[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62523-62529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24170]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-ES-R8-2012-0075; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Ashy Storm-Petrel as an Endangered or Threatened
Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list the ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma
homochroa) as an endangered or threatened species and to designate
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). After review of the best
[[Page 62524]]
available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing
the ashy storm-petrel is not warranted at this time. However, we ask
the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available
concerning the threats to the ashy storm-petrel or its habitat at any
time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 22,
2013.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2013-0075. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office, 650
Capitol Mall, 8th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Chotkowski, Field Supervisor,
Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at
916-930-5603; or by facsimile 916-930-5654. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that
contains substantial scientific or commercial information that the
petitioned action may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months
of the date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2)
warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending
proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened,
and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on whether we find
that it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range now (endangered) or likely to become endangered in
the foreseeable future (threatened). As part of our analysis, we
consider whether it is endangered or threatened because of the factors
outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Finding. We make a determination under the Act of not warranted for
the ashy storm-petrel.
Previous Federal Actions
On October 16, 2007, we received a petition, dated October 15,
2007, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that we list
the ashy storm-petrel as a threatened or endangered species under the
Act and that critical habitat be designated concurrently with listing.
On May 15, 2008, the Service published in the Federal Register a 90-day
finding on the petition to list the ashy storm-petrel as threatened or
endangered, and the 90-day finding determined that the petition
presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted (73 FR 28080). On August
19, 2009, the Service announced its 12-month finding that found, after
reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information,
listing the ashy storm-petrel was not warranted (74 FR 41832). The
Center for Biological Diversity challenged this decision in the
District Court of the Northern District of California on October 27,
2010 (Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, et al., No. cv10-
4861-DMR (N.D. Cal.)). This challenge was resolved by a September 16,
2011, Stipulation of Dismissal, in which the parties agreed to
dismissal of the action based on the court approval of a settlement in
which the Service agreed to submit a proposed rule or a not-warranted
finding regarding the ashy storm-petrel to the Federal Register by the
end of Fiscal Year (September 30) 2013 (In re Endangered Species Act
Section 4 Deadline Litig., Misc. Action No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket
No. 2165 (D.D.C.)). We published a notice of initiation of status
review and solicitation of new information for the ashy storm-petrel in
the Federal Register on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 70987).
Background
This finding is based upon the Species Report for ashy storm-
petrel, a scientific analysis of available information prepared by a
team of Service biologists from the Service's Bay-Delta, Carlsbad,
Ventura, and Arcata Field Offices, the Farallon National Wildlife
Refuge, the Region 8 Office, and National Headquarters Office. The
purpose of the Species Report is to provide the best available
scientific and commercial information about the species so that we can
evaluate whether or not the species warrants protection under the Act.
In it, we compiled the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of ashy storm-petrel, including the past, present
and future threats to this species. As such, the Species Report
provides the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decision in
this document, which involves the further application of standards
within the Act and its regulations and policies. The Species Report
(including all references) and other materials relating to this finding
can be found on the Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/ and at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2012-0075.
The reader is directed to section IV of the Species Report for a
more detailed discussion of the biology, taxonomy, life history,
distribution, and current conditions of the ashy storm-petrel (Service
2013; http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/). The Species Report evaluates the
biological status of the bird and threats potentially affecting its
continued existence.
The ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa) is a small seabird
that ranges from about the California-Oregon Border to Islas San
Benitos, Mexico. The 32 known breeding sites of the ashy storm-petrel
stretch from Point Cabrillo, Mendocino County, California, to Islas
Todos Santos Island, Ensenada, Mexico (Service 2013, p. 3). More than
90 percent of the population breeds in two population centers at South
East (SE) Farallon Island and in the California Channel Islands
(Service 2013, p. 3). Ashy storm-petrels occur at their breeding
colonies nearly year-round and occur in greater numbers from February
through October (Service 2013, p. 3). The ashy storm-petrel feeds at
night on euphausiids, other krill, decapods, larval lanternfish, fish
eggs, young squid, and spiny lobster (Service 2013, p. 7).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, and reclassifying species on the Federal
[[Page 62525]]
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(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; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
A species is an endangered species for purposes of the Act if it is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and is a threatened species if it is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. For purposes of this analysis, we
first evaluate the status of the species throughout all of its range,
and then consider whether the species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in any significant portion of its range.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the ashy storm-
petrel in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act is summarized below, based on the analysis of these issues
contained in the Species Report. In considering what factors might
constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the
species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine the scope, severity, and impact of the potential threat. If
the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of
extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as
endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. This
does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Range and Population Size
The best available information does not show any differences
between the current and historical range of the ashy storm-petrel
(Service 2013, pp. 8-9). The known range of the ashy-storm petrel has
expanded slightly in recent years, with the confirmation of breeding at
new locations at the northern end of the breeding range. Ashy storm-
petrels may have been present at these locations historically, but
adequate surveys had not been done to determine presence. Therefore, we
do not consider these new locations to be an expansion of the
historical range. Thus, the Service considers the at-sea geographic
distribution (marine range) of the ashy storm-petrel to include waters
off the western coast of North America from latitude 42[deg] N
(approximately the California-Oregon State line) south to latitude
28[deg] N (approximately Islas San Benitos, Mexico), and approximately
75 mi (120 km) out to sea from mainland and island coasts (Service
2013, p. 9).
The current total global (restricted to California and Mexico)
population size of breeding ashy storm-petrels at all known locations
is estimated at between 10,000 and 11,000 individuals (Service 2013, p.
16). We estimate a total current global population of breeding and
nonbreeding individuals between about 18,700 and 20,600 birds (Service
2013, p. 16). These estimates account only for known population
occurrences. Unconfirmed and potentially unknown locations are not
included in the estimate; however, the existence of sizeable unknown
populations (on the scale of SE Farallon or Channel Islands) is
unlikely, given the considerable survey efforts that have occurred
(Service 2013, p. 16).
Population size and productivity (nesting success) are two measures
of population status, along with trends in those measures over time.
Because over 90 percent of the estimated breeding population is
restricted to SE Farallon Island and the Channel Islands, and most
colony data are derived from those two locations, we will focus on
those locations for population trends and productivity estimates.
Research on productivity has been conducted only at SE Farallon Island
and Santa Cruz Island (Service 2013, pp. 17).
We do not have any comparable colony size data for evaluating
population trends before 1992, when standardized mist netting efforts
began on SE Farallon Island (Service 2013, p. 22). The best data
available are based on the mist net population index there, and show up
and down variation from 1992 to about 2001. The Service's review of
this data found a significant average increase in the ashy storm-petrel
population index of 22.1 percent per year from 2000-2006, and a mean
non-significant decrease in the ashy storm-petrel population index on
SE Farallon Island of 7.19 percent per year from 2007 to 2012 (Service
2013, p. 21). We conclude that the population is currently experiencing
fluctuations due to various factors, including avian predation. After
assessing the best available scientific data, we have concluded that
there is no consistent long-term trend in the species' population
nesting on SE Farallon Island.
The Channel Islands population comprises an estimated 36 percent of
the total ashy storm-petrel population (Service 2013, p. 26). We
currently have no published studies of population trends on the Channel
Islands. The best available scientific and commercial information
consists of data collected using varying methods and incomplete
analyses (Service 2013, p. 26). As a result, the available information
does not allow us to conclude any trends for the Channel Islands
population of the ashy storm-petrel. The Species Report has more
detailed information on population trends and productivity for the
ashy-storm petrel (Service 2013, pp. 16-28; http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/).
Analysis Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Act
The Act requires that the Secretary determine whether a species is
endangered or threatened because of any of the five factors enumerated
in 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1). Our discussion of the threats categorized
under each of these five factors is contained in the Species Report
(Service 2013; http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/). In the Species Report,
we present detailed discussions of current and future threats to the
ashy storm-petrel, and we considered how threats categorized under each
of the five factors are affecting the species. For each threat, we
describe the timing, scope, and severity. In the Species Report, we
explain that the timing (immediacy) is recorded for threats, but it is
not used in the calculation of threat impact. Additionally, threat
impact is not calculated for threats where timing values are long-term
future or past/historical. We describe the scope as the proportion of
the ashy storm-petrel breeding occurrences that are reasonably expected
to be affected by a threat within three generations, given continuation
of current circumstances and trends. Within the scope of the threat,
the severity is the level of
[[Page 62526]]
damage to ashy storm-petrel populations or breeding occurrences that is
reasonably expected from the threat within three generations, given
continuation of current circumstances and trends.
All potential threats currently acting upon the ashy storm-petrel
or likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future (and
consistent with the five listing factors identified above) are
evaluated and addressed in the Species Report, and summarized in the
following paragraphs. The reader is directed to section VI of the
Species Report for a more detailed discussion of the threats summarized
in this document (Service 2013; http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/).
The Species Report evaluates the biological status of the bird and
each of the potential threats under the five statutory factors
affecting its continued existence. It was based upon the best available
scientific and commercial data and the expert opinion of the Species
Report team members. Based on the analysis and discussion contained
therein, we conclude that climate change (ocean acidification, ocean
warming, and sea level rise) (Factor A); invasive species (Factor A);
human activities (Factor A); military activities (Factor A);
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B); house mouse predation (Factor C);
skunk predation (Factor C); barn owl predation (Factor C); common raven
predation (Factor C); artificial light pollution (Factor E); oil
pollution (Factor E); organochlorine contaminants (Factor E); and
ingestion of plastics (Factor E) are potential threats that are having
a negligible to slight impact on the ashy storm-petrel within the scope
of the threat, both now and in the foreseeable future. These factors
may have minor impacts on individuals in some locations, but they are
not impacting the species as a whole. The full analyses of these
possible threats is documented in the Species Report. Based on the
analysis contained within the Species Report, we conclude that the best
available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that
these threats are causing a decline in the species or its habitat,
either now or in the foreseeable future.
Predation Impacts
In our threat evaluation in the Species Report, we did find that
burrowing owl predation (Factor C) and western gull predation (Factor
C) are likely having slight to moderate impacts on the ashy storm-
petrel within the scope of the threats. Burrowing owls have been known
to frequent SE Farallon Island since at least the late 1880s; since
systematic recording of burrowing owls began on SE Farallon Island in
2000, the highest abundance of burrowing owls has occurred in the years
2009-2012 (Service 2013, p. 46). From 2003 through 2010, predation by
burrowing owls accounted for 40 percent of ashy storm-petrel predation,
and this predation has surpassed predation by western gulls in recent
years (Service 2013, p. 46). In the Species Report, we concluded that
the timing of burrowing owl predation is ongoing and the scope is large
because all individuals on SE Farallon Island are potentially exposed
to the threat of burrowing owl predation (Service 2013, p. 47). Using
data collected on SE Farallon Island in the period 2003-2012, we made a
rough estimate of the effect that burrowing owls could have on ashy
storm-petrels. Our calculations showed that around 10 percent of the
ashy storm-petrel population could be eliminated over the next 40
years. This method used to calculate owl predation may underestimate
the effects that owl predation has on petrels. Because the ashy storm-
petrel population growth rate is sensitive to adult survival and it is
likely that not all predated wings are found and included in the
calculations, it is possible that population declines could be greater
(Service 2013, p. 47). While this potential loss is considered of
slight/moderate severity on the Farallon Islands, we conclude that,
overall, the current best available scientific and commercial
information does not indicate that burrowing owl predation is resulting
in a downward trend to the species as a whole.
The Species Report further examined western gull predation on ashy
storm-petrels at the Farallon Islands (Service 2013, pp. 48-49). The
Farallon Islands hosts the world's largest western gull breeding
population, although the population of western gulls on the islands has
recently undergone a slight decline, numbering around 17,500 gulls
(Service 2013, p. 48). Western gulls predated over 75 ashy storm-
petrels per year on SE Farallon Island during the period 2003-2009, but
predation by gulls has recently decreased to less than 60 individuals
per year during the period 2009-2012, possibly due to the increase
during that time of burrowing owl predation on petrels (Service 2013,
p. 49). In the Species Report, we concluded that the timing of western
gull predation is ongoing and the scope is large because all
individuals on SE Farallon Island are potentially exposed to the threat
of western gull predation (Service 2013, p. 47). Using data collected
on SE Farallon Island from 2003 through 2012, we made a rough estimate
of the effects that western gulls could have on ashy storm-petrels over
the next 40 years. Our calculations show that around 10 percent of the
ashy storm-petrel population could be eliminated (Service 2013, p. 49).
However, because the ashy storm-petrel population growth rate is
sensitive to adult survival and it is likely that not all predated
wings are found and included in our calculations, it is possible that
population declines could be greater. While this potential loss is
considered of slight/moderate severity on the Farallon Islands, we
conclude that, overall, the current best available scientific and
commercial information does not indicate that western gull predation is
resulting in a downward trend in the species population. In addition,
the available scientific information does not indicate that the effects
of burrowing owl predation and western gull predation are additive; as
burrowing owl predation has increased on the SE Farallon Island,
western gull predation has decreased, as shown in the Species Report.
In summary, the threats to ashy storm-petrel from burrowing owl
predation and western gull predation at present and in the foreseeable
future do not pose a threat to the long-term persistence of ashy storm-
petrel. The threats operating individually do not place the species at
immediate risk of extinction, nor do they appear likely to cause the
ashy storm-petrel to become endangered within the foreseeable future
through all or a significant portion of its range.
A number of conservation measures have taken place or are ongoing
that minimize the impact on ashy storm-petrels from the potential
threats listed above. These conservation measures are detailed in the
Species Report (Service 2013; http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/) and
include an invasive species eradication program on the SE Farallon
Island, human visitation reduction, survey monitoring restrictions,
burrowing owl translocations, planning for mouse eradication on the SE
Farallon Island, island spotted skunk removal, artificial nest site
construction, artificial lighting restrictions, and oil pollution
regulations.
Regulatory Protections
The Act requires that the Secretary assess available regulatory
mechanisms in order to determine whether existing regulatory mechanisms
are adequate to address threats to the species (Factor D). The Species
Report includes a
[[Page 62527]]
discussion of applicable regulatory mechanisms (Service 2013, pp. 54-
64). In it, the Service examines the applicable Federal, State, and
international statutory and regulatory mechanisms to determine whether
these mechanisms provide protections to ashy storm-petrel. As described
in the Species Report, several Federal and State statutes provide
protections to ashy storm-petrels by requiring certain actions by land
managers. These actions protect habitat or address issues such as
predation, military use, human visitation, and eliminating or reducing
attractions, such as fixed high-intensity artificial light near petrel
breeding sites and attraction lights on vessels.
Based on the analysis contained within the Species Report, we
conclude that the best available scientific and commercial information
does not indicate that the existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to address impacts from the identified potential threats.
Combinations of Potential Threats
When conducting our analysis about the potential threats affecting
ashy storm-petrel, we also assess whether the species may be affected
by a combination of factors. In the Species Report (Service 2013, pp.
74-75; http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/), we identified multiple threats
that may have interrelated impacts on the ashy storm-petrel or its
habitat. In the northern portion of its range, the greatest threat to
ashy storm-petrel populations is from avian predation (Factor C). On SE
Farallon Island, burrowing owls and western gulls prey on ashy storm-
petrels breeding on the island. Together, these two predators may be
causing short-term population effects on the ashy storm-petrel
population on the island. Invasive New Zealand spinach (Factor A)
restricts access to ashy storm-petrel nest sites for a portion of the
population during the height of the breeding season, which likely
results in some ashy storm-petrels remaining at the entrance of crevice
breeding sites for a longer period of time. This longer entrance time
further increases vulnerability of ashy storm-petrels to avian
predation from burrowing owls and western gulls (Factor C). However,
the current best available scientific and commercial information does
not show that these combined impacts are resulting in a long-term
downward trend in the species population on the Farallon Islands.
Oceanic foraging habitat is expected to provide declining food
resources for the ashy storm-petrel into the future. A number of
oceanic threats, including warming sea temperatures and ocean
acidification (Factor A), that will affect food resources available to
the ashy storm-petrel throughout its range are expected to increase
into the future. As the abundance of plastics continues to increase
into the future, ingestion of plastics (Factor E) by seabirds will
increase in unison with the effects of climate change to habitat
(Factor A). Less food in the ocean due to warming sea temperatures and
ocean acidification (Factor A) combined with artificial food
consumption of plastics in the ocean (Factor E) will result in less
nutritional food availability for the ashy storm-petrel. Lights from
offshore energy platforms and squid fishing vessels will continue to
attract ashy storm-petrels within their vicinity and can result in
direct collisions and mortality (Factor E); moreover, ashy storm-
petrels may be more vulnerable to predation by gulls after being
attracted to artificial lights (Factor C), where they concentrate
around lighted boats to feed on squid. The best available scientific
and commercial information at this time does not indicate that less
nutritional food availability will lead to more collisions with lights
that result in mortality. Nor does it indicate that less food, combined
with habitat changes due to climate change, will lead to increased
vulnerability to predation, or otherwise result in losses to the
population.
Sea level rise at the Channel Islands is predicted to inundate
portions of sea caves, causing the future loss of nesting habitat in
areas used by nesting petrels, potentially resulting in some storm-
petrels not nesting, or reducing nesting populations in those caves
(Factor A). In the event of future skunk predation causing reproductive
failure at any one of the caves (Factor C), and sea level rise reducing
habitat for nesting populations in caves (Factor A), the Channel
Islands population could suffer direct losses of populations and future
breeding ability, a loss exacerbated by the lingering presence of
organochlorine contaminants that have resulted in thinning of eggshells
and thus impacts to hatching success (Factor E). Mortality may result
from collisions with artificial light at Offshore Energy Platforms near
the Channel Islands (Factor E). The best available scientific and
commercial information at this time does not indicate that sea level
rise in combination with skunk predation or collisions with lights will
result in a decline to the species. Although we cannot fully quantify
these future effects on ashy storm-petrel populations, they may be
negative and may exacerbate other threats such as avian predation
(Factor C) or an oil spill (Factor E) in any location where the species
aggregates. However, at this point in time, the best available
scientific and commercial information does not indicate that these
threats in combination will result in a decline to the species.
All or some of the potential threats could act in concert to result
in cumulative stress on the ashy storm-petrel population. However, the
best available scientific and commercial information currently does not
indicate that these threats singularly or cumulatively are resulting or
will in the future result in a substantial decline of the total
population of the species or have large impacts to the ashy storm-
petrel at the species level. Therefore, we do not consider the
cumulative impact of these threats to the ashy storm-petrel to be
substantial at this time, nor into the future.
Determination
As required in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of
the status of the ashy storm-petrel and assessed the five factors in
consideration of whether the ashy storm-petrel is endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range. We have carefully assessed the
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future threats to the ashy storm-petrel. We reviewed
information presented in the 2007 petition, information available in
our files, our 2008 90-day and 2009 12-month findings in response to
the petition, and other available published and unpublished
information, including information submitted subsequent to our 2009
finding. We also consulted with species experts and land managers at
the areas where ashy storm-petrels occur.
We evaluated each of the potential threats in the Species Report
for the ashy storm-petrel, and we determined that climate change (ocean
acidification, ocean warming, and sea level rise); invasive species;
human activities; military activities; overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; house mouse
predation; skunk predation; barn owl predation; common raven predation;
artificial light pollution; oil pollution; organochlorine contaminants;
and ingestion of plastics are potential threats that are having a
negligible to slight impact on the ashy storm-petrel within the scope
of the threat. In addition, our Species Report evaluated existing
regulatory mechanisms and did not reveal an inadequacy of existing
[[Page 62528]]
regulatory mechanisms for the ashy storm-petrel. In our threat
evaluation in the Species Report, we did find that burrowing owl
predation and western gull predation are likely having a slight to
moderate impact on the ashy storm-petrel within the scope of the
threats, but these threats do not rise to the level of warranting
listing under the Act because this predation may reduce the numbers of
ashy storm-petrels at SE Farallon Island, but not to a point that the
overall status of the species would be affected. In addition, the
historical range for ashy storm-petrel is the same as the current
range, so there has not been a loss in the range of the species over
time (Service 2013, p. 8). Finally, population trend data does not show
that the ashy storm-petrel is in a long-term decline.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' Based on our analysis conducted in the
Species Report and summarized in this finding, and using the best
scientific and commercial information available, we find that the
magnitude and imminence of threats do not indicate that the ashy storm-
petrel is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout its
range. As described in the Species Report, the average lifespan of the
ashy storm-petrel is unknown and reproduction is known to commence by
age 6 (Service 2013, p. 3). Assuming the average age of first breeding
is 5.5 years and adult survivorship is 0.88, then an ashy storm-petrel
generation time would be 12.8 years, based on a published method of
calculating generation time for birds (Service 2013, p. 29). Using a
standard 3-generation (past, present, and future) timeframe to assess
risk (http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf.), we calculated this to be approximately 40
years (13-year generation time multiplied by 3 generations, and
rounded) (Service 2013, p. 29). However, the long-term potential threat
of sea level rise due to climate change was assessed for 2030, 2050,
and 2100 due to the temporal scope of existing climate model
predictions (Service 2013, p. 29). For purposes of this finding, we
have considered the foreseeable future for this species to consist of
40 years.
Therefore, based on our assessment of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that listing the ashy storm-petrel
throughout all or a significant portion of its range as a threatened or
an endangered species is not warranted at this time.
Distinct Population Segment
Because we determine here that the ashy storm-petrel does not
warrant listing throughout its range as an endangered or threatened
species, we next assess whether the ashy storm-petrel is an endangered
or threatened species throughout a portion of its range. We consider
whether a distinct vertebrate population segment (DPS) or any
significant portion of the ashy storm-petrel's range meets the
definition of an endangered species or is likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future (threatened). Under the Service's Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), three
elements are considered in the decision concerning the establishment
and classification of a possible DPS. These are applied similarly for
additions to or removal from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is
the population segment endangered or threatened).
Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
We determine, based on a review of the best available information,
that there are no population segments of the ashy storm-petrel that
meet the discreteness conditions of the 1996 DPS policy. As stated in
the Species Report, ashy storm-petrels are known to regularly forage up
to 220 miles (mi) (354 kilometers (km)) from their breeding grounds and
one individual has been located 466 mi (750 km) from its capture site
(Service 2013, p. 7; http://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/). No population of
ashy storm-petrel is physically markedly separate from any other
population because each population is within the dispersal distance of
another population. Moreover, the populations are not markedly separate
as a consequence of physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors.
In addition, even though the ashy storm-petrel's range includes parts
of Mexico, it is not delimited by international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we
have determined that none of the populations meet the discreteness
condition.
The DPS policy is clear that significance is analyzed only when a
population segment has been identified as discrete. Since we found that
no population segments meet the discreteness element, we need not
conduct an evaluation of significance for the ashy storm-petrel.
Therefore, no population segments of the ashy storm-petrel qualify
as a DPS under our policy and no population segments for the ashy
storm-petrel are considered a listable entity under the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
In determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions an infinite number
of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the
range that are not reasonably likely to be both (1) significant and (2)
threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether substantial information
indicates that: (1) the portions may be significant, and (2) the
species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of this analysis
is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If
the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover,
if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the
species' range that are not significant,
[[Page 62529]]
such portions will not warrant further consideration.
If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then
determine whether the species is threatened or endangered in these
portions of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its
range, and the threats it faces, the Service may address either the
significance question or the status question first. Thus, if the
Service considers significance first and determines that a portion of
the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether
the species is threatened or endangered there. Likewise, if the Service
considers status first and determines that the species is not
threatened or endangered in a portion of its range, the Service need
not determine if that portion is significant. However, if the Service
determines that both a portion of the range of a species is significant
and the species is threatened or endangered there, the Service will
specify that portion of the range as threatened or endangered under
section 4(c)(1) of the ESA.
We evaluated the current range of the ashy storm-petrel to
determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of
potential threats for the species. We examined potential threats from
climate change (ocean acidification, ocean warming, and sea level
rise); invasive species; human activities; military activities;
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; burrowing owl, western gull, house mouse, skunk,
barn owl, and common raven predation; artificial light pollution; oil
pollution; organochlorine contaminants; and ingestion of plastics.
While some threats are affecting the species in only a portion of its
range (for example, gull predation at SE Farallon Island or sea level
rise affecting sea cave nesting sites at the Channel Islands), these
threats are not having substantial impacts to the populations of ashy
storm-petrels at those sites and are not resulting in a decline of the
species. Therefore, we found no concentration of threats that suggests
that the ashy storm-petrel may be in danger of extinction in a portion
of its range. In addition, the 32 known breeding sites of the ashy
storm-petrel stretch from Mendocino County, California, to Ensenada,
Mexico, and these breeding sites provide for representation,
redundancy, and resiliency for the ashy storm-petrel. Therefore, we
find that no portion of the range of ashy storm-petrel warrants further
consideration of possible endangered or threatened status under the
Act. No available information indicates that there has been a range
contraction for ashy storm-petrel, and, therefore, we find that lost
historical range does not constitute a significant portion of the range
for this species.
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the ashy storm-petrel is not in danger of
extinction (endangered) nor likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing this species as
an endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at
this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the ashy storm-petrel to our Bay-Delta Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us monitor this species and
encourage its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for this
species, we will act to provide immediate protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this finding is available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this finding are the staff members of the
Pacific Southwest Regional Office and the Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 25, 2013.
Signed:
Rowan Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-24170 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P