[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 19, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41832-41860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19700]


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

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 storm-petrel 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

[[Page 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 storm-petrel 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 fork-tailed (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 smoke-
gray, medium-sized bird with long slender wings, a long forked tail, 
and webbed feet (Ainley 1995, p. 2).
    Ashy storm-petrels have been confirmed to breed at 26 locations (on 
islands and offshore rocks) from 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 storm-petrels 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 (James-Veitch 
1970, pp. 87-88; Ainley et al. 1990, p. 147; McIver 2002, p. 1). The 
breeding season is protracted, and breeding activities (courtship, egg-
laying, chick-rearing) at nesting locations occur from February through 
January of the following year (James-Veitch 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 storm-petrels 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'' (James-Veitch 1970, p. 128). The 
term semi-precocial 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

[[Page 41834]]

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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Source for
                                       Location          Ownership or        Estimated No.      Breeding Birds
                                                         Management\a\      Breeding Birds       Estimates\b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                                Bird Rock near       BLM                  10                 1,2,3
                                  Greenwood,
                                  Mendocino County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2                                Caspar, near Point   BLM                  10                 1,2,3
                                  Cabrillo,
                                  Mendocino County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3                                Bird Rock, Marin     NPS                  10                 4
                                  County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4                                Stormy Stack, Marin  NPS                  10                 4
                                  County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5a                               Southeast Farallon   FWS                 4,000               5
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5b                               Southeast Farallon   FWS                 3,402               6
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5c                               Southeast Farallon   FWS                 1,990               6
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6                                Castle/Hurricane     BLM                  60                 7
                                  Colony Complex,
                                  Monterey County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7                                Castle Rock, Santa   USN/NPS              200                8
                                  Barbara County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8                                Prince Island        USN/NPS             1,154               1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9                                Shipwreck Cave,      TNC/NPS              20                 9
                                  Santa Cruz Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10                               Dry Sandy Beach      TNC/NPS              80                 10,11,12,13
                                  Cave, Santa Cruz
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11                               Del Mar Rock, Santa  NPS                  10                 1
                                  Cruz Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12                               Cave of the Bird's   TNC/NPS              52                 10,11,12,13
                                  Eggs, Santa Cruz
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13                               Diablo Rocks, Santa  NPS                  20                 8
                                  Cruz Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14                               Orizaba (``Sppit'')  NPS                  40                 10,11,12,13
                                  Rock, Santa Cruz
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15                               Bat Cave, Santa      NPS                  48                 10,11,12,13
                                  Cruz Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16                               Cavern Point Cove    NPS                  0                  10,11,12,13
                                  Caves, Santa Cruz
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17                               Scorpion Rocks,      NPS                  140                1
                                  Santa Cruz Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18                               Willows Anchorage    NPS                  111                1
                                  Rocks, Santa Cruz
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19                               Gull Island          NPS                  2                  8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20                               Santa Barbara        NPS                  874                1
                                  Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21                               Sutil Island         NPS                  586                1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22                               Shag Rock            NPS                  10                 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23                               Ship Rock, Santa     BLM                  2                  14
                                  Catalina Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24                               Seal Cove Area, San  BLM                  10                 15
                                  Clemente Island
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25                               Islas Los            MX                   100                16
                                  Coronados, Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26                               Islas Todos Santos,  MX                   10                 17
                                  Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total, if using                          7,569               ..................
                                  line 5a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total, if using                          6,971               ..................
                                  line 5b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total, if using                          5,559               ..................
                                  line 5c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\Entity 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).

[[Page 41835]]

 
\b\Sources 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 storm-petrel species (including ashy 
storm-petrels) 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 capture-recapture 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 storm-petrels, 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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrels. 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 storm-petrels faces a high probability of quasi-
extinction within 50 years (Sydeman et al. 1998b, p. 2). Since 1992, 
capture-recapture 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 storm-petrels. 
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 storm-petrels.
    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             0.42\a\(n = 184)         1964-1966                James-Veitch (1970)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Farallon Island             0.69(n = 356)            1972-1983\b\             Ainley and Boekelheide
                                                                                         (1990)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Farallon Island             0.74\d\(n = 540)         1971-1992\b\             Sydeman et al. (1998b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Farallon Island             0.54\c\(n = 283)         1996-2007\e\             PRBO Conservation
                                                                                         Science unpublished
                                                                                         data; Warzybok and
                                                                                         Bradley (2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 41836]]

 
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\Researcher disturbance (daily nest checks) negatively affected productivity.
\b\Excludes year 1977, when researcher disturbance negatively affected productivity.
\c\Sample 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).
\d\Based on two data points.
\e\Based on yearly date.

    No data are currently available regarding adult life span, 
survivorship, and age at first breeding for ashy storm-petrels (Ainley 
1995, p. 8). However, like other procellariids, storm-petrels are long-
lived (Warham 1996, p. 20). Some ashy storm-petrels reach 25 years old 
(Sydeman et al. 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 <plus-minus> 1.3 years 
(Huntington et al. 1996, p. 19). Sydeman et al. (1998b, p. 7) concluded 
that 90 percent of adult ashy storm-petrels 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[deg] N, as far south as latitude 7[deg] S, and 
approximately 300 mi (480 km) from shore near latitude 14[deg] 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[deg] 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 closely-related 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[deg] N (approximately 
the California-Oregon State line) south to latitude 28[deg] 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

[[Page 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 at-sea 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 Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]o and Reduced Productivity

    The term El Ni[ntilde]o-Southern Oscillation (hereafter, El 
Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]a events 
(sometimes called anti-El Ni[ntilde]o or cold-water events) produce 
effects in the northeast Pacific Ocean that tend to be the reverse of 
those that occur during El Ni[ntilde]o events; during La Ni[ntilde]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 
Ni[ntilde]o and La Ni[ntilde]a, the mid-latitude 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 Ni[ntilde]o/La Ni[ntilde]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 well-documented 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 [deg]F (1.2 [deg]C) 
and 2.3 [deg]F (1.6 [deg]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 warm-water 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels, 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

[[Page 41838]]

(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 Ni[ntilde]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 
Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]o 
conditions (although timing of breeding was later in 1998, an El 
Ni[ntilde]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 
storm-petrels at Southeast Farallon Island declined from the late 1980s 
to the mid-1990s (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 Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]o events and reproductive success of ashy storm-
petrels.
    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 Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]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. 
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 Ni[ntilde]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 storm-petrel'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[deg]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

[[Page 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[deg] N, 
approximately) to Baja California Sur, Mexico (latitude 26[deg] 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 storm-petrels, 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 storm-
petrels 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 Ni[ntilde]o events). However, ashy storm-petrels 
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).

[[Page 41840]]

    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          10-40 ft (3-12
                                 Greenwood, Mendocino    m)
                                 County.
2.............................  Caspar, near Point      10-40 ft (3-12
                                 Cabrillo, Mendocino     m)
                                 County.
3.............................  Bird Rock, Marin        10-40 ft (3-12
                                 County.                 m)
4.............................  Stormy Stack, Marin     10-50 ft (3-15
                                 County.                 m)
5.............................  Southeast Farallon      10-330 ft (3-100
                                 Island.                 m)
6.............................  Castle/Hurricane        10-100 ft (3-30
                                 Colony Complex,         m)
                                 Monterey County.
7.............................  Castle Rock, Santa      20-80 ft (6-24
                                 Barbara County.         m)
8.............................  Prince Island.........  20-300 ft (6-91
                                                         m)
9.............................  Shipwreck Cave, Santa   5-15 ft (1.5-5
                                 Cruz Island.            m)
10............................  Dry Sandy Beach Cave,   5-15 ft (1.5-5
                                 Santa Cruz Island.      m)
11............................  Del Mar Rock, Santa     5-20 ft (1.5-6
                                 Cruz Island.            m)
12............................  Cave of the Birds       5-10 ft (1.5-3
                                 Eggs, Santa Cruz        m)
                                 Island.
13............................  Diablo Rocks, Santa     10-40 ft (3-12
                                 Cruz Island.            m)
14............................  Orizaba Rock, Santa     10-30 ft (3-9 m)
                                 Cruz Island.
15............................  Bat Cave, Santa Cruz    5-20 ft (1.5-6
                                 Island.                 m)
16............................  Cavern Point Cove       0-10 ft (0-3 m)
                                 Caves, Santa Cruz
                                 Island.
17............................  Scorpion Rocks, Santa   10-40 ft (3-12
                                 Cruz Island.            m)
18............................  Willow Anchorage        10-40 ft (3-12
                                 Rocks, Santa Cruz       m)
                                 Island.
19............................  Gull Island, Santa      10-100 ft (3-30
                                 Cruz Island.            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        5-20 ft (1.5-6
                                 Catalina Island.        m)
24............................  Seal Cove Area, San     10-50 ft (3-15
                                 Clemente Island.        m)
25............................  Islas Los Coronados,    10-100 ft (3-30
                                 Mexico.                 m)
26............................  Islas Todos Santos,     10-100 ft (3-30
                                 Mexico.                 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 storm-petrel 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 
storm-petrels 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 storm-
petrels, 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

[[Page 41841]]

nesting habitat at Southeast Farallon Island, or other breeding 
locations, that may be unavailable to ashy storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel, 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-
petrels 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 storm-petrel 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 Ni[ntilde]o events, 
and that fewer numbers of ashy storm-petrels may attempt to breed 
during El Ni[ntilde]o years, these results do not appear significant, 
and we have no information to suggest that El Ni[ntilde]o

[[Page 41842]]

events otherwise significantly affect ashy storm-petrel reproductive 
success or productivity, unlike in other sea birds. Additionally, based 
on the species' response to El Ni[ntilde]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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel 
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 
storm-petrels, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of    Number of
             Institution or Entity                 skins         eggs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco,          181           70
 CA...........................................
Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates,                 2            0
 Ithaca, NY...................................
Delaware Museum of Natural History,                       1            0
 Wilmington, DE...............................
Field Museum, Chicago, IL.....................           10            0
Harvard University Museum of Comparative                  6            0
 Zoology, Cambridge, MA.......................
Humboldt State University Natural History                 2            2
 Museum, Arcata, CA...........................
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History,            18            0
 Los Angeles, CA..............................
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, CA....           39           20
National Museum of Natural History,                      32            6
 Washington, DC...............................
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa           13            5
 Barbara, CA..................................
San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego,             31            0
 CA...........................................
Slater Museum of Natural History, Tacoma, WA..            3            3
University of Arizona Museum of Natural                   9            0
 History, Tucson, AZ..........................
University of California at Los Angeles -                 3            0
 Dickey Collection, Los Angeles, CA...........
University of Kansas Natural History Museum               1            0
 and Biodiversity Research Center, Lawrence,
 KS...........................................
University of Washington - Burke Museum of                3            2
 Natural History..............................
Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology,                 1          112
 Camarillo, CA................................
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)

[[Page 41843]]

than in any other year. Over a period of 124 years, an average of 2.6 
ashy storm-petrel 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 mid-1960s (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 mid-1990s (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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrel reproductive performance during that time 
period. An examination of values of productivity (fledged chicks

[[Page 41844]]

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 storm-petrel 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 nest-monitoring 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 storm-petrels) on Southeast Farallon Island were depredated 
by western gulls in 1971 and 1972. Sydeman et al. (1998b, pp. 21-22) 
estimated that 22 ashy storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 capture-
recapture 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 storm-petrels. 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 storm-petrels (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

[[Page 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 storm-petrel 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[aelig]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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-
petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel 
(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 
storm-petrels 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;

[[Page 41846]]

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 storm-
petrel productivity (for ashy storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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. I-
87) estimated 273 breeding ashy storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-
petrels 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 storm-petrels 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). Live-traps 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 skunk-predation 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 storm-

[[Page 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 
storm-petrel 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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel 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

[[Page 41848]]

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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrel 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 storm-petrels; and (4) monitor the ashy storm-petrel 
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;

[[Page 41849]]

and 3) shorelines and cliffs at Santa Barbara Island, to protect 
wildlife and natural resources, including ashy storm-petrels (NPS 2007, 
p. 2). Thus, visitor access is prohibited at 16 ashy storm-petrel 
breeding locations (locations <greek-i>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 <greek-i> 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 storm-
petrels.
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 storm-petrel, 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;

[[Page 41850]]

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-transportation-related 
onshore facilities and incidents in the Inland Zone, the USCG is 
responsible for marine transportation-related 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 single-hull 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 single-hull 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 double-hull 
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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels.

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

[[Page 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 re-examine 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 storm-petrels 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

[[Page 41852]]

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 storm-
petrels (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-Gonz[aacute]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 storm-
petrels, depending on population estimates used.
    Evidence from several studies, anecdotal observations, and museum 
specimens indicate that ashy storm-petrels 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 R[eacute]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 storm-petrels. 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 
storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel 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

[[Page 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 storm-
petrels 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 storm-petrels could occur through direct collision 
with lights, and ashy storm-petrels, 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 storm-
petrels, 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).

[[Page 41854]]

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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels that were collected at mainland 
locations in California with bright lights; all were collected during 
autumn months (Ornithological Information System [ORNIS] 2008). Ashy 
storm-petrels 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, self-propelled, 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 R[eacute]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 storm-petrels 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

[[Page 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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.

[[Page 41856]]

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 fish-eating 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 (pre-contamination 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 storm-
petrels, 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 DDE-induced 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 fork-tailed) carcasses they collected, and the number of 
pieces of plastic in each bird was highest for the two species of 
storm-

[[Page 41857]]

petrels and in a Stejneger's petrel (Pterodroma longirostris). 
Shuiteman (2006, p. 23) found plastic particles in regurgitation 
samples of Leach's storm-petrels 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 well-documented, 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 storm-
petrels 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 storm-petrels, 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 Ni[ntilde]o and La Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]o events, and our above analysis of how 
ashy storm-petrels are affected by El Ni[ntilde]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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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

[[Page 41858]]

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 
Ni[ntilde]o events than most seabirds in the California Current System. 
This is not to imply that ashy storm-petrels are not affected by El 
Ni[ntilde]o events; fewer numbers of ashy storm-petrels may attempt to 
breed during El Ni[ntilde]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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrel. While 
compliance with MBTA is not universally applied, this law provides 
protections from killing, taking, and possessing the ashy storm-petrel. 
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

[[Page 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 storm-petrel. 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 
storm-petrels, 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 storm-petrel 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 year-round 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 five-factor 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 stepped-down 
geographic scale due to the natural concentration of breeding birds at 
Southeast Farallon Island and in the Channel Islands. On Southeast 
Farallon

[[Page 41860]]

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 storm-
petrels 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 storm-petrels 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 storm-petrels 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