Rule2023-06958
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
April 4, 2023
Effective
May 4, 2023
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), are releasing (meaning introducing) 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, sihek exists only in captivity and has been extinct in the wild for more than 30 years. The introduction on Palmyra Atoll is outside 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 beginning to be deployed, but it will take time before these tools are effective enough for the reintroduction of sihek on Guam. We anticipate significant declines in sihek population that threaten the species' viability before reintroduction to Guam could occur. 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 classify this population as a nonessential experimental population (NEP) under the Act and provide 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19880-19894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06958]
[[Page 19880]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0061; FXES1113090FEDR-224-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), are
releasing (meaning introducing) 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, sihek exists only in captivity and has been
extinct in the wild for more than 30 years. The introduction on Palmyra
Atoll is outside 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 beginning to be deployed, but it
will take time before these tools are effective enough for the
reintroduction of sihek on Guam. We anticipate significant declines in
sihek population that threaten the species' viability before
reintroduction to Guam could occur. 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 classify this population as a
nonessential experimental population (NEP) under the Act and provide
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.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 4, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials we received in response to our
proposed rule, as well as supporting documents we used in preparing
this final rule, are 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:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under section 10(j) of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a population of a
threatened or endangered species may be designated as an experimental
population prior to its reintroduction. Experimental populations can be
designated only by issuing a rule (hereafter referred to as a ``10(j)
rule'').
What this document does. This rule will designate sihek
(Todiramphus cinnamominus) introduced to Palmyra Atoll as a
nonessential experimental population on the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at
50 CFR 17.11(h) with a rule set forth at 50 CFR 17.84.
The basis for our action. Based on the best scientific and
commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find
that introducing sihek to Palmyra Atoll, with the regulatory provisions
in this final rulemaking, will further the conservation of the species.
The nonessential experimental population status is appropriate for the
introduced population because we have determined that it is not
essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild.
In the making of our finding that this action will further the
conservation of the species, we evaluate any possible adverse effects
on the captive population of sihek, the likelihood that any such
experimental population will become established and survive in the
foreseeable future, the relative effects that establishment of an
experimental population will have on the recovery of the species, and
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. This rule also
identifies the boundaries of the experimental population, explains our
rationale for why the population is not essential to the continued
existence of the species, describes management restrictions, protective
measures, or other special management concerns of that population, and
explains our rationale for determining that the habitat for sihek has
been indefinitely altered or destroyed, currently a requirement under
section 10(j) of the Act, and our regulations in title 50 CFR 17.81,
for introducing a species outside its historical range.
Peer review and public comment. To ensure that our findings were
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis--and
consistent with our Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act
Activities (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994), and additional guidance (USFWS
in litt. 2016)--we invited six objective and independent specialists to
review our proposed rule. We received three responses. We also
considered all comments and information received during the public
comment period. All comments received during the peer review process
and the public comment period have been incorporated into this final
rule or are addressed below in Summary of Comments and Recommendations.
Background
On August 31, 2022, we published in the Federal Register a proposed
rule to establish a nonessential experimental population of sihek on
Palmyra Atoll (87 FR 53429, August 31, 2022). The comment period on the
proposed rule was open for 30 days, through September 30, 2022.
Comments on the proposed rule are addressed below under Summary of
Comments and Recommendations.
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
[[Page 19881]]
interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and
protect designated critical habitat. Section 7 mandates that 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 Act was amended in 1982 to include 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. The sihek
population we are establishing on Palmyra Atoll is designated as
nonessential.
The nonessential experimental population (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, a section 10j rule provides additional flexibility in
managing the nonessential population because Federal agencies are not
required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2) for an NEP. Section
7(a)(1) requires 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 do not 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 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).
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 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 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 sihek as an endangered species under the Act on August
27, 1984 (49 FR 33881). At the time of listing, sihek was known as the
Guam Micronesian kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina). On June
23, 2015 (80 FR 35860), we updated our List of Endangered and
Threatened
[[Page 19882]]
Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) to reflect new taxonomic information indicating
that the Guam Micronesian kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina)
is now considered the Guam kingfisher (Todiramphus cinnamominus).
Throughout this document, we refer to the species as sihek because that
is the locally used common name on Guam. We designated critical habitat
for 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 Sihek or Guam Micronesian
Kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina) in 2008 (73 FR 67541,
November 14, 2008).
Biological Information
Species Description
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 1.7-3.0 ounces (oz) (53 to 85 grams (g)) (Baker
1951, p. 228; Jenkins 1983, p. 21).
Historical and Current Range
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. Sihek are cavity
nesters 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 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). Sihek is
an island endemic that has not been observed flying over open ocean.
Causes of Decline and Threats
The primary cause of sihek's extinction in the wild was due to
predation by the introduced brown treesnake (USFWS 2008, p. 21).
Individuals of 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 island-wide presence of brown treesnakes on Guam
currently precludes consideration of Guam as a viable reintroduction
site for sihek. Future reintroductions to Guam could be considered only
if brown treesnakes were suppressed or eradicated at a scale that would
allow for the survival of a reintroduced population of sihek.
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 Sihek or Guam Micronesian Kingfisher
(USFWS 2008,
[[Page 19883]]
pp. 16-26) provides further description of these threats.
Recovery Efforts to Date
Criteria for reclassifying sihek from an endangered to threatened
species (``downlisting'') include the establishment of 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; the protection and management of habitat
sufficient to achieve the population criteria; and the management of
brown treesnakes and other introduced predators 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 the
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 the 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 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 sihek as well as other federally listed species on Guam
(USFWS 2020). 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 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 adequate 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, there is 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).
Island-wide eradication of invasive vertebrates has been achieved
on 965 islands for various taxonomic groups (see Keitt et al. 2011,
<a href="http://diise.islandconservation.org/">http://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="http://diise.islandconservation.org/">http://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 before significant
declines in the captive population of sihek are likely to occur,
discussed further below. 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. 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 due to the continued presence of brown treesnakes on Guam,
ultimately led to an ongoing breeding program. By 1990, the ex situ
population increased to 61 sihek in 12 mainland zoos. Currently, an
estimated 139 sihek are held at 25 AZA institutions and in a facility
at the Guam Department of Agriculture's Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources (DAWR) (Newland, S., in litt. 2022a).
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
[[Page 19884]]
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). One of the PVAs 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 (Trask et al. 2021, entire).
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 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 have shown that, with captive management
aimed at increasing reproductive output, the ex situ population can
support the releases for an experimental population on Palmyra Atoll
(Trask et al. 2021 p. 7).
Location and Boundaries of the NEP Area
The NEP area for sihek occurs outside the species' historical range
and encompasses the 618 ac (250 ha) 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 0.24 to 242 ac (0.1 to 97.9 ha).
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 144 mi (232 km) 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 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
(390 ac (158 ha)), 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 (226 ac (91.5 ha)), and cooperatively manages
the atoll with the Service. Home Island (1.8 ac (0.71 ha)) 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
Oceanic 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 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
[[Page 19885]]
number of sihek needed for a temporary training site (USFWS unpublished
data). No known predators of sihek occur on the Atoll. Further, we
developed a release and monitoring program that includes interventions
such as supplemental feeding if needed to increase the chances of
survival. We assessed the potential environmental impacts of
introducing sihek and designating the population as an NEP on Palmyra
in an environmental assessment (USFWS 2023) (See National Environmental
Policy Act section, below). To minimize risk to the ecosystem on
Palmyra Atoll associated with the introduction, we will monitor for
potential environmental impacts as part of the release program (see
Monitoring and Evaluation, below).
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 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 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
This nonessential experimental population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll
will 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 sihek on Guam are still present, they have been
made unavailable to sihek 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 before we expect
deleterious declines in the ex situ sihek population. 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 and that remains a recovery goal,
but current control methods are not likely to be able to eradicate this
threat prior to substantial forecasted declines in the sihek
population.
Introducing a species outside its historical range per our current
regulation at 50 CFR 17.81 requires the Service to find that a species'
primary habitat has been irreversibly altered or destroyed. While
sihek's primary habitat on Guam has not been irreversibly altered or
destroyed in perpetuity, we interpret the meaning of ``irreversibly
altered or destroyed'' in the context of the unique conditions facing
sihek and the very limited current alternatives to prevent its
extinction. The habitat on Guam has been irreversibly altered and
destroyed for a period of time meaningful to the survival of the
species. The ex situ population of sihek is extremely vulnerable to
rapid population decline and extinction risk under current reproductive
conditions (Johnson et al 2015, p. 8, Trask et al. 2021, p. 6) such
that increased reproductive output is paramount for population
viability (Trask et al 2021, p. 7). Holding and breeding space at
breeding institutions is limited, preventing growth of the ex situ
population. Methods to control brown treesnakes on Guam are not
sufficient to prevent significant predation on native bird species at
this time and prevents us from releasing sihek there presently.
Improvements in landscape-scale snake management are under development
and are making incremental progress but will not be available for use
prior to expected significant declines in the sihek population. Because
of the immediate need to increase reproductive output and due to the
continued presence of brown treesnakes on Guam, we find that sihek's
habitat on Guam is irreversibly altered or destroyed for the purpose of
this action, that is, until management of snakes at a landscape level
makes it suitable for reintroduction and recovery.
We are releasing 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 sihek's ability to survive in the wild, (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 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. We consider an experimental population essential if its
loss would be likely to appreciably
[[Page 19886]]
reduce the likelihood of survival of that species in the wild (50 CFR
17.80(b)). We are designating 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 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 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 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 continued
efforts to recover it in the wild will likely increase interest in the
species (Newland in litt. 2022b). 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 1 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, sihek 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).
Release 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. Once released, sihek will be exposed to conditions in the
wild that the species has not encountered in more than 30 years. While
still being held in pre-release aviaries on Palmyra Atoll, we will
provide natural prey items as much or as often as necessary so the
sihek can learn to forage on multiple food sources. Further, sihek will
be trained to come to feeders through reinforcement with a whistle,
thus allowing for a way to provide supplemental food if needed. We will
also conduct a thorough health assessment on each individual prior to
release to ensure they are in good body condition. After release, we
will monitor sihek daily, and if an individual is sick or injured, we
may intervene and bring it back under human care temporarily.
After the first year, we may reduce the intensity of monitoring if
few or 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, and 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 (Andrews et al. in
litt. 2022).
Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor Population
The donor population for the 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 Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources
(DAWR) facility), with the population being managed through the Sihek
Species Survival Plan Program (see Captive-Breeding Efforts). The most
recent population count documented 139 birds (Newland in litt. 2022a).
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 to and
maintenance of sihek at that facility, has allowed 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). We have
observed measurable population increases when there has been 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 because 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).
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
[[Page 19887]]
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 increase its productivity via multiple
clutching, 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, 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 may provide exceptions regarding the taking of
individual animals under the Act. The specific prohibitions and
exceptions we adopt in this final rule are compatible with most routine
human activities anticipated in the 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. Incidental take of sihek within the experimental
population area will be allowed, provided that the take is
unintentional and not due to negligent conduct.
Special Handling/Intentional Take: Employees of the Service, Guam
DAWR, The Nature Conservancy, Zoological Society of London, 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 will address our section 7(a)(2) consultation obligations
for sihek within the Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge through a
programmatic intra-Service consultation completed prior to releasing
birds. Any activities outside of those analyzed in our programmatic
consultation that may affect sihek within the NEP area will 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 our plans to introduce sihek to Palmyra
Atoll. We 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. We publicized availability of the proposed rule (87 FR 53429,
August 31, 2022) and the opportunity for comment with a press release
(<a href="https://fws.gov/story/2022-08/usfws-proposes-experimental-population-sihek-palmyra-atoll">https://fws.gov/story/2022-08/usfws-proposes-experimental-population-sihek-palmyra-atoll</a>). We also sent letters to 14 conservation partners,
notifying them of the availability of the proposed rule and requesting
comments.
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 19888]]
exhibiting behaviors typical of Todiramphus species; and (2) sihek are
not having undesirable impacts on prey species populations (undesirable
impacts are discussed 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.
If undesirable impacts on prey species populations are not resolvable,
we would evaluate whether this was an unacceptable impact requiring
termination of the program. Unacceptable impacts are discussed below,
in Exit Strategy.
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 several different mechanisms of impact that introduced
species (that 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 that 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
evaluated the relative risk of competition, hybridization, predation
impacts, and disease transmission in an environmental assessment. Based
on our analysis in the environmental assessment, we conclude there is
no risk of competition or hybridization, and there are sufficient
measures in place to prevent disease transmission from the
introduction. In addition, the planned intensive monitoring will be
sufficient to detect, and provide a timely response to, potential
impacts of the sihek on the recipient ecosystem on Palmyra Atoll.
In the EICAT assessment, experts considered predation by sihek to
be the most likely impact of sihek introduction to Palmyra (although
the magnitude of this factor was judged to be moderate at most). 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. If 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).
Our present monitoring plan relies on a combination of targeted
prey species surveys and information from existing monitoring of
released birds. Our monitoring approach balances the negative impacts
of frequent invasive surveys with the need to identify serious negative
consequences of the sihek releases on the recipient site. Active
monitoring will be for 2 years after the first release, and we will
regularly assess results through monthly summaries, analyses at 6-month
intervals, and annual predictive modeling. After the first 2 years, we
will determine whether to continue at full intensity, reduce the
intensity of our monitoring, or discontinue monitoring. Factors that
will impact our decision making regarding monitoring include evidence
of:
<bullet> Sihek prey selection for a single species, which could
indicate population impacts to that species;
<bullet> detection of significant changes in abundance of prey in
areas with sihek compared with areas without sihek; or
<bullet> shifts in community composition and diversity that differ
significantly between areas with sihek and areas without sihek.
If any undesirable impacts are causally linked to the introduction
of sihek, we will weigh the benefits and risks in consultation with the
recovery team and The Nature Conservancy to determine whether to
continue ongoing management, adopt risk mitigation strategies, or
terminate the program (see Exit Strategy, below).
Annual reports summarizing 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 or
pause the release program to address identified issues before possibly
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 under any of the three
scenarios above. The monitoring team will summarize
[[Page 19889]]
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.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on August 31, 2022 (87 FR 53429), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by September 30, 2022. In addition, in accordance with our
joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July
1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and updated guidance issued on August 22, 2016
(USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited peer review of our proposed rule
from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise in
conservation translocation, endangered species management, Pacific
Island birds, and Guam native bird species. We received responses from
three peer reviewers. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, local experts, and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
We reviewed all comments received from the public and peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
establishment of an experimental population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll.
Comments on these issues and information are addressed in the following
summary and have been incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.
Changes other than minor word changes for clarification or correction
incorporated into the final rule are summarized in the Summary of
Changes from the Proposed Rule section, below.
Peer Review Comments
All peer reviewers expressed support for the introduction of an
experimental population of sihek with an associated 10(j) rule and
agreed that the action is likely to contribute to the conservation of
the species. Comments from peer reviewers resulted in updates in two
areas of this final rule (see Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule).
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated their support for
establishing a 10(j) experimental population because of the negative
consequences of maintaining a species solely in captivity, including
risks associated with small population size and inbreeding depression.
Response: Recent population viability models (Johnson et al. 2015
in litt and Trask et al. 2021) have demonstrated rapid declines in the
captive population if the reproductive rate remains the same. Breeding
facilities are currently at capacity, and the sihek's population growth
is constrained. The establishment of an experimental population of
sihek on Palmyra Atoll will provide an opportunity to increase the
sihek population, and to expose a portion of this population to habitat
conditions in the wild for the first time in more than 30 years.
(2) Comment: Multiple reviewers commented that, at present, sihek
habitat on Guam is compromised by the continued presence of brown
treesnakes. They stated that, nevertheless, good progress is being made
towards the eventual eradication of brown treesnakes such that future
restoration of sihek to Guam remains an attainable goal.
Response: Reestablishing populations of sihek on Guam is an
essential component of the recovery strategy for sihek, as expressed in
the recovery criteria of the sihek recovery plan (USFWS 2008, pp. 42-
43). We presently cannot release sihek within their historical range
due to the continued presence of brown treesnakes. The establishment of
an experimental population on Palmyra Atoll will allow us the needed
testing of field techniques for the future reintroduction of sihek on
Guam, once landscape-scale management of brown treesnakes is
implemented and effective. In recent years, technological advances to
control brown treesnakes show promise as a tool to control snakes at a
landscape level. However, they are not yet sufficient to protect sihek
from unsustainable predation, and therefore it is not possible to
reintroduce sihek to Guam before significant declines in the ex situ
population are expected to occur. Thus, the establishment of an
experimental population on Palmyra Atoll helps reduce sihek extinction
risk while brown treesnake control methods are refined and implemented.
(3) Comment: One reviewer stated that releasing sihek onto Palmyra
Atoll as an experimental population is reasonable and scientifically
sound. They went on to state that considerable work has been conducted
to assess the suitability of Palmyra for Guam kingfishers, and to
consider the possibilities of negative consequences to the fauna of
Palmyra. The reviewer further stated that the process of introducing,
managing, and monitoring sihek on Palmyra would provide invaluable
knowledge for doing so eventually on Guam. As a result, the reviewer
stated that the 10(j) experimental population of sihek will greatly
increase the probability of success for a future Guam reintroduction.
Response: Introducing a species outside its historical range has
inherent risks, both to the species and the ecosystem into which it is
being introduced. We evaluated the extinction risk to sihek and
determined the experimental population on Palmyra Atoll would further
the species' recovery by increasing the worldwide population,
developing and refining release techniques, and establishing a source
of wild-adapted birds for future releases. We also evaluated the
suitability of Palmyra Atoll for sihek through an assessment of prey
availability and habitat suitability based on available information. We
will monitor sihek and prey species to evaluate potential impacts to
their populations. If negative changes in populations are causally
linked to sihek and are undesirable, we will weigh the benefits and
risks in consultation with the recovery team and The Nature Conservancy
to determine whether to continue ongoing management, adopt risk
mitigation strategies, or terminate the program (see Exit Strategy,
above).
(4) Comment: One reviewer commented that successfully establishing
a population of sihek on Palmyra would not only allow the species to
exist in the wild again, allowing for beneficial behaviors and
adaptations to be maintained, but would also be an important source of
individuals for the reintroduction of sihek to Guam when conditions
allow. Additionally, the process of introducing, managing, and
monitoring sihek on Palmyra would provide invaluable knowledge for
doing so
[[Page 19890]]
eventually on Guam. Therefore, the reviewer stated that the 10(j)
experimental population of sihek will greatly increase the probability
of success for a future Guam reintroduction.
Response: The successful establishment of the experimental
population on Palmyra will advance conservation and recovery of the
species. .
Public Comments
(1) Comment: Several commenters shared their support for the
proposed 10(j) experimental population as a first step toward
recovering the sihek.
Response: In our efforts to further the conservation of sihek, we
will learn valuable information that will inform future release
efforts, including release techniques, behavior in wild conditions, and
monitoring methods. We will also increase the number of sihek in
existence and have a small population of wild birds to potentially help
source future translocation efforts. Without the forethought of those
who brought sihek into captivity and the effort of the institutions
that have managed the populations during this time, the sihek would
have been lost.
(2) Comment: One commenter noted the importance of involving
CHamoru scientists and cultural practitioners in the development and
implementation of the project.
Response: The Service values incorporating biological and cultural
perspectives of the CHamoru people in sihek recovery efforts. At the
beginning of translocation site selection and project development in
2019, the Service held a workshop on Guam to receive input and feedback
from cultural leaders. The intent of the workshop was to acknowledge
and better understand the significant connection the sihek has with the
CHamoru people and their culture. We recognize that the release of
sihek is about much more than saving a species. Given the sihek's
cultural and biological importance to Guam, the Service developed
several objectives for connecting with the community that are reflected
in work plans that complement this 10(j) regulatory process under the
Act. Throughout project planning, in coordination with our partners, we
actively sought out local and indigenous community involvement. Today,
the Service continues to work with the Guam DAWR, scientists, cultural
practitioners, and the public as we collaborate to return the sihek
back to the wild. At the time of introduction, due to limited
transportation infrastructure and the distance of Palmyra Atoll from
Guam, accommodating more local involvement or protocols may be
challenging. The Service welcomes continued discussions with the
CHamoru community to address scientific and cultural protocols for the
sihek.
(3) Comment: One commenter noted the importance of an outreach
program on Guam to increase awareness of sihek and to engender support
for the establishment of an experimental population on Palmyra Atoll.
Response: A partner on Guam was awarded a nationally competitive
grant to assist with Guam outreach efforts. It is a multifaceted,
multiyear outreach program to be implemented prior to and concurrent
with the Service's sihek release and monitoring projects. The program
was developed by the Service's partners and Guam-based collaborators
with expertise in science and education, as well as with CHamoru
language and culture. This outreach will engage 40 teachers, train high
school students, and engage more than 2,000 fourth-grade students in
the first year. This program will also empower students and teachers to
take action to protect the sihek and Guam's natural resources, while
promoting an appreciation of the sihek's cultural significance. A
CHamoru Sihek Storybook will be produced in the CHamoru language, along
with a sihek activity book, and a website with updateable sihek
resources and student contributions. A sihek-focused curriculum will be
created and shared with teachers and students.
The outreach program is designed to increase awareness of the
sihek's story: its threats, the status and importance of the sihek
captive population, and future goals of the sihek recovery project.
Expanding its reach beyond schools and with the public, the outreach
program will share information at island-wide events and through local
media and will enable the Service and its partners to showcase outreach
milestones and successes.
(4) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about our proposal to
decrease ecosystem and prey monitoring if we detect negligible impacts
from the introduction of sihek and suggested that we further define
``unacceptable'' impacts.
Response: Many potential prey species occur on Palmyra Atoll, and
we have relatively little knowledge about what sihek will
preferentially feed upon after release, other than using general
assumptions about prey size and Todiramphus biology. Detecting the
impact of released sihek on prey species and the recipient ecological
community is likely to require a relatively large sample size,
replicated in space and time, to achieve sufficient statistical power.
Our monitoring plan relies on a combination of targeted prey species
surveys and information from monitoring released birds. Our monitoring
approach balances the negative impacts of frequent invasive surveys
with the need to identify serious negative consequences of the sihek
releases on the recipient site. Active monitoring will occur for at
least 2 years after the first release, and we will regularly assess
results through monthly summaries, more in-depth analyses at 6-month
intervals, and annual predictive modeling. After the first 2 years, we
will determine whether to continue at full intensity, downscale, or
discontinue monitoring.
In this final rule we have clarified that we will evaluate if
impacts are undesirable relative to sihek predation on local species
for purposes of our monitoring strategy based on the following factors:
<bullet> sihek prey selection for a single species, which could
indicate population impacts to that species;
<bullet> detection of significant changes in abundance of prey in
areas with sihek compared with areas without sihek; or
<bullet> shifts in community composition and diversity that differ
significantly between areas with sihek and areas without sihek.
If any undesirable impacts are causally linked to the introduction
of sihek, we will weigh the benefits and risks in consultation with the
recovery team and The Nature Conservancy to determine whether to
continue ongoing management, adopt risk mitigation strategies, or
terminate the program (see Exit Strategy, above).
As to the commenter's request that we provide specific definitions
for ``unacceptable'' impacts that require termination of the program,
we are unable to define specific, quantitative parameters to do so.
Rather, through our continued monitoring and coordination and
consultation with the recovery team and The Nature Conservancy, we
expect to keep ahead of any potential negative impacts to the ecosystem
as a result of the introduction in order to adaptively respond before
termination would be required.
(5) Comment: One commenter stated that the removal of eggs from the
captive population would have a deleterious impact and increase
extinction risk, particularly if the released individuals do not
survive.
Response: We intend to introduce a small number of sihek to Palmyra
Atoll: 9 individuals in the first year, with additional, likely
smaller, cohorts of
[[Page 19891]]
birds in subsequent years to reach a target population of 20 birds.
Evaluation has shown that a small increase in the 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). Further, we would remove eggs from captive-breeding pairs during
incubation, and allow the pair to lay another clutch, thus replacing
the birds removed from the ex situ (captive) population, which will--
from a demographic standpoint--negate the loss of these individuals.
The ex situ population is the only population of sihek in the world, so
we will monitor it closely to ensure that there are no negative impacts
to its viability and potential growth. We have included triggers for
pausing or ending the release program; a negative impact to the ex situ
population is one of the triggers for enacting one of those strategies.
(6) Comment: One commenter noted that the captive (ex situ) sihek
population is small, and that measures will need to be in place to
ensure the introduced population on Palmyra can survive.
Response: We recognize the importance of ensuring the integrity of
the captive (ex situ) population of sihek and implementing measures to
maximize the odds that the introduced population on Palmyra survives.
Only a small number of sihek will be removed from the ex situ
population (up to nine in the first year), and the best available
information indicates the ex situ population can support this program
without negative impacts to its viability. Once released on Palmyra,
sihek will be exposed to conditions in the wild--conditions that the
species has not encountered in more than 30 years. While still being
held in pre-release aviaries on Palmyra Atoll, we will provide natural
prey items as necessary so the sihek can learn to forage on multiple
food sources. Further, birds will be trained to come to feeders through
reinforcement with an associated sound, thus allowing supplemental food
provisioning if needed. We will also conduct a thorough health
assessment of each individual prior to release to ensure they are in
good body condition. After release, we will monitor individuals daily.
If a bird is sick or injured, we may intervene and bring it in under
veterinary care as needed.
(7) Comment: One commenter was concerned that sihek might consume
prey items with residual amounts of rodenticide from the 2011
eradication of rats from Palmyra Atoll.
Response: Amplification of toxicants through the food chain can be
a concern in predator eradication programs. A study to evaluate
potential impacts on Palmyra Atoll (Wegmann et al. 2019, entire)
collected samples of numerous species, including potential sihek prey
items, and tissue analyses showed no residue in invertebrates or geckos
3 years after the rat eradication. Thus, secondary exposure to
rodenticide through consumption of exposed prey items is highly
unlikely.
(8) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that sihek might
consume prey items that have ingested rodenticides used to prevent rats
from reinvading Palmyra Atoll.
Response: Rodents were eradicated from Palmyra in 2011, and efforts
to reduce the likelihood of reintroduction include a limited use of
rodenticide when planes or ships arrive at the Atoll. Rodenticide is
applied only around the points of entry (runway and dock), and baits
are contained within bait boxes (Wegmann in litt. 2022a). This
application occurs for two days prior to a plane or ship arriving and
remains in place for four days after the arrival of a plane and for 16
days after the arrival of a ship. The bait stations are monitored for
rodent signs, and hermit crabs (Coenobita brevimanus and C. perlatus)
on which sihek feed. The bait stations are placed on ``crab-resistant''
platforms to minimize entry by crabs, so very few crabs access the bait
stations, and those that are found weigh generally around 2.8 oz (80g),
which is well outside the size class of prey that sihek can take
(Wegmann in litt. 2022b, Andrews et al. 2022, p. 19). Further, research
showed no residue in invertebrates 3 years after the rat eradication
(Wegmann et al. 2019). As a result, secondary exposure to rodenticide
through consumption of exposed crustaceans is highly unlikely. If this
unlikely scenario occurs, we will evaluate methods to further minimize
such exposure risk (e.g., improving the stations to further reduce the
ability of crabs to enter), while balancing the need to prevent the
reinvasion of Palmyra by rodents. We would also consider the use of
non-toxicant biosecurity methods.
(9) Comment: Three commenters were concerned about potential
predation of sihek by brown treesnakes on Palmyra Atoll.
Response: No brown treesnakes occur on Palmyra Atoll. Sihek
released on Palmyra Atoll will not be exposed to any predation pressure
as no known predators of sihek occur on the Atoll.
(10) Comment: One commenter was concerned with introduced sihek
competing with other species on Palmyra Atoll, such as black drongo.
Response: Black drongos occur on Guam but do not occur on Palmyra
Atoll.
No other native or nonnative species on Palmyra Atoll share the
same diet or habitat preferences as the sihek. Thus, sihek will not
directly compete with any species on Palmyra Atoll.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
Comments received by the public and peer reviewers resulted in
updates in two areas from the proposed rule to the final rule. In the
final rule preamble, we:
<bullet> Provide more detail regarding how we will determine if
releasing sihek on Palmyra Atoll will have undesirable impacts to prey
species (see Ecosystem Impacts); and
<bullet> Provide more detail regarding management of released sihek
(see Release Procedures).
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 rulemaking will
further the conservation of the species. We find that the continued
presence of the brown treesnake on Guam means that sihek's native
habitat has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or destroyed for
the foreseeable future such that the introduction of sihek to Palmyra
Atoll outside of its probable historical range is warranted and
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81. We define the
foreseeable future as the period of time before significant declines in
the ex situ population of sihek are likely to occur. The nonessential
experimental population status is appropriate for the introduced
population; the potential loss of the experimental population would not
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 rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling
[[Page 19892]]
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 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 this rule does not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The
following discussion explains our rationale.
The areas that are affected under this 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 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
sihek population will be treated as proposed for listing, and,
therefore, Federal action agencies are not required to consult on their
activities, except on National Wildlife Refuge System lands, where the
NEP will 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 no sihek exist 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 rule broadly authorizes 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, carrying
out 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 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 no new or additional economic or regulatory restrictions will
be imposed upon private landowners due to the presence of the sihek.
Therefore, this 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 does 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 are not affected because the NEP
designation does not place additional requirements on any city, county,
or other local municipalities.
(2) This rule will 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 NEP designation
for sihek does 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 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 rule would allow for the
taking of sihek when such take is incidental to an otherwise legal
activity.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this 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 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 rule has significant federalism effects and have
determined that a federalism assessment is not required. This rule does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
[[Page 19893]]
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 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
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 coordinated closely
with the Guam Department of Agriculture in the preparation of this
rule. Therefore, this 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 rule would
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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 have analyzed the impact of this final
rule. In cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, we prepared an
environmental assessment, and we determined based on that assessment
that the proposed action of implementing the introduction of sihek to
Palmyra Atoll will not have a significant impact on the environment,
which we documented in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
(USFWS 2023).
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.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this 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 rule is Megan Laut of the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Signing Authority
Wendi Weber, Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on February 13, 2023, for publication. On March
19, 2023, Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically
and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby 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. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife under BIRDS by revising the entry for ``Kingfisher,
Guam (sihek)'' (as added February 2, 2023, at 88 FR 7134, and effective
May 3, 2023) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Kingfisher, Guam (=sihek)...... Todiramphus Wherever found, E................ 49 FR 33881, 8/27/
cinnamominus. except where 1984; 50 CFR 17.95(b)
listed as an \CH\.
experimental
population.
Kingfisher, Guam (=sihek)...... Todiramphus U.S.A. (Palmyra XN............... 88 [Insert Federal
cinnamominus. Atoll). Register page where
the document begins],
4/4/2023; 50 CFR
17.84(a) \10j\.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19894]]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by adding 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, or Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, 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 (a)(5) of this section).
(iii) Any take pursuant to paragraph (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).
* * * * *
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-06958 Filed 4-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 4, 2023.
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.