[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9681-9692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3732]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2008-0069; 92210-0-0010 B6]
RIN 1018-AV73
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Threatened Status for the New Zealand-Australia Distinct Population
Segment of the Southern Rockhopper Penguin
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened status for the New Zealand/Australia distinct population
segment of the southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This final rule
implements the Federal protections provided by the Act for this
species.
DATES: This rule becomes effective March 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite
400, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Branch Chief,
Foreign Species Branch, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), is a law that was passed to prevent extinction of
species by providing measures to help alleviate the loss of species and
their habitats. Before a plant or animal species can receive the
protection provided by the Act, it must first be added to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; section 4 of
the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the
procedures for adding species to these lists.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 29, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to
list 12 penguin species under the Act: emperor penguin (Aptenodytes
forsteri), southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome), northern
rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi), Fiordland crested penguin
(Eudyptes pachyrhynchus), snares crested penguin (Eudyptes robustus),
erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri), macaroni penguin (Eudyptes
chrysolophus), royal penguin (Eudyptes schlegeli), white-flippered
penguin (Eudyptula minor albosignata), yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes
antipodes), African penguin (Spheniscus demersus), and Humboldt penguin
(Spheniscus humboldti).
On July 11, 2007, we published in the Federal Register a 90-day
finding (72 FR 37695) in which we determined that the petition
presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing 10 of the penguin species as endangered or threatened may
be warranted, but determined that the petition did not provide
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the snares crested penguin and the royal penguin as endangered
or threatened may be warranted.
Following the publication of our 90-day finding on this petition,
we initiated a status review to determine if listing each of the 10
species was warranted, and sought information from the public and
interested parties on the status of the 10 species of penguins. In
addition, we attended the International Penguin Conference in Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia, a quadrennial meeting of penguin scientists from
September 3-7, 2007, to gather information and to ensure that experts
were aware of the status review. We also consulted with other agencies
and range countries in an effort to gather the best available
scientific and commercial information on these species.
On December 3, 2007, we received a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue
from the CBD. On February 27, 2008, CBD filed a complaint against the
Department of the Interior for failure to make a 12-month finding
(status determination) on the petition. On September 8, 2008, we
entered into a settlement agreement with the CBD, in which we agreed to
submit to the Federal Register 12-month findings for the 10 species of
penguins, including the southern rockhopper
[[Page 9682]]
penguin, on or before December 19, 2008.
On December 18, 2008, we published three documents: (1) A warranted
12-month finding and proposed rule to list the African penguin as
endangered under the Act (73 FR 77332); (2) a warranted 12-month
finding and proposed rule to list the yellow-eyed penguin, white-
flippered penguin, Fiordland crested penguin, Humboldt penguin, and
erect-crested penguin as threatened under the Act (73 FR 77303); and
(3) a warranted 12-month finding and proposed rule to list a
significant portion of the ranfge (SPR) of the New Zealand/Australia
distinct population segment (DPS) of the southern rockhopper penguin as
threatened under the Act, together with a not-warranted 12-month
finding to list the remainder of the range of the southern rockhopper
penguin, as well as any portion of the range for the northern
rockhopper penguin, macaroni penguin, and emperor penguin (73 FR
77264).
We finalized the actions listed in (1) and (2) above on September
28, 2010 (75 FR 59645), and August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45497), respectively.
This final rule completes the action referred to in (3) above.
The SPR we proposed for listing for the southern rockhopper penguin
on December 18, 2010 (73 FR 77264), was the Campbell Plateau portion of
the New Zealand/Australia (NZ-AUS) DPS. We implemented the Service's
peer review process and opened a 60-day comment period to solicit
scientific and commercial information on the species from all
interested parties following publication of the proposed rule.
On March 9, 2010, CBD filed a complaint against the Service for
failure to issue a final listing determination for seven penguin
species, including the Campbell Plateau SPR of the NZ-AUS DPS of
southern rockhopper penguin, within 12 months of the proposals to list
the species. In a court-approved settlement agreement, the Service
agreed to submit a final listing determination for the Campbell Plateau
SPR of the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper penguin to the Federal
Register by February 18, 2011.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We base this final listing determination on a review of the best
scientific and commercial information available, including all
information received during the public comment period. In the December
18, 2008, proposed rule (73 FR 77264), we requested that all interested
parties submit information that might contribute to development of a
final rule. We also contacted appropriate scientific experts and
invited them to comment on the proposed listing. We received 6 comments
on our proposed action: 4 from members of the public and 2 from peer
reviewers. Two members of the public indicated the species should be
listed range-wide but did not provide new or additional information to
support this claim. We also received several comments and new
information pertaining to species, or portions of the southern
rockhopper penguin's range, we determined in our 2008 status review (73
FR 77264) were not warranted for listing. We thank the public and peer
reviewers for this information and request that the public and peer
reviewers continue to submit to our office (see ADDRESSES) any new
information concerning the status of, or threats to, these species. New
information will help us monitor the status of the species.
We reviewed all comments we received from the public and peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
proposed listing of the Campbell Plateau SPR of the NZ-AUS DPS of
southern rockhopper penguin. We address those comments below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from three individuals with
scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from two of the peer reviewers from
whom we requested comments. They generally agreed that the description
of the biology and habitat for the species was accurate and based on
the best available information. New or additional information on the
biology of, and threats to, the southern rockhopper penguin was
provided and incorporated into this rulemaking as appropriate. In some
cases, it has been indicated in the citations by ``personal
communication'' (pers. comm.), which could indicate either an email or
telephone conversation; in other cases, the research citation is
provided.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer found the analysis and approach used
in the proposed rule to be appropriate and scientifically sound given
the quality and patchiness of available data. However, this reviewer
noted inconsistencies in the proposed rule related to trends on
Macquarie Island. The reviewer noted that in the Campbell Plateau SPR
analysis we stated ``numbers at Macquarie Island are reported to be
stable'', while in other sections of the proposed rule we indicated
population trends on Macquarie Island were uncertain due to poor data.
The reviewer also states that the Macquarie Island population is
believed to have decreased from earlier reports of distribution and
abundance, and that it would be more appropriate to describe the
Macquarie Island population as possibly stable following a decrease
during the past 30 or so years.
Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer regarding
inconsistencies in statements in the proposed rule related to Macquarie
Island population trends. The evidence does not support our statement
in the proposed rule that numbers at Macquarie Island are reported to
be stable. Rather, reports indicate uncertain, or declining, population
trends on the island. We appreciate the reviewer's clarification that
numbers are believed to have decreased over recent decades from those
of earlier estimates. We have made changes to this final rule to
address the inconsistencies in the proposed rule and characterize the
Macquarie Island population as decreasing.
Public Comments
(2) Comment: One commenter expressed concern over the listing of a
species that occurs wholly outside the United States, and questioned
the protections afforded by the Act.
Our Response: We appreciate this comment and the opportunity to
clarify the stipulations of the Act. The Act stipulates that we are to
list any species determined under the Act to be endangered or
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
Act calls for this regardless of whether the species occurs partially
or wholly within or outside the United States. Protections for foreign
species under the Act include, among other things, prohibitions on
import and export into or from the United States, and prohibitions on
sale or commercial transport in interstate or foreign commerce.
Protections also include provisions for: (1) Financial assistance to
countries in which species listed as endangered or threatened under the
Act occur; (2) encouragement of foreign programs to provide for the
conservation of species, including those listed under the Act; (3)
technical assistance from Department of the Interior personnel; and (4)
law enforcement investigations and research abroad as deemed necessary
to carry out
[[Page 9683]]
the purposes of the Act. For more information on this subject, see
Available Conservation Measures, below.
(3) Comment: One commenter asserted that the best available science
on the taxonomic status of the southern rockhopper penguin indicates
the species be classified as two subspecies, that we should have
considered the southern rockhopper penguin as two subspecies, and that
we should analyze population status and threats for each subspecies
accordingly. The commenter further asserted that doing so may change
our Significant Portion of the Range analyses and conclusions. The
commenter also states that we failed to provide a justification as to
why we accepted BirdLife International's (BLI) treatment of the taxa as
two species but not BLI's treatment of the southern rockhopper species
as two subspecies.
Our Response: We accepted BLI's assessment of the two genetic
studies published in 2006, one which concluded that the taxa be
considered two species (Jouventin et al. 2006), and one which concluded
it be considered three species (Banks et al. 2006). BLI rejected Banks
et al.'s (2006) conclusion on the basis of small sample sizes used in
their study and limited morphological differences between the southern
and eastern forms. We agreed with BLI's assessment of these two
studies, and we accepted Jouventin et al. (2006) as the best available
science on the taxonomy of the complex. The commenter provided no new
information on this subject, and we uphold our decision to accept
Jouventin et al. (2006) as the best available science in this final
rule.
We agree with the commenter that treating the southern rockhopper
penguin as comprising two subspecies may change our SPR analyses and
conclusions. However, we do not accept BLI's treatment of the southern
rockhopper penguin as two subspecies. Jouventin et al. (2006), which we
accept as the best available information, did not make any conclusions
regarding further divisions or subspecies classification within the
taxa. They indicate that their research does not allow them to make
conclusions beyond those made, i.e. that rockhopper penguins consist of
two species. In addition, the three recent genetic studies (discussed
above) include samples from only two of the three widely separated
regions (Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Patagonia-Atlantic Ocean) in
which southern rockhopper penguins occur. None of these studies
analyzed samples from the Pacific Ocean region (the NZ-AUS DPS), and,
as a result, subspecies relationships within the southern rockhopper
species are uncertain. That the species taxonomy remains uncertain is
supported by the fact that a comprehensive investigation of southern
rockhopper penguin taxonomy is a key recommendation of a recent
international workshop tasked with producing a plan for rockhopper
penguin research and conservation (BLI 2010, p. 8). Because a complete
taxonomy of southern rockhopper penguin is lacking, and because
Jouventin et al. (2006), whom we have determined represents the best
available science, were unable to make conclusions on subspecies
classification, we treat the southern rockhopper penguin as one
undivided species and consider our SPR analysis and conclusions to be
appropriate.
As discussed in this final rule, recent evidence presented in de
Dinechin et al. (2009) supports the conclusions of Banks et al. (2006)
that the rockhopper taxa consists of three species. Therefore, this new
evidence could also be interpreted as lending support to the
commenter's assertion that the southern rockhopper penguin be
considered two subspecies. However, as discussed above, BLI has yet to
consider the new evidence provided in de Dinechin et al. (2009), and
still considers the taxa as two species. Because we rely on BLI for
expert assessment of the literature pertaining to the taxonomy of the
species, and because there are current gaps in taxonomic research on
the species, especially with respect to the NZ-AUS DPS, we continue to
consider Jouventin et al. (2006) the best available science and,
consequently, treat the rockhopper penguin as two species, and the
southern rockhopper penguin as an undivided species.
We have made changes in this final rule to clarify our rationale
and justification for why we did not accept BLI's treatment of the
southern rockhopper penguin as two subspecies.
(4) Comment: The same commenter stated that our analysis of Factor
A (the Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Habitat or Range) omits any mention or discussion of ocean
acidification, and thus fails to consider the best available science on
the threat that ocean acidification poses to the southern rockhopper
penguin's marine foraging habitat and prey species.
Our Response: We acknowledge that the issue of ocean acidification
was not directly addressed in the proposed rule. With respect to
penguins, the best available information does not address how ocean
acidity would impact the physiology of, and food web associated with,
this penguin species. We acknowledge that ocean acidification may be a
concern, but at this time, any conclusion would be purely speculative
regarding how much the oceanic pH may change in the penguins' habitat
and how subsequent changes in the species' environments would interact
with other known threats. The manner in which a change in ocean pH may
affect penguins is currently unpredictable.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
We fully considered comments from the public and peer reviewers on
the proposed rule to develop this final listing of the NZ-AUS DPS of
the southern rockhopper penguin. This final rule incorporates changes
to our proposed listing based on the comments that we received that are
discussed above, and newly available scientific and commercial
information.
We made some technical corrections to this final rule, added
clarifying language, and added new information where appropriate, based
on comments we received and new information available. None of the
information changed our determination that the southern rockhopper
penguin within the Campbell Plateau region warrants listing as
threatened. However, due to peer reviewer comments and newly available
information, in this final rule we determine that the population on
Macquarie Island is declining and is threatened by changes in the
marine environment. We therefore determine that the species is
threatened throughout the entire NZ-AUS DPS, and we list the entire DPS
as threatened in this final rule. We feel that listing the entire DPS
represents a relatively minor change from the proposed action. Although
listing the entire DPS adds an additional range country to the affected
area, it extends protections of the Act to penguins breeding on only
one additional island in the Pacific Ocean region of the species'
range.
Species Information
Taxonomy
Rockhopper penguins are among the smallest of the world's penguins,
averaging 20 inches (in) (52 centimeters (cm)) in length and 6.6 pounds
(lbs) (3 kilograms (kg)) in weight. They are the most widespread of the
crested penguins (genus Eudyptes), and are so named because of the way
they hop from boulder to boulder when moving around their rocky
colonies. Rockhopper penguins are found on islands from near the
Antarctic Polar
[[Page 9684]]
Front to near the Subtropical Convergence, in the South Atlantic,
Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 183).
The taxonomy of the rockhopper complex is contentious. Formerly
treated as three subspecies (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 182), recent
papers suggest that these should be treated as either two species
(Jouventin et al. 2006, pp. 3,413-3,423) or three species (Banks et al.
2006, pp. 61-67; de Dinechin et al. 2009, pp. 693-702).
Jouventin et al. (2006, pp. 3,413-3,423), following up on recorded
differences in breeding phenology, song characteristics, and head
ornaments used as mating signals, conducted genetic analysis between
northern subtropical rockhopper penguins and southern subantarctic
rockhopper penguins using the Subtropical Convergence, a major
ecological boundary for marine organisms, as the dividing line between
them. Their results supported the separation of E. chrysocome into two
species, the southern rockhopper (E. chrysocome) and the northern
rockhopper (E. moseleyi).
Banks et al. (2006, pp. 61-67) compared the genetic distances
between the three rockhopper subspecies and compared them with such
sister species as macaroni penguins. Banks et al. (2006, pp. 61-67)
suggested that three rockhopper subspecies--southern rockhopper (E.
chrysocome chrysocome), eastern rockhopper (E. chrysocome filholi), and
northern rockhopper (E. chrysocome moseleyi)--should be split into
three species.
More recently, de Dinechin et al. (2009, pp. 693-702) used gene
sequences from Jouventin et al. (2006), Banks et al. (2006), and new
samples from the Falkland Islands to determine divergence times between
populations. Their results suggest the rockhopper complex consists of
three species, supporting the conclusions of Banks et al. (2006).
Despite these three genetic studies, the taxonomy of rockhopper
penguins remains uncertain due to gaps in the taxonomic research. For
instance, the three genetic studies (discussed above) include samples
from only two of the three widely separated regions (Indian Ocean,
Pacific Ocean, and Patagonia-Atlantic Ocean) in which southern
rockhopper penguins breed. None of these studies analyzed samples from
the Pacific Ocean region (the NZ-AUS DPS).
BLI (2007, p. 1; 2008a, p. 1) reviewed the two papers published in
2006 and made the decision to adopt, for the purposes of their
continued compilation of information on the status of birds, the
conclusion of Jouventin et al. (2006, p. 3,419) that there are two
species of rockhopper penguin. In doing so, they noted that the
proposed splitting of an eastern rockhopper species from E. chrysocome
had been rejected because of small sample sizes and weak morphological
differentiations between the circumpolar populations south of the
Subtropical Convergence (BLI 2008a, p. 1; Banks et al. 2006, p. 67).
Thus, BLI considered Jouventin et al. (2006) the best available
science. BLI has yet to consider the new evidence presented in de
Dinechin et al. (2009), and still treats the rockhopper complex as
consisting of two species.
We do not accept BLI's treatment of the southern rockhopper species
as consisting of two subspecies. Jouventin et al. (2006), on which BLI
based their decision to treat rockhopper penguins as two species, do
not make any conclusions regarding further divisions within these
species, or subspecies classification. They indicate that their
research provides evidence for speciation between northern and southern
rockhopper populations, but explicitly refrain from making conclusions
on the taxonomic structure of rockhopper penguins as a whole, noting
that further research is needed to determine the definitive taxonomy of
the genus (Jouventin et al. 2006, pp. 3,421). In addition, existing
genetic studies do not include analysis of samples from the NZ-AUS DPS,
which comprises one of the three regions in the world in which southern
rockhopper penguins breed. As a result, subspecies relationships within
the southern rockhopper species are uncertain. The uncertainty of the
species taxonomy is further supported by the fact that a comprehensive
investigation of southern rockhopper penguin taxonomy was a key
recommendation of a recent international workshop tasked with producing
a plan for rockhopper penguin research and conservation (BLI 2010, p.
8). Because a complete taxonomy of southern rockhopper penguin is
lacking, and because Jouventin et al. (2006, pp. 3,413-3,423), whom we
have determined represents the best available science, were unable to
make conclusions on subspecies classification, we treat the southern
rockhopper penguin as one undivided species. However, we will continue
to evaluate the taxonomy of rockhopper penguins as new information
becomes available and will reevaluate their status as appropriate.
On the basis of our review, we accept Jouventin et al. (2006) as
the best available science and treat the rockhopper penguins as two
species, the northern rockhopper penguin (E. moseleyi) and the southern
rockhopper penguin (E. chrysocome). We accept Jouventin et al. (2006)
as the best available science because the rockhopper taxonomy is
uncertain, because we accept BLI's assessment of the literature and
determination that Jouventin et al. (2006) represents the best
available science on the subject, and because BLI has yet to consider
de Dinechin et al. (2009).
Life History of Southern Rockhopper Penguins
In general, southern rockhopper penguin breeding begins in early
October (the austral spring) when males arrive at the breeding site a
few days before females. Breeding takes place as soon as the females
arrive, and two eggs are laid 4 to 5 days apart in early November. The
first egg laid is typically smaller than the second, 2.8 versus 3.9
ounces (oz) (80 versus 110 grams (g)), and is the first to hatch.
Incubation lasts about 33 days and is divided into three roughly equal
shifts. During the first 10-day shift, both parents are in attendance.
Then, the male leaves to feed while the female incubates during the
second shift. The male returns to take on the third shift. He generally
remains for the duration of incubation and afterward to brood the
chicks while the female leaves to forage and returns to feed the
chicks. Such a system of extended shift duration requires lengthy fasts
for both parents, but allows them to forage farther afield than would
be the case if they had a daily changeover. The newly hatched chicks
may have to wait up to a week before the female returns with their
first feed. During this period, chicks are able to survive on existing
yolk reserves, after which they begin receiving regular feedings of
around 5 oz (150 g) in weight. By the end of the 25 days of brooding,
chicks are receiving regular feedings averaging around 1 lb 5 oz (600
g). By this stage they are able to leave the nest and group
(cr[egrave]che) with other chicks, allowing both adults to forage to
meet the chicks' increasing demands for food (Marchant and Higgins
1990, p. 190).
During the breeding season, penguins are susceptible to local
ecosystem perturbations because they are constrained by how far they
can swim from the terrestrial habitat in search of food (Davis 2001, p.
9). Therefore, a decrease in food availability could have substantial
consequences on reproductive success. Southern rockhopper penguins
typically rear only one of two chicks, although those near the Falkland
Islands are capable of
[[Page 9685]]
rearing both chicks to fledging when conditions are favorable (Guinard
et al. 1998, p. 226). Reported breeding success is highly variable,
ranging from 0.23 to 0.91 chicks per breeding pair, with the greatest
reported success rate (0.91 chicks per breeding pair) occurring at the
Falkland Islands (Crawford et al. 2008, p. 186; Hull et al. 2005, p.
714; Raya Ray et al. 2007, p. 829; Poisbleau et al. 2008, p. 930;
Clausen and Putz 2002, p. 51). Chicks fledge at around 10 weeks of age,
and adults then spend 20 to 25 days at sea building up body fat
reserves in preparation for their annual molt. The molt lasts for
around 25 days, and the birds then abandon the breeding site. They
spend the winter feeding at sea, prior to returning the following
spring (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 185).
The southern rockhopper penguin is widely distributed around the
Southern Ocean, breeding on subantarctic islands in the Indian,
Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans (Shirihai 2002, p. 71; Otley and Thompson
2010, p. 28). Breeding islands are clustered in three different
geographic regions: the Pacific Ocean region, which comprises the NZ-
AUS DPS; the Patagonia region, which includes the Falkland Islands and
breeding islands in the southeast Pacific Ocean and southwest Atlantic
Ocean surrounding Patagonia; and the Indian Ocean region. Southern
rockhopper penguin range includes island breeding habitat and marine
foraging areas. In the breeding season, these marine foraging areas may
lie within as little as 6 miles (mi) (10 kilometers (km)) of the colony
(as at the Crozet Archipelago in the Indian Ocean), as distant as 97 mi
(157 km) (as at the Prince Edward Islands in the Indian Ocean), or for
male rockhopper penguins foraging during the incubation stage at the
Falkland Islands in the Southwest Atlantic, as much as 289 mi (466 km)
away (Sagar et al. 2005, p. 79; Putz et al. 2003, p. 141). Foraging
ranges vary according to the geographic, geologic, and oceanographic
location of the breeding sites and their proximity to sea floor
features (such as the continental slope and its margins or the
subantarctic slope) and oceanographic features (such as the polar
frontal zone or the Falkland current) (Sagar et al. 2005, pp. 79-80).
Winter at-sea foraging areas are less well-documented, but penguins
from the Staten Island breeding colony at the tip of South America
dispersed over a range of 501,800 square miles (mi\2\) (1.3 million
square kilometers (km\2\)) covering polar, sub-polar, and temperate
waters in oceanic regions of the Atlantic and Pacific as well as shelf
waters (Putz et al. 2006, p. 735) and traveled up to 1,242 mi (2,000
km) from the colony.
Distribution and Abundance in the NZ-AUS DPS
The NZ-AUS DPS is comprised of the marine foraging area and four
breeding islands within the Pacific Ocean region. These four islands
are: Macquarie Island (in Australia waters); and Campbell, Auckland,
and Antipodes Islands (in New Zealand waters) (BLI 2007, pp. 2-3;
Woehler 1993, pp. 58-61; Gales et al. 2010, pp. 92-93). Southern
rockhopper penguin breeding colonies within the NZ-AUS DPS inhabit a
unique ecological and geographical position in the range of the
species. The underwater topography and oceanography of this area is
unique and has been described in detail in the Macquarie Island
Management Plan (Parks and Wildlife Service (Australia) 2006, pp. 20-
22). The islands sit in areas of relatively shallow water, generally
less than 3,280 ft (1,000 m) deep. Macquarie Island is on the shallow
Macquarie Ridge, which is associated with a deep trench to the east,
and connects to the north with the broader Campbell Plateau, an
extensive area of shallow water that is part of the continental shelf
extending southeast from New Zealand. The New Zealand islands
(Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes) with breeding colonies of southern
rockhopper penguins are located on the Campbell Plateau. This region
and all their associated islands are located north of the Antarctic
Polar Front Zone (APFZ), a distinct hydrographic boundary with cold,
nutrient-rich, surface waters to the south and warmer, less rich, water
to the north. In addition, the Macquarie Ridge and Campbell Plateau
form a major obstruction to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which
runs easterly at about 50[deg] S latitude. This further increases the
high degree of turbulence and current variability in the area and is
likely to directly or indirectly encourage biological productivity
(Parks and Wildlife Service (Australia) 2006, pp. 20-22).
Historical numbers of southern rockhopper penguins in this region
may have been as high as 960,000 breeding pairs, with declines recorded
from the New Zealand islands. Currently there are approximately 89,600-
101,500 breeding pairs in the region, which represents 6 to 7 percent
of the current estimated population of 1.4 million southern rockhopper
penguin breeding pairs range-wide.
Macquarie Island
Order of magnitude estimates at Macquarie Island (Australia)
reported 100,000-300,000 pairs in the early 1980s (Woehler 1993, p. 60;
Taylor 2000, p. 54). The 2006 Management Plan for the Macquarie Island
Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area reported that the total number
of southern rockhopper penguins in this area may be as high as 100,000
breeding pairs. However, estimates from 2006-07 indicate 32,000-43,000
breeding pairs at Macquarie Island (BLI 2008, p. 2), an order of
magnitude lower than the earlier categorical estimate. Given that the
earlier estimate is categorical, quantitative data on trends on this
island are not available. However, expert opinion suggests a declining
trend on the island. Gales et al. (2010, p. 93) state that there are no
reliable data on trends, but categorize the population, based on
anecdotal observations, as having decreased. Hilton and Otley (2010,
pp. 32-33) acknowledge the lack of quantitative information on the
population but categorize the long-term population trend as decreasing.
Woehler (2009, pp. 1-2) describes the population as possibly stable
following a decrease during, approximately, the last 30 years. Given
these expert opinions on long-term trends, Woehler's uncertainty about
the current stability of the population, and a lack of evidence
indicating the population is currently stable, we rely on these expert
opinions to qualify the general long-term population trend on the
island as decreasing.
Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes Islands
In New Zealand territory, southern rockhopper penguin numbers at
Campbell Island declined by 94 percent between the early 1940s and 1985
from approximately 800,000 breeding pairs to 51,500 (Cunningham and
Moors 1994, p. 32). The majority of the decline appears to have
coincided with a period of warmed sea surface temperatures between 1946
and 1956. It is widely inferred that warmer waters most likely affected
southern rockhopper penguins through changes in the abundance,
availability, and distribution of their food supply (Cunningham and
Moors 1994, p. 34); recent research suggests they may have had to work
harder to find the same food (Thompson and Sagar 2002, p. 11).
According to standard photographic monitoring, numbers in most colonies
at Campbell Island continued to decline from 1985 to the mid-1990s
(Taylor 2000, p. 54), although the extent of such declines has not been
quantified in the literature. The New Zealand Department of
Conservation (DOC) provided
[[Page 9686]]
preliminary information from a 2007 Campbell Island survey team that
``the population is still in decline'' (Houston 2008, p. 1), but
quantitative analysis of these data has not yet been completed. At the
Auckland Islands, a survey in 1990 found 10 colonies produced an
estimate of 2,700-3,600 breeding pairs of southern rockhopper penguins
(Cooper 1992, p. 66). This was a decrease from 1983, when 5,000-10,000
pairs were counted (Taylor 2000, p. 54). There has been a large decline
at Antipodes Islands from 50,000 breeding pairs in 1978 to 4,000 pairs
in 1995 (Tennyson et al. 2002, p. 244). There is no more recent data
for Auckland or Antipodes Islands (Houston 2008, p. 1).
Other Status Classifications
The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List
classifies the entire southern rockhopper penguin species as
`Vulnerable' due to rapid population declines, which ``appear to have
worsened in recent years.'' Southern rockhopper penguins are listed
under New Zealand's Threat Classification System as Nationally
Endangered. The species is not listed in Australia, which maintains a
list of, and provides protections to, species under their Environmental
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Summary of Factors Affecting the DPS
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. These factors and their
application to the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper penguin are
discussed below.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Habitat
There are few reports of destruction, modification, or curtailment
of the terrestrial habitat of the southern rockhopper penguin. Analyses
of large-scale declines of southern rockhopper penguins have uniformly
ruled out that impacts to the terrestrial habitat have been a limiting
factor to the species (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34; Keymer et al.
2001, pp. 159-169; Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 394), and we have no
reason to believe threats to the terrestrial habitat will emerge in the
future. We, therefore, find that impacts to terrestrial habitat are not
a threat to the species.
Climate-Related Changes in the Marine Environment
Reports of major decreases in both southern and northern rockhopper
penguin numbers have been linked to sea surface temperature changes and
other apparent or assumed oceanographic or prey shifts in the vicinity
of breeding colonies (Cunningham and Moors 1994, pp. 27-36; Crawford et
al. 2003, pp. 487-498; Clausen and Huin 2003, pp. 389-402). Within the
NZ-AUS DPS at Campbell Island, a 94 percent decrease in southern
rockhopper penguin numbers occurred between the early 1940s and 1985
(Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 32). Cunningham and Moors (1994, pp. 27-
36) compared the pattern of the penguin decline (from 800,000 breeding
pairs in the early 1940s to 51,500 pairs in 1985) to patterns of sea
surface temperature change. The authors concluded that drastic southern
rockhopper penguin declines were related to increased sea surface
temperature changes at Campbell Island. They found that peaks in
temperature were related to the periods of largest decline in numbers
within colonies, in particular in 1948-49 and 1953-54. One study colony
rebounded in cooler temperatures in the 1960s, when temperatures
reached a minimum of 47.5 [deg]F (8.6 [deg]C); however, with
temperature stabilization at higher levels (mean 49.5 [deg]F (9.7
[deg]C)) in the 1970s, declines continued. Colony sizes have continued
to decline into the 1990s (Taylor 2000, p. 54), and preliminary survey
data indicate that numbers at Campbell Island continue to decline
(Houston 2008, p. 1).
Cunningham and Moors (1994, p. 34) concluded that warmer waters
most likely affected the diet of the Campbell Island southern
rockhopper penguins. In the absence of data on the 1940's diet of
Campbell Island southern rockhopper penguins, the authors compared the
1980s diet of the species at Campbell Island to southern rockhopper
penguins elsewhere. They found the Campbell Island penguins eating
primarily fish--southern blue whiting (Micromesisteus australis), dwarf
codling (Austrophycis marginata), and southern hake (Merluccius
australis)--while elsewhere southern rockhopper penguins were reported
to eat mainly euphausiid crustaceans (krill) and smaller amounts of
fish and squid. Based on this comparison of different areas, the
authors concluded that euphausiids left the Campbell Island area when
temperatures changed, forcing the southern rockhopper penguins to adopt
an apparently atypical, and presumably less nutritious, fish diet. The
authors concluded that this led to lower departure weights of chicks
and contributed to adult declines (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34).
Subsequent research, however, has not supported the theory that
southern rockhopper penguins at Campbell Island switched prey as their
``normal'' euphausiid prey moved to cooler waters (Cunningham and Moors
1994, pp. 34-35). This hypothesis has been tested through stable
isotope studies, which can be used to extract historical dietary
information from bird tissues (e.g., feathers). In analyses of samples
from the late 1800s to the present at Campbell Islands and Antipodes
Islands, Thompson and Sagar (2002, p. 11) found no evidence of a shift
in southern rockhopper penguin diet during the period of decline. They
concluded that southern rockhopper penguins did not switch to a less
suitable prey, but that overall marine productivity and the carrying
capacity of the marine ecosystem declined beginning in the 1940s. With
food abundance declining or food moving farther offshore or into deeper
water, according to these authors, the southern rockhopper penguins
maintained their diet over the long timescale, but were unable to find
enough food in the less productive marine ecosystem (Thompson and Sagar
2002, p. 12).
Hilton et al. (2006, pp. 611-625) expanded the study of carbon
isotope ratios in southern and northern rockhopper penguin feathers to
most breeding areas, except those at the Falkland Islands and the tip
of South America, to look for global trends that might help explain the
declines observed at Campbell Island. They found no clear global-scale
explanation for large spatial and temporal-scale rockhopper penguin
declines. While they found general support for lower primary
productivity in the ecosystems in which rockhopper penguins feed, there
were significant differences between sites. There was evidence of a
shift in diet to lower trophic levels over time and in warm years, but
the data did not support the idea that the shift
[[Page 9687]]
toward lower primary productivity reflected in the diet resulted from
an overall trend of rising sea temperatures (Hilton et al. 2006, p.
620). No detectable relationship between carbon isotope ratios and
annual mean sea surface temperatures was found (Hilton et al. 2006, p.
620).
In the absence of conclusive evidence for sea surface temperature
changes as an explanation for reduced primary productivity, Hilton et
al. (2006, p. 621) suggested that historical top-down effects in the
food chain might have caused a reduction in phytoplankton growth rates.
Reduced grazing pressure resulting from the large-scale removal of
predators from the subantarctic could have resulted in larger standing
stocks of phytoplankton, which in turn could have led to lowered cell
growth rates (which would be reflected in isotope ratios), with no
effect on overall productivity of the system. Postulated top-down
effects on the ecosystem of southern rockhopper penguins, which
occurred in the time period before the warming, first noted in the
original Cunningham and Moors (1994, p. 34) study, are the hunting of
pinniped populations to near extinction in the 18th and 19th centuries
and the subsequent severe exploitation of baleen whale
(Balaenopteridae) populations in the 19th and 20th centuries (Hilton et
al. 2006, p. 621). While this top-down theory may explain the regional
shift toward reduced primary productivity, it does not explain the
decrease in abundance of food at specific penguin breeding and foraging
areas.
Hilton et al. (2006, p. 621) concluded that considerably more
development of the links between isotopic monitoring of rockhopper
penguins and the analysis of larger-scale oceanographic data is needed
to understand effects of human activities on the subantarctic marine
ecosystem and the links between rockhopper penguin demography, ecology,
and environment.
Meteorologically, the events described for Campbell Island from the
1940s until 1985, including the period of oceanic warming, occurred
after a record cool period in the New Zealand region between 1900 and
1935, the coldest period since recordkeeping began (Cunningham and
Moors 1994, p. 35). These historical temperature changes have been
attributed to fluctuations in the position of the Antarctic Polar Front
caused by changes in the westerly-wind belt (Cunningham and Moors 1994,
p. 35). Photographic evidence suggests that southern rockhopper penguin
numbers may have been significantly expanding as the early 1900s cool
period came to an end (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 33) and just
before the rapid decrease in numbers.
Without longer-term data sets pertaining to fluctuations in numbers
of southern rockhopper penguins at Campbell Island and longer
temperature data records at a scale appropriate to evaluating impacts
on this particular breeding colony, it is difficult to draw conclusions
on the nature or cause of the marine-based threat. It is reasonable to
conclude, however, that the situation at Auckland and Antipodes Islands
is similar to that on Campbell Island, given the shared location (on
the Campbell Plateau) and similar population trends on these islands.
We found no information on the causes of the population decline on
Macquarie Island, and we have not identified sea temperature or other
oceanographic data on an appropriate scale to evaluate historical
trends or make predictions on future trends at this site. Macquarie
Island is located on Macquarie Ridge, south of the Campbell Plateau.
Although oceanographic conditions surrounding Macquarie Island differ
from those on Campbell Plateau, air temperatures at Macquarie Island
are reported to be rising (Adamson et al. 1988, p. 107), and the island
is reported to have experienced a marked shift in its climate since
1970 (Adams 2009, p. 1). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, given
the relationships between climate and oceanographic conditions, that
the marine environment near the island, on which breeding penguins
depend for food, is also changing. Changes in the marine environment,
and possible shifts in food abundance or distribution in the marine
environment, have been cited as leading to historical and present-day
declines on Campbell Island (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 32), and in
other areas of the species' range (Crawford et al. 2003, p. 496;
Crawford and Cooper 2003, p. 415; Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 394).
Estimates from 2006-07 indicate 32,000-43,000 breeding pairs at
Macquarie Island (BLI 2008, p. 2), an order of magnitude lower than
earlier categorical estimates. Given that the earlier estimate is
categorical, quantitative data on trends on this island are not
available. However, expert opinion suggests a long-term declining trend
on the island. Gales et al. (2010, p. 93) state that there are no
reliable data on trends, but categorize the population, based on
anecdotal observations, as having decreased. Hilton and Otley (2010,
pp. 32-33) acknowledge the lack of quantitative information on the
population but categorize the long-term population trend as decreasing.
Woehler (2009, pp. 1-2) describes the population as possibly stable
following a decrease during, approximately, the last 30 years. Given
these expert opinions on long-term trends, Woehler's uncertainty about
the current stability of the population, and a lack of evidence
indicating the population is currently stable, we rely on these expert
opinions to qualify the general long-term population trend on the
island as decreasing. In the absence of any major factors on land,
given the evidence for marine-based declines within the Campbell
Plateau portion of the DPS and elsewhere in the species' range, and
given we have no information indicating a reversal or abatement of the
causes of these declines, the best available information indicates that
some change in the oceanographic ecosystem has led to past declines and
will likely lead to future declines in the southern rockhopper penguin
population on Macquarie Island.
Summary of Factor A
Based on our review of the best available information, we conclude
that changes to the marine environment, which influence the southern
rockhopper penguin, have affected the NZ-AUS DPS of the species. In the
absence of identification of other significant threat factors and in
light of the best available scientific information indicating that prey
availability, productivity, or sea temperatures are affecting southern
rockhopper penguins within the DPS, we find that changes to the marine
environment are a threat to southern rockhopper penguins throughout the
NZ-AUS DPS.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Southern rockhopper penguins are not commercially traded. They are
not listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and we found no records of
trade on the CITES trade database (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/citestrade). Tourism and other human disturbance impacts are reported
to have little effect on the species (BLI 2007, p. 3). All New Zealand
subantarctic islands, including Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes
Islands, are nationally protected and inscribed as New Zealand
Subantarctic Islands World Heritage sites; thus, human visitation of
the islands is tightly restricted at all sites where penguins occur
(Taylor 2000, p. 54; BLI 2007, p. 4; United Nations Environmental
Program, World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP WCMC)
[[Page 9688]]
2008a, p. 5). Macquarie Island is also a World Heritage site with
limited and controlled visitation (UNEP WCMC 2008b, p. 6).
We have no information indicating overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to any
portion of the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper penguins, nor any
reason to believe that levels of utilization will increase in the
future.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
Disease
Information on disease in the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper
penguin is limited. We found no information on the occurrence of
disease on Auckland, Antipodes, or Macquarie Islands. Investigations
have ruled out disease as a significant factor in major population
declines at Campbell Island in the 1940s and 1950s. De Lisle et al.
(1990, pp. 283-285) isolated avian cholera (Pasteurella multocida) from
the lungs of dead chicks and adults sampled during the year of decline
1985-86 and the subsequent year 1986-87. They were unable to determine
whether this was a natural infection in southern rockhopper penguins or
one that had been introduced through the vectors of rats, domestic
poultry, cats (Felis catus), dogs (Canis familiaris), or livestock that
have been prevalent on the island in the past. While the disease was
isolated in four separate colonies along the coast of Campbell Island,
and there was evidence of very limited mortality from the disease, the
authors concluded there was no evidence that mortality from this
pathogen on its own may have caused the decline in numbers at Campbell
Island (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34). Assays for a variety of
other infectious avian diseases found no antibody responses in southern
rockhopper penguins at Campbell Island (de Lisle et al. 1990, pp. 284-
285).
In summary, we have no information indicating disease is a threat
in any portion of the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper penguins, nor
any reason to believe that levels of disease will increase in the
future.
Predation by Native Species
Several native predators, such as skuas (Catharacta spp.), giant
petrels (Macronectes spp.), fur seals (Arctocephalus spp.), and sea
lions (Otaris spp.), prey on rockhopper penguins (Quillfeldt 2010, p.
50). We found no information indicating predation by marine mammals is
a threat to the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper penguins. Some
studies, including some on penguins, have shown that avian predation is
higher at the edges of bird colonies (Gilchrist 1999, pp. 21-29; Emslie
et al. 1995, pp. 317-327; Spear 1993, pp. 399-414; Tenaza 1971, pp. 81-
92). It has been suggested that, as a result, relative predation rates
will increase with colony fragmentation and shrinkage due to the
relationship between perimeter and area, and, therefore, that the
population trajectory of small and fragmented colonies are more likely
to be effected by avian predation (Jackson et al. 2005; Quillfeldt
2010, p. 50). Given the large decline in the numbers of southern
rockhopper penguins on islands within the DPS, it is possible that
avian predators may be having an increasing effect on the southern
rockhopper population there. However, we found no information
indicating that relative avian predation rates are increasing within
the NZ-AUS DPS. We, therefore, find that predation by native birds and
mammals is not a threat to the NZ-AUS DPS.
Predation by Introduced Species
At Campbell Island in New Zealand, de Lisle et al. (1990, p. 283)
ruled out Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), which were present on the
island at the time of precipitous declines, as a factor in those
declines. Quillfeldt (2010, pp. 50-51) reports that there is little
indication that mice, which occur on Auckland and Antipodes Islands, or
Norway rats, which occur on Macquarie Island, prey on rockhopper
penguins. Feral cats are present on Auckland Island, but have not been
observed preying on chicks there (Taylor 2000, p. 55), and Dilks (1979,
p. 65) found no rockhopper remains in the stomachs of feral cats on
Campbell Island. Although it was suggested that introduced predators
may affect breeding on Macquarie Island (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 49;
Quillfeldt 2010, p. 50), no information was provided to support this
idea. Therefore, we find that predation by introduced species is not a
threat to the NZ-AUS DPS.
Summary of Factor C
We found no information indicating disease or predation is a threat
to southern rockhopper penguins in the NZ-AUS DPS. Therefore, based on
our review of the best available information we find that neither
disease nor predation is a threat to the NZ-AUS DPS of southern
rockhopper penguin in any portion of its range, and no information is
available that suggests this will change in the future.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The majority of subantarctic islands are under protected status.
All New Zealand subantarctic islands, including Campbell, Auckland, and
Antipodes Islands, are nationally protected and inscribed as the New
Zealand Subantarctic Islands World Heritage sites. Human visitation of
the islands is tightly restricted at all sites where penguins occur
(Taylor 2000, p. 54; BLI 2007, p. 4; UNEP WCMC 2008a, p. 5). In
Australia, Macquarie Island is also a World Heritage site with limited,
controlled visitation and with management plans in place (UNEP WCMC
2008b, p. 6).
Based on our review of the existing regulatory mechanisms in place
for each of these areas and our analysis of other threat factors, we
find that existing regulatory mechanisms regarding the conservation of
the southern rockhopper penguin (BLI 2007, p. 4; Ellis et al. 1998, pp.
49, 53) are adequate throughout the DPS. There is no information
available to suggest these regulatory mechanisms will change in the
future.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Oil spills
We examined the possibility that oil spills may impact southern
rockhopper penguins within the NZ-AUS DPS. Such spills, should they
occur and not be effectively addressed, can have direct effects on
marine seabirds such as penguins.
We are aware of only one report of an oil spill incident within the
NZ-AUS DPS. In December 1987, the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD)
resupply vessel, the Nella Dan, ran aground in Buckles Bay, while
transferring fuel to the Australian National Antarctic Research
Expedition (ANARE) station on the northern end of Macquarie Island.
Approximately 270,000 liters (71,326 gallons) of mostly light marine
diesel fuel were released into the sea (Parks and Wildlife Service
(Australia) 2006, pp. 122-123). The only reported impacts we found were
to tidal and intertidal invertebrates in the Bay. It has been noted
that an offshore oil spill at Macquarie Island, especially on the west
(windward) side of the island, could be extremely serious given the
abundance of shore-dwelling wildlife and the difficulties of conducting
response operations in an isolated location where weather and sea
conditions are usually severe. Australian Antarctic Division vessels
and tourist vessels usually anchor one or more kilometers from
[[Page 9689]]
shore on the leeward side of the island, which reduces the likelihood
of an oil spill reaching the coast, although a fishing vessel regularly
operates off the west side of the island (Parks and Wildlife Service
(Australia), pp. 122-123). Parks and Wildlife Service (Australia)
(2006, pp. 122-123) state that a Macquarie Island Station Oil Spill
Contingency Plan provides policies and procedures for dealing with
nearshore oil spills in the waters of Buckles Bay, but that it would be
nearly impossible to contain an oil spill anywhere else. The National
Plan to Combat Marine Oil Spills developed by the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority concludes that, in the event of a spill, little could
be done at Macquarie Island except for attempting to clean oil off
critical species (Parks and Wildlife Service (Australia) 2006, pp. 122-
123).
We found no information on oil spills within the New Zealand waters
of the DPS. However, New Zealand has in place the New Zealand Marine
Oil Spill Response Strategy, which provides the overall framework to
mount a response to marine oil spills that occur within New Zealand's
area of responsibility. The aim of the strategy is to minimize the
effects of oil on the environment and human safety and health. The
National Oil Spill Contingency Plan promotes a planned and nationally
coordinated response to any marine oil spill that is beyond the
capability of a local regional council or outside the region of any
local council (Maritime New Zealand 2007, p. 1). Rapid containment of
spills in remote areas and effective triage response under this plan
have shown these to be effective regulatory mechanisms for containing
spills and minimizing impacts to wildlife (New Zealand Wildlife Health
Center 2007, p. 2; Taylor 2000, p. 94). For instance, outside the range
of the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper penguin, the fishing Vessel
Seafresh 1 sank in Hanson Bay on the east coast of Chatham Island in
March 2000, and released 66 tons (60 tonnes (t)) of diesel fuel. Rapid
containment of the oil at this very remote location prevented any
wildlife casualties (New Zealand Wildlife Health Center 2007, p. 2).
The same source reported that in 1998, the fishing vessel Don Wong 529
ran aground at Breaksea Islets, off Stewart Island. Approximately 331
tons (300 t) of marine diesel was spilled along with smaller amounts of
lubricating and waste oils. With favorable weather conditions and
establishment of triage response, no wildlife casualties of the
pollution event were discovered (Taylor 2000, p. 94).
We recognize that an oil spill near a breeding colony could
potentially have local effects on the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper
penguin, particularly at Macquarie Island, where the ability to contain
a spill may be limited. However, there are an estimated 89,600-101,500
breeding pairs of southern rockhopper penguins spread among four
different island groups within the DPS, with an estimated 32,000-43,000
breeding pairs on Macquarie Island. Consequently, we find that oil and
chemical spills do not rise to the level of threatening the species
within the DPS given: (1) The size and distribution of breeding
colonies among the four island groups within the DPS; (2) subantarctic
breeding islands within the DPS are remote from shipping activity; (3)
the frequency and severity of previous spills are low; (4) New Zealand
has an effective New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy; and
(5) ships visiting Macquarie Island usually anchor well off the leeward
coast of the island. Therefore, we find that oil spills are not a
threat to the southern rockhopper penguin within the NZ-AUS DPS.
Furthermore, we found no information indicating that the frequency or
severity of oil spills in any portion of the species' range will
increase in the future, or that existing containment capabilities will
be weakened. Therefore, we conclude that oil pollution from oil spills
is not a threat to the species in any portion of its range now or in
the foreseeable future.
Fisheries
Fishing Bycatch
Incidental mortality of rockhopper penguins by fisheries operations
does not appear to be significant. Munro (2010, p. 57) reported that
rockhopper penguins are not particularly susceptible to mortality as
bycatch, and that bycatch monitoring systems very rarely report
mortality of rockhopper penguins. Southern rockhopper penguins could
potentially be caught in trawl nets, but there are no records of their
being caught in New Zealand subantarctic waters by this fishing method
(Taylor 2000, p. 94), nor do we have information suggesting they are
caught in Australian waters by this fishing method.
Competition With Fisheries
The Action Plan for Seabird Conservation in New Zealand (Taylor
2000, p. 94) reported that competition from fisheries may be a
potential threat to southern rockhopper penguins, as there is a major
fishery for southern blue whiting, a common prey species for this
penguin in New Zealand subantarctic waters. However, no additional
information was given, and we found no information suggesting impacts,
or potential impacts, to southern rockhopper penguins from competition
with any fisheries in New Zealand or Australian waters. Munro (2010, p.
57), in his assessment of fisheries interactions with rockhopper
penguin, notes that fisheries within New Zealand and Australia are well
regulated. He also does not identify competition with fisheries within
the NZ-AUS DPS (the Pacific Ocean region) as a concern. Munro (2010, p.
57) states, however, that effects of fishery catch on marine ecosystems
and apex predators like rockhopper penguins are not known in any of the
areas where rockhopper penguins forage.
Summary of Fisheries
In our review of fisheries activities, we found no reports of
documented fisheries interactions, or impacts from competition for prey
species, between southern rockhopper penguins and commercial fisheries
within the NZ-AUS DPS of the species. Nor did we find documentation of
fisheries bycatch of the species. While fisheries activities have the
potential to compete for the prey of southern rockhopper penguins,
there is no information indicating competition with fisheries is a
threat to the DPS of the species. Therefore, we find that fisheries
interactions with southern rockhopper penguins are not a threat to
species in any portion of the NZ-AUS DPS, and we have no reason to
believe this will change in the future.
Summary of Factor E
On the basis of analysis of potential impacts from oil spills and
fisheries, we find that other natural or manmade factors are not
threats to the southern rockhopper penguin in any portion of the NZ-AUS
DPS, now or in the foreseeable future.
NZ-AUS DPS Finding
We identified a number of potential stressors to this species
within the NZ-AUS DPS, including: (1) Changes in the marine
environment, (2) human use and disturbance, (3) disease and predation,
and (4) oil spills and competition with fisheries. To determine whether
these stressors individually or collectively rise to a ``threat'' level
such that the southern rockhopper penguin is in danger of extinction
throughout the DPS, or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future, we first considered whether the stressors to the species were
causing long-term, population-
[[Page 9690]]
scale declines in penguin numbers, or were likely to do so in the
future.
Historical numbers of southern rockhopper penguins for the NZ-AUS
DPS may have been as high as 960,000 breeding pairs; they are currently
estimated at 89,600-101,500 breeding pairs. Significant historical
declines have been reported, in particular, at Campbell Island, where a
decline of 94 percent was recorded between the early 1940s and 1985; at
Antipodes Islands, where a decline of 94 percent was recorded; and at
Auckland Islands, where the numbers halved between 1983 and 1990. At
Macquarie Island, which represents 32 to 48 percent of this DPS,
southern rockhopper penguin numbers were recently estimated to be an
order of magnitude lower than previous categorical estimates, and
expert opinion indicates a long-term declining trend in population on
this island. Current quantitative data is not available to indicate
whether, and to what extent, numbers throughout this DPS continue to
decline, but qualitative evidence indicates that numbers continue to
decline throughout the DPS.
In our five-factor analysis, we did not find evidence of any
significant changes to the terrestrial habitat of the southern
rockhopper penguin. Changes to the marine environment, however, are
cited as factors that have led to historical or recent large declines
within the Campbell Plateau portion of the range, and it is reasonable
to conclude that changes in the marine environment are the cause of
population affects at Macquarie Island. We have no reason to believe
these changes in the marine environment will be ameliorated in the
future; therefore, we find it reasonably likely that the effects on the
species in this DPS will continue at current levels or potentially
increase. On the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, including evidence of precipitous decreases of penguin
numbers in this DPS, we find that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its marine habitat or
range is a threat to the southern rockhopper penguin throughout the NZ-
AUS DPS.
On the basis of our five-factor analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease
or predation; and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms are not
threats to the southern rockhopper penguin in any portion of the NZ-AUS
DPS. On the basis of information on fisheries and oil spills, we find
that other natural or manmade factors are also not a threat to the
southern rockhopper penguin in any portion of the NZ-AUS DPS.
Having determined that changes in the marine environment are a
threat to the NZ/AUS DPS of southern rockhopper penguin, we next
determined whether changes in the marine environment rises to a
``threat'' level such that the DPS is in danger of extinction
(``endangered'' under the Act). We considered the historical data to
identify any relevant existing trends that might allow for reliable
prediction of the future (in the form of extrapolating the trends). We
also considered whether we could reliably predict any future events
(not yet acting on the species and therefore not yet manifested in a
trend) that might affect the status of the species. The available data
support a conclusion that there is a current overall declining trend in
population numbers throughout the DPS as a result of changes in the
marine environment. While the oceanographic factors contributing to
declines within the DPS are not clearly understood, they appear to
relate to changes in sea surface temperatures or to changes in marine
productivity at scales affecting individual colonies or regions,
causing reductions in food availability that may have occurred in short
periods or extended over periods of years. Current qualitative
information indicates that colonies are still in decline, although the
rate of that decline is undocumented. According to the most recent
estimates, there are approximately 90,000 to 100,000 breeding pairs of
southern rockhopper penguins within the DPS, distributed over four
breeding islands that are located in two different oceanographic
regions (Campbell Plateau and Macquarie Ridge). Because declines appear
to relate to changes in the marine environment at scales affecting
individual colonies or regions, and the timing of these declines
appears to vary, we are unable to predict the rate of current or future
declining trends at each of these breeding locations. However, the
presence of four breeding areas within this DPS provides a measure of
resiliency against changes in the marine environment that may cause
severe localized population declines within the DPS. We conclude that
the current number of breeding pairs of southern rockhopper penguin
within the NZ/AUS DPS and their distribution over four breeding
locations provides resiliency to the population against the effects of
marine-based threats such that the DPS is not currently in danger of
extinction.
Next, we considered whether changes in the marine environment pose
such a threat that the DPS is likely to become in danger of extinction
in the foreseeable future (``threatened'' under the Act). Though it is
possible the magnitude of current threats may increase in the future,
there is no evidence that any of the stressors or threats are growing
in magnitude. Thus, the foreseeable future includes consideration of
the ongoing effects of current threats at comparable levels on the
viability of the DPS.
It is reasonably likely that changes in the marine environment will
continue to affect the DPS at least at current levels, further reducing
the population numbers. Given the magnitude of declines recorded in the
Campbell Plateau region of the DPS during approximately the past 65
years, lower population numbers within the DPS are reasonably likely in
the foreseeable future. Lower population numbers would cause this DPS
to be more vulnerable to threats from changes in the marine habitat,
and more vulnerable to potential impacts from oil spills and other
random or catastrophic perturbations within the ecosystem. Loss of one
or more of the four breeding concentrations, two of which number less
than 4,000 breeding pairs, would significantly reduce the resiliency
and redundancy of populations in this DPS and increase the impact of
random or catastrophic perturbations on remaining population numbers in
the DPS.
We conclude that a reduction in range or number of southern
rockhopper penguins within the NZ/AUS DPS is likely in the foreseeable
future, and that this reduction is likely to increase its vulnerability
to changes in the marine environment and random or catastrophic
perturbations to the point where the viability of the DPS would be in
question. Therefore, on the basis of our analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the southern
rockhopper penguin throughout the range of the NZ-AUS DPS is likely to
become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, and thus
should be designated as a threatened species under the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Having determined that the NZ-AUS DPS of southern rockhopper
penguin meets the definition of threatened throughout its range, we
must next consider whether there are any significant portions of the
range of the species within the NZ-AUS DPS that meet the definition of
endangered. The
[[Page 9691]]
Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and a
threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.'' For the purpose of this analysis, we considered a
portion of the southern rockhopper penguin DPS's range to be
significant if is important to the conservation of the DPS because it
contributes meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, or
redundancy of the DPS. For a contribution to be meaningful, its loss
would at least have to result in a decrease in the ability to conserve
the DPS.
We found that changes in the marine habitat threaten the species
throughout the DPS. Although declines on the Campbell Plateau have been
quantified to some extent, the lack of quantitative population trend
information for Macquarie Island precludes a comparison of the declines
in these two portions of the range. Further, we found no information
indicating that the threat posed to the NZ-AUS DPS of southern
rockhopper penguins by changes in the marine habitat are of greater
magnitude or extent in either of these portions or any other portion of
the range of the DPS. Therefore, we conclude that the threats to the
species are essentially uniform throughout the DPS, and no portion of
the NZ-AUS DPS is currently in danger of extinction.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages
conservation actions by Federal governments, private agencies and
groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that the NZ-AUS DPS of the southern rockhopper penguin
is not native to the United States, critical habitat is not being
designated for this species under section 4 of the Act.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes limited financial assistance for
the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the
Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b)
and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation
programs for foreign endangered species and to provide assistance for
such programs in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. As such, these prohibitions would be applicable to
the NZ-AUS DPS of the southern rockhopper penguin. These prohibitions,
under 50 CFR 17.21 and applicable to threatened species through 50 CFR
17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to ``take'' (take includes harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt any of
these) within the United States or upon the high seas, import or
export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or to sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, any threatened
wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of
the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
References Cited
A complete list of the references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the
Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The authors of this rule are staff members of the Branch of Foreign
Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding a new entry for ``Penguin, southern
rockhopper'' in alphabetical order under BIRDS to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 9692]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Penguin, southern rockhopper....... Eudyptes chrysocome.. Southern Ocean, South New Zealand-Australia T 784 NA NA
Atlantic Ocean, distinct population
South Pacific Ocean, segment, associated
Southern Indian with the Campbell
Ocean. Plateau and
Macquarie Island.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: February 2, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-3732 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P