Proposed Rule2022-18571
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Guam Kingfisher, or Sihek, on Palmyra Atoll, USA
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 31, 2022
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), propose to release (meaning introduce) the Guam kingfisher (Todiramphus cinnamominus), known locally as the sihek, on Palmyra Atoll as an experimental population under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Currently, the sihek exists only in captivity and has been extinct in the wild for more than 30 years. The proposed introduction on Palmyra Atoll is outside the sihek's historical range because its primary habitat within its native range on Guam has been indefinitely altered by the accidental introduction of the predatory brown treesnake (Boiga irregularis) in the mid-twentieth century. Tools to manage brown treesnakes at a landscape level are under development, but these tools are unlikely to be available for broad use within the foreseeable future. The introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll is not intended to be a permanent introduction that would support a self- sustaining population; rather, it is intended to facilitate the gathering of information and analysis to optimize efforts for reestablishment of the species on Guam once brown treesnakes can be sufficiently controlled at a landscape scale. The introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll is also likely to help increase the global population of this extinct-in-the-wild species in advance of a reintroduction effort on Guam. We propose to classify the population as a nonessential experimental population (NEP) under the Act and propose regulations for the take of sihek within the NEP area. The best available data indicate the introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll is biologically feasible and will promote the conservation of the species. We are seeking comments on this proposal.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53429-53440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18571]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0061; FXES1113090FEDR-223-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-BF61
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of the Guam Kingfisher, or Sihek,
on Palmyra Atoll, USA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),
propose to release (meaning introduce) the Guam kingfisher (Todiramphus
cinnamominus), known locally as the sihek, on Palmyra Atoll as an
experimental population under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Currently, the sihek exists only in captivity and has
been extinct in the wild for more than 30 years. The proposed
introduction on Palmyra Atoll is outside the sihek's historical range
because its primary habitat within its native range on Guam has been
indefinitely altered by the accidental introduction of the predatory
brown treesnake (Boiga irregularis) in the mid-twentieth century. Tools
to manage brown treesnakes at a landscape level are under development,
but these tools are unlikely to be available for broad use within the
foreseeable future. The introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll is not
intended to be a permanent introduction that would support a self-
sustaining population; rather, it is intended to facilitate the
gathering of information and analysis to optimize efforts for
reestablishment of the species on Guam once brown treesnakes can be
sufficiently controlled at a landscape scale. The introduction of sihek
to Palmyra Atoll is also likely to help increase the global population
of this extinct-in-the-wild species in advance of a reintroduction
effort on Guam. We propose to classify the population as a nonessential
experimental population (NEP) under the Act and propose regulations for
the take of sihek within the NEP area. The best available data indicate
the introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll is biologically feasible and
will promote the conservation of the species. We are seeking comments
on this proposal.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
September 30, 2022. Please note that if you are using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an
electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. eastern time on this date.
ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You may submit comments on this proposed
rule by one of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2022-
0061, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click the
Search button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen,
under the Document Type heading, click on the box next to Proposed
Rules to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
<bullet> By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2022-0061; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; MS: PRB (JAO/3W); 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church,
VA 22041-3803. We will post all comments on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for
more information).
Copies of Documents: The proposed rule is available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0061.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Laut, Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Blvd.,
Rm 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-779-9939. Individuals in
the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we invite
governmental agencies, the scientific community, the CHamoru community,
industry, and other interested parties to submit comments or
recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed rule. Comments
should be as specific as possible.
To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses,
if provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule by one of these methods listed in ADDRESSES. Comments must be
submitted to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> before 11:59 p.m. (eastern
time) on the date specified in DATES. We will not consider hand-
delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are
not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. If you provide
personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the
supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will
be available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or
by appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
We are specifically seeking comments concerning:
<bullet> Information pertaining to the sihek as it relates to the
proposed introduction;
<bullet> Effects of the proposed introduction on native species and
the ecosystem on Palmyra Atoll; and
[[Page 53430]]
<bullet> Adequacy of the proposed regulations for the sihek NEP.
We are accepting comments for 30 days as indicated above in DATES.
A 30-day comment period is consistent with the rulemaking action that
established the regulations for establishing NEPs (49 FR 33886, August
27, 1984; p. 33885), which stated that a rulemaking under section 10(j)
of the Act will provide a minimum 30-day comment period. We believe
that a 30-day public comment period is sufficient for this rulemaking
action because the introduction will occur on a remote atoll with very
little access. As a result, this rulemaking action will have little
public effect, and we expect to receive few if any public comments.
More importantly, however, the need to remove the birds from captivity
and introduce them into the wild is urgent. Streamlining the rulemaking
process as much as possible is necessary to best ensure the welfare of
the birds and subsequent success of the introduction.
Peer Review
In accordance with our Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer
Review in Endangered Species Act Activities, which was published on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the internal memorandum clarifying the
Service's interpretation and implementation of that policy (USFWS in
litt. 2016), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists regarding scientific data and
interpretations contained in this proposed rule. We will send copies of
this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. The purpose of such review is to
ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, the final decision may differ
from this proposal.
Background
Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Experimental Populations
Species listed as endangered or threatened are afforded protection
primarily through the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act. Section 9
of the Act, among other things, prohibits take of endangered wildlife.
``Take'' is defined by the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Section 7 of the Act outlines the procedures for Federal
interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and
protect designated critical habitat. It mandates that all Federal
agencies use their existing authorities to further the purposes of the
Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed species. It
also requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service,
ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
Section 7 of the Act does not affect activities undertaken on private
land unless they are authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal
agency.
The 1982 amendments to the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included
the addition of section 10(j), which allows for the designation of
reintroduced populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations.'' The provisions of section 10(j) were enacted to
ameliorate concerns that reintroduced populations will negatively
impact landowners and other private parties, by giving the Secretary
greater regulatory flexibility and discretion in managing the
reintroduced species to encourage recovery in collaboration with
partners, especially private landowners. Under section 10(j) of the
Act, and our regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate an endangered or threatened
species that has been or will be released within its probable
historical range as an experimental population. The Service may also
designate an experimental population for an endangered or threatened
species outside of the species' probable historical range in extreme
cases when the Director of the Service finds that the primary habitat
of the species within its historical range has been unsuitably and
irreversibly altered or destroyed. All experimental populations are
classified as ``nonessential'' unless we determine that the loss of the
experimental population would be likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. We propose to
classify the sihek released to Palmyra Atoll as nonessential.
The NEP designation allows us to develop tailored ``take''
prohibitions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the species. The protective regulations adopted for an
experimental population in a section 10(j) rule contain the applicable
prohibitions and exceptions for that population and apply to all areas
described for the nonessential population.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. For the
purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened
species when the population is located within a National Wildlife
Refuge or unit of the National Park Service. When NEPs are located
outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit,
for the purposes of section 7, we treat the population as proposed for
listing and only sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the Act apply. In
these instances, NEPs provide additional flexibility in managing the
nonessential population because Federal agencies are not required to
consult with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(1) requires all
Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal
agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions
that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species
proposed to be listed.
Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat
shall not be designated for any experimental population that is
determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate
critical habitat in areas where we establish an NEP.
Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of an
endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary
transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find, by
regulation, that the release will further the conservation of the
species. In making such a finding, the Service uses the best scientific
and commercial data available to consider the following factors (see 50
CFR 17.81(b)):
(1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species
as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for
introduction elsewhere (see Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor
Population, below);
(2) the likelihood that any such experimental population will
become established and survive in the foreseeable future (see
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival, below);
(3) the relative effects that establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of the species (see Importance of
the NEP to Recovery Efforts, below); and
(4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected
by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private
activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area (see
Management, below).
[[Page 53431]]
Furthermore, as set forth at 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations
designating experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Act
must provide:
(1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population,
including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual
or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be
released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental
population (see Location and Boundaries of the Proposed NEP Area,
below);
(2) a finding, based solely on the best scientific and commercial
data available, and the supporting factual basis, on whether the
experimental population is, or is not, essential to the continued
existence of the species in the wild (see Is the Proposed Experimental
Population Essential or Nonessential?, below);
(3) management restrictions, protective measures, or other special
management concerns for that population, which may include, but are not
limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the experimental
population designated in the regulation from natural populations (see
Management, below; and
(4) a process for periodic review and evaluation of the success or
failure of the release and the effect of the release on the
conservation and recovery of the species (see Monitoring and
Evaluation, below).
Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate
State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected
Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and
implementing experimental population rules. To the maximum extent
practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the
Service, the affected State and Federal agencies, and persons holding
any interest in land that may be affected by the establishment of an
experimental population.
Legal Status of the Species and Previous Federal Actions
We listed the sihek as an endangered species under the Act on
August 27, 1984 (49 FR 33881). At the time of listing, the sihek was
known as the Guam Micronesian kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina
cinnamomina). We designated critical habitat for the sihek on October
28, 2004 (69 FR 62944), consisting of 376 ac (153 ha) on northern Guam.
We finalized the Native Forest Birds of Guam and Rota of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Recovery Plan in 1990 and
the Revised Recovery Plan for the Sihek or Guam Micronesian Kingfisher
(Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina) in 2008 (73 FR 67541, November 14,
2008). In 2015, we attempted to revise the taxonomy for sihek under the
Act through a direct final rule (see 80 FR 35860, June 23, 2015), but
due to a minor administrative error in that rule the sihek's corrected
taxonomy is not yet reflected on our List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (List; 50 CFR 17.11). We are currently in the process of
updating 50 CFR 17.11 to reflect that the Guam Micronesian Kingfisher
(Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina) should be the Guam kingfisher
(Todiramphus cinnamominus) on the List. Throughout this document, we
refer to the species as the sihek because that is the locally used
common name on Guam.
Biological Information
Species Description
The sihek is a sexually dimorphic (the sexes are outwardly
different in appearance) forest kingfisher (Baker 1951, p. 229). The
adult male has a brown head, neck, upper back, and underparts. A black
line extends around the nape (back of the neck), and the eye ring is
black. The lower back, lesser and underwing coverts, and shoulder
feathers are greenish-blue, and the tail is blue. The bill is black.
The female's markings are similar to the adult male, but the upper
breast, chin, and throat are paler, and the remaining underparts are
white instead of cinnamon. Sihek are relatively small, about 8 inches
(in) (20 centimeters (cm)) in length (Del Hoyo et al. 2001, p. 220).
Adult sihek range in weight from 53 to 85 grams (g) (1.7-3.0 ounces
(oz)) (Baker 1951, p. 228; Jenkins 1983, p. 21).
Historical and Current Range
The sihek is a nonmigratory species endemic to Guam and
historically occurred in all habitats throughout Guam except pure
savanna and wetlands (Marshall 1949, p. 210, Baker 1951 p. 229; Jenkins
1983, pp. 22-23). They were described as ``fairly common'' by Baker
(1951, p. 229). However, the population declined rapidly in the mid-
twentieth century due primarily to predation by the brown treesnake.
The last remaining wild sihek were taken into captivity between 1984
and 1986, and sihek were considered extinct in the wild by 1988 (Wiles
et al. 2003, p. 1357). For more than 30 years, the species has existed
only in captivity, as discussed further in the Recovery Efforts to Date
section, below.
Life Cycle
Sihek are socially monogamous, and breeding activity appears to be
concentrated from December to July (Marshall 1949, p. 210; Baker 1951,
p. 228; Jenkins 1983, p. 23). They nest in cavities, with nests
documented in a variety of trees, including Ficus spp. (banyan), Cocos
nucifera (coconut), Artocarpus spp. (breadfruit), Pisonia grandis
(umumu), and Tristiropsis obtusangula (faniok) (Baker 1951, p. 228;
Jenkins 1983, p. 24; Marshall 1989, p. 473). Both male and female sihek
incubate eggs and brood and feed nestlings (Jenkins 1983, p. 24). Eggs
are white and reported clutch sizes from wild populations (n = 3) were
either one or two eggs (Baker 1951, p. 228; Jenkins 1983, p. 24;
Marshall 1989, p. 474). Incubation, nestling, and fledgling periods for
sihek in the wild are unknown. However, incubation and nestling periods
of captive birds averaged 22 and 33 days, respectively (Bahner et al.
in litt. 1998, p. 21).
Sihek feed entirely on animal matter including skinks (Scincidae),
geckos (Gekkonidae), various insects, segmented worms (Annelida), and
hermit crabs (Coenobita spp.) (Marshall 1949, p. 210; Baker 1951, pp.
228-229; Jenkins 1983, pp. 23-24). Seale (1901, p. 45) also reported
that sihek were known to prey on the chicks of domestic fowl, and
Marshall (1949, p. 210) noted fish scales in the stomach contents of
collected sihek. They typically forage by perching motionless on
exposed branches or telephone lines and swooping down to capture prey
off the ground with their bill (Jenkins 1983, pp. 23-34). They will
also capture prey off nearby foliage and have been observed gleaning
insects from bark (Maben 1982, p. 78).
Habitat Use
Relatively little is known about the habitat use of sihek. Mature
forests with appropriate nest sites were probably an important
component for successful reproduction and survival. The sihek is a
cavity nester and apparently requires large, standing dead trees. Nest
trees were reported as averaging 43 centimeters (17 inches) in diameter
(Marshall 1989, p. 475). Sihek also appear to require diverse
vegetative structure capable of providing a wide range of both
invertebrate and vertebrate prey as well as exposed perches and areas
of open ground for foraging (USFWS 2002, p. 63739). Good-quality sihek
habitat would therefore provide a combination of closed canopy forest
with large, standing dead trees for nesting, and areas of open
understory or
[[Page 53432]]
forest edges for foraging (Jenkins 1983, pp. 22-23; Marshall 1989, pp.
475-476; USFWS 2002, p. 63739).
Movement Ecology
Records of distributions and intraspecific territorial behaviors
for sihek suggest they maintained exclusive year-round territories
(Jenkins 1983, pp. 24-25). Little else is known about their movement
ecology. On the island of Pohnpei, Micronesian kingfishers (Todiramphus
reichenbachii), a species from the same genus as sihek, demonstrated an
average territory size of 8.1 hectares (ha) (20 acres (ac)) and showed
stable boundaries within and between years (Kesler and Haig 2007, p.
387); birds dispersing from their home territory were observed to
establish new territories a maximum distance of 4,501 feet (1,372
meters) from the original site (Kesler and Haig 2007, p. 389). The
sihek is an island endemic and has not been observed flying over open
ocean.
Causes of Decline and Threats
The primary cause of the sihek's extinction in the wild was due to
predation by the introduced brown treesnake (USFWS 2008, p. 21). This
invasive species probably arrived on Guam prior to 1950 as stowaways on
shipping materials (Savidge 1987, p. 662). Brown treesnakes were likely
introduced in southern Guam and expanded their range, reaching the
northernmost point of the island by 1968 (Savidge 1987, p. 663). Sihek
were last recorded from southern Guam in the 1970s (Drahos 1977, pp.
153-154), and by 1985, Marshall (1989, p. 476) reported only 30 sihek
in the northern part of the island. Sihek were considered extinct in
the wild by 1988 (Wiles et al. 2003, p. 1357). The continued islandwide
presence of brown treesnakes on Guam precludes consideration of Guam as
a viable reintroduction site for sihek for the foreseeable future.
Other factors that likely impacted sihek on Guam include predation
by feral cats (Felis catus), rats (Rattus spp.), and monitor lizards
(Varanus tsukamotoi), habitat degradation from development and
typhoons, human persecution, contaminants, and competition with and
harassment by black drongos (Dicrurus macrocercus) (USFWS 2008, pp. 16-
17). Our Revised Recovery Plan for the Sihek or Guam Micronesian
Kingfisher (USFWS 2008, pp. 16-26) provides further description of
these threats.
Recovery Efforts to Date
Criteria for reclassifying the sihek from an endangered to
threatened species (``downlisting'') include establishing two
subpopulations on Guam (one in the north and one in the south) of at
least 500 individuals each that are stable to increasing over at least
5 consecutive years; sufficient habitat is protected and managed to
achieve the population criteria; and brown treesnakes and other
introduced predators are managed at levels sufficient to meet the
population criteria. The criteria to delist (remove protections of the
Act for) the sihek include two subpopulations on Guam of at least 1,000
individuals each (one in the north and one in the south) that are
stable or increasing, with sufficient habitat and predator control to
support the population criteria (USFWS 2008, pp. 40-43). Our recovery
plan acknowledged that the interim step of introducing sihek outside of
its historical range may be necessary before we are able to reestablish
sihek populations on Guam (USFWS 2008, p. 40).
Habitat Protection
Over the past 30 years, the Service has worked with a number of
stakeholders to provide habitat protection in support of recovering
Guam's native species. The habitat protections described below were
intended for federally listed species on Guam in anticipation of our
eventual ability to control brown treesnakes and allow the
reintroduction of sihek and other locally extinct species. In 1993, the
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and Service entered into a memorandum of
understanding to create the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. As per the
terms of the memorandum of understanding, the two military branches
entered into cooperative agreements with the Service in 1994 to
designate Department of Defense lands as overlay units in the Guam
National Wildlife Refuge (i.e., these overlay units of Refuge lands are
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense but managed by the
Service as part of the Refuge). Currently the Guam National Wildlife
Refuge includes 152 ha (376 ac) of lands under the jurisdiction of the
Service and 9,300 ha (22,980 ac) of overlay lands under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force, and all are managed
by the Service as the Refuge.
Additionally, the Government of Guam established four reserves for
habitat protection. These lands are under the jurisdiction of the
CHamoru Land Trust Commission of the Government of Guam. The Commission
has the authority to change the status of these lands to non-
conservation areas as they deem appropriate. Please see the Revised
Recovery Plan for the Sihek or Guam Micronesian Kingfisher (USFWS 2008,
pp. 33-37) for further description and maps of the Department of
Defense and Government of Guam protected areas.
More recently, the Department of Defense and the Service entered
into two agreements to protect or manage habitat for sihek and other
federally listed species on Guam. A 2020 memorandum of understanding
between Joint Region Marianas and the Service outlined a mutual
understanding regarding the intentions and future considerations of a
Department of Defense readiness and environmental protection
integration initiative to address conservation of upland vegetation
communities for the sihek as well as other federally listed species on
Guam. In 2015 a memorandum of agreement between the Department of the
Navy and the Service designated 2,118 ha (5,234 ac) of habitat for the
recovery and survival of the sihek in Northern Guam in response to loss
of habitat described in the Service's 2015 Marine Corps Relocation
Biological Opinion (USFWS 2015, entire).
Brown Treesnake Control
We currently lack tools to eradicate brown treesnakes from Guam,
and the continued presence of brown treesnakes throughout the landscape
prevents the successful reestablishment of sihek on Guam in the
foreseeable future. However, we have made some incremental progress in
addressing this threat. Since 2010, the interagency Brown Treesnake
Technical Working Group has advanced landscape-scale brown treesnake
suppression capabilities with the development and refinement of an
aerial delivery system for toxicant baiting, comprising an automated
bait manufacturing system and an automated dispensing module for
applying baits from aircraft. Aerial toxicant baiting has recently been
evaluated in both fenced and non-fenced 55 ha (136 ac) sites; brown
treesnake suppression, but not eradication, has been validated using
this technique (Siers et al. in litt. 2020, p. 4). Further, simulated
aerial baiting for brown treesnake eradication within a 5 ha (12 ac)
brown treesnake exclusion area indicates that some brown treesnake size
classes do not consume baits and additional control tools are needed to
achieve suppression objectives and/or eradication (Siers et al. in
litt. 2020, p. 4).
[[Page 53433]]
Island-wide eradication of invasive vertebrates has been achieved
on 965 islands for various taxonomic groups (see Keitt et al. 2011,
<a href="https://diise.islandconservation.org/">https://diise.islandconservation.org/</a>); however, snake eradication
efforts are rare, and there is only one other documented ongoing effort
to eradicate snakes from an island (<a href="https://diise.islandconservation.org/">https://diise.islandconservation.org/</a>). Additional technological and
methodological advancements along with community engagement are still
needed to achieve landscape-scale eradication of brown treesnakes on
Guam. The aerial delivery system tools are operational, but full
operational implementation of the aerial suppression program will
require further understanding of site-specific effects of the
technology and development of efficient monitoring protocols.
Therefore, while technological advances to control brown treesnakes
show promise as a tool, they currently do not control snakes to a level
sufficient to allow the return of sihek to Guam in the foreseeable
future (i.e., before significant declines in the ex situ population of
sihek are likely to occur). Thus, interim conservation measures for
sihek are necessary to reduce its extinction risk while brown treesnake
suppression and eradication methods are perfected and implemented.
Captive Breeding Efforts
In 1983, the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) initiated the
Guam Bird Rescue Project in response to the widespread decline of
Guam's native birds. The sihek was one of the Guam birds selected under
this program for captive (ex situ) conservation efforts (Hutchins et
al. in litt. 1996, p. 4). Between 1984 and 1986, 29 sihek were
translocated from Guam to several zoos in the mainland United States.
The program was established with the intent of being a short-term
rescue but ultimately led to a breeding program due to the continued
presence of brown treesnakes on Guam, which have prevented the
reestablishment of sihek within their native range. By 1990, the ex
situ population increased to 61 sihek in 12 mainland zoos. Currently,
an estimated 152 sihek are held at 24 AZA institutions and in a
facility at the Guam Department of Agriculture's Division of Aquatic
and Wildlife Resources (DAWR) (Newland, S., in litt. 2021a).
A Species Survival Plan Program for sihek, developed by the AZA,
has been in place since 1986. In general, Species Survival Plan
Programs are established to oversee the population management of
species within AZA-accredited facilities. The plans typically include a
population studbook and an annual breeding and transfer plan to ensure
the genetic and demographic health of the population. The donor
population is carefully managed through the Species Survival Plan
Program to ensure the population's long-term viability.
Sihek are relatively difficult to manage in zoos because of their
aggressive territorial behavior and moderately expensive diet. In
addition, little forward progress toward a recovery program in the wild
has led to few new institutions willing to hold or breed the species,
which ultimately limits population growth. The small founding
population, as well as the limited ability to increase the population
beyond its current size, has serious implications for long-term
survival of sihek.
Two separate population viability analyses (PVAs) demonstrated
rapid declines in the population under current conditions (Johnson et
al. in litt. 2015, p. 8; Trask et al. 2021, p. 6). Without changes to
management practices that increase reproduction (i.e., reproductive
output stays the same), the sihek population is predicted to decline to
below 100 individuals by the year 2040 (Johnson et al. 2015, p. 8); and
with a slight decrease in reproductive output of just 7 percent, the
population is projected to decrease to 25 individuals by 2040 (Johnson
et al. 2015, p. 9). The PVA developed by Trask et al. (2021, entire)
incorporated an inbreeding coefficient into their models and
demonstrated, among other things, a rapid decline in the population
without an increase in reproductive output such that in 50 years the
mean population size is projected to decline to approximately 30
individuals. The ex situ population of sihek is therefore sensitive to
even slight reductions in reproductive output and is at a heightened
risk of extinction due to small population dynamics in their existing
limited breeding and holding space. However, a small increase in
average annual reproductive output (from 2.54 hatchlings per female per
year to 2.70 hatchlings per female per year) could support long-term
(50-year) sihek population viability as well as a release program
(Trask et al. 2021, p. 6).
Breeding facilities for sihek are currently at capacity. Without
the ability to release sihek, the species' population growth is
constrained. The sihek's current small population size puts the species
at risk from stochastic environmental events (e.g., disease outbreaks
in the ex situ population or changes in the ability of facilities to
house and breed sihek) and demographic threats (e.g., sex-ratio biases,
as well as from genetic threats from increasing rates of loss of
genetic diversity and accumulation of inbreeding). Further, maintaining
the species entirely under captive environmental conditions puts the
species at risk from genetic adaptations to captivity (Frankham 2008,
entire). This situation could result in individuals having reduced
fitness under wild conditions and could negatively impact the success
of efforts to ultimately recover the species on Guam.
Reintroduction
No efforts have been made to reintroduce the sihek to its native
range on Guam due to the continued presence of brown treesnakes, the
primary threat that caused its extinction in the wild. Further, until
recently, the ex situ population of sihek was not large enough to
sustain a release program. Analyses by Trask et al. 2021 (p. 7) have
shown that, with captive management aimed at increasing reproductive
output, the ex situ population can support the releases proposed for an
experimental population on Palmyra Atoll.
Location and Boundaries of the Proposed NEP Area
The proposed NEP area for sihek occurs outside the species'
historical range and encompasses the 250 ha (618 ac) of emergent land
distributed among the 25 islands that make up Palmyra Atoll (Collen et
al. 2009, p. 712), and inclusive of the lagoons surrounding those
islands. The islands vary in size from approximately 0.1 to 97.9 ha
(0.24 to 242 ac). Palmyra Atoll is located in the Northern Line
Islands, approximately 1,000 miles (1,609 km) south of Honolulu,
Hawaii, and 3,647 miles (5,869 km) east of Guam (5[deg]53' N latitude,
162[deg]05' W longitude). Palmyra Atoll is considered a wet atoll with
high humidity, typically greater than 90 percent, and temperatures
between 75 and 81 [deg]F (24-27 [deg]C) and rainfall averages 175
inches (in) (444.5 centimeters (cm)) per year (Hathaway et al. 2011, p.
6), without a specific rainy season. Temperatures on Guam are slightly
higher, ranging 75-90 [deg]F (24-32 [deg]C), with rainfall averaging 98
in (249 cm), with the greatest rainfall occurring between July and
November (<a href="https://www.weather-us.com/en/guam-usa-climate">https://www.weather-us.com/en/guam-usa-climate</a>).
The closest landmass is more than 232 km (144 mi) from Palmyra.
Given this and the fact that sihek are an island endemic not known to
undertake long-distance flights over open ocean, it is extremely
unlikely that sihek would
[[Page 53434]]
move outside of the NEP area and survive. Also, no other kingfisher
species occur on Palmyra Atoll, thus all kingfishers on the atoll will
be members of the NEP.
Land Ownership
Palmyra Atoll is currently owned and managed by the Service, The
Nature Conservancy, and the Cooper family. The majority of the islands
(158 ha (390 ac)), waters, and the coral reefs surrounding Palmyra
Atoll, up to 12 nautical miles to sea, are owned by the United States
and managed by the Service as a National Wildlife Refuge. Palmyra Atoll
National Wildlife Refuge was established in 2001 to protect, restore,
and enhance migratory birds, coral reefs, and threatened and endangered
species in their natural setting. The Nature Conservancy owns two
islands, Cooper and Menge (91.5 ha (226 ac)) and cooperatively manages
the atoll with the Service. Home Island (0.71 ha (1.8 ac)) is under
private fractional ownership by the Cooper family, and the Service
provides stewardship for this island, providing it the same protections
as Refuge property (Kropidlowski, in litt. 2021). Palmyra Atoll is also
part of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, which was
established in 2009 and is co-managed by the Service and the National
Ocean and Atmospheric Administration.
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival
In late 2020, we established a recovery team for sihek whose
purpose is to assist the Service in developing and implementing a
conservation strategy for reestablishing sihek in the wild. Members of
this team developed a phased approach whereby learning sites (sites
used to test conservation translocation procedures as well as
demographic and behavioral responses of target species) help achieve
the overarching objectives of reducing global sihek extinction risk,
while also refining techniques to establish viable wild populations on
Guam. Based on habitat suitability, food resource availability, and
willing partners, we have identified Palmyra Atoll as a proposed
learning site.
The best available scientific data indicate that the introduction
of sihek into suitable habitat is biologically feasible and would
promote the conservation of the species. Coarse-scale modeling
indicated Palmyra could support up to 15 breeding pairs (Laws and
Kesler in litt. 2011, p. 65). We evaluated the ecological suitability
of Palmyra Atoll and concluded sufficient habitat conditions and food
resources are available to support the small number of sihek needed for
a temporary training site (USFWS unpub.). Further, we developed a
proposed release and monitoring program that includes interventions
such as supplemental feeding if needed to increase the chances of
survival. To minimize risk associated with the introduction, we are
assessing potential environmental impacts in the proposed NEP area in a
draft environmental assessment (See National Environmental Policy Act
section, below) and will monitor for these potential impacts as part of
the release program.
Potential Effects of Activities on Palmyra Atoll on Introduced Sihek
The effects of Federal, State, or private actions and activities on
Palmyra Atoll that are ongoing and expected to continue are not likely
to adversely affect the sihek within the proposed NEP area. Public
access to Palmyra Atoll is extremely limited and available in only the
following ways: (1) working for, contracting with, or volunteering for
the Service or The Nature Conservancy; (2) conducting scientific
research via Service special use permits; (3) invitation through the
Service or The Nature Conservancy; or (4) by private recreational
sailboat or motorboat. With prior approval by the Service, privately
owned vessels are permitted to access the Palmyra Atoll National
Wildlife Refuge. A maximum of two vessels are allowed at one time.
Access to Cooper Island must be arranged and secured through The Nature
Conservancy. Activities currently occurring in the proposed NEP area,
and those likely to occur, are not likely to impede the introduction
effort. Current activities on Palmyra Atoll include an ongoing
rainforest restoration project, operation of a research station, and
limited recreation. The rainforest restoration project includes control
of nonnative coconut trees, and opportunistic planting and seeding of
native tree species. The Nature Conservancy manages a research station,
and visiting scientists are required to obtain a permit from the
Service to ensure compatibility with the mission of the Refuge. The
Nature Conservancy also provides guided recreational activities
(fishing, kayaking) to a small number of visitors to the Atoll. No
significant development is planned on the Atoll for the foreseeable
future.
Importance of the NEP to Recovery Efforts
We are proposing to introduce a nonessential experimental
population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll to promote the conservation and
recovery of the species. The International Union for the Conservation
of Nature's Guidelines for Reintroduction and Other Conservation
Translocations (2013, p. 4) identifies several criteria to consider
prior to undertaking a reintroduction, including ``strong evidence that
the threat(s) that caused any previous extinction have been correctly
identified and removed or sufficiently reduced.'' Although the basic
habitat components required by the sihek on Guam are still present,
they have been made unavailable to the sihek in the foreseeable future
due to the ongoing and pervasive threat of brown treesnakes (see
Recovery Efforts to Date). Innovations in brown treesnake management
show promise for controlling their populations at a landscape level but
not within the time needed to prevent further deleterious impacts to
the ex situ sihek population. Also the current captive-only sihek
population is at high risk of extinction, and a moderate decline in
reproductive output is likely to have long-term negative consequences
on the survival probability for this species (see Captive Breeding
Efforts and Reintroduction). The number of breeding institutions
participating in sihek management is limited and declining (Newland in
litt. 2021b), further increasing the risk of reduced breeding effort
and its associated population decline. Advancements in brown treesnake
control show promise for reintroducing sihek to its native range on
Guam in the future, but current control methods are not likely to be
able to eradicate this threat prior to substantial forecasted declines
in the sihek population.
We propose to release sihek onto Palmyra Atoll, which is outside
its historical range, for the following purposes: (1) invigorate the ex
situ conservation program to increase reproductive output by increasing
breeding space at existing facilities and/or recruiting additional
facilities to join the ex situ conservation program; and (2) develop
and refine release and monitoring methods to be applied when
reestablishing a population on Guam to recover the species. Release of
sihek on Palmyra Atoll will improve the likelihood of successful
reintroduction and recovery on Guam by: (1) providing the opportunity
to develop and test release and monitoring techniques, (2) providing
information on the sihek's ability to survive in the wild,
[[Page 53435]]
(3) assessing how much human intervention is required to support a wild
population, (4) increasing the global population of sihek as an
extension of the ex situ population as well as invigorating the
breeding program, and (5) potentially serving as a source of wild-
hatched birds for future releases on Guam or other sites.
Is the proposed experimental population essential or nonessential?
When we establish experimental populations under section 10(j) of
the Act, we must determine whether that population is essential or
nonessential to the continued existence of the species. This
determination is based solely on the best scientific and commercial
data available. Our regulations (50 CFR 17.80(b)) state that an
experimental population is considered essential if its loss would be
likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of that species
in the wild. We are proposing to designate the population of sihek on
Palmyra Atoll as nonessential for the following reasons:
(1) No populations of sihek occur in the wild currently;
(2) the proposed experimental population area is too small to
support a self-sustaining wild population of sihek (Laws and Kesler
2011, p. 63) and is intended only as a temporary training site (i.e.,
approximately 10 or more years) for us to improve release techniques,
monitoring, and adaptive management for population establishment on
Guam, when its habitat is available; and
(3) loss of the experimental population would not preclude other
recovery options, including future efforts to establish sihek
populations elsewhere.
In addition, we evaluated the potential impacts of the
establishment of the experimental population on the ex situ population.
Establishment of the proposed experimental population will not affect
the potential to establish a future, self-sustaining, wild population
of sihek on Guam for the following reasons:
(1) The majority of the sihek population will remain in an ex situ
population distributed among 25 facilities, where they are carefully
managed according to the Species Survival Plan Program (Newland in
litt. 2021a); and
(2) only a small number of individuals will be removed from the ex
situ population for release on Palmyra Atoll, and these removals are
expected to have minimal impact on the survival of the ex situ
population (see Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor Population,
below).
As mentioned above in Importance of the NEP to Recovery Efforts,
the proposed introduction on Palmyra Atoll will further the
conservation of sihek both in terms of improving the status of the ex
situ population and in increasing the likelihood of success in
establishing wild populations. In the near term, we anticipate that the
introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll will invigorate the ex situ
breeding program and result in more breeding space at existing
facilities, more institutions joining the program, or both, ultimately
resulting in a larger population if additional institutions join. Space
is a limiting factor for this extinct-in-the-wild species and
demonstrating our intent to recover it in the wild will likely increase
interest in the species (Newland in litt. 2022). In the longer term,
the information gathered from observing the species under wild
conditions, development of suitable release and monitoring methods, and
assessment of how much human intervention might be needed to support a
wild population will improve future release efforts. Lastly, wild-
hatched sihek could be a complementary source, alongside captive-bred
birds, for translocation to Guam or other sites.
Release Procedures
Late-stage nestlings or recent fledglings will be flown to Palmyra
Atoll where they will be held in release aviaries for up to one month.
Three sets of three flight aviaries will be established across Palmyra
Atoll at, or close to, locations where habitat appears most suitable.
During this time, they will undergo acclimation and training to respond
to supplementary feeding signals. Prior to release, all sihek will be
fitted with a radio transmitter consistent with the Bird Banding
Laboratory of North America's guidelines that transmitters be no more
than 3 percent of a bird's body weight (Gustafson et al. 1997).
Releases from aviaries will be via opening of a panel in the aviary
wall to allow individuals to come and go freely. We will monitor each
sihek daily, immediately after release and throughout their first year
of release. After the first year, we may reduce the intensity of
monitoring if no problems are observed. Sihek monitoring will cover a
range of components, including general behavior (maintenance, foraging,
locomotion, conspecific interactions); health (weights collected
remotely at feeding stations, fecal samples, semiannual capture and
assessment); and breeding (pairing, territoriality, nest excavation,
nest building, egg laying and clutch size, hatch date, nestling
survival, and fledge success). Additional details of the release
procedures are provided in the Sihek Management Plan (see Andrews et
al. in litt. 2022).
Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor Population
The donor population for the proposed introduction of sihek to
Palmyra Atoll is the ex situ population of sihek. This population is
distributed among 25 breeding facilities in the U.S. mainland and on
Guam (24 AZA institutions and 1 Guam Department of Agriculture (DAWR)
facility), with the population being managed through the Sihek Species
Survival Plan Program (see Captive Breeding Efforts). The most recent
population count documented 152 birds (Newland in litt. 2021a). The
population size remains below the target of 200 individuals identified
in the 2020 Species Survival Plan Program (Newland et al. 2020, p. 2)
in large part due to limited holding capacity across the breeding
facilities. Recent funding for the construction of another facility at
Brookfield Zoo, as well as for the transfer and maintenance of sihek to
the facility, has expanded capacity to allow for growth of the
population. The current Species Survival Plan Program coordinator is
actively seeking additional AZA institutions to participate in the
sihek breeding effort, and this solicitation will likely be aided by
releases to Palmyra Atoll and the recent progress in recovery planning
for the species.
Population models indicate that an increase in breeding (i.e.,
production of hatchlings) is required to ensure the sustainable removal
of individuals from the ex situ population for release to Palmyra
(Johnson et al. 2015, p. 13, and Trask et al. 2021, p. 6). In the past,
we have observed measurable population increases with focused
management to increase productivity in the ex situ population. Between
2004 and 2013, the sihek population increased from 61 birds to a peak
of 157 birds as a result of increased reproductive output using
multiple clutching (when a breeding pair is induced to produce more
than one clutch of eggs per year by removing and artificially
incubating the first clutch of eggs) (Newland et al. in litt 2020, pp.
4-5). The best available information indicates that increasing ex situ
reproductive output to rates seen between 2004 and 2013 is likely to
support a release program on Palmyra without negatively impacting the
long-term viability of the species (Trask et al. 2021, p. 6).
[[Page 53436]]
Only a small number of sihek will be removed from the ex situ
population for release on Palmyra Atoll. We plan to remove up to 9 in
the first year, and fewer than 9 in subsequent years to ultimately
achieve a target of 10 breeding pairs. The release cohort will consist
of hatch-year sihek that will be reared under pathogen- and vector-free
conditions. All individuals will be health-screened prior to release.
Release cohorts will consist of sihek that are relatively unrelated to
each other (i.e., sihek with low mean kinship), and that have a
relatively low individual inbreeding coefficient. In addition to
genetic considerations for released individuals, retaining maximum
genetic diversity within the ex situ population is a priority;
therefore, individuals identified as genetically valuable (i.e., with a
low mean kinship coefficient, such that they are genetically
underrepresented in the ex situ population) will be retained in the ex
situ population. We will assess selection of individuals in release
cohorts for follow up translocations based on both the sex ratio and
genetics of the introduced population on Palmyra Atoll, as well as that
of the donor population.
Species Survival Plan Program annual reports (see Captive Breeding
Efforts) will continue throughout the releases, and will be reviewed to
ensure that removal of individuals for release will not be detrimental
to the stability of the ex situ population. If negative impacts on the
donor population are detected, we will pause releases while donor
population health is improved. Given the careful management of the
donor population, the ability to artificially increase its
productivity, and the relatively small number of sihek that will be
released annually, negative impacts to the donor population are
expected to be minimal.
Management
We will collaborate with Guam DAWR, Zoological Society of London,
AZA, Calgary Zoo, Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, and The
Nature Conservancy on releases, monitoring, coordination, and other
tasks as needed to ensure successful introduction of the species to
Palmyra Atoll. A few specific management considerations are addressed
below.
Incidental Take: Experimental population rules contain specific
prohibitions and exceptions regarding the taking of individual animals
under the Act. These rules are compatible with most routine human
activities in the proposed NEP area (e.g., resource monitoring,
invasive species management, and research; see Importance of the NEP to
Recovery Efforts, above). Section 3(19) of the Act defines ``take'' as
``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' ``Incidental
take'' is further defined as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. If we
adopt the 10(j) rule as proposed, incidental take of sihek within the
experimental population area would be allowed, provided that the take
is unintentional and not due to negligent conduct.
Special Handling/Intentional Take: If we adopt the 10(j) rule as
proposed, employees of the Service, Guam DAWR, The Nature Conservancy,
Zoological Society of London, the Calgary Zoo, AZA facilities holding
sihek, and authorized agents acting on behalf of the Service or these
other entities, may intentionally take sihek through handling sihek for
scientific purposes; relocating individuals or bringing individuals
into captivity for the purposes of increasing sihek survival or
fecundity; aiding sick or injured sihek; salvaging dead sihek;
disposing of a dead specimen; or aiding in law enforcement
investigations involving the sihek. Any other person would need to
acquire a permit from the Service for these activities.
Interagency Consultation: For purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the
Act, section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations (50 CFR 17.83)
provide that nonessential experimental populations are treated as
species proposed for listing under the Act except on National Park
Service and National Wildlife Refuge System lands, where they are
treated as threatened species for the purposes of section 7(a)(2) of
the Act. We intend to address our section 7(a)(2) consultation
obligations for sihek within the Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge
through a programmatic intra-Service consultation prior to finalizing
this rule. Any activities outside of those analyzed in our programmatic
consultation that may affect sihek within the NEP area would be
addressed through future individual intra-Service section 7
consultations.
Public Awareness and Cooperation: On November 18, 2021, in
cooperation with Guam DAWR, we engaged the Governor of Guam and
constituents to inform them of the proposed introduction of sihek to
Palmyra Atoll. We have coordinated closely with the co-manager of
Palmyra Atoll (The Nature Conservancy) throughout the planning process,
and we expect our coordination with them will continue through the
duration of the project. Public comments received on this proposed rule
and our forthcoming draft environmental assessment will be considered
in our final determinations.
Monitoring and Evaluation
We will monitor the health, habitat use, behavior, foraging
activity, movement, breeding, and survival of all sihek released and
hatched at Palmyra Atoll. We will attempt to weigh sihek daily at
supplementary feeding platforms with inbuilt scales. Passive collection
of fecal material from these supplementary feeding platform visits will
be screened for gastrointestinal parasite loads and examination of
diet. We will attempt to capture individuals twice each year for a more
thorough physical examination (weight, condition, ectoparasite load,
feather fault bar analysis). During these captures, we will take a
blood sample, which will be stored in ethanol for later diagnostics of
blood parasites, and a blood smear made for visual examination of blood
parasites and white blood cell count analysis. Further, we will collect
a fecal sample opportunistically and a cloacal swab for later bacterial
culture.
Once each sihek is released, we will track it and attempt to log
its location at least once daily to document post-release movement
patterns and territory establishment. Individuals will be located via
radio transmitter tracking or visual searches. During observations, we
will record behaviors including maintenance, perching, ingestion,
excretion, locomotion, vocalizations, and interactions. We will record
food items whenever feeding is observed in free-flying sihek.
We will attempt to closely monitor all breeding attempts to
determine timing of pairing, nest building, egg laying and clutch size,
hatch date, nestling survival, and fledge success. Unhatched eggs will
be collected for analysis of fertility and embryo development.
Recovered dead nestlings will be necropsied in the field and samples
taken for later laboratory analysis for cause of death. Where possible,
surviving nestlings will be weighed every third day throughout
development until banding age. During banding, we will collect a range
of samples as specified above for adult health sampling.
We will create a resighting history for each sihek released or
hatched into the population. We intend to monitor sihek and their prey
species with the full-time presence of staff on Palmyra, at least until
intensive monitoring shows: (1) sihek are foraging independently and
[[Page 53437]]
exhibiting behaviors typical of Todiramphus species; and (2) sihek are
not having unacceptable impacts on prey species populations
(unacceptable impacts are described further in the sections below). If
the two situations described above occur, then we may reduce staffing
to less than full time and monitor sihek and the environment less
intensively.
Ecosystem Impacts
As Palmyra Atoll is outside the native range of the sihek,
introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll could have potential impacts on
native species. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
Species Specialist Commission, Invasive Species Specialist Group
recognizes a number of different mechanisms of impact that introduced
species (which others have sometimes called alien species) can have on
native ecosystems (Pagad et al. 2015 pp. 130-132). These include
impacts through predation, competition, hybridization, or transmission
of disease-causing pathogens to native species (Blackburn et al. 2014,
pp. 4-7).
To assess the potential impacts that sihek may have on Palmyra
Atoll and the mechanisms through which these impacts may occur,
researchers on the recovery team conducted an environmental impact
assessment, based on the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien
Taxa (EICAT) (Blackburn et al. 2014, entire) and the Generic Impact
Scoring System (Nentwig et al. 2010, entire). This process involved
consulting with a range of relevant experts (n=19), who were asked to
provide their judgment on the level of impact sihek may have through
each potential impact mechanism. Impact levels were described in a
range from the lowest level of ``minimal,'' where effects are
negligible, to the highest level of ``massive,'' where impacts result
in local extinction(s) and community-level changes are irreversible. We
are evaluating the relative risk of competition, hybridization,
predation impacts, and disease transmission, and the results will be
summarized in our draft environmental assessment for this project.
In the EICAT assessment, experts considered predation to be the
most likely impact of sihek introduction to Palmyra (although the
magnitude of this factor was judged to be moderate at most). No listed
species occur on Palmyra Atoll, and the EICAT assessment experts'
scoring generally assessed the introduction of a novel avian predator.
Therefore, we will focus post-release environmental monitoring on
potential sihek prey species that are native to Palmyra Atoll. We will
obtain sihek diet information through behavioral observation and fecal
samples, as described above (Release Procedures and Monitoring and
Evaluation). This information will highlight major components of sihek
post-release diet and help guide more focused monitoring.
At a minimum, we will coordinate with The Nature Conservancy and
Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge to carry out annual monitoring on a
range of suitable prey items, as described above. We will use the most
appropriate survey methods for different taxa. In the event that
dietary and behavioral observations of released sihek suggest a
particular prevalence and abundance of specific prey items that are of
conservation concern, we will establish more frequent monitoring
surveys. We will analyze post-release monitoring data to obtain
estimates of abundance and density for reference taxa. These estimates
will then be compared with pre-release monitoring data, collected in
the weeks prior to release, with estimates from paired locations across
the island in a before-after, control-impact experimental design. In
the event we find estimated impacts to be unacceptably high, such as
preferential prey selection for one species such that it has
population-level effects, we will activate an appropriate response (see
Exit Strategy, below). Annual reports that summarize monitoring and
management activities will be developed by the Zoological Society of
London in collaboration with the Service, The Nature Conservancy, and
the Sihek Recovery Team.
Exit Strategy
Depending on the circumstances, the Service may either terminate
the release program, or temporarily pause the release program to
address identified issues before resuming. These scenarios and the
Service's expected response are detailed below.
The Service will terminate the release program on Palmyra Atoll if:
(1) Monitoring indicates the benefits from the Palmyra population
(including learning and refining release and support strategies for
eventual releases on Guam) no longer outweigh the risks to the species
or the welfare of the NEP or ex situ population; or
(2) monitoring shows unacceptable impacts on the ecosystem that can
be clearly causally linked to the introduction of sihek.
In addition to these ``must terminate'' scenarios, the Service may
also terminate the release program:
(3) When the purposes of the program have been realized (e.g., we
have developed successful release and monitoring methodologies to apply
to future release efforts or we have demonstrated sihek can survive and
reproduce in the wild without human intervention, see Importance of the
NEP to Recovery Efforts), although we do not anticipate this scenario
until 10 or more years after the first release.
The Service may also temporarily suspend the program to address
issues that arise before program termination. The monitoring team will
summarize information they collect on a regular basis and will share it
with the recovery team and the managers of Palmyra Atoll (the Service
and The Nature Conservancy). If results indicate the program is
approaching scenario (1) or (2) above, then the Service, in
consultation with the recovery team and The Nature Conservancy, will
determine if terminating the program is the best way to avoid these
outcomes, or whether the program should be paused and adaptive steps
taken to address them before resuming the program.
Regular monitoring and reporting will also inform progress toward
achieving program goals and scenario (3) above: The Service will
determine--in consultation with the recovery team and The Nature
Conservancy--when the purpose of the NEP has been achieved such that
the program can come to an end. When the Service terminates the
program, the Service will also address what will happen with any
remaining individuals in the NEP, i.e., whether they will be relocated
to captivity, relocated to other suitable habitat, or remain on
Palmyra, based on the circumstances at the time of termination.
Findings
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available (in
accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find that releasing sihek onto
Palmyra Atoll with the regulatory provisions in this proposed
rulemaking will further the conservation of the species. We find that
the continued presence of the brown treesnake on Guam means that the
sihek's native habitat has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or
destroyed for the foreseeable future such that the proposed
introduction of the sihek to Palmyra Atoll outside of its probable
historical range is warranted and consistent with our regulations at 50
CFR 17.81. The nonessential experimental population status is
appropriate for the introduced population; the potential loss of the
experimental population would not
[[Page 53438]]
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the
wild because there are currently no sihek remaining in the wild.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed
rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We certify that, if finalized, this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
The areas that would be affected under this proposed rule are
restricted to Palmyra Atoll. Because of the regulatory flexibility for
Federal agency actions provided by the NEP designation and the
exemption for incidental take in the rule, we do not expect this
proposed rule to have significant effects on any activities within
Federal, State, or private lands within the NEP area. In regard to
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the population would be treated as proposed
for listing, and, therefore, Federal action agencies would not be
required to consult on their activities, except on National Wildlife
Refuge System lands, where the NEP would be treated as a threatened
species for the purposes of section 7 of the Act.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer
(rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing.
However, because the NEP is, by definition, not essential to the
survival of the species, and there are no sihek in the wild outside of
the NEP area that could be impacted, conferring will likely never be
required for the sihek population within the NEP area. Furthermore, the
results of a conference are advisory in nature and do not restrict
agencies from carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities. Section
7(a)(1) of the Act requires Federal agencies to use their authorities
to carry out programs to further the conservation of listed species,
which would apply on any lands within the NEP area. On National
Wildlife Refuge System lands within the NEP area, the sihek would be
treated as a threatened species for the purposes of section 7 of the
Act. As a result, and in accordance with our regulations, some
modifications to proposed Federal actions within National Wildlife
Refuge System lands may occur to benefit the sihek, but we do not
expect projects to be substantially modified because these lands are
already administered in a manner that is compatible with sihek
conservation.
This proposed rule if finalized would broadly authorize incidental
take of the sihek within the NEP area. The regulations implementing the
Act define ``incidental take'' as take that is incidental to, and not
the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity, such
as habitat management, infrastructure maintenance, and other activities
in the NEP area that are in accordance with Federal, Tribal, State, and
local laws and regulations. Intentional take for authorized data
collection or recovery purposes by authorized personnel are also
allowed under the NEP designation. Other forms of intentional take
would require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit under the Act.
The only private landowners on Palmyra Atoll are The Nature
Conservancy and the Cooper family. The principal activities on private
property near the proposed release site are associated with scientific
field station operations, including the operation of a landing strip
for aircraft, and some limited recreation. The presence of the sihek is
not likely to significantly affect the use of lands for these purposes
because there will be no new or additional economic or regulatory
restrictions imposed upon private landowners due to the presence of the
sihek. Therefore, this proposed rulemaking is not expected to have any
significant adverse impacts to activities on private lands within the
NEP area.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
(1) This rule would not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, that, if adopted, this rulemaking would not impose
a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. A small government agency plan is not
required. Small governments would not be affected because the proposed
NEP designation would not place additional requirements on any city,
county, or other local municipalities.
(2) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million
or greater in any year (i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This proposed NEP
designation for the sihek would not impose any additional management or
protection requirements on the States or other entities.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does
not have significant takings implications. When introduced populations
of federally listed species are designated as nonessential experimental
populations, the Act's regulatory requirements regarding the introduced
population are significantly reduced. This proposed rule would allow
for the taking of sihek when such take is incidental to an otherwise
legal activity.
[[Page 53439]]
A takings implication assessment is not required because this
proposed rule: (1) Would not effectively compel a property owner to
suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) would not deny all
economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic
resources. This proposed rule would substantially advance a legitimate
government interest (conservation and recovery of a listed species) and
would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial
use of private property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered
whether this proposed rule has significant federalism effects and have
determined that a federalism assessment is not required. This proposed
rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we
requested information from and coordinated development of this proposed
rule with the affected resource agencies in Guam. Achieving the
recovery goals for this species will contribute to its eventual
delisting. No intrusion on Territory policy or administration is
expected, roles or responsibilities of Federal or Territory governments
would not change, and fiscal capacity would not be substantially
directly affected. The proposed rule operates to maintain the existing
relationship between the Territory and the Federal Government and is
being undertaken in coordination with the Territory of Guam. We have
cooperated with the Guam Department of Agriculture in the preparation
of this proposed rule. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have
significant federalism effects or implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism assessment pursuant to the provisions of
Executive Order 13132.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 7, 1996, 61 FR
4729), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed
rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and would meet the
requirements of sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of
information that requires approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements associated with permitting and reporting requirements
associated with native endangered and threatened species, and
experimental populations, and assigned the following OMB Control
Numbers:
<bullet> 1018-0094, ``Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications
and Reports--Native Endangered and Threatened Species; 50 CFR parts 10,
13, and 17'' (expires 01/31/2024), and
<bullet> 1018-0095, ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
Experimental Populations, 50 CFR 17.84'' (expires 9/30/2023).
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
In compliance with all provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), we are in the process of analyzing the
impact of this proposed rule. Based on this analysis and any new
information resulting from public comment on the proposed action and
our impact analysis, we will determine if there are any significant
impacts or effects that would be caused by this rule. In cooperation
with The Nature Conservancy, we are preparing a draft environmental
assessment, which will be made available for public inspection and
comment when it is complete. All appropriate NEPA documents will be
finalized before this rule is finalized.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of
energy effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
statement of energy effects is required.
Clarity of This Regulation (E.O. 12866)
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSESS. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0061.
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Megan Laut of the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11 in paragraph (h) in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife under BIRDS by removing the entry for ``Kingfisher,
Guam Micronesian (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina)'' and adding in its
place two entries for ``Kingfisher, Guam (Todiramphus cinnamominus)''
to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 53440]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Kingfisher, Guam (sihek)......... Todiramphus U.S.A. only, except E 49 FR 33881, 8/27/
cinnamominus. where listed as an 1984; 50 CFR
experimental 17.95(b) \CH\.
population.
Kingfisher, Guam (sihek)......... Todiramphus U.S.A. (Palmyra XN [Federal Register
cinnamominus. Atoll). citation of the
final rule]; 50
CFR 17.84(a)\10j\.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
(a) Guam kingfisher, sihek (Todiramphus cinnamominus).
(1) Where is the occurrence of sihek designated as a nonessential
experimental population (NEP)? The nonessential experimental population
(NEP) area for the sihek is Palmyra Atoll. Palmyra Atoll is located in
the Northern Line Islands, approximately 1,000 miles (1,609 km) south
of Honolulu, Hawaii (5[deg]53' N latitude, 162[deg]05' W longitude).
The extent of the NEP area for sihek is the 250 ha (618 ac) of emergent
land distributed among 25 islands, inclusive of the lagoons surrounding
those islands.
(2) What take of sihek is allowed in the NEP area? (i) Throughout
the sihek NEP area, you will not be in violation of the Act if you take
a sihek, provided such take is nonnegligent and incidental to a lawful
activity, such as habitat management, invasive species management, or
scientific research and monitoring, and you report the take as soon as
possible as provided under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under
Sec. 17.32 may take sihek in the NEP area, pursuant to the terms of
the permit. Additionally, any employee or authorized agent of the
Service, Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, The Nature
Conservancy, Zoological Society of London, Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, and Calgary Zoo who is designated and trained to capture,
handle, band, attach transmitters, and collect biological samples, when
acting in the course of official duties, may take a sihek within the
NEP area if such action is necessary to:
(A) Handle birds for scientific purposes such as banding,
measuring, and sample collection;
(B) Relocate individuals or bring individuals into captivity for
the purposes of increasing sihek survival or fecundity;
(C) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned sihek;
(D) Salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific
study;
(E) Dispose of a dead specimen;
(F) Aid in law enforcement investigations involving the sihek; or
(G) Take sihek into captivity in accordance with the exit strategy
of the program (see paragraph (i)(5) of this section).
(iii) Any take pursuant to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)(C)
through (E) of this section must be reported as soon as possible to the
Permits Coordinator, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala
Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 (808/792-9400), who
will determine the disposition of any live or dead specimens.
(3) What take of sihek is not allowed in the NEP area? (i) Except
as expressly allowed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, all of the
provisions of Sec. 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the sihek in areas
identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and any manner of take
of a member of the NEP not described under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section is prohibited.
(ii) You must not possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export, by any means whatsoever, any sihek or part thereof
from the experimental population taken in violation of the regulations
in this paragraph (a) or in violation of applicable Territorial laws or
regulations or the Act.
(iii) It is unlawful for you to attempt to commit, solicit another
to commit, or cause to be committed, any take of sihek, except as
expressly allowed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4) How will the effectiveness of this introduction be monitored?
The Service will evaluate the introduction on an annual basis. This
evaluation will include, but will not be limited to, a review and
assessment of management issues, sihek movements, and post-release
behavior; food resources and dependence of sihek on supplemental food;
fecundity of the population; causes and rates of mortality; program
costs; impacts to the ex situ population; and information gathered to
inform releases on Guam or other sites.
(5) When will this introduction end? Depending on the
circumstances, the Service may either terminate the release program or
temporarily pause the release program to address identified issues
before resuming. When the Service terminates the program, the Service
will address the disposition of any remaining individuals in the NEP,
i.e., whether they will be relocated to captivity or to other suitable
habitat or whether they would remain on Palmyra, based on the
circumstances at the time of termination.
(i) The Service will terminate the release program on Palmyra Atoll
if monitoring indicates that:
(A) The benefits from the Palmyra population (including developing
and refining release and support strategies for eventual releases on
Guam) no longer outweigh the risks to the species or the welfare of the
NEP or ex situ population; or
(B) Unacceptable impacts on the ecosystem can be clearly causally
linked to the introduction of sihek.
(ii) The Service may also terminate the release program when one or
more of the objectives of the program have been achieved (e.g., we have
developed successful release and monitoring methodologies to apply to
future release efforts or we have demonstrated that sihek can survive
and reproduce in the wild without human intervention).
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18571 Filed 8-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 31, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.