during 1995 to
1998 (Sydeman et al., unpublished
data). On Santa Cruz Island, reported
productivity values are: 0.51 chicks per
pair during 1995 to 1998 (McIver 2002,
p. 44); and 0.63 chicks per pair during
2005 to 2007 (McIver et al., in
preparation, p. 25).
No data are currently available
regarding adult life span, survivorship,
and age at first breeding of ashy stormpetrels (Ainley 1995, p. 8). However,
like other procellariids, storm-petrels
are long-lived (Warham 1996, p. 20).
Some ashy storm-petrels reach 25 years
old (Sydeman et al. 1998a, p. 7), and
breeding adults over 20 years in age
have been reported in the closelyrelated Leach’s storm-petrel (Morse and
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Buchheister 1977, p. 344). Mean age of
first breeding in the Leach’s storm-petrel
has been reported at 5.9 years ± 1.3
standard deviation (Huntington et al.
1996, p. 19). Sydeman et al. (1998a, p.
7) conducted population viability
analyses based upon observations by C.
Huntington, and assumed that 90
percent of adult ashy storm-petrels were
capable of breeding at 6 years of age.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, set forth the procedures for
adding species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) Present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. In making this 90-day
finding, we evaluated whether
information on threats to the ashy
storm-petrel in our files and presented
with the October 2007 petition
constitute substantial scientific or
commercial information such that
listing under the Act may be warranted.
Our evaluation of this information is
presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range
The petitioner asserts that the ashy
storm-petrel’s island breeding habitat is
being modified and degraded by
artificial light pollution, introduced
species, and current and future climate
change; they further assert that its at-sea
foraging habitat is being modified and
degraded by artificial light pollution,
chemical and plastics pollution, and
current and future ocean climate change
(Petition, p. 15).
The market squid (Loligo opalescens)
fishery is a source of artificial light at
night near breeding locations in the
California Channel Islands, and could
result in increased mortality of stormpetrels due to predation by diurnal
predators and direct collision with
lights (McIver 2002, pp. 51–2; Maxwell
et al. 2004, pp. 666–69). Ashy stormpetrels have been recovered dead on an
offshore oil platform off the coast of
southern California, and from mainland
locations in southern California,
presumably due to attraction to and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:04 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
collision with bright lights (Carter et al.
2000, p. 443).
In addition, oil pollution may pose a
threat to ashy storm-petrels. A major oil
spill off Monterey Bay during the fall
could affect thousands of ashy stormpetrels that concentrate in that area
(Roberson 1985, p. 42; Sydeman et al.
1998, p. 439). Hampton et al. (2003, p.
32) analyzed dumping of tank washings
of oil tankers at sea and suggested that
the greatest threat of oiling existed for
seabird species occurring (while at sea)
greater than 80 kilometers (50 miles)
offshore, including ashy storm-petrels.
We found substantial evidence
presented in the petition indicating that
artificial light pollution near breeding
colonies and at sea, and at-sea oil
pollution may threaten ashy stormpetrels.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The petitioner asserts that research
activities may impact ashy stormpetrels, but also states that there is no
evidence that this impact has had
significant negative consequences on
studied populations (Petition, p. 30).
Therefore, we do not consider this a
significant factor affecting the species.
C. Disease or Predation
The petitioner asserts that predation
by native predators, including western
gulls, burrowing owls, barn owls, and
peregrine falcons, and nonnative
predators, including house mice (Mus
musculus), black rats (Rattus rattus),
and feral cats (Felis domesticus), impact
ashy storm-petrel populations (Petition,
pp. 30–32).
Sydeman et al. (1998, pp. 438–447)
reported an increase in the western gull
population at Southeast Farallon Island,
and an expansion of nesting by western
gulls into prime nesting habitat of ashy
storm-petrels on the island. They
suggested that the decline in population
size of ashy storm-petrels at Southeast
Farallon Island between the early 1970s
and the early 1990s may be due (in part)
to an increase in the predation rate on
ashy storm-petrels by western gulls.
We find substantial information
presented in the petition indicating that
predation at nesting colonies may
threaten ashy storm-petrels.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The petitioner asserts that existing
regulatory mechanisms have been
ineffective at preventing the decline of
the ashy storm-petrel and in mitigating
many of the threats to the species
(Petition, p. 32). The petitioner claims
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28083
that the ineffectiveness of regulatory
mechanisms is demonstrated by the
failure to eradicate nonnative predators,
the inadequate regulation of artificial
light pollution, the failure to restrict
human disturbance at breeding sites, the
lack of regulations on greenhouse gases,
and the failure of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act to protect the species from
identified threats (Petition, pp. 32–35).
As discussed above, we do find
threats to the species from artificial light
pollution and predation, and thus find
that the petition presents substantial
evidence that the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms may threaten
ashy storm-petrels.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Continued Existence
The petitioner cites human
disturbance through tourism and
military activities as the primary threats
under this category (Petition, p. 35). We
do not find that the petition presents
substantial information supporting the
petitioner’s claimed threats under this
category. However, information in the
petition indicates that the ashy stormpetrel may be threatened by the
contamination of eggs and birds by
organochlorine chemicals.
Eggshell thinning and organochlorine
contamination of ashy storm-petrel eggs
have been documented during the 1970s
and 1990s (Coulter and Risebrough, pp.
254–255; Fry 1994, pp. 1–29; Kiff 1994,
pp. 1–24; D. Welsh and H. Carter,
unpublished notes).
We find that the petition presents
substantial information that the
contamination of eggs and birds by
organochlorine chemicals may threaten
ashy storm-petrels.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, supporting
information provided by the petitioner,
and information in our files, and we
evaluated that information to determine
whether the sources cited support the
claims made in the petition. Based on
this review, we find that the petition
presents substantial information
indicating that the ashy storm-petrel
may be threatened by Factor A, due to
artificial light pollution near breeding
colonies and at sea, and by at-sea oil
pollution; by Factor C, due to predation
at nesting colonies; by Factor D, due to
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and by Factor E, due to
contamination of eggs and birds by
organochlorine chemicals.
On the basis of our review, we find
that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the
ashy storm-petrel as threatened or
endangered may be warranted.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
28084
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, we are initiating a status
review to determine if listing the species
under the Act is warranted.
The petitioner also requested that
critical habitat be designated for the
ashy storm-petrel. We always consider
the need for critical habitat designation
when listing species. If we determine in
our 12-month finding following the
status review of the species that listing
the ashy storm-petrel is warranted, we
will address the designation of critical
habitat at the time of the proposed
rulemaking.
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule;
reopening of comment period, revisions
to proposed critical habitat boundaries,
notice of availability of revised draft
economic analysis and environmental
assessment, and amended required
determinations.
proposed revised designation of critical
habitat for the wintering population of
the piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
in Dare and Hyde Counties, North
Carolina (71 FR 33703, June 12, 2006).
In this document, we are proposing to
add 87 hectares (ha) (215 acres (ac)) of
critical habitat to two previously
proposed units. As a result, our
proposed revised critical habitat
designation for the species now
includes 4 revised critical habitat units
totaling approximately 827 ha (2,043
ac). We also announce the availability of
the revised draft economic analysis
(DEA) and environmental assessment of
the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat. We are reopening the
comment period on the June 12, 2006,
proposed rule to allow all interested
parties an opportunity to comment
simultaneously on that proposal, the
proposed revised critical habitat units
described in this document, our
amended required determinations, and
the associated revised DEA and
environmental assessment. Please do
not resend comments you have already
submitted. We will incorporate
comments previously submitted into the
public record as part of this comment
period, and we will fully consider them
when preparing our final determination.
DATES: We will consider comments
received or postmarked on or before
June 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: 1018–
AU48; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite
222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Field Supervisor, Raleigh Fish and
Wildlife Office, P.O. Box 33726,
Raleigh, NC 27636–3726, (telephone
919–856–4520; facsimile 919–856–
4556). If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the comment period on the
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this document is available, upon
request, from our Arcata Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this notice is
the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 6, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E8–10790 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R4–ES–2008–0041; 92210–1117–
0000–B4]
RIN 1018–AU48
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Wintering
Population of the Piping Plover in
North Carolina
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:04 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comment period on our June 12, 2006,
proposed rule to revise critical habitat
for the wintering population of the
piping plover in North Carolina (71 FR
33703), the additional areas of critical
habitat proposed in this document, the
amended required determinations
provided in this document, and our
revised DEA and environmental
assessment of the proposed revised
designation. We will consider
information and recommendations from
all interested parties. We are
particularly interested in comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as critical
habitat under section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
including whether the benefit of
designation would outweigh any threats
to the species due to designation, such
that the designation of critical habitat is
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
• The amount and distribution of
wintering piping plover habitat in North
Carolina,
• What areas occupied at the time of
listing that contain features essential for
the conservation of the species we
should include in the designation and
why, and
• What areas not occupied at the time
of listing are essential to the
conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
revised critical habitat.
(4) Any foreseeable economic,
national security, or other relevant
impacts resulting from the proposed
revised designation and, in particular,
any such impacts on small entities, and
the benefits of including or excluding
areas from the proposed revised
designation.
(5) Any foreseeable environmental
impacts directly or indirectly resulting
from the proposed revised designation
of critical habitat.
(6) Information regarding our
identification, in our June 12, 2006,
proposed rule, of specific areas as not
being in need of special management.
(7) Information to assist the Secretary
of the Interior in evaluating habitat with
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
piping plover on Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, administered by the National
Park Service, based on any benefit
provided by the Interim Protected
Species Management Strategy/
Environmental Assessment (Interim
Strategy; NPS 2006) to the conservation
of the wintering piping plover.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 95 (Thursday, May 15, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28080-28084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10790]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0049; 1111 FY08 MO-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Ashy Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa) as
Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma
homochroa) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the ashy storm-petrel may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the
species to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure
that the review is comprehensive, we are soliciting information and
data regarding this species. We will make a determination on critical
habitat for this species, which was also requested in the petition, if,
and when, we initiate a listing action.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that information be submitted on or before July 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2008-0049; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information
received at https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information
Solicited section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Long, Field Supervisor, Arcata
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521;
telephone 707-822-7201; facsimile 707-822-8411. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to
indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that
the status review is complete and based on the best available science
and commercial information, we are soliciting additional information on
the ashy storm-petrel. We request information from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested parties on the status of
the
[[Page 28081]]
ashy storm-petrel throughout its range, including but not limited to:
(1) The historical and current status and distribution of ashy
storm-petrel; the species' biology and ecology; ongoing conservation
measures for the species and its habitat; and threats to the species
and its habitat.
(2) The effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for
a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
(a) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of the species' habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Timing within year, type, and amount of human activities (e.g.,
commercial and recreational fishing, tourism) at locations where ashy
storm-petrels are known or suspected to breed, including but not
limited to: Van Damme Rock (Mendocino County); Bird, Chimney, and
Double Point Rocks (Marin County); the Farallon Islands (San Francisco
County); Castle and Hurricane Point Rocks (Monterey County); San Miguel
Island, Castle Rock, Prince Island, mainland locations and offshore
islets at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara
Island, Sutil Island, and Shag Rock (Santa Barbara County); Anacapa
Island (Ventura County); Santa Catalina Island and San Clemente Island
(Los Angeles County); and Islas Los Coronados and Islas Todos Santos,
Mexico.
(4) Projected changes in sea level along the coast of California
during the 21st century, specifically at the locations listed in (3)
above.
(5) Elevations of known and suitable breeding habitat at the
locations listed in (3) above.
(6) Projected acidification of oceanic waters of the California
Current during the 21st century.
(7) Locations of oil tanker routes, and timing and frequency of oil
tanker traffic along the coast of California and Northern Baja
California, Mexico.
(8) Nighttime observations of ashy storm-petrels, other storm-
petrels, other nocturnal seabirds (e.g., Xantus's murrelets
(Synthliboramphus hypoleucus)), and other seabirds (e.g., gulls (Larus
sp.)) on or near boats (commercial or recreational) off central and
southern California and Baja California, Mexico.
(9) Measured and observed nighttime lighting, and timing within
year of nighttime lighting by boats (commercial and recreational) at
locations listed in (3) above.
(10) Daily and seasonal activity patterns of ashy storm-petrels and
avian predators of ashy storm-petrels (e.g., western gull (Larus
occidentalis), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)) at breeding
locations in general and, specifically, in relation to light intensity
at night.
(11) Abundance and distribution of predators of ashy storm-petrels
at ashy storm-petrel breeding locations.
(12) Observations of ashy storm-petrels or other storm-petrels at
night on offshore oil platforms, or additional evidence that ashy
storm-petrels are attracted to or have collided with offshore oil
platforms.
(13) Locations of proposed offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG)
facilities along the coast of California and Northern Baja California,
Mexico.
(14) Evidence of organochlorine contamination of ashy storm-petrel
eggs and birds.
(15) Ingestion of plastics by ashy storm-petrels, and distribution
and abundance of plastics in the California Current.
(16) Military activities at sea and on islands off the coast of
California and northern Baja California, Mexico.
(17) Factors that pose a threat to ashy storm-petrels (those listed
above, and otherwise) and the potential cumulative effects of these
factors that may threaten or endanger ashy storm-petrels.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species shall be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.'' Based on the status review, we will issue
the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B)
of the Act.
You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider
submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at
the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a status review of the species.
On October 16, 2007, we received a formal petition, dated October
15, 2007, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that we
list the ashy storm-petrel. The petition also requested that critical
habitat be designated concurrently with the listing. The petition
clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite
identification information as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). Included in
the petition was supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy
and ecology, historical and current distribution, present status, and
potential causes of decline and active imminent threats. In response to
the petition, we sent a letter to the petitioner dated January 11,
2008, stating that we had secured funding and
[[Page 28082]]
that we anticipated making an initial finding as to whether the
petition contained substantial information indicating listing the ashy
storm-petrel may be warranted in Fiscal Year 2008. We also concluded in
our January 11, 2008, letter that emergency listing of the ashy storm-
petrel was not warranted.
Species Information
The ashy storm-petrel is a seabird species belonging to the order
Procellariiformes, family Hydrobatidae. The ashy storm-petrel is one of
five storm-petrel species (including fork-tailed (O. furcata), Leach's
(O. leucorhoa), black (O. melania), and least (O. microsoma) storm-
petrels) that nest on islands along the west coast of North America
(Harrison 1983, pp. 272-278). The ashy storm-petrel is a smoke-gray,
medium-sized bird with long slender wings, a long forked tail, and
webbed feet (Ainley 1995, p. 2).
Ashy storm-petrels have been confirmed to breed at 26 locations on
islands and offshore rocks from Marin County, California, south to
Todos Santos Islands, west of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico (Carter
et al. 1992, pp. 77-81; Ainley 1995, p. 2; Carter et al. 2006, p. 6;
Carter et al. 2008, p. 118). In addition, ashy storm-petrels possibly
breed at five locations from Mendocino County south to San Clemente
Island (Carter et al. 2008, pp. 118-119). The species breeds primarily
in two population centers at the Farallon Islands and in the California
Channel Islands (Sowls et al. 1980, p. 24; Ainley et al. 1990, p. 135;
Carter et al. 1992, p. 86). Ashy storm-petrels do not excavate burrows;
rather, they nest in crevices of talus slopes, rock walls, sea caves,
cliffs, and driftwood (James-Veitch 1970, pp. 87-88; Ainley et al.
1990, p. 147; McIver 2002, p. 1).
The breeding season is protracted, and activities at nesting
locations occur from March through January (James-Veitch 1970, p. 71).
Clutch size is one egg per year (Ainley 1995, p. 6). The egg-laying
period extends from late March to October, peaking in June and July
(James-Veitch 1970, p. 243; Ainley et al. 1990, p. 148; McIver 2002,
pp. 34-36). The average period of incubation is 44 days (James-Veitch
1970, p. 244). Hatchlings are ``semi-precocial'' (James-Veitch 1970, p.
128). The term semi-precocial describes young that have characteristics
of precocial young at hatch (open eyes, down, capacity to leave the
nest), but that remain at the nest and are cared for by parents until
close to adult size (Sibley 2001, p. 573). Chicks are brooded and
attended by adults for approximately the first week of life, after
which time they are left unattended in the nest during the day (James-
Veitch 1970, p. 141). Chicks are fed irregularly, once every 1 to 3
nights on average (James-Veitch 1970, pp. 180-208). At Southeast
Farallon Island, James-Veitch (1970, p. 212) reported a mean of 76 days
from hatching to fledging; Ainley et al. (1990, p. 152) reported a mean
of 84 days from hatching to fledging. Fledging occurs at night, from
late August to January, and once they leave the nest, fledglings are
independent of their parents (Ainley et al. 1974, p. 303; McIver 2002,
p. 36). Nonbreeding ashy storm-petrels also visit breeding locations
during the breeding season (James-Veitch 1970, pp. 242-243). Although
visitations are reduced during the months of January and February, ashy
storm-petrels visit nesting locations throughout the year, and most
intensely from February into October (Ainley et al. 1974, p. 301).
The nocturnal activity (return to and departure from nest) and
crevice nesting of this species are adaptations to avoid predation by
diurnal predators such as western gulls, burrowing owls, peregrine
falcons (Falco peregrinus), and common ravens (Corvus corax) (Ainley
1995, p. 5; McIver and Carter 2006, p. 3). Ashy storm-petrels are
susceptible to predation at night by barn owls (Tyto alba) (McIver
2002, p. 30). Nesting in crevices and burrows on remote headlands,
offshore rocks, and islands generally reduces predation of storm-
petrels by mammalian predators (Warham 1990, p. 13). Known mammalian
predators of ashy storm-petrels and their eggs include house mice (Mus
musculus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and island spotted
skunks (Spilogale gracilis amphiala) (Ainley et al. 1990, p. 146;
McIver 2002, pp. 40-41; McIver and Carter 2006, p. 3).
Ashy storm-petrels are nonmigratory and forage primarily in the
California Current from northern California to central Baja California,
Mexico; birds forage in areas of upwelling, seaward of the continental
shelf, near islands and the coast (Ainley et al. 1974, p. 300; Briggs
et al. 1987, p. 23; Mason et al. 2007, p. 60). Four thousand to six
thousand ashy storm-petrels are usually observed in the fall in
Monterey Bay, approximately 3 to 10 miles (5 to 16 kilometers) off the
town of Moss Landing, California, and as many as 10,000 ashy storm-
petrels were estimated to be present in Monterey Bay in October 1977
(Roberson 1985, p. 42). Storm-petrels feed on small invertebrates and
fish picked from the ocean surface (Warham 1990, p. 186). The diet of
ashy storm-petrels has not been extensively studied, but includes
euphausiids (spp. Euphausia, Thysanoessa), other crustaceans,
unidentified fish and squid (G. McChesney, personal communication,
1999).
Obtaining direct population counts of ashy storm-petrels is
difficult, because the species nests in often deep, inaccessible
crevices (Carter et al. 1992, p. 77; Sydeman et al. 1998b, p. 438). The
world population of ashy storm-petrels has been estimated to be on the
order of 10,000 birds (Sowls et al. 1980, p. 24; Ainley 1995, p. 1);
estimates of breeding birds for California have ranged from 5,187
(Sowls et al. 1980, p. 25) to 7,209 (Carter et al. 1992, p. 87).
Results from Sydeman et al. (1998b, p. 445) indicate a reduction in
ashy storm-petrel population size at Southeast Farallon Island from
1972 to 1992, ranging from 28 to 44 percent. Sydeman et al. (1998b, p.
445) report that this decline occurred in prime nesting habitat and was
apparently greater for breeding birds. Sydeman et al. (1998b, pp. 445-
446) suggest that this decline in population size at Southeast Farallon
Island may be due, in part, to an increase in the predation rate on
ashy storm-petrel adults and sub-adults by western gulls, which
expanded into prime ashy storm-petrel nesting habitat over the course
of their study.
Research on reproductive success of the ashy storm-petrel has been
conducted at Southeast Farallon Island (James-Veitch 1970; Ainley et
al. 1990; Sydeman et al. 1998a; Sydeman et al., unpublished data) and
Santa Cruz Island (McIver 2002; McIver et al., in preparation).
Reported productivity values have been variable. For example, on
Southeast Farallon Island, reported productivity values are: 0.40
chicks per pair during 1964 to 1965 (James-Veitch 1970, p. 235); 0.69
chicks per pair during 1972 to 1983 (Ainley et al. 1990, p. 155); 0.73
chicks per pair during 1971 to 1995 (Sydeman et al. 1998a, p. 20) and
0.52 chicks per pair during 1995 to 1998 (Sydeman et al., unpublished
data). On Santa Cruz Island, reported productivity values are: 0.51
chicks per pair during 1995 to 1998 (McIver 2002, p. 44); and 0.63
chicks per pair during 2005 to 2007 (McIver et al., in preparation, p.
25).
No data are currently available regarding adult life span,
survivorship, and age at first breeding of ashy storm-petrels (Ainley
1995, p. 8). However, like other procellariids, storm-petrels are long-
lived (Warham 1996, p. 20). Some ashy storm-petrels reach 25 years old
(Sydeman et al. 1998a, p. 7), and breeding adults over 20 years in age
have been reported in the closely-related Leach's storm-petrel (Morse
and
[[Page 28083]]
Buchheister 1977, p. 344). Mean age of first breeding in the Leach's
storm-petrel has been reported at 5.9 years 1.3 standard
deviation (Huntington et al. 1996, p. 19). Sydeman et al. (1998a, p. 7)
conducted population viability analyses based upon observations by C.
Huntington, and assumed that 90 percent of adult ashy storm-petrels
were capable of breeding at 6 years of age.
Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In
making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information on threats
to the ashy storm-petrel in our files and presented with the October
2007 petition constitute substantial scientific or commercial
information such that listing under the Act may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Habitat or Range
The petitioner asserts that the ashy storm-petrel's island breeding
habitat is being modified and degraded by artificial light pollution,
introduced species, and current and future climate change; they further
assert that its at-sea foraging habitat is being modified and degraded
by artificial light pollution, chemical and plastics pollution, and
current and future ocean climate change (Petition, p. 15).
The market squid (Loligo opalescens) fishery is a source of
artificial light at night near breeding locations in the California
Channel Islands, and could result in increased mortality of storm-
petrels due to predation by diurnal predators and direct collision with
lights (McIver 2002, pp. 51-2; Maxwell et al. 2004, pp. 666-69). Ashy
storm-petrels have been recovered dead on an offshore oil platform off
the coast of southern California, and from mainland locations in
southern California, presumably due to attraction to and collision with
bright lights (Carter et al. 2000, p. 443).
In addition, oil pollution may pose a threat to ashy storm-petrels.
A major oil spill off Monterey Bay during the fall could affect
thousands of ashy storm-petrels that concentrate in that area (Roberson
1985, p. 42; Sydeman et al. 1998, p. 439). Hampton et al. (2003, p. 32)
analyzed dumping of tank washings of oil tankers at sea and suggested
that the greatest threat of oiling existed for seabird species
occurring (while at sea) greater than 80 kilometers (50 miles)
offshore, including ashy storm-petrels.
We found substantial evidence presented in the petition indicating
that artificial light pollution near breeding colonies and at sea, and
at-sea oil pollution may threaten ashy storm-petrels.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioner asserts that research activities may impact ashy
storm-petrels, but also states that there is no evidence that this
impact has had significant negative consequences on studied populations
(Petition, p. 30). Therefore, we do not consider this a significant
factor affecting the species.
C. Disease or Predation
The petitioner asserts that predation by native predators,
including western gulls, burrowing owls, barn owls, and peregrine
falcons, and nonnative predators, including house mice (Mus musculus),
black rats (Rattus rattus), and feral cats (Felis domesticus), impact
ashy storm-petrel populations (Petition, pp. 30-32).
Sydeman et al. (1998, pp. 438-447) reported an increase in the
western gull population at Southeast Farallon Island, and an expansion
of nesting by western gulls into prime nesting habitat of ashy storm-
petrels on the island. They suggested that the decline in population
size of ashy storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon Island between the
early 1970s and the early 1990s may be due (in part) to an increase in
the predation rate on ashy storm-petrels by western gulls.
We find substantial information presented in the petition
indicating that predation at nesting colonies may threaten ashy storm-
petrels.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioner asserts that existing regulatory mechanisms have
been ineffective at preventing the decline of the ashy storm-petrel and
in mitigating many of the threats to the species (Petition, p. 32). The
petitioner claims that the ineffectiveness of regulatory mechanisms is
demonstrated by the failure to eradicate nonnative predators, the
inadequate regulation of artificial light pollution, the failure to
restrict human disturbance at breeding sites, the lack of regulations
on greenhouse gases, and the failure of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
to protect the species from identified threats (Petition, pp. 32-35).
As discussed above, we do find threats to the species from
artificial light pollution and predation, and thus find that the
petition presents substantial evidence that the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms may threaten ashy storm-petrels.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Continued Existence
The petitioner cites human disturbance through tourism and military
activities as the primary threats under this category (Petition, p.
35). We do not find that the petition presents substantial information
supporting the petitioner's claimed threats under this category.
However, information in the petition indicates that the ashy storm-
petrel may be threatened by the contamination of eggs and birds by
organochlorine chemicals.
Eggshell thinning and organochlorine contamination of ashy storm-
petrel eggs have been documented during the 1970s and 1990s (Coulter
and Risebrough, pp. 254-255; Fry 1994, pp. 1-29; Kiff 1994, pp. 1-24;
D. Welsh and H. Carter, unpublished notes).
We find that the petition presents substantial information that the
contamination of eggs and birds by organochlorine chemicals may
threaten ashy storm-petrels.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, supporting information provided by the
petitioner, and information in our files, and we evaluated that
information to determine whether the sources cited support the claims
made in the petition. Based on this review, we find that the petition
presents substantial information indicating that the ashy storm-petrel
may be threatened by Factor A, due to artificial light pollution near
breeding colonies and at sea, and by at-sea oil pollution; by Factor C,
due to predation at nesting colonies; by Factor D, due to the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and by Factor E, due to
contamination of eggs and birds by organochlorine chemicals.
On the basis of our review, we find that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that listing the ashy storm-petrel
as threatened or endangered may be warranted.
[[Page 28084]]
Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing
the species under the Act is warranted.
The petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated
for the ashy storm-petrel. We always consider the need for critical
habitat designation when listing species. If we determine in our 12-
month finding following the status review of the species that listing
the ashy storm-petrel is warranted, we will address the designation of
critical habitat at the time of the proposed rulemaking.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available, upon request, from our Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this notice is the staff of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 6, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-10790 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
