41832 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Oregon, is amended 

by adding Maupin, Channel 244C2. 

Andrew J. Rhodes, 

Senior Counsel, Allocations, Audio Division, 

Media Bureau, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–19872 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 09–1795; MB Docket No. 09–146; RM– 

11553] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Chicago, IL 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has before it 

a petition for rulemaking filed by WLS 

Television, Inc. (‘‘WLS’’), the licensee of 

station WLS–TV, DTV channel 7, 

Chicago, Illinois. WLS–TV requests the 

substitution of transition DTV channel 

44 for its post-transition DTV channel 7 

at Chicago. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before September 3, 2009, and reply 

comments on or before September 14, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

Tom W. Davidson, Esq., Akin Gump 

Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 1333 New 

Hampshire Ave., NW., Washington, DC 

20026. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Y. Denysyk, 

adrienne.denysyk@fcc.gov, Media 

Bureau, (202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

09–146, adopted August 11, 2009, and 

released August 12, 2009. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 

800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television, Television broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.622(i) [Amended] 

2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments 

under Illinois, is amended by adding 

DTV channel 44 and removing DTV 

channel 7 at Chicago. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Clay C. Pendarvis, 

Associate Chief, Video Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E9–19875 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0049;1111 FY08 MO-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List the Ashy Storm-Petrel 

as Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12–month finding on a petition to list 

the ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma 

homochroa) as threatened or 

endangered, under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

After a thorough review of all available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing the ashy stormpetrel is not warranted. We ask the 

public to continue to submit to us any 

new information concerning the status 

of, and threats to, this species. This 

information will help us to monitor and 

encourage the conservation of this 

species. 

DATES: The finding announced in the 

document was made on August 19, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.fws.gov/arcata/. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, 

Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 707-822- 

7201; facsimile 707-822-8411. Please 

submit any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randy Brown, (Acting) Field 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41833 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

that listing may be warranted, we make 

a finding within 12 months of the date 

of our receipt of the petition on whether 

the petitioned action is: (a) Not 

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) 

warranted, but the immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

any species is threatened or endangered, 

and expeditious progress is being made 

to add or remove qualified species from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Such 12–month 

findings are to be published promptly in 

the Federal Register. Section 4(b)(3)(C) 

of the Act requires that we treat a 

petition for which the requested action 

is found to be warranted but precluded 

as though resubmitted on the date of 

such finding, and we must make a 

subsequent finding within 12 months. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 16, 2007, we received a 

petition, dated October 15, 2007, from 

the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD 

or petitioner), requesting that we list the 

ashy storm-petrel as a threatened or 

endangered species throughout its range 

and that we concurrently designate 

critical habitat (CBD 2007, pp. 1-51). In 

response to the petition, we sent a letter 

to the petitioner dated January 11, 2008, 

stating that we had secured funding and 

that we anticipated making an initial 

finding as to whether the petition 

contained substantial information 

indicating listing the ashy storm-petrel 

may be warranted in Fiscal Year 2008. 

We also concluded in our January 11, 

2008, letter that emergency listing of the 

ashy storm-petrel was not warranted. 

On May 15, 2008, we published a 90– 

day petition finding (73 FR 28080) in 

which we concluded that the petition 

provided substantial information 

indicating that listing of the ashy stormpetrel may be warranted, and we 

initiated a status review. This notice 

constitutes the 12–month finding on the 

petition, dated October 15, 2007, to list 

the ashy storm-petrel as threatened or 

endangered. 

Species Description 

The ashy storm-petrel is a seabird 

species belonging to the order 

Procellariiformes, family Hydrobatidae. 

The ashy storm-petrel is one of five 

storm-petrel species (including forktailed (Oceanodroma furcata), Leach’s 

(O. leucorhoa), black (O. melania), and 

least (O. microsoma) storm-petrels) that 

nest on islands along the west coast of 

North America (Harrison 1983, pp. 272- 

278). The ashy storm-petrel is a smokegray, medium-sized bird with long 

slender wings, a long forked tail, and 

webbed feet (Ainley 1995, p. 2). 

Ashy storm-petrels have been 

confirmed to breed at 26 locations (on 

islands and offshore rocks) from 

Mendocino County, California, south to 

Todos Santos Islands, west of Ensenada, 

Baja California, Mexico (Carter et al. 

1992, pp. 77-81; Ainley 1995, p. 2; 

Carter et al. 2006, p. 6; Carter et al. 

2008a, p. 118). Greater than 95 percent 

of the species breeds in two population 

centers at the Farallon Islands and in 

the California Channel Islands (Sowls et 

al. 1980, p. 24; Ainley et al. 1990, p. 

135; Carter et al. 1992, p. 86). Anacapa, 

San Miguel, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San 

Clemente, San Nicholas, Santa Barbara, 

and Santa Catalina islands comprise the 

Channel Islands. 

Ashy storm-petrels occur at their 

breeding colonies nearly year-round and 

occur in greater numbers from February 

through October (Ainley 1995, p. 5). 

Like other procellariids, ashy stormpetrels are highly philopatric; that is, 

birds usually return in consecutive 

years to the same breeding site or colony 

from which they were raised as chicks 

(James-Veitch 1970, p. 81; Warham 

1990, p. 12). Ashy storm-petrels do not 

excavate burrows; rather, they nest in 

crevices of talus slopes, rock walls, sea 

caves, cliffs, and driftwood (JamesVeitch 1970, pp. 87-88; Ainley et al. 

1990, p. 147; McIver 2002, p. 1). The 

breeding season is protracted, and 

breeding activities (courtship, egglaying, chick-rearing) at nesting 

locations occur from February through 

January of the following year (JamesVeitch 1970, p. 71, Ainley et al. 1974, 

p. 301). During the pre-egg period, adult 

ashy storm-petrels begin to visit nesting 

sites in February (Ainley et al. 1974, p. 

301; Ainley 1995, p. 5). Throughout the 

fledging period, the number of visiting 

adults declines (Ainley et al. 1974, p. 

301). At Southeast Farallon Island, 

Ainley et al. (1974, p. 301) reported that 

immature (non-breeding) ashy stormpetrels visited the island from April 

through early July. The egg-laying 

period extends from late April to 

October, peaking in June and July 

(James-Veitch 1970, p. 243; Ainley et al. 

1990, p. 148; McIver 2002, p. 17). Clutch 

size is one egg per year, and parents 

alternate incubation bouts during a 44– 

day incubation period (James-Veitch 

1970, p. 244; Ainley 1995, p. 6). Less 

than about 4 percent of all eggs laid are 

replacement (or re-lay) eggs, laid after 

the failure of a first egg (Ainley et al. 

1990, p. 148; McIver 2002, p. 18). 

Hatchlings are ‘‘semi-precocial’’ (JamesVeitch 1970, p. 128). The term semiprecocial describes young that have 

characteristics of precocial young at 

hatching (open eyes, downy, capacity to 

leave the nest), but that remain at the 

nest and are cared for by parents until 

close to adult size (Sibley 2001, p. 573). 

Once hatched, the nestling is brooded 

for about 5 days, after which it remains 

alone in the nest site for an additional 

75 to 85 days (James-Veitch 1970, pp. 

141, 212; Ainley et al. 1990, p. 152). It 

is fed irregularly (1 to 3 nights on 

average) during brief, nocturnal visits by 

its parents from feeding areas at sea 

(James-Veitch 1970, pp. 180-208). 

Fledging occurs at night, from late 

August to January, and once they leave 

the nest, fledglings are independent of 

their parents (Ainley et al. 1974, p. 303; 

McIver 2002, p. 36). Peak fledging 

occurs in early to mid-October (McIver 

2002, p. 18). 

The nocturnal activity (return to and 

departure from nest) and crevice nesting 

of the ashy storm-petrel are believed to 

be adaptations to avoid predation by 

diurnal predators, such as western gulls 

(Larus occidentalis), peregrine falcons 

(Falco peregrinus), and common ravens 

(Corvus corax) (Ainley 1995, p. 5; 

McIver and Carter 2006, p. 3). Ashy 

storm-petrels are susceptible to 

predation at night by burrowing owls 

(Athene cunicularia) and barn owls 

(Tyto alba) (Ainley 1995, p. 5; McIver 

2002, p. 30). Nesting in crevices and 

burrows on remote headlands, offshore 

rocks, and islands generally reduces 

predation of storm-petrels by 

mammalian predators (Warham 1990, p. 

13). Known mammalian predators of 

ashy storm-petrels and their eggs 

include house mice (Mus musculus), 

deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), 

and island spotted skunks (Spilogale 

gracilis amphiala) (Ainley et al. 1990, p. 

146; McIver 2002, pp. 40-41; McIver and 

Carter 2006, p. 3). 

Obtaining direct population counts of 

ashy storm-petrels is difficult because 

the species often nests in deep, 

inaccessible crevices (Carter et al. 1992, 

p. 77; Sydeman et al. 1998a, p. 438). 

Techniques for estimating population 

size at breeding locations have included 

counting crevices and applying 

correction factors to account for burrow 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41834 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

occupancy, mark and recapture using 

mist nests, and direct observation of 

nest sites. Estimates of breeding ashy 

storm-petrels for California have ranged 

from 5,187 (Sowls et al. 1980, p. 25) to 

7,209 (Carter et al. 1992, p. I-87). 

Additional colony sites and larger ashy 

storm-petrel numbers have been found 

at several locations in the Channel 

Islands and along the mainland coast of 

California (Carter et al. 2008a, p. 119). 

Table 1 provides various estimates of 

numbers of breeding ashy storm-petrels 

at 26 locations in California and Baja 

California Norte, Mexico. 

TABLE 1. ESTIMATES OF NUMBERS OF BREEDING ASHY STORM-PETRELS AT 26 LOCATIONS IN CALIFORNIA (UNITED

STATES) AND BAJA CALIFORNIA NORTE (MEXICO). 

Location Ownership or 

Managementa

Estimated No. 

Breeding Birds 

Source for 

Breeding Birds 

Estimatesb

1 Bird Rock near Greenwood, Mendocino County BLM 10 1,2,3 

2 Caspar, near Point Cabrillo, Mendocino County BLM 10 1,2,3 

3 Bird Rock, Marin County NPS 10 4 

4 Stormy Stack, Marin County NPS 10 4 

5a Southeast Farallon Island FWS 4,000 5 

5b Southeast Farallon Island FWS 3,402 6 

5c Southeast Farallon Island FWS 1,990 6 

6 Castle/Hurricane Colony Complex, Monterey County BLM 60 7 

7 Castle Rock, Santa Barbara County USN/NPS 200 8 

8 Prince Island USN/NPS 1,154 1 

9 Shipwreck Cave, Santa Cruz Island TNC/NPS 20 9 

10 Dry Sandy Beach Cave, Santa Cruz Island TNC/NPS 80 10,11,12,13 

11 Del Mar Rock, Santa Cruz Island NPS 10 1 

12 Cave of the Bird’s Eggs, Santa Cruz Island TNC/NPS 52 10,11,12,13 

13 Diablo Rocks, Santa Cruz Island NPS 20 8 

14 Orizaba (‘‘Sppit’’) Rock, Santa Cruz Island NPS 40 10,11,12,13 

15 Bat Cave, Santa Cruz Island NPS 48 10,11,12,13 

16 Cavern Point Cove Caves, Santa Cruz Island NPS 0 10,11,12,13 

17 Scorpion Rocks, Santa Cruz Island NPS 140 1 

18 Willows Anchorage Rocks, Santa Cruz Island NPS 111 1 

19 Gull Island NPS 2 8 

20 Santa Barbara Island NPS 874 1 

21 Sutil Island NPS 586 1 

22 Shag Rock NPS 10 13 

23 Ship Rock, Santa Catalina Island BLM 2 14 

24 Seal Cove Area, San Clemente Island BLM 10 15 

25 Islas Los Coronados, Mexico MX 100 16 

26 Islas Todos Santos, Mexico MX 10 17 

Total, if using line 5a 7,569 

Total, if using line 5b 6,971 

Total, if using line 5c 5,559 

aEntity listed once if same for both ownership and management, as follows: Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Mexican Government (MX); 

National Park Service (NPS); The Nature Conservancy (TNC); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and U.S. Navy (USN). 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41835 

bSources are as follows: 1-Carter et al. 1992; 2-Carter et al. 2008a; 3-Carter et al. unpublished notes; 4-Whitworth et al. 2002; 5-Ainley and 

Lewis 1974; 6-Sydeman et al. 1998a; 7-McChesney et al. 2000; 8-Hunt et al. 1979; 9-H. Carter, unpublished data; 10-McIver 2002; 11-McIver 

and Carter 2006; 12-Carter et al. 2007; 13-McIver et al. 2008; 14-FWS estimate, based on Carter et al. 2008a; 15-H. Carter and D. Whitworth, 

unpublished data; 16-Carter et al. 2006a; and 17-Carter et al 2006b. 

Four thousand to six thousand ashy 

storm-petrels are usually observed in 

the fall in Monterey Bay, approximately 

3 to 10 miles (mi) (5 to 16 kilometers 

(km)) offshore from the town of Moss 

Landing, California. As many as 10,000 

ashy storm-petrels were estimated to be 

present in Monterey Bay in October 

1977 and in September 2008 (Roberson 

1985, p. 42; Shearwater Journeys 2008). 

However, both of these estimates were 

from non-standardized visual estimates. 

Spear and Ainley (2007, p. 27) 

examined the seasonal at-sea 

distributions and abundance of stormpetrel species (including ashy stormpetrels) with generalized additive 

models, and estimated 4,207 and 7,287 

birds during autumn and spring, 

respectively (95 percent confidence 

interval: 2,700 to 6,400 in autumn and 

4,500 to 9,070 in spring) off of Sonoma 

to Monterey counties. Spear and Ainley 

(2007, p. 7) suggested that higher 

numbers of ashy storm-petrels may 

occur at Southeast Farallon Island, and 

other of the Farallon Islands, than have 

previously been reported. The total 

population of ashy storm-petrels 

(including breeders and non-breeders) 

has been estimated to be approximately 

10,000 birds (Sowls et al. 1980, p. 24; 

Ainley 1995, p.1). Based on estimates at 

breeding locations and at-sea 

observations in Monterey Bay and off 

Sonoma to Monterey counties, we 

consider 7,000 to 10,000 birds to be a 

reasonable estimate of the total 

population size of ashy storm-petrels. 

However, based on other visual 

estimates mentioned above, the total 

population could be as high as 13,000 

birds. 

More ashy storm-petrels breed at 

Southeast Farallon Island than at any 

other single location (Sowls et al. 1980, 

p. 24; Carter et al. 1992, p. I-78). 

Assessing population size and trends 

has been done through capturerecapture techniques using audio 

playback and mist nets (see Ainley and 

Lewis 1974, p. 435; Sydeman et al. 

1998a, p. 438). Ainley and Lewis (1974, 

pp. 432-435) estimated 4,000 breeding 

ashy storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island in years 1971 to 1972, from birds 

captured and recaptured in mist nets at 

night. Sydeman et al. (1998a, p. 438- 

442) re-analyzed data from Southeast 

Farallon Island for years 1971 and 1972 

(Ainley and Lewis 1974) and included 

data from year 1992 to estimate 6,461 

total ashy storm-petrels and 3,402 

breeding ashy storm-petrels in 1971 to 

1972, and 4,284 total ashy storm-petrels 

and 1,990 breeding ashy storm-petrels 

in 1992. Based on comparison of these 

data sets, Sydeman et al. (1998a, p. 442) 

suggested declines of 34 percent and 42 

percent in the total population and 

breeding population of ashy stormpetrels, respectively, at Southeast 

Farallon Island. Sydeman et al. (1998a, 

pp. 445-446) reported that this decline 

occurred in prime storm-petrel nesting 

habitat, and suggested that this decline 

in population size at Southeast Farallon 

Island was due to, in part, an increase 

in the predation rate on ashy stormpetrel adults and sub-adults by western 

gulls and burrowing owls. We interpret 

these results cautiously because they are 

based on two data points: one from 1972 

and one 20 years later from 1992. 

Sydeman et al. (1998b, pp. 1-74) 

conducted a population viability 

assessment of ashy storm-petrels at 

Southeast Farallon Island, quantitatively 

examining the effects of predation on 

population decrease of ashy stormpetrels. Sydeman et al. (1998b, pp. 1-2) 

estimated a 2.87 percent decline in the 

population of ashy storm-petrels from 

1972 to 1992 and hypothesized that 

removal of western gull predation 

would produce a stable population. 

They also stated, given current 

population parameters and predation 

rates, the population of ashy stormpetrels faces a high probability of quasiextinction within 50 years (Sydeman et 

al. 1998b, p. 2). Since 1992, capturerecapture of ashy storm-petrels at 

Southeast Farallon Island has continued 

and techniques have been further 

standardized (McChesney 2008, p. 4). 

Using data from 1999 to 2007, Warzybok 

and Bradley (2007, p. 17) describe 

analysis of capture-recapture data that 

shows increasing capture rates and 

increasing survival of ashy stormpetrels. Specifically, they report the 

mean standardized capture rate (number 

of birds caught per hour of effort) 

increased from approximately 13 birds 

per hour to 38 birds per hour between 

1999 and 2005 but declined slightly in 

2006. The mean capture rate for 2007 

was 39 birds per hour (Warzybok and 

Bradley 2007, p. 17). The authors also 

note that there were a greater number of 

occupied nesting sites than in previous 

years. Although there are caveats 

associated with Warzybok and Bradley’s 

(2007) analysis (See Factor C: Disease 

and Predation section below), their 

report represents the best available 

information to date and suggests an 

increasing population of ashy stormpetrels. 

Research on reproductive success (or 

productivity, defined as number of 

fledged chicks per adult pair) of the 

ashy storm-petrel has been conducted 

only at Southeast Farallon Island 

(James-Veitch 1970, pp. 1-366; Ainley et 

al. 1990, pp. 128-162; Sydeman et al. 

1998a, pp. 1-74; PRBO Conservation 

Science,) and Santa Cruz Island (McIver 

2002, pp. 1-70; McIver and Carter 2006, 

pp. 1-6; Carter et al. 2007, pp. 1-32; 

McIver et al. 2008, pp. 1-23; McIver et 

al. 2009, pp. 1-30; McIver et al., in 

preparation, pp. 1-23). Reported 

productivity values are presented in 

Table 2. 

TABLE 2. AVERAGE VALUES FOR PRODUCTIVITY (FLEDGED CHICKS PER ADULT PAIR) OF ASHY STORM-PETRELS AT SOUTHEAST FARALLON ISLAND AND SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, CALIFORNIA, FOR SEVERAL STUDIES DURING 1964-1966 AND

1971-2008. SAMPLE SIZES ARE SHOWN IN PARENTHESES. 

Location Productivity Years Source 

Southeast Farallon Island 0.42a(n = 184) 1964-1966 James-Veitch (1970) 

Southeast Farallon Island 0.69(n = 356) 1972-1983b Ainley and Boekelheide (1990) 

Southeast Farallon Island 0.74d(n = 540) 1971-1992b Sydeman et al. (1998b) 

Southeast Farallon Island 0.54c(n = 283) 1996-2007e PRBO Conservation Science unpublished data; Warzybok 

and Bradley (2007) 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41836 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2. AVERAGE VALUES FOR PRODUCTIVITY (FLEDGED CHICKS PER ADULT PAIR) OF ASHY STORM-PETRELS AT SOUTHEAST FARALLON ISLAND AND SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, CALIFORNIA, FOR SEVERAL STUDIES DURING 1964-1966 AND

1971-2008. SAMPLE SIZES ARE SHOWN IN PARENTHESES.—Continued 

Location Productivity Years Source 

Santa Cruz Island 0.55(n = 477) 1995-1998 McIver et al. in preparation, Table 4 

Santa Cruz Island 0.65(n = 293) 2005-2008 McIver et al. in preparation, Table 4; McIver et al. (2009) 

aResearcher disturbance (daily nest checks) negatively affected productivity. 

bExcludes year 1977, when researcher disturbance negatively affected productivity. 

cSample sizes not provided for year 1996-2005, so annual sample size during this time period. assumed at 22 nests, based on average sample size in Sydeman et al. (1998b). dBased on two data points. 

eBased on yearly date. 

No data are currently available 

regarding adult life span, survivorship, 

and age at first breeding for ashy stormpetrels (Ainley 1995, p. 8). However, 

like other procellariids, storm-petrels 

are long-lived (Warham 1996, p. 20). 

Some ashy storm-petrels reach 25 years 

old (Sydeman et al. 1998b, p. 7), and 

breeding adults over 20 years in age 

have been reported in the closely related 

Leach’s storm-petrel (Morse and 

Bucheister 1977, p. 344). Mean age of 

first breeding in the Leach’s storm-petrel 

has been reported at 5.9 years ± 1.3 

years (Huntington et al. 1996, p. 19). 

Sydeman et al. (1998b, p. 7) concluded 

that 90 percent of adult ashy stormpetrels were capable of breeding at 6 

years of age. 

Marine Environment 

Ashy storm-petrels are not as 

migratory as other storm-petrel species, 

foraging primarily in the California 

Current, from northern California to 

central Baja California, Mexico; the 

birds forage in areas of upwelling, 

seaward of the continental shelf, near 

islands and the coast (Ainley et al. 1974, 

p. 300; Briggs et al. 1987, p. 23; Mason 

et al. 2007, p. 60). The California 

Current flows along the west coast of 

North America, and like three other 

major, global, eastern boundary (along 

the eastern edges of oceanic gyres and 

the western edges of continents) 

currents, is characterized by the 

upwelling of cool, nutrient-rich waters, 

which results in increased productivity 

of the ocean (i.e., production of 

phytoplankton and zooplankton) in the 

region (Hickey 1993, pp. 19-70). The 

California Current extends about 190 mi 

(300 km) offshore from southern British 

Columbia, Canada, to Baja California, 

Mexico, and is comprised of a 

southward surface current, and a 

northward (poleward) undercurrent and 

surface countercurrents (Miller et al. 

1999, p. 1; Dailey et al. 1993, pp. 8-10). 

Upwelling is an oceanographic 

phenomenon that involves wind-driven 

motion of dense, cooler, and usually 

nutrient-rich water towards the ocean 

surface, which replaces the warmer and 

usually nutrient-depleted surface water 

(Smith 1983, pp. 1-2). Coastal upwelling 

replenishes nutrients in the euphotic 

zone (zone of water where 

photosynthesis occurs), resulting in 

increased productivity in higher trophic 

levels (position within the food chain) 

(Batchelder et al. 2002, p. 37). 

Crossin (1974, p. 176) observed ashy 

storm-petrels as far north as latitude 49° 

N, as far south as latitude 7° S, and 

approximately 300 mi (480 km) from 

shore near latitude 14° N. However, 

Spear and Ainley (2007, p. 7) disputed 

these observations and state that these 

observations likely represented 

misidentified dark-rumped Leach’s 

storm-petrels. At-sea observations of 

ashy storm-petrels south of Islas San 

Benitos, Mexico (latitude 28° N) are 

unusual, and most observations of the 

species are off the coasts of California 

and Baja California Norte, Mexico 

(Briggs et al. 1987, p. 23; Ainley 1995, 

p. 2). Aerial and boat observations at-sea 

confirm that the species is associated 

with pelagic (offshore) waters along the 

slope of and just seaward of the 

Continental Shelf and the Monterey 

Submarine Canyon, and less often in 

neritic (nearshore) waters (Briggs et al. 

1987, p. 23; Mason et al. 2007, pp. 56- 

60; Adams and Takekawa 2008, pp. 12- 

13). Ashy storm-petrels are not known 

to be associated with the deeper and 

warmer oceanic waters west of the 

California Current, unlike the closelyrelated Leach’s storm-petrel (Ainley et 

al. 1974, pp. 299-300). Thus, the Service 

considers the at-sea geographic 

distribution (i.e., marine range) of the 

ashy storm-petrel to include waters off 

the western coast of North America, 

from latitude 42° N (approximately the 

California-Oregon State line) south to 

latitude 28° N (approximately Islas San 

Benitos, Mexico), and approximately 75 

mi (120 km) out to sea from mainland 

and island coasts. The diet of ashy 

storm-petrels has not been extensively 

studied, but likely includes euphausiids 

(Euphausia spp., Thysanoessa), other 

crustaceans, larval lanternfish, 

unidentified fish, fish eggs, and squid 

(Warham 1990, p. 186; McChesney 

1999, pers. com.; Adams and Takekawa 

2008, p. 14). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 424 set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In 

making this finding, we summarize 

below information regarding the status 

and threats to this species in relation to 

the five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. In our 90–day finding for this 

petition (73 FR 28080), we organized 

potential threats under the five factors 

according to how they were organized 

and described in the petition. In this 

12–month finding, we analyze all of the 

potential threats described in the 

petition, but have reorganized them 

slightly under the factors that more 

appropriately categorize them. In 

making our 12–month finding, we 

considered and evaluated all scientific 

and commercial information available, 

including information received during 

and after the public comment period 

that ended July 14, 2008. 

Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Like most other procellariids, ashy 

storm-petrels feed mostly offshore or 

pelagically (Warham 1990, p. 10; Ainley 

1995, p. 2) and return to land to breed 

at locations on islands and offshore 

rocks protected from mammalian 

predators (Warham 1990, p. 13; Ainley 

1995, p. 3). Consequently, in this 

section, we describe various threats that 

may destroy, modify, or curtail the ashy 

storm-petrel’s marine and terrestrial 

habitats and range. The petitioner 

asserts that the ashy storm-petrel is 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41837 

being or will be negatively affected by 

current and future climate change 

(specific effects: reduction in ocean 

productivity; ocean acidification; and 

sea level rise), tourism (specific effects: 

disturbance of habitats and nesting 

birds), and introduced grasses (CBD 

2007, p. 15). The petitioner further 

asserts that the ashy storm-petrel’s atsea foraging habitat is being degraded by 

artificial (human-caused) light 

pollution, chemical and plastics 

pollution, and current and future 

oceanic changes related to climate 

change resulting from greenhouse gas 

emissions (CBD, p. 15); We 

addresspotential threats posed by 

artificial light pollution and chemical 

and plastics pollution under Factor E 

below. In this 12–month finding, we 

discuss under Factor A the following 

potential threats: (1) Climate change and 

associated effects—specifically, reduced 

productivity, ocean acidification, and 

sea-level rise; (2) introduced grasses; 

and (3) degradation of nesting habitats 

from tourism and military operations. 

The petitioner states that global 

warming will likely affect the ashy 

storm-petrel by causing warmer water 

and reduced upwelling, which reduces 

primary productivity in the California 

current system that would in turn 

decrease ashy storm-petrel breeding 

success and perhaps survival; global 

warming is leading to more intense El 

Nin ̃ o events that could lead to ashy 

storm-petrel breeding failures; sea-level 

rise will eliminate important ashy 

storm-petrel breeding habitat in sea 

caves and off-shore rocks in the Channel 

Islands; and ocean acidification may 

lead to declines in the prey species 

upon which petrels depend (CBD 2007, 

p 2). We discuss first below the various 

climate-related factors affecting ashy 

storm-petrels. 

El Nin ̃ o and Reduced Productivity 

The term El Nin ̃ o-Southern 

Oscillation (hereafter, El Nin ̃ o) is used 

to describe periodic basin-wide changes 

in air-sea interaction in the equatorial 

Pacific Ocean region, which result in 

increased sea-surface temperatures, 

reduced flow of eastern boundary 

currents, and reduced coastal upwelling 

(Norton and McLain 1994, pp. 16,019– 

16,030; Schwing et al. 2002, p. 461). La 

Nin ̃ a events (sometimes called anti-El 

Nin ̃ o or cold-water events) produce 

effects in the northeast Pacific Ocean 

that tend to be the reverse of those that 

occur during El Nin ̃o events; during La 

Nin ̃ a events, strong upwelling-favorable 

winds and a shallow thermocline (zone 

of rapid temperature change with 

increased depth that typically separates 

warm and cold water) result in colder, 

more nutrient-rich waters than usual 

(Murphree and Reynolds 1995, p. 52; 

Oedekoven et al. 2001, p. 266). In 

addition to inter-annual climate events 

such as El Nin ̃o and La Nin ̃ a, the midlatitude Pacific Ocean experiences 

warm and cool phases that occur on 

decadal time scales (Mantua 2000, p. 2). 

The term ‘‘Pacific Decadal Oscillation’’ 

was coined to describe long-term 

climate variability in the Pacific Ocean, 

in which there are observed warm and 

cool phases, or ‘‘regime shifts’’ (Mantua 

et al. 1997, pp. 1069-1079). 

The California Current system is 

affected by inter-annual (ENSO-related 

(El Nin ̃ o/La Nin ̃ a)) and inter-decadal 

(Pacific Decadal Oscillation) climatic 

processes. The petitioner cites 

Behrenfeld et al. (2006, pp. 752-755) to 

describe significant global declines in 

net primary production between years 

1997 and 2005, attributed to reduced 

nutrient enhancement due to ocean 

surface warming (CBD 2007, p. 25). 

Specific to the marine range of the ashy 

storm-petrel, the petitioner states that 

the California Current System has 

experienced some of the most welldocumented changes in ocean climate 

due to global warming (CBD 2007, p. 

25). The petition cites several examples 

of changes in the California Current 

System, which it attributes to climate 

change, that all relate to reduced ocean 

productivity, including: reduction in 

zooplankton biomass and increased sea 

surface temperatures (Roemmich and 

McGowan 1995, pp. 1324-1326; Lynn et 

al. 1998, pp. 25-49); upwelling of 

warmer, nutrient-depleted waters, 

which leads to breeding failures, 

mortality, and population declines 

across trophic levels (Barber and Chavez 

1983, pp. 1203-1210); delay in the onset 

of spring upwelling (Schwing et al. 

2006, pp. 1-5); anomalously warm 

water, low nutrient levels, and low 

primary production (Thomas and 

Brickley 2006, pp. 1-5); reduced 

zooplankton biomass (Mackas et al. 

2006, pp. 1-7); unprecedented seabird 

breeding failures (Sydeman et al. 2006, 

pp. 1-5); and anomalously low 

recruitment of rocky intertidal 

organisms (Barth et al. 2007, pp. 3719- 

3724). Specific changes in the California 

Current that may negatively affect the 

ashy storm-petrel are discussed below. 

Roemmich and McGowan (1995, pp. 

1324-1326) described 43 years (from 

1951 to 1993) of observations off the 

southern California coast. They reported 

that zooplankton had decreased by 80 

percent, and that surface temperatures 

taken during transects off Point 

Conception and Orange County 

(approximately) warmed by an average 

of 2.2 °F (1.2 °C) and 2.3 °F (1.6 °C), 

respectively, during this period. They 

suggested that the zooplankton decline 

was directly related to and caused by 

the observed warming (Roemmich and 

McGowan 1995, p. 1325). The petitioner 

cited Schwing et al. (2006, pp. 1-5), 

Barth et al. (2007, pp. 3719-3724), and 

Sydeman et al. (2006, pp. 1-5) to 

describe a delay in the onset of spring 

upwelling in the northern California 

Current that resulted in breeding 

failures of Cassin’s auklets 

(Ptychoramphus aleuticus) at Southeast 

Farallon Island, and at Triangle Island, 

British Columbia, in 2005 (CBD 2007, p. 

25). At Southeast Farallon Island, 

Cassin’s auklets also failed to breed in 

2006 as well, likely as a result of warmwater conditions, reduced upwelling, 

and reduced availability of krill 

(Warzybok et al. 2006, pp. 12-14). 

At Southeast Farallon Island, 

productivity (chicks fledged per 

breeding pair) of ashy storm-petrels was 

0.56 in 2005, and 0.48 in 2006 

(Warzybok et al. 2006, p. 7). At Santa 

Cruz Island, productivity of ashy stormpetrels was 0.58 in 2005, and 0.68 in 

2006 (McIver et al. in preparation, tables 

2-4). Sydeman et al. (2006, p. 1) 

reported that euphausiid crustacean 

(krill) biomass in the Gulf of the 

Farallones was reduced in 2005, but 

remained high south of Point 

Conception. To successfully raise a 

chick, an adult storm-petrel must obtain 

enough food for itself, plus one-half the 

food requirements of the chick, plus 

food to fuel the metabolic costs of 

transporting food to the nesting location 

(Quinlan 1979, p. 103). Thus, if food 

was less available to ashy storm-petrels 

foraging north of Point Conception 

(presumably, Southeast Farallon Island 

breeders) in 2005 and 2006, adverse 

affects may have appeared during the 

chick stage, and this could explain (in 

part) reduced breeding success at 

Southeast Farallon Island in 2006. 

Like Cassin’s auklets, ashy stormpetrels feed on krill. However, unlike 

Cassin’s auklets, ashy storm-petrels 

have more extended incubation and 

chick-rearing periods (per egg-laying 

effort), and feed over a wider geographic 

area; thus, they are likely more able to 

exploit similar food resources when 

these resources are reduced or more 

patchily distributed. As stated earlier, 

Cassin’s auklets failed to breed in 2005 

and 2006, in contrast to ashy stormpetrels, which did breed. Additionally, 

Ainley (1990b, pp. 357-359) reported 

that ashy storm-petrels showed the 

lowest inter-annual variability in 

productivity of any species breeding at 

Southeast Farallon Island, for the years 

1971 to 1983. Ashy storm-petrel 

productivity was 0.64 and 0.69 in 1972 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(n = 36) and 1973 (n = 35), respectively; 

0.81 in 1976 (n = 37); and 0.75 and 0.67 

in 1982 (n = 28) and 1983 (n = 18), 

respectively (Ainley and Boekelheide 

1990, p. 392). This is of importance 

because during this time period, El Nin ̃ o 

events occurred in 1972-73, 1976, and 

1982-83 (Ainley 1990a, p. 36). Ainley 

(1990b, p. 371) reported that breeding 

by other seabirds at Southeast Farallon 

Island was poor to nonexistent in 1973, 

1976, 1978, 1982, and 1983. As noted 

above, ashy storm-petrels were the 

exception to this observation; they bred 

in all years of the study, and no clear 

correlation between warm-water years 

and reduced reproductive success 

(productivity) was evident for this 

species (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990, 

p. 392). The only response to El Nin ̃ o 

conditions that may be evident are 

smaller numbers of ashy storm-petrels 

breeding and delayed egglaying (later in 

the season than in other years) (Ainley 

and Boekelheide 1990, p. 392; Ainley et 

al 1990, pp. 149-150). However, since 

regular annual monitoring of nesting 

activities began at Southeast Farallon 

Island (in 1971) and at Santa Cruz 

Island (in 1994), researchers have 

observed ashy storm-petrels (on a 

population level) breeding each year. In 

research conducted in 1995-97 and 

2005-07, McIver et al. (in preparation, p. 

10) report that reproductive success 

(productivity) of ashy storm-petrels at 

Santa Cruz Island did not appear to be 

negatively affected by El Nin ̃ o 

conditions (although timing of breeding 

was later in 1998, an El Nin ̃ o year), and 

no clear relationship between 

oceanographic conditions in southern 

California and reproductive success of 

ashy storm-petrels was observed. As 

presented above, this is supported by 

data from research at Southeast Farallon 

Island. Productivity of ashy stormpetrels at Southeast Farallon Island 

declined from the late 1980s to the mid1990s (Sydeman et al. 2001, p. 315; CBD 

2007, p. 8; Warzybok and Bradley 2007, 

p. 7). However, more recent data 

indicate that this decline in productivity 

has not continued. Warzybok and 

Bradley (2007, p. 17) describe an 

analysis of capture-recapture data that 

shows increasing capture rates and 

increasing survival of ashy storm-petrels 

on Southeast Farallon Island. Based on 

observed annual breeding and 

reproductive success values of ashy 

storm-petrels during El Nin ̃ o events, and 

the low inter-annual variability in 

reproductive success as reported by 

Ainley and Boekelheide (1990, p. 392) 

and McIver (2002, p. 29), we conclude 

there is no clear relationship between 

reduced productivity of phytoplankton 

and zooplankton in the California 

Current due to El Nin ̃ o events and 

reproductive success of ashy stormpetrels. 

As enumerated above, the petition 

cited several examples of changes in the 

California Current System, revolving 

around ocean productivity, which the 

petition claims has had an adverse effect 

on ashy storm-petrels. Based on our 

review of the available information, we 

found that some species of seabirds 

have experienced breeding failures in 

certain years, which can be linked to El 

Nin ̃o events, warmer water, or lower 

primary productivity. However, 

productivity of the ashy storm-petrel 

over approximately the past 40 years 

does not show breeding failures in those 

same years. This is likely due to the 

species’ ability to exploit a wider range 

of resources than other seabirds. Based 

on the species’ response to El Nin ̃ o 

events, we conclude the ashy stormpetrel is not likely to be adversely 

affected by potentially lower ocean 

productivity due to long-term ocean 

warming. In 2006, when Cassin’s 

auklets failed to breed at Southeast 

Farallon Island likely as a result of 

warm-water conditions, reduced 

upwelling, and reduced availability of 

krill or a delay in the onset of spring 

upwelling, ashy storm-petrels did breed 

but had slightly lower productivity. 

Based on this information, we do not 

consider the delay in the onset of spring 

upwelling to be a threat to the species. 

Therefore, based on the best scientific 

information available to the Service 

regarding the effects of climate change, 

including the effects of El Nin ̃ o and 

changes in the California Current on 

ocean productivity, we do not consider 

this to be a significant threat to the ashy 

storm-petrel at Southeast Farallon 

Island, at the Channel Islands, or 

rangewide. 

Climate Change – Ocean Acidification 

The petitioner claims that ocean 

acidification may eventually have 

detrimental impacts on the ashy stormpetrel’s crustacean prey species (e.g., 

Euphausia pacifica, Thysannoessa 

spinifera) that may be impaired in 

building their exoskeletons in the 

coming decades (CBD 2007, p. 29). The 

petitioner cites Orr et al. (2005, p. 682) 

that mid-latitude waters, where the 

California Current Ecosystem is located, 

are experiencing the largest decreases in 

surface carbonate ion concentrations. 

The chemical processes behind ocean 

acidification are well known. The 

presence of inorganic carbon in the 

ocean is largely responsible for 

controlling the pH (the measure of 

acidity) of seawater, and dissolved 

inorganic carbon in seawater exists in 

three major forms, including a 

bicarbonate ion, carbonate ion, and 

aqueous carbon dioxide (Fabry et al. 

2008, pp. 414-415). Human industrial 

and land use activities are resulting in 

increased atmospheric concentrations of 

carbon dioxide (Feely et al. 2004, p. 

362); much carbon dioxide is absorbed 

by the oceans (Caldiera and Wickett 

2003, p. 365; Sabine et al. 2004, p. 370). 

When carbon dioxide dissolves in 

water, carbonic acid is formed, most of 

which quickly dissociates into a 

hydrogen ion and a bicarbonate ion; the 

hydrogen ion can further react with a 

carbonate ion to form bicarbonate (Fabry 

et al. 2008, p. 415). The effects of 

increased absorption of carbon dioxide 

by the oceans have been given the term 

‘‘ocean acidification’’ and include an 

increase in concentrations of carbonic 

acid, bicarbonate, and hydrogen ions; a 

decrease in concentration of carbonate; 

and a reduction in the pH level in 

seawater (Caldiera and Wickett 2003, p. 

365; Royal Society et al. 2005, p.16; 

Fabry et al. 2008, p. 415). Pure water has 

a pH of 7; solutions below pH 7 are 

acidic, and solutions above pH 7 are 

alkaline, or basic (summarized in Hardt 

and Safina 2008, p. 1). Oceans are 

slightly alkaline, with a pH of 8.1 (at 

latitude 30°N, approximately; Caldiera 

and Wickett 2005, p. 5). Measurements 

of surface ocean pH in 2005 were 0.1 

unit lower than preindustrial values 

(prior to the 1850s) and could become 

0.3 to 0.4 units lower by the end of the 

21st century (Caldiera and Wickett 

2005, p. 5). Marine organisms that 

produce shells, such as corals, mollusks, 

echinoderms, and crustaceans, require 

carbonate ions to produce their calcium 

carbonate shells and skeletons (Orr et al. 

2005, p. 681; Fabry et al. 2008, p. 415). 

There are three mineral forms of 

calcium carbonate (magnesium-calcite, 

aragonite, and calcite), and each has 

different tendencies to dissolve 

(solubility) in seawater (summarized in 

Hardt and Safina 2008, p. 2). The 

reaction of excess carbon dioxide with 

seawater reduces the availability of 

carbonate ions necessary for shell and 

skeleton formation for these organisms 

(Fabry et al. 2008, p. 415). Generally, 

oceanic surface waters are saturated 

with calcium carbonate, deeper waters 

are under-saturated, and the depth 

where waters transition from saturated 

to unsaturated is called the saturation 

horizon (summarized in Hardt and 

Safina 2008, p. 2). A reduction in 

carbonate ions causes all forms of 

calcium carbonate to dissolve at 

shallower depths, and causes a 

reduction in the rate at which marine 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41839 

organisms can produce calcium 

carbonate (summarized in Hardt and 

Safina 2008, p. 2). In other words, once 

formed, calcium carbonate will dissolve 

back into the water unless the 

surrounding seawater contains 

sufficiently high concentrations of 

carbonate ions (Royal Society et al. 

2005, p. 10). 

The major planktonic calcium 

carbonate producers in the ocean are 

coccolithophores (single-celled 

phytoplankton), foraminifera (amoeboid 

protists), and pteropods (marine 

mollusks) (Fabry et al. 2008, p. 417). 

Marine organisms act as a ‘‘biological 

pump,’’ removing carbon dioxide and 

nutrients from the surface ocean and 

transferring these elements into the 

deeper ocean and ocean bottom 

(Zondervan et al. 2001, p. 507; Chen et 

al. 2004, p.18). 

Feely et al. (2008, pp. 1490-1492) 

conducted hydrographic surveys along 

the continental shelf of North America, 

and found evidence for undersaturated 

(with respect to aragonite) and low pH 

(less than 7.75) waters at mid-shelf 

depths of approximately 131 to 394 feet 

(ft) (40 to 120 meters (m)) from about 

middle California (latitude 37° N, 

approximately) to Baja California Sur, 

Mexico (latitude 26° N, approximately). 

Feely et al. (2008, p. 1492) reported that 

much of the corrosive character of these 

waters is natural as the result of 

respiration processes at intermediate 

depths below the euphotic zone. Feely 

et al. (2008, p. 1492) cautioned that the 

California coastal region continues to 

accumulate anthropogenic carbon 

dioxide, and concluded that seasonal 

upwelling processes enhance the 

advancement of the corrosive deep 

water into wide regions of the North 

American continental shelf. Feely et al. 

(2008, p. 1492) further reported that 

little was known about how intermittent 

exposure to acidified water might affect 

the development of calcifying, or shell 

building, organisms in this region. 

The ecological effects of changing 

ocean carbonate chemistry are uncertain 

due to complexities of marine 

ecosystems, and research to date has 

focused on the impact of acidification 

on calcifying organisms (Antarctic 

Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative 

Research Centre 2008, p. 7). Although 

the chemical processes associated with 

ocean acidification and the biological 

processes involving the transport of 

carbon in the oceans have been studied 

and described in detail, little research 

has been conducted to assess the 

response of many zooplankton 

populations, including euphausiids 

(upon which ashy storm-petrels likely 

feed), to ocean acidification (Fabry et al. 

2008, p. 426). However, the Service is 

aware of one study (Yamada and Ikeda 

1999, pp. 62-67) that experimentally 

tested the acute (lethal) effects of 

lowered pH levels upon Euphausia 

pacifica, a species of krill that occurs in 

the northern Pacific Ocean and is a 

known prey item of ashy storm-petrels. 

Observing 5 juveniles and 20 nauplii 

(the free-swimming first stage of the 

larva) of Euphausia pacifica, Yamada 

and Ikeda (1999, pp. 65) found 

increased mortality with increased 

exposure time and decreased pH (less 

than 6.9). Based on their data, Yamada 

and Ikeda (1999, p. 66) also suggested 

that the ability to tolerate lowered pH 

may be highly variable between and 

possibly within species, as in the case 

of nauplii and juveniles of Euphausia 

pacifica. Yamada and Ikeda (1999, p. 

66) suggested that information about pH 

levels that induce chronic (sublethal) 

effects would be more appropriate to 

estimate the long-term consequences for 

a given zooplankton population, in that 

zooplankton may survive exposure to 

lower pH levels but may be unable to 

produce normal offspring. The Service 

is also aware of research currently being 

conducted to study the possible effects 

of ocean acidification on euphausiids in 

waters near Antarctica (see Rowbotham 

2008, p. 1), but this research has just 

begun and data are currently not 

available (T. Berli, personal 

communication 2008). 

As stated in the Species Description 

section, the diet of ashy storm-petrels 

has not been extensively studied; 

however, like other species of stormpetrels, ashy storm-petrels likely feed on 

euphausiids, juvenile lanternfish, fish 

eggs, and other small fish that occur at 

the surface of the ocean. Our review of 

the available information did not reveal 

any information regarding diet studies 

or measurements of chick growth and 

weight that indicate that ashy stormpetrels are eating fewer euphausiids or 

are providing less food to their chicks. 

Additionally, our review of the available 

information did not find any research 

indicating that ocean acidification is 

causing acute or chronic effects to 

euphausiid populations that occur in 

the California Current, or any other 

species of krill that occur in the 

California Current, on which ashy 

storm-petrels feed. Although the 

processes and potential effects of ocean 

acidification on biological food webs 

have been described, and experimental 

research on Euphausia pacifica has 

tested lethal effects of exposure to low 

pH, our review of the available 

information did not reveal any evidence 

that demonstrates a direct link between 

ocean acidification and reduced 

abundance and survival of prey items 

on which ashy storm-petrels depend. 

Additionally, Ainley (1990b, p. 371) 

reported that breeding by other seabirds 

at Southeast Farallon Island was poor to 

nonexistent during warm-water years 

(El Nin ̃ o events). However, ashy stormpetrels bred in years that other seabird 

species did not (Ainley and Boekelheide 

1990, p. 392), which is an indication 

that the ashy storm-petrel is less 

affected by changes in ocean 

productivity than other species. 

Therefore, based on our review of the 

available information, we conclude that 

the potential effects of ocean 

acidification are not currently a 

significant threat to ashy storm-petrels 

based on the uncertainty of the 

ecological effects of changing ocean 

carbonate chemistry. 

Published research and oceanographic 

modeling does show that oceans are 

acidifying, and we recognize that ashy 

storm-petrels may be susceptible to 

changes in the oceans’ chemistry in the 

future. However, based on the best 

scientific information available to the 

Service regarding ocean acidification, at 

this time we do not consider ocean 

acidification to be a significant threat to 

the ashy storm-petrel at Southeast 

Farallon Island, at the Channel Islands, 

or rangewide. 

Climate Change – Sea Level Rise 

The petitioner claims that climate 

change will cause rises in the elevation 

of the oceans that will have negative 

consequences for ashy storm-petrels by 

eliminating (presumably, by inundation 

and submersion by seawater) important 

habitat in sea caves and offshore rocks 

in the California Channel Islands (CBD 

2007, p. 28). Sea levels along the 

California coast are projected to rise 

approximately 1 ft (0.3 m) by 2050 and 

approximately 3 ft (0.9 m) by 2100 

(California Coastal Commission 2001, 

pp. 14-15; Cayan et al. 2006, p. S71). 

Future sea levels along the coast of 

California will likely depend upon (in 

part): future changes in global 

temperatures; lag time between 

atmospheric changes and oceanic 

reactions; thermal expansion of ocean 

water; effects of atmospheric 

temperature changes on Antarctica; 

melting of Greenland ice and other 

glaciers; and local subsidence and uplift 

of coastal areas (California Coastal 

Commission 2001, p. 12). Gradual sea 

level rises progressively worsen the 

impacts of high tides (through erosion 

and submersion), surge, and waves 

resulting from storms (Cayan et al. 2008, 

pp. S57-S58). 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41840 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

We reviewed topographic maps and 

information provided in Sowls et al. 

(1980), Bunnell (1988), and Carter et al. 

(1992; 2006a; 2006b) to estimate the 

range of elevations above sea level of 

suitable ashy storm-petrel habitat at 

each of the 26 known breeding locations 

(Table 3). 

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED RANGE OF ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL (ASL) IN FEET (FT) AND METERS (M) OF KNOWN NESTING

HABITAT OF ASHY STORM-PETRELS. 

Location 

Number Breeding Location Name Elevation ASL 

1 ........................... Bird Rock near Greenwood, Mendocino County ...................................................................... 10–40 ft (3–12 m) 

2 ........................... Caspar, near Point Cabrillo, Mendocino County ...................................................................... 10–40 ft (3–12 m) 

3 ........................... Bird Rock, Marin County .......................................................................................................... 10–40 ft (3–12 m) 

4 ........................... Stormy Stack, Marin County ..................................................................................................... 10–50 ft (3–15 m) 

5 ........................... Southeast Farallon Island ......................................................................................................... 10–330 ft (3–100 m) 

6 ........................... Castle/Hurricane Colony Complex, Monterey County .............................................................. 10–100 ft (3–30 m) 

7 ........................... Castle Rock, Santa Barbara County ........................................................................................ 20–80 ft (6–24 m) 

8 ........................... Prince Island ............................................................................................................................. 20–300 ft (6–91 m) 

9 ........................... Shipwreck Cave, Santa Cruz Island ......................................................................................... 5–15 ft (1.5–5 m) 

10 ......................... Dry Sandy Beach Cave, Santa Cruz Island ............................................................................. 5–15 ft (1.5–5 m) 

11 ......................... Del Mar Rock, Santa Cruz Island ............................................................................................. 5–20 ft (1.5–6 m) 

12 ......................... Cave of the Birds Eggs, Santa Cruz Island ............................................................................. 5–10 ft (1.5–3 m) 

13 ......................... Diablo Rocks, Santa Cruz Island ............................................................................................. 10–40 ft (3–12 m) 

14 ......................... Orizaba Rock, Santa Cruz Island ............................................................................................. 10–30 ft (3–9 m) 

15 ......................... Bat Cave, Santa Cruz Island .................................................................................................... 5–20 ft (1.5–6 m) 

16 ......................... Cavern Point Cove Caves, Santa Cruz Island ......................................................................... 0–10 ft (0–3 m) 

17 ......................... Scorpion Rocks, Santa Cruz Island ......................................................................................... 10–40 ft (3–12 m) 

18 ......................... Willow Anchorage Rocks, Santa Cruz Island ........................................................................... 10–40 ft (3–12 m) 

19 ......................... Gull Island, Santa Cruz Island .................................................................................................. 10–100 ft (3–30 m) 

20 ......................... Santa Barbara Island ................................................................................................................ 10–600 ft (3–183 m) 

21 ......................... Sutil Island ................................................................................................................................ 10–250 ft (3–76 m) 

22 ......................... Shag Rock ................................................................................................................................ 10–50 ft (3–15 m) 

23 ......................... Ship Rock, Santa Catalina Island ............................................................................................. 5-20 ft (1.5–6 m) 

24 ......................... Seal Cove Area, San Clemente Island .................................................................................... 10-50 ft (3–15 m) 

25 ......................... Islas Los Coronados, Mexico ................................................................................................... 10-100 ft (3–30 m) 

26 ......................... Islas Todos Santos, Mexico ..................................................................................................... 10-100 ft (3–30 m) 

The nesting habitat at the majority of 

ashy storm-petrel breeding locations 

will likely not be affected by the sea 

level rise projected for California by 

2100 (Table 3). Some nesting habitat at 

only one location at Cavern Point Cove 

Caves, Santa Cruz Island, would likely 

be submerged if projected sea level rises 

of 1 ft (0.3 m) by 2050 occur; much of 

the nesting habitat at this location 

would likely be submerged if the sea 

level rises 3 ft (0.9 m) by year 2100. 

Prior to the mortality event in 2008 at 

this location (see Factor C), Cavern 

Point Cove Caves had approximately 40 

breeding birds annually. Some habitat at 

other cave locations on Santa Cruz 

Island may be susceptible to submersion 

by seawater. For example, on Santa Cruz 

Island in November 2008, McIver et al. 

(2009, p. 6) reported flooding by ocean 

water in a sea cave that likely killed one 

storm-petrel chick. Despite this unusual 

event, the majority of the nesting habitat 

in the sea caves at Santa Cruz Island 

occurs greater than 3 ft (1 m) above 

current sea level, and would not likely 

be submerged during breeding season 

months (April through November) 

within the next 40 to 50 years. Winter 

storm surges periodically wash all of the 

sea caves at Santa Cruz Island, but these 

storm events likely do not negatively 

affect ashy storm-petrels, since most 

ashy storm-petrels are not attending the 

colonies during winter months (Ainley 

1995, p. 5). In fact, past winter storms 

have benefited ashy storm-petrels at 

Santa Cruz Island by creating nesting 

habitat; approximately 25 percent of 

ashy storm-petrel nest sites in Bat Cave 

occur among accumulated driftwood 

debris (both human-made and natural) 

that has washed into the cave during 

past winter storm events. 

Based on information available to the 

Service regarding elevations (above 

current sea level) of breeding locations 

of ashy storm-petrels, and projected 

estimates of sea level rise along the west 

coast of North America during the 21st 

century, we conclude that a small 

portion of the total population of ashy 

storm-petrels (approximately 0.8 

percent) could be negatively affected by 

rising sea levels by 2050. Therefore, 

based on the best scientific information 

available to the Service regarding 

climate change-induced sea level rise, at 

this time we do not consider this to be 

a significant threat to the ashy stormpetrel at Southeast Farallon Island, at 

the Channel Islands, or rangewide. 

Changes in Terrestrial Breeding Habitat 

Introduced Grasses 

The petitioner asserts that the ashy 

storm-petrel’s island breeding habitats 

are being modified and degraded by 

introduced species and specifically, that 

introduced grasses have increased at 

Southeast Farallon Island, causing some 

nesting areas to be unusable for ashy 

storm-petrels (CBD 2007, p. 30). In 

addition, the petitioner claims that 

introduced grasses are widespread at all 

ashy storm-petrel colonies and that their 

effects have not been evaluated (CBD 

2007, p. 30). Ainley (1995, p. 9) 

describes introduced grasses as a factor 

potentially limiting the amount of 

available nesting habitat for ashy stormpetrels at Southeast Farallon Island. 

Ainley and Hyrenbach (in press, p. 12) 

report that introduced grasses have 

spread, thickened, and grown among the 

talus slopes at Southeast Farallon 

Island, and suggest that grasses likely 

limit access to cavities by ashy stormpetrels, which do not excavate nesting 

burrows and instead rely upon available 

nesting crevices. However, the 

petitioner did not provide, nor did our 

review of the available information 

reveal, specific information that 

quantifies the amount of suitable 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41841 

nesting habitat at Southeast Farallon 

Island, or other breeding locations, that 

may be unavailable to ashy stormpetrels because of introduced grasses. In 

addition, our review of the available 

information found no information to 

indicate that introduced grasses are 

widespread at all breeding locations. 

For example, grasses do not occur in sea 

caves or on most offshore rocks where 

ashy storm-petrels nest. 

Introduced grasses may occur in 

proximity to ashy storm-petrel nest sites 

on Southeast Farallon Island and on 

Santa Barbara Island. Based on 

population estimates for these areas 

presented in Table 1, approximately 51 

to 64 percent of ashy storm-petrels 

breed at these locations; however, we 

are not aware of any evidence through 

direct observation or vegetation surveys 

that indicates that introduced grasses 

prevent significant numbers of ashy 

storm-petrels from nesting. Grasses are 

widespread on Santa Barbara Island, 

where the major plant communities 

include island grassland, coastal sage 

scrub, maritime desert scrub, and 

coastal bluff scrub (Schoenherr et al. 

2003, p. 349). However, ashy stormpetrels at Santa Barbara Island likely 

nest in crevices that occur in steep 

cliffs, where grasses are less common 

(Carter et al. 1992, p. I-81). Therefore, 

based on the best scientific information 

available to the Service regarding the 

threat of introduced grasses, at this time 

we do not consider this to be a 

significant threat to the ashy stormpetrel at Southeast Farallon Island, at 

the Channel Islands, or rangewide. 

Human Degradation of Nesting Habitats 

The petitioner states that human 

disturbance and degradation of nesting 

habitats through tourism and military 

activities threaten the continued 

existence of the ashy storm-petrel (CBD 

2007, p. 35). Regarding tourism, most 

breeding locations occur on federally 

owned or managed lands that are 

generally inaccessible to visitation by 

the public. Southeast Farallon Island 

contains approximately 36 to 53 percent 

of the total ashy storm-petrel population 

and has low human visitation by the 

Service’s Refuge staff but is closed to the 

general public. Due to steep topography 

and difficult ocean and landing 

conditions, breeding locations on 

islands and offshore rocks other than 

Southeast Farallon Island are generally 

inaccessible to tourists, and our review 

of the available information has not 

revealed specific information indicating 

that ashy storm-petrel nesting habitats 

on islands, offshore rocks, and islets are 

being degraded by human visitation. Sea 

caves on Santa Cruz Island are 

susceptible to visitation by tourists (e.g., 

sea kayakers) (McIver 2002, p. 53; 

McIver et al. 2008, pp. 7-8). However, 

the U.S. National Park Service, Channel 

Islands National Park (Park) has closed 

two sea caves to the public, and in 

spring 2009, installed signs 

(inconspicuous from the water) within 

the entrances of Bat Cave and Cavern 

Point Cove Caves informing tourists that 

the caves contain nesting seabirds and 

are closed to visitation by the public (W. 

McIver, personal observation). Although 

there is direct evidence that tourists 

have occasionally visited sea caves at 

Santa Cruz Island where ashy stormpetrels nest (McIver et al. 2008, p. 5; 

McIver et al. 2009, pp. 7-8), the 

available information does not indicate 

adverse impacts of tourism upon ashy 

storm-petrels, such as dead birds, 

broken eggs, or degraded or modified 

nesting habitats. Due to observed lower 

hatching success at Cavern Point Cove 

Caves, in comparison to other locations 

at Santa Cruz Island (McIver 2002, p. 

24), we cannot discount the possibility 

that visitation by tourists may have 

resulted in disturbance to and 

abandonment of some nests of ashy 

storm-petrels at this location. However, 

because most ashy storm-petrel breeding 

locations are generally inaccessible to 

tourists, we find it unlikely that human 

visitation has caused large-scale 

disturbance to ashy storm-petrels and 

subsequent abandonment of nesting 

efforts. Thus, based on land ownership 

and restricted human activities at ashy 

storm-petrel breeding locations on 

Southeast Farallon Island and on the 

Channel Islands, we find human 

tourism is currently not a substantial 

threat to the ashy storm-petrel at 

Southeast Farallon Island, at the 

Channel Islands, or rangewide. 

Within the range of the ashy stormpetrel, military activities only occur on 

San Clemente Island, which is one of 

the Channel Islands. San Clemente 

Island is owned and managed by the 

Department of the Navy, and it is 

estimated that at least 10 ashy stormpetrels breed there (H. Carter and D. 

Whitworth,). Ashy storm-petrels are 

known to breed at Seal Cove Rocks 

(Carter et al. 2008a, p. 119), off the 

island’s west side, and may breed on 

offshore rocks off China Point, and at or 

near Mosquito Cove (Hering 2008, p.4). 

Seal Cove Rocks occur outside of any 

current training areas (Hering 2005, p. 

5). Offshore rocks near China Point do 

occur within the Shore Bombardment 

Area (SHOBA); however, these rocks are 

not targeted by bombardment activities, 

and ashy storm-petrels have not been 

confirmed as breeding there (Hering 

2008, p. 5). Mosquito Cove is also 

within the boundaries of SHOBA, but 

occurs outside the impact areas (Hering 

2008, p. 5). Carter et al. (2008c, pp.12- 

13) report that portions of Prince Island 

were used by the U.S. Navy as a target 

for aerial bombing and missile testing 

from the late 1940s to the early 1970s. 

Carter et al. (2008c, p.13) speculated 

that effects included: some seabirds 

probably were killed by explosions; loss 

of breeding habitats for burrow- and 

crevice-nesting seabirds likely occurred 

due to explosions; and periodic human 

disturbance of seabirds likely occurred 

from military personnel. However, our 

review of the available information did 

not reveal any specific impacts to ashy 

storm-petrels at Prince Island as a result 

of these activities, and these activities 

have not occurred at this breeding 

location for more than 35 years. 

Therefore, because only a small 

percentage (approximately 0.1 percent) 

of the entire population of ashy stormpetrels nests on San Clemente Island, 

current military activities at San 

Clemente Island likely do not affect 

ashy storm-petrel nesting areas there, 

and because military activities no longer 

occur at Prince Island, we conclude that 

military activities do not pose a 

substantial threat to the ashy stormpetrel at Southeast Farallon Island, at 

the Channel Islands, or rangewide. 

Human visitation at Southeast 

Farallon Island is low, and there is no 

evidence to suggest degradation of 

nesting habitats there. At the Channel 

Islands, human visitation is greater near 

breeding habitat, but the National Park 

Service has taken steps to close several 

sea caves where ashy storm-petrels 

breed. Additionally, there is no direct 

evidence of human impacts to ashy 

storm-petrels or their breeding habitat at 

these locations. Within the range of the 

ashy storm-petrel, military activities 

only occur currently on San Clemente 

Island but are not targeted at breeding 

or nesting areas. Therefore, based on the 

best scientific information available to 

the Service, at this time we conclude 

that human degradation of nesting 

habitats by tourism and military 

activities is not a significant threat to 

the ashy storm-petrel at Southeast 

Farallon Island, at the Channel Islands, 

or rangewide. 

Summary of Factor A 

While there is some evidence to 

suggest the timing of ashy storm-petrel 

egg laying may be delayed as a result of 

El Nin ̃ o events, and that fewer numbers 

of ashy storm-petrels may attempt to 

breed during El Nin ̃ o years, these results 

do not appear significant, and we have 

no information to suggest that El Nin ̃o 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41842 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

events otherwise significantly affect 

ashy storm-petrel reproductive success 

or productivity, unlike in other sea 

birds. Additionally, based on the 

species’ response to El Nin ̃ o events, we 

conclude the ashy storm-petrel is not 

likely to be adversely affected by 

potentially lower ocean productivity 

due to long-term ocean warming. Based 

on our review of current research, there 

is demonstrated evidence of ongoing 

ocean acidification; however, current 

research does not demonstrate a direct 

link between ocean acidification and 

reduced abundance and survival of prey 

items on which ashy storm-petrels 

depend, nor does current research 

indicate that reproductive success of 

ashy storm-petrels is affected by ocean 

acidification. Projected changes in sea 

levels along the west coast of North 

America (by year 2050) may submerge 

nesting habitat at Cavern Point Cove 

Caves in the California Channel Islands, 

which could affect approximately 0.8 

percent of all ashy storm-petrels, but the 

majority of currently available nesting 

habitat in California will not be affected 

by the sea level rise projected in 

California during the 21st century. The 

Service finds that there is no specific 

evidence indicating that the presence of 

introduced grasses at Southeast Farallon 

Island, the Channel Islands, or other 

breeding locations prevents ashy stormpetrels from breeding. Although there is 

evidence of some human visitation to 

sea caves on Santa Cruz Island, 

modification or degradation of nesting 

habitat by tourism activities is not a 

significant threat to the ashy stormpetrel because of protective measures 

taken by the National Park Service and 

the lack of evidence of human 

disturbance in sea caves on the Channel 

Islands. Additionally, military activities 

are not a significant threat to the species 

because military activities do not occur 

at known breeding areas. Therefore, 

based on the best available scientific 

information, we conclude that the ashy 

storm-petrel is not threatened by the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range at Southeast Farallon 

Island, at the Channel Islands, or 

rangewide. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

The petitioner stated that research 

activities may impact ashy stormpetrels, but also stated there was no 

evidence that this impact has had 

significant negative consequences on 

studied populations (CBD 2007, p. 30). 

Our review of the available information 

does not indicate that research activities 

threaten ashy storm-petrels across all or 

a significant portion of their range. 

Commercial Purposes 

The ashy storm-petrel is not a 

commercially exploited or used species. 

We are not aware of any information 

that indicates that overutilization for 

commercial purposes threatens the ashy 

storm-petrel across all or in any portion 

of its range. 

Recreational Purposes 

Ashy storm-petrels are a species of 

interest during pelagic bird-watching 

trips off the coast of California. Ashy 

storm-petrels are generally wary of and 

avoid boats, including boats with 

birdwatchers, and it is highly unlikely 

that ashy storm-petrels are negatively 

affected by these recreational activities. 

Tourism at sea caves (see Factor A) 

located on Santa Cruz Island is a 

recreational activity that could affect 

ashy storm-petrels. However, as stated 

above, there is no evidence to suggest 

such recreational activities are 

significantly affecting the species. We 

are not aware of any information that 

indicates that overutilization for 

recreational purposes threatens the ashy 

storm-petrel across all or any portion of 

its range. 

Scientific and Educational Purposes 

The Service is aware of 220 ashy 

storm-petrel eggs and 355 study skins 

(includes study skins, skeletons, round 

skins) that have been collected and 

salvaged from 1885 to 2004 for scientific 

archival purposes. The Service obtained 

data from individual institutions and 

records held in the following 

institutions and accessed through the 

ORNIS data portal (http://ornisnet.org) 

on September 23, 2008 (Table 4). 

TABLE 4. INSTITUTIONS THAT POSSESS COLLECTED SKINS OR EGGS OF THE ASHY STORM-PETREL. 

Institution or Entity Number of 

skins 

Number of 

eggs 

California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA ................................................................................................. 181 70 

Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates, Ithaca, NY .............................................................................................. 2 0 

Delaware Museum of Natural History, Wilmington, DE .............................................................................................. 1 0 

Field Museum, Chicago, IL .......................................................................................................................................... 10 0 

Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, MA ..................................................................... 6 0 

Humboldt State University Natural History Museum, Arcata, CA ............................................................................... 2 2 

Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, CA ........................................................................... 18 0 

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, CA ............................................................................................................ 39 20 

National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC ............................................................................................... 32 6 

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA ................................................................................ 13 5 

San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, CA ................................................................................................. 31 0 

Slater Museum of Natural History, Tacoma, WA ........................................................................................................ 3 3 

University of Arizona Museum of Natural History, Tucson, AZ .................................................................................. 9 0 

University of California at Los Angeles - Dickey Collection, Los Angeles, CA .......................................................... 3 0 

University of Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, Lawrence, KS ........................... 1 0 

University of Washington - Burke Museum of Natural History ................................................................................... 3 2 

Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Camarillo, CA ........................................................................................ 1 112 

All ................................................................................................................................................................................. 355 220 

In addition, for purposes of measuring 

eggshell thickness and organochlorine 

(chlorinated hydrocarbon) 

contamination, a total of 26 eggs have 

been collected from Southeast Farallon 

Island, and a total of 68 eggs of ashy 

storm-petrels have been collected and 

salvaged from Santa Cruz Island, 

between 1968 and 2008 (Coulter and 

Risebrough 1973, p. 254; Kiff 1994, p. 

11; Welsh and Carter ) and in 2008 

(McIver et al. 2009, p. 8). The majority 

of ashy storm-petrel birds and eggs that 

occur in scientific collections were 

collected at Southeast Farallon Island in 

the first half of the 20th century. More 

ashy storm-petrel birds and eggs were 

collected in 1911 (n = 120 specimens) 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41843 

than in any other year. Over a period of 

124 years, an average of 2.6 ashy stormpetrel eggs per year and 2.9 birds per 

year have been collected over most of 

the geographic range of the species. The 

Service concludes that this low rate of 

collection, based on an estimated 

population size of 7,000 to 13,000 total 

birds, does not constitute a significant 

threat to the species. 

In California, scientific research 

(monitoring of nesting success, mark 

and recapture using mist nets, radio 

telemetry) has been conducted on 

Southeast Farallon Island since the mid1960s (James-Veitch 1970; Ainley et al. 

1974, pp. 295-310; Ainley et al. 1990, 

pp. 128-162; Sydeman et al. 1998a, pp. 

438-447; PRBO Conservation Science), 

at Santa Cruz Island since the mid1990s (McIver 2002, pp. 1-70; McIver 

and Carter 2006, pp. 1-6; Carter et al. 

2007, pp. 4-20; McIver et al. 2008, pp. 

1-22; McIver et al. 2009, pp. 1-30), and 

at Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara Islands 

in 2004 and 2005 (Adams and Takekawa 

2008, pp. 9-17). The Service is aware of 

the following disturbance (by 

researchers) of ashy storm-petrels: 

reduced hatching success at Southeast 

Farallon Island caused by handling of 

birds (James-Veitch 1970, p. 246); and 

reduced hatching success at Southeast 

Farallon Island in 1977 when 

‘‘researcher disturbance was great’’ 

(Ainley et al. 1990, p. 161). Generally, 

however, researchers at both Southeast 

Farallon Island and Santa Cruz Island 

have implemented procedures to reduce 

possible disturbance to ashy stormpetrels during regular nest monitoring 

activities. Consequently, we find it 

unlikely that scientific studies have 

resulted in substantial disturbance of 

ashy storm-petrels. 

Summary of Factor B 

Our review of the available 

information does not indicate that 

commercial or recreational 

overutilization is a threat to the ashy 

storm-petrel. We are aware of the long 

history of scientific and educational 

collecting of ashy storm-petrel skins and 

eggs over the past 124 years. However, 

the amount and rate of collection does 

not represent a significant loss to the 

overall population of ashy storm-petrels 

rangewide, or in specific breeding 

locations. In addition, we have found 

that ashy storm-petrels are not currently 

negatively affected by scientific 

research. Therefore, based on the best 

available scientific information, we 

conclude that the ashy storm-petrel is 

not threatened by overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes at Southeast 

Farallon Island, at the Channel Islands, 

or rangewide. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation 

The petitioner asserts that predation 

by native predators, including western 

gulls, burrowing owls, barn owls, 

common ravens, peregrine falcons, deer 

mice, and island spotted skunks, impact 

ashy storm-petrel populations (CBD 

2007, pp. 30-32). In addition, the 

petitioner asserts that nonnative 

predators, including house mice, black 

rats (Rattus rattus), and feral cats (Felis 

catus) affect ashy storm-petrel 

populations (CBD 2007, pp. 30-32). 

As described in the Species 

Description section, native avian 

predators of the ashy storm-petrel 

include western gulls, burrowing owls, 

peregrine falcons, and common ravens. 

Native mammalian predators of ashy 

storm-petrel eggs and birds include deer 

mice and island spotted skunks. Known 

nonnative mammalian predators of ashy 

storm-petrel eggs and birds include 

house mice and feral cats (Ainley et al. 

1990, p. 156; McChesney and Tershey 

1998, p. 341). The black rat is a 

potential nonnative predator 

(McChesney and Tershey 1998, p. 342), 

although predation of ashy storm-petrels 

by rats has not been documented. 

Predation can affect reproductive 

performance of storm-petrels during 

incubation and chick-rearing. Because 

ashy storm-petrel adults share egg 

incubation duties, the death of one adult 

of a breeding pair during the incubation 

stage could result in incomplete 

incubation and failure of the egg to 

hatch. Similarly, the death of one adult 

of a breeding pair of storm-petrels 

during the chick-rearing stage could 

result in death of the chick (by 

starvation or lack of brooding), 

especially if the chick is younger than 

about 50 days old (Mauck et al. 2004, p. 

883). 

Southeast Farallon Island – Avian 

Predation 

The western gull and burrowing owl 

are the primary avian predators of ashy 

storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island (Sydeman et al. 1998a, pp. 445- 

446; PRBO Conservation Science). 

Approximately 30 percent of the world 

population of western gulls nests at 

Southeast Farallon Island (Penniman et 

al. 1990, p. 219). During the 1996 to 

2006 period, the western gull breeding 

population at Southeast Farallon Island 

has been estimated at about 18,000 

breeding birds (Service 2008, p. 42). The 

distribution of western gull nesting 

areas at Southeast Farallon Island has 

shifted and expanded since they were 

first mapped in 1959 (Ainley and Lewis 

1974, p. 439; Penniman et al. 1990, p. 

224), and since 1976, western gulls have 

nested densely over nearly the entire 

island, including Lighthouse Hill, 

which is considered prime ashy stormpetrel breeding habitat on Southeast 

Farallon Island (Ainley and Lewis 1974, 

p. 435; Ainley et al. 1990, p. 158; 

Sydeman et al. 1998a, p. 446). 

The petitioner includes burrowing 

owls in its list of predators for the ashy 

storm-petrel but includes no 

information documenting a threat from 

burrowing owls (CBD 2007, p. 30). 

Burrowing owls do not breed on 

Southeast Farallon Island, but are 

regular fall migrants, and a few 

individuals (two to five per year, on 

average) overwinter at the island 

(DeSante and Ainley 1980, p. 30; 

Service 2008, p. 50). In the fall, 

burrowing owls at Southeast Farallon 

Island feed upon nonnative house mice 

when mice are seasonally abundant 

(Service 2008, p. 50). In late winter and 

early spring, after the mouse population 

at Southeast Farallon Island declines in 

numbers, burrowing owls prey upon 

storm-petrels, which are courting and 

prospecting for nesting sites (PRBO 

Conservation Science; Service 2008, p. 

50). To reduce this cause of mortality, 

the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge 

has trapped and moved to the mainland 

several burrowing owls (Service 2008, p. 

50). Additionally, the Service is 

developing a plan to eradicate the 

nonnative house mouse through 

rodenticide application and prevent 

future human introductions of mice (see 

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms below). 

In the following discussion, we assess 

avian predation as a possible factor 

affecting the ashy storm-petrels by 

evaluating information on ashy stormpetrel productivity and mortality on 

Southeast Farallon Island and Santa 

Cruz Island. Sydeman et al. (2001, p. 

315) reported that, among seabird 

species at Southeast Farallon Island 

laying a single-egg clutch each year, the 

ashy storm-petrel showed a significant 

pattern of change in reproductive 

performance, which increased through 

the mid-1980s, then decreased through 

1997. Specifically, Sydeman et al. 

(2001, p. 317) reported that reduced 

reproductive performance of ashy 

storm-petrels in his model was related 

to significant changes in fledging 

success (numbers of chicks fledged per 

chicks hatched). Sydeman et al. (2001, 

p. 317) also concluded that hatching 

success in the 1990s was low and likely 

responsible for the decline in stormpetrel reproductive performance during 

that time period. An examination of 

values of productivity (fledged chicks 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

per adult pair) of ashy storm-petrels at 

Southeast Farallon Island from 1971 

through 2007 (see Table 2) shows 

variability in fledging success. 

Specifically, Ainley and Boekelheide 

(1990, p. 392) reported an average of 

0.69 ashy storm-petrel chicks per pair 

from 1972 to 1983, Sydeman et al. 

(1998b, pp. 42-43) reported 0.74 chicks 

per pair using data from 1971 and 1972 

and 1992, and Warzybok and Bradley 

(2007, p. 24) reported 0.54 chicks per 

pair using yearly data from 1996 

through 2007 (and noted that 

productivity was higher in 2007 (0.53) 

than in 2006 (0.46)). These averages 

demonstrate variation in productivity 

over time, but only Sydeman’s (2001) 

study provides a statistical analysis 

demonstrating a quadratic trend. 

Further, based on our review of the best 

available data (see discussion below), 

we do not believe that these 

productivity values are associated with 

lower numbers of ashy storm-petrels. 

Ainley et al. (1974, p. 307) and Ainley 

et al. (1990, p. 157) estimated stormpetrel mortality rates based on presence 

of storm-petrel remains and storm-petrel 

bands found in gull pellets collected in 

1971 and 1972. Sydeman et al. (1998b, 

pp. 1-74) collected wings of storm-petrel 

carcasses found on the southwestern 

slope of Lighthouse Hill from 1994 

through 1996. In 2000, PRBO 

Conservation Science searched for and 

collected storm-petrel wings on 

Lighthouse Hill and other areas on 

Southeast Farallon Island, and 

categorized collected wings by type of 

avian predation (such as gull or owl). In 

both studies, wings (which were used as 

a measure of predation) were collected 

during the course of frequent nestmonitoring activities. Ainley et al. 

(1974, p. 307) and Ainley et al. (1990, 

p. 157) estimated that about one percent 

of the storm-petrel population 

(including ashy and Leach’s stormpetrels) on Southeast Farallon Island 

were depredated by western gulls in 

1971 and 1972. Sydeman et al. (1998b, 

pp. 21-22) estimated that 22 ashy stormpetrels were preyed upon by avian 

predators per year from 1994 through 

1996 on Lighthouse Hill. In addition, 

Sydeman et al. (1998b, p. 21) estimated 

a 2.5 percent annual mortality rate of 

breeding ashy storm-petrels at 

Lighthouse Hill due to avian predation 

during the period 1994 to 1996, based 

on an estimated breeding population of 

651 ashy storm-petrels at Lighthouse 

Hill. From January 2003 through August 

2008, approximately 98 percent of ashy 

storm-petrel kills thought to be due to 

avian predation on Southeast Farallon 

Island occurred between February and 

August, when stratified by month 

(PRBO Conservation Science). Average 

annual total number of ashy stormpetrels killed during January 2003 

through August 2008 was 114 total 

individuals. If birds on Southeast 

Farallon Island numbered the same as 

they did in 1972 (6,461 individuals) or 

1992 (4,284 individuals), this level of 

predation would be 1.8 percent or 2.7 

percent of the population, respectively; 

however, these estimates are 

speculative. 

Estimates of ashy storm-petrel 

mortality rates at Southeast Farallon 

Island are highly dependent upon 

estimated population sizes. Ashy stormpetrels are nocturnal in their visits to 

breeding colonies and breed mainly in 

deep crevices that are inaccessible to 

researchers, and so it is difficult to 

obtain direct population counts of the 

species. Consequently, estimates of 

population size of storm-petrels are 

often obtained using capture-recapture 

techniques (for example, Sydeman et al. 

1998a, pp. 438-447). For the years 1971, 

1972, and 1992, Sydeman et al. (1998a, 

p. 442) provided estimates for the total 

population (non-breeders and breeders) 

and the breeding population of ashy 

storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island proper and at Lighthouse Hill on 

Southeast Farallon Island, an area 

considered prime ashy storm-petrel 

nesting habitat. Based on a comparison 

of data from 1972 and 1992, PBRO 

scientists indicated a decline of 22 to 66 

percent (95 percent confidence interval) 

for total and breeding populations over 

the 20–year period for Lighthouse Hill, 

the sampling location considered most 

reliable for estimation of population size 

and population change (Sydeman et al. 

1998a, p. 443). We interpret these 

results cautiously because they are 

based on two data points: one from 1972 

and one 20 years later, from 1992. We 

hesitate to consider these results 

conclusive because animal populations 

can undergo cycles, peaks, or troughs 

that 2 years of data separated by 20 

years cannot capture. Population 

estimates were also imprecise owing to 

large standard errors (for example, 

population estimates for one area ranged 

from 660 plus or minus 423 to 1,013 

plus or minus 937; Sydeman et al. 

1998a, p. 443). 

Using preliminary analyses of more 

recent data of ashy storm-petrels 

captured in mist nets from 1999 through 

2007, PRBO scientists state that the 

Southeast Farallon Island population 

may have increased in years subsequent 

to Sydeman’s (1998a) study (Warzybok 

et al. 2006, p. 16; Warzybok and Bradley 

2007, p. 17). Using data from 1999 to 

2007, Warzybok and Bradley (2007, p. 

17) describe an analysis of capturerecapture data that shows increasing 

capture rates and increasing survival of 

ashy storm-petrels. The authors also 

note that there were a greater number of 

occupied nesting sites than in previous 

years, although this observation could 

have been influenced by a change in 

monitoring techniques (Warzybok and 

Bradley 2007, p. 17). Warzybok and 

Bradley’s (2007) report does not 

consider the proportion of birds caught 

that are nonbreeders, or potential 

changes in recapture probabilities 

through time; however, their report 

represents the most up-to-date 

information available at this time. Taken 

together, the results of Warzybok and 

Bradley’s (2007) analyses suggest an 

increasing population of ashy stormpetrels. There are weaknesses in both 

the more recent reports that are not 

peer-reviewed (Warzybok et al. (2006) 

and Warzybok and Bradley (2007)) and 

the older report by Sydeman et al 

(1998a), which is based on two data 

points (one from 1972 and one 20 years 

later from 1992). Nevertheless, the 

Sydeman et al. (1998a), Warzybok et al. 

2006, and Warzybok and Bradley (2007) 

studies are the best available 

assessments of population trends of 

ashy storm-petrels for the time periods 

they analyzed. The Warzybok et al. 

(2006) and Warzybok and Bradley 

(2007) reports contain data we consider 

most relevant to this status review 

because they were collected more 

recently than Sydeman et al.’s (1998a) 

data, they include 8 consecutive years of 

mark-recapture data, and they describe 

empirical observations of occupied nest 

sites in addition to statistical estimates 

of population trend and survival rate. 

The authors note that their study does 

not consider the proportion of birds 

caught that were nonbreeders or 

potential changes in recapture 

probabilities through time. 

Additionally, they noted an alteration in 

monitoring methods that made it 

difficult to determine whether increased 

occupancy was a result of greater 

reproductive effort or due to an increase 

in the ability to detect ashy stormpetrels (Warzybok and Bradley 2007, p. 

17). While we do not dispute the 

historic population decline indicated by 

Sydeman et al (1998a), we believe that 

the updated information presented in 

Warzybok and Bradley’s (2007, p. 17) 

preliminary analysis is more indicative 

of current population trends on 

Southeast Farallon Island. 

In an unpublished report, Sydeman et 

al. (1998b, p. 21) concluded that an 

annual adult ashy storm-petrel survival 

probability of 86.7 percent would 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41845 

explain the 2.87 percent annual 

decrease in population size of ashy 

storm-petrels on Southeast Farallon 

Island (reported in Sydeman et al. 

1998a, p. 443). Based on comparisons to 

adult survival estimates in research of 

other storm-petrel species, Sydeman et 

al. (1998b, pp. 21-22) presumed that an 

annual adult survival probability of 89.2 

percent would maintain ashy stormpetrel population stability, and 

postulated that elimination of all gull 

predation would decrease adult 

mortality by 2.53 percent, potentially 

producing a stable population of ashy 

storm-petrels on Southeast Farallon 

Island. In populations of such long-lived 

organisms as seabirds, annual adult 

survival has been reported as the key 

parameter having the greatest influence 

on population growth rates in 

population models of seabirds (S#ther 

and Bakke 2000, p. 648; Cuthbert et al. 

2001, p. 168; Doherty et al. 2004, p. 

606). 

Based on information on storm-petrel 

wings collected from Southeast Farallon 

Island from 2003 through 2008 (PRBO 

Conservation Science), approximately 

98 percent of avian predation upon ashy 

storm-petrels on Southeast Farallon 

Island has occurred from February 

through August; this corresponds to the 

time of year of peak visitation by adults 

for breeding purposes and non-breeding 

birds prospecting for sites (James-Veitch 

1970, p. 71; Ainley 1995, p. 5). During 

2003 to 2008, avian predation 

categorized as gull, owl, and 

‘‘unknown’’ accounted for 

approximately 57.4 percent, 34.3 

percent, and 8.3 percent, respectively, of 

ashy storm-petrel deaths on Southeast 

Farallon Island (PRBO Conservation 

Science). This raw data allows us to 

infer that gulls are likely the greatest 

cause of ashy storm-petrel predation on 

Southeast Farallon Island. 

Avian predation upon ashy stormpetrels at Southeast Farallon Island has 

probably occurred continually for 

decades. Based on recent reports 

showing possible increases in ashy 

storm-petrel survival and numbers 

(Warzybok and Bradley 2007, p. 17), we 

have no indication that such predation 

is impacting the population on 

Southeast Farallon Island or rangewide. 

We conclude that, since ashy stormpetrel populations appear to be 

increasing in the presence of such 

predation, we have no reason to believe 

that such predation will cause a change 

in that trend. 

Southeast Farallon Island – House Mice 

The petitioner cites Ainley et al. 

(1990, pp. 128-163) to support its claim 

that depredation of ashy storm-petrel 

eggs and chicks by nonnative house 

mice is the leading cause of egg failure 

and chick death, and significantly 

lowers ashy storm-petrel breeding 

success on Southeast Farallon Island 

(CBD 2007, p. 31). This claim is not 

supported by the information contained 

in Ainley et al. (1990, pp. 128-163). 

Specifically, out of a total of 274 ashy 

storm-petrel eggs laid during 1972-83, 

Ainley et al. (1990, p. 156) inferred 

predation by feral house mice of one 

ashy storm-petrel chick, based upon the 

remains of a partially eaten carcass. 

Twenty-six eggs (9.5 percent) were 

categorized as failed to hatch, 9 eggs (3.3 

percent) were abandoned, 8 eggs (2.9 

percent) ‘‘disappeared,’’ and 2 eggs (0.7 

percent) were found broken; however, 

house mice were not mentioned as a 

significant cause of egg failure. 

Furthermore, our review of the available 

information reveals no information that 

suggests nonnative house mice pose a 

significant direct predation threat to 

ashy storm-petrels on Southeast 

Farallon Island. We have no data 

indicating that house mice prey upon 

ashy storm-petrel eggs or chicks 

anywhere else within the species’ range. 

Channel Islands – Black Rats and Feral 

Cats 

The petitioner claims that nonnative 

black rats and feral cats are documented 

predators of seabird eggs, chicks, and 

adults; that black rats are extant on San 

Miguel, Santa Catalina, and San 

Clemente Islands; and feral cats may 

still impact ashy storm-petrel 

populations on Santa Catalina and San 

Clemente Islands (CBD 2007, p. 32). 

Beyond these claims, the petitioner 

provides no specific information 

documenting predation of ashy stormpetrels by nonnative black rats or feral 

cats. 

Nonnative black rats and (feral) cats 

are well-documented predators of 

seabird eggs, chicks, and adults and 

have caused seabird population declines 

worldwide, including California 

(McChesney and Tershey 1999, pp. 335- 

347; Jones et al. 2008, pp. 16-26). At San 

Miguel Island proper, black rats have a 

limited distribution, primarily found in 

shoreline and bluff habitats on the west 

and north sides of the island (Erickson 

and Halvorson 1990, p. 13). Possible 

nesting of ashy storm-petrels on San 

Miguel Island proper has been 

presumed, based on birds with brood 

patches captured in mist nets deployed 

between Harris Point and Cuyler Harbor 

(on the island’s north side) (Carter et al. 

2008, p. 119). Ashy storm-petrels may 

also breed in cliffs near Hoffman Point, 

on San Miguel Island proper (Carter et 

al. 2008c, p. 17). However, no 

population estimate for ashy stormpetrels is available for San Miguel 

Island proper (Carter et al. 1992, p. I-87). 

As stated earlier, the black rat is a 

potential nonnative predator of ashy 

storm-petrels (McChesney and Tershey 

1998, p. 342), although predation of 

ashy storm-petrels by rats has not been 

documented. Predation of ashy stormpetrels at Santa Catalina Island and San 

Clemente Island by feral cats has not 

been documented. Ashy storm-petrels 

have been confirmed to nest in very 

small numbers (approximately 0.2 

percent of total breeding population) on 

offshore rocks at Santa Catalina Island 

(Ship Rock) and San Clemente Island 

(Seal Cove Area), locations that are 

likely inaccessible to feral cats on the 

islands proper. Therefore, we conclude 

that it is likely that less than one 

percent of the total population of ashy 

storm-petrels may be susceptible to 

predation from black rats and feral cats. 

We have examined the available 

information concerning the predation 

threat from nonnative black rats and 

feral cats and have found no direct 

evidence showing that black rats and 

cats currently prey on ashy stormpetrels in the Channel Islands, 

Southeast Farallon Island, or rangewide. 

Santa Cruz Island – Barn Owl 

The petitioner includes the barn owl 

on its list of native avian predators of 

ashy storm-petrels but provides no 

further information regarding this threat 

(CBD 2007, p. 30). Barn owls have a 

worldwide distribution and occur 

throughout the range of the ashy stormpetrel (Marti 1992, p. 1; Rudolph 1970, 

p. 8). Barn owls hunt mostly at night but 

occasionally diurnally (Marti 1992, p. 

3). Most hunting is done in low flight 

above ground in open habitats (Bunn et 

al. 1982, p. 11), but some hunting 

occurs from perches (Taylor 1994, p. 

58). McIver (2002, p. 46) reports that 

nest-site searching behaviors of adult 

ashy storm-petrel adults and the 

mobility of older chicks are activities 

that increase the susceptibility of ashy 

storm-petrels to predation by barn owls. 

At Santa Cruz Island, researchers have 

observed predation of ashy stormpetrels by barn owls. In a study at five 

breeding locations on Santa Cruz Island, 

McIver (2002, p. 69) documented 83 

ashy storm-petrels (76 adults and 7 

chicks) killed by barn owls from 1995 to 

1997. Approximately 97.6 percent of 

these ashy storm-petrels were at two 

locations (75 birds at Bat Cave and 6 

birds at Orizaba Rock) (McIver 2002, p. 

69). More recent data reported that 13 

ashy storm-petrels were killed by barn 

owls on Santa Cruz Island from 2005 to 

2008 (McIver and Carter 2006, pp. 3-4; 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41846 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

McIver et al. 2008, pp. 4-6; McIver et al. 

2009, pp. 5-10). At Santa Cruz Island, 

the mortality rate of ashy storm-petrel 

adults due to barn owl predation was 

approximately 5.4 percent during the 

1995-97 period (n = 350 estimated 

number of adults in nests) and 0.8 

percent during the 2005 to 2008 period 

(n = 304 estimated number of adults in 

nests) (McIver and Carter, unpublished 

data). Our analysis indicates that 

mortality of ashy storm-petrels due to 

barn owls was heavy during the 1995 to 

1997 period (McIver 2002, p. 30), but is 

currently much reduced (McIver et al., 

in preparation, p. 1); the reason for this 

decline is unknown. We conclude that 

reduced avian predation on Santa Cruz 

Island is the most likely explanation for 

the observed increase in ashy stormpetrel productivity (for ashy stormpetrels that have escaped skunk 

predation) there. In addition, we 

conclude that current levels of 

predation of ashy storm-petrels by barn 

owls at Santa Cruz Island do not 

constitute a substantial threat to the 

species. Since barn owls do not occur 

anywhere else within the range of the 

ashy storm-petrel, we also conclude that 

barn owls are not a threat to the ashy 

storm-petrel rangewide. 

Santa Cruz Island – Island Spotted 

Skunk 

Ashy storm-petrels are known to 

breed at 11 locations on Santa Cruz 

Island (Carter et al. 2008, p. 119), and 

for this status review, we have compiled 

information from many sources to 

estimate the number of ashy stormpetrels breeding in sea caves and on 

offshore rocks at Santa Cruz Island. 

Ashy storm-petrels may nest in crevices 

that occur in steep cliffs on Santa Cruz 

Island (Carter et al. 2008, p. 121); 

however, accessing and censusing these 

cliffs is extremely difficult for 

researchers, and, therefore, we can 

provide no estimate here of numbers of 

ashy storm-petrels that may nest in cliffs 

at Santa Cruz Island. Excluding Orizaba 

(‘‘Sppit’’) Rock, Carter et al. (1992, p. I87) estimated 273 breeding ashy stormpetrels during the periods from 1975 to 

1980 and 1989 to 1991 at offshore rocks 

at Santa Cruz Island, based on 

summaries of historical data and mark– 

recapture data. Based on a total of 

average numbers of active nests 

observed at each location (McIver and 

Carter 2006, pp. 2-3; Carter et al. 2007, 

pp. 7-9; McIver et al. 2008, pp. 4-6; 

McIver et al. 2009, p. 24) and other 

information (Carter et al. 1992, p. I-87; 

McIver et al. 2009, p. 24; Carter, 

unpublished data; McIver et al. in 

preparation), approximately 32 breeding 

ashy storm-petrels utilized Orizaba 

Rock, and 231 breeding ashy stormpetrels utilized sea caves at Santa Cruz 

Island during 2005 to 2008. Combining 

these population values, we estimate 

that 305 ashy storm-petrels nested on 

offshore rocks at Santa Cruz Island, and 

230 ashy storm-petrels nested in sea 

caves at Santa Cruz Island from 2005 to 

2008. Therefore, approximately 43 

percent of ashy storm-petrels nesting at 

Santa Cruz Island used sea caves from 

2005 to 2008. This translates to 

approximately 7 to 9 percent of the total 

ashy storm-petrel population, 

depending on the population estimates 

used. 

The island spotted skunk occurs only 

on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands 

(Crooks and Van Vuren, p. 380) and 

constitutes no threat to ashy stormpetrels anywhere else. On Santa Cruz 

Island, the island spotted skunk 

population has increased recently from 

rare to abundant (Crooks and Van Vuren 

1994, p. 380; Jones, et al. 2008, p. 76). 

Jones et al. (2008, pp. 81-84) reports that 

there are two explanations for this 

increase in spotted skunk numbers at 

Santa Cruz Island: competitive release 

(an increase in population due to 

reduced competition) due to decline of 

the island fox (Urocyon littoralis 

santacruzae), and recovery of vegetation 

due to removal of feral livestock. In a 

radio-telemetry study on Santa Cruz 

Island, Crooks and Van Vuren (1994, pp. 

381-382) found that island spotted 

skunks utilized chaparral grasslands, 

open grasslands, and coastal sage scrub 

habitats; fed on deer mice, lizards, and 

insects; and were active only at night. 

Jones et al. (2008, p. 80) reported that 

island spotted skunks also utilized 

fennel-dominated and riparian habitats. 

Like other sea caves in which ashy 

storm-petrels nest at Santa Cruz Island, 

Bat Cave and Cavern Point Cove Caves 

occur at the base of sheer cliffs and 

coastal bluffs (McIver 2002, p. 8). The 

coastal slopes above the sea caves at 

Santa Cruz Island comprise coastal bluff 

scrub habitat (Junak et al. 1995, p. 14), 

likely utilized by island spotted skunks. 

Skunks may have fallen or jumped off 

nearby bluffs or cliffs and swam into the 

caves (Carter and McIver 2006, p. 4). 

Like other procellariids, ashy stormpetrels have a strong and distinctive 

musky odor (James-Veitch 1970, p. 86), 

and this odor can be detected at the 

entrances of the sea caves at Santa Cruz 

Island in which ashy storm-petrels nest 

(McIver, personal observation). In 

addition, ashy storm-petrels return to 

and depart their nesting colonies at 

night, and nighttime activities at nesting 

locations include vocalizations and 

aerial displays, including circling flights 

at the sea cave entrances (James-Veitch 

1970, p. 24; McIver personal 

observation). 

During the period from 2005 to 2008, 

researchers reported that island spotted 

skunks killed at least 100 ashy stormpetrels at two locations on the northeast 

coast of Santa Cruz Island: 70 ashy 

storm-petrels at Bat Cave in 2005 and 32 

ashy storm-petrels at Cavern Point Cove 

Caves in 2008 (McIver and Carter 2006, 

p. 3; McIver et al. 2009, p. 7). The 

mortality event at Bat Cave in 2005 

resulted in the temporary loss of the 

largest ashy storm-petrel colony at Santa 

Cruz Island (average of 80 nests per year 

in 1995-97 (McIver 2002, p. 24)) and the 

colony with the largest numbers of 

monitored nests of the ashy storm-petrel 

(McIver and Carter 2006, p. 4). One 

skunk was live-trapped and removed 

from the cave in June 2005, and the 

other was presumed to have died in or 

left the cave by the next year (McIver 

and Carter 2006, p. 3; Carter et al. 2007, 

p. 7). Ashy storm-petrel nests were 

documented in Bat Cave in 2006 (19 

nests), 2007 (28 nests), and 2008 (40 

nests), and no further evidence of 

skunks in the cave has been observed 

since 2005 (Carter et al. 2007, p. 7; 

McIver et al. 2008, p. 4; McIver et al. 

2009, p. 6). The mortality event at 

Cavern Point Cove Caves in 2008, 

located approximately 0.6 mi (1 km) 

east of Bat Cave, resulted in the death 

of at least 32 adult ashy storm-petrels 

and complete reproductive failure at 

this location in 2008 (McIver et al. 2009, 

p. 7). A skunk was live-trapped and 

removed from Cavern Point Cove Caves 

in early July 2008, and marked and 

released on the island approximately 2.5 

mi (4 km) southeast from the capture 

location (McIver et al. 2009, p. 7). Livetraps were deployed in Bat Cave and 

Cavern Point Cove Caves and monitored 

regularly for the remainder of the 2008 

breeding season, to capture and remove 

skunks and prevent further storm-petrel 

deaths (McIver et al. 2009, p. 7). A 

second spotted skunk was caught in a 

live trap at Cavern Point Cove Caves in 

September 2008, but died. After the 

2005 predation event at Bat Cave, 

researchers considered the skunkpredation incident to be an isolated, 

unusual event (McIver and Carter 2006, 

p. 4). Recent research shows that island 

spotted skunk population numbers at 

Santa Cruz Island have likely increased 

to carrying capacity, possibly in 

response to reduced numbers of island 

foxes (Jones et al. 2008, pp. 81-84). 

Given the additional skunk-predation 

incident in 2008, and known increases 

in island spotted skunk population 

numbers on the island, ashy stormVerDate Nov<24>2008 14:26 Aug 18, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM 19AUP1

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41847 

petrels nesting in sea caves on Santa 

Cruz Island may be vulnerable to 

episodic predation by skunks (McIver et 

al. 2009, p. 14). The spotted skunk diet 

is largely comprised of invertebrates and 

vertebrates other than birds. For 

example, during 1992, occurrence of 

avian remains in spotted skunk scat 

occurred only in 4 percent of acquired 

samples. Samples in 2003 and 2004 

contained no avian remains (Jones et al. 

2008, pp. 81-84). 

The future of island spotted skunk 

population numbers and trends at Santa 

Cruz Island is uncertain and may be 

directly related to the recovery status of 

the island fox (Jones et al. 2008, p. 83). 

A recovering population of island foxes 

may or may not be able to suppress the 

population of island spotted skunks to 

its former levels, and this may result in 

a new equilibrium of fox and skunk 

population numbers at Santa Cruz 

Island (Jones et al. 2008, p. 83). 

Regardless, spotted skunk predation is 

unlikely to increase beyond levels 

observed in recent years, because Jones 

et al. (2008, p. 83) suggested that skunks 

may have been approaching or even 

exceeding carrying capacity during their 

study. The conclusion of Jones et al. 

(2008, p. 83) was supported by a trend 

toward smaller skunk body size and 

undiminished skunk home ranges in 

2003–2004 versus 1992. In addition, the 

proportion of juvenile skunks captured 

decreased during the study, from 24 

percent in September 2003 to 5 percent 

in September 2004. This leads us to 

believe that the spotted skunk predation 

will not likely affect more than a very 

small percentage (approximately 7 to 9 

percent) of the overall ashy storm-petrel 

population. 

Santa Cruz Island is owned and 

managed by the Park and the Nature 

Conservancy. The Park owns and 

manages approximately the eastern 25 

percent of the island, where two ashy 

storm-petrel sea-cave locations (Bat 

Cave and Cavern Point Cove Caves) 

occur; the Park also manages the 

offshore rocks at the island, six of which 

(Del Mar Rock, Diablo Rocks, Orizaba 

Rock, Scorpion Rock, Willow 

Anchorage Rocks, and Gull Island) are 

ashy storm-petrel breeding locations. 

The Nature Conservancy owns 

approximately the western 75 percent of 

the island, where three ashy stormpetrel sea caves (Shipwreck Cave, Dry 

Sandy Beach Cave, and Cave of the 

Bird’s Eggs) occur. Currently, 

monitoring of nesting success of ashy 

storm-petrels at Santa Cruz Island is 

being conducted in association with 

restoration activities, funded through 

2010 by the Montrose Settlements 

Restoration Program (Montrose 

Settlements Restoration Program 2005, 

p. 196). Researchers have proposed the 

development and implementation of a 

skunk management plan to prevent 

skunk predation of storm-petrels in sea 

caves at Santa Cruz Island; this plan is 

scheduled to be implemented by the 

Park during 2009-10 (McIver et al. 2009, 

p. 16). 

Further research on population size, 

trends, and distribution of island 

spotted skunks at Santa Cruz Island is 

needed. Based on the relatively isolated 

mortality events at Bat Cave and Cavern 

Point Cove Caves, we characterize the 

threat of predation by island spotted 

skunks as sporadic and believe that 

efforts to control skunks by the Park will 

diminish the possibility of skunk 

predation even further. We estimate that 

approximately 7 to 9 percent of the total 

population of ashy storm-petrels is 

susceptible to this episodic threat, and 

therefore predation by island spotted 

skunks is not a significant concern at 

the Channel Islands, nor is it a threat in 

any way at Southeast Farallon Island, or 

rangewide. 

Santa Cruz Island – Deer Mice 

Deer mice occur in a variety of 

habitats on Santa Cruz Island, including 

chaparral, rocky outcrops, marsh, 

riparian, pine forest, oak woodland, 

buildings, and sea caves (Mayfield et al. 

2000, pp. 509; McIver 2002, pp. 29-30). 

Egg predation by deer mice has been 

documented for crevice-nesting seabird 

species and usually occurs during 

periods of parental absence (Murray et 

al. 1983, p. 17; Drever et al. 2000, pp. 

2013-2015; Blight et al. 1999, pp. 872- 

873). In a 4–year study at Santa Cruz 

Island, McIver (2002, pp. 40-41) 

reported that deer mice scavenged or 

preyed upon at least four ashy stormpetrel eggs, and concluded that egg 

predation by deer mice was likely not a 

major cause of egg mortality there. In 

addition, (McIver 2002, p. 41) reported 

that two ashy storm-petrel chicks were 

found partially eaten by mice, although 

it was unknown if mice killed these 

chicks or scavenged them after they had 

died of other causes. Similarly, 

researchers at Santa Cruz Island during 

2005 to 2008 did not find predation of 

ashy storm-petrel eggs by deer mice to 

be significant (less than six total) 

(McIver and Carter 2006, pp. 2-4; Carter 

et al. 2007, pp. 8-24; McIver et al. 2008, 

p. 5; McIver et al. 2009, pp. 5-8). Our 

review of the available information 

reveals no other information that 

indicates predation of ashy storm-petrel 

eggs by deer mice is a substantial threat 

at the Channel Islands, Southeast 

Farallon Island, or rangewide. 

Disease 

The petitioner did not raise disease as 

a threat to the ashy storm-petrel. 

Moreover, disease in ashy storm-petrels 

has not been reported as a threat to the 

species (Ainley 1995, p. 8). Accordingly, 

we conclude disease is not a threat to 

the ashy storm-petrel on Southeast 

Farallon Island, the Channel Islands, or 

rangewide. 

Summary of Factor C 

Approximately 36 to 53 percent of all 

ashy storm-petrels breed on Southeast 

Farallon Island, and ashy storm-petrels 

are preyed upon by several predator 

species, the most notable being western 

gulls. Avian predation of ashy stormpetrels has persisted on Southeast 

Farallon Island at similar or increasing 

levels since at least 1994, yet recent 

reports show that ashy storm-petrel 

survival appears to be increasing, and 

their total numbers also appear to be 

increasing. Therefore, at this time, we 

do not consider predation by western 

gulls to be a significant threat to ashy 

storm-petrels. Our analysis of the 

available information reveals little 

information regarding the extent of 

burrowing owl predation, and predation 

of ashy storm-petrel eggs and chicks by 

nonnative house mice on Southeast 

Farallon Island does not pose a 

significant threat to ashy storm-petrels. 

We conclude that predation of ashy 

storm-petrels by island spotted skunks 

on Santa Cruz Island could occur on a 

sporadic basis, but thus far, spotted 

skunks have affected less than 7 to 9 

percent of the total ashy storm-petrel 

population. Once removed, spotted 

skunks no longer pose a threat to ashy 

storm-petrels, and monitoring for 

skunks is planned in coming years. We 

conclude that predation of ashy stormpetrel adults and chicks by barn owls, 

and predation of ashy storm-petrel eggs 

by deer mice on Santa Cruz Island do 

not pose a threat to ashy storm-petrels. 

Finally, we conclude that predation of 

ashy storm-petrels by feral cats and 

nonnative black rats does not pose a 

significant threat to ashy storm-petrels. 

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petitioner asserts that existing 

regulatory mechanisms have been 

ineffective at preventing the decline of 

the ashy storm-petrel and in mitigating 

many of the threats to the species (CBD 

2007, p. 32). The petitioner claims that 

the ineffectiveness of regulatory 

mechanisms is demonstrated by the 

failure to eradicate nonnative predators, 

the inadequate regulation of artificial 

light pollution, the failure to restrict 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41848 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

human disturbance at breeding sites, the 

lack of regulations on greenhouse gases, 

and the failure of the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) to protect 

the species from the identified threats 

(CBD 2007, pp. 32-35). Consequently, in 

this section we discuss these and other 

regulatory mechanisms. 

U.S. Federal Protection 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1970 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4371 et 

seq.) requires that all activities 

undertaken, authorized, or funded by 

Federal agencies be analyzed for 

potential impacts to the human 

environment prior to implementation. 

NEPA does not require adverse impacts 

be fully mitigated, and some impacts 

could still occur. Additionally, NEPA is 

only required for projects with a Federal 

nexus, and therefore, actions that do not 

require a Federal permit or occur on 

private land are not required to comply 

with this law. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

(MBTA) states that it is unlawful ‘‘to 

pursue, hunt, take, capture kill, or 

attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, 

offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, 

offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for 

shipment, ship, export, import, cause to 

be shipped, exported, or imported, 

deliver for transportation, transport or 

cause to be transported, carry or cause 

to be carried, or receive for shipment, 

transportation, carriage, or export, any 

migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of 

any such bird, or any product, whether 

or not manufactured.’’ The ashy stormpetrel is included in the list of migratory 

birds protected by the MBTA. The 

MBTA provides penalties for anyone in 

violation of its provisions. The 

petitioner claims that the MBTA does 

not provide protection from many of the 

threats facing the species such as plastic 

pollution, light pollution, nonnative 

predators, and changing ocean 

conditions as a consequence of global 

warming (CBD 2007, p. 36). In addition, 

the petitioner asserts that, unlike the 

Act, the MBTA provides no citizen suit 

provision, no requirement for 

designation or protection of critical 

habitat, no consultation provision to 

ensure Federal agency actions do not 

jeopardize the species, nor an 

affirmative conservation mandate to 

recover the species. The provisions of 

the MBTA prevent hunting, capturing, 

or killing or attempting to take, capture, 

or kill, or possess ashy storm-petrels. 

The degree to which the protections are 

applied are a matter of enforcement and 

there are likely to be instances where 

permits under the MBTA are not 

obtained and some mortality may occur. 

However, our analysis did not reveal 

information that would suggest a level 

of mortality that would be a significant 

threat to the species. Overall the MBTA 

provides protections for the ashy stormpetrel that would otherwise not exist. 

On January 10, 2001, President 

Clinton issued Executive Order 13186, 

pertaining to responsibilities of Federal 

agencies to protect migratory birds, and 

directing executive departments and 

agencies to further implement the 

MBTA (66 FR 3853; January 17, 2001). 

Executive Order 13186 directs each 

Federal agency taking actions that have, 

or are likely to have, a measurable 

negative effect on migratory bird 

populations to develop and implement 

(within 2 years) a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) with the Service 

that promotes the conservation of 

migratory bird populations. The DOD 

entered into a MOU with the Service on 

August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51580), which 

emphasizes a general collaborative 

approach to conservation of migratory 

birds. Conservation measures include 

minimizing disturbance to breeding, 

migration, and wintering habitats. While 

this MOU is non-binding and it does not 

authorize the take of migratory birds, it 

does provide an additional opportunity 

for the Service to continue to reduce the 

threat of habitat loss to the ashy stormpetrel on lands owned and managed by 

the DOD, including San Clemente 

Island. Currently, approximately 0.1 

percent of the entire ashy storm-petrel 

population breeds on DOD lands. We 

are not aware that any other Federal 

agency has entered into a similar MOU 

with the Service. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

is managed by the Service primarily for 

the benefit of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats (Service 

2008, p. 2). The Farallon National 

Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was 

established in 1909, is located 

approximately 28 miles west of San 

Francisco, and is composed of several 

islands, including Southeast Farallon 

Island. On December 22, 2008, we 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing the availability of 

a draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) and environmental 

assessment to manage natural resources 

at the Refuge (73 FR 78386). As stated 

earlier, ashy storm-petrels at Southeast 

Farallon Island are susceptible to 

predation by western gulls (which breed 

at the island) and burrowing owls 

(which do not breed at the island but are 

regular fall migrants and overwinter at 

the island). Managers at the Refuge are 

concerned about high levels of avian 

predation upon and reduced 

productivity and survivorship of ashy 

storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island. Consequently, within 5 years of 

approval of the final CCP (anticipated in 

year 2010), the Refuge proposes the 

following management actions: (1) 

Develop a plan to eradicate the 

nonnative house mouse through 

rodenticide application and prevent 

future human introductions of mice; (2) 

translocate to the mainland individual 

burrowing owls that overwinter on 

Southeast Farallon Island, until mice at 

the island are eradicated; (3) monitor 

western gull nests for ashy storm-petrel 

remains, and conduct experimental 

selective removal (culling) of no more 

than 10 western gulls annually to 

reduce predation upon ashy stormpetrels; and (4) monitor the ashy stormpetrel population (Service 2008, pp. 84, 

98). 

The management actions, once 

implemented, may be successful in 

reducing predation of ashy storm-petrels 

by western gulls and burrowing owls, 

which, in turn, may result in an increase 

in productivity and survivorship of ashy 

storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island. However, we are not basing our 

finding of whether listing is warranted 

on future actions contained in the draft 

CCP. Nevertheless, the proposed 

management actions in the Refuge’s 

draft CCP, when approved and funded, 

will likely benefit the ashy storm-petrel 

at Southeast Farallon Island, where an 

estimated 36 to 53 percent of all 

breeding ashy storm-petrels occur. 

National Park Service Organic Act 

The National Park Service Organic 

Act (16 U.S.C. l et seq.) established the 

U.S. National Park Service, ‘‘* * * to 

promote and regulate the use of the * * 

* national parks * * * which purpose is 

to conserve the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wild life 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment 

of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired 

for the enjoyment of future 

generations.’’ On March 5, 1980, the 

U.S. Congress established as the 

Channel Islands National Park (Park) the 

islands of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa 

Cruz, Anacapa, Santa Barbara, and the 

submerged lands and waters within one 

nautical mile of each island. In 2007, in 

accordance with 36 CFR, Chapters 1-7, 

the Park prohibited access by park 

visitors on: 1) Offshore rocks and islets 

in the Park; 2) Bat Cave and Cavern 

Point Cove Caves, Santa Cruz Island; 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41849 

and 3) shorelines and cliffs at Santa 

Barbara Island, to protect wildlife and 

natural resources, including ashy stormpetrels (NPS 2007, p. 2). Thus, visitor 

access is prohibited at 16 ashy stormpetrel breeding locations (locations #7- 

22, in Table 1) managed by the National 

Park Service, which constitutes 

approximately 99 percent of the 

breeding locations in the Channel 

Islands and, depending on population 

estimates, approximately 44 to 60 

percent of the ashy storm-petrel 

breeding locations rangewide. 

Under the authority of the Antiquities 

Act of 1906, the California Coastal 

National Monument (CCNM) was 

established by Presidential 

Proclamation number 7264, on January 

11, 2000. The Presidential Proclamation 

defined the CCNM as all unappropriated 

or unreserved lands and interest in 

lands owned or controlled by the United 

States in the form of islands, rocks, 

exposed reefs, and pinnacles above 

mean high tide within 12 nautical miles 

of the shoreline of the State of 

California. The CCNM is comprised of 

more than 20,000 small islands, rocks, 

exposed reefs, and pinnacles within the 

corridor extending 12 nautical miles 

(22.2 km) from the shoreline between 

Mexico and Oregon. This proclamation 

directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

manage the monument through the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In 

2005, the BLM approved a resource 

management plan for the CCNM (BLM 

2005), which contains broad direction 

for the protection of the geologic 

formations and habitats for seabirds, 

and focuses on multi-agency and other 

partnerships and involvement of local 

communities as the keys to management 

and protection. Five ashy storm-petrel 

breeding locations (locations # 1, 2, 6, 

23 and 24 in Table 1) are managed by 

the BLM, which, depending on 

population estimates used, comprise 

about 1.2 percent to 1.7 percent of the 

total population of breeding ashy stormpetrels. 

Sikes Act 

The Sikes Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 670 

et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of 

Defense to develop cooperative plans for 

conservation and rehabilitation 

programs on military reservations and to 

establish outdoor recreation facilities, 

and provides for the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and the Interior to develop 

cooperative plans for conservation and 

rehabilitation programs on public lands 

under their jurisdiction. The Sikes Act 

Improvement Act of 1997 required 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

installations to prepare Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plans 

(INRMPs). Consistent with the use of 

military installations to ensure the 

readiness of the Armed Forces, INRMPs 

provide for the conservation and 

rehabilitation of natural resources on 

military lands and incorporate, to the 

maximum extent practicable, ecosystem 

management principles and provide the 

landscape necessary to sustain military 

land uses. The U.S. Navy currently 

controls feral cats on San Clemente 

Island through an existing INRMP 

(Hering 2008, p. 6), and this may benefit 

the small numbers of ashy storm-petrels 

nesting there. 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

of 1972 (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, 

and specifically the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), to designate and protect areas 

of the marine environment with special 

national significance due to their 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, scientific, cultural, 

archeological, educational, or esthetic 

qualities as national marine sanctuaries. 

Within the range of the ashy stormpetrel, the four national marine 

sanctuaries (NMS) that have been 

designated in California are: the 

Channel Islands NM Sanctuary (CINMS) 

off the coast of southern California 

(1980); Gulf of the Farallons NMS 

(formerly Point-Reyes Farallon Islands 

NMS [1981]); Cordell Bank NMS off the 

coast of central California (1989); and 

the Monterey Bay NMS (1992). In 1989, 

Congress passed a law that prohibits the 

exploration for, or the development or 

production of, oil, gas, or minerals in 

any area of the Cordell Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary (P.L. 101-74). The 

Oceans Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-587) 

prohibits leasing, exploration of, 

producing, or developing oil and gas in 

the Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary; and includes a requirement 

for Federal agencies to consult with the 

program on activities that are likely to 

injure sanctuary resources. In 2007, 

NOAA expanded the state ‘‘no-take’’ 

marine reserves and one of the limited 

take marine conservation areas in the 

CINMS to include Federal waters out to 

6 nautical miles (11 km), which 

prohibited or limited removal of, and 

injury to, any CINMS resource, 

including ashy storm-petrels (NOAA 

2007, pp. 29208-29235). Specifically, 

lobster harvest and recreational fishing 

for pelagic finfish (with hook and line 

only) are allowed within the marine 

conservation area, while all other 

extraction or injury to CINMS resources 

is prohibited (NOAA 2007, p. 29212). 

These Federal marine reserves were 

established in conjunction with State of 

California regulatory processes (see 

‘‘State of California Protection’’ 

subsection below). In addition, on 

March 25, 2005, the California Fish and 

Game Commission adopted the Market 

Squid Fishery Management Plan 

(MSFMP; California Fish and Game 

Commission 2005, pp. 1-558), which 

prohibits taking of market squid using 

attracting lights in all waters of the Gulf 

of the Farallons NMS at any time. 

Accordingly, there are regulatory 

measures that prohibit the use of bright 

lights for commercial fishing at 10 ashy 

storm-petrel breeding locations, 

including around Southeast Farallon 

Island, which constitute approximately 

36 to 53 percent of the rangewide 

population and for approximately 16 

percent of the remainder of the 

population rangewide, for a total of 

approximately 52 to 69 percent of the 

total population. 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act of 1953 (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331 et 

seq.) provides the Secretary of the 

Interior, on behalf of the Federal 

Government, with authority to manage 

the mineral resources, including oil and 

gas, on the outer continental shelf (OCS) 

and defines the OCS as all submerged 

lands lying seaward of the State and 

Federal boundary. The Federal Oil & 

Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 

(30 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) mandates 

protection of the environment and 

conservation of Federal lands in the 

course of building oil and gas facilities. 

The Secretary of the Interior designated 

the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) as the administrative agency 

responsible for the mineral leasing of 

submerged OCS lands and for the 

supervision of offshore operations after 

lease issuance. In managing the offshore 

oil and gas resources, the MMS 

conducts environmental studies, issues 

leases, and regulates operations 

conducted on the OCS. The regulatory 

responsibilities include issuing permits 

for oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production and 

inspecting operations during all of these 

activities. Within the range of the ashy 

storm-petrel, the MMS manages the 

offshore mineral resources of 23 active 

leases and 36 undeveloped leases, in 

coordination with other Federal, State, 

and local agencies and in consultation 

with the public (McCrary et al. 2003, pp. 

43-45). 

Deepwater Port Act of 1974 

The Deepwater Port Act of 1974 

(DWPA) (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG; 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41850 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Department of Homeland Security) to 

regulate Liqufied Natural Gas deepwater 

ports and shoreside terminals. 

Originally pertaining only to oil, the 

Maritime Transportation Security Act of 

2002 (MTSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) 

amended the DWPA to include natural 

gas. The regulations pertaining to the 

licensing, design, equipment and 

operation of deepwater ports and 

shoreside terminals are found in Title 

33 CFR parts 148, 149 and 150. The 

Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security delegated the 

processing of DWP applications to the 

USCG and the Maritime Administration 

(MARAD), respectively. MARAD is the 

license issuing authority and works in 

concert with the USCG in developing 

the Environmental Impact Statement, 

while the USCG has primary 

jurisdiction over design, equipment and 

operations and security requirements. 

The DWPA established a specific time 

frame of 330 days from the date of 

publication of a Federal Register notice 

of a ‘‘complete’’ application to the date 

of approval or denial of a deepwater 

port license. Among other requirements, 

an applicant for a deepwater port 

license must demonstrate consistency 

with the Coastal Zone Management Plan 

of the adjacent coastal States. The USCG 

and MARAD, in cooperation with other 

Federal agencies, must comply with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act in processing 

deepwater port applications within the 

timeframes prescribed in the DWPA. To 

date the USCG has received the 

following two deepwater port 

applications, which are pending USCG 

approval, and occur within the range of 

the ashy storm-petrel: Clearwater Port 

LNG, Project NorthernStar Natural Gas; 

and Port Esperanza, Esperanza Energy 

LLC. A third proposed LNG project, the 

Oceanway LNG Terminal, was 

withdrawn by Woodside Petroleum, 

Ltd. in January 2009 (Woodside 

Petroleum Ltd. 2009, pp. 1-2). 

Federal Power Act of 1920 

Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power 

Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et. seq.) 

grants jurisdiction to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the 

licensing of hydropower development 

(for example, wave energy projects) in 

offshore waters of the United States. We 

are aware of at least one proposed wave 

energy project that occurs within the 

range of the ashy storm-petrel. FERC 

licensing procedures include analyzing 

potential project effects on natural 

resources including, but not limited to, 

water quality, water use, marine 

mammals, fish, birds, geology, land use, 

ocean use, navigation, recreation, 

aesthetics, and cultural resources. 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 

U.S.C. 2701 et. seq.) amended the Clean 

Water Act and addressed the wide range 

of problems associated with preventing, 

responding to, and paying for oil 

pollution incidents in navigable waters 

of the United States. It created a 

comprehensive prevention, response, 

liability, and compensation regime to 

deal with vessel- and facility-caused oil 

pollution to U.S. navigable waters. The 

OPA increased Federal oversight of 

maritime oil transportation and 

provided environmental safeguards by: 

setting new requirements for vessel 

construction and crew licensing and 

manning; mandating contingency 

planning; enhancing Federal response 

capability; broadening enforcement 

authority; increasing penalties and 

potential liabilities; and creating new 

research and development programs. 

Various Federal agencies are responsible 

for implementing the OPA. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is responsible for non-transportationrelated onshore facilities and incidents 

in the Inland Zone, the USCG is 

responsible for marine transportationrelated facilities and incidents in the 

Coastal Zone, MARAD (in the 

Department of Transportation) is 

responsible for promoting the U.S. 

merchant marine and shipbuilding 

industry, and the Department of 

Commerce (specifically, NOAA) is 

responsible for natural resource damage 

assessments relating to oil discharges. 

The OPA requires a phase-out of singlehull tankers from U.S. waters by 2015. 

Committee on Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

et al. (1998, p. 147) report that although 

the mandatory phase-out schedule of 

section 4115 of the OPA bans all singlehull tankers (without double bottoms or 

double sides) from U.S. trade after 2010, 

it is probable that under the deepwater 

port and lightering zone exemption, 

large single-hull vessels up to 30 years 

of age will operate in the United States 

through 2015. For this status review, we 

could not find specific information 

indicating how many single-hull tankers 

currently utilize California waters, and 

whether compliance with the doublehull provisions of section 4115 of the 

OPA will be achieved. The OPA 

imposes liability for removal costs and 

damages resulting from an incident in 

which oil is discharged into navigable 

waters or adjoining shorelines or the 

exclusive economic zone. In 2006, a 

damage assessment, restoration plan, 

and environmental assessment 

(Luckenbach 2006, pp. 1-165) was 

presented by Natural Resource Trustee 

Agencies (Service, NOAA, National Park 

Service, and California Department of 

Fish and Game) for natural resources 

(including ashy storm-petrels) injured 

during multiple oil spills that occurred 

off the coast of San Francisco, 

California, from 1990 to December 2003. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 

7401 et seq.) EPA to develop and 

enforce regulations to protect the 

general public from exposure to 

airborne contaminants that are known to 

be hazardous to human health. In 2007, 

the Supreme Court ruled that gases that 

cause global warming are pollutants 

under the Clean Air Act, and that the 

EPA has the authority to regulate carbon 

dioxide and other heat-trapping gases 

(Massachusetts et al. v. EPA 2007 [Case 

No. 05-1120]). The petitioner claims that 

the ashy storm-petrel is threatened by a 

lack of regulatory mechanisms to curb 

greenhouse gases (GHG) that contribute 

to global temperature rises, ocean 

acidification, and sea level rise (CBD 

2007, p. 34). As stated earlier, our status 

review did not reveal information that 

indicates productivity of ashy stormpetrels is adversely affected by ocean 

acidification, and we conclude that sea 

level rise within the next 40 to 50 years 

is not a significant threat to ashy stormpetrels. 

State of California Protection 

The California Department of Fish 

and Game (CDFG) is the State agency 

responsible for managing California’s 

fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and 

the habitats upon which they depend, 

for their ecological values and for their 

use and enjoyment by the public. The 

ashy storm-petrel is designated as a 

Species of Special Concern by the CDFG 

(Carter et al. 2008, pp. 117-124). This 

status does not confer regulatory 

protection to the species and applies to 

animals not listed under the Act or the 

California Endangered Species Act 

(CESA), but which nonetheless (1) are 

declining at a rate that could result in 

listing, or (2) historically occurred in 

low numbers and known threats to their 

persistence currently exist. In addition, 

this designation is intended to result in 

special consideration for these animals 

by the CDFG, land managers, consulting 

biologists, and others, and is intended 

to: focus attention on the species to 

achieve conservation and recovery of 

these animals before they meet CESA 

criteria for listing as threatened or 

endangered; stimulate collection of 

additional information on the biology, 

distribution, and status of poorly known 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41851 

at-risk species; and focus research and 

management attention on the species. 

California Environmental Quality Act 

of 1970 (CEQA) does not regulate land 

use, but requires all local and State 

agencies to avoid or minimize 

environmental damage where feasible, 

during the course of proposed projects. 

CEQA provides protection not only for 

State-listed or federally listed species, 

but also for any species designated as 

species of special concern by the CDFG. 

In 1999, the California legislature 

approved and the governor signed the 

Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA; 

Stats.1999, Chapter 1015). The MLPA 

requires that the CDFG prepare and 

present to the Fish and Game 

Commission a master plan that will 

guide the adoption and implementation 

of a Marine Life Protection Program, 

which includes a statewide network of 

marine protected areas. In 2003, the 

State of California established nine State 

Marine Reserves in the California 

Channel Islands, which (in part) 

prohibit within these reserves market 

squid fishery activities that use bright 

lights. In 2008, the CDFG published a 

revised draft plan for marine protected 

areas in California (CDFG 2008a). The 

CDFG has organized a MLPA South 

Coast Regional Stakeholder Group to reexamine and re-design the Marine 

Protected Areas in southern California, 

to increase their coherence and 

effectiveness at protecting the State’s 

marine life, habitat, and ecosystems. 

On March 25, 2005, the California 

Fish and Game Commission adopted the 

MSFMP (California Fish and Game 

Commission 2005, pp. 1-558), which: (1) 

Limits the wattage of attracting lights 

(see Factor E below) to a maximum of 

30,000 watts per boat; (2) requires that 

attracting lights be shielded to direct the 

light downward, or situated such that 

the illumination is completely 

submerged underwater; and (3) and 

prohibits, at any time, the use of 

attracting lights for the purpose of 

taking of market squid in all waters of 

the Gulf of the Farallons NMS, that 

encompasses all of the ashy stormpetrels on Southeast Farallon Island and 

approximately 36 to 53 percent of the 

ashy storm-petrels rangewide. 

Mexican Federal Protection 

The ashy storm-petrel is currently 

listed as threatened under Mexican Law, 

NOM-059-ECOL-2001, and is proposed 

as endangered under a draft amendment 

of this law (SEMARNAT 2008, p. 39). 

Pursuant to this law, general criteria are 

to be followed in managing Mexican 

wildlife, including, but not limited to: 

preservation of biodiversity and natural 

species habitats; and preservation of 

endemic, threatened, endangered or 

specially protected species. These 

considerations apply to all of the ashy 

storm-petrels found in Mexico, which 

constitutes approximately 1 to 2 percent 

of the rangewide population. We have 

no new information on the adequacy 

and effectiveness of ‘‘threatened’’ or 

‘‘endangered’’ status for conservation of 

ashy storm-petrels in Mexico. 

International Agreements 

Since the ashy storm-petrel ranges 

into Mexico, international agreements 

may provide some protections for the 

species. The North American Agreement 

on Environmental Cooperation 

(NAAEC) was negotiated and is being 

implemented in parallel to the North 

American Free Trade Agreement. 

NAAEC requires that each Party (United 

States, Mexico, and Canada) ensure that 

its laws provide for high levels of 

environmental protection. Each Party 

agreed to effectively enforce its 

environmental laws through appropriate 

means, such as the appointment and 

training of inspectors, monitoring 

compliance, and pursuing the necessary 

legal means to seek appropriate 

remedies for violations. The 

Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation (CEC) was created under 

the NAAEC and is authorized to 

develop joint recommendations on 

approaches to environmental 

compliance and enforcement. 

Summary of Factor D 

Based on our analysis of the existing 

regulatory mechanisms, we have found 

a diverse network of laws and 

regulations that provide protections to 

the ashy storm-petrel and its habitat and 

effectively ameliorate threats rangewide. 

Specific to the ashy storm-petrel, 

provisions of the MBTA prohibit killing 

or possessing of the species. An 

overarching protection of breeding and 

foraging habitat through Federal 

nexuses in regulatory mechanisms, such 

as the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act, Federal Power Act, Oil Pollution 

Control Act, and the Deepwater Port 

Act, provide protections to breeding and 

foraging habitat. At Southeast Farallon 

Island all of the breeding locations are 

located on U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Wildlife Refuge 

System lands which are covered under 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee). Additionally, the waters 

surrounding Southeast Farallon Island 

are within the Gulf of the Farallons 

NMS, where there is a prohibition on 

the use of attracting lights for market 

squid fishing. In the Channel Islands, 

approximately 16 percent of the 

breeding habitat is off limits to the use 

of attracting lights for market squid 

fishing due to the provisions of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act. 

Additionally, some sea caves on Santa 

Cruz Island have been closed to human 

visitation and the National Park Service 

is planning to develop and implement a 

island spotted skunk and nonnative 

mouse management plan that will 

provide additional protections to the 

ashy storm-petrel. Approximately 99 

percent of the ashy storm-petrel 

breeding locations in the Channel 

Islands are located on National Park 

Service lands, which are covered under 

the National Park Service Organic Act. 

Regulatory mechanisms under the State 

of California, including CEQA, MLPA, 

and provisions under MSFMP, provide 

additional protections for the ashy 

storm-petrel. Based on our review of the 

best available scientific information, we 

conclude that adequate regulatory 

mechanisms are in place to protect the 

species and its habitat throughout its 

range, within the Channel Islands, and 

at Southeast Farallon Island. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Continued 

Existence of the Species 

The petitioner asserts that artificial 

light pollution due to California market 

squid fishery boats, and current and 

future offshore energy production 

platforms, threatens the continued 

existence of the ashy storm-petrel (CBD 

2007, pp. 15-17). In addition, the 

petitioner claims that contamination 

from petroleum (from offshore energy 

production platforms and ocean-going 

vessels), chlorinated hydrocarbons, and 

plastics threaten the continued 

existence of the ashy storm-petrel (CBD 

2007, pp. 18-20). 

Artificial Light Pollution at Breeding 

Colonies – Market Squid Fishery and 

Tuna Aquaculture 

The California market squid is found 

from central Baja California, Mexico, to 

Southeast Alaska (Roper and Sweeney 

1984, p. 95-96). In California, a fishery 

for market squid consists of two 

geographically distinct components: a 

central California fishery off Monterey 

and a southern California fishery around 

the Channel Islands and along the 

mainland coast (Pomeroy and 

Fitzsimmons 2001, p. 3). The Service is 

not aware of the occurrence of market 

squid fishery activities at Islas Los 

Coronados and Islas Todos Santos, 

which are known ashy storm-petrel 

breeding locations in Mexico. 

Market squid spawn in sandy 

substrates near islands and the coast 

(California Fish and Game Commission 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41852 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2005, p. 37). Harvest involves luring the 

squid to the surface with high wattage 

lamps, encircling them with purse seine 

nets, pumping and using nets to remove 

the squid from the water, and finally 

storing them in an on-vessel fish hold 

(Hastings and MacWilliams 1999, p. iv). 

Market squid fishery activities occur 

during squid mating and egg-laying: 

April through October in central 

California, and October through May in 

southern California (Pomeroy and 

Fitzsimmons 2001, pp. 2-3; California 

Fish and Game Commission (2005, p. 

37). Market squid fishery activities 

coincide with the peak fledging period 

(early to mid-October) and pre-egg and 

early egg-laying periods of ashy stormpetrels (February through May) (Ainley 

1995, p. 5; McIver 2002, p. 17). 

According to the MSFMP (2005, p. 3), 

squid may not be taken using attracting 

lights in all waters of the Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary at 

any time; this closure includes 

Southeast Farallon Island. In addition, 

squid fishery activities are not permitted 

within 11 marine reserves and 2 marine 

conservation areas in southern 

California, which collectively contain 

seven ashy storm-petrel breeding 

locations. In California, market squid 

fishery activities are permitted at 13 

ashy storm-petrel breeding locations. 

Although we are not aware whether 

market squid fishing occurs at ashy 

storm-petrel breeding locations in 

Mexico, we are aware of aquaculture 

activities associated with the harvest of 

northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus 

orientalis) at Islas Los Coronados and 

Islas Todos Santos, Mexico, which use 

bright lights to illuminate at-sea tuna 

pens (Zertuche-Gonza ́les et al. 2008, 

p.14; McIver, personal observation). 

Therefore, bright lights associated with 

commercial fishing activities (market 

squid fishery and tuna aquaculture) are 

permitted at 15 locations that 

collectively comprise approximately 

1,915 breeding ashy storm-petrels, 

which is approximately 25 percent to 34 

percent of all breeding ashy stormpetrels, depending on population 

estimates used. 

Evidence from several studies, 

anecdotal observations, and museum 

specimens indicate that ashy stormpetrels and related species are attracted 

to lights, which puts them at risk for 

light-induced mortality (Reed et al. 

1985, pp. 377-383; Le Corre et al. 2002, 

pp. 93-102). In their study of four 

species of procellariids (specifically, 

Barau’s petrel (Pterodroma baraui), 

Mascarene petrel (Pseudobulweria 

aterrima), Audubon’s shearwater 

(Puffinus lherminieri bailloni), and 

wedge-tailed shearwater (Puffinus 

pacificus)) on Re ́union Island in the 

Indian Ocean, Le Corre et al. (2002, p. 

93) reported that birds that collided 

with lights then fell to ground with fatal 

injuries, were killed by predators, or 

died of starvation, and that 94 percent 

of these procellariids were juveniles. 

Light-induced collisions and mortality 

of storm-petrels at breeding locations 

have been reported by researchers. 

James-Veitch (1970, p. 40) reported that 

ashy storm-petrels collided with a lamp 

post on Southeast Farallon Island. Wolf 

(2008, p. 8) reported personal 

observations of storm-petrels flying 

around the lighthouse light at West San 

Benito Island, Mexico, a breeding 

location for Leach’s and least stormpetrels. She also observed many 

hundreds of dead storm-petrels that had 

accumulated below the window that 

enclosed the lighthouse light, after 

attraction to the light and apparent 

collision with the glass. The period over 

which the storm-petrels collided with 

and accumulated under the window is 

unknown. Additionally, we are aware of 

15 museum specimens of ashy stormpetrels that were collected at lighted 

offshore energy platforms (n = 2) or 

brightly lit coastal mainland locations (n 

= 13) (Carter et al. 2000, p. 443; 

Ornithological Information System 

[ORNIS] 2008), and ashy storm-petrels 

have been observed circling bright lights 

at a coastal mainland sporting venue on 

several occasions (Capitolo 2005, 2008; 

LeValley 2008) (see following ‘‘At-sea 

Artificial Light Pollution - Offshore 

Energy Platforms’’ section). These 

museum collections and direct 

observations demonstrate that ashy 

storm-petrels are attracted to light that 

occurs far from ashy storm-petrel 

breeding locations, where attendance by 

storm-petrels is lower than at breeding 

locations. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

assume that near breeding locations 

ashy storm-petrels are similarly 

attracted to commercial fishery lights, 

and that mortality of ashy storm-petrels 

as a result of this attraction, although 

not quantified, likely occurs. 

Several researchers (Gross [1935, p. 

387]; James-Veitch [1970, p. 65]; Ainley 

[1995, p. 5]) have reported decreases in 

the amount of aerial activities by stormpetrels at night at their nesting grounds 

on bright, moonlit nights. Watanuki 

(1986, pp. 14-22) showed that colony 

activity levels of Leach’s storm-petrels 

were inversely correlated with light 

intensities and the corresponding risk of 

predation by slaty-backed gulls (L. 

schistisagus). Oro et al. (2005, p. 425) 

reported that predation of European 

storm-petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) by 

yellow-legged gulls (L. michahellis) was 

much higher at a cave that received 

stronger illumination from the city of 

Benidorm, Spain, located approximately 

1.9 mi (3 km) from the storm-petrel 

colony. Data in Keitt (2004, p. 176) 

supported their hypothesis that a 

function of nocturnal activity patterns 

in the black-vented shearwater (Puffinus 

opisthomelas) was reduction in the 

likelihood of predation by western gulls. 

Since procellariids have been shown to 

use the cover of darkness as a defense 

against predation at their nesting 

colonies, it is paradoxical that 

procellariids, including storm-petrels, 

are also attracted to bright lights 

(Montevecchi 2006, p. 94). Imber (1975, 

p. 305) suggested that the attraction of 

procellariids to bright lights is an 

artifact of their visual cueing towards 

bioluminescent prey. 

Our review of the available 

information revealed no direct 

observations or evidence of mortality of 

ashy storm-petrels through attraction to 

squid fishery lights; however, 

examining measures of reproductive 

success provides indirect evidence of an 

effect of squid fishery lights on ashy 

storm-petrels at breeding locations. 

From 1992 to 2000, Maxwell et al. 

(2004, p. 665) documented intense 

market squid harvesting near Santa 

Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, and Santa 

Catalina islands. During October 1995, 

1996, and 1997, squid fishing activity 

was relatively high along the north coast 

of Santa Cruz Island from the west end 

to Orizaba Rock (Maxwell et al. 2004, p. 

668). At Orizaba Rock, the number of 

active storm-petrel nest sites was 60 

percent and 75 percent lower in 1997 

than in 1995 and 1996, respectively 

(McIver et al., in preparation), and the 

numbers of active nests (counted during 

mid-summer surveys) declined 

significantly (10 percent per year) from 

1996 through 2005 (Carter et al. 2007, p. 

7). However, the number of ashy stormpetrel nests at Orizaba Rock increased in 

2006 and 2007 (Carter et al. 2007, p. 7; 

McIver et al. 2008, p. 6). Reasons for an 

increase in numbers of active nests at 

Orizaba Rock are not fully understood 

and may reflect reduced use of bright 

night lights, movements of some adult 

storm-petrels from Bat Cave after skunk 

predation in 2005, and other factors 

(McIver et al. in preparation). Human 

disturbance of nest sites on Orizaba 

Rock has not been documented, so this 

may not explain the reduction of nests 

from 1996 to 2005. Based on our 

conclusion that ashy storm-petrels are 

less affected by such environmental 

factors as reduced ocean productivity, 

and the study by Adams and Takekawa 

(2008, p. 14) that showed that ashy 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41853 

storm-petrels captured at three separate 

breeding locations in southern 

California forage in similar areas of 

ocean, we believe it is unlikely that 

oceanographic conditions explain the 

reduced reproductive success and 

numbers of nests of ashy storm-petrels 

at Orizaba Rock. Our review of the 

available information suggests that 

bright lights used in the market squid 

fishery at Orizaba Rock may have been 

a factor in the observed decline in 

numbers of active nests from 1996 

through 2005, and low reproductive 

success observed there in 1996 and 

1997. However, our review of available 

information did not reveal any data 

regarding the reproductive success or 

mortality rates of ashy storm-petrels at 

other Southern California locations, 

such as Santa Barbara Island and 

adjacent Sutil Island, where larger 

numbers of ashy storm-petrels nest than 

at Oriziba Rock. The absence of any data 

at these locations does not permit a 

meaningful or reliable extrapolation of 

trends regarding ashy storm-petrel 

reproductive success and numbers of 

active nests observed at Orizaba Rock, 

including the possible effects of squid 

fishery lights at that location, or to other 

ashy storm-petrel nesting locations in 

Southern California. 

Acknowledging the potential for 

impacts to breeding seabirds, the 

MSFMP requires that squid fishery 

boats in California limit wattage (per 

boat) to 30,000 watts maximum and 

maintain shields on lights that are 

parallel to the deck of the vessel 

(MSFMP 2005, Section 1-ii) in order to 

reduce the potential for predation as a 

result of illumination of seabird 

breeding locations on islands adjacent 

to fishing locations. However, ambient 

and artificial light intensity at seabird 

(including ashy storm-petrel) breeding 

locations in California has not been 

studied, and therefore the efficacy of the 

MSFMP measures to reduce potential 

predation associated with illumination 

at islands is not known. 

Measures to reduce the potential for 

predation as a result of illumination of 

seabird breeding locations, such as 

reduced wattage of lights and reduced 

upward radiation of light, are likely less 

effective in reducing the potential for 

attraction and collision of ashy stormpetrels that approach lighted fishing 

boats. While foraging and while in 

transit, ashy storm-petrels fly from a few 

centimeters (inches) to a few meters 

(yards) over the surface of the ocean, 

and upon approaching lighted boats, are 

exposed to the lights. Mortality to 

breeding and non-breeding ashy stormpetrels could occur through direct 

collision with lights, and ashy stormpetrels, exhausted after constant circling 

of lights, could be susceptible to 

predation by gulls, which are also 

known to concentrate around lighted 

squid fishery boats, presumably to feed 

on squid (Shane 1995, p. 10; W. McIver, 

personal observation). Two dead ashy 

storm-petrels were collected from boats 

at sea off the coast of southern 

California, presumably due to attraction 

to bright lights (ORNIS 2008). 

Squid fishery activities also occur in 

the southern part of Monterey Bay 

between Point Pinos and Fort Ord 

(Recksiek and Frey 1978, p. 9). Market 

squid fishing in general coincides with 

spawning events, and in central 

California squid spawning occurs from 

April to October (CDFG 2005, pp. 1-21). 

During autumn months (generally 

September and October), thousands of 

ashy storm-petrels congregate in the bay 

in deeper waters over the Monterey 

Submarine Canyon (Roberson 1985, p. 

43); depending on location, flocks 

generally occur 3 to 25 mi (5 to 40 km) 

away from squid fishing areas. 

Shearwater Journeys, a bird-watching 

concessionaire in Monterey, California, 

observed large flocks (estimated 7,000 to 

10,000 birds) of ashy storm-petrels in 

September 2008 on Monterey Bay 

(Shearwater Journeys 2008, http:// 

www.shearwaterjourneys.com/ 

index.shtml). Based on known attraction 

of storm-petrels to boats and brightly lit 

facilities on the mainland, there is the 

potential for ashy storm-petrels in the 

large flocks to be attracted to these lights 

if boats are present at night in Monterey 

Bay during autumn months. Assuming a 

total population of 10,000 ashy stormpetrels, and autumn flock sizes of 4,000 

to 7,000 ashy storm-petrels in Monterey 

Bay, approximately 40 percent to 70 

percent of the total population of ashy 

storm-petrels theoretically could be 

exposed to this potential threat. This 

estimate includes ashy storm-petrels 

that come from Southeast Farallon 

Island only at this time of year for a 

short time. However, market squid 

fishing in Monterey Bay is largely 

observed to occur during daylight hours 

(CDFG 2008b, p. 20; Pacific Fishery 

Management Council 2008, p. 44) rather 

than at night, when ashy storm-petrels 

exclusively feed. While attracting lights 

may be used during daylight hours in 

this fishery, because ashy storm-petrels 

exclusively feed at night we do not 

expect that ashy storm-petrels are 

significantly affected by the market 

squid fishery in Monterey Bay. As stated 

above, we have no data indicating any 

ashy storm-petrel mortality associated 

with market squid fishing in Monterey 

Bay and are aware of only two dead 

ashy storm-petrels collected from boats 

at sea off of the Southern California 

coast. Accordingly, based on our review 

of the available information regarding 

light pollution from market squid 

fishery boats and tuna farms near ashy 

storm-petrel breeding colonies, we 

conclude that some low level of 

mortality of ashy storm-petrels may be 

occurring as a result of squid fishery 

lighting, resulting in a temporaily 

reduced number of birds within limited 

geographic locations. 

Approximately 26 percent to 34 

percent of the total ashy storm-petrels at 

breeding locations may be exposed to 

lighting. This estimate does not include 

ashy storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island, where squid fishing is 

prohibited. However, available data 

does not indicate that the potential 

threat from bright lights is causing 

significant mortality to the overall 

population of ashy storm-petrels. 

Further, our review of the available 

information does not suggest that the 

threat of fishery-related lighting is 

expected to increase to any large degree 

in the foreseeable future due to 

implementation of regulations limiting 

wattage of lighting and location of 

fishing activities. While not basing our 

conclusion on this factor, we are aware 

that the State of California has issued 

regulations that limit the wattage of 

lighting and location of fishing 

activities. Therefore, we do not consider 

artificial light pollution from the market 

squid fishery or tuna aquaculture 

operations to be a significant threat to 

ashy storm-petrels at breeding colonies 

anywhere within the species’ range at 

this time. 

At-sea Artificial Light Pollution - 

Offshore Energy Platforms 

The petitioner asserts that the ashy 

storm-petrel’s marine environment is 

being (and will be) modified and 

degraded by artificial light pollution 

from current (and future) offshore 

energy platforms (oil production 

platforms and liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) terminals) and vessels (CBD 2007, 

pp. 15-16). Specifically, the petitioner 

claims that ashy storm-petrels are (or 

would be) attracted to bright lights and 

die from exhaustion after constant 

circling of the lights, or die by direct 

collision with the lights or platforms. 

Offshore oil operations in California 

are conducted from 23 platforms in 

Federal waters (greater than 3 mi (4.8 

km) from shore) and 10 platforms and 

related facilities in State waters (less 

than 3 mi (4.8 km)), distributed over an 

area of about 7,700 square mi (20,000 

square km) along the southern coast of 

the State (McCrary et al. 2003, p. 43). 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41854 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

All of the currently operational 

platforms occur within the at-sea range 

of foraging ashy storm-petrels (Briggs et 

al. 1987; p. 23 Mason et al. 2007, pp. 56- 

59; Adams and Takekawa 2008, pp. 12- 

13). Offshore oil production platforms 

in California are illuminated at night by 

bright, incandescent lights that serve as 

maritime navigational aids and 

illuminate working platforms and 

walkways. 

Russell (2005, pp. 1-330) studied the 

interactions between migrating birds 

and offshore oil and gas platforms in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico; however, our 

review of the available information did 

not reveal any surveys that have been 

conducted to assess storm-petrel (or 

other bird species) attraction to oil 

production platforms off the coast of 

California, or any direct observations of 

ashy storm-petrels flying around the 

lights of offshore oil production 

platforms. However, Carter et al. (2000, 

p. 443) reported two specimens of ashy 

storm-petrels (archived at the Santa 

Barbara Natural History Museum, Santa 

Barbara, California (SBNHM)) that were 

recovered dead on an offshore oil 

platform (Platform Honda), located 

approximately 5 mi (8 km) off the coast 

of southern California. Ashy stormpetrels have also been collected dead 

from mainland locations with bright 

lights, indicating that the birds were 

attracted to and died as result of 

association with bright lights. Carter et 

al. (2000, p. 443) reported six ashy 

storm-petrel carcasses (also archived at 

SBNHM) that were recovered from six 

mainland locations (from Goleta to 

Point Mugu) with bright lights in 

southern California. The Service is 

aware of at least seven additional 

museum specimens of ashy stormpetrels that were collected at mainland 

locations in California with bright 

lights; all were collected during autumn 

months (Ornithological Information 

System [ORNIS] 2008). Ashy stormpetrels have also been observed flying at 

night around bright lights at a stadium 

adjacent to San Francisco Bay on several 

occasions during autumn months over 

the past several years (Capitolo 2005, 

2008; LeValley 2008). LeValley (2005, 

2008) described the storm-petrels as 

juveniles, based upon plumage 

characteristics, and observed on at least 

two occasions that the storm-petrels 

flew to and landed in the lights. 

The museum specimens are evidence 

that ashy storm-petrels are attracted to 

bright lights, even those that occur in 

metropolitan areas, far from their at-sea 

foraging range. This indicates that bright 

lights on oil production platforms that 

occur within their marine range likely 

attract more ashy storm-petrels than are 

indicated by random collection and 

museum records. The direct 

observations of ashy storm-petrels 

around bright lights during autumn 

months support an examination by 

Imber (1975, p. 304), who states that 

juvenile procellariids are likely attracted 

to lights more often than adults. 

Similarly, most of the museum 

specimens from mainland locations and 

the offshore platforms were collected in 

the fall and may have been juvenile 

birds. In a study of migratory passerine 

birds in the Gulf of Mexico, Russell 

(2005, p. 4) reported that offshore 

platforms attract birds, induce nocturnal 

circulations of platforms and result in 

mortality of birds through collision. 

This is commensurate with reported 

observations of ashy storm-petrels flying 

around and into bright lights at coastal 

mainland sporting events. Field 

demonstration tests on an offshore oil 

platform in the North Sea, involving the 

exchange of lighting with a greenish 

light, and reductions in lighting, have 

been shown to reduce passerine bird 

occurrence at the platform by 50 to 90 

percent (Marquenie and van de Laar 

2004, p. 6; Marquenie et al. 2008, pp. 2- 

4). Our review of the available 

information did not find any similar 

demonstration on oil production 

platforms in southern California. 

Two LNG projects are proposed off 

the coast of southern California 

(California Energy Commission 2009). 

The proposed Clearwater Port Project 

(owned by Northern Star Natural Gas 

Inc.) would be located approximately 13 

mi (21 km) offshore of the City of 

Oxnard, Ventura County, in the Santa 

Barbara Channel. Clearwater Port would 

reconfigure an existing offshore oil 

production platform (Platform Grace). 

Reconfiguration of the platform would 

involve installing an LNG transfer 

system, a cool down system, pumps, 

and ambient air vaporizers, and 

reinstalling and upgrading the 

platform’s power-production capability. 

The proposed Port Esperanza (owned by 

Esperanza Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of 

Tideland Oil & Gas Corporation) would 

be located approximately 15 mi (24 km) 

south of the port of Long Beach, and 

would include two unmoored, selfpropelled, re-gasification units, each 

connected to its own permanently 

moored buoy. The application for a 

third LNG project, the Oceanway LNG 

Terminal Project, was withdrawn by 

Woodside Petroleum Ltd., in January 

2009 (Woodside Petroleum Ltd. 2009, 

pp. 1-2). Our review of the available 

information did not find specific plans 

that describe the lighting configurations 

of these proposed terminals, but 

assumes that lighting configurations and 

intensities would be similar in nature to 

current offshore oil platforms in 

California. 

As stated earlier, Le Corre et al. (2002, 

p. 97) found that the geographic 

distribution of the mortality to Barau’s 

petrel (due to attraction to bright lights 

at night) depended on location of urban 

and industrial areas in relation to the 

distribution of breeding colonies. At 

Re ́union Island, light sources were 

urban, stationary, and functioned (at 

night) continuously (Le Corre et al. 

2002, p. 96). In southern California, 

continuously functioning sources of 

light include extensive mainland 

metropolitan areas, and 33 offshore oil 

production platforms (McCrary et al. 

2003, p. 43). The oil production 

platforms are located within 150 mi 

(240 km) of all southern California ashy 

storm-petrel breeding locations, well 

within the distance from breeding 

colonies that the species has been 

observed to forage (220 mi [360 km]) 

(Adams and Takekawa 2008, p. 13). 

Accordingly, we conclude that about 50 

percent of the total population of ashy 

storm-petrels (approximately 100 

percent of the ashy storm-petrels that 

breed in the California Channel Islands) 

may be exposed to this potential threat. 

In summary, based on observations of 

ashy storm-petrels collected dead from 

an offshore oil platform and from 

brightly lit mainland locations, and 

recent observations of ashy stormpetrels observed in association with 

bright lights at a sporting facility, we 

have information that ashy storm-petrels 

are susceptible to bright lights on 

current structures that occur in their 

oceanic environment. This threat likely 

results in some (but unknown) level of 

mortality. At this time, the existing 

population information does not 

indicate that mortality associated with 

offshore energy platforms is a significant 

threat to the species at Southeast 

Farallon Island, at the Channel Islands, 

or rangewide. However, should offshore 

energy development increase 

significantly in the future, it would 

likely be appropriate to monitor and 

provide conservation measures that 

would eliminate or minimize the 

potential for mortality. 

Oil Pollution – Offshore Energy 

Production Platforms 

The largest oil spill from offshore oil 

operations in California was the 80,000- 

barrel (3,360,000-U.S. gallon) Santa 

Barbara spill from Platform A in 1969, 

which resulted in the death of 

thousands of birds (McCrary et al. 2003, 

p. 46). Since 1969, only one spill from 

oil and gas operations offshore of 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41855 

California has resulted in documented 

seabird mortality (more than 700 birds), 

the 163-barrel (7,000-gallon) Platform 

Irene pipeline spill, off Point Arguello 

in 1997 (Torch/Platform Irene Trustee 

Council 2007, p. 3; McCrary et al. 2003, 

p. 46). Oiled ashy storm-petrels were 

not documented during either of these 

spills. Applying information on 

estimated spill size and spill probability 

to potential impacts on seabirds is 

difficult because of many factors, 

including the type, rate, location, and 

volume of oil spilled, weather and 

oceanographic conditions, timing 

within year of the spill, distribution of 

seabird species near a spill, and 

behavior of seabirds in reaction to oil 

slicks (Ford et al. 1987, p. 549; McCrary 

et al. 2003, p. 46). Minerals 

Management Service (2001, p. xix) 

reported that without the development 

of 36 currently undeveloped leases, the 

probabilities that one or more oil spills 

will occur from existing Outer 

Continental Shelf oil and gas activities 

(during years 2002 to 2030) are 73.9 

percent for a spill of 200 barrels (8,600 

U.S. gallons) or less, and 59.1 percent 

for a spill of 2,000 barrels (86,000 U.S. 

gallons). 

A Federal moratorium on offshore 

drilling and platform development off 

the coast of California was initiated by 

the U.S. Congress in 1982 (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2005). On October 

1, 2008, the 1982 offshore drilling 

moratorium expired and was not 

renewed by the U.S. Congress. On 

September 16, 2008, the U.S. House of 

Representatives passed bill H.R. 6899, 

the Comprehensive American Energy 

Security and Consumer Protection Act, 

which would allow oil and natural gas 

exploration and production between 50 

and 100 mi (80 and 161 km) off the U.S. 

coasts. The U.S. Senate has received but 

not yet voted on H.R. 6899. Fossil fuel 

(such as petroleum and natural gas) 

energy use and production is and will 

likely continue to be a significant 

societal issue for the United States in 

the foreseeable future. Consequently, it 

is foreseeable that within the next 15 

years, additional offshore oil and gas 

platform development will occur off the 

California coast, within the marine 

range of ashy storm-petrels. 

Based on information available to the 

Service regarding offshore oil 

production, we conclude that about 50 

percent of the total population of ashy 

storm-petrels could potentially be 

exposed to oil spills. However, 

predicting the possible effects of an oil 

spill from an offshore energy production 

platform is difficult and would depend 

on the timing and amount of a spill, 

prevailing ocean currents and 

conditions, and locations of ashy stormpetrels at the time of a spill. We 

conclude that a relatively small 

proportion of the population would 

likely be exposed to any single oil spill, 

and consequently oil spills are not 

considered to be a significant threat to 

ashy storm-petrels anywhere within the 

species’ range. 

Oil Pollution - Vessels 

Hampton et al. (2003, p. 29) 

summarized previous reports and 

showed that, during the 20th century, 

hundreds of thousands to millions of 

seabirds, especially common murres 

(Uria aalge), were killed by oil pollution 

from oil tankers and other marine 

vessels in central California. Hampton et 

al. (2003, p. 30) estimate that 

approximately 20 tankers per week 

arrive at and depart ports in California. 

In California, large oil transfer facilities 

occur in San Francisco Bay and Long 

Beach Harbor (Los Angeles) (California 

Resources Agency 2008, p. 5F-6). Ports 

for non-tanker marine vessels (e.g., 

dredges, cargo vessels) occur at 

numerous locations along the California 

and northwestern Baja California coasts. 

Tankers traveling along the coast, in 

accordance with a voluntary agreement 

with California State and U.S. Federal 

agencies, stay about 50 mi (80 km) 

offshore (Hampton et al. 2003, p. 31). 

Hampton et al. (2003, p. 30) showed that 

oil spill accidents regarding non-tanker 

vessels are the most common in 

California, and that small volumes of oil 

may kill large numbers of birds. In an 

examination of shipping practices, 

Hampton et al. (2003, pp. 30-32) 

suggested that the dumping of tanker 

washings could occur several times per 

week off the California coast, regular 

tank washings could produce the 

equivalent of a small (~10,000-U.S. 

gallon) oil spill, and that dumping of 

tanker washings could pose a greater 

threat to offshore (e.g., greater than 50 

mi (80 km) out) seabird species, 

including ashy storm-petrels, than to 

species occurring closer inshore. 

Minerals Management Service (2001, p. 

xix) reported a 90.5 percent probability 

of a 22,800-barrel (957,600 U.S. gallons) 

tanker spill occurring in waters of the 

Outer Continental Shelf during 2002 to 

2030. 

Oiled ashy storm-petrels have been 

collected in California. Two ashy stormpetrels were collected between 1997 and 

2003, in association with ‘‘mystery 

spills’’ attributed to the S.S. Jacob 

Luckenbach, which sank in the Gulf of 

the Farallones in 1953 and leaked oil as 

it decayed on the ocean floor 

(Luckenbach Trustee Council 2006, pp. 

i, 65). Major oiling events attributed to 

the S.S. Luckenbach occurred every few 

years from 1973 through 2002 

(Luckenbach Trustee Council 2006, pp. 

i, 65). Small seabirds (including ashy 

storm-petrels) may be more susceptible 

to mortality due to predation after 

oiling, and the degree of at-sea loss is 

likely higher with offshore species (Ford 

et al. 1987, pp. 549-550). Although 

specific mortality for ashy storm-petrels 

was not estimated during the S.S. 

Luckenbach spill event, it was 

presumed that the ratio of actual dead 

to recovered dead was similar to that of 

ancient murrelets (Synthliboramphus 

antiquus) and Cassin’s auklets, and that 

total mortality for ashy storm-petrels 

was approximately 21 individuals 

(Luckenbach Trustee Council 2006, p. 

65). 

Based on information available to the 

Service regarding oil tanker traffic off 

the coast of California, ashy stormpetrels are exposed to the threat of oil 

spills. In addition, because oiled ashy 

storm-petrels have been recovered from 

vessel-related spills (the S.S 

Luckenbach), we know that the species 

is susceptible to oiling. Predicting the 

possible effects of an oil spill from 

tankers is difficult and would depend 

on the timing and amount of a spill, 

prevailing ocean currents and 

conditions, and locations of ashy stormpetrels at the time of a spill. Since 

thousands of ashy storm-petrels 

congregate in Monterey Bay every fall, 

the species could be vulnerable to a 

tanker spill near Monterey Bay at that 

time of year. However, the Service has 

no information indicating that tanker 

spills in the Monterey Bay are 

predictable or even likely. Therefore, we 

consider oiling from tanker spills to be 

insignificant to ashy storm-petrels 

anywhere within the species’ range. 

Organochlorine Contaminants 

The petitioner asserts that the ashy 

storm-petrel is threatened or endangered 

by the presence, in the marine 

environment, of organochlorine 

pollutants—specifically, 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and 

their breakdown products (CBD 2007, p. 

18). The petitioner asserts that, as a 

result of the presence of these pollutants 

in the waters off California, eggshell 

thinning occurred in collected eggs of 

the ashy storm-petrel, and reproductive 

success of the species has been reduced 

(CBD 2007, p. 19). 

During the period from the late 1940s 

to the early 1970s, Los Angeles area 

industries discharged and dumped 

thousands of tons of DDT and PCBs into 

ocean waters off the Southern California 

coast (Department of Commerce 2001, p. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41856 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

51391). Almost all of the DDT originated 

from the Montrose Chemical 

Corporation’s manufacturing plant in 

Torrance, California, and was 

discharged into Los Angeles County 

sewers that empty into the Pacific 

Ocean at White Point, on the Palos 

Verdes shelf (Department of Commerce 

2001, p. 51391). In addition, large 

quantities of PCBs from numerous 

sources throughout the Los Angeles 

basin were released into ocean waters 

through the Los Angeles County sewer 

system (Department of Commerce 2001, 

p. 51391). 

Most organochlorine pesticides are 

hydrophobic (meaning that they tend 

not to combine with, or are incapable of 

dissolving in water) and show a high 

affinity for lipids (Portman and Bourne 

1975, p. 294). Bioaccumulation is 

defined as an increase in the amount of 

a substance in an organism or part of an 

organism that occurs because the rate of 

intake exceeds the organism’s ability to 

remove the pesticide from the body 

(Holland 1996, p. 1170). 

Biomagnification is defined as the 

bioaccumulation of a pesticide through 

an ecological food chain by transfer of 

residues from the diet into body tissues, 

in which the tissue concentration 

increases at each trophic level in the 

food web (Holland 1996, p. 1171). 

Storm-petrels feed on prey that occur at 

the ocean’s surface and that contain 

high concentrations of lipids, such as 

euphausiids, larval fish, fish eggs, and 

squid (Watanuki 1985, p. 885; Warham 

1990, p. 186). As mentioned in the 

Species Description section above, the 

diet of ashy storm-petrels has not been 

well-studied, but likely includes 

euphausiids, larval fish, and fish eggs, 

which would make ashy storm-petrels 

susceptible to bioaccumulation and 

biomagnification. 

Eggshell thinning caused by DDE 

(dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, a 

metabolite of DDT), which results in 

eggs getting crushed during incubation 

and thus breeding failure of many fisheating birds, is probably the best 

documented effect of environmental 

pollutants on birds (Fry 1995, p. 168). 

DDT-induced eggshell thinning caused 

reproductive failures of brown pelicans, 

bald eagles, and peregrine falcons in the 

California Channel Islands (Hickey and 

Anderson 1968, pp. 271-273; 

Risebrough et al. 1971, pp. 8-9; Gress et 

al. 1973, pp. 197-208). 

Coulter and Risebrough (1973, pp. 

254-255) first reported eggshell thinning 

in the ashy storm-petrel in the early 

1970s. Ashy storm-petrel eggs were also 

collected for contaminant analyses and 

measurements of eggshell thinning in 

1992 (Fry 1994; Kiff 1994), 1995-97 (D. 

Welsh, unpublished data), and 2008 

(Cater et al. 2008). For eggs collected in 

1992, the highest levels of total DDT and 

PCBs, relative to other seabird species, 

were contained in ashy storm-petrel 

eggs, and the averages for total DDT and 

PCBs in ashy storm-petrel eggs were the 

highest measured for any of the 13 

species that were examined, and 

measured almost twice the levels 

observed in the second-most 

contaminated eggs (Fry 1994, p. 30). Kiff 

(1994, pp. 1-29) compared eggshell 

thicknesses of ashy storm-petrel eggs 

that were collected before 1947 (precontamination reference material) to 

eggshell thicknesses of eggs collected in 

1992 and reported that 27.8 percent of 

the ashy storm-petrel eggs collected 

from Santa Cruz Island (n = 18) were 15 

percent thinner than the pre-1947 

average. Concentrations of DDE in ashy 

storm-petrel eggs have been linked with 

eggshell thinning and lower hatching 

success (Carter et al. 2008c, p. 4). Based 

on findings from 12 ashy storm-petrel 

eggs collected in 2008, Carter et al. 

(2008, p. 4) reported statistically 

significant declines (p<0.0001) in levels 

of DDE and PCBs in ashy storm-petrel 

eggs collected in 2008, compared to eggs 

collected in the 1990s. Data are 

currently not available on eggshell 

thicknesses of ashy storm-petrel eggs 

collected in 2008, but the Service 

anticipates that additional work will be 

funded in 2009 to further analyze 

organochlorine contaminant data and 

examine changes in eggshell thinning in 

randomly collected and salvaged eggs. 

Carter et al. (2008, p. 5) speculated 

organochlorine contaminant 

concentrations from the 1960s to the 

1980s were greater in ashy stormpetrels, as compared to other breeding 

seabirds in southern California, such as 

brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

and double-crested cormorants 

(Phalacrocorax auritus). Organochlorine 

contaminant levels and reproductive 

success of ashy storm-petrels in 

southern California were not measured 

or monitored prior to the 1990s; 

however, Carter et al. (2008, p. 5) 

suggest that higher organochlorine 

concentrations may have contributed to 

lower hatching success and lower 

population size of ashy storm-petrels in 

southern California during the 1960s to 

1980s than observed in the 1990s. 

During 1995 to 1997, a higher 

proportion of broken eggs were found 

than in 2005 to 2007 (McIver et al. in 

preparation). McIver et al. (in 

preparation) reported that hatching 

success at Santa Cruz Island differed 

significantly among years, with lowest 

success in 1996 (53.5 percent, n = 187) 

and highest success in 2006 (82.0 

percent, n = 61). McIver et al. (in 

preparation) speculated that DDEinduced eggshell thinning likely 

contributed to lower hatching success at 

Santa Cruz Island from 1995 to 1997 

and likely explained (in part) the 

relatively high proportion of broken 

eggs found at all Santa Cruz Island 

locations monitored. Carter et al. (2008, 

p. 5) concluded that DDE and total PCBs 

decreased to much lower levels between 

1992 and 2008, and that, from 1992 to 

1997, relatively high contaminant levels 

and associated eggshell thinning and 

premature embryo deaths likely were 

significant contributing factors to 

relatively low hatching success 

observed during this period. 

Based on information available to the 

Service regarding organochlorine 

contamination of ashy storm-petrels, 

ashy storm-petrels have been exposed 

(likely, through their food resources) to 

organochlorine contaminants 

throughout their foraging range, but this 

exposure has likely been greater for ashy 

storm-petrels breeding in southern 

California and foraging in nearby 

waters. We conclude that 

organochlorine contaminants are still 

present in ashy storm-petrels, but 

preliminary results indicate that current 

levels of contaminants are much 

reduced compared to levels observed in 

the 1990s. In addition, fewer numbers of 

broken eggs and higher hatching success 

of ashy storm-petrels at Santa Cruz 

Island may be explained, in part, by 

reduced organochlorine contamination. 

Therefore we consider this threat to be 

insignificant to ashy storm-petrels at 

Southeast Farallon Island, at the 

Channel Islands, or rangewide. 

Ingestion of Plastics 

The petitioner asserts that the ashy 

storm-petrel is threatened by the 

ingestion of plastic particles floating at 

the ocean’s surface (CBD 2007, pp. 20- 

21). Ingestion of plastics by seabirds is 

well-documented, and plankton-feeding 

seabirds, such as ashy storm-petrels, are 

more likely to confuse plastic pellets for 

their prey than are fish-eating seabirds; 

therefore, the plankton-feeding seabirds 

show a higher incidence of ingested 

plastics (Azzarello and Van Vleet 1987, 

p. 295). Two studies have documented 

the presence of plastic particles in 

storm-petrel species that foraged in 

waters of the California Current. Blight 

and Burger (1997, p. 323-324) dissected 

seabirds caught as bycatch in the eastern 

North Pacific; they found plastic in all 

eight storm-petrel (Leach’s and forktailed) carcasses they collected, and the 

number of pieces of plastic in each bird 

was highest for the two species of stormVerDate Nov<24>2008 14:26 Aug 18, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM 19AUP1

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41857 

petrels and in a Stejneger’s petrel 

(Pterodroma longirostris). Shuiteman 

(2006, p. 23) found plastic particles in 

regurgitation samples of Leach’s stormpetrels caught in mist nets on Saddle 

Rock, Oregon. 

At-sea surveys for plastic particles off 

the coast of southern California (Moore 

et al. 2004, pp.1-6) in 2000 and 2001 are 

the only research that the Service is 

aware of that has attempted to quantify 

the amount of plastics observed in 

waters within or near the foraging range 

of ashy storm-petrels. Moore et al. 

(2004, pp. 2-3) reported densities of up 

to 7.25 pieces per cubic meter of water 

sampled for plastic pieces that were less 

than about 0.2 inches (5 millimeters) in 

diameter. As stated in the Species 

Description section above, like other 

storm-petrel species, ashy storm-petrels 

feed by picking prey from the surface of 

the ocean. Because plastic ingestion by 

storm-petrels has been welldocumented, we assume that ashy 

storm-petrels also ingest plastic. 

However, the incidence of plastic 

ingestion by ashy storm-petrels has not 

been specifically evaluated (such as by 

necropsy or analysis of regurgitations). 

In addition, plastic ingestion has not 

been reported as a cause of death of 

ashy storm-petrel chicks or adults 

(Ainley et al. 1990, pp. 128-162; McIver 

2002, pp. 17-49), and the degree to 

which the ingestion of plastic may affect 

ashy storm-petrels is not known (Ainley 

1995, p. 9). 

Based on information available to the 

Service regarding the presence and 

availability of plastic particles in the 

marine environment used by ashy 

storm-petrels, and the propensity for 

storm-petrels to ingest plastic, we 

recognize that nearly all ashy stormpetrels have the opportunity to ingest 

plastic, but we have no information on 

the rate of ingestion. We also recognize 

plastic particles will continue to be 

ubiquitous in the future in the waters of 

the California Current, where ashy 

storm-petrels feed. Although plastic 

ingestion has been observed in other 

species of storm-petrels and likely 

occurs with ashy storm-petrels, our 

review of the available information 

revealed no direct evidence that 

suggests ashy storm-petrels are currently 

being negatively affected by this 

potential threat. Therefore, we consider 

this threat to be insignificant to ashy 

storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island, at the Channel Islands, or 

rangewide. 

Summary of Factor E 

Regarding other natural or manmade 

factors affecting the continued existence 

of the species, the Service concludes 

that the presence of bright lights 

associated with commercial fishing 

operations (for example, market squid 

fishery and tuna aquaculture) at ashy 

storm-petrel breeding locations and (to 

a lesser extent) near large at-sea 

congregations of ashy storm-petrels, 

causes mortality in adult and fledgling 

ashy storm-petrels through direct 

collision with lights and predation, but 

is unlikely to affect the species at a 

population level. 

The Service concludes that the 

presence of constantly shining lights (at 

night) on oil and gas production 

platforms (current and future) off the 

California coast, causes mortality in 

foraging ashy storm-petrels, which may 

collide with lights or become exhausted 

after constant association with the 

lights. However, there is no information 

suggesting that populations are 

currently unstable or decreasing as a 

result of these mortality sources. 

The Service concludes that potential 

oil spills from existing or proposed 

platforms pose a threat to small 

numbers of ashy storm-petrels off 

southern California, and that spills from 

oil tankers moving off the coast of 

California may pose a threat to foraging 

and flocking ashy storm-petrels. The 

scale of threat would depend on the 

size, location, and timing within year of 

the spill. The Service concludes that it 

is unlikely that such oil spills will be of 

a size that would pose a significant 

threat to ashy storm-petrels. 

The Service concludes that 

organochlorines still contaminate eggs 

of ashy storm-petrels but that current 

observed levels of contaminants are 

reduced, compared to levels observed in 

eggs collected during the 1990s, and 

that organochlorine contamination does 

not appear to be reducing hatching 

success of ashy storm-petrels. The 

Service concludes that, like other stormpetrels, ashy storm-petrels likely ingest 

plastic while foraging, but the degree to 

which plastic ingestion threatens ashy 

storm-petrels is not known and is not 

considered to be a threat. Finally, we 

have no reason to believe that any of 

these threats are likely to increase in the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, we 

consider these threats to be insignificant 

to ashy storm-petrels at Southeast 

Farallon Island, at the Channel Islands, 

or rangewide. 

Foreseeable Future 

In considering the foreseeable future 

as it relates to the status of the ashy 

storm-petrel, we take into consideration 

our analysis of the potential threats to 

the species as described above. No data 

are currently available regarding adult 

life span of the species; however, ashy 

storm-petrels are thought to live on the 

order of 20 to 25 years (Sydeman et al. 

1998b, p.7). Oceanographic and climatic 

processes potentially affecting ashy 

storm-petrels operate on the order of 

single year to multi-decadal scales. For 

example, the marine environment off 

the west coast of North America is 

affected by oceanographic processes, 

such as El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a, which 

occur on annual scales, and the Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation, which occurs on 

decadal scales. Based on historical and 

recent trends of oceanographic 

phenomena, such as El Nin ̃ o events, and 

our above analysis of how ashy stormpetrels are affected by El Nin ̃ o events, 

we conclude the potential threat from 

changes in the ocean environment over 

the timescales at which they currently 

operate are not significant to the ashy 

storm-petrel. 

Principle among the potential threats 

to the ashy storm-petrel is mortality 

from avian predators. There was likely 

a decline in the population of ashy 

storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island in the mid-1970s to the early 

1990s (Sydeman et al. 1998a, p. 443). 

However, more recent data (Warzybok 

and Bradley 2007, p. 17) suggest an 

increasing population of ashy stormpetrels at Southeast Farallon Island. 

Additionally, mortality due to predation 

from owls seems to show a decreasing 

trend over recent years, and mortality 

due to predation from skunks is likely 

a sporadic event without a specific 

identifiable time element. Given these 

recent trends, we do not expect an 

increase in mortality of ashy stormpetrels in any one location or across 

their range. 

Ashy storm-petrel breeding locations 

occur primarily on federally owned and 

managed lands in the United States and 

Mexico. A broad network of Federal, 

State, and International protections have 

been and are currently in place that 

protect the ashy storm-petrel. Based on 

historical and recent trends of land 

management policies on federally 

owned lands in the United States, we 

find it unlikely that substantial changes 

to current land management practices or 

regulations that would negatively affect 

ashy storm-petrels are likely to occur in 

the near term, and any changes are most 

likely on the order of decades in the 

future. 

Based on the trend to restrict use of 

attracting lights used in the market 

squid fishery, we conclude this 

potential threat is not likely to increase 

over time. The threat of eggshell 

thinning from organochlorine exposure 

has steadily decreased over time and is 

not likely to increase in the future 

because their use is banned. The 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41858 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

incidence of oil spills of sufficient size 

to significantly affect ashy storm-petrels 

is largely stochastic. There is no 

evidence of an increasing trend in the 

incidence of spills, and based on 

increased measures to ensure the safety 

of oil and gas transportation, we do not 

consider this potential threat to increase 

in the future. Plastics ingestion is 

currently not a significant threat to the 

ashy storm-petrel and, based on historic 

information, we do not believe this 

threat would increase in the future. 

Therefore, we consider the foreseeable 

future to encompass the timeframe over 

which the effects of potential threats as 

described above can be reasonably 

anticipated. 

Finding 

We assessed the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding threats faced by the ashy 

storm-petrel. We reviewed numerous 

information sources including literature 

cited in the petition, information in our 

files, and information submitted to us 

following our 90–day petition finding 

(73 FR 28080; May 15, 2008) related to 

potential threats to the ashy storm-petrel 

(climate change, ocean acidification, sea 

level rise, predation, light attraction, 

contamination by chlorinated 

hydrocarbons, and plastic pollution) on 

ashy storm-petrels and the California 

Current marine environment. 

We found evidence that the ashy 

storm-petrel is less affected by El Nin ̃ o 

events than most seabirds in the 

California Current System. This is not to 

imply that ashy storm-petrels are not 

affected by El Nin ̃ o events; fewer 

numbers of ashy storm-petrels may 

attempt to breed during El Nin ̃o events, 

and timing of breeding within year may 

be slightly delayed. However, ashy 

storm-petrels show low between-year 

variability in fledgling production, and 

unlike other seabirds, have bred in 

every year for which there are 

observations of nesting activities. 

Because ashy storm-petrels forage over a 

wide geographic area and have an 

extended egg-laying and chick-rearing 

period, they are likely more able to 

exploit prey resources that may be more 

scarce and patchily distributed. Ocean 

acidification is occurring, but current 

research does not demonstrate a link 

between ocean acidification and 

reduced abundance and survival of prey 

items on which ashy storm-petrels 

depend, nor does our analysis or current 

research indicate that reproductive 

success of ashy storm-petrels is affected 

by ocean acidification. Based on current 

projections of sea level rise that predict 

a 3-ft (0.9-m) rise by 2100, we found that 

the majority of nesting habitat is at least 

4.9 ft (1.5 m) above current sea level. 

The exception is some nesting habitat in 

the Channel Islands at Cavern Point 

Cove Caves that may become 

submerged. However, this location 

represents a small percentage of the 

rangewide nesting population, and we 

do not consider this to be a significant 

threat. Introduced grasses are present on 

Southeast Farallon Island; however, we 

do not have specific information that 

quantifies the amount of suitable 

nesting habitat at Southeast Farallon 

Island, or other breeding locations, that 

may be unavailable to ashy stormpetrels because of introduced grasses. In 

addition, the petitioner claims that 

introduced grasses are widespread at all 

breeding locations. For example, grasses 

do not occur in sea caves or on most 

offshore rocks where ashy storm-petrels 

nest. 

Therefore, we find that the ashy 

storm-petrel is not threatened by the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range, now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

While collection of ashy storm-petrel 

adults and eggs has occurred throughout 

its breeding range over the past 124 

years, the rate of specimen collection 

has been low and sporadic and not 

concentrated in any one location. The 

number of specimens collected to date 

is very small compared to the current 

estimated total population size. 

Consequently, we find that the ashy 

storm-petrel is not threatened by 

overutilization of the species for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Predation by western gulls and owls 

at Southeast Farallon Island does not 

pose a significant threat to the ashy 

storm-petrel. Although populations of 

ashy storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon 

Island may have decreased from 1979 to 

1992 as a result of predation, we find 

that the best available scientific 

information indicates that populations 

are increasing in recent years. While 

predation of ashy storm-petrels is likely 

to continue within the foreseeable 

future, we find that predation at 

Southeast Farallon Island is not a 

significant threat to the species. 

Mortality due to predation by island 

spotted skunks at Santa Cruz Island is 

not a significant threat to the ashy 

storm-petrel. Although sporadic island 

spotted skunk predation events will 

likely continue over time, there is no 

information suggesting that spotted 

skunk predation is a significant threat to 

the species. We found evidence that 

deer mice and house mice are likely 

predators or scavengers of small 

numbers of ashy storm-petrel eggs and 

small chicks, but this likely does not 

substantially affect the productivity of 

the species. Consequently, we find that 

the ashy storm-petrel is not threatened 

by disease or predation now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Based on our review of the best 

available information, we find there is a 

network of existing regulatory 

mechanisms that serve to protect the 

species. As much as 75 percent of ashy 

storm-petrel breeding locations are 

included in marine reserves designed to 

limit the use of bright lights associated 

with squid fishery activities, and the 

implementation of the Market Squid 

Fishery Management Plan should be 

effective in offering protection for ashy 

storm-petrels. We found no support for 

the petitioner’s claim that a lack of 

regulatory mechanisms regarding the 

MBTA poses a threat to the ashy stormpetrel. While compliance with MBTA is 

not universally applied, this law 

provides protections from killing, 

taking, and possessing the ashy stormpetrel. We find that a lack of regulatory 

mechanisms to control GHG does not 

threaten the ashy storm-petrel, because 

we determined that processes associated 

with climate change, such as ocean 

acidification, sea level rise, and possible 

increases in sea surface temperatures 

(see Factor A) have not been shown to 

directly impact the ashy storm-petrel. 

Therefore, we find the ashy storm-petrel 

is not threatened by the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

Ashy storm-petrels are attracted to 

bright lights. Bright lights associated 

with the market squid fishery may result 

in the reduced number of birds within 

specific geographic areas; however, our 

review of the available information does 

not indicate that the threat from market 

squid fishery lighting is contributing to 

mortality that results in large-scale 

population declines. Ashy storm-petrels 

that congregate in Monterey Bay in the 

fall months do not appear to be at 

particular risk from squid fishing 

activities because the available 

information indicates much of the 

fishing occurs during the day, whereas 

ashy storm-petrels feed exclusively at 

night. Bright lights on offshore energy 

platforms may contribute to small levels 

of ashy storm-petrel mortality; however, 

we found no indication that this is a 

significant threat to the species. 

Furthermore, our review of the available 

information does not suggest that the 

threat of lighting from the market squid 

fishery or other sources is expected to 

increase to any large degree in the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, we do not 

consider bright lights associated with 

market squid fishing or offshore energy 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41859 

platforms to be a significant threat to the 

ashy storm-petrel. 

We find oil pollution does not pose a 

significant threat to the ashy stormpetrel. Although there is a high 

probability of spills from oil production 

platforms or tankers within the range of 

foraging ashy storm-petrels, this source 

of mortality is not expected to result in 

severe impacts to major portions of the 

population. We conclude that a 

relatively small proportion of the 

population would likely be exposed to 

any single oil spill, and, consequently, 

oil spills are not considered to be a 

significant threat to ashy storm-petrels. 

We find organochlorine contamination 

does not pose a significant threat to ashy 

storm-petrel, because this threat likely 

occurred in the past, is currently much 

reduced, and that contamination of ashy 

storm-petrels by organochlorines 

currently does not significantly reduce 

hatching success. Ingestion of plastic by 

ashy storm-petrels does not pose a 

significant threat to the species. We 

found evidence that small plastic 

particles occur at the ocean’s surface 

within the feeding range of ashy stormpetrels, and we found that many species 

of procellariids, including storm-petrels, 

ingest plastics. It is likely that ashy 

storm-petrels ingest plastic while 

foraging; however, we found no direct 

evidence, such as dead chicks or adults, 

underweight chicks or adults, or 

observation of plastics in regurgitations 

that indicates that plastic ingestion is a 

threat to ashy storm-petrels. Therefore, 

we find the ashy storm-petrel is not 

threatened by other natural or manmade 

factors now or in the foreseeable future. 

On the basis of our status review, we 

conclude the listing of the ashy stormpetrel rangewide is not warranted. 

Significant Portion of the Range (SPR) 

Analysis 

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 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ Having determined that the 

ashy storm-petrel does not meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species, we must now consider whether 

there are any significant portions of the 

range where the species is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. 

On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion 

was issued by the Solicitor of the 

Department of the Interior, ‘‘The 

Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction 

Throughout All or a Significant Portion 

of Its Range’ ‘‘ (DOI 2007). We have 

summarized our interpretation of that 

opinion and the underlying statutory 

language below. A portion of a species’ 

range is significant if it is part of the 

current range of the species and 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 of the species to persist. 

The first step in determining whether 

a species is endangered in an SPR 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 in 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and threatened or endangered. To 

identify those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that (i) the portions may be 

significant and (ii) the species may be in 

danger of extinction there. In practice, a 

key part of this analysis is whether the 

threats are geographically concentrated 

in some way. If the threats to the species 

are essentially uniform throughout its 

range, no portion is likely to warrant 

further consideration. Moreover, if any 

concentration of threats applies only to 

portions of the range that are 

unimportant to the conservation of the 

species, such portions will not warrant 

further consideration. 

We acknowledge that the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 

F.3d 1136 (2001) can be interpreted to 

require that in determining whether a 

species is threatened or endangered 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range, the Service should consider 

whether lost historical range (as 

opposed to current range) constitutes a 

significant portion of the range of the 

species at issue. While this is not our 

interpretation of the case or the statute, 

we conclude that there are no such areas 

for the ashy storm-petrel. We have no 

evidence to suggest that the occupied 

range of the ashy storm-petrel is 

different from its historical range, and 

there is no evidence to suggest a range 

contraction for the species. Therefore, 

we will not further consider lost 

historical range as a significant portion 

of the species range. 

The ashy storm-petrel breeds in two 

main geographic areas: in the northern 

portion of the species range on 

Southeast Farallon Island, where 

approximately 36 to 53 percent of the 

entire population occurs, and in the 

southern portion of the species range on 

the California Channel Islands, where 

approximately 44 to 60 percent of the 

breeding population occurs. About 1.5 

to 2 percent nests in Mexico. The two 

California areas are geographically 

separated by approximately 250 miles 

(402 km); however, there is no 

indication that the populations are 

genetically different, which is logical, 

since the ashy storm-petrel ranges 

widely in foraging activities. Southeast 

Farallon Island is located in the 

California Current, a cold water current; 

in contrast, the California Channel 

Islands are more affected by the 

Davidson Current, which is a 

comparatively warm water current. No 

other areas within the species’ range 

contain a significant number of breeding 

locations. Ashy storm-petrels occur at 

their breeding colonies nearly yearround and occur in greater numbers 

from February through October (Ainley 

1995, p. 5). For this reason, we consider 

breeding locations to be most significant 

to the species. The loss of all breeding 

ashy storm-petrels at either Southeast 

Farallon Island or in the Channel 

Islands would reduce the rangewide 

population of the species by 

approximately 50 percent, which could 

result in a decrease in the ability of the 

species to persist. 

To determine whether Southeast 

Farallon Island or the Channel Islands 

may warrant further consideration as a 

significant portion of the range, we 

evaluated these two areas of the range 

of the ashy storm-petrel. Under our fivefactor analysis for the ashy storm-petrel 

rangewide, we did not find any threats 

that were significant to the species 

rangewide or that were concentrated in 

any one particular area. The potential 

threat of ocean acidification, and 

reduced ocean primary productivity, is 

a rangewide threat that we concluded 

was not significant. This is due to the 

ability of the ashy storm-petrel to forage 

more widely than other species and 

because the ashy storm-petrel has not 

demonstrated population breeding 

failures as seen in other seabird species. 

The threat of human degradation of 

nesting habitats may be more evident in 

the Channel Islands as compared to 

Southeast Farallon Island, but we did 

not find it to be a significant threat in 

either area. We did find potential threats 

were different in the northern portion of 

the range compared to the southern 

portion of the range. Our rangewide 

analysis was conducted at a steppeddown geographic scale due to the 

natural concentration of breeding birds 

at Southeast Farallon Island and in the 

Channel Islands. On Southeast Farallon 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Island, we identified a potential threat 

of mortality due to predation by western 

gulls and burrowing owls. Populations 

of ashy storm-petrels at Southeast 

Farallon Island may have decreased 

from 1979 to 1992 as a result of 

predation (Sydeman et al. 1998a, p. 

443); however, more recent information 

suggests that populations are increasing 

in recent years (Warzybok and Bradley 

2007, p. 17). Predation of ashy stormpetrels is likely to continue within the 

foreseeable future; however, as 

described above in our five-factor 

analysis of the rangewide population, 

we find that predation at Southeast 

Farallon Island is not a significant threat 

to the species. This particular predation 

threat from western gulls is not found in 

the Channel Islands; however, although 

predation from skunks was identified as 

a potential threat, we found it not to be 

a significant threat. Rising sea levels due 

to climate change may affect a small 

portion of the breeding population in 

the Channel Islands, but the large 

majority of nesting sites are above 

projected sea level rise into 2100. The 

use of bright, attracting lights in the 

market squid fishery was identified as a 

potential threat to breeding birds in the 

Channel Islands, but not to breeding 

birds on Southeast Farallon Island due 

to regulatory restrictions around the 

island. Our analysis of the potential 

threat of squid boat lights to ashy stormpetrels in the Channel Islands 

concluded that some low level of 

mortality may occur, but our review of 

the available information did not 

indicate that any such mortality would 

lead to a large-scale population decline 

and we found that adequate regulatory 

protections are in place. The threat of an 

oil spill is greater in the Channel Islands 

due to a greater concentration of oil 

producing facilities; however, 

predicting the possible effects of an oil 

spill from an offshore energy production 

platform is difficult and would depend 

on the timing and amount of a spill, 

prevailing ocean currents and 

conditions, and locations of ashy stormpetrels at the time of a spill. Similarly, 

the threats of plastic ingestion and 

organochlorine contaminants may occur 

in both the northern and southern 

portions of the ashy storm-petrel’s 

range, but these threats are not 

considered to be significant anywhere 

within the species’ range. 

Therefore, based on the analysis 

above, we conclude that neither the 

ashy storm-petrels on the Southeast 

Farallon Island or the Channel Islands 

are in danger of extinction (the second 

step in determining whether an area is 

a significant portion of the range), 

because there is not substantial 

information to suggest that the ashy 

storm-petrel in either portion may 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future. 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the ashy storm-petrel to the 

address listed in the ADDRESSES section 

of this notice whenever it becomes 

available. New information will help us 

monitor this species and encourage its 

conservation. If an emergency situation 

develops for this species or any other 

species, we will act to provide 

immediate protection. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff of the Arcata Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: August 11, 2009. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–19700 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS