Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Chatham Petrel, Fiji Petrel, and Magenta Petrel as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges, 46914-46930 [E9-22033]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 176 (Monday, September 14, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46914-46930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22033]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R8-IA-2007-0021; 96100-1671-0000-B6]
RIN 1018-AV21


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the 
Chatham Petrel, Fiji Petrel, and Magenta Petrel as Endangered 
Throughout Their Ranges

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered status for three petrel species (order Procellariiformes)--
Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris) previously referred to as 
(Pterodroma hypoleuca axillaris); Fiji petrel (Pseudobulweria 
macgillivrayi) previously referred to as (Pterodroma macgillivrayi); 
and the magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae)--under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule implements the Federal 
protections provided by the Act for these three species.

DATES: This rule becomes effective October 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
information used in the preparation of this rule, are available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 
N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 110, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica A. Horton, Biologist, Division 
of Scientific Authority (see ADDRESSES); telephone 703-358-1708; 
facsimile 703-358-2276; e-mail ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. If you use 
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires us 
to make a finding (known as a ``90-day finding'') on whether a petition 
to add a species to, remove a species from, or reclassify a species on 
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants has 
presented substantial information indicating that the requested action 
may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, the finding must 
be made within 90 days following receipt of the petition and must be 
published promptly in the Federal Register. If we find that the 
petition has presented substantial information indicating that the 
requested action may be warranted (a positive finding), section 
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to commence a status review of the 
species if one has not already been initiated under our internal 
candidate assessment process. In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 
Act requires us to make a finding within 12 months following receipt of 
the petition (``12-month finding'') on whether the requested action is 
warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by higher priority 
listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a finding of 
warranted but precluded for petitioned species should be treated as 
having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted but precluded 
finding, and is, therefore, subject to a new finding within 1 year and 
subsequently thereafter until we publish a proposal to list or a 
finding that the petitioned action is not warranted. The Service 
publishes an annual notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual 
notice) for all foreign species for which listings were previously 
found to be warranted but precluded.

Previous Federal Actions

    On November 28, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from 
Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman of the International Council for Bird 
Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign bird species to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)), including two 
species (the Chatham petrel and magenta petrel) that are the subject of 
this final rule. Two of the foreign species identified in the petition 
were already listed under the Act; therefore, in response to the 1980 
petition, we published a substantial 90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 
FR 26464), for 58 foreign species and initiated a status review. On 
January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12-month finding within 
an annual review on pending petitions and description of progress on 
all pending petition findings. In that notice, we found that all 58 
foreign bird species from the 1980 petition were warranted but 
precluded by higher priority listing actions. On May 10, 1985, we 
published the first annual notice (50 FR 19761) in which we continued 
to find that listing all 58 foreign bird species from the 1980 petition 
was warranted but precluded. We published additional annual notices on 
the 58 species included in the 1980 petition on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 
996), July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511), December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746), 
April 25, 1990 (55 FR 17475), November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664), and May 
21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). These notices indicated that the Chatham petrel 
and the magenta petrel, along with the remaining species in the 1980 
petition, continued to be warranted but precluded.
    On May 6, 1991, we received a petition (1991 petition) from ICBP to 
add an additional 53 species of foreign birds to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife, including the Fiji petrel. In response to the 
1991 petition, we published a substantial 90-day finding on December 
16, 1991 (56 FR 65207), for all 53 species, and initiated a status 
review. On March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12-month 
finding on the 1991 petition, along with a proposed rule to list 30 
African birds under the Act (15 each from the 1980 petition and 1991 
petition). In that document, we announced our finding that listing the 
remaining 38 species from the 1991 petition, including the Fiji petrel, 
was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We made 
a subsequent warranted-but-precluded finding for all outstanding 
foreign species from the 1980 and 1991 petitions, including the three 
species that are the subject of this final rule, as published in our 
annual notice of review (ANOR) on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354).
    Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983; 
48 FR 43098), in our April 23, 2007, Annual Notice on Resubmitted 
Petition Findings for Foreign Species (72 FR 20184), we determined that 
listing six seabird species of the family Procellariidae, including the 
three species that are the subject of this final rule, was warranted. 
In selecting these six species from the list of warranted-but-precluded 
species, we took into consideration the magnitude and immediacy of the 
threats to the species, consistent with the Service's listing priority 
guidelines.
    On December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298), we published in the Federal 
Register a proposal to list the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, and the 
magenta petrel as endangered under the Act, and the Cook's petrel, 
Galapagos petrel, and the Heinroth's shearwater as threatened under the 
Act. We implemented the Service's peer review process and opened a 60-
day comment period to solicit scientific and commercial

[[Page 46915]]

information on the species from all interested parties following 
publication of the proposed rule.
    On December 30, 2008, the Service received a 60-day notice of 
intent to sue from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) over 
violations of section 4 of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) for the Service's failure to issue a final determination 
regarding the listing of these six foreign birds. Under a settlement 
agreement approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 
of California on June 15, 2009 (CBD v. Salazar, 09-cv-02578-CRB), the 
Service must submit to the Federal Register final determinations on the 
proposed listings of the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, and magenta 
petrel by September 30, 2009, and final determinations on the proposed 
listings of the Cook's petrel, Galapagos petrel, and Heinroth's 
shearwater by December 29, 2009.
    In this final rule, we determine endangered status for three 
foreign seabird species under the Act: Chatham petrel (Pterodroma 
axillaris), Fiji petrel (Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi), and the magenta 
petrel (Pterodroma magentae). We will publish our final listing 
determinations for the Cook's petrel (Pterodroma cookii), Galapagos 
petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia), and the Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus 
heinrothi) in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298), 
we requested that all interested parties submit information that might 
contribute to development of a final rule. We received nine comments: 
six from members of the public, one from an international conservation 
organization, one from the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS), and one from the New Zealand Department of Conservation 
(NZDOC). In all, three commenters supported the proposed listings. The 
NZDOC provided new information on the Chatham and magenta petrels and 
concluded that the information presented in the December 2007 proposal 
supported the listing of these two species under the U.S. Endangered 
Species Act. Five commenters provided information but did not express 
support of or opposition to the proposed listings.
    General comments we received, as well as comments we received 
regarding the three species that are the subject of this final rule, 
are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final 
rule as appropriate. Comments we received regarding the other three 
species of seabirds in the family Procellariidae proposed for listing 
(December 17, 2007; 72 FR 71298) will be addressed in a subsequent 
Federal Register notice announcing our final listing determinations for 
those species.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited expert opinions from 14 knowledgeable individuals 
with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, 
the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation 
biology principles. We received a response from six of the peer 
reviewers from whom we requested comments. The peer reviewers generally 
agreed that the description of the biology and habitat for each species 
was accurate and based on the best available information. New or 
additional information on the current population numbers of each of the 
three species and their threats was provided and incorporated into the 
final rule as appropriate (as indicated in the citations by ``in 
litt.'').
    We reviewed all comments received from the public and the peer 
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
proposed listing of the three species, and address them in the 
following summary.

Peer Reviewers' General Comments

    Comment 1: While it is generally true that ``once a population is 
reduced below a certain number of individuals it tends to rapidly 
decline towards extinction,'' without details on what the ``certain'' 
number of individuals is, this statement is superfluous for these 
species. For these species, the issue is not so much reaching certain 
low numbers as whether or not catastrophic threats impacting these 
species are still ongoing.
    Our Response: We concur and have amended this statement in this 
final rule.
    Comment 2: Provide the taxonomic list(s) of birds used to identify 
the species.
    Our Response: We have added information on taxonomy of each species 
to this final rule.

Peer Reviewers' Species-Specific Comments

Fiji Petrel
    Comment 3: The analysis of the population size is not accurate, 
although based on the best available information, since the estimated 
population size is based on single sightings. Until surveys are carried 
out in the catchment area of the main waterway of Gau Island [the 
likely breeding area for this species], the population size of the Fiji 
petrel is unknown.
    Our Response: We agree that surveys of the purported breeding area 
will be important in determining an accurate population size for this 
elusive bird. Although we have acknowledged the lack of certainty 
regarding the current estimate of the population size of this species 
in this final rule, this estimate represents the best available 
scientific data on the population size of the Fiji petrel.
    Comment 4: Two peer reviewers disagreed with the commonly held 
belief that this species nests in ``rocky, mountainous cloud forests'' 
on Gau Island. According to these reviewers, aerial photos of interior 
Gau Island show no ``rocky'' terrain, just steep terrain covered in 
tropical rainforest. Past surveys focused on these ``rocky'' areas (the 
highest parts of the island) without success, based on information 
reported in Jenkins (1986). These peer reviewers suggest that, as no 
nests or birds have been found in the highest parts of the island, 
other possible sites should be considered. According to Jenkins (1986, 
as cited in Priddel et al. in draft), in 1925, Rollo Beck trekked to 
the summit of the island with the chief who indicated that the petrels 
nested not in the summit area but down below in dense canyons on the 
eastern side of the island. Therefore, according to these reviewers, 
future surveys should focus on the unsurveyed catchment of the main 
waterway of the island, particularly the headwaters of the Waiboteigau 
Creek on the eastern side of Gau. This remote lowland area is uncleared 
and lacks roads or trails. According to the peer reviewers, an 
intensive survey of this area for potential breeding sites is planned 
for July 2009 (Carlile and Priddel, in litt. 2008, pp. 2-3).
    Our Response: We have added this new information regarding the 
potential breeding habitat of the Fiji petrel in the remote and 
unsurveyed catchment area of the main waterway of Gau Island to this 
final rule.
    Comment 5: Consider the potential impact of the recently 
established feral pig population in the southern part of Gau Island.
    Our Response: We agree that there may be impacts to the Fiji petrel 
from recently established feral pig populations on Gau Island and have 
included this new information in the discussion of threats under Factor 
C (Disease or Predation) in this final rule.

[[Page 46916]]

New Zealand Department of Conservation's (NZDOC) Comments

Chatham Petrel
    Comment 6: Incidental take of the Chatham petrel by commercial 
long-line fisheries is not a significant threat and is overstated for 
this species. There has been no documented incidental take of small 
Pterodroma petrels in any New Zealand fishery from 1993-2007. New 
Zealand supports a fisheries observer and seabird autopsy program, and 
this species and its close small relatives have not been taken in any 
fisheries operations. Therefore, there is little risk to this species 
from fishing impacts.
    Our Response: We have reexamined our discussion of this threat in 
the proposed rule, and based on the information provided above, we 
agree that commercial long-line fisheries is not a significant threat 
to the Chatham petrel, and have amended this final rule accordingly.
    Comment 7: Pitt Island also has a population of feral pigs that 
could be a potential predator threat to translocated birds that attempt 
to nest outside the predator-proof fence.
    Our Response: We have included, in this final rule, this new 
information regarding the potential threat of predation by feral pigs 
on birds nesting outside the predator-proof fence on Pitt Island.
    Comment 8: We disagree that the existing regulatory protections 
have not reduced the threats to Chatham petrels. The Chatham petrel is 
well-protected in New Zealand under the Wildlife Act of 1953 and access 
to the breeding grounds is strictly controlled under the Reserves Act 
of 1977 (permitted access only for scientific or management purposes). 
In addition, while there might be illegal visits to the breeding 
grounds, the burrows are located some distance from the landing areas 
and are unlikely to be disturbed.
    Our Response: We agree, based on the information provided by the 
NZDOC (2008, in litt.), that existing regulatory mechanisms have 
reduced the threats to the Chatham petrel. As a result, we have amended 
our discussion under Factor D (The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms) in this final rule.
    Comment 9: It is unlikely that the Chatham petrel is threatened by 
burrow damage from storm waves. The current breeding sites on the 
[three] islands are mostly above 33 feet (ft) (10 meters (m)) in 
elevation and more than 330 ft (100 m) from the coast. However, there 
is a risk of burrow damage from storm-related tree falls.
    Our Response: We agree that the Chatham petrel is likely not 
threatened by burrow damage from storm waves, although there is a 
potential threat to the birds and their burrows from storm-related tree 
falls. Therefore, we have amended the discussion under Factor E (Other 
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the 
Species) for this species in this final rule to reflect this new 
information.
Magenta Petrel
    Comment 10: The risk of logging activities on private land 
impacting the magenta petrel is quite low for the following reasons: 
(1) Unprotected breeding sites are more than 3 miles (mi) (5 kilometers 
(km)) from existing roads [which are needed to move vehicles and 
equipment to potential logging sites], (2) over the past 50 years there 
has been no logging of forests near the breeding burrows except to 
clear a thin strip of forest for a reserve boundary fence, and (3) the 
private landowners are aware of the petrel's rare status and are fully 
supportive of its protection.
    Our Response: Based on the information provided above, we agree 
that the magenta petrel is not threatened by logging on private land, 
and we have amended our discussion under Factor A (The Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Species' 
Habitat or Range) in this final rule.
    Comment 11: The risk to the magenta petrel from long-line fishing 
is probably not as serious as concluded in the proposed rule. There may 
be some risk as the closely related grey-faced petrel (Pterodroma 
macroptera gouldi) is occasionally caught on commercial long lines. 
However, the New Zealand fisheries observer program has not reported 
any incidental take of the closely related white-headed petrel 
(Pterodroma lessonii), which feeds in the same cold, subantarctic 
waters as the magenta petrel.
    Our Response: We have reexamined our discussion of this threat in 
the proposed rule, and based on the information provided by the NZDOC 
and other commenters, we agree that commercial long-line fisheries are 
not a significant threat to the magenta petrel. We have amended this 
final rule accordingly.
    Comment 12: There is not a risk of burrow damage by storm waves 
because the known breeding sites on Chatham Island are at least 660 ft 
(200 m) in elevation and over 3 mi (5 km) from the coast. Storm-related 
windfalls and flooding of breeding sites from rising streams, however, 
do pose a threat to the magenta petrel.
    Our Response: We agree that the magenta petrel is not threatened by 
storm waves, although there is a potential threat of storm-related tree 
falls and flooding from rising streams. Therefore, we have amended the 
discussion under Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting 
the Continued Existence of the Species) in this final rule.
    Comment 13: The NZDOC disagreed that one random, naturally 
occurring event, such as a cyclone, during the nesting season could 
destroy the entire known breeding population on Chatham Island. The 
NZDOC acknowledged that there is a risk that some burrows might be 
destroyed during such an event, but it is unlikely that all burrows 
would be destroyed in a major storm because the forest on Chatham 
Island is very resilient to storm damage as it is regularly exposed to 
wind gusts over 60 knots. In addition, some proportion of the breeding 
birds is at sea at any stage of the [breeding] season, so the risk of 
catastrophic loss of all adults in a storm is also unlikely.
    Our Response: Based on this new information regarding the risk of 
destruction of the entire breeding population of magenta petrels due to 
one stochastic event, we have amended our discussion under Factor E 
(Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of 
the Species) for this species in this final rule.
    Comment 14: The risk of inbreeding depression is a new threat to 
consider for this species. While the magenta petrel gene pool appears 
to be fairly diverse, the tendency for returning chicks to nest close 
to their natal burrows greatly increases the risk of interbreeding 
among close relatives. Poor fertility rates were found in recent 
seasons where close relatives have interbred.
    Our Response: We have included the threat of inbreeding depression 
in our discussion under Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species) for this species in 
this final rule.

Other Comments

    Comment 15: Listing under the Act provides substantial benefits to 
foreign species.
    Our Response: We agree that listing a foreign species under the Act 
provides benefits to the species in the form of conservation measures, 
such as recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and 
prohibitions against certain practices (see Available Conservation 
Measures). In addition, once a foreign species is listed as endangered 
under the Act, a section 7 consultation and an enhancement finding are 
usually required for the

[[Page 46917]]

issuance of a permit. Through various enhancement findings pursuant to 
section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, the permit process can be used to 
create incentives for conservation, through cooperation and 
consultation with range countries and users of the resource.
    Comment 16: Listing under the Act can only help these birds by 
drawing attention to their needs and providing much needed funding and 
expertise to address the significant threats they face.
    Our Response: Listing the three species that are the subject of 
this final rule under the Act can provide several benefits to the 
species in the form of conservation measures, such as recognition, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices (see Available Conservation Measures).
    Comment 17: We would encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
to carefully consider how listing these species under the Act will 
benefit their conservation. Would a listing under the Act prompt U.S.-
based actions that the species would otherwise not receive?
    Our Response: As part of the conservation measures provided to 
foreign species listed under the Act (see Available Conservation 
Measures), recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
encourages and results in conservation actions by Federal and State 
governments, private agencies and groups, and individuals. In addition, 
section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited financial 
assistance for the development and management of programs that the 
Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the 
conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. 
Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage 
conservation programs for foreign endangered and threatened species and 
to provide assistance for such programs in the form of personnel and 
the training of personnel.
    Comment 18: The general statement that the ``long-line fishery * * 
* is the single greatest threat to all seabirds'' erroneously indicates 
long-line fishing as a threat to all seabirds. The main species of 
seabirds killed in long-line fisheries are albatrosses and other 
species of petrels (not Pterodroma species). The characteristics of a 
petrel species vulnerable to long-line fishing (seabird that is 
aggressive and good at seizing prey (or baited hooks) at the water's 
surface, or is a proficient diver) do not describe the five Pterodroma 
species or the Heinroth's shearwater that are proposed for listing 
under the Act. Fisheries bycatch has not been identified as a key 
threat for any of these species; therefore, it is inaccurate to 
characterize long-line fishing as a threat to these species or to all 
seabird species.
    Our Response: We received several comments disputing our statement 
that long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds, including the Chatham 
petrel, Fiji petrel, and magenta petrel (see also Comments 6 and 11 
above). We have amended this final rule accordingly (see Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species).
    Comment 19: The serious threats to the species are impacts from 
extremely small populations, limited breeding locations or foraging 
ranges, loss and degradation of nesting habitat, invasive alien 
species, introduced predators, and hunting.
    Our Response: We agree that the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, and 
magenta petrel are threatened by extremely small populations, limited 
breeding sites, degradation or destruction of nesting habitat, or 
nonnative species. We have incorporated this information into this 
final rule. We are not aware of any information regarding the current 
threat from hunting of any of these seabirds. Harvesting of petrel 
chicks (called muttonbird harvesting), especially shearwater species 
(Puffinus spp.), for food, oil, and feathers prior to European arrival 
may have contributed to the decline of some New Zealand petrel species 
(Tennyson and Millener 1994, pp. 165, 174). Currently, the Maori people 
of New Zealand's southernmost region and their descendents have 
gathering rights to sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) chicks on 
islands around Stewart Island. Maori from the Alderman group of islands 
off the Coromandel Peninsula have rights to harvest grey-faced petrels 
(Pterodroma macroptera gouldi). However, we are not aware of any 
information that indicates that the Chatham petrel or the magenta 
petrel is currently threatened by hunting or overcollection in New 
Zealand (Lyver et al. 2007). In addition, we are unaware of any 
information that indicates that the Fiji petrel currently faces threats 
from human hunting or overcollection.
    Comment 20: The primary threats to these species are predation by 
introduced predators and risk at breeding colonies.
    Our Response: We agree that predation by nonnative predators is a 
significant threat to one or more life stages of the Chatham petrel, 
Fiji petrel, and the magenta petrel, and we have incorporated this 
information into this final rule.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination.
    As previously mentioned, several commenters disputed our statement 
that long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds, including the species 
that are the subject of this final rule. According to the U.S. National 
Marine Fisheries Service (Mecum, in litt. 2008) and BirdLife 
International (Small, in litt. 2008), the main seabirds killed in long-
line fisheries are albatrosses and other species of petrels (not 
Pterodroma species). The characteristics of a petrel species vulnerable 
to long-line fishing (a seabird that is aggressive and good at seizing 
prey (or baited hooks) at the water's surface, or is a proficient 
diver) do not describe the three species that are the subject of this 
final rule. According to the commenters, fisheries bycatch has not been 
identified as a key threat for any of these species (Mecum, in litt. 
2008; NZDOC, in litt. 2008, pp. 2-3; Small, in litt. 2008). Therefore, 
we do not believe that long-line fishing is a significant threat to the 
Chatham petrel or Fiji petrel. The NZDOC (in litt. 2008, p. 3) stated 
that there may be some risk to the magenta petrel as the closely 
related grey-faced petrel (Pterodroma macroptera gouldi) is 
occasionally caught on commercial long lines. However, because the New 
Zealand fisheries observer program has not reported any incidental take 
of the closely related white-headed petrel (Pterodroma lessonii), which 
feeds in the same cold, subantarctic waters as the magenta petrel, the 
risk to the magenta petrel from long-line fisheries is not significant 
(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 3). Therefore, we do not believe that long-
line fisheries are a significant threat to the magenta petrel.

[[Page 46918]]

    Below is a species-by-species analysis of the five factors. The 
species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning with the 
Chatham petrel, and followed by the Fiji petrel and the magenta petrel.

I. Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris)

Species Information

    The Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris) is a small, gray and 
white gadfly petrel that is endemic to the Chatham Islands of New 
Zealand (BirdLife International 2008a). Its unique underwing pattern (a 
black diagonal band that runs from the bend of the wing to the body) 
distinguishes this species from other petrels (BirdLife International 
2008a; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 247). The Chatham petrel is also known 
by its Maori name, ``ranguru.'' The species was first taxonomically 
described by Salvin in 1893 (Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 321).

Habitat and Life History

    In general, Chatham petrels are considered pelagic, occurring on 
the open sea generally out of sight of land, where they feed year 
round. They return to nesting sites on islands during the breeding 
season where they nest in colonies (Pettingill 1970, p. 206). Banding 
studies have shown that young birds of this species remain at sea for 
at least 2 years before returning to land to breed and nest. Based on 
limited feeding habits data, the Chatham petrel preys on squid and 
small fish (Heather and Robertson 1997, p. 212).
    The Chatham petrel breeds in lowland temperate forest and scrub in 
habitats with low forest, bracken, or rank grass (BirdLife 
International 2008a; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 247). It nests in burrows 
in very friable (brittle) soils on flat to moderately sloping ground 
among low vegetation and roots (BirdLife International 2008a; Marchant 
and Higgins 1990, as cited in BirdLife International 2000, p. 55).

Range and Distribution

    The range of the Chatham petrel changes intra-annually based on an 
established breeding cycle. During the breeding season (November to 
June) (New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2001b, p. 7), 
breeding birds return to breeding colonies to breed and nest. During 
the nonbreeding season, birds migrate far from their breeding range, 
where they remain at sea until returning to breed.
    BirdLife International (2008a) estimates the range of the Chatham 
petrel to be 168,300 square miles (mi\2\) (436,000 square kilometers 
(km\2\)); however, BirdLife International (2000, pp. 22, 27) defines 
``range'' as the ``Extent of Occurrence, the area contained within the 
shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass 
all the known, inferred, or projected sites of present occurrence of a 
species, excluding cases of vagrancy.'' Therefore, this reported range 
includes a large area of nonbreeding habitat (i.e., the sea).
    Fossil evidence indicates that the Chatham petrel was once 
widespread throughout the Chatham Islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2001b, 
p. 5). However, the species is currently only known to breed on one 
island (BirdLife International 2000, p. 55; NZDOC 2001b, p. 5), the 
0.84 mi\2\ (2.18 km\2\) (Oceandots n.d.) South East Island in the 
Chatham Islands, New Zealand (BirdLife International 2000, p. 55; NZDOC 
2001b, p. 5). In 2002, the NZDOC began efforts to expand the species' 
breeding range by releasing chicks onto Pitt Island, an island 
approximately 1.55 mi (2.5 km) northwest of South East Island. Over a 
4-year time period, 200 chicks were transferred to the 98.8-acre (ac) 
(40-hectare (ha)) Ellen Elizabeth Preece Conservation Covenant (Caravan 
Bush), a fenced, predator-free enclosure on Pitt Island. As of 2006, 
four adult birds had returned to the island from the sea to breed, and 
in June 2006, a pair successfully reared a chick. This represents the 
first time in more than a century that a Chatham petrel chick has 
fledged on Pitt Island (BirdLife International News 2006). In 2008, 
there were six pairs of Chatham petrels breeding in the predator-proof 
reserve on Pitt Island (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). In addition, in 
April 2008, 43 chicks were transferred from South East Island to the 
6.2-ac (2.5-ha) predator-proof fenced site (Sweetwater Conservation 
Covenant) on main Chatham Island (NZDOC News 2008).
    The Chatham petrel's range at sea is poorly known; the species has 
been recorded on several occasions at sea near South East Island, and 
has been recorded once 7.5 mi (12 km) south of the island (West 1994, 
p. 25), and northeast of the Bounty Islands (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 
5). It is believed that the species migrates to the North Pacific Ocean 
in the nonbreeding season, based on the habits of closely related 
species; however, no sightings have been recorded in the Northern 
Hemisphere (Taylor 2000, p. 128).

Population Estimates

    The population of the Chatham petrel is very small, estimated at 
900 to 1,100 birds based on recent research and banding studies (NZDOC, 
in litt. 2008, p. 5), and is showing a decreasing population trend 
(BirdLife International 2008a). The breeding population was estimated 
to be 250 pairs in 2004 on South East Island (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 
5), and the breeding population on Pitt Island was 6 pairs in 2008 
(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5).

Conservation Status

    The Chatham petrel is ranked as ``Nationally Endangered'' by the 
New Zealand Department of Conservation, which is the second highest 
threat category and signifies that the species has a small population 
size with an ongoing or predicted population decline (Hitchmough et al. 
2005, p. 38; Townsend et al. 2008, p. 11). The species is considered 
``Endangered'' by the International Union for Conservation of Nature 
(IUCN). The species was recently (2009) downlisted from ``Critically 
Endangered'' because ``despite very rapid declines over the past three 
generations, the population stabilized and began to increase since 
2000; a trend boosted by two recent translocations'' (BirdLife 
International 2009).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Chatham Petrel

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Species' Habitat or Range

    The range of the Chatham petrel changes intra-annually based on an 
established breeding cycle. During the breeding season (November to 
June) (NZDOC 2001b, p. 7), breeding birds return to breeding colonies 
to breed and nest. During the nonbreeding season, birds migrate far 
from their breeding range, and they remain at sea until returning to 
breed. Therefore, our analysis of Factor A is separated into analyses 
of: (1) The species' breeding habitat and range; and (2) the species' 
nonbreeding habitat and range.
    The Chatham petrel breeds primarily on one island, the island of 
South East Island in the Chatham Islands, New Zealand (BirdLife 
International 2000, p. 55; NZDOC 2001b, p. 5). The species breeds in 
lowland temperate forest and scrub in habitats with low forest, 
bracken, or rank grass (BirdLife International 2008a; del Hoyo et al. 
1992, p. 247). Since the arrival of European explorers, this breeding 
habitat has contracted extensively, largely as a result of its 
conversion to agricultural purposes (NZDOC 2001b, p. 5; Tennyson and 
Millener 1994, pp.

[[Page 46919]]

165-166). However, we are not aware of any present or threatened 
destruction or modification of the Chatham petrel's habitat on South 
East Island. This island is currently uninhabited by humans (Lechner et 
al. 1997, p. 256), and since 1954, it has been managed as a nature 
reserve for native plants and animals, including fur seals, rare birds 
(including the Chatham petrel), and endangered invertebrates (NZDOC 
n.d.(a)). Access to this island is restricted by permit. In addition, 
since 1961, all livestock has been removed from the island, allowing 
the natural vegetation to regenerate (Nilsson et al. 1994, p. 110; 
NZDOC n.d.(a)). The Chatham petrel's fenced release areas on Pitt and 
Chatham Islands are protected by conservation covenants, and we are 
unaware of any present or threatened destruction or modification of any 
of the species' habitat on either island.
    The Chatham petrel's range at sea is poorly known; the species has 
been recorded on several occasions at sea near South East Island, and 
has been recorded once 7.5 mi (12 km) south of the island (West 1994, 
p. 25), and northeast of the Bounty Islands (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 
5). It is believed that the species migrates to the North Pacific Ocean 
in the nonbreeding season, based on the habits of closely related 
species; however, no sightings have been recorded in the Northern 
Hemisphere (Taylor 2000, p. 128). We are not aware of any present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' 
current sea habitat or range.
Summary of Factor A
    We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that 
indicates that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the Chatham petrel's habitat or range poses a threat to 
this species. As a result, we do not consider the destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range to be a 
contributing factor to the continued existence of the Chatham petrel.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that 
indicates that overutilization of the Chatham petrel for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes poses a threat to 
this species. As a result, we do not consider overutilization to be a 
contributing factor to the continued existence of the Chatham petrel.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease
    The information available suggests that petrels in general are 
susceptible to a variety of diseases and parasites, particularly during 
the breeding season, when large numbers of seabirds congregate in 
relatively small areas to breed and nest (BirdLife International 2007a; 
Taylor 2000, p. 23). However, there are no documented records of 
diseases impacting the persistence of the Chatham petrel. Therefore, we 
find that disease is not a threat to this species.
Predation
    The Chatham petrel's breeding range was reduced extensively 
following the arrival of European explorers, largely due to predation 
by introduced species such as rats (Rattus spp.), feral cats (Felis 
catus), and weka (Gallirallus australis), a bird native to the North 
and South Islands and introduced to Chatham and Pitt Islands in the 
early 1900s (Heather and Robertson 1997, p. 213; NZDOC 2001b, p. 7; 
Taylor 2000, pp. 20-21). Currently, no introduced predators are present 
on South East Island (Dowding and Murphy 2001, p. 51). The NZDOC 
manages South East Island under the New Zealand Conservation Act of 
1987 as a nature reserve for the conservation of Chatham Islands flora, 
fauna, and ecosystems (NZDOC n.d.(a)). Access to the island is 
restricted by permit for scientific or conservation purposes only, and 
visitor numbers and movements are strictly regulated. While there is an 
ongoing risk that predators, such as rats or cats, may be inadvertently 
reintroduced to the island by boats transporting conservation and 
research groups to the island, we believe the risk of these predators 
becoming reestablished on the island is quite low because the NZDOC 
monitors and manages the island intensively to maintain the island as a 
predator-free habitat. Therefore, we find that predation by introduced 
species is not a significant threat to the Chatham petrel on South East 
Island, the species' primary breeding location.
    On Pitt Island, Chatham petrel chicks were released within a 98.8-
ac (40-ha) fenced, predator-free breeding habitat. Although this area 
is fenced, and the threat of predation on nesting Chatham petrels is 
reduced, introduced predators, such as rats, feral cats and pigs, and 
weka, are present on this island (BirdLife International News 2002; 
NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 1) and could potentially get inside the fenced 
area or prey on Chatham petrels that leave the fenced area. Therefore, 
we find that predation by introduced species is a threat to the Chatham 
petrel on Pitt Island.
    On Chatham Island, 43 Chatham petrel chicks were released within 
the 6.2-ac (2.5-ha) fenced, predator-free Sweetwater Covenant site in 
April 2008 (NZDOC News 2008). Although this area is fenced, and the 
threat of predation on nesting Chatham petrels is reduced, introduced 
predators, such as rats, feral cats and pigs, and weka, are present on 
this island (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 1) and could potentially get 
inside the fenced area or prey on Chatham petrels that leave the fenced 
area. Therefore, we find that predation by introduced species is a 
threat to the Chatham petrel on Chatham Island.
    We are unaware of any threats due to predation on Chatham petrels 
during the nonbreeding season while the species is at sea.
Summary of Factor C
    On the basis of this analysis, we find that predation by nonnative 
predators, such as rats, feral cats, pigs, and weka, is a threat to the 
continued existence of the Chatham petrel on Pitt and Chatham Island.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Chatham petrel is protected from disturbance and harvest under 
New Zealand's Wildlife Act of 1953 and its Reserves Act of 1977. The 
petrel is designated as ``Nationally Endangered'' by the NZDOC, which 
is the second highest threat category and signifies that the species 
has a small population size with an ongoing or predicted population 
decline (Hitchmough et al. 2005, p. 38; Townsend et al. 2008, p. 11). 
Access to the breeding grounds on all three islands is strictly 
controlled (i.e., permitted access only for scientific or management 
purposes). While some illegal visits may occur to the breeding ground 
[on South East Island], the burrows of this species are sited away from 
the main landing areas and are unlikely to be disturbed (NZDOC, in 
litt. 2008, p. 2).
    In addition, the NZDOC developed a 10-year recovery plan for the 
Chatham petrel in 2001, with the goals of protecting the species' 
breeding burrows on South East Island from the broad-billed prion 
(Pachyptila vittata) (see Factor E) and establishing a reintroduced 
population elsewhere within the species' historic breeding range (NZDOC 
2001b, p. 10). New Zealand has implemented management actions for the 
conservation of the species, including establishment of predator-proof 
breeding sites, hand-

[[Page 46920]]

rearing and translocation of chicks to establish additional breeding 
sites, broadcasting of Chatham petrel calls to attract adults to 
protected breeding sites, and nest site protection efforts to prevent 
occupation by the broad-billed prion (Chatham Islands Conservation News 
2008b-e; NZDOC 2001b, p. 8; NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). A measure of 
the success of the recovery plan is the successful establishment of 
breeding individuals on Pitt Island (see Range and Distribution) in 
2006, which increased the breeding range of the species, and the 
introduction of chicks to a protected site on Chatham Island in 2008. 
These efforts are beginning to show some success (see Factor E), but it 
is too early to know the level of success, because it can take fledged 
seabirds years to return to their breeding colony to breed and nest 
(Taylor 2000, p. 15). Similarly, protection of Chatham petrel burrows 
has reduced the population impacts resulting from competition with the 
broad-billed prion (see Factor E); however, this still remains the 
greatest threat to the species.
Summary of Factor D
    We believe the regulatory protections conferred by the New Zealand 
Wildlife and Reserves Acts in combination with the actions implemented 
for the conservation of the Chatham petrel by the NZDOC under the 2001 
recovery plan provide significant protection to the species. As a 
result, we believe that existing regulatory protections have 
significantly reduced the threats from predation by rats, cats, pigs, 
and weka, and competition with the broad-billed prion. However, these 
threats still exist. We, therefore, find that the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the Chatham petrel 
throughout its range.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence 
of the Species

Competition With the Broad-Billed Prion (Pachyptila vittata)
    Based on the information available, the predominant threat to the 
Chatham petrel is nest burrow competition between this species and the 
more abundant broad-billed prion (Pachyptila vittata), which numbers 
around 300,000 individuals. The prion not only occupies potential 
Chatham petrel burrows, but has been observed actively evicting or 
lethally attacking eggs, nestlings, and occasionally adults of the 
Chatham petrel. Such competition has resulted in a high rate of pair 
bond disruption and a low rate of breeding success in Chatham petrels, 
despite the high percentage of egg fertility (BirdLife International 
2000, p. 55; Hirschfeld 2007, p. 102; NZDOC 2001b, p. 7).
    To reduce the threat posed by competition with the broad-billed 
prion on South East Island, the NZDOC has implemented nest site 
protection efforts for the Chatham petrel, including placement of 
artificial nest sites and the blockage of burrows to prevent occupation 
by the broad-billed prion (NZDOC 2001b, pp. 12, 14, 16). Although these 
actions are improving the petrel's breeding success (NZDOC 2001b, p. 8; 
Taylor 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2000, p. 55), only a 
small proportion of breeding burrows occupied by Chatham petrels have 
been located and, therefore, protected (Taylor 1999, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2000, p. 55). Therefore, we consider nest burrow 
competition between this species and the broad-billed prion to be a 
significant threat to the Chatham petrel.
Restricted Breeding Range
    The Chatham petrel's restricted breeding range puts the species at 
a greater risk of extinction. Breeding colonies were once widespread 
throughout the Chatham Islands (Hirschfeld 2007, p. 102; NZDOC 2001b, 
p. 5), a group of about 10 islands within a 24.85-mi (40-km) radius 
covering a total land area of 375 mi\2\ (970 km\2\) (Oceandots n.d.). 
Currently, however, breeding of this species is restricted to South 
East Island (BirdLife International 2007a), a land area of less than 1 
mi\2\ (2.5 km\2\) (Oceandots n.d.), and, as a result of recent release 
efforts, Pitt Island (BirdLife International News 2006; NZDOC, in litt. 
2008, p. 5). It is unknown at this time if the recent translocation of 
Chatham petrel chicks to Chatham Island will result in successful 
breeding pairs. This habitat area is insufficient for the long-term 
survival of the Chatham petrel, particularly since breeding pairs, 
eggs, and nestlings on South East Island, the primary breeding area of 
this species, face the pervasive threat of nest-site competition with 
the broad-billed prion. It is estimated that the self-sustainability of 
the breeding population on Pitt Island as a result of the release 
program will take longer than 4 more years to achieve (NZDOC 2001b, pp. 
18-19).
Stochastic Events
    The Chatham petrel's restricted breeding range combined with its 
colonial nesting habits and small population size of 900 to 1,100 birds 
(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5) makes the species particularly vulnerable 
to the threat of adverse random, naturally occurring events (e.g., 
cyclones, fire) that destroy breeding individuals and their breeding 
habitat. Fire is a high risk in the Chatham Islands because the climate 
is very dry during the summer, and the vegetation becomes tinder dry. 
If fires do occur, the remoteness of the islands renders the fires 
unlikely to be exterminated by human intervention. Burrow-nesting 
species such as the Chatham petrel are at a high risk because they are 
likely to suffocate from smoke inhalation or to be lethally burned 
inside or while attempting to escape from their burrows (Taylor 2000, 
p. 22).
    Another natural disaster, severe storms, has impacted New Zealand 
historically, and so the likelihood of future impacts of storms is 
high. A severe storm in 1985 stripped two islands in the Chatham 
Islands chain bare of vegetation and soil cover, causing high increases 
in egg mortality of nesting albatrosses (Taylor 2000, p. 23). 
Considered the worst recorded cyclone in New Zealand's history, Cyclone 
Giselle hit New Zealand on April 10, 1968, with wind speeds of 275 km 
per hour (Christchurch City Libraries n.d.). Although we are unaware of 
the impact of this cyclone on the Chatham petrel's population numbers 
or breeding habitat, the severity of the wind, or tree falls created by 
such a storm, has potential to significantly damage Chatham petrel 
burrows. These burrows are particularly vulnerable because they are 
extremely fragile, occurring in soft soils that are easily disrupted by 
severe climatic events (BirdLife International 2008a; NZDOC, in litt. 
2008, p. 2; Taylor 2000, p. 128).
    While species with more extensive breeding ranges or higher 
population numbers could recover from adverse random, naturally 
occurring events such as fire or storms, the Chatham petrel does not 
have such resiliency. Its very small population size and restricted 
breeding range puts the species at higher risk for experiencing the 
irreversible adverse effects of random, naturally occurring events. 
Therefore, we find a combination of factors--the species' small 
population size, the species' restricted breeding range, and the 
likelihood of adverse random, naturally occurring events--to be a 
significant threat to the Chatham petrel.
Summary of Factor E
    On the basis of this analysis, we find that due to the species' 
small population size and restricted breeding range, the continued 
existence of the Chatham petrel is threatened by nest burrow 
competition between this species and

[[Page 46921]]

the more abundant broad-billed prion in its primary breeding area, and 
adverse random, naturally occurring events (e.g., cyclones, fire).

Status Determination for the Chatham Petrel

    We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the Chatham petrel. Historically, predation by 
introduced species reduced the Chatham petrel's population numbers 
throughout all of its range (Factor C). Today, however, South East 
Island is predator free, and we believe the risk of these predators 
becoming reestablished on the island is quite low because the NZDOC 
monitors and manages the island intensively to maintain the island as a 
predator-free habitat. Therefore, predation by nonnative predators, 
such as rats, feral cats, pigs, and weka, is only a significant threat 
to the species on Pitt and Chatham Island (Factor C).
    Nest burrow competition between the Chatham petrel and the more 
abundant broad-billed prion is a current, ongoing threat to the species 
that is of high magnitude and that has not been controlled by human 
intervention (Factor E). The broad-billed prion occupies Chatham petrel 
burrows, actively evicting or lethally attacking eggs, nestlings, and 
occasionally adults of the Chatham petrel, and as a result is reducing 
the Chatham petrel's population, which is already very small, estimated 
at 900 to 1,100 individuals (Factor E). Although the NZDOC has been 
actively working to protect Chatham petrel nest sites from the broad-
billed prion, only a small proportion of Chatham petrel breeding 
burrows have been located and protected (Taylor 1999, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2000, p. 55). This threat is magnified by the 
fact that the impacted area is the Chatham petrel's primary breeding 
location (South East Island), and the breeding area is extremely small, 
less than 1 mi\2\ (2.5 km\2\) in size. The only other location where 
the species has been documented to breed is the 98.8-ac (40-ha) 
enclosed area on Pitt Island where Chatham petrels were reintroduced. 
It is currently uncertain whether the species will maintain this 
portion of its range as a breeding area. As of 2006, one pair breeding 
in this area had successfully reared a chick, and in 2008, there were 
six pairs breeding in the predator-proof reserve (Chatham Islands 
Conservation News 2008e; NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5).
    The regulatory protections conferred by the New Zealand Wildlife 
and Reserves Acts in combination with the actions implemented for the 
conservation of the Chatham petrel by the NZDOC under the 2001 recovery 
plan have significantly reduced the threats to the species from 
predation by introduced species and competition with the broad-billed 
prion. However, these threats still exist, and despite the efforts 
undertaken in New Zealand to address the threats to the Chatham petrel, 
the species has not recovered (Factor D).
    In general, the fewer the number of populations and the smaller the 
size of each population, the higher the probability of extinction 
(Franklin 1980, pp. 147-148; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 25; Meffe 
and Carroll 1996, pp. 218-219; Pimm et al. 1998, pp. 757-785; Raup 
1991, pp. 124-127; Soul[eacute] 1987, p. 181). The Chatham petrel's 
small population, combined with its restricted breeding range and 
colonial nesting habits, makes the species particularly vulnerable to 
the threat of random, naturally occurring events. These catastrophic 
events, such as cyclones and fire, are known to occur in New Zealand 
and have the potential to destroy breeding individuals and their 
breeding habitat (Factor E).
    Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Because the survival of the Chatham petrel is dependent on 
recruitment of chicks from its breeding range, the severity of threats 
to the species within its breeding range, as described above, puts the 
species in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, 
on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we determine that the Chatham petrel meets the Act's 
definition of endangered and warrants protection as an endangered 
species under the Act.

II. Fiji petrel (Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi)

Species Information

    The Fiji petrel (Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi) is a small, dark 
brown gadfly petrel that is endemic to Fiji (BirdLife International 
2008b). The species was first taxonomically described by G.R. Gray in 
1860 (Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 321). In our December 17, 2007, 
proposal (72 FR 71298), we listed the scientific name of the Fiji 
petrel as Pterodroma macgillivrayi, with Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi 
as a synonym. However, the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) standard taxonomic 
and nomenclatural reference for birds (Dickinson 2003, p. 75), as well 
as BirdLife International (2008b), recognizes the species as 
Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi. Therefore, we accept the species as 
Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi, which also follows the Integrated 
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2009).

Habitat and Life History

    Very little information is available on the Fiji petrel and its 
life history. However, Fiji petrels are considered pelagic, occurring 
on the open sea generally out of sight of land, where they feed year 
round. During the breeding season, they return to nesting sites on 
islands where they nest in colonies (Pettingill 1970, p. 206).
    There have only been 12 substantiated sightings of the Fiji petrel 
on land since 1965, and a total of 13 historically. These sightings 
have all been of single individuals on Gau Island (BirdLife 
International 2000, p. 55; BirdLife International 2008b; Carlile and 
Priddel, in litt. 2008, p. 3; Priddel et al. in draft), a 52.55 mi\2\ 
(136.1 km\2\) island in Fiji's Lomaiviti archipelago.
    Based on the locations of Fiji petrel sightings on Gau Island, 
researchers have speculated that the species' breeding habitat is most 
likely to be undisturbed, mature forest on rocky, mountainous ground 
within the island's cloud forest highlands (del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 
248; RARE Conservation 2006a). It has been suggested that, based on the 
nesting habits of other colonial seabirds, Fiji petrels nest in close 
proximity to collared petrels (Pterodroma leucoptera), which nest on 
the ground in this rugged terrain of interior Gau Island (Watling and 
Lewanavanua 1985, p. 233).
    Recently, Priddel et al. (in draft) and Carlile and Priddel (in 
litt. 2008, p. 3) reviewed the available information regarding the 
attempts to discover the nesting sites of this elusive bird. All 
surveys to date have focused on the interior summit area of Gau Island 
within the island's cloud forest highlands. These authors suggest that, 
as no nests or birds have been found in the upland area, other possible 
sites should be considered for surveys. According to Jenkins (1986, as 
cited in Priddel et al. in draft), in 1925, Rollo Beck trekked to the 
summit of the island with the island's chief who indicated that the 
petrels nested not in the summit area but down below in dense canyons 
on the eastern side of the island.

[[Page 46922]]

Therefore, according to Priddel et al. (in draft) and Carlile and 
Priddel (in litt. 2008, p. 3), future surveys should focus on the 
unsurveyed catchment of the main waterway of the island, particularly 
the headwaters of the Waiboteigau Creek on the eastern side of Gau. 
This remote lowland area is uncleared and lacks roads or trails. 
According to Carlile and Priddel (in litt. 2008, pp. 2-3), an intensive 
survey of this area for potential breeding sites is planned for July 
2009.

Range and Distribution

    Although little is known about the Fiji petrel and its life 
history, based on general information common to all other Procellariid 
species, we know that the range of the Fiji petrel changes intra-
annually based on an established breeding cycle. During the breeding 
season, breeding birds return to breeding colonies to breed and nest. 
During the nonbreeding season, birds migrate far from their breeding 
range, where they remain at sea until returning to breed.
    BirdLife International (2008b) estimates the range of the Fiji 
petrel to be 59,460 mi\2\ (154,000 km\2\); however, BirdLife 
International (2000, pp. 22, 27) defines ``range'' as the ``Extent of 
Occurrence, the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary 
boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or 
projected sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of 
vagrancy.'' Therefore, this reported range includes a large area of 
nonbreeding habitat (i.e., the sea).
    Although the nesting area of this species has not been located 
(Carlile and Priddel, in litt. 2008, p. 3; Priddel et al. in draft), 
the information available indicates that the species breeds only on Gau 
Island, Fiji, where the few recorded sightings of this species on land 
have occurred (Onley and Scofield 2007, p. 161; Priddel et al. in 
draft; RARE Conservation 2006a; Watling and Lewanavanua 1985, p. 230). 
BirdLife International (2008b) suggests that this species may occur on 
other islands in Fiji, but Priddel et al. (in draft) found no records 
to support this suggestion. The species was originally known from just 
one specimen collected in 1855 on Gau Island. There were no additional 
confirmed sightings of the species until 1984, when an extensive, 16-
month search on Gau Island revealed one additional sighting. The 
researchers used spotlights and recorded collared petrel calls in an 
attempt to attract petrels to the highlands area where the researchers 
were searching. On the first night of spotlighting, a single Fiji 
petrel flew into the researchers' light. No additional birds were found 
on this search expedition (Watling 1986, p. 32; Watling and Lewanavanua 
1985, p. 231). There have been an additional 16 reported sightings of 
this species on land, all on Gau Island, and 10 additional sightings at 
sea; however, many of these reports have not been substantiated 
(Priddel et al. in draft). In 2007, Priddel et al. (in draft) 
summarized all these records, specifying which records were credible. 
The researchers determined that of the 17 recorded sightings on land 
between 1965 and 2007, 12 were highly credible based on researchers' 
identification of dead specimens, photographs of specimens, or live 
specimens. In addition to the sightings on land, there have been 10 
sightings at sea, all since 1960. However, none of these reports have 
been substantiated. Based on researcher observation or detailed 
descriptions, three of these reports are considered by Priddel et al. 
(in draft) to be credible.
    We consider the evidence sufficient to conclude that the Fiji 
petrel breeds on Gau Island because: (1) All 12 substantiated sightings 
of the species on land have been on Gau Island; (2) Procellariids 
return to land only for breeding purposes; and (3) the original 
specimen of this species collected in 1855 was determined to be an 
immature bird, based on its feathers and skull morphology (Bourne 1981, 
as cited in Priddel et al. in draft; Priddel et al. in draft). It is 
therefore reasonable to believe that its nest was in the vicinity.
    The Fiji petrel's range at sea is poorly known; the species has 
been recorded once at sea near Gau Island and once at sea 124.3 mi (200 
km) north of Gau Island (Watling 2000, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2000, p. 55; Watling and Lewanavanua 1985, p. 230).

Population Estimates

    The population of the Fiji petrel is believed to be very small. 
While BirdLife International (2008b) estimates the population to be 
fewer than 50 birds and showing a decreasing population trend, Carlile 
and Priddel (in litt. 2008, p. 3) and Priddel et al. (in draft) state 
that ``the population size is unknown but assumed to be very small (due 
to the lack of sightings)'' and that ``until surveys are carried out * 
* * population size will remain unknown.''

Conservation Status

    The Fiji petrel is considered ``Critically Endangered'' by IUCN 
because it is ``estimated, given the paucity of recent records, that 
there is only a tiny population which is confined to a very small 
breeding area. Furthermore, it is assumed to be declining because of 
predation by cats, which may therefore threaten its long-term 
survival'' (BirdLife International 2008b).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Fiji Petrel

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Species' Habitat or Range

    Based on general information common to all other Procellariid 
species, we know that the range of the Fiji petrel changes intra-
annually based on an established breeding cycle. During the breeding 
season, breeding birds return to breeding colonies to breed and nest. 
During the nonbreeding season, birds migrate far from their breeding 
range, and they remain at sea until returning to breed. Therefore, our 
analys