Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth's Shearwater as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges, 235-250 [E9-31308]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 235-250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31308]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-ES-2009-0086;90100-1660-1FLA]
RIN 1018-AW70


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List 
the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth's Shearwater as Threatened Throughout 
Their Ranges

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened status for the Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia) 
previously referred to as (Pterodroma phaeopygia phaeopygia); and the 
Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi) under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule implements the Federal 
protections provided by the Act for these two foreign seabird species.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective February 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Alt, Chief, Division of 
Conservation and Classification, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 
22203; telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Previous Federal Action

    On November 28, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from 
Dr.

[[Page 236]]

Warren B. King, Chairman, United States Section of the International 
Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign bird species to 
the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11), 
including two species (Galapagos petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater) 
that are the subject of this rule. Two of the foreign species 
identified in the petition were already listed under the Act; 
therefore, in response to the 1980 petition, we published a substantial 
90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464), for 58 foreign species 
and initiated a status review. On January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we 
published a 12-month finding within an annual review on pending 
petitions and description of progress on all pending petition findings. 
In this notice, we found that listing all 58 foreign bird species on 
the 1980 petition was warranted but precluded by higher-priority 
listing actions. On May 10, 1985, we published the first annual notice 
(50 FR 19761) in which we continued to find that listing all 58 foreign 
bird species on the 1980 petition was warranted but precluded by 
higher-priority listing actions. We published additional annual notices 
on the 58 species included in the 1980 petition on January 9, 1986 (51 
FR 996), July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511), December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746), 
April 25, 1990 (55 FR 17475), November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664), and May 
21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). These notices indicated that the Galapagos 
petrel and Heinroth's shearwater, along with the remaining species in 
the 1980 petition, continued to be warranted but precluded.
    Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983; 
48 FR 43098), in our April 23, 2007, Annual Notice on Resubmitted 
Petition Findings for Foreign Species (72 FR 20184), we determined that 
listing the six seabird species of family Procellariidae, including the 
two species that are the subject of this final rule, was warranted. In 
selecting these six species from the list of warranted-but-precluded 
species, we took into consideration the magnitude and immediacy of the 
threats to the species consistent with the Service's listing priority 
guidelines.
    On December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298), we published in the Federal 
Register a proposal to list the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel and the 
magenta petrel as endangered species under the Act, and the Cook's 
petrel (native to New Zealand), Galapagos petrel (native to the 
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador), and the Heinroth's shearwater (native to 
Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands) as threatened under the Act. 
We implemented the Service's peer review process and opened a 60-day 
comment period to solicit scientific and commercial information on the 
species from all interested parties following publication of the 
proposed rule.
    On December 30, 2008, the Service received a 60-day notice of 
intent to sue from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) over 
violations of section 4 of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) for the Service's failure to issue a final determination 
regarding the listing of these six foreign birds. Under a settlement 
agreement approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 
of California on June 15, 2009 (CBD v. Salazar, 09-cv-02578-CRB), the 
Service was required to submit to the Federal Register final 
determinations on the proposed listings of the Chatham petrel, Fiji 
petrel, and magenta petrel by September 30, 2009, and final 
determinations on the proposed listings of the Cook's petrel, Galapagos 
petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater by December 29, 2009.
    The Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), Fiji petrel 
(Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi), and the magenta petrel (Pterodroma 
magentae) were listed as endangered on September 14, 2009 (74 FR 
46914). This rule addresses two of the remaining three foreign seabird 
species: the Galapagos petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater. Cook's petrel 
will be addressed in a separate rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298), 
we requested that all interested parties submit information that might 
contribute to development of a final rule. We received nine comments: 
Six from members of the public, one from an international conservation 
organization, one from the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS), and one from the New Zealand Department of Conservation 
(NZDOC). In all, three commenters supported the proposed listings. Six 
commenters provided information but did not express support for or 
opposition to the proposed listings. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the public and peer reviewers for substantive issues and 
new information regarding the proposed listing of the two species, and 
we address those comments below.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited expert opinions from 14 knowledgeable individuals 
with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, 
the geographic region in which the species occur, and conservation 
biology principles. We received responses from six of the peer 
reviewers from whom we requested comments. The peer reviewers generally 
agreed that the description of the biology and habitat for each species 
was accurate and based on the best available information. New or 
additional information on the current population numbers of each of the 
two species and their threats was provided and incorporated into the 
rulemaking as appropriate (as indicated in the citations by ``in 
litt.'').

Peer Reviewer General Comments

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

Peer Reviewer Species-specific Comments

Galapagos Petrel

    Comment 3: The greater threat to this species and its habitat is 
not goats but rather introduced invasive plants which have caused 
drastic habitat changes over the last few years.
    Our Response: Based on this new information regarding the 
significance of the threats to the habitat of the Galapagos petrel by 
nonnative, invasive plants, we have amended our discussion under Factor 
A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of the habitat or range) for this species in this final rule.
    Comment 4: A significant and fairly new threat to the Galapagos 
petrel is the threat of collisions with structures such as power lines, 
cellular telephone and other radio towers, and, on Santa Cruz Island, 
wind power generation systems (particularly large windmills and power 
transmission lines). Construction of these structures in and near 
petrel nesting areas and areas where they make their nocturnal 
courtship flights increases the risk of collision.

[[Page 237]]

    Our Response: We have incorporated this new information regarding 
the threat of collisions with power lines, radio towers, and structures 
associated with windmills in our Factor E (other natural or manmade 
factors affecting the continued existence of the species) discussion 
for this species.
    Comment 5: One peer reviewer indicated skepticism of the often 
cited drastic decreases in Galapagos petrel numbers in the 1980s. The 
peer reviewer added that there was no known event in that period that 
could have caused the decline, and that all of the purported causes 
(agricultural expansion, introduction of predators) had occurred 
decades before. The peer reviewer believes that most likely the early 
estimates of pre-1980 petrel populations were overly optimistic (too 
large) and that starting in the 1980s, the estimates of the number of 
petrels were more accurate and closer to the actual number of birds 
(likely due to more surveys and better methods of estimating population 
numbers). The peer reviewer stated that current estimates of Galapagos 
petrel numbers are not significantly lower than the estimates of the 
mid-1980s. If there were a drastic population decline starting in the 
1980s it is unlikely it would have suddenly halted, especially with 
respect to predation, because although the agriculture expansion has 
not continued, it has not decreased, and the predators have not 
disappeared from the nesting habitat.
    Our Response: We have incorporated this information regarding the 
population estimates for the Galapagos petrel over the past 28 years in 
this final rule.
    Comment 6: The Galapagos petrel is threatened by predation by 
introduced rats, cats, pigs, and dogs (in order of significance of 
impact). The main predator is rats that kill chicks. Cats prey upon all 
life stages of the species while dogs sometimes prey upon the species 
during all life stages. Pigs may kill incubating adults by digging up 
nests, but this is probably less common than predation by other 
animals.
    Our Response: In this final rule, we have amended our discussion 
under Factor C (disease or predation) regarding the significant 
predators on the Galapagos petrel, in this final rule.
    Comment 7: San Crist[oacute]bal Island has a long-standing rat 
control program in the Galapagos petrel colony.
    Our Response: We were not previously aware of this program and have 
amended our discussion under Factor C (disease or predation) to reflect 
this new information in this final rule.

Heinroth's Shearwater

    Comment 8: The forests of Kolombanagara and Rendova are the 
potential breeding habitat of Heinroth's shearwater but deforestation 
is not a threat in the high-altitude forests because logging is 
commercially unviable in these small-stature forests that are found on 
steep slopes. Deforestation is a threat to this bird only if it nests 
at low or mid altitudes.
    Our Response: The breeding habitat for Heinroth's shearwater is 
unknown but is believed to be inland forests. Therefore, we have 
incorporated this new information regarding the threat from 
deforestation only in low or mid altitude forests in our discussion 
under Factor A (present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the habitat or range) in this final rule.

Other Comments

    Comment 9: Listing under the Act provides substantial benefits to 
foreign species.
    Our Response: We agree that listing a foreign species under the Act 
provides benefits to the species in the form of conservation measures 
such as recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and 
prohibitions against certain practices (see Available Conservation 
Measures). In addition, once a foreign species is listed as endangered 
under the Act, a section 7 consultation and an enhancement finding are 
usually required for the issuance of a permit to conduct certain 
activities. Through various enhancement findings under section 
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, the permit process can be used to create 
incentives for conservation, through cooperation and consultation with 
range countries and users of the resource.
    Comment 10: Listing under the Act can only help these birds by 
drawing attention to their needs and providing much needed funding and 
expertise to address the significant threats they face.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter. Listing the species 
under the Act that are the subject of this final rule can provide 
several benefits to the species in the form of conservation measures, 
such as recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and 
prohibitions against certain practices (see Available Conservation 
Measures).
    Comment 11: We would encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
to carefully consider how listing these species under the Act will 
benefit their conservation. Would listing under the Act prompt U.S.-
based actions that the species would otherwise not receive?
    Our Response: As part of the conservation measures provided to 
foreign species listed under the Act (see Available Conservation 
Measures), recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
encourages and results in conservation actions by Federal and State 
governments, private agencies and groups, and individuals. In addition, 
section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited financial 
assistance for the development and management of programs that the 
Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the 
conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. 
Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage 
conservation programs for foreign endangered and threatened species and 
to provide assistance for such programs in the form of personnel and 
the training of personnel.
    Comment 12: The general statement that the ``long-line fishery * * 
* is the single greatest threat to all seabirds'' erroneously indicates 
long-line fishing as a threat to all seabirds. The main species of 
seabirds killed in long-line fisheries are albatrosses and other 
species of petrels (not Pterodroma species). The characteristics of a 
petrel species vulnerable to long-line fishing (seabird that is 
aggressive and good at seizing prey (or baited hooks) at the water's 
surface, or is a proficient diver) do not describe the five Pterodroma 
species or the Heinroth's shearwater that were proposed for listing 
under the Act. Fisheries bycatch has not been identified as a key 
threat for any of these species; thus it is inaccurate to characterize 
long-line fishing as a threat to these species or to all seabird 
species.
    Our Response: We received several comments disputing our statement 
that long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds, and Galapagos petrel 
and the Heinroth's shearwater in particular. We have amended our final 
rule accordingly (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Galapagos Petrel 
and Summary of Factors Affecting the Heinroth's Shearwater).
    Comment 13: The serious threats to the species are impacts due to 
extremely small populations, limited breeding locations or foraging 
ranges, loss and degradation of nesting habitat, invasive alien 
species, introduced predators, and hunting.
    Our Response: We agree that the Galapagos petrel and the Heinroth's 
shearwater are threatened by extremely small populations, limited 
breeding sites, degradation and destruction of nesting habitat, or 
nonnative species and have incorporated this information

[[Page 238]]

into this final rule. However, we are unaware of any information that 
indicates the Galapagos petrel or Heinroth's shearwater currently face 
threats from human hunting or overcollection.
    Comment 14: The primary threat to these species is predation by 
introduced predators particularly at breeding colonies.
    Our Response: We agree that predation by nonnative predators is a 
significant threat to one or more life stages of the Galapagos petrel 
and the Heinroth's shearwater and we have incorporated this information 
into this final rule.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination.
    Both species are considered pelagic, occurring on the open sea 
generally out of sight of land, where they feed year round. They return 
to nesting sites on islands during the breeding season where they nest 
in colonies (Pettingill 1970, p. 206).

Foreseeable Future

    Although section 3 of the Act uses the term ``foreseeable future'' 
in the definition of a threatened species, it does not define the term. 
For purpose of this rule, we define foreseeable future to be the extent 
to which, given the amount and quality of available data, we can 
anticipate events or effects, or extrapolate trends of a threat, such 
that reliable predictions can be made concerning the future of the 
species. In the analyses of the five factors below, we consider and 
describe how the foreseeable future relates to the status and threats 
to these species.
    Below is a analysis of the five factors by species.

I. Galapagos Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia)

Species Information

    The Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia), previously referred 
to as (Pterodroma phaeopygia phaeopygia), is a large, long-winged 
gadfly petrel that is endemic to the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (BLI 
2009, unpaginated). They have variable amounts of black markings on a 
white forehead. The species was first taxonomically described by Salvin 
in 1876 (Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 323).

Habitat, Range, and Life History

    The Galapagos petrel is endemic to the Galapagos Islands and breeds 
on Santa Cruz, Floreana, Santiago, San Crist[oacute]bal, Isabela, and 
possibly other islands in the archipelago covering a total land area of 
2,680 mi\2\ (6,942 km\2\) (Cruz and Cruz 1987, pp. 304-305; Vargas and 
Cruz in litt. 2000, as cited in BLI 2009; Harris 1970, pp. 76-77). The 
species breeds in the humid and thickly vegetated uplands of these 
islands (Harris 1970, p. 76) at elevations between 984 and 2,953 ft 
(300 and 900 m) (Baker 1980, as cited in BLI 2000; Cruz and Cruz 1987, 
pp. 304-305; 1996, p. 27). The species prefers to nest under thick 
vegetation in sufficient soil for burrowing (Harris 1970, pp. 78, 82). 
The species is known to nest within burrows or natural cavities on 
slopes, in craters, in sinkholes, in lava tunnels, and in gullies 
(Baker 1980, as cited in BLI 2000; Cruz and Cruz 1987, pp. 304-305; 
1996, p. 27).
    Birds have been observed foraging near the Galapagos Islands, as 
well as east and north of the islands towards South America up to 1,243 
mi (2,000 km) south (Spear et al. 1995, p. 627).

Population Estimates

    In our December 17, 2007, proposal (72 FR 71298), we reported that 
the total population of Galapagos petrels was estimated to be between 
20,000 and 60,000 birds (BLI 2007, unpaginated). However, in 2009 BLI 
updated the estimate, and now estimates the total population to be 
between 10,000 and 19,999 birds with a decreasing population trend (BLI 
2009, unpaginated).

Conservation Status

    The IUCN classifies the Galapagos petrel as ``Critically 
Endangered'' with a decreasing population trend (BLI 2009, 
unpaginated). The species is not listed on any CITES Appendices (https://www.cites.org).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Galapagos Petrel

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

    Similar to other Procellariid species, the range of the Galapagos 
petrel changes intra-annually based on an established breeding cycle. 
During the breeding season, breeding birds return to breeding colonies 
to breed and nest. During the nonbreeding season, birds migrate far 
from their breeding range where they remain at sea until returning to 
breed. Therefore, our analysis of Factor A is separated into analyses 
of: (1) The species' breeding habitat and range, and (2) The species' 
non-breeding habitat and range.
    BLI (2009, unpaginated) estimates the range of the Galapagos petrel 
to be 5,483,000 mi\2\ (14,200,000 km\2\); however, BLI (2000) defines 
``range'' as the ``Extent of Occurrence, the area contained within the 
shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass 
all the known, inferred, or projected sites of present occurrence of a 
species, excluding cases of vagrancy.'' Because this reported range 
includes a large area of non-breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), our 
analysis of Factor A with respect to the Galapagos petrel's breeding 
range focuses on the islands where the species breeds.
    The primary threats to the Galapagos petrel's breeding habitat are 
degradation and destruction of breeding habitat by introduced invasive 
plants, clearing of land for agricultural expansion, and nonnative 
feral mammals, such as domesticated goats (Capra hircus), pigs (Sus 
scrofa), donkeys (Equus asinus), and cattle (Bos taurus). Nonnative 
invasive plants on some islands create dense thickets that the petrel 
is not able to penetrate. Nonnative ungulates (goats, pigs, donkeys, 
and cattle) trample and destroy Galapagos petrel nest-sites and reduce 
breeding habitat by overgrazing (e.g., goats) and uprooting the 
vegetation (e.g., pigs) (Cruz and Cruz 1987, pp. 304-305, 1996, p. 25; 
Eckhardt 1972, p. 588; Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
Clearing of Land for Agricultural Expansion
    In 1959, Ecuador designated 97 percent of the Galapagos land area 
as a National Park, leaving 3 percent of the remaining land area 
distributed between Santa Cruz, San Crist[oacute]bal, Isabela, and 
Floreana Islands. The park land area is divided into various zones 
signifying the level of human use (Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador 
N.D., unpaginated).

[[Page 239]]

Although the islands where the Galapagos petrel is known to breed 
include a large ''conservation and restoration'' zone, all of these 
islands, except Santiago, include a significant-sized `farming' zone 
(Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador N.D. unpaginated), where 
agricultural and grazing activities continue to threaten some petrel 
nesting sites (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). According to 
Baker (1980, as cited in BLI 2000), at least half of the Galapagos 
petrel's current breeding range on Santa Cruz Island is farmed. The 
rationale for maintaining farming zones within the Galapagos National 
Park is to sustain the economy of island inhabitants, encourage local 
consumption of traditional products (e.g., vegetables, fruits, and 
grazing animals), and decrease the amount of imported food, thereby 
reducing the threat of inadvertent introduction of nonnative species 
(Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador N.D. Plan de Control Total N.D. 
cited in Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
    On the island of Santa Cruz, the Galapagos petrel historically bred 
at lower elevations, down to 591 ft (180 m). However, habitat 
modification of these lower elevations for agricultural purposes has 
restricted the Galapagos petrel's use of these lower elevation areas 
for breeding although some areas are still used for nesting (Valarezo 
2006 cited in Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). On San 
Crist[oacute]bal Island, historical clearance of vegetation in highland 
areas for intensive grazing purposes drastically reduced the species' 
breeding habitat on the island (Harris 1970, p. 82).
Introduced Invasive Plants
    Nonnative invasive plants are a significant threat to the Galapagos 
petrel through habitat modification and destruction. Nonnative plants 
adversely impact petrel breeding habitat by modifying or altering 
several microhabitat conditions such as availability of light, soil-
water regimes, and nutrient cycling leading to competition with native 
plants or direct inhibition of native plants; and ultimately converting 
plant communities dominated by native species to nonnative plant 
communities (Tye, N.D., p. 4). Rubus niveus (hill raspberry), a species 
of raspberry native from India to southeastern Asia, the Philippines, 
and Indonesia, is the worst invader of the nonnative species of Rubus 
in the Galapagos Islands (Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF), N.D.a, 
unpaginated), and is classified as a noxious weed in Hawaii (Hawaii 
Administrative Rules 1992). In the Galapagos Islands, hill raspberry 
grows in nesting areas in thick mats that are impenetrable by Galapagos 
petrels (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). This nonnative plant 
is found on all of the islands (Floreana, Isabela, San 
Crist[oacute]bal, and Santa Cruz) used by the Galapagos petrel for 
breeding except Santiago Island (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, 
unpaginated). Eradication of hill raspberry on San Crist[oacute]bal and 
Santa Cruz is not possible because hill raspberry is well-established 
and widespread on these islands (CDF, N.D.a, unpaginated) and thus 
eradication is cost prohibitive. It is not known if there are control 
or eradication programs for this species on Floreana or Isabela 
Islands.
    There are two other noteworthy nonnative plant threats, Cinchona 
pubescens (red quinine tree) and two species of Lantana (lantana). Red 
quinine tree is native from Andean South America north to Costa Rica, 
and is characterized by vigorous growth, reproduction, and extremely 
rapid invasion (CDF N.D.b, unpaginated). Introduced in 1946 in the 
agricultural zone of Santa Cruz Island, red quinine tree has spread 
into all of the highland vegetation zones and covers more than 29,652 
ac (12,000 ha) (CDF N.D.b, unpaginated). This nonnative invader is 
significantly changing native plant communities in the highlands of 
Santa Cruz from low open scrub and grasslands to closed forest canopy 
(Buddenhagen et al. 2004, p. 1195; CDF, N.D.b, unpaginated), and has 
been identified as a threat to the highland habitat of the Galapagos 
petrel (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). According to Tye 
(N.D., p. 12) there is strong support by both conservationists and 
farmers to eradicate red quinine tree (Tye N.D., p. 12).
    Beginning in 1998, the Charles Darwin Foundation has supported 
research studies on red quinine tree's ecology and invasion dynamics, 
its impacts on native vegetation, and potential control methods 
(Buddenhagen et al. 2004, pp. 1198, 1200-1201; CDF N.D.b, unpaginated). 
An effective combination of control techniques was identified in 2003, 
and a long-term management plan is being developed for its possible 
eradication on Santa Cruz (Buddenhagen et al. 2004, p. 1201; CDF N.D.b, 
unpaginated). Lantana (Lantana camara and L. montevidensis (CDF N.D.c, 
unpaginated)), probably native to the West Indies (Wagner et al. 1999, 
p. 1320), was introduced to Floreana about 70 years ago, and has been 
identified as the single worst invasive species on the island (Tye 
N.D., p. 6). More recently, L. camara has been introduced to other 
islands, including Santa Cruz in 1985, where repeated control efforts 
have limited its spread on those islands (Tye N.D., p. 6). Lantana is a 
shrub that forms dense, impenetrable thickets and prevents the growth 
of other herbaceous or woody species (Tye N.D., p. 5; Wagner et al. 
1999, p. 1320). It is unknown if there are control or eradication 
programs for this species on Floreana. In addition, there are a number 
of nonnative plants on Santiago, which was formerly inhabited, however, 
no information is available to identify whether these species impact 
Galapagos petrel nesting sites on this island (Tye N.D., p. 3).
Introduced Feral Mammals
    In 1997, the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the CDF 
initiated ``Project Isabela,'' an ecological restoration program that 
required removal of all feral goats from Santiago and northern Isabela. 
In 2006, the program was found to be successful. The GNPS announced 
that no feral goats could be found in these areas, noting that 
monitoring efforts would continue to ensure successful eradication 
(Charles Darwin Research Station (CDRS) 2006, unpaginated). Concurrent 
with the goat eradication program, feral donkeys were removed from 
Santiago Island and Alcedo Volcano on northern Isabela Island (Carrion 
et al. 2007, p. 440). After a 30-year eradication program, feral pigs 
were successfully removed from Santiago Island; the last pig was shot 
in April 2000 (Cruz et al. 2005, p. 476).
    Despite the success of these eradication efforts, introduced 
ungulates continue to threaten Galapagos petrel habitat on the human 
populated islands of Santa Cruz, Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, and 
southern Isabela, particularly in areas bordering farmland. Eradication 
programs for feral livestock in areas containing human populations is 
difficult (CDRS 2006, unpaginated). However, according to the Galapagos 
Conservancy (N.D., unpaginated), funding has been sought for 
eradication of feral goats on Floreana and San Crist[oacute]bal Islands 
and for a goat control program on Santa Cruz Island beginning in 2008 
or 2009.
Summary of Factor A
    In summary, nonnative invasive plants have been identified as 
significantly impacting the breeding habitat of the Galapagos petrel 
primarily by altering the habitat and overgrowing the nesting sites, or 
by creating dense, impenetrable thickets (hill raspberry and lantana). 
The most significant nonnative plant threats to the Galapagos

[[Page 240]]

petrel are hill raspberry, red quinine tree and lantana. Galapagos 
petrel habitat is threatened on Floreana by hill raspberry and lantana; 
on Isabela by hill raspberry; on San Crist[oacute]bal by hill 
raspberry; and, on Santa Cruz by hill raspberry, red quinine tree, and 
lantana (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). Although nonnative 
plants occur on Santiago Island, there is no information identifying 
nonnative plant threats to Galapagos petrel habitat there. Agricultural 
expansion and nonnative feral ungulates on the human populated islands 
of Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and southern Isabela 
also destroy habitat of the Galapagos petrel.
    Therefore, we find that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of this species' breeding habitat by 
agricultural expansion, nonnative plants, and feral ungulates is a 
threat to the species on the islands of Santa Cruz, Floreana, San 
Crist[oacute]bal, and Isabela now and in the foreseeable future. On 
Santiago Island, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of this species' breeding habitat by 
agricultural expansion, and feral ungulates is a threat to the species 
now and in the foreseeable future.
    The Galapagos petrel's range at sea is poorly known; however, 
research has documented foraging behavior near the Galapagos Islands, 
as well as east and north of the islands. We are unaware of any present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of this 
species' current sea habitat or range now or in the foreseeable future.

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

    We are unaware of any commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purpose for which the Galapagos petrel is currently being 
utilized. Therefore, we find that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to 
the Galapagos petrel in any portion of its range now and in the 
foreseeable future.

C. Disease or Predation

    The threat of predation on the Galapagos petrel is exemplified by 
the rapid decline of populations of this species in the early 1980s as 
a result of predation by introduced species, such as black and brown 
rats, cats, pigs, and to a lesser extent, dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) 
(BLI 2009, unpaginated; Cruz and Cruz 1996, p. 23). In some cases, 
these population declines were as high as 81 percent over 4 years (BLI 
2009, unpaginated). Between 1980 and 1985, the population on Santa Cruz 
Island declined from an estimated 9,000 pairs to 1,000 pairs (Baker 
1980, as cited in BLI 2009, unpaginated; Cruz and Cruz 1987, p. 9). 
During the same time period, the Santiago Island population declined 
from 11,250 pairs to less than 500 pairs (Cruz and Cruz 1987, p. 12; 
Tomkins 1985, as cited in BLI 2000), and the number of birds breeding 
on Floreana Islands was estimated to have been reduced by up to 33 
percent annually for 4 years (Coulter et al. 1981, as cited in BLI 
2009, unpaginated).
    While the above-cited sources report drastic decreases in Galapagos 
petrel numbers in the 1980s, one peer reviewer of our December 17, 
2007, proposed rule (72 FR 71298) questioned the reported population 
declines. According to the reviewer, there was no known event during 
that decade that could have caused the declines. Agricultural expansion 
and the introduction and expansion of predators had occurred decades 
previously, and while Galapagos petrels are long-lived and a factor 
from decades before might have shown up as a collapse in the adult 
population much later, the reviewer thought it was unlikely. According 
to the peer review, pre-1980 population estimates were overly 
optimistic and that estimates starting in the 1980s were more accurate 
(Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). According to the reviewer, 
current estimates are not much lower than the numbers from the mid-
1980s, and it is unlikely that the ``drastic declines'' seen in the 
1980s would have halted 20 years later, considering the ongoing threats 
to the petrel from predation and habitat degradation and destruction 
(Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
    Rats (both black and brown) are the most significant predator of 
the Galapagos petrel; they eat both the eggs and chicks (Wiedenfeld, in 
litt. 2008, unpaginated). Introduced feral cats, pigs, and dogs all 
prey on one or more life stages (eggs, chicks, fledglings, and adults) 
of the Galapagos petrel (Cruz and Cruz 1987, p. 304; 1996, pp. 23-24). 
Predation of adult Galapagos petrels by the Galapagos hawk (Buteo 
galapagoensis) was reported by Tompkins (1985, p. 12) and later cited 
in Cruz and Cruz (1987, p. 305; 1996, p. 24) and BLI (2009). However, 
because Galapagos hawks are diurnal predators and Galapagos petrels fly 
at night, this information is questionable (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, 
unpaginated). The short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) and the common barn 
owl (Tyto alba) may hunt Galapagos petrels more commonly than the 
Galapagos hawk because both predators are nocturnal and both occur in 
the Galapagos Islands (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
    Predator control programs geared towards nonnative species and 
petrel monitoring programs are currently in place on Floreana, Santa 
Cruz, and Santiago Islands (Vargus and Cruz 2000, as cited in BLI 2009, 
unpaginated; Guo 2006, p. 1597). Eradication efforts to remove feral 
pigs, which eat nestlings, juvenile, and adult petrels on Santiago 
Island, succeeded by the end of 2000 (Cruz et al. 2005, pp. 476-477; 
Galapagos National Park N.D., unpaginated). Recolonization of pigs on 
Santiago Island is not likely since the island is not inhabited by 
humans, and there are no farming zones on the island where pigs could 
be placed. In addition, complete ecological recovery of Santiago Island 
is a primary objective of Galapagos National Park, so monitoring and 
maintaining a pig-free island is of high priority (Galapagos National 
Park N.D., unpaginated). However, predation by introduced rats and cats 
continues to pose a threat to Galapagos petrels on Santiago Island, 
where efforts are underway to remove introduced rats, but there is no 
information to indicate that eradication has been achieved (Galapagos 
National Park N.D., unpaginated). On Isabela, National Park rangers 
have set out traps and poison for rats, and, as of 2006, were planning 
rat control on Floreana Island (Guo 2006, p. 2); BLI (2009) reports 
that there is a program of rat baiting around known petrel colonies on 
Floreana (Vargas and Cruz, in litt. 2000 cited in BLI 2009). In 
addition, Guo (2006, p. 2) reported that control of feral cats would 
begin in 2007, although no island was specified. According to 
Wiedendfeld (in litt. 2008, unpaginated), there is a long-term rat 
control program in Galapagos petrel colonies on San Crist[oacute]bal 
Island (Cruz cited in Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
    Although pigs were removed from Santiago Island, they continue to 
threaten the Galapagos petrel on the other 4 islands where the petrel 
is known to breed. Predation, primarily by rats and cats, continues to 
threaten the Galapagos petrel on Floreana and Santa Cruz Islands. 
Predator control efforts have been initiated on these two islands and 
are beginning to show some success in reducing the threat to Galapagos 
petrels. For example, prior to predator control efforts on Floreana 
Island, only 33 percent of the banded Cerro Pajas colony of the 
Galapagos petrel population returned to breed and nest as adults 
(Coulter et al. 1982, as cited in Cruz and Cruz 1990a, p. 323). In 
1982, predator control was initiated on this

[[Page 241]]

island (Cruz and Cruz 1990a, p. 317), and by 1985, return rates for 
banded birds was 80 to 90 percent due to the predator control program 
(Cruz and Cruz 1990a, p. 323). To emphasize the significance of such a 
reduction in predation on adults with respect to petrel population 
growth, the Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), a 
species related to the Galapagos petrel, exhibited a 5 percent annual 
decline in its population size when adult survival rates were reduced 
as low as 10 percent (Simons 1984, p. 1073).
    There is no information to indicate that predator control efforts 
have been successfully implemented on San Crist[oacute]bal Island or 
Isabela Island where rats, cats, and pigs continue to threaten the 
species; and these threats are likely to continue in the foreseeable 
future.
Summary of Factor C
    In summary, while several diseases have been documented in other 
species of petrels, disease has not been documented in the Galapagos 
petrel. Therefore, for the reasons described above, we do not find that 
disease is a threat to this species currently or in the foreseeable 
future.
    While the species is at sea during the nonbreeding season, we are 
unaware of any threats due to predation on Galapagos petrels. However, 
predation by introduced mammalian species causes mortalities at all 
life stages of the Galapagos petrel while on land. Rats are a 
significant threat because they eat eggs and chicks. Feral cats, in 
particular, and to a lesser extent dogs also threaten Galapagos petrels 
by eating eggs and killing chicks, juveniles, and adult birds. Pigs may 
kill nestlings, juveniles, and some adult birds by digging up a nest 
while the adult is incubating but this is much less common than 
predation by rats and cats (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). 
There are predator control programs for rats on Isabela, San 
Crist[oacute]bal, and Santiago Islands and, as of 2006, a program was 
planned on Floreana Island. However, there is no information to 
indicate that rat eradication has been achieved on any of these 
islands, and there is no information to indicate that there is a rat 
control program on Santa Cruz. According to Guo (2006, p. 2), a control 
program for feral cats was planned for 2007. There is no information to 
indicate that feral cats have been eradicated on any of the islands or 
in any of the petrel breeding sites. Pigs have been removed from 
Santiago and northern Isabela Islands but are still a threat to 
Galapagos petrels on Floreana, Santa Cruz, southern Isabela, and San 
Crist[oacute]bal Islands (Wildlife Extra 2006, unpaginated). There is 
no information on predator control efforts for dogs on any of the 
islands where Galapagos petrels breed. The threat of predation has been 
shown to result in rapid population declines in the past and this 
threat is likely to continue in the foreseeable future due to the 
inability of predator control efforts to adequately eradicate these 
predators. Therefore, we find that predation is a threat to the 
Galapagos petrel throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
now and in the foreseeable future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    As previously mentioned, several commenters disputed our statement 
in the proposed rule that long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds and 
in particular, the Galapagos petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater. 
According to the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and 
BirdLife International (BLI 2009, unpaginated), the seabirds killed in 
long-line fisheries are predominantly albatrosses and other species of 
petrels (not Pterodroma species). The characteristics of a petrel 
species vulnerable to long-line fishing (seabird that is aggressive and 
good at seizing prey (or baited hooks) at the water's surface, or is a 
proficient diver) do not describe the Pterodroma species. Although we 
are unaware of any documented cases of incidental take of Galapagos 
petrels by commercial long-line fishing operations or entanglement in 
marine debris, long-line fishing operations in the eastern Pacific 
Ocean have been identified as a potential threat to the Galapagos 
petrel (BLI 2009, unpaginated). In particular, long-line fishing in the 
Galapagos Marine Reserve was suggested as a factor in affecting 
foraging birds (BLI 2009, unpaginated). In 2004, fishermen seized 
Galapagos National Park headquarters and a scientific research station 
to demand, among other things, permission to use long-line fishing in 
the Galapagos Marine Reserve. To end the standoff, the government of 
Ecuador agreed to review the rules regarding the Galapagos Marine 
Reserve (New York Times 2004, unpaginated). A separate report published 
in the same year described the illegal long-lines as 
``crisscross[ing]'' the reserve ``like spider webs'' (Hile 2004, 
unpaginated). However, there is no information indicating that, 
subsequent to 2004, commercial long-line fishing is permitted in the 
Galapagos Marine Reserve or that Galapagos petrels have been injured or 
killed by long-line fishing operations in the Marine Reserve or 
elsewhere in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Therefore, based on the best 
available information regarding the threat of long-line fishing on the 
Galapagos petrel, we are not able to determine the significance of this 
threat to this bird.
    The first legislation to specifically protect the Galapagos Islands 
and its wildlife and plants was enacted in 1934 and further 
supplemented in 1936, but effective legislation was not passed until 
1959, when the Ecuadorian government passed new legislation declaring 
the islands a National Park (Fitter et al. 2000, p. 216; Jackson 1985, 
pp. 7, 230; Stewart 2006, p. 164).
    The Galapagos Islands were declared a World Heritage Site (WHS) 
under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1978 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 
n.d.(a)), as they were recognized to be ``cultural and natural heritage 
of outstanding universal value that needs to be protected and 
preserved'' (UNESCO World Heritage Centre n.d.(b)). The aim of 
establishment as a WHS is conservation of the site for future 
generations (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2008). However, in June 2007, 
due to threats to this site posed by introduced invasive species, 
increasing tourism, and immigration, the World Heritage Committee 
placed the Galapagos on the ``List of World Heritage in Danger.'' This 
is intended to increase support for their conservation (UNESCO World 
Heritage Centre News 2007a). In March 2008, the UNESCO World Heritage 
Centre/United Nations Foundation project for invasive species 
management provided funding of $2.19 million U.S. (USD) to the 
Ecuadorian National Environmental Fund's ``Galapagos Invasive Species'' 
account to support invasive species control and eradication activities 
on the islands (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2008). In addition, 
the Ecuador government previously had contributed $1 million USD to 
this fund (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2008), demonstrating the 
government of Ecuador's commitment to reducing the threat of invasive 
species to the islands.
    Ecuador designated the Galapagos Islands as a National Park and the 
islands were declared a World Heritage Site in 1979 (BLI 2009, 
unpaginated). In the 1990s, overall fishing pressure in the waters 
around the Galapagos Islands increased rapidly and led in 1998 to 
establishment of the Galapagos Marine Reserve (Bustamante et al. 2000, 
p. 3), which is a legally protected area. The reserve boundaries are 40 
nautical mi from the outermost points of land of the archipelago, and 
protected within those

[[Page 242]]

boundaries are almost all of the ecologically important nutrient-rich 
areas for wide-ranging species, including seabirds (Bustamante et al. 
2000, p. 3). The Law of the Special Regimen for the Conservation and 
Sustainable Development of the Province of the Galapagos, has given the 
islands some legislative support to establish regulations related to 
the transport of introduced species and implement a quarantine and 
inspection system (Causton et al. 2000, p. 10; Instituto Nacional 
Gal[aacute]pagos n.d.; Smith 2005, p. 304). Large-scale industrial 
fishing is banned in the marine reserve, although local or artisanal 
fishing is permitted (Charles Darwin Foundation N.D.d, unpaginated).
    In 1999, the Inspection and Quarantine System for Galapagos 
(SICGAL) was implemented (Causton et al. 2006, p. 121) with the aim of 
preventing introduced species from reaching the islands (Causton et al. 
2000, p. 10; Charles Darwin Foundation n.d.d, unpaginated). Inspectors 
are stationed at points of entry and exit in the Galapagos Islands and 
Continental Ecuador, where they check freight and luggage for permitted 
and prohibited items (Charles Darwin Foundation n.d.d, unpaginated). 
The goal is to rapidly contain and eliminate newly arrived species 
(detected by SICGAL and early warning monitoring programs) that are 
considered threats for the Galapagos Islands (Causton et al. 2006, p. 
121). However, a scarcity of information on alien insect species 
currently in the Galapagos Islands prevents officials from knowing 
whether or not a newly detected insect is in fact a recent introduction 
(Causton et al. 2006, p. 121). Without the necessary information to 
make this determination, they cannot afford to spend the time and 
resources on a rapid response when the ``new introduction'' is actually 
a species that already occurs elsewhere in the Galapagos Islands 
(Causton et al. 2006, p. 121).
    The April 2007 World Heritage Centre--IUCN monitoring mission 
report assessed, based on information gathered during their monitoring 
mission and multiple meetings, the state of conservation in the 
Galapagos Islands and found continuing problems (UNESCO World Heritage 
Centre 2007). The UNESCO World Heritage Centre indicated that there is 
a continuing lack of political will, leadership, and authority, and it 
is a limiting factor in the full application and enforcement of the 
Special Law for Galapagos (2007). They also reported that there appears 
to be a general lack of effective enforcement (UNESCO World Heritage 
Centre 2007).
    At the same time, the risk from invasive species is rapidly 
increasing, while the Agricultural Health Service of Ecuador (SESA) and 
SICGAL have inadequate staff and capacity to deal with the nature and 
scale of the problem (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2007). SICGAL 
estimates that 779 invertebrates [interpreted as 779 individuals] 
entered the Galapagos Islands via aircraft in 2006 (UNESCO World 
Heritage Centre 2007). In addition, the staff of the Galapagos National 
Park lacks the capacity and facilities for effective law enforcement 
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2007).
    Previous UNESCO-IUCN Galapagos mission reports (in 2005 and 2006) 
to the World Heritage Committee have consistently outlined major 
threats to the long-term conservation of the Galapagos Islands, 
including the introduction of nonnative plant and animal species, and 
the inability to apply laws (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2007b). 
UNESCO World Heritage Centre reports that despite an excellent legal 
framework, national government institutions encounter difficulties in 
ensuring its full application (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 
2007b).
Summary of Factor D
    In summary, Ecuador has developed numerous laws and regulatory 
mechanisms to administer and manage wildlife in the Galapagos Islands. 
Additional regulations have created an inspection and quarantine system 
in order to prevent the introduction of non-native species. However, 
this program does little to eradicate nonnative species already 
introduced to the Galapagos Islands. The impacts to the species are 
likely to increase in the foreseeable future due to the lack of 
effective laws and regulatory mechanisms that are implemented in the 
Galapagos Islands. Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory 
mechanisms currently in place are inadequate to address the threats 
from loss of habitat and predation due to nonnative species throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range now and in the foreseeable 
future.

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

    Oil and chemical spills can have direct effects on Galapagos petrel 
populations, and based on previous incidents, although rare incidences, 
we consider these to be a significant threat to the species. For 
example, on January 16, 2001, a tanker ran aground at Schiavoni Reef, 
about 2625 ft (800 m) from Puerto Baquerizo Moreno on San 
Crist[oacute]bal Island (Woram 2007, unpaginated). By January 28, 2001, 
the slick reached the islands of Isabela and Floreana. Only one 
Galapagos petrel from Crist[oacute]bal Island is documented to have 
died; however, 370 large animals were reported to be contaminated by 
oil and 62 percent of the marine iguanas on Santa Fe Island died within 
a year of after the oil spill occurred (Wikelski, 2002, p. 607). The 
total effect of the oil spill on Galapagos petrels and other species is 
difficult to quantify for a variety of reasons. However, due to the 
behavior of ocean-dependent species and the high toxicity of diesel, 
many affected petrels might have died and sunk undetected. In addition, 
the effects of oiling may be highly localized, and given the vastness 
of the Galapagos coastline, this could make detection unlikely. Because 
the long-term effects of oiling were not monitored, the total mortality 
from this event is likely underestimated (Lougheed et al. 2002, 
unpaginated). Oil and chemical spill events are likely to occur again 
in this species' habitat. Therefore, we find that oil and chemical 
spills are a threat to the Galapagos petrel in its nonbreeding (marine) 
habitat now and in the foreseeable future.
    A recent but potentially significant threat to the Galapagos petrel 
is the threat of collisions with structures such as power lines, and 
cellular telephone and other radio towers (Cruz Delgado and Wiedenfeld 
2005, cited in BLI 2009; Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). Rapid 
growth of the human population on Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa 
Cruz, and southern Isabela Islands may lead to the proliferation of new 
power lines and cellular telephone structures. Many bird species, 
including seabirds such as the Newell's shearwater on Kauai in the 
Hawaiian Islands, are known to strike objects such as antennas, guy 
wires, light poles, transmission lines, wind turbines, communication 
towers, and other tall objects. Bird kills caused by towers and related 
structures have been documented for over 50 years (Kerlinger 2000, pp. 
4, 26; Manville 2005, pp. 1051-1061; Podolsky et al. 1998 abstract 
only; Shire et al. 2000, p. 3). A proposed project to construct wind 
generators on Baltra Island and extend power lines across Santa Cruz 
Island to the town of Puerto Ayora may significantly increase adult 
petrel mortality from collisions with transmission lines and associated 
structures (e.g., posts) (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). 
Therefore, we consider collisions with power lines,

[[Page 243]]

cellular telephone and other radio towers, and large wind turbines to 
be a significant threat to the species throughout all of its range now 
and in the foreseeable future.
    Barbed wire fences on agricultural lands cause mortality in adult 
Galapagos petrels (BLI 2009a). With the exception of Santiago Island, 
agricultural lands are present throughout the species' breeding range. 
Although there is no information available regarding the numbers and 
trends of mortality due to fences, this source of mortality in 
combination with other threats from collisions with structures and 
chemical and oil spills poses a significant risk to the survival of the 
species on all islands in its breeding range except Santiago.
    There is evidence that the productivity of Galapagos petrel 
populations is indirectly affected by fluctuations in ocean 
temperatures and currents, which impact the Galapagos petrel's prey 
base. During the El Ni[ntilde]o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) of 1982-
1983, Cruz and Cruz (1990b, p. 160) found that the growth rate of 
Galapagos petrel chicks was lower and fledging occurred later than in 
other years. These so-called ``ENSO chicks'' reached a lower peak mass 
at a later age than non-ENSO chicks. The extended nestling period and 
reduced growth rates of ENSO chicks are believed to reflect a decline 
in the availability of food resources because of diminishing ocean 
productivity during the ENSO. Limited to no information is available on 
the long-term effect on petrel population productivity due to the 
change in ocean temperatures and currents. Based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information available, we determine that this 
is not a threat to the Galapagos petrel.
Summary of Factor E
    Rapid growth of the human population on Floreana, San 
Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and southern Isabela Islands has lead to 
an increase in manmade threats such as oil and chemical spills, 
collisions with communications and energy-related structures (such as 
transmission lines and cellular telephone and radio towers), and 
collisions with barbed wire fences on agricultural lands. These threats 
are continuing to impact the Galapagos petrel; there is no indication 
that they are likely to decrease in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 
we find that the other natural or manmade factors discussed above 
threaten the Galapagos petrel throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range now and in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion and Determination for the Galapagos Petrel

    Section 3 of the Act defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as ``any species which 
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Galapagos 
petrel is currently affected by a variety of threats across its entire 
geographic range. As we have not yet observed the extirpation of local 
populations or recent steep declines in the abundance of the species, 
we do not believe the status of the species is such that it is 
presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Therefore, we do not believe this species meets 
the definition of an endangered species. We can, however, reasonably 
anticipate the impacts of the threats on this species rangewide, and we 
believe those threats acting in combination are likely to result in the 
species becoming endangered within the foreseeable future.
    We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the Galapagos petrel. In the 1980s, the 
Galapagos petrel was reported to have declined as much as 81 percent in 
4 years due primarily to predation by introduced predators. However, as 
discussed above (see Factor C) there is some question regarding the 
accuracy of the drastic decreases in Galapagos petrel numbers reported 
in the 1980s (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008). According to BLI (2009a), 
conservation efforts have slowed but not halted the population decline. 
Regardless, the population is currently estimated to be between 10,000 
and 19,999 birds with a decreasing population trend (BLI 2009a).
    Threats to this species include predators such as rats, cats, and 
goats, clearing for agriculture, and invasive plants such as Cinchona 
pubescens (particularly on Santa Cruz island), Lantana sp. 
(particularly on Floreana island), and Rubus niveus on Santa Cruz, 
Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, and Isabela Islands. The Galapagos 
petrel's breeding habitat is threatened by introduced species, by feral 
mammals on the islands of Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, 
and southern Isabela by invasive plants on all islands within its 
range; and by agricultural expansion (Factor A). Despite predator 
control efforts, the Galapagos petrel continues to be threatened by one 
or more predators on all of the islands within the species' breeding 
range (Factor C). Collisions with communications and energy-related 
transmission lines and structures by Galapagos petrels as they fly 
between their nesting colonies and the ocean are a significant threat 
to this species throughout its range (Factor E). Barbed wire fences are 
reported to pose a threat to Galapagos petrels in agricultural lands on 
the islands of Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and southern 
Isabela (Factor E). In addition, we have determined that the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms to reduce or remove these threats is 
a contributory factor to the risks that threaten this species' 
continued existence (Factor D). These factors are likely to continue 
into the foreseeable future.
    The threats within the species' breeding range are compounded by 
the threats to the species within its range at sea. Oil spills can have 
direct effects on Galapagos petrel populations, and based on the 
occurrence of a previous incident within the species' range at sea, we 
consider this a significant threat to the species (Factor E). Because 
the survival of this species is dependent on recruitment of chicks from 
its breeding range, the threats to this species within its breeding 
range puts the species at risk.
    The overall population number of the Galapagos petrel is estimated 
at 10,000 to fewer than 19,999 birds (BLI 2009). As a result, the 
species does not currently appear to be in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. However, based on 
the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that the 
Galapagos petrel is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Therefore, we have determined that the Galapagos petrel meets 
the definition of a threatened species throughout all of its range 
under the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

    Having determined that the Galapagos petrel is likely to become in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of 
its range, we also considered whether there are any significant 
portions of its range where the species is currently in danger of 
extinction.
    The Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
a threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered

[[Page 244]]

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' The term ``significant portion of its range'' 
is not defined by statute. For purposes of this finding, a significant 
portion of a species' range is an area that is important to the 
conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the 
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The 
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a 
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
    The first step in determining whether a species is endangered in a 
significant portion of its range is to identify any portions of the 
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of 
the range that are not reasonably likely to be sig