46914 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–21827 Filed 9–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R8–IA–2007–0021; 96100–1671– 

0000–B6] 

RIN 1018–AV21 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Chatham Petrel, 

Fiji Petrel, and Magenta Petrel as 

Endangered Throughout Their Ranges 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered status for three petrel 

species (order Procellariiformes)— 

Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris) 

previously referred to as (Pterodroma 

hypoleuca axillaris); Fiji petrel 

(Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi) 

previously referred to as (Pterodroma 

macgillivrayi); and the magenta petrel 

(Pterodroma magentae)—under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This rule implements 

the Federal protections provided by the 

Act for these three species. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

October 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials we 

receive, as well as supporting 

information used in the preparation of 

this rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax 

Drive, Suite 110, Arlington, VA 22203. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monica A. Horton, Biologist, Division of 

Scientific Authority (see ADDRESSES); 

telephone 703–358–1708; facsimile 

703–358–2276; e-mail 

ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. If you use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires us to make 

a finding (known as a ‘‘90-day finding’’) 

on whether a petition to add a species 

to, remove a species from, or reclassify 

a species on the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants has presented substantial 

information indicating that the 

requested action may be warranted. To 

the maximum extent practicable, the 

finding must be made within 90 days 

following receipt of the petition and 

must be published promptly in the 

Federal Register. If we find that the 

petition has presented substantial 

information indicating that the 

requested action may be warranted (a 

positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of 

the Act requires us to commence a 

status review of the species if one has 

not already been initiated under our 

internal candidate assessment process. 

In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act 

requires us to make a finding within 12 

months following receipt of the petition 

(‘‘12-month finding’’) on whether the 

requested action is warranted, not 

warranted, or warranted but precluded 

by higher priority listing. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a 

finding of warranted but precluded for 

petitioned species should be treated as 

having been resubmitted on the date of 

the warranted but precluded finding, 

and is, therefore, subject to a new 

finding within 1 year and subsequently 

thereafter until we publish a proposal to 

list or a finding that the petitioned 

action is not warranted. The Service 

publishes an annual notice of 

resubmitted petition findings (annual 

notice) for all foreign species for which 

listings were previously found to be 

warranted but precluded. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On November 28, 1980, we received 

a petition (1980 petition) from Dr. 

Warren B. King, Chairman of the 

International Council for Bird 

Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign 

bird species to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 

17.11(h)), including two species (the 

Chatham petrel and magenta petrel) that 

are the subject of this final rule. Two of 

the foreign species identified in the 

petition were already listed under the 

Act; therefore, in response to the 1980 

petition, we published a substantial 90- 

day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 

26464), for 58 foreign species and 

initiated a status review. On January 20, 

1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12- 

month finding within an annual review 

on pending petitions and description of 

progress on all pending petition 

findings. In that notice, we found that 

all 58 foreign bird species from the 1980 

petition were warranted but precluded 

by higher priority listing actions. On 

May 10, 1985, we published the first 

annual notice (50 FR 19761) in which 

we continued to find that listing all 58 

foreign bird species from the 1980 

petition was warranted but precluded. 

We published additional annual notices 

on the 58 species included in the 1980 

petition on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996), 

July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511), December 

29, 1988 (53 FR 52746), April 25, 1990 

(55 FR 17475), November 21, 1991 (56 

FR 58664), and May 21, 2004 (69 FR 

29354). These notices indicated that the 

Chatham petrel and the magenta petrel, 

along with the remaining species in the 

1980 petition, continued to be 

warranted but precluded. 

On May 6, 1991, we received a 

petition (1991 petition) from ICBP to 

add an additional 53 species of foreign 

birds to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife, including the Fiji 

petrel. In response to the 1991 petition, 

we published a substantial 90-day 

finding on December 16, 1991 (56 FR 

65207), for all 53 species, and initiated 

a status review. On March 28, 1994 (59 

FR 14496), we published a 12-month 

finding on the 1991 petition, along with 

a proposed rule to list 30 African birds 

under the Act (15 each from the 1980 

petition and 1991 petition). In that 

document, we announced our finding 

that listing the remaining 38 species 

from the 1991 petition, including the 

Fiji petrel, was warranted but precluded 

by higher priority listing actions. We 

made a subsequent warranted-butprecluded finding for all outstanding 

foreign species from the 1980 and 1991 

petitions, including the three species 

that are the subject of this final rule, as 

published in our annual notice of 

review (ANOR) on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 

29354). 

Per the Service’s listing priority 

guidelines (September 21, 1983; 48 FR 

43098), in our April 23, 2007, Annual 

Notice on Resubmitted Petition 

Findings for Foreign Species (72 FR 

20184), we determined that listing six 

seabird species of the family 

Procellariidae, including the three 

species that are the subject of this final 

rule, was warranted. In selecting these 

six species from the list of warrantedbut-precluded species, we took into 

consideration the magnitude and 

immediacy of the threats to the species, 

consistent with the Service’s listing 

priority guidelines. 

On December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298), 

we published in the Federal Register a 

proposal to list the Chatham petrel, Fiji 

petrel, and the magenta petrel as 

endangered under the Act, and the 

Cook’s petrel, Galapagos petrel, and the 

Heinroth’s shearwater as threatened 

under the Act. We implemented the 

Service’s peer review process and 

opened a 60-day comment period to 

solicit scientific and commercial 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46915 

information on the species from all 

interested parties following publication 

of the proposed rule. 

On December 30, 2008, the Service 

received a 60-day notice of intent to sue 

from the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) over violations of section 4 of the 

Act and the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) for the Service’s failure to 

issue a final determination regarding the 

listing of these six foreign birds. Under 

a settlement agreement approved by the 

U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of California on June 15, 2009 

(CBD v. Salazar, 09-cv-02578–CRB), the 

Service must submit to the Federal 

Register final determinations on the 

proposed listings of the Chatham petrel, 

Fiji petrel, and magenta petrel by 

September 30, 2009, and final 

determinations on the proposed listings 

of the Cook’s petrel, Galapagos petrel, 

and Heinroth’s shearwater by December 

29, 2009. 

In this final rule, we determine 

endangered status for three foreign 

seabird species under the Act: Chatham 

petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), Fiji petrel 

(Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi), and the 

magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae). 

We will publish our final listing 

determinations for the Cook’s petrel 

(Pterodroma cookii), Galapagos petrel 

(Pterodroma phaeopygia), and the 

Heinroth’s shearwater (Puffinus 

heinrothi) in a subsequent Federal 

Register notice. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit information that might 

contribute to development of a final 

rule. We received nine comments: six 

from members of the public, one from 

an international conservation 

organization, one from the U.S. National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and 

one from the New Zealand Department 

of Conservation (NZDOC). In all, three 

commenters supported the proposed 

listings. The NZDOC provided new 

information on the Chatham and 

magenta petrels and concluded that the 

information presented in the December 

2007 proposal supported the listing of 

these two species under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act. Five 

commenters provided information but 

did not express support of or opposition 

to the proposed listings. 

General comments we received, as 

well as comments we received regarding 

the three species that are the subject of 

this final rule, are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. 

Comments we received regarding the 

other three species of seabirds in the 

family Procellariidae proposed for 

listing (December 17, 2007; 72 FR 

71298) will be addressed in a 

subsequent Federal Register notice 

announcing our final listing 

determinations for those species. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from 14 knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received a response from 

six of the peer reviewers from whom we 

requested comments. The peer 

reviewers generally agreed that the 

description of the biology and habitat 

for each species was accurate and based 

on the best available information. New 

or additional information on the current 

population numbers of each of the three 

species and their threats was provided 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate (as indicated in the citations 

by ‘‘in litt.’’). 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the public and the peer reviewers 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding the proposed 

listing of the three species, and address 

them in the following summary. 

Peer Reviewers’ General Comments 

Comment 1: While it is generally true 

that ‘‘once a population is reduced 

below a certain number of individuals it 

tends to rapidly decline towards 

extinction,’’ without details on what the 

‘‘certain’’ number of individuals is, this 

statement is superfluous for these 

species. For these species, the issue is 

not so much reaching certain low 

numbers as whether or not catastrophic 

threats impacting these species are still 

ongoing. 

Our Response: We concur and have 

amended this statement in this final 

rule. 

Comment 2: Provide the taxonomic 

list(s) of birds used to identify the 

species. 

Our Response: We have added 

information on taxonomy of each 

species to this final rule. 

Peer Reviewers’ Species-Specific 

Comments 

Fiji Petrel 

Comment 3: The analysis of the 

population size is not accurate, although 

based on the best available information, 

since the estimated population size is 

based on single sightings. Until surveys 

are carried out in the catchment area of 

the main waterway of Gau Island [the 

likely breeding area for this species], the 

population size of the Fiji petrel is 

unknown. 

Our Response: We agree that surveys 

of the purported breeding area will be 

important in determining an accurate 

population size for this elusive bird. 

Although we have acknowledged the 

lack of certainty regarding the current 

estimate of the population size of this 

species in this final rule, this estimate 

represents the best available scientific 

data on the population size of the Fiji 

petrel. 

Comment 4: Two peer reviewers 

disagreed with the commonly held 

belief that this species nests in ‘‘rocky, 

mountainous cloud forests’’ on Gau 

Island. According to these reviewers, 

aerial photos of interior Gau Island 

show no ‘‘rocky’’ terrain, just steep 

terrain covered in tropical rainforest. 

Past surveys focused on these ‘‘rocky’’ 

areas (the highest parts of the island) 

without success, based on information 

reported in Jenkins (1986). These peer 

reviewers suggest that, as no nests or 

birds have been found in the highest 

parts of the island, other possible sites 

should be considered. According to 

Jenkins (1986, as cited in Priddel et al. 

in draft), in 1925, Rollo Beck trekked to 

the summit of the island with the chief 

who indicated that the petrels nested 

not in the summit area but down below 

in dense canyons on the eastern side of 

the island. Therefore, according to these 

reviewers, future surveys should focus 

on the unsurveyed catchment of the 

main waterway of the island, 

particularly the headwaters of the 

Waiboteigau Creek on the eastern side of 

Gau. This remote lowland area is 

uncleared and lacks roads or trails. 

According to the peer reviewers, an 

intensive survey of this area for 

potential breeding sites is planned for 

July 2009 (Carlile and Priddel, in litt. 

2008, pp. 2–3). 

Our Response: We have added this 

new information regarding the potential 

breeding habitat of the Fiji petrel in the 

remote and unsurveyed catchment area 

of the main waterway of Gau Island to 

this final rule. 

Comment 5: Consider the potential 

impact of the recently established feral 

pig population in the southern part of 

Gau Island. 

Our Response: We agree that there 

may be impacts to the Fiji petrel from 

recently established feral pig 

populations on Gau Island and have 

included this new information in the 

discussion of threats under Factor C 

(Disease or Predation) in this final rule. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
46916 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

New Zealand Department of 

Conservation’s (NZDOC) Comments 

Chatham Petrel 

Comment 6: Incidental take of the 

Chatham petrel by commercial long-line 

fisheries is not a significant threat and 

is overstated for this species. There has 

been no documented incidental take of 

small Pterodroma petrels in any New 

Zealand fishery from 1993–2007. New 

Zealand supports a fisheries observer 

and seabird autopsy program, and this 

species and its close small relatives 

have not been taken in any fisheries 

operations. Therefore, there is little risk 

to this species from fishing impacts. 

Our Response: We have reexamined 

our discussion of this threat in the 

proposed rule, and based on the 

information provided above, we agree 

that commercial long-line fisheries is 

not a significant threat to the Chatham 

petrel, and have amended this final rule 

accordingly. 

Comment 7: Pitt Island also has a 

population of feral pigs that could be a 

potential predator threat to translocated 

birds that attempt to nest outside the 

predator-proof fence. 

Our Response: We have included, in 

this final rule, this new information 

regarding the potential threat of 

predation by feral pigs on birds nesting 

outside the predator-proof fence on Pitt 

Island. 

Comment 8: We disagree that the 

existing regulatory protections have not 

reduced the threats to Chatham petrels. 

The Chatham petrel is well-protected in 

New Zealand under the Wildlife Act of 

1953 and access to the breeding grounds 

is strictly controlled under the Reserves 

Act of 1977 (permitted access only for 

scientific or management purposes). In 

addition, while there might be illegal 

visits to the breeding grounds, the 

burrows are located some distance from 

the landing areas and are unlikely to be 

disturbed. 

Our Response: We agree, based on the 

information provided by the NZDOC 

(2008, in litt.), that existing regulatory 

mechanisms have reduced the threats to 

the Chatham petrel. As a result, we have 

amended our discussion under Factor D 

(The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms) in this final rule. 

Comment 9: It is unlikely that the 

Chatham petrel is threatened by burrow 

damage from storm waves. The current 

breeding sites on the [three] islands are 

mostly above 33 feet (ft) (10 meters (m)) 

in elevation and more than 330 ft (100 

m) from the coast. However, there is a 

risk of burrow damage from stormrelated tree falls. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

Chatham petrel is likely not threatened 

by burrow damage from storm waves, 

although there is a potential threat to 

the birds and their burrows from stormrelated tree falls. Therefore, we have 

amended the discussion under Factor E 

(Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species) for this species in this final rule 

to reflect this new information. 

Magenta Petrel 

Comment 10: The risk of logging 

activities on private land impacting the 

magenta petrel is quite low for the 

following reasons: (1) Unprotected 

breeding sites are more than 3 miles 

(mi) (5 kilometers (km)) from existing 

roads [which are needed to move 

vehicles and equipment to potential 

logging sites], (2) over the past 50 years 

there has been no logging of forests near 

the breeding burrows except to clear a 

thin strip of forest for a reserve 

boundary fence, and (3) the private 

landowners are aware of the petrel’s rare 

status and are fully supportive of its 

protection. 

Our Response: Based on the 

information provided above, we agree 

that the magenta petrel is not threatened 

by logging on private land, and we have 

amended our discussion under Factor A 

(The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Species’ 

Habitat or Range) in this final rule. 

Comment 11: The risk to the magenta 

petrel from long-line fishing is probably 

not as serious as concluded in the 

proposed rule. There may be some risk 

as the closely related grey-faced petrel 

(Pterodroma macroptera gouldi) is 

occasionally caught on commercial long 

lines. However, the New Zealand 

fisheries observer program has not 

reported any incidental take of the 

closely related white-headed petrel 

(Pterodroma lessonii), which feeds in 

the same cold, subantarctic waters as 

the magenta petrel. 

Our Response: We have reexamined 

our discussion of this threat in the 

proposed rule, and based on the 

information provided by the NZDOC 

and other commenters, we agree that 

commercial long-line fisheries are not a 

significant threat to the magenta petrel. 

We have amended this final rule 

accordingly. 

Comment 12: There is not a risk of 

burrow damage by storm waves because 

the known breeding sites on Chatham 

Island are at least 660 ft (200 m) in 

elevation and over 3 mi (5 km) from the 

coast. Storm-related windfalls and 

flooding of breeding sites from rising 

streams, however, do pose a threat to 

the magenta petrel. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

magenta petrel is not threatened by 

storm waves, although there is a 

potential threat of storm-related tree 

falls and flooding from rising streams. 

Therefore, we have amended the 

discussion under Factor E (Other 

Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting 

the Continued Existence of the Species) 

in this final rule. 

Comment 13: The NZDOC disagreed 

that one random, naturally occurring 

event, such as a cyclone, during the 

nesting season could destroy the entire 

known breeding population on Chatham 

Island. The NZDOC acknowledged that 

there is a risk that some burrows might 

be destroyed during such an event, but 

it is unlikely that all burrows would be 

destroyed in a major storm because the 

forest on Chatham Island is very 

resilient to storm damage as it is 

regularly exposed to wind gusts over 60 

knots. In addition, some proportion of 

the breeding birds is at sea at any stage 

of the [breeding] season, so the risk of 

catastrophic loss of all adults in a storm 

is also unlikely. 

Our Response: Based on this new 

information regarding the risk of 

destruction of the entire breeding 

population of magenta petrels due to 

one stochastic event, we have amended 

our discussion under Factor E (Other 

Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting 

the Continued Existence of the Species) 

for this species in this final rule. 

Comment 14: The risk of inbreeding 

depression is a new threat to consider 

for this species. While the magenta 

petrel gene pool appears to be fairly 

diverse, the tendency for returning 

chicks to nest close to their natal 

burrows greatly increases the risk of 

interbreeding among close relatives. 

Poor fertility rates were found in recent 

seasons where close relatives have 

interbred. 

Our Response: We have included the 

threat of inbreeding depression in our 

discussion under Factor E (Other 

Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting 

the Continued Existence of the Species) 

for this species in this final rule. 

Other Comments 

Comment 15: Listing under the Act 

provides substantial benefits to foreign 

species. 

Our Response: We agree that listing a 

foreign species under the Act provides 

benefits to the species in the form of 

conservation measures, such as 

recognition, requirements for Federal 

protection, and prohibitions against 

certain practices (see Available 

Conservation Measures). In addition, 

once a foreign species is listed as 

endangered under the Act, a section 7 

consultation and an enhancement 

finding are usually required for the 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46917 

issuance of a permit. Through various 

enhancement findings pursuant to 

section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, the permit 

process can be used to create incentives 

for conservation, through cooperation 

and consultation with range countries 

and users of the resource. 

Comment 16: Listing under the Act 

can only help these birds by drawing 

attention to their needs and providing 

much needed funding and expertise to 

address the significant threats they face. 

Our Response: Listing the three 

species that are the subject of this final 

rule under the Act can provide several 

benefits to the species in the form of 

conservation measures, such as 

recognition, requirements for Federal 

protection, and prohibitions against 

certain practices (see Available 

Conservation Measures). 

Comment 17: We would encourage 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

carefully consider how listing these 

species under the Act will benefit their 

conservation. Would a listing under the 

Act prompt U.S.-based actions that the 

species would otherwise not receive? 

Our Response: As part of the 

conservation measures provided to 

foreign species listed under the Act (see 

Available Conservation Measures), 

recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and encourages and 

results in conservation actions by 

Federal and State governments, private 

agencies and groups, and individuals. In 

addition, section 8(a) of the Act 

authorizes the provision of limited 

financial assistance for the development 

and management of programs that the 

Secretary of the Interior determines to 

be necessary or useful for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species in foreign countries. 

Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act 

authorize the Secretary to encourage 

conservation programs for foreign 

endangered and threatened species and 

to provide assistance for such programs 

in the form of personnel and the 

training of personnel. 

Comment 18: The general statement 

that the ‘‘long-line fishery * * * is the 

single greatest threat to all seabirds’’ 

erroneously indicates long-line fishing 

as a threat to all seabirds. The main 

species of seabirds killed in long-line 

fisheries are albatrosses and other 

species of petrels (not Pterodroma 

species). The characteristics of a petrel 

species vulnerable to long-line fishing 

(seabird that is aggressive and good at 

seizing prey (or baited hooks) at the 

water’s surface, or is a proficient diver) 

do not describe the five Pterodroma 

species or the Heinroth’s shearwater 

that are proposed for listing under the 

Act. Fisheries bycatch has not been 

identified as a key threat for any of these 

species; therefore, it is inaccurate to 

characterize long-line fishing as a threat 

to these species or to all seabird species. 

Our Response: We received several 

comments disputing our statement that 

long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds, 

including the Chatham petrel, Fiji 

petrel, and magenta petrel (see also 

Comments 6 and 11 above). We have 

amended this final rule accordingly (see 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species). 

Comment 19: The serious threats to 

the species are impacts from extremely 

small populations, limited breeding 

locations or foraging ranges, loss and 

degradation of nesting habitat, invasive 

alien species, introduced predators, and 

hunting. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, and magenta 

petrel are threatened by extremely small 

populations, limited breeding sites, 

degradation or destruction of nesting 

habitat, or nonnative species. We have 

incorporated this information into this 

final rule. We are not aware of any 

information regarding the current threat 

from hunting of any of these seabirds. 

Harvesting of petrel chicks (called 

muttonbird harvesting), especially 

shearwater species (Puffinus spp.), for 

food, oil, and feathers prior to European 

arrival may have contributed to the 

decline of some New Zealand petrel 

species (Tennyson and Millener 1994, 

pp. 165, 174). Currently, the Maori 

people of New Zealand’s southernmost 

region and their descendents have 

gathering rights to sooty shearwater 

(Puffinus griseus) chicks on islands 

around Stewart Island. Maori from the 

Alderman group of islands off the 

Coromandel Peninsula have rights to 

harvest grey-faced petrels (Pterodroma 

macroptera gouldi). However, we are 

not aware of any information that 

indicates that the Chatham petrel or the 

magenta petrel is currently threatened 

by hunting or overcollection in New 

Zealand (Lyver et al. 2007). In addition, 

we are unaware of any information that 

indicates that the Fiji petrel currently 

faces threats from human hunting or 

overcollection. 

Comment 20: The primary threats to 

these species are predation by 

introduced predators and risk at 

breeding colonies. 

Our Response: We agree that 

predation by nonnative predators is a 

significant threat to one or more life 

stages of the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, 

and the magenta petrel, and we have 

incorporated this information into this 

final rule. 

Species Information and Factors 

Affecting the Species 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

As previously mentioned, several 

commenters disputed our statement that 

long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds, 

including the species that are the 

subject of this final rule. According to 

the U.S. National Marine Fisheries 

Service (Mecum, in litt. 2008) and 

BirdLife International (Small, in litt. 

2008), the main seabirds killed in longline fisheries are albatrosses and other 

species of petrels (not Pterodroma 

species). The characteristics of a petrel 

species vulnerable to long-line fishing (a 

seabird that is aggressive and good at 

seizing prey (or baited hooks) at the 

water’s surface, or is a proficient diver) 

do not describe the three species that 

are the subject of this final rule. 

According to the commenters, fisheries 

bycatch has not been identified as a key 

threat for any of these species (Mecum, 

in litt. 2008; NZDOC, in litt. 2008, pp. 

2–3; Small, in litt. 2008). Therefore, we 

do not believe that long-line fishing is 

a significant threat to the Chatham 

petrel or Fiji petrel. The NZDOC (in litt. 

2008, p. 3) stated that there may be 

some risk to the magenta petrel as the 

closely related grey-faced petrel 

(Pterodroma macroptera gouldi) is 

occasionally caught on commercial long 

lines. However, because the New 

Zealand fisheries observer program has 

not reported any incidental take of the 

closely related white-headed petrel 

(Pterodroma lessonii), which feeds in 

the same cold, subantarctic waters as 

the magenta petrel, the risk to the 

magenta petrel from long-line fisheries 

is not significant (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, 

p. 3). Therefore, we do not believe that 

long-line fisheries are a significant 

threat to the magenta petrel. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
46918 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Below is a species-by-species analysis 

of the five factors. The species are 

considered in alphabetical order, 

beginning with the Chatham petrel, and 

followed by the Fiji petrel and the 

magenta petrel. 

I. Chatham petrel (Pterodroma 

axillaris) 

Species Information 

The Chatham petrel (Pterodroma 

axillaris) is a small, gray and white 

gadfly petrel that is endemic to the 

Chatham Islands of New Zealand 

(BirdLife International 2008a). Its 

unique underwing pattern (a black 

diagonal band that runs from the bend 

of the wing to the body) distinguishes 

this species from other petrels (BirdLife 

International 2008a; del Hoyo et al. 

1992, p. 247). The Chatham petrel is 

also known by its Maori name, 

‘‘ranguru.’’ The species was first 

taxonomically described by Salvin in 

1893 (Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 321). 

Habitat and Life History 

In general, Chatham petrels are 

considered pelagic, occurring on the 

open sea generally out of sight of land, 

where they feed year round. They return 

to nesting sites on islands during the 

breeding season where they nest in 

colonies (Pettingill 1970, p. 206). 

Banding studies have shown that young 

birds of this species remain at sea for at 

least 2 years before returning to land to 

breed and nest. Based on limited 

feeding habits data, the Chatham petrel 

preys on squid and small fish (Heather 

and Robertson 1997, p. 212). 

The Chatham petrel breeds in lowland 

temperate forest and scrub in habitats 

with low forest, bracken, or rank grass 

(BirdLife International 2008a; del Hoyo 

et al. 1992, p. 247). It nests in burrows 

in very friable (brittle) soils on flat to 

moderately sloping ground among low 

vegetation and roots (BirdLife 

International 2008a; Marchant and 

Higgins 1990, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2000, p. 55). 

Range and Distribution 

The range of the Chatham petrel 

changes intra-annually based on an 

established breeding cycle. During the 

breeding season (November to June) 

(New Zealand Department of 

Conservation (NZDOC) 2001b, p. 7), 

breeding birds return to breeding 

colonies to breed and nest. During the 

nonbreeding season, birds migrate far 

from their breeding range, where they 

remain at sea until returning to breed. 

BirdLife International (2008a) 

estimates the range of the Chatham 

petrel to be 168,300 square miles (mi2) 

(436,000 square kilometers (km2)); 

however, BirdLife International (2000, 

pp. 22, 27) defines ‘‘range’’ as the 

‘‘Extent of Occurrence, the area 

contained within the shortest 

continuous imaginary boundary which 

can be drawn to encompass all the 

known, inferred, or projected sites of 

present occurrence of a species, 

excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ Therefore, 

this reported range includes a large area 

of nonbreeding habitat (i.e., the sea). 

Fossil evidence indicates that the 

Chatham petrel was once widespread 

throughout the Chatham Islands of New 

Zealand (NZDOC 2001b, p. 5). However, 

the species is currently only known to 

breed on one island (BirdLife 

International 2000, p. 55; NZDOC 

2001b, p. 5), the 0.84 mi2 (2.18 km2) 

(Oceandots n.d.) South East Island in 

the Chatham Islands, New Zealand 

(BirdLife International 2000, p. 55; 

NZDOC 2001b, p. 5). In 2002, the 

NZDOC began efforts to expand the 

species’ breeding range by releasing 

chicks onto Pitt Island, an island 

approximately 1.55 mi (2.5 km) 

northwest of South East Island. Over a 

4-year time period, 200 chicks were 

transferred to the 98.8-acre (ac) (40- 

hectare (ha)) Ellen Elizabeth Preece 

Conservation Covenant (Caravan Bush), 

a fenced, predator-free enclosure on Pitt 

Island. As of 2006, four adult birds had 

returned to the island from the sea to 

breed, and in June 2006, a pair 

successfully reared a chick. This 

represents the first time in more than a 

century that a Chatham petrel chick has 

fledged on Pitt Island (BirdLife 

International News 2006). In 2008, there 

were six pairs of Chatham petrels 

breeding in the predator-proof reserve 

on Pitt Island (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 

5). In addition, in April 2008, 43 chicks 

were transferred from South East Island 

to the 6.2-ac (2.5-ha) predator-proof 

fenced site (Sweetwater Conservation 

Covenant) on main Chatham Island 

(NZDOC News 2008). 

The Chatham petrel’s range at sea is 

poorly known; the species has been 

recorded on several occasions at sea 

near South East Island, and has been 

recorded once 7.5 mi (12 km) south of 

the island (West 1994, p. 25), and 

northeast of the Bounty Islands 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). It is 

believed that the species migrates to the 

North Pacific Ocean in the nonbreeding 

season, based on the habits of closely 

related species; however, no sightings 

have been recorded in the Northern 

Hemisphere (Taylor 2000, p. 128). 

Population Estimates 

The population of the Chatham petrel 

is very small, estimated at 900 to 1,100 

birds based on recent research and 

banding studies (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, 

p. 5), and is showing a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2008a). The breeding population was 

estimated to be 250 pairs in 2004 on 

South East Island (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, 

p. 5), and the breeding population on 

Pitt Island was 6 pairs in 2008 (NZDOC, 

in litt. 2008, p. 5). 

Conservation Status 

The Chatham petrel is ranked as 

‘‘Nationally Endangered’’ by the New 

Zealand Department of Conservation, 

which is the second highest threat 

category and signifies that the species 

has a small population size with an 

ongoing or predicted population decline 

(Hitchmough et al. 2005, p. 38; 

Townsend et al. 2008, p. 11). The 

species is considered ‘‘Endangered’’ by 

the International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The 

species was recently (2009) downlisted 

from ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ because 

‘‘despite very rapid declines over the 

past three generations, the population 

stabilized and began to increase since 

2000; a trend boosted by two recent 

translocations’’ (BirdLife International 

2009). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Chatham Petrel 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

The range of the Chatham petrel 

changes intra-annually based on an 

established breeding cycle. During the 

breeding season (November to June) 

(NZDOC 2001b, p. 7), breeding birds 

return to breeding colonies to breed and 

nest. During the nonbreeding season, 

birds migrate far from their breeding 

range, and they remain at sea until 

returning to breed. Therefore, our 

analysis of Factor A is separated into 

analyses of: (1) The species’ breeding 

habitat and range; and (2) the species’ 

nonbreeding habitat and range. 

The Chatham petrel breeds primarily 

on one island, the island of South East 

Island in the Chatham Islands, New 

Zealand (BirdLife International 2000, p. 

55; NZDOC 2001b, p. 5). The species 

breeds in lowland temperate forest and 

scrub in habitats with low forest, 

bracken, or rank grass (BirdLife 

International 2008a; del Hoyo et al. 

1992, p. 247). Since the arrival of 

European explorers, this breeding 

habitat has contracted extensively, 

largely as a result of its conversion to 

agricultural purposes (NZDOC 2001b, p. 

5; Tennyson and Millener 1994, pp. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46919 

165–166). However, we are not aware of 

any present or threatened destruction or 

modification of the Chatham petrel’s 

habitat on South East Island. This island 

is currently uninhabited by humans 

(Lechner et al. 1997, p. 256), and since 

1954, it has been managed as a nature 

reserve for native plants and animals, 

including fur seals, rare birds (including 

the Chatham petrel), and endangered 

invertebrates (NZDOC n.d.(a)). Access to 

this island is restricted by permit. In 

addition, since 1961, all livestock has 

been removed from the island, allowing 

the natural vegetation to regenerate 

(Nilsson et al. 1994, p. 110; NZDOC 

n.d.(a)). The Chatham petrel’s fenced 

release areas on Pitt and Chatham 

Islands are protected by conservation 

covenants, and we are unaware of any 

present or threatened destruction or 

modification of any of the species’ 

habitat on either island. 

The Chatham petrel’s range at sea is 

poorly known; the species has been 

recorded on several occasions at sea 

near South East Island, and has been 

recorded once 7.5 mi (12 km) south of 

the island (West 1994, p. 25), and 

northeast of the Bounty Islands 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). It is 

believed that the species migrates to the 

North Pacific Ocean in the nonbreeding 

season, based on the habits of closely 

related species; however, no sightings 

have been recorded in the Northern 

Hemisphere (Taylor 2000, p. 128). We 

are not aware of any present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ current sea 

habitat or range. 

Summary of Factor A 

We are not aware of any scientific or 

commercial information that indicates 

that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Chatham petrel’s 

habitat or range poses a threat to this 

species. As a result, we do not consider 

the destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range to be a contributing factor to the 

continued existence of the Chatham 

petrel. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We are not aware of any scientific or 

commercial information that indicates 

that overutilization of the Chatham 

petrel for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes poses 

a threat to this species. As a result, we 

do not consider overutilization to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the Chatham petrel. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

The information available suggests 

that petrels in general are susceptible to 

a variety of diseases and parasites, 

particularly during the breeding season, 

when large numbers of seabirds 

congregate in relatively small areas to 

breed and nest (BirdLife International 

2007a; Taylor 2000, p. 23). However, 

there are no documented records of 

diseases impacting the persistence of 

the Chatham petrel. Therefore, we find 

that disease is not a threat to this 

species. 

Predation 

The Chatham petrel’s breeding range 

was reduced extensively following the 

arrival of European explorers, largely 

due to predation by introduced species 

such as rats (Rattus spp.), feral cats 

(Felis catus), and weka (Gallirallus 

australis), a bird native to the North and 

South Islands and introduced to 

Chatham and Pitt Islands in the early 

1900s (Heather and Robertson 1997, p. 

213; NZDOC 2001b, p. 7; Taylor 2000, 

pp. 20–21). Currently, no introduced 

predators are present on South East 

Island (Dowding and Murphy 2001, p. 

51). The NZDOC manages South East 

Island under the New Zealand 

Conservation Act of 1987 as a nature 

reserve for the conservation of Chatham 

Islands flora, fauna, and ecosystems 

(NZDOC n.d.(a)). Access to the island is 

restricted by permit for scientific or 

conservation purposes only, and visitor 

numbers and movements are strictly 

regulated. While there is an ongoing risk 

that predators, such as rats or cats, may 

be inadvertently reintroduced to the 

island by boats transporting 

conservation and research groups to the 

island, we believe the risk of these 

predators becoming reestablished on the 

island is quite low because the NZDOC 

monitors and manages the island 

intensively to maintain the island as a 

predator-free habitat. Therefore, we find 

that predation by introduced species is 

not a significant threat to the Chatham 

petrel on South East Island, the species’ 

primary breeding location. 

On Pitt Island, Chatham petrel chicks 

were released within a 98.8-ac (40-ha) 

fenced, predator-free breeding habitat. 

Although this area is fenced, and the 

threat of predation on nesting Chatham 

petrels is reduced, introduced predators, 

such as rats, feral cats and pigs, and 

weka, are present on this island 

(BirdLife International News 2002; 

NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 1) and could 

potentially get inside the fenced area or 

prey on Chatham petrels that leave the 

fenced area. Therefore, we find that 

predation by introduced species is a 

threat to the Chatham petrel on Pitt 

Island. 

On Chatham Island, 43 Chatham 

petrel chicks were released within the 

6.2-ac (2.5-ha) fenced, predator-free 

Sweetwater Covenant site in April 2008 

(NZDOC News 2008). Although this area 

is fenced, and the threat of predation on 

nesting Chatham petrels is reduced, 

introduced predators, such as rats, feral 

cats and pigs, and weka, are present on 

this island (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 1) 

and could potentially get inside the 

fenced area or prey on Chatham petrels 

that leave the fenced area. Therefore, we 

find that predation by introduced 

species is a threat to the Chatham petrel 

on Chatham Island. 

We are unaware of any threats due to 

predation on Chatham petrels during 

the nonbreeding season while the 

species is at sea. 

Summary of Factor C 

On the basis of this analysis, we find 

that predation by nonnative predators, 

such as rats, feral cats, pigs, and weka, 

is a threat to the continued existence of 

the Chatham petrel on Pitt and Chatham 

Island. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Chatham petrel is protected from 

disturbance and harvest under New 

Zealand’s Wildlife Act of 1953 and its 

Reserves Act of 1977. The petrel is 

designated as ‘‘Nationally Endangered’’ 

by the NZDOC, which is the second 

highest threat category and signifies that 

the species has a small population size 

with an ongoing or predicted population 

decline (Hitchmough et al. 2005, p. 38; 

Townsend et al. 2008, p. 11). Access to 

the breeding grounds on all three 

islands is strictly controlled (i.e., 

permitted access only for scientific or 

management purposes). While some 

illegal visits may occur to the breeding 

ground [on South East Island], the 

burrows of this species are sited away 

from the main landing areas and are 

unlikely to be disturbed (NZDOC, in litt. 

2008, p. 2). 

In addition, the NZDOC developed a 

10-year recovery plan for the Chatham 

petrel in 2001, with the goals of 

protecting the species’ breeding burrows 

on South East Island from the broadbilled prion (Pachyptila vittata) (see 

Factor E) and establishing a 

reintroduced population elsewhere 

within the species’ historic breeding 

range (NZDOC 2001b, p. 10). New 

Zealand has implemented management 

actions for the conservation of the 

species, including establishment of 

predator-proof breeding sites, handVerDate Nov<24>2008 15:22 Sep 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM 14SER1

cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
46920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

rearing and translocation of chicks to 

establish additional breeding sites, 

broadcasting of Chatham petrel calls to 

attract adults to protected breeding sites, 

and nest site protection efforts to 

prevent occupation by the broad-billed 

prion (Chatham Islands Conservation 

News 2008b–e; NZDOC 2001b, p. 8; 

NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). A measure 

of the success of the recovery plan is the 

successful establishment of breeding 

individuals on Pitt Island (see Range 

and Distribution) in 2006, which 

increased the breeding range of the 

species, and the introduction of chicks 

to a protected site on Chatham Island in 

2008. These efforts are beginning to 

show some success (see Factor E), but it 

is too early to know the level of success, 

because it can take fledged seabirds 

years to return to their breeding colony 

to breed and nest (Taylor 2000, p. 15). 

Similarly, protection of Chatham petrel 

burrows has reduced the population 

impacts resulting from competition with 

the broad-billed prion (see Factor E); 

however, this still remains the greatest 

threat to the species. 

Summary of Factor D 

We believe the regulatory protections 

conferred by the New Zealand Wildlife 

and Reserves Acts in combination with 

the actions implemented for the 

conservation of the Chatham petrel by 

the NZDOC under the 2001 recovery 

plan provide significant protection to 

the species. As a result, we believe that 

existing regulatory protections have 

significantly reduced the threats from 

predation by rats, cats, pigs, and weka, 

and competition with the broad-billed 

prion. However, these threats still exist. 

We, therefore, find that the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms is a 

threat to the Chatham petrel throughout 

its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Competition With the Broad-Billed 

Prion (Pachyptila vittata) 

Based on the information available, 

the predominant threat to the Chatham 

petrel is nest burrow competition 

between this species and the more 

abundant broad-billed prion (Pachyptila 

vittata), which numbers around 300,000 

individuals. The prion not only 

occupies potential Chatham petrel 

burrows, but has been observed actively 

evicting or lethally attacking eggs, 

nestlings, and occasionally adults of the 

Chatham petrel. Such competition has 

resulted in a high rate of pair bond 

disruption and a low rate of breeding 

success in Chatham petrels, despite the 

high percentage of egg fertility (BirdLife 

International 2000, p. 55; Hirschfeld 

2007, p. 102; NZDOC 2001b, p. 7). 

To reduce the threat posed by 

competition with the broad-billed prion 

on South East Island, the NZDOC has 

implemented nest site protection efforts 

for the Chatham petrel, including 

placement of artificial nest sites and the 

blockage of burrows to prevent 

occupation by the broad-billed prion 

(NZDOC 2001b, pp. 12, 14, 16). 

Although these actions are improving 

the petrel’s breeding success (NZDOC 

2001b, p. 8; Taylor 1999, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2000, p. 55), only 

a small proportion of breeding burrows 

occupied by Chatham petrels have been 

located and, therefore, protected (Taylor 

1999, as cited in BirdLife International 

2000, p. 55). Therefore, we consider nest 

burrow competition between this 

species and the broad-billed prion to be 

a significant threat to the Chatham 

petrel. 

Restricted Breeding Range 

The Chatham petrel’s restricted 

breeding range puts the species at a 

greater risk of extinction. Breeding 

colonies were once widespread 

throughout the Chatham Islands 

(Hirschfeld 2007, p. 102; NZDOC 2001b, 

p. 5), a group of about 10 islands within 

a 24.85-mi (40-km) radius covering a 

total land area of 375 mi2 (970 km2) 

(Oceandots n.d.). Currently, however, 

breeding of this species is restricted to 

South East Island (BirdLife International 

2007a), a land area of less than 1 mi2

(2.5 km2) (Oceandots n.d.), and, as a 

result of recent release efforts, Pitt 

Island (BirdLife International News 

2006; NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). It is 

unknown at this time if the recent 

translocation of Chatham petrel chicks 

to Chatham Island will result in 

successful breeding pairs. This habitat 

area is insufficient for the long-term 

survival of the Chatham petrel, 

particularly since breeding pairs, eggs, 

and nestlings on South East Island, the 

primary breeding area of this species, 

face the pervasive threat of nest-site 

competition with the broad-billed prion. 

It is estimated that the self-sustainability 

of the breeding population on Pitt Island 

as a result of the release program will 

take longer than 4 more years to achieve 

(NZDOC 2001b, pp. 18–19). 

Stochastic Events 

The Chatham petrel’s restricted 

breeding range combined with its 

colonial nesting habits and small 

population size of 900 to 1,100 birds 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5) makes the 

species particularly vulnerable to the 

threat of adverse random, naturally 

occurring events (e.g., cyclones, fire) 

that destroy breeding individuals and 

their breeding habitat. Fire is a high risk 

in the Chatham Islands because the 

climate is very dry during the summer, 

and the vegetation becomes tinder dry. 

If fires do occur, the remoteness of the 

islands renders the fires unlikely to be 

exterminated by human intervention. 

Burrow-nesting species such as the 

Chatham petrel are at a high risk 

because they are likely to suffocate from 

smoke inhalation or to be lethally 

burned inside or while attempting to 

escape from their burrows (Taylor 2000, 

p. 22). 

Another natural disaster, severe 

storms, has impacted New Zealand 

historically, and so the likelihood of 

future impacts of storms is high. A 

severe storm in 1985 stripped two 

islands in the Chatham Islands chain 

bare of vegetation and soil cover, 

causing high increases in egg mortality 

of nesting albatrosses (Taylor 2000, p. 

23). Considered the worst recorded 

cyclone in New Zealand’s history, 

Cyclone Giselle hit New Zealand on 

April 10, 1968, with wind speeds of 275 

km per hour (Christchurch City 

Libraries n.d.). Although we are 

unaware of the impact of this cyclone 

on the Chatham petrel’s population 

numbers or breeding habitat, the 

severity of the wind, or tree falls created 

by such a storm, has potential to 

significantly damage Chatham petrel 

burrows. These burrows are particularly 

vulnerable because they are extremely 

fragile, occurring in soft soils that are 

easily disrupted by severe climatic 

events (BirdLife International 2008a; 

NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 2; Taylor 2000, 

p. 128). 

While species with more extensive 

breeding ranges or higher population 

numbers could recover from adverse 

random, naturally occurring events such 

as fire or storms, the Chatham petrel 

does not have such resiliency. Its very 

small population size and restricted 

breeding range puts the species at 

higher risk for experiencing the 

irreversible adverse effects of random, 

naturally occurring events. Therefore, 

we find a combination of factors—the 

species’ small population size, the 

species’ restricted breeding range, and 

the likelihood of adverse random, 

naturally occurring events—to be a 

significant threat to the Chatham petrel. 

Summary of Factor E 

On the basis of this analysis, we find 

that due to the species’ small population 

size and restricted breeding range, the 

continued existence of the Chatham 

petrel is threatened by nest burrow 

competition between this species and 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46921 

the more abundant broad-billed prion in 

its primary breeding area, and adverse 

random, naturally occurring events (e.g., 

cyclones, fire). 

Status Determination for the Chatham 

Petrel 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Chatham petrel. Historically, predation 

by introduced species reduced the 

Chatham petrel’s population numbers 

throughout all of its range (Factor C). 

Today, however, South East Island is 

predator free, and we believe the risk of 

these predators becoming reestablished 

on the island is quite low because the 

NZDOC monitors and manages the 

island intensively to maintain the island 

as a predator-free habitat. Therefore, 

predation by nonnative predators, such 

as rats, feral cats, pigs, and weka, is only 

a significant threat to the species on Pitt 

and Chatham Island (Factor C). 

Nest burrow competition between the 

Chatham petrel and the more abundant 

broad-billed prion is a current, ongoing 

threat to the species that is of high 

magnitude and that has not been 

controlled by human intervention 

(Factor E). The broad-billed prion 

occupies Chatham petrel burrows, 

actively evicting or lethally attacking 

eggs, nestlings, and occasionally adults 

of the Chatham petrel, and as a result is 

reducing the Chatham petrel’s 

population, which is already very small, 

estimated at 900 to 1,100 individuals 

(Factor E). Although the NZDOC has 

been actively working to protect 

Chatham petrel nest sites from the 

broad-billed prion, only a small 

proportion of Chatham petrel breeding 

burrows have been located and 

protected (Taylor 1999, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2000, p. 55). This 

threat is magnified by the fact that the 

impacted area is the Chatham petrel’s 

primary breeding location (South East 

Island), and the breeding area is 

extremely small, less than 1 mi2 (2.5 

km2) in size. The only other location 

where the species has been documented 

to breed is the 98.8-ac (40-ha) enclosed 

area on Pitt Island where Chatham 

petrels were reintroduced. It is currently 

uncertain whether the species will 

maintain this portion of its range as a 

breeding area. As of 2006, one pair 

breeding in this area had successfully 

reared a chick, and in 2008, there were 

six pairs breeding in the predator-proof 

reserve (Chatham Islands Conservation 

News 2008e; NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). 

The regulatory protections conferred 

by the New Zealand Wildlife and 

Reserves Acts in combination with the 

actions implemented for the 

conservation of the Chatham petrel by 

the NZDOC under the 2001 recovery 

plan have significantly reduced the 

threats to the species from predation by 

introduced species and competition 

with the broad-billed prion. However, 

these threats still exist, and despite the 

efforts undertaken in New Zealand to 

address the threats to the Chatham 

petrel, the species has not recovered 

(Factor D). 

In general, the fewer the number of 

populations and the smaller the size of 

each population, the higher the 

probability of extinction (Franklin 1980, 

pp. 147–148; Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 

25; Meffe and Carroll 1996, pp. 218– 

219; Pimm et al. 1998, pp. 757–785; 

Raup 1991, pp. 124–127; Soule ́ 1987, p. 

181). The Chatham petrel’s small 

population, combined with its restricted 

breeding range and colonial nesting 

habits, makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to the threat of random, 

naturally occurring events. These 

catastrophic events, such as cyclones 

and fire, are known to occur in New 

Zealand and have the potential to 

destroy breeding individuals and their 

breeding habitat (Factor E). 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Because 

the survival of the Chatham petrel is 

dependent on recruitment of chicks 

from its breeding range, the severity of 

threats to the species within its breeding 

range, as described above, puts the 

species in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, on 

the basis of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we 

determine that the Chatham petrel 

meets the Act’s definition of endangered 

and warrants protection as an 

endangered species under the Act. 

II. Fiji petrel (Pseudobulweria 

macgillivrayi) 

Species Information 

The Fiji petrel (Pseudobulweria 

macgillivrayi) is a small, dark brown 

gadfly petrel that is endemic to Fiji 

(BirdLife International 2008b). The 

species was first taxonomically 

described by G.R. Gray in 1860 (Sibley 

and Monroe 1990, p. 321). In our 

December 17, 2007, proposal (72 FR 

71298), we listed the scientific name of 

the Fiji petrel as Pterodroma 

macgillivrayi, with Pseudobulweria 

macgillivrayi as a synonym. However, 

the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES) standard taxonomic 

and nomenclatural reference for birds 

(Dickinson 2003, p. 75), as well as 

BirdLife International (2008b), 

recognizes the species as 

Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi. 

Therefore, we accept the species as 

Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi, which 

also follows the Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS 2009). 

Habitat and Life History 

Very little information is available on 

the Fiji petrel and its life history. 

However, Fiji petrels are considered 

pelagic, occurring on the open sea 

generally out of sight of land, where 

they feed year round. During the 

breeding season, they return to nesting 

sites on islands where they nest in 

colonies (Pettingill 1970, p. 206). 

There have only been 12 substantiated 

sightings of the Fiji petrel on land since 

1965, and a total of 13 historically. 

These sightings have all been of single 

individuals on Gau Island (BirdLife 

International 2000, p. 55; BirdLife 

International 2008b; Carlile and Priddel, 

in litt. 2008, p. 3; Priddel et al. in draft), 

a 52.55 mi2 (136.1 km2) island in Fiji’s 

Lomaiviti archipelago. 

Based on the locations of Fiji petrel 

sightings on Gau Island, researchers 

have speculated that the species’ 

breeding habitat is most likely to be 

undisturbed, mature forest on rocky, 

mountainous ground within the island’s 

cloud forest highlands (del Hoyo et al. 

1992, p. 248; RARE Conservation 

2006a). It has been suggested that, based 

on the nesting habits of other colonial 

seabirds, Fiji petrels nest in close 

proximity to collared petrels 

(Pterodroma leucoptera), which nest on 

the ground in this rugged terrain of 

interior Gau Island (Watling and 

Lewanavanua 1985, p. 233). 

Recently, Priddel et al. (in draft) and 

Carlile and Priddel (in litt. 2008, p. 3) 

reviewed the available information 

regarding the attempts to discover the 

nesting sites of this elusive bird. All 

surveys to date have focused on the 

interior summit area of Gau Island 

within the island’s cloud forest 

highlands. These authors suggest that, 

as no nests or birds have been found in 

the upland area, other possible sites 

should be considered for surveys. 

According to Jenkins (1986, as cited in 

Priddel et al. in draft), in 1925, Rollo 

Beck trekked to the summit of the island 

with the island’s chief who indicated 

that the petrels nested not in the summit 

area but down below in dense canyons 

on the eastern side of the island. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
46922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Therefore, according to Priddel et al. (in 

draft) and Carlile and Priddel (in litt. 

2008, p. 3), future surveys should focus 

on the unsurveyed catchment of the 

main waterway of the island, 

particularly the headwaters of the 

Waiboteigau Creek on the eastern side of 

Gau. This remote lowland area is 

uncleared and lacks roads or trails. 

According to Carlile and Priddel (in litt. 

2008, pp. 2–3), an intensive survey of 

this area for potential breeding sites is 

planned for July 2009. 

Range and Distribution 

Although little is known about the Fiji 

petrel and its life history, based on 

general information common to all other 

Procellariid species, we know that the 

range of the Fiji petrel changes intraannually based on an established 

breeding cycle. During the breeding 

season, breeding birds return to 

breeding colonies to breed and nest. 

During the nonbreeding season, birds 

migrate far from their breeding range, 

where they remain at sea until returning 

to breed. 

BirdLife International (2008b) 

estimates the range of the Fiji petrel to 

be 59,460 mi2 (154,000 km2); however, 

BirdLife International (2000, pp. 22, 27) 

defines ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘Extent of 

Occurrence, the area contained within 

the shortest continuous imaginary 

boundary which can be drawn to 

encompass all the known, inferred, or 

projected sites of present occurrence of 

a species, excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ 

Therefore, this reported range includes 

a large area of nonbreeding habitat (i.e., 

the sea). 

Although the nesting area of this 

species has not been located (Carlile and 

Priddel, in litt. 2008, p. 3; Priddel et al. 

in draft), the information available 

indicates that the species breeds only on 

Gau Island, Fiji, where the few recorded 

sightings of this species on land have 

occurred (Onley and Scofield 2007, p. 

161; Priddel et al. in draft; RARE 

Conservation 2006a; Watling and 

Lewanavanua 1985, p. 230). BirdLife 

International (2008b) suggests that this 

species may occur on other islands in 

Fiji, but Priddel et al. (in draft) found no 

records to support this suggestion. The 

species was originally known from just 

one specimen collected in 1855 on Gau 

Island. There were no additional 

confirmed sightings of the species until 

1984, when an extensive, 16-month 

search on Gau Island revealed one 

additional sighting. The researchers 

used spotlights and recorded collared 

petrel calls in an attempt to attract 

petrels to the highlands area where the 

researchers were searching. On the first 

night of spotlighting, a single Fiji petrel 

flew into the researchers’ light. No 

additional birds were found on this 

search expedition (Watling 1986, p. 32; 

Watling and Lewanavanua 1985, p. 

231). There have been an additional 16 

reported sightings of this species on 

land, all on Gau Island, and 10 

additional sightings at sea; however, 

many of these reports have not been 

substantiated (Priddel et al. in draft). In 

2007, Priddel et al. (in draft) 

summarized all these records, 

specifying which records were credible. 

The researchers determined that of the 

17 recorded sightings on land between 

1965 and 2007, 12 were highly credible 

based on researchers’ identification of 

dead specimens, photographs of 

specimens, or live specimens. In 

addition to the sightings on land, there 

have been 10 sightings at sea, all since 

1960. However, none of these reports 

have been substantiated. Based on 

researcher observation or detailed 

descriptions, three of these reports are 

considered by Priddel et al. (in draft) to 

be credible. 

We consider the evidence sufficient to 

conclude that the Fiji petrel breeds on 

Gau Island because: (1) All 12 

substantiated sightings of the species on 

land have been on Gau Island; (2) 

Procellariids return to land only for 

breeding purposes; and (3) the original 

specimen of this species collected in 

1855 was determined to be an immature 

bird, based on its feathers and skull 

morphology (Bourne 1981, as cited in 

Priddel et al. in draft; Priddel et al. in 

draft). It is therefore reasonable to 

believe that its nest was in the vicinity. 

The Fiji petrel’s range at sea is poorly 

known; the species has been recorded 

once at sea near Gau Island and once at 

sea 124.3 mi (200 km) north of Gau 

Island (Watling 2000, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2000, p. 55; 

Watling and Lewanavanua 1985, p. 

230). 

Population Estimates 

The population of the Fiji petrel is 

believed to be very small. While 

BirdLife International (2008b) estimates 

the population to be fewer than 50 birds 

and showing a decreasing population 

trend, Carlile and Priddel (in litt. 2008, 

p. 3) and Priddel et al. (in draft) state 

that ‘‘the population size is unknown 

but assumed to be very small (due to the 

lack of sightings)’’ and that ‘‘until 

surveys are carried out * * * 

population size will remain unknown.’’ 

Conservation Status 

The Fiji petrel is considered 

‘‘Critically Endangered’’ by IUCN 

because it is ‘‘estimated, given the 

paucity of recent records, that there is 

only a tiny population which is 

confined to a very small breeding area. 

Furthermore, it is assumed to be 

declining because of predation by cats, 

which may therefore threaten its longterm survival’’ (BirdLife International 

2008b). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the Fiji 

Petrel 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Based on general information 

common to all other Procellariid 

species, we know that the range of the 

Fiji petrel changes intra-annually based 

on an established breeding cycle. During 

the breeding season, breeding birds 

return to breeding colonies to breed and 

nest. During the nonbreeding season, 

birds migrate far from their breeding 

range, and they remain at sea until 

returning to breed. Therefore, our 

analysis of Factor A is separated into 

analyses of: (1) The species’ breeding 

habitat and range; and (2) the species’ 

nonbreeding habitat and range. 

In 1985, it was estimated that over 27 

mi2 (70 km2) of forest habitat up to 

2,346 ft (715 m) in elevation was 

potentially suitable for breeding and 

nesting of Fiji petrels on Gau Island 

(Watling and Lewanavanua 1985, p. 

232). Unlike the lowlands of Gau Island, 

which have been cleared to a large 

extent for settlement, agriculture, and 

forest plantations, the upland interior 

forests have not been logged (Priddel et 

al. in draft.; Veitayaki 2006, p. 242). The 

only maintained inland trail leads to a 

telecommunication tower on a 

mountain peak just below Delaco. The 

3,115 inhabitants of Gau Island live in 

coastal villages, where the majority live 

by subsistence fishing and farming, and 

maintain gardens up to 990 ft (300 m) 

in elevation. Although low-level forestry 

activities occur in lowland areas, no 

other intensive industry or agriculture is 

practiced on the island (Priddel et al. in 

draft). Veitayaki (2006, p. 242) noted 

that the practice of shifting cultivation 

on Gau Island using improved 

machinery and the indiscriminant use 

of fire is rapidly progressing toward the 

cloud forests within the interior of the 

island. However, no information was 

provided to show this is actually 

occurring. 

Veitayaki (2006, p. 239) described a 

community-based conservation project 

on Gau Island that has been in place 

since 2001, whereby villagers in the 

district of Vanuaso Tikina are 

collaborating with the University of the 

South Pacific to sustainably manage 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46923 

their environmental resources. Goals of 

the project include preservation of the 

upland cloud forest, adoption of 

sustainable land use practices, 

protection of drinking water, and 

development of alternative sources of 

livelihood. The success of this project 

has provided momentum beyond the 

Vanuaso Tikina district, as there is 

interest in incorporating the same 

sustainable-use practices in the other 

villages on Gau Island (Veitayaki 2006, 

p. 239). 

In 2003, the World Resources Institute 

(WRI) reported that less than 1 percent 

(0.88 percent) of Fiji’s total land area is 

protected to such an extent that it is 

preserved in its natural condition 

(EarthTrends 2003). Gau Island, 

however, is relatively pristine compared 

to most areas of Fiji due to the semisubsistence lifestyle (Veitayaki 2006, p. 

241). The Fiji people show great pride 

in the Fiji petrel; it is the emblem of the 

national airline (Air Fiji) and appears on 

the Fijian $50 banknote (Priddel et al. in 

draft). Legislation has been drafted to 

protect the Fiji petrel’s habitat on Gau 

Island, once nesting colonies have been 

located (RARE Conservation 2006a) (see 

Factor D). Gau Island’s upland forest 

habitat, where the species may breed, 

remains in a pristine condition and does 

not appear to be threatened with 

destruction or modification. In their 

review of our December 17, 2007, 

proposal (72 FR 71298), Carlile and 

Priddel (in litt. 2008, pp. 2–3) suggested 

that a potential breeding site for the Fiji 

petrel is the unsurveyed catchment of 

the main waterway of the island, 

particularly the headwaters of the 

Waiboteigau Creek on the eastern side of 

Gau. According to these reviewers, this 

remote lowland area is unsurveyed, 

uncleared, and lacks roads or trails. 

Based on the information provided by 

the reviewers, the lowland area of the 

catchment of the main waterway of the 

island does not appear to be threatened 

with destruction or modification. 

Therefore, we find that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of this species’ purported 

breeding habitat or range in the upland 

forest or the lowland catchment area on 

the eastern side of Gau is not a threat 

to the species. 

The Fiji petrel’s range at sea is poorly 

known; the species has been recorded 

once at sea near Gau Island and once at 

sea 124.3 mi (200 km) north of Gau 

Island (Watling 2000, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2000, p. 55; 

Watling and Lewanavanua 1985, p. 

230). We are not aware of any present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of this species’ current 

sea habitat or range. 

Summary of Factor A 

We are not aware of any scientific or 

commercial information that indicates 

that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Fiji petrel’s habitat or 

range poses a threat to this species. As 

a result, we do not consider the 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range to be a threat to the continued 

existence of the Fiji petrel. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We are not aware of any scientific or 

commercial information that indicates 

that overutilization of the Fiji petrel for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes poses a threat to 

this species. As a result, we do not 

consider overutilization to be a threat to 

the continued existence of the Fiji 

petrel. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

Although several diseases have been 

documented in other species of petrels 

(see Factor C for the Chatham petrel), 

disease has not been documented in the 

Fiji petrel. Therefore, we find that 

disease is not a threat to this species. 

Predation 

The greatest threat to the long-term 

survival of the Fiji petrel is thought to 

be predation on breeding birds and their 

eggs and chicks by introduced predators 

such as rats and feral cats on Gau Island 

(BirdLife International 2000, p. 55). 

Since nesting colonies of Fiji petrels 

have not been located, predation on the 

Fiji petrel has not been directly 

observed. However, cats and Pacific rats 

(Rattus exulans) have been found in the 

highland forests of Gau Island, one of 

the purported breeding areas of the 

petrel (Imber 1986, as cited in Priddel 

et al. in draft; Watling and Lewanavanua 

1985, p. 233). The path to the 

telecommunications transmitter on the 

summit of Gau Island may have 

facilitated the movement of feral cats, 

and Pacific and brown rats (R. 

norvegicus), into this habitat (Watling 

2000, as cited in BirdLife International 

2000, p. 55). Feral cats and rats are 

present in all habitats on Gau Island 

from the coastal lowlands to the highest 

ridges and pose a threat to the Fiji petrel 

in its presumptive breeding sites, as 

feral cats and rats have caused local 

extirpations of many petrel species 

around the world (Moors and Atkinson 

1984, as cited in Priddel et al. in draft; 

NZDOC, in litt. 2008, pp. 1–2, 5). 

The remains of collared petrels have 

been found in feral cat scats and killings 

in the highland forests of Gau Island, 

where the Fiji petrel may breed. Despite 

this predation threat, it is suggested that 

the collared petrel nests successfully 

due to the species’ synchronized nesting 

(i.e., nesting that occurs at the same 

time). Synchronized nesting of collared 

petrels during the first half of the year 

produces a sudden abundance of eggs 

and chicks such that local predators 

(i.e., cats) are unable to prey upon all of 

them. The collection of a first-flight 

young of the Fiji petrel on Gau Island in 

the month of October, however, 

indicates that this species has a more 

extended or later breeding season, 

putting this more sparsely populated 

species at greater risk of predation 

(Watling 1986, p. 32). In addition, 

according to Priddel et al. (in draft), 

there do not appear to be any cliffs or 

mountainous ledges where Fiji petrels 

could nest out of the reach of cats or 

rats. 

A feral pig (Sus scrofa) population has 

recently established in southern areas of 

Gau Island and is considered an 

emerging threat to the Fiji petrel, as this 

area of Gau Island includes the main 

water catchment of the island, one of 

the purported breeding areas of the 

species (Priddel et al. in draft). Feral 

pigs have caused the local extinction of 

other species of seabirds on numerous 

islands (Moors and Atkinson 1984, as 

cited in Priddel et al. in draft; Carlile 

and Priddel, in litt. 2008, p. 4). 

Protecting Fiji petrel nest sites from 

introduced predators by creating 

barriers around the nests is not possible 

at this time because the exact location 

of the nesting sites is unknown. There 

is no information indicating that 

predator eradication has been attempted 

on Gau Island. Even if a predator 

eradication program were to be 

implemented, protection of the nest 

sites would be difficult due to the 

permanent habitation of humans on the 

island and the concern for free-ranging 

livestock (Priddel et al. in draft). Even 

if cats were prohibited as pets, there is 

still a high potential for cats and rats to 

be transported to Gau Island in boats 

transporting humans or other 

shipments. 

Because the threat of predation by 

introduced cats and rats has severely 

impacted closely related petrel species, 

and because there are records of these 

introduced predators as well as feral 

pigs on Gau Island from the coastal 

lowlands to the highland forests, the 

purported breeding sites of the Fiji 

petrel, we find that predation is a 

significant threat to the Fiji petrel. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
46924 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

We are unaware of any threats due to 

predation on Fiji petrels during the 

nonbreeding season while the species is 

at sea. 

Summary of Factor C 

On the basis of this analysis, we find 

that predation by nonnative predators, 

such as rats, feral cats, and feral pigs, is 

a threat to the continued existence of 

the Fiji petrel throughout all of its 

breeding range. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Fiji petrel is protected from 

international trade under Fijian law 

(Government of Fiji 2002, 2003). 

However, as discussed under Factor B, 

we do not consider overutilization of 

the species for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes, such 

as international trade, to be a threat to 

the Fiji petrel. Therefore, this law does 

not reduce any current threats to the 

species. 

Community awareness of the 

conservation significance of the Fiji 

petrel has been promoted in Fiji. From 

2002 to 2004, Milika Ratu, a local 

conservationist on Gau Island, led a 

‘‘Pride campaign’’ (RARE Conservation 

2006a), a constituency-building program 

developed by the conservation 

organization RARE (RARE Conservation 

2006b). Ratu chose the Fiji petrel as the 

flagship mascot for this movement and 

used a series of high-profile activities to 

raise awareness of the conservation 

urgency of the species. This campaign 

resulted in a confirmed sighting of a Fiji 

petrel (RARE Conservation 2006a). A 

follow-up survey to the campaign 

revealed that 99 percent of the 

participants believed natural resource 

protection to be important, and 94 

percent were aware that the Fiji petrel 

is at risk of extinction. 

Based on increased public awareness 

of the Pride campaign, all 16 of Gau 

Island’s village chiefs signed a formal 

agreement supporting the creation of a 

bird sanctuary for the species (Carlile 

and Priddel, in litt. 2008, p. 4; RARE 

Conservation 2006a). 

The Australian Regional National 

Heritage Programme continues to fund 

the Pride campaign on Gau Island. The 

Wildlife Conservation Society, BirdLife 

International, and the National Trust of 

the Fiji Islands are collaborating to work 

towards implementation of conservation 

recommendations made by Ratu, 

including minimizing predators (RARE 

Conservation 2006a). 

Since 2002, Carlile and Priddel (in 

litt. 2008, p. 2) have been working with 

several local organizations and agencies 

in Fiji, as well as with the people of Gau 

Island, conducting surveys for the Fiji 

petrel, developing a draft recovery plan 

for the petrel, and training the local 

people in the identification and 

handling of petrel species in general. 

The recovery plan, however, has not 

been officially adopted or sanctioned by 

the Fijian government and is not legally 

enforceable (Priddel et al. in draft). 

Summary of Factor D 

Although the Fiji petrel is protected 

from international trade by Fijian law 

(Government of Fiji 2002, 2003) and 

public awareness and support for the 

species’ protection on Gau Island is 

strong, these conservation measures 

have not significantly reduced the 

threats to the species. Therefore, we find 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

and conservation measures are 

inadequate to mitigate the current 

threats to the Fiji petrel throughout its 

range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Small Population Size and Restricted 

Breeding Range 

Because of the paucity of recorded 

sightings of the Fiji petrel (see Range 

and Distribution), the population is 

apparently very small. Although the 

population size is unknown, the IUCN 

estimates the population to be fewer 

than 50 individuals, with a decreasing 

trend due to predation by introduced 

predators (BirdLife International 2008b; 

Carlile and Priddel, in litt. 2008, p. 3; 

Priddel et al. in draft). Small population 

sizes render species vulnerable to any of 

several risks, including inbreeding 

depression, loss of genetic variation, 

and accumulation of new mutations. 

Inbreeding can have individual or 

population-level consequences either by 

increasing the phenotypic expression 

(the outward appearance or observable 

structure, function, or behavior of a 

living organism) of recessive, 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, 

p. 131). Small, isolated populations of 

wildlife species are also susceptible to 

demographic problems (Shaffer 1981, p. 

131), which may include reduced 

reproductive success of individuals and 

chance disequilibrium of sex ratios. 

A general approximation of minimum 

viable population size is the 50/500 rule 

(Shaffer 1981, p. 133; Soule ́ 1980, pp. 

160–162). This rule states that an 

effective population (Ne) of 50 

individuals is the minimum size 

required in the near term to avoid 

imminent risks from inbreeding. Ne

represents the number of animals in a 

population that actually contribute to 

reproduction, and is often much smaller 

than the census, or total number of 

individuals in the population (N). 

Furthermore, the rule states that the 

long-term fitness of a population 

requires an Ne of at least 500 

individuals, so that it will not lose its 

genetic diversity over time and will 

maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt 

to changing conditions. Therefore, an 

analysis of the fitness of this population 

would be a good indicator of the 

species’ overall survivability. 

Although the current population size 

of the Fiji petrel is unknown, we 

presume the population is very small, 

since recorded sightings of the Fiji 

petrel are few and IUCN estimates the 

population to be less than 50 

individuals, with a decreasing trend 

(BirdLife International 2008b; Carlile 

and Priddel, in litt. 2008, p. 3; Priddel 

et al. in draft). As a result, we presume 

the size of the Fiji petrel population 

falls below the minimum effective 

population size required to avoid 

imminent risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50 

individuals). We also presume the 

population size of the species falls 

below the upper threshold (Ne = 500) 

required for long-term fitness of a 

population that will not lose its genetic 

diversity over time and that will 

maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt 

to changing conditions. Therefore, we 

currently consider the Fiji petrel to be 

at risk due to lack of near- and long-term 

viability. 

Species with such small population 

sizes are at greater risk of extinction. In 

general, the fewer the number of 

populations and the smaller the size of 

each population, the higher the 

probability of extinction (Franklin 1980, 

pp. 147–148; Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 

25; Meffe and Carroll 1996, pp. 218– 

219; Pimm et al. 1998, pp. 757–785; 

Raup 1991, pp. 124–127; Soule ́ 1987, p. 

181). This species’ risk of extinction is 

further compounded by its restricted 

current breeding range, which according 

to the best available information is 

limited to Gau Island, where an 

estimated 27 mi2 (70 km2) of potential 

breeding habitat is available. However, 

based on what is known about the 

species, this is considered a relatively 

small amount of appropriate habitat for 

breeding, particularly since breeding 

pairs, eggs, and nestlings on Gau Island 

face the pervasive threat of predation by 

introduced species such as feral cats 

and rats. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46925 

Stochastic Events 

The Fiji petrel’s restricted breeding 

range combined with its colonial 

nesting habits and small population size 

(estimated to be fewer than 50 birds 

according to BirdLife International 

(2008b)) makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to the threat of adverse 

random, naturally occurring events (e.g., 

cyclones, flooding, and landslides) that 

destroy breeding individuals and their 

breeding habitat. Fiji is vulnerable to the 

devastating effects of cyclones interannually between November and April. 

On average, 15 cyclones affect this 

country each decade (World 

Meteorological Organization 2004). The 

most severe cyclone within the past 100 

years was cyclone Kina in January 1993, 

with wind speeds of 120 knots spanning 

an area 180 mi (290 km) from its center. 

The Government of Fiji declared the 

area a disaster, because virtually all 

areas of Fiji were impacted by this 

cyclone and the associated flooding 

(United Nations (UN) Department of 

Humanitarian Affairs 1993). Landslides 

are common in Fiji’s mountainous areas 

during these severe weather conditions 

(World Meteorological Organization 

2004), and would be particularly 

threatening to breeding Fiji petrels and 

their breeding habitat. 

While species with more extensive 

breeding ranges or higher population 

numbers could recover from adverse 

random, naturally occurring events such 

as cyclones, the Fiji petrel does not have 

such resiliency. Its very small 

population size and restricted breeding 

range puts the species at higher risk for 

experiencing the irreversible adverse 

effects of random, naturally occurring 

events. One such event could destroy 

the entire breeding population on Gau 

Island. 

Summary of Factor E 

On the basis of this analysis, we find 

a combination of factors—the species’ 

very small population size, the species’ 

restricted breeding range, and the 

likelihood of adverse random, naturally 

occurring events—to be a significant 

threat to the continued existence of the 

Fiji petrel throughout its range. 

Status Determination for the Fiji Petrel 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Fiji petrel. The species is at risk 

throughout all of its range primarily due 

to predation by introduced feral cats, 

pigs, and rats within the species’ 

breeding range (Factor C). The 

probability of introduced predators 

preying on this species is high given 

that introduced feral cats and rats are 

present in all habitats on the island of 

Gau from coastal lowlands to the high 

interior ridges. Feral cats are 

documented to prey upon the closely 

related collared petrel in the interior 

forests of Gau Island, one of the 

purported breeding areas of the Fiji 

petrel. Furthermore, the devastating 

impact of predation by introduced 

species has been documented in several 

closely related species. There is no 

information indicating that predator 

eradication has been attempted on Gau 

Island. This threat is magnified by the 

fact that these predators likely threaten 

the species throughout its breeding 

range on Gau Island. A recently 

established feral pig population in the 

southern part of the island potentially 

threatens the Fiji petrel, particularly if 

the petrel’s breeding habitat is in the 

main water catchment area of the island, 

which is in the southern part of Gau 

Island. Although the Fiji petrel is legally 

protected from international trade by 

Fijian law, and public awareness and 

support for the species’ protection on 

Gau Island is strong, these measures 

have not significantly reduced the 

threats to the species (Factor D). 

The Fiji petrel’s population size is 

unknown, but, based on the paucity of 

sightings of this species over the last 

150 years, it is believed to be extremely 

small. BirdLife International (2008b) 

estimates the population to be fewer 

than 50 individuals. This low 

population size puts the species at a 

high risk of extinction due to the lack 

of near- and long-term viability (Factor 

E). The low population size combined 

with its restricted breeding and colonial 

nesting habits, typical of all Procellariid 

species, makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to the threat of random, 

naturally occurring events (e.g., 

cyclones) that are known to occur in Fiji 

and have the potential to destroy 

breeding individuals and their breeding 

habitat (Factor E). One such event, such 

as a cyclone, during the nesting season 

could significantly impact eggs and 

birds in residence at the time of the 

storm. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Because 

the survival of the Fiji petrel is 

dependent on recruitment of chicks 

from its breeding range, the severity of 

threats to the species within its breeding 

range, as described above, puts the 

species in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, on 

the basis of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we 

determine that the Fiji petrel meets the 

Act’s definition of endangered and 

warrants protection as an endangered 

species under the Act. 

III. Magenta petrel (Pterodroma 

magentae) 

Species Information 

The magenta petrel (Pterodroma 

magentae) is a medium-sized, dark gray 

and white petrel that is native to 

Chatham Island, New Zealand (BirdLife 

International 2008c). The magenta petrel 

is locally known as ‘‘Chatham Island 

Taiko.’’ The species was first 

taxonomically identified by Giglioli and 

Salvadori in 1869 (Sibley and Monroe 

1990, p. 323). 

Habitat and Life History 

In general, magenta petrels are 

considered pelagic, occurring on the 

open sea generally out of sight of land, 

where they feed year round. They return 

to nesting sites on islands during the 

breeding season where they nest in 

colonies (Pettingill 1970, p. 206). The 

limited feeding habits data show that 

the magenta petrel preys on squid 

(Heather and Robertson 1997, p. 218; 

BirdLife International 2008c). 

The magenta petrel breeds exclusively 

on Chatham Island, New Zealand, 

within relatively undisturbed inland 

forests (Crockett 1994, pp. 53, 56; Imber 

et al. 1994a, p. 14). It has been reported 

that prior to 1900, indigenous Moriori 

and Maori harvested large numbers of 

petrel chicks for food (Crockett 1994, p. 

57). 

Range and Distribution 

The range of the magenta petrel 

changes intra-annually based on an 

established breeding cycle. During the 

breeding season (September to May) 

(Imber et al. 1994b, p. 64; Taylor 1991, 

p. 8), breeding birds return to breeding 

colonies to breed and nest. During the 

nonbreeding season, birds migrate far 

from their breeding range where they 

remain at sea until returning to breed. 

BirdLife International (2008c) 

estimates the range of the magenta 

petrel to be 7,568,000 mi2 (1,960,000 

km2); however, BirdLife International 

(2000, pp. 22, 27) defines ‘‘range’’ as the 

‘‘Extent of Occurrence, the area 

contained within the shortest 

continuous imaginary boundary which 

can be drawn to encompass all the 

known, inferred, or projected sites of 

present occurrence of a species, 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
46926 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ Therefore, 

this reported range includes a large area 

of nonbreeding habitat (i.e., the sea). 

The magenta petrel breeds exclusively 

on Chatham Island, New Zealand 

(Crockett 1994, pp. 53, 56; Imber et al. 

1994a, p. 14), the largest island in the 

Chatham Islands chain, covering 348 

mi2 (900 km2) (Oceandots n.d.). Based 

on fossil evidence and historical 

records, it is believed that the magenta 

petrel was once the most abundant 

burrowing seabird on Chatham Island 

(NZDOC 2001a, p. 5). The type 

specimen for the magenta petrel was 

first collected at sea in 1867, and after 

10 years of intensive searching the 

species was rediscovered in 1978 in the 

southeast corner of Chatham Island 

(Crockett 1994, pp. 50, 53). Since then, 

additional searches have resulted in the 

location and banding of 92 birds 

(BirdLife International 2008c). 

Between 1987 and 2007, the NZDOC 

located 25 sites occupied by 

nonbreeding birds, and at least 19 

breeding burrows all located near the 

Tuku-a-Tamatea River (BirdLife 

International 2007b; Brooke 2004, p. 

352; Hilhorst 2000, p. 59; NZDOC, in 

litt. 2008, p. 2). Although some breeding 

burrows are on private land (Taylor 

2000, p. 139), the majority of known 

breeding burrows are located within the 

Tuku Nature Reserve (Reserve) 

(Chatham Island Taiko Trust 2008d). 

The magenta petrel’s range at sea is 

poorly known; however, research has 

documented foraging behavior south 

and east of the Chatham Islands (Howell 

2005, as cited in BirdLife International 

2008c; Imber et al. 1994a, p. 14; Taylor 

2000, p. 139). In addition, because the 

original specimen of this species was 

shot at sea eastwards in the temperate 

South Pacific Ocean, it is believed birds 

disperse there during the nonbreeding 

season. 

Population Estimates 

The magenta petrel population is 

extremely small, estimated at 120 to 150 

individuals based on population 

surveys (BirdLife International 2008c; 

Hilhorst 2000, p. 59). Though the recent 

(1999–2007) discovery of new burrows 

and recruitment of birds banded as 

chicks back to the colony may indicate 

that the population has stabilized as a 

direct result of intensive management 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 3), the longterm trend for the species is decreasing 

due to predation by introduced species 

(BirdLife International 2008c; NZDOC, 

in litt. 2008, p. 3). 

Conservation Status 

The magenta petrel is ranked as 

‘‘Nationally Critical’’ by the New 

Zealand Department of Conservation, 

which is the highest threat category and 

signifies that the species has a very high 

risk of extinction in New Zealand 

(Hitchmough et al. 2005, p. 28; 

Townsend et al. 2008, p. 18). The 

species is considered ‘‘Critically 

Endangered’’ by IUCN because it has 

‘‘undergone an extremely rapid 

historical decline over three generations 

(60 years). It has an extremely small 

population and, although the long-term 

reduction in numbers may have begun 

to stabilize, it is premature to assume 

that there is not a continuing decline. 

Furthermore, it is restricted to just one 

extremely small location’’ (BirdLife 

International 2008c). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Magenta Petrel 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

The range of the magenta petrel 

changes intra-annually based on an 

established breeding cycle. During the 

breeding season (September to May) 

(Imber et al. 1994b, p. 64; Taylor 1991, 

p. 8), breeding birds return to breeding 

colonies to breed and nest. During the 

nonbreeding season, birds migrate far 

from their breeding range, and they 

remain at sea until returning to breed. 

Therefore, our analysis of Factor A is 

separated into analyses of: (1) The 

species’ breeding habitat and range; and 

(2) the species’ nonbreeding habitat and 

range. 

The magenta petrel breeds exclusively 

on Chatham Island, New Zealand, 

within relatively undisturbed inland 

forests (Crockett 1994, pp. 53, 56; Imber 

et al. 1994a, p. 14). Between 1987 and 

2007, the NZDOC located 25 sites 

occupied by nonbreeding birds, and at 

least 19 breeding burrows all located 

near the Tuku-a-Tamatea River (BirdLife 

International 2007b; Brooke 2004, p. 

352; Hilhorst 2000, p. 59; NZDOC, in 

litt. 2008, p. 2). Although some breeding 

burrows are on private land (Taylor 

2000, p. 139), the majority of known 

breeding burrows are located within the 

Tuku Nature Reserve (Reserve) 

(Chatham Island Taiko Trust 2008d). 

This Reserve was established in 1984 to 

protect 2,900 ac (1,238 ha) of habitat for 

the magenta petrel and other native 

Chatham Island birds (Chatham Island 

Taiko Trust 2008d). In 1993, 494 ac (200 

ha) of contiguous forested land was 

added to the Reserve by covenant 

(Sweetwater Covenant), and a second 

covenant expected to be approved in the 

near future will protect an additional 

2,718 ac (1,100 ha) of habitat adjacent to 

the Reserve (Chatham Island Taiko 

Trust 2008d). 

In our December 17, 2007, proposal 

(72 FR 71298), we identified logging on 

private lands to be a threat to magenta 

petrel nest sites. However, based on 

information provided by the NZDOC 

during the public comment period, we 

believe that this activity is not a 

significant threat to the magenta petrel 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 2). While 

breeding burrows have been located on 

private land, the risk of logging 

activities on these lands impacting 

magenta petrels is quite low (NZDOC, in 

litt. 2008, p. 2). The unprotected 

breeding sites are more than 3 mi (5 km) 

from existing roads, and the private 

landowners are fully supportive of the 

protection of these birds and, therefore, 

unlikely to log the areas with breeding 

burrows (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 2). 

The risk of logging on private land, 

therefore, is not a threat to the magenta 

petrel. 

On Chatham Island, the significant 

loss of magenta petrel burrows and 

colonies historically because of 

livestock grazing (Crockett 1994, p. 58) 

demonstrates that habitat alteration 

severely impacts magenta petrel 

populations. Natural fires are identified 

as a threat to the magenta petrel’s 

breeding habitat (BirdLife International 

2008c; NZDOC 2001a, p. 7; NZDOC, in 

litt. 2008, p. 2). Although the species’ 

recovery plan identifies natural fires as 

a threat to the magenta petrel, it does 

not address mitigation of this threat 

(NZDOC 2001a, p. 7). The NZDOC deals 

with an average of 160 fires in New 

Zealand each year, suggesting that fires 

are relatively common in New Zealand 

(NZDOC n.d.(b)). Taylor (2000, p. 139) 

and others (Aikman et al. 2001, as cited 

in BirdLife International 2008c; NZDOC, 

in litt. 2008, p. 2) identify natural 

flooding of burrows as a threat, given 

that most known burrows are in wet 

areas in valley floors. Taylor (2000, p. 

139) also notes that destruction of nest 

sites by pigs and by dogs accompanying 

pig hunters near the burrows threatens 

the magenta petrel’s breeding habitat. 

These threats to the magenta petrel’s 

breeding habitat are magnified by the 

species’ restricted habitat area on 

Chatham Island. Because of the very 

small number of breeding pairs, any loss 

of breeders from the population would 

increase the species’ threat of 

extinction. Therefore, we find that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

magenta petrel’s breeding habitat to be 

a significant threat to the species. 

The magenta petrel’s range at sea is 

poorly known; however, research has 

documented foraging behavior south 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46927 

and east of the Chatham Islands (Howell 

2005, as cited in BirdLife International 

2008c; Imber et al. 1994a, p. 14; Taylor 

2000, p. 139). In addition, because the 

original specimen of this species was 

shot at sea eastwards in the temperate 

South Pacific Ocean, it is believed birds 

disperse there during the nonbreeding 

season. We are not aware of any present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of this species’ current 

sea habitat or range. 

Summary of Factor A 

On the basis of this analysis, we find 

that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ breeding 

habitat is a threat to the continued 

existence of the magenta petrel. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We are not aware of any scientific or 

commercial information that indicates 

that overutilization of the magenta 

petrel for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes poses 

a threat to this species. As a result, we 

do not consider overutilization to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the magenta petrel. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

Although several diseases have been 

documented in other species of petrels 

(see Factor C for the Chatham petrel), 

disease has not been documented in the 

magenta petrel. Therefore, we find that 

disease is not a threat to this species. 

Predation 

The available information suggests 

that the most serious threat to the 

magenta petrel is predation on all life 

stages (eggs, chicks, and adults) of the 

species by introduced predators, 

including feral cats, pigs, rats, and weka 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 2). Permanent 

eradication of these introduced 

predators from Chatham Island is 

difficult due to the permanent 

habitation of humans on the island. 

Since the 1980s, however, the NZDOC 

has monitored known breeding burrows 

and has implemented an intensive 

predator control program, including 

setting extensive trap lines and 

poisoning to remove introduced 

predators from the magenta petrel’s 

breeding areas (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 

2; Taylor 2000, pp. 140–142). This effort 

has significantly reduced the threat of 

predation on adult petrels, with only 

two being found dead in 20 years, as of 

the year 2000 (Taylor 2000, p. 140). Loss 

of chicks by rat predation was a 

significant problem until 1996. Since 

then the NZDOC has implemented 

improved pest management techniques, 

and only one chick has been lost to 

predation in the last 11 years at 

monitored burrows (NZDOC, in litt. 

2008, p. 2). The risk to eggs, chicks, and 

adults at unmonitored sites 

(undiscovered breeding sites), however, 

is still very high. In 2001, an adult bird 

was found dead from cat predation in a 

newly discovered breeding site 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 2). As 

additional burrows have been located 

and protection from predation expanded 

over the years, breeding has increased 

and breeding success has improved. In 

1994, only 4 breeding pairs were 

known, but in 2004, 15 breeding pairs 

were observed (Hilhorst 2000, p. 59; 

Taylor 2005, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2007b). The breeding 

population in the 2007–2008 season was 

16 pairs. Last year (2008) was the most 

successful year to date for the magenta 

petrel as a record 13 chicks fledged 

(Chatham Islands Conservation News 

2008g; NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). 

Seventeen chicks were known to have 

fledged between 1987 and 1999 (Taylor 

2000, p. 138), and within a single year, 

2002, a total of seven chicks fledged 

(BirdLife International 2007b). Eight 

chicks fledged in the 2005 season, 11 

magenta petrel chicks fledged in the 

2006 season, and 8 chicks fledged in 

2007 (Chatham Island Taiko Trust 2006; 

NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 5). 

Even though the predator control 

program has decreased the threat of 

predation to the magenta petrel, birds, 

especially chicks, are still killed by 

introduced predators, and only areas 

where petrels are known to breed are 

protected. Therefore, we find predation 

by introduced species to be a threat to 

the magenta petrel. 

We are unaware of any threats due to 

predation on magenta petrels during the 

nonbreeding season while the species is 

at sea. 

Summary of Factor C 

On the basis of this analysis, we find 

that predation by nonnative predators, 

such as rats, feral cats, pigs, and weka, 

is a threat to the continued existence of 

the magenta petrel throughout all of its 

breeding range. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The magenta petrel is protected from 

disturbance and harvest under New 

Zealand’s Wildlife Act of 1953 and its 

Reserves Act of 1977. The petrel is 

designated as ‘‘Nationally Critical’’ by 

the NZDOC, which is the highest threat 

category and signifies that the species 

has a very high risk of extinction in New 

Zealand (Hitchmough et al. 2005, p. 28; 

Townsend et al. 2008, p. 18). Access to 

the breeding sites is strictly controlled 

(permitted access only for scientific or 

management purposes). While some 

illegal visits may occur to the breeding 

sites, the burrows of this species are 

located far away from roads on remote 

trails (more than 1 hour walking 

distance), and are unlikely to be 

disturbed (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 3). 

In 1998, the Chatham Island Taiko 

Trust was established to coordinate and 

administer the activities of the Chatham 

Island Taiko Expedition and personnel 

supporting research on the magenta 

petrel (Chatham Island Taiko Trust 

2008b). In addition, the NZDOC 

developed a 10-year recovery plan for 

the magenta petrel in 2001, with the 

goals of preventing further loss of 

known breeding pairs, maximizing 

productivity at known breeding 

burrows, locating and protecting 

additional burrows, and establishing an 

additional predator-proof breeding area 

in southern Chatham Island (NZDOC 

2001a, pp. 11–20). New Zealand has 

implemented management actions for 

the conservation of the species, 

including establishment of predatorproof breeding sites, hand-rearing and 

translocation of chicks to establish 

additional breeding sites, and 

broadcasting of magenta petrel calls to 

attract adults to protected breeding sites 

(Chatham Islands Conservation News 

2008a,f; Chatham Island Taiko Trust 

2008a-d; NZDOC 2001a; NZDOC, in litt. 

2008, p. 5). A measure of success of the 

recovery plan has been demonstrated by 

the successful protection of breeding 

pairs and increased productivity 

resulting from predator control efforts 

(see Factor C). However, the threat of 

predation on magenta petrels by 

introduced species remains the greatest 

threat to the species. 

In 2006, a second protected area was 

established near the southern coast of 

Chatham Island at a location where 

magenta petrels were known to have 

bred in reasonable numbers 90 years 

ago. This 18.5-ac (7.5-ha) area, protected 

by landowner covenant, has been fenced 

to exclude livestock in an effort to allow 

the forest to recover. Within this fenced 

area, 7 ac (3 ha) are enclosed by a 

predator-proof fence. Loudspeakers 

were placed on the site, and prerecorded magenta petrel calls are being 

played to attract young males to the 

ground, where it is hoped they will 

begin to dig burrows and eventually 

find a mate to breed. Remote cameras 

installed at the Sweetwater Covenant 

predator-proof site captured the image 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
46928 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

of an adult magenta petrel visiting the 

site in November 2007 (Chatham Islands 

Conservation News 2008f; NZDOC, in 

litt. 2008, p. 5). It is too early to know 

the success of this effort because it is 

anticipated that it will take several years 

for breeding to begin once young males 

start digging burrows. Captive rearing 

studies of the closely related grey-faced 

petrel (Pterodroma macroptera gouldi) 

have been undertaken, and its diet 

analyzed, to develop methods for 

captive rearing of magenta petrels in 

captivity should it ever be necessary to 

‘rescue’ abandoned or malnourished 

magenta petrel chicks (Chatham Islands 

Conservation News 2008a,f; Chatham 

Island Taiko Trust 2008a–d; NZDOC 

2001a, p. 13). 

Summary of Factor D 

We believe the regulatory protections 

conferred by the New Zealand Wildlife 

and Reserves Acts in combination with 

the actions implemented for the 

protection and conservation of the 

magenta petrel by the New Zealand 

government under the 2001 recovery 

plan and by the Chatham Island Taiko 

Trust provide significant protection to 

the species. As a result, we believe that 

existing regulatory protections have 

significantly reduced the threats from 

predation by rats, cats, pigs, and weka. 

However, these threats still exist. 

Therefore, we find that the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms is a 

threat to the magenta petrel throughout 

its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Small Population Size and Restricted 

Breeding Range 

The magenta petrel population is 

extremely small, estimated at 120 to 150 

individuals based on population 

surveys (BirdLife International 2008c; 

Hilhorst 2000, p. 59). Though the recent 

(1999–2007) discovery of new burrows 

and recruitment of birds banded as 

chicks back to the colony may indicate 

that the population has stabilized as a 

direct result of intensive management 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 3), the longterm population trend for the species is 

decreasing due to predation by 

introduced species (BirdLife 

International 2008c; NZDOC, in litt. 

2008, p. 3). The fact that it took 10 years 

of intensive searching to rediscover the 

species in 1978 is an indication of the 

rarity of the species. 

Small population sizes render species 

vulnerable to any of several risks, 

including inbreeding depression, loss of 

genetic variation, and accumulation of 

new mutations. Inbreeding can have 

individual or population-level 

consequences either by increasing the 

phenotypic expression (the outward 

appearance or observable structure, 

function, or behavior of a living 

organism) of recessive, deleterious 

alleles or by reducing the overall fitness 

of individuals in the population 

(Charlesworth and Charlesworth 1987, 

p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Small, 

isolated populations of wildlife species 

are also susceptible to demographic 

problems (Shaffer 1981, p. 131), which 

may include reduced reproductive 

success of individuals and chance 

disequilibrium of sex ratios. 

In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, the 50/500 rule 

(as explained under Factor E for the Fiji 

petrel) may be used to approximate 

minimum viable population sizes. The 

magenta petrel population is extremely 

small, estimated at 120 to 150 

individuals based on population 

surveys (BirdLife International 2008c; 

Hilhorst 2000, p. 59). Although the 

estimated number of individuals is 

above the minimum effective 

population size (Ne = 50 individuals) 

required to avoid imminent risks from 

inbreeding according to the 50/500 rule, 

during the public comment period on 

our December 17, 2007, proposal (72 FR 

71298), we received new speciesspecific information regarding the threat 

of inbreeding depression in magenta 

petrels. The NZDOC (in litt. 2008, p. 5) 

informed us that a recent conservation 

genetics study revealed that the magenta 

petrel gene pool is still fairly diverse but 

that the tendency for returning chicks to 

nest close to their natal burrows greatly 

increases the risk of close relatives 

interbreeding. The NZDOC has found 

that in recent seasons where close 

relatives have interbred, magenta petrels 

had poor fertility rates (NZDOC, in litt. 

2008, p. 5). Furthermore, the estimated 

number of magenta petrels falls well 

below the upper threshold (Ne = 500) 

required for long-term fitness of a 

population that will not lose its genetic 

diversity over time and that will 

maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt 

to changing conditions. As such, we 

currently consider the magenta petrel to 

be at risk due to lack of near- and longterm viability. 

Species with such small population 

sizes are at greater risk of extinction. In 

general, the fewer the number of 

populations and the smaller the size of 

each population, the higher the 

probability of extinction (Franklin 1980, 

pp. 147–148; Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 

25; Meffe and Carroll 1996, pp. 218– 

219; Pimm et al. 1998, pp. 757–785; 

Raup 1991, pp. 124–127; Soule ́ 1987, p. 

181). This species’ risk of extinction is 

compounded by its restricted breeding 

range, which is limited to Chatham 

Island. Based on what is known about 

the species, the breeding habitat 

available on Chatham Island is a 

relatively small area, particularly since 

breeding pairs, eggs, and nestlings on 

Chatham Island continue to be 

threatened by introduced species such 

as feral cats and rats. 

Stochastic Events 

The magenta petrel’s restricted 

breeding range combined with its 

colonial nesting habits and small 

population size of 120 to 150 birds 

makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to the threat of adverse 

random, naturally occurring events (e.g., 

storms, fire) that destroy breeding 

individuals and their breeding habitat 

(NZDOC 2001a, p. 7; NZDOC, in litt. 

2008, p. 2). Fire is a high risk in the 

Chatham Islands because the climate is 

very dry during the summer, and the 

vegetation becomes tinder dry. Burrownesting species such as the magenta 

petrel are at a high risk because they are 

likely to suffocate from smoke 

inhalation or to be lethally burned 

inside or while attempting to escape 

from their burrows (Taylor 2000, p. 24). 

Another natural disaster, severe 

storms, has impacted New Zealand 

historically (see Factor E for the 

Chatham petrel), and so the likelihood 

of future impacts of storms is high. 

Although we are unaware of the impact 

of previous cyclones on the magenta 

petrel’s population numbers or breeding 

habitat, the severity of the wind or 

windfalls created by such storms or 

flooding from rising streams associated 

with storms has the potential to 

significantly damage magenta petrel 

burrows (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 3). 

These known burrows are particularly 

vulnerable to flooding because they are 

located on valley floors (NZDOC 2001a, 

p. 7). 

While species with more extensive 

breeding ranges or higher population 

numbers could recover from adverse 

random, naturally occurring events such 

as fires or storms, the magenta petrel 

does not have such resiliency. Its very 

small population size and restricted 

breeding range puts the species at 

higher risk for experiencing the 

irreversible adverse effects of random, 

naturally occurring events. While one 

such event may not destroy the entire 

known breeding population on Chatham 

Island, it may significantly impact any 

eggs and birds in residence at the time 

of the storm (NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 3). 

Therefore, we find a combination of 

factors—the species’ small population 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 46929 

size, the species’ restricted breeding 

range, and the likelihood of adverse 

random, naturally occurring events—to 

be a significant threat to the magenta 

petrel. 

Summary of Factor E 

On the basis of this analysis, we find 

that due to the species’ very small 

population size and restricted breeding 

range, the continued existence of the 

magenta petrel is threatened by 

inbreeding depression and adverse 

random, naturally occurring events (e.g., 

storms, fire) that destroy breeding 

individuals and their breeding habitat. 

Status Determination for the Magenta 

Petrel 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

magenta petrel. The species is at risk 

throughout all of its range primarily due 

to predation by introduced species such 

as rats, feral cats and pigs, and weka 

(Factor C). These introduced predators 

are known to destroy magenta petrel 

eggs, chicks, and adults, reducing the 

species’ population (NZDOC 2001a, p. 

7; NZDOC, in litt. 2008, pp. 2–3), which 

is already very small (estimated at 120 

to 150 individuals). The NZDOC has 

been actively working to protect 

magenta petrel nest sites from predation 

by introduced species, and only one 

chick has been lost to predation in the 

last 11 years at monitored burrows 

(NZDOC, in litt. 2008, p. 2). However, 

the risk to eggs, chicks, and adults at 

unmonitored sites (breeding burrows 

that have not yet been located) is still 

very high. 

The regulatory protections conferred 

by the New Zealand Wildlife and 

Reserves Acts, in combination with the 

actions implemented for the protection 

and conservation of the magenta petrel 

by the New Zealand government under 

the 2001 recovery plan and by the 

Chatham Island Taiko Trust, have 

significantly reduced the threats from 

predation by introduced species. 

However, these threats still exist, and 

despite the efforts undertaken in New 

Zealand to address the threats to the 

magenta petrel, the species has not 

recovered (Factor D). 

The threat of predation by introduced 

species is magnified by the fact that 

only a limited amount of breeding 

habitat is protected from habitat 

alteration or destruction (Factor A). 

However, the breeding habitat that is 

protected remains at risk from 

accidental fires and stochastic events 

such as storm-related windfalls and 

flooding (Factor E). 

The magenta petrel’s low population 

size of 120 to 150 individuals puts the 

species at a high risk of extinction due 

to the lack of near- and long-term 

viability (Factor E). The low population 

size combined with its restricted 

breeding habitat and colonial nesting 

habits makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to the threat of random, 

naturally occurring events (e.g., fire, 

cyclones) that are known to occur in 

New Zealand and have the potential to 

destroy breeding individuals and their 

breeding habitat (Factor E). One such 

event, such as a cyclone during the 

nesting season, could significantly 

impact eggs and birds in residence at 

the time of the storm (NZDOC, in litt. 

2008, p. 3). 

Inbreeding depression is a potentially 

significant threat to the magenta petrel 

(Factor E). A recent genetics study 

revealed that the magenta petrel gene 

pool appears to be fairly diverse, 

although the tendency for returning 

chicks to nest close to their natal 

burrows greatly increases the risk of 

close relatives interbreeding (NZDOC, in 

litt. 2008, p. 5). 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Because 

the survival of the magenta petrel is 

dependent on recruitment of chicks in 

its breeding range, the severity of threats 

to the species within its breeding range, 

as described above, puts the species in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we determine that the 

magenta petrel meets the Act’s 

definition of endangered and warrants 

protection as an endangered species 

under the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, requirements for Federal 

protection, and prohibitions against 

certain practices. Recognition through 

listing results in public awareness and 

encourages and results in conservation 

actions by Federal and State 

governments, private agencies and 

groups, and individuals. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

and as implemented by regulations at 50 

CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies 

to evaluate their actions within the 

United States or on the high seas with 

respect to any species that is proposed 

or listed as endangered or threatened, 

and with respect to its critical habitat, 

if any is being designated. However, 

given that the Chatham petrel, Fiji 

petrel, and magenta petrel are not native 

to the United States, we are not 

designating critical habitat in this rule. 

Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the 

provision of limited financial assistance 

for the development and management of 

programs that the Secretary of the 

Interior determines to be necessary or 

useful for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species in 

foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) 

of the Act authorize the Secretary to 

encourage conservation programs for 

foreign endangered and threatened 

species and to provide assistance for 

such programs in the form of personnel 

and the training of personnel. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife. As such, 

these prohibitions would be applicable 

to the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, and 

magenta petrel. These prohibitions, 

under 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it 

illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

‘‘take’’ (take includes harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct) within the 

United States or upon the high seas; 

import or export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

endangered or threatened wildlife 

species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 

such wildlife that has been taken in 

violation of the Act. Certain exceptions 

apply to agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

Permits may be issued to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered and threatened 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for 

endangered species. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit may be 

issued for the following purposes: for 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species, 

and for incidental take in connection 

with otherwise lawful activities. 

Required Determinations 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
46930 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 176 / Monday, September 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

This rule will not impose new 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov or upon 

request from the Branch of Listing, 

Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are staff members of the Division of 

Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Public Law 

99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding new 

entries for ‘‘Petrel, Chatham,’’ ‘‘Petrel, 

Fiji,’’ and ‘‘Petrel, magenta’’ in 

alphabetical order under ‘‘Birds’’ to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic 

range 

Vertebrate 

population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

BIRDS

* * * * * * * 

Petrel, Chatham Pterodroma axillaris ................ Pacific Ocean—New Zealand 

(Chatham Islands).

Entire .................. E ....... 763 NA ........ NA 

Petrel, Fiji .......... Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi .. Pacific Ocean—Fiji (Gau Island).Entire .................. E ....... 763 NA ........ NA 

* * * * * * * 

Petrel, magenta Pterodroma magentae ............ Pacific Ocean—New Zealand 

(Chatham Islands).

Entire .................. E ....... 763 NA ........ NA 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: August 31, 2009. 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–22033 Filed 9–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 222 and 223 

[Docket No. 0809121212–91160–02] 

RIN 0648–AX20 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

Sea Turtle Conservation 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) currently 

requires the use of chain-mat modified 

dredge gear in the Atlantic sea scallop 

fishery south of 41° 9.0’ North latitude 

from May 1 through November 30 each 

year. This gear is necessary to help 

reduce mortality and injury to 

endangered and threatened sea turtles 

captured in this fishery and to conserve 

sea turtles listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. NMFS issues this final rule 

to make minor modifications to these 

chain-mat requirements. This final rule 

clarifies where on the dredge the chain 

mat must be hung, excludes the sweep 

from the requirement that the side of 

each opening in the chain mat be less 

than or equal to 14 inches (35.5 cm); 

and adds definitions of the sweep and 

the diamonds, which are terms used to 

describe parts of the scallop dredge gear. 

Any incidental take of threatened sea 

turtles in Atlantic sea scallop dredge 

gear in compliance with the gear 

modification requirements and all other 

applicable requirements will be 

exempted from the ESA prohibition 

against takes. 

DATES: Effective October 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Supplement to 

the Environmental Assessment/ 

Regulatory Impact Review prepared for 

this final rule may be obtained by 

writing to Ellen Keane, NMFS, 

Northeast Region, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Keane (ph. 978–282–8476, fax 

978–281–9394, email 

ellen.keane@noaa.gov). 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES