Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45497

§101.147 [Corrected] (Spheniscus humboldti), and erect- Summary of Comments and On page 41771, in §101.147, in the crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri) Recommendations third column, the tables are corrected to under the Endangered Species Act of In the proposed rule published on read as set forth below: 1973, as amended (Act). December 18, 2008 (73 FR 77303), we * * * * * DATES: This rule becomes effective requested that all interested parties (s) * * * September 2, 2010. submit information that might contribute to development of a final ADDRESSES: This final rule is available Receive rule. We also contacted appropriate Transmit (receive) (MHz) (transmit) on the Internet at http:// scientific experts and organizations and (MHz) www.regulations.gov. Comments and invited them to comment on the materials received, as well as supporting proposed listings. We received 13 (3) 10 MHz bandwidth chan- documentation used in the preparation nels: comments: 4 from members of the of this rule, will be available for public public, and 9 from peer reviewers. inspection, by appointment, during ***** We reviewed all comments received 2 2 normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 22025 ...... 23225 from the public and peer reviewers for and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax substantive issues and new information ***** Drive, Suite 420, Arlington, VA 22203. 22075 2 ...... 23275 2 regarding the proposed listing of these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: five species, and we have addressed ***** Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of those comments below. Overall, the Foreign Species, Endangered Species commenters and peer reviewers * * * * * Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, supported the proposed listings. One 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, comment from the public included Receive Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703- substantive information; other Transmit (receive) (MHz) (transmit) 358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you comments simply supported the (MHz) use a telecommunications device for the proposed listing without providing (7) 50 MHz bandwidth chan- deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information scientific or commercial data. Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. nels: Peer Review SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ***** In accordance with our policy 22025 2 ...... 23225 2 Background published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 22075 2 ...... 23275 2 34270), we requested expert opinions On December 18, 2008, we published from 14 knowledgeable peer reviewers ***** a proposed rule (73 FR 77303) to list the with scientific expertise that included yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes 2 These frequencies may be assigned to low familiarity with the species, the power systems, as defined in paragraph (8) of antipodes), white-flippered penguin geographic region in which the species this section. (Eudyptula minor albosignata), occur, and conservation biology Fiordland crested penguin (Eudyptes * * * * * principles. We received responses from pachyrhynchus), Humboldt penguin nine of the peer reviewers. They [FR Doc. C1–2010–17205 Filed 8–2–10; 8:45 am] (Spheniscus humboldti), and erect- generally agreed that the description of BILLING CODE 1505–01–D crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri) the biology and habitat for each species under the Endangered Species Act of was accurate and based on the best 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 available information. They provided DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et seq.). That document also served as some new or additional information on the 12–month finding on a petition to the biology and habitat of some of these Fish and Wildlife Service list these species, which are 5 of 12 penguin species and their threats, and penguin species included in the we incorporated that information into 50 CFR Part 17 petition. We opened the public the rulemaking as appropriate. In some [Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2008-0118] comment period on the proposed rule cases, it has been indicated in the [MO 92210-0-0010-B6] for 60 days, ending February 17, 2009, citations by ‘‘personal communication,’’ to allow all interested parties an which could indicate either an email or RIN 1018–AW40 opportunity to comment on the telephone conversation, while in other proposed rule. On March 9, 2010, the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife cases the research citation is provided. Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Plants; Determination of filed a complaint (CV-10-992, N.D. Cal) Peer Reviewer Comments Threatened Status for Five Penguin for failure to issue a final listing Species (1) Comment: Several peer reviewers determination within 12 months of the provided new data and information AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, proposal to list the species. In a court- regarding the biology, ecology, life Interior. approved settlement agreement, the history, population estimates, and threat ACTION: Final rule. Service agreed to submit a final rule to factors affecting these penguin species, the Federal Register by July 30, 2010. and requested that we incorporate the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Previous Federal Action new data and information into this final Wildlife Service (Service), determine rule and consider it in making our threatened status for five penguins: The For a detailed history of previous listing determination. With respect to yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes Federal actions involving these five potential threats, one peer reviewer antipodes), white-flippered penguin penguin species, please see the Service’s raised the issue of flipper banding of the (Eudyptula minor albosignata), proposed listing rule, which published yellow-eyed penguin. Several peer Fiordland crested penguin (Eudyptes in the Federal Register on December 18, reviewers provided clarifying pachyrhynchus), Humboldt penguin 2008 (73 FR 77303). information on predation with respect

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

to the Humboldt and white-flippered commenter indicated that the Service the oceanic pH may change in the penguins. Additionally, some of the failed to address anthropogenic climate penguins’ habitat and how the other peer reviewers provided technical change and how it will affect penguins, changes in the species’ environments corrections and brought to our attention particularly the Humboldt penguin. The would interact with other known recent papers discussing taxonomy and commenter also requested that we threats. The manner in which a change genetics. address the issue of accelerated ocean in ocean pH may affect penguins is Our Response: In addition to the warming and ocean acidification. The currently unpredictable. critical review provided by species commenter suggested that the pH experts, we considered scientific and (acidity) of the ocean is rapidly (5) Comment: The same commenter commercial information regarding these changing, and may lower by 0.3 to 0.4 requested that the Service consider penguin species contained in technical units by the year 2100, which would listing these five species as endangered documents, published journal articles, mean the acidity would increase by 100 instead of threatened based on the two and other general literature documents, to 150 percent. The commenter cited issues noted above. including over 30 documents we Orr et al. 2005 and Meehl et al. 2007. Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of reviewed since the publication of the Our Response: We thank the the Act requires us to make listing proposed rule to list these 5 penguin commenter who provided this decisions based solely on the best species. We have incorporated the new information for our consideration in scientific and commercial data information and technical corrections making this final listing determination. available. We have thoroughly reviewed into this final rule. In addition, we We will first respond to the comment all available scientific and commercial address flipper banding of the yellow- that greenhouse gas emissions will data for these species in preparing this eyed penguin, and information on accelerate ocean warming and increase final listing determination. We reviewed predation of the Humboldt and white- sea level rise. Gille (2002, p. 1276) historical and recent publications, as flippered penguins in the threats found that while ocean warming well as unpublished reports, concerning analyses for those species in this final occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, it these species. In addition, we used peer rule. leveled off in the 1980s and 1990s; review to provide a more focused, (2) Comment: One peer reviewer overall, there was an increase in ocean independent examination of the suggested that the mainland and sub- water temperature in the Southern available scientific information and its Antarctic populations of yellow-eyed Hemisphere over the past 50 years. application to the current status of the penguins should be considered separate Looking forward to years 2090-2099, species. As part of our evaluation, we management units, stating that there precipitation is predicted to increase was negligible genetic interchange across the sub-Antarctic and Antarctic carefully considered the quality and between populations. The peer reviewer region, with a greater than 20 percent reliability of all data to decide which cited information from 1989, and increase predicted for the Antarctic constitutes the best available data for indicated that more recent work was in continent (IPCC 2007, p. 10). We our consideration in making our final review, although no researcher or paper acknowledge that ocean warming and determination. We analyzed the threats was cited. sea level rise may occur. Warming of the in making our determination, and our Our Response: We reviewed the best climate system is unequivocal, as is now review of the threat factors indicate that available information, including two evident from observations of increases listing these five species as threatened is papers on the genetics of yellow-eyed in global average air and ocean warranted. After reviewing the peer penguin published in 2008 and 2009, temperatures, widespread melting of review and public comments we and found no basis to amend our initial snow and ice, and rising global average received, we have no reason to alter our finding. The 2008 and 2009 papers sea level ((IPCC 2007, p. 30). During the assessment. Based on our analysis, we support our finding that the species status review, we carefully evaluated determined that none of these five should be listed as threatened threats facing these species. We penguin species is currently in danger throughout its range. Additional considered the various threats in part of extinction throughout its entire range, discussion is found later in this based on their severity. In some cases, and therefore none of them meet the document under yellow-eyed penguin. the effects of climate change are definition of endangered under the Act (3) Comment: One peer reviewer unpredictable and understudied, and (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). raised the issue that the taxonomy of the the best available information does not white-flippered penguin has long been indicate how increased sea level rise Summary of Changes from Proposed in debate. and ocean warming may affect these five Rule Our Response: We reviewed the best penguin species. However, we We fully considered comments from available information regarding the determined what major stressors are the public and peer reviewers on the taxonomy of white-flippered penguin affecting the status of the species, and proposed rule to develop this final (Eudyptula minor albosignata), and we evaluated those stressors based on the listing of five foreign penguin species. found no basis to amend our taxonomic best available scientific and commercial This final rule incorporates changes to treatment of the species. See the information background section below on white- Secondly, we acknowledge that the our proposed listing based on the flippered penguin for additional issue of ocean acidification was not comments that we received that are discussion. directly addressed in the proposed rule. discussed above and newly available Again, with respect to penguins, the scientific and commercial information. Public Comments best available information does not Reviewers generally commented that the (4) Comment: One commenter address how ocean acidity would proposed rule was very thorough and provided additional information impact the physiology and food web comprehensive. We made some regarding potential threat factors associated with these five penguin technical corrections based on new, affecting these five species, and species. We acknowledge that ocean although limited, information. None of requested that we consider the acidification may be a concern, but at the information, however, changed our information and incorporate it into the this time, any conclusion would be determination that listing these five listing determinations. Specifically, the purely speculative regarding how much species as threatened is warranted.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45499

Species Information and Factors p. 10). In some places, they nest in population estimate for this area based Affecting the Species restored areas, and in other places, they on a comprehensive count. This Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), nest in areas where livestock are still estimate, while lower than previous and its implementing regulations at 50 present (McKinlay 2001, p. 10). Prior to estimates, may be lower because when CFR 424, set forth the procedures for land clearing for agriculture by the population estimates were done in adding species to the Federal Lists of European settlers, the historic habitat the 1980s and 1990s, they were partial Endangered and Threatened Wildlife was in coastal forests and shrub margins surveys rather than full surveys. It is and Plants. A species may be (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 237). unclear whether numbers have declined determined to be an endangered or In 2001, the New Zealand Department in the past two decades or whether threatened species due to one or more of Conservation (NZDOC) published the previous estimates, which extrapolated of the five factors described in section Hoiho (Megadyptes antipodes) Recovery from partial surveys, were overestimates 4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: Plan (2000–2025) to state the NZDOC’s (Massaro and Blair 2003, p. 110), but (A) The present or threatened intentions for the conservation of this evidence points to the latter. For destruction, modification, or species, to guide the NZDOC in its example, Darby and Seddon (1990, p. curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) allocation of resources, and to promote 58) provided 1988 estimates of 470 to overutilization for commercial, discussion among the interested public 600 breeding pairs at Stewart Island and recreational, scientific, or educational (McKinlay 2001, p. 20). The goal of the nearby Codfish Island, which the purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) Recovery Plan, which updates a 1985– researchers extrapolated from density the inadequacy of existing regulatory 1997 plan previously in place, is to estimates. In the Hoiho Recovery Plan, mechanisms; and (E) other natural or increase yellow-eyed penguin numbers which reported these 1988 numbers, it and have active community manmade factors affecting its continued is noted that, ‘‘In the case of Stewart involvement in their conservation. The existence. Island, these figures should be treated Below is a species-by-species threats primary emphasis over the 25–year with a great deal of skepticism. Only a analysis of these five factors. The period is to ‘‘retain, manage and create partial survey was completed in the ’’ ‘‘ species are considered in the following terrestrial habitat and to investigate early 1990s’’ (McKinlay 2001, p. 8). ’’ order: Yellow-eyed penguin, white- the mortality of hoiho at sea (McKinlay Darby (2003, p. 148), one of the authors flippered penguin, Fiordland crested 2001, p. 2). of the 1988 estimate, subsequently In 2007, the total population estimate penguin, Humboldt penguin, and erect- reviewed survey data from the decade was 1,600 breeding pairs (3,200 crested penguin. between 1984 and 1994 and revised the breeding adults in the population) estimates for this region down to 220 to Megadyptes Yellow-eyed Penguin ( (Houston 2007, p. 3). As of 2009, the 400 pairs. Houston (2008, p. 1) reported antipodes ) total estimate for this species is 7,000 numbers are stable in all areas of individuals (Boessenkool et al. 2009, p. Background Stewart and Codfish Islands, except in 815), which is not substantially different the northeast region of Stewart Island The yellow-eyed penguin, also known from the 2007 estimate. by its Maori name, hoiho, is the third In the recent past, the number of where disease and starvation are largest of all penguin species, averaging breeding pairs has undergone dramatic impacting colonies, as discussed in around 18 pounds (lb) (8 kilograms (kg)) periods of decline and fluctuation in detail below. While it is reported that in weight, the males averaging 1 kg parts of its range on the mainland of the the numbers of birds at Stewart and more than females at 8.5 kg. It is the South Island. Records suggest that the Codfish Islands have declined only species in the monotypic genus mainland populations declined by at historically (Darby and Seddon 1990, p. Megadyptes (Boessenkool et al. 2009, p. least 75 percent from the 1940s to 1988. 57), it is unclear to what extent declines 819). Yellow-eyed penguins breed on In 1988, there were 380 to 400 breeding are currently under way. the southeast coast of New Zealand’s pairs (Darby and Seddon 1990, p. 59). As of 2007, in the sub-Antarctic South Island, from Banks Peninsula to There have been large fluctuations since island range of the yellow-eyed Bluff at the southern tip; in Fouveaux a low of about 100 breeding pairs in the penguin, there were an estimated 400 Strait, and on Stewart and adjacent 1989–90 breeding season to over 600 in pairs on Campbell Island (down from islands just 18.75 mi (30 km) from the the 1995–96 breeding season (McKinlay 490 to 600 pairs in 1997), and 570 pairs southern tip of the New Zealand 2001, p. 10). Current mainland counts on the Auckland Islands (Houston, mainland; and at the sub-Antarctic indicate 450 breeding pairs on the 2007, p. 3). Auckland and Campbell Islands, 300 mi southeast coast of the mainland of the The yellow-eyed penguin is classified (480 km) and 380 mi (608 km), South Island (Houston 2007, p. 3). As as ‘‘Endangered’’ by the International respectively, south of the southern tip of recently as the 1940s, there were Union for Conservation of Nature the South Island. The distribution is reported to be individual breeding areas (IUCN) criteria (BirdLife International thought to have moved north since the where penguin numbers were estimated 2007, p. 1). When the New Zealand 1950s (McKinlay 2001, p. 8). The in the hundreds; in 1988, only 3 Action Plan for Seabird Conservation species is confined to the seas of the breeding areas on the whole of the was completed in 2000, the species’ New Zealand region and forages over South Island had more than 30 breeding IUCN Status was ‘Vulnerable,’ and it the continental shelf (Taylor 2000, p. pairs (Darby and Seddon 1990, p. 59). was listed as Category B (second 93). Just across the Fouveaux Strait at the priority) on the Molloy and Davis threat Unlike more strongly colonial southern tip of the South Island, at categories employed by the New breeding penguin species, yellow-eyed Stewart Island and nearby Codfish Zealand Department of Conservation penguins nest in relative seclusion, out Island, yellow-eyed penguin (NZDOC) (Taylor 2000, p. 33). On this of sight of humans and one another populations numbered a combined basis, the species was placed in the (Ratz and Thompson 1999, p. 205; estimate of 178 breeding pairs in the second tier of New Zealand’s Action Seddon and Davis 1989, pp. 653-659; early 2000s (Massaro and Blair 2003, p. Plan for Seabird Conservation. The Wright 1998, pp. 9–10). Current 110). While these populations are species is listed as ‘‘acutely threatened— terrestrial habitats range from native essentially contiguous with the nationally vulnerable’’ on the New forest to grazed pasture (McKinlay 2001, mainland range, this is the first Zealand Threat Classification System

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

List (Hitchmough et al. 2007, p. 45; breeding habitats. Habitat has been years into the 2000–2025 recovery plan, Molloy et al. 2002, p. 20). purchased or reserved for penguins at the long-term goal to increase yellow- the mainland Otago Peninsula, North eyed penguin populations remains Summary of Factors Affecting the Otago, and Catlins sites, with 20 elusive. However, significant public and Yellow-eyed Penguin mainland breeding locations (out of an private efforts have been undertaken in Factor A. The Present or Threatened estimated 32 to 42) reported to be under New Zealand over past decades to Destruction, Modification, or ‘‘statutory’’ protection against further protect and restore yellow-eyed penguin Curtailment of the Yellow-eyed habitat loss (Ellis 1998, p. 91). New, breeding habitat on the mainland South Penguin’s Habitat or Range currently unoccupied areas have been Island. Further, the species’ island Deforestation and the presence of acquired to provide the potential to breeding habitats have either not been grazing animals and agricultural support increased populations in the impacted or, if historically impacted, activities have destroyed or degraded future (McKinlay 2001, p. 12). Fencing the causes of disturbance have been and re-vegetation projects have been removed. In addition, the Yellow-eyed yellow-eyed penguin habitat throughout implemented to restore nesting habitat Penguin Trust has been active in the the species’ range on the mainland and to exclude grazing animals from conservation of this species, and has South Island of New Zealand. Much of breeding habitats (McKinlay 2001, p. purchased land specifically for the the decline in breeding numbers can be 12). In some cases, efforts to fence protection of the species. Because these attributed to loss of habitat (Darby and penguin reserves to reduce trampling by conservation efforts have been Seddon 1990, p. 60; Taylor 2000, p. 94). cattle have created more favorable implemented, we find that the present The primary historic habitat of the conditions for attack by introduced or threatened destruction, modification, reclusive yellow-eyed penguin on the predators (see Factor C) (Alterio et al. or curtailment of its terrestrial habitat or southeast coast of the South Island of 1998, p. 187). In addition, the Yellow- range is not a threat to the species. New Zealand was the podocarp eyed Penguin Trust has been active in In the marine environment, yellow- hardwood forest. During the period of the conservation of this species, and has eyed penguins forage locally around European settlement of New Zealand, purchased land specifically for the colony sites during the breeding season. almost all of this forest was cleared for protection of the species (http://yellow- Unlike most penguin species, yellow- agriculture, with forest clearing eyedpenguin.org.nz). Despite these eyed penguins tend to be benthic activities continuing into at least the efforts, yellow-eyed penguin numbers (bottom of ocean) rather than pelagic 1970s (Sutherland 1999, p. 18). This has on the mainland have not increased and (surface of ocean) feeders (Mattern 2007, eliminated the bulk of the historic have continued to fluctuate dramatically p. 295). They are known to feed on a mainland breeding vegetation type for at low levels, with no sustained variety of fish and squid species, this species (Marchant and Higgins increases over the last 27 years including opal fish (Hemerocoetes 1990, p. 237). With dense hardwood (McKinlay 2001, p. 10). Although we monopterygius), blue cod (Parapercis forest unavailable, the breeding range of did not rely on future conservation colias), sprat (Sprattus antipodum), yellow-eyed penguins has now spread efforts by New Zealand in our analysis silverside (Argentina elongata), red cod into previously unoccupied habitats of of threats, we note that efforts in the (Pseudophycis bachus), and arrow squid scrubland, open woodland, and pasture second phase of the Hoiho Recovery (Nototodarus sloani) (van Heezik 1990b, (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 237). Plan continue to focus on managing, pp. 209-210). Yellow-eyed penguins that Here the breeding birds are exposed to protecting, and restoring the terrestrial were tracked from breeding areas on the new threats. In agricultural areas, habitat of the yellow-eyed penguin Otago Peninsula on the mainland of the breeding birds are exposed to the (McKinlay 2001, p. 15). South Island foraged over the trampling of nests by domestic cattle. On the offshore and sub-Antarctic continental shelf in waters from 131 to For example, on the mainland Otago islands of its range, feral cattle and 262 feet (ft) (40 to 80 meters (m)) deep. Peninsula in 1985, cattle destroyed 25 sheep destroyed yellow-eyed penguin In foraging trips lasting on average 14 out of 41 nests (60 percent) (Marchant nests on Enderby and Campbell Islands hours, they ranged a median of 8 mi (13 and Higgins 1990, p. 238). (Taylor 2000, p. 94). All feral animals km) from the breeding area (Moore Yellow-eyed penguins are also more were removed from Enderby Island in 1999, p. 49). Foraging ranges utilized by frequently exposed to fire in these new 1993, and from Campbell Island in 1984 birds at the offshore Stewart Island were scrubland and agricultural habitat, such (cattle) and 1991 (sheep) (Taylor 2000, quite small (ca. 7.9 mi2 (20.4 km2)) as a devastating fire in 1995 at the Te p. 95). Reports indicate very little compared to the areas used by birds at Rere Yellow-eyed Penguin Reserve in change in the quality of terrestrial the adjacent Codfish Islands (ca. 208 the southern portion of the mainland of habitat of the yellow-eyed penguin mi2 (540 km2)) (Mattern et al. 2007, p. the South Island, which killed more habitat on these islands (McKinlay 115). than 60 adult penguins out of a 2001, p. 7). There is evidence that modification of population of 100 adults at the reserve, Although individual locations remain the marine environment by human as well as fledgling chicks on shore susceptible to fire or other localized activities may reduce the viability of (Sutherland 1999, p. 2; Taylor 2000, p. events, the threat of manmade habitat foraging areas for yellow-eyed penguins 94). Five years after the fire, there was destruction has been reduced over the on a local scale. Mainland population little evidence of recovery of bird dispersed range of the species on the declines in 1986–1987 have been numbers at this reserve (Sutherland mainland South Island. In our analysis attributed to ‘‘changes in the marine 1999, p. 3), although there had been of other threat factors, in particular environment and failure of quality food’’ considerable efforts to restore the land Factor C, we will further examine why (McKinlay 2001 p. 9), but we have not habitat through plantings, creation of the recovery goals for mainland found evidence attributing recent firebreaks, and predator control. populations have not been achieved. population changes at either mainland Habitat recovery efforts, dating as far Specifically, the goal in the 1985–1997 colonies or the more distant Campbell back as the late 1970s and set out in the recovery plan of maintaining two and Auckland Islands’ colonies to 1985–1997 Hoiho Species Conservation managed mainland populations, each changes in the marine environment. Plan (McKinlay 2001, p. 12), have with a minimum of 500 pairs, was not Mattern et al. (2007, p. 115) focused on protecting and improving achieved (McKinlay 2001, p. 13). Eight concluded that degradation of benthic

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45501

habitat by commercial oyster dredging is However, since then, we have learned tourism impacts can be achieved limiting viable foraging habitat and that tourists are viewing yellow-eyed (McKinlay 2001, p. 21). NZDOC is using increasing competition for food for a penguins on Enderby Island, which is these existing lists to guide the approval small portion of Stewart Island the northernmost island of a of tourism. Overall, under the plan, penguins breeding in areas on the Subantarctic group known as the tourism is being directed to those sites northeast coast of that island, resulting Auckland Islands approximately 320 km where impacts of tourism can be in chick starvation (King 2007, p. 106). (199 mi) south of New Zealand. Yellow- minimized. However, unregulated Chick starvation and disease are the two eyed penguins are extremely wary of tourism still occurs (McKinlay 2001, p. most prevalent causes of chick death at human presence and will not land on 8; PenguinSpirit 2009, p. 2, BLI 2010b, the northeast Stewart Island study the beach if humans are in sight p. 2) and affects penguins. colonies (King 2007, p. 106). Poor chick (McClung et al. 2004, p. 279). Yellow- With respect to the impact of research survival and, presumably, poor eyed penguins select nest sites with on yellow-eyed penguins, flipper recruitment of new breeding pairs, is dense vegetative cover and a high banding for scientific research was reported to be the main cause of a degree of concealment (Marchant and identified as having a negative effect on decline in the number of breeding pairs Higgins 1990, p. 240), and prefer to be some penguin species. At a 2005 (King 2007, p. 106). At the adjacent shaded from the sun and concealed penguin symposium, van Heezik Codfish Island, where food is more from their neighbors (Seddon and Davis presented findings (pp. 265-266) that abundant and diverse (Browne et al. 1989, p. 653). Given these secretive flipper banded penguins had a lower 2007, p. 81), chicks have been found to habits, research has focused on how the survival rate than nonbanded penguins flourish even in the presence of disease. potential of increasing tourism impacts for age class 2 to 11. Another review of Browne et al. (2007, p. 81) found dietary yellow-eyed penguins (Seddon and scientific research regarding flipper differences between the two islands. Ellenberg, 2008). In one study, yellow- banding found the survival rate of Stewart Island chicks received meals eyed penguins showed lower breeding flipper banded penguins compared with comprised of fewer species and less success in areas of unregulated tourism nonbanded penguins to be 21 percent energetic value than those at Codfish than in those areas visited infrequently less (Froget et al. 1998, pp. 409-413). Island. The foraging grounds of these for monitoring purposes only (McClung Dugger found a 10 percent reduced two groups do not overlap, suggesting et al. 2004, p. 279). survival rate in stainless steel–banded that local-scale influences in the marine penguins compared with nonbanded In an older study, no obvious impacts environment (Mattern et al. 2007, p. penguins (Petersen et al. 2006, p. 76). of tourist presence were found (Ratz and 115) are impacting the Stewart Island Petersen’s review of the effects of flipper Thompson 1999, p. 208). Breeding penguins. These authors concluded that banding indicated that there may be success appeared to be equivalent in at Stewart Island, degradation of benthic negative effects of flipper banding. both the colony visited by tourists and habitat by commercial oyster dredging is Different types of banding have been the colony not visited by tourists; limiting foraging habitat for yellow-eyed used, and species appear to be affected however, the penguins were habituated penguins. The 178 pairs on Stewart differently by them. In addition, there to a particular noninvasive level of Island and adjacent islands make up 11 may be coping mechanisms to percent of the total current population, tourism. In newer studies, disturbance compensate for any drag that penguins and only a portion of this number are was associated with increased heart experience when swimming with affected by the reported degradation of rate, stress level, energy use, and flipper bands. Other evidence of benthic habitat by fisheries activities. corticosterone levels (associated with negative effects of flipper banding Therefore, while the present or stress) in parents and lower fledgling include the finding that unbanded King threatened destruction, modification, or weights of chicks (Ellenberg et al. 2006, penguin adults were more likely to curtailment of its marine habitat or p. 95). Yellow-eyed penguins exhibited successfully breed, possibly because range by commercial oyster dredging is a stronger initial stress response than they arrived earlier at the colony for a threat to chick survival for some other penguin species at a breeding site courtship. They produced almost twice colonies at Stewart Island, we find that exposed to unregulated tourism as many young over four breeding the present or threatened destruction, compared to an undisturbed area seasons (Gauthier-Clerc et al. 2004, p. modification, or curtailment of its (Seddon and Ellenberg, 2008p. 171.) 424). Researchers hypothesize that the marine habitat is not a threat to the These studies have provided unbanded penguins have a competitive species overall. information, some of which is being advantage over the banded penguins, used in the design of visitor which appears to be a reasonable Factor B. Overutilization for management and control procedures at conclusion. This research identified Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or yellow-eyed penguin viewing areas to flipper banding as a problem, and the Educational Purposes minimize disturbance to breeding pairs. penguin scientific community The yellow-eyed penguin has become A key impact from human disturbance subsequently modified banding an important part of the ecotourism described in the Recovery Plan is that techniques. The detrimental tagging industry on the mainland South Island yellow-eyed penguins may not come methods were abandoned or modified. of New Zealand, particularly around the ashore or may leave the shore Therefore, after evaluating this factor, Otago Peninsula and the Southland prematurely after landing. The Hoiho we find that flipper banding, while it areas. Tourism is the primary Recovery Plan identified 14 mainland should continue to be monitored, does commercial, recreational, or educational areas where current practices of viewing not constitute a threat to this species. use of the yellow-eyed penguin. yellow-eyed penguins already minimize We have found no other reports of Approximately 126,000 tourists viewed tourism impacts on yellow-eyed impacts on this species from scientific penguins in New Zealand in 2006 and penguins and recommends that research or any other commercial, 2007 (NZ Ministry of Tourism, 2007). practices in these areas remain recreational, scientific, or educational When the proposed rule was unchanged. Eight additional areas were purposes. published, we were not aware of identified as suitable for development as Nature-based tourism has increased in tourism activities in the island portions tourist destinations to observe yellow- recent decades. The New Zealand DOC, of the range of the yellow-eyed penguin. eyed penguins where minimization of in cooperation with conservation,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

tourism, and industry stakeholders, has Zealand and previous results indicating older, larger chicks. Treatment with put measures in place to understand infection and mortality in yellow-eyed broad spectrum antibiotics was reported and minimize the impacts of tourism penguins, that continued monitoring of to have achieved ‘‘varying results,’’ and activities on the yellow-eyed penguin malarial parasites in this species should it is not known how this disease is through the Hoiho Recovery Plan. A be considered an essential part of their triggered (Houston 2005, p. 267). study by Seddon and Ellenberg in 2008 management until the issue of their In summary, disease has seriously indicates that yellow-eyed penguins are susceptibility is resolved. There have impacted both mainland and Stewart particularly sensitive to human been no subsequent disease-related die- Island populations of yellow-eyed disturbance such as tourism (pp. 169- offs of adult yellow-eyed penguins at penguins over the past two decades. A 170). Although yellow-eyed penguins mainland colonies since the 1990s mainland mortality event in 1990, do not always exhibit an obvious alarm (Houston 2007, p. 3). attributed to avian malaria, killed 31 reaction, other penguin species have The haemoparasite Leucocytozoon, a percent of the mainland adult exhibited increased heart rates when blood parasite spread by blackflies, was population of yellow-eyed penguin. humans were within 1 m (3 ft) of first identified in yellow-eyed penguins While there is lack of scientific certainty nesting penguins (Seddon and at the offshore Stewart and Codfish over the impact of malaria on yellow- Ellenberg, 2008, pp. 167, 170). Yellow- Islands in 2004 (Hill et al. 2007, p. 96) eyed penguins, the overall spread of this eyed penguins needed more recovery and was one contributor to high chick disease, the small population size of time than other penguins after exposure mortality at Stewart Islands in 2006– yellow-eyed penguins, and evidence of to a stressor (p. 170), and this stress 2007, which involved loss of all 32 its presence in their populations lead us response carries with it an associated chicks at the northeast Anglem Coast to conclude that this is an ongoing expenditure of energy. Based on this monitoring area of the Yellow-eyed threat. Disease events contributed to or information, we find that overutilization Penguin Trust. This parasite may have caused mortality of at least 20 percent for commercial, recreational, scientific, spread from Fiordland crested penguins, of chicks at Stewart Island in 2006–2007 or educational purposes, particularly which are known to house this parasite and complete mortality in local unregulated tourism, is a threat to the (Taylor 2000, p. 59). Chick mortality colonies. The continuing contribution to yellow-eyed penguin. was also reported at this area in 2007– yellow-eyed penguin chick mortality 2008 (Houston 2008, pers. comm.). It is from Leucocytozoon and diptheritic Factor C. Disease or Predation not clear if the Leucocytozoon stomatitus at Stewart Island and the Disease has been identified as a factor predisposes animals to succumb from recent high mortalities of mainland influencing both adult and chick other factors, such as starvation or chicks from diptheritic stomatitis mortality in yellow-eyed penguins. We concurrent infection with other indicate the potential for future have identified reports of one major pathogens (such as diphtheritic emergence or intensified outbreaks of disease outbreak involving adult stomatitis), or if it is the factor that these or new diseases. The emergence of penguins and ongoing reports of disease ultimately kills them, but over 40 disease at both mainland and Stewart in yellow-eyed penguin chicks. percent of chick mortality over three Island populations in similar time Initial investigation of a major die-off breeding seasons at Stewart Island study periods and the likelihood that of adult yellow-eyed penguins at Otago colonies was attributed to disease (King Leucocytozoon was spread to the Peninsula in 1990 failed to identify the 2007, p. 106). The survival of infected yellow-eyed penguin from the Fiordland etiology of the deaths (Gill and Darby chicks at nearby Codfish Island, where crested penguin point out the significant 1993, p. 39). This involved mortality of food is more abundant, indicates that possibility of future transmission of 150 adult birds or 31 percent of a nutrition can make a difference in known diseases between colonies or mainland population estimated at the whether mortality occurs in diseased between species, and the possibility of time to include 240 breeding pairs. chicks (Browne et al. 2007, p. 81; King emergence of new diseases at any of the Subsequent investigation of avian 2007, p. 106). Healthy adults who are four identified breeding locations of the malaria seroprevalence among yellow- infected, but not compromised, by this yellow-eyed penguin. eyed penguins found that the mortality endemic disease provide a reservoir for Predation of chicks and sometimes features, climatological data, and infection of new chicks through the adults by introduced stoats (Mustela pathological and serological findings at vector of blackflies. No viable method of erminea) (which are good swimmers), the time conformed to those known for treatment for active infections in either ferrets (M. furo), cats (Felis catus), and avian malaria outbreaks (Graczyck et al. chicks or adults has been identified. dogs (Canis domesticus) is the principal 1995, p. 404), leading the authors to At the mainland Otago Peninsula in cause of yellow-eyed penguin chick conclude that avian malaria was the 2004–2005 breeding season, an mortality on the South Island with up responsible for the die-off. These outbreak of Corynebacterium to 88.5 percent of chicks in any given authors associated the outbreak with a amycolatum infection (diptheritic habitat being killed by predators period of warmer than usual sea and stomatitis) caused high mortality in (Alterio et al. 1998, p. 187; Clapperton land temperatures. More recently, yellow-eyed penguin chicks (Houston 2001, p. 187, 195; Darby and Seddon Sturrock and Tompkins (2007, pp. 158– 2005, p. 267) at many colonies there and 1990, p. 45; Marchant and Higgins 1990, 160) looked for DNA from malarial on Stewart Island (where it may have p. 237; McKinlay et al. 1997, p. 31; Ratz parasites in yellow-eyed penguins and been a contributing factor to the et al. 1999, p. 151; Taylor 2000, pp. 93– found that all samples were negative. mortalities discussed above from 94). In a 6–year study of breeding This suggests that earlier serological Leucocytozoon). Mortality was not success of yellow-eyed penguins in tests were overestimating the prevalence recorded at Codfish Island or at the sub- mainland breeding areas, predation of infection or that infection was Antarctic islands (Auckland and accounted for 20 percent of chick transient or occurred in age classes not Campbell Islands). The disease mortality overall, and was as high as 63 sampled in their current study. While produced lesions in the chicks’ mouths percent overall in one breeding season this raises questions as to the role of and upper respiratory tract and made it (Darby and Seddon 1990, p. 53). avian malaria in the 1990 mortality difficult for the chicks to swallow. All Proximity to farmland and grazed event, the authors noted, given the chicks at Otago displayed the pastures was found to be a factor spread of avian malaria throughout New symptoms, but survival was better in accounting for high predator densities

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45503

with 88 percent predation at one absent. Research indicated that the and was considered a probable cause for breeding area adjacent to farmland presence of feral cats could be local declines there (Moore and Moffat (Darby and Seddon 1990, p. 57). Of 114 depressing the population of yellow- 1992, p. 68). Some authors have yellow-eyed penguin carcasses found on eyed penguins at Stewart Island. speculated that New Zealand sea lion the South Island mainland between (Harper 2004, p. 26; Massaro and Blair may take yellow-eyed penguins at 1996 and 2003, one-quarter of deaths 2003, p. 107). Weka (Gallirallus Stewart Island, but there are no were attributed to predation. Dogs and australis) have been eradicated from documented reports (Darby 2003, p. mustelids were found to be the most Codfish Island, but may prey on eggs 152). Because of its continued role in common predators (Hocken 2005, p. 4). and small chicks in the Fouveaux Strait suppressing the recovery of yellow-eyed In light of this threat, protection of and some breeding islands in the penguin populations and because of the chicks from predators is a primary Stewart Island region at the southern tip continued impact of introduced objective under the 2000–2025 Hoiho of New Zealand (Darby 2003, p. 152; terrestrial and avian predators and Recovery Plan. Approaches to predator Massaro and Blair 2003, p. 111). native marine predators, we find that control are being established and Some islands, including the Codfish predation is a threat to the yellow-eyed refined at breeding sites on the and Bravo group, have Norway rats penguin. mainland (McKinlay et al. 1997, pp. 31– (Rattus norvegicus, Pacific rats (R. In summary, on the basis of the best 35), targeting ferrets, stoats, and cats. exulans), and ship rats (R. rattus), which available scientific information, we find The New Zealand DOC has concluded are thought to prey on small chicks that disease and predation, which have that predation is a threat that may be (Massaro and Blair 2003, p. 107). Even impacted both mainland and island managed through trapping or other cost- though Norway rats are present on populations, threaten the yellow-eyed effective methods to protect chicks in Campbell Island, evidence of egg or penguin. New or recurrent disease nests (McKinlay 2001, p. 18). The chick predation by terrestrial outbreaks are reasonably likely to occur recovery plan indicates that a minimum mammalian predators was not observed in the future and may result in further protection of 43 percent of nests would during two breeding seasons (Taylor declines throughout the species’ range. be needed to ensure population growth 2000, pp. 93–94). Although some predator eradication (McKinlay 2001, p. 18). The recovery At Auckland Island, it is reported that efforts within breeding areas of the plan establishes a goal of protecting 50 feral pigs (Sus scrofa) probably kill yellow-eyed penguin have been percent of all South Island nests from adults and chicks (Taylor 2000, pp. 93). successful, predation continues to affect predators between 2000 and 2025. At Otago Peninsula, even as objectives the species, and we do not expect that Where intensive predator control are set to attempt to bring terrestrial regulatory mechanisms will be regimes have been put in place, they are predators under more effective control, sufficient to address or ameliorate the effective (McKinlay et al. 1997, p. 31), an emerging threat is predation by the threats to the species in the foreseeable capturing 69 to 82 percent of predators New Zealand sea lion (Phocarctos future. Furthermore, the threat of present. In a long-term analysis of three hookeri). Since 1985, sea lions have predation by endemic sea lions is closely monitored study colonies, which recolonized the area and predation of impacting populations on the mainland make up roughly half the nests at the yellow-eyed penguins has increased. and at the Campbell Islands, and we Otago Peninsula and about 10 to 20 Penguin remains have been more have no reason to believe this threat will percent of the nests on the mainland, frequently found in sea lion scat not continue to reduce population Lalas et al. (2007, p. 237) found that the samples. Two penguin breeding sites in numbers of the yellow-eyed penguin in threat of predation on chicks by close proximity to the founding nursery those areas. We find that disease and introduced terrestrial mammals had area of female sea lions have been predation are threats to this species. been mitigated by trapping and particularly impacted. The number of Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing shooting, and no substantial predation nests at these two colonies has declined Regulatory Mechanisms events had occurred between 1984 and sharply since predation was first 2005. We do not have information on observed and when colonization by The yellow-eyed penguin is protected the extent to which anti-predator female sea lions first took place. As under New Zealand’s Wildlife Act of measures are in place for the remaining discussed above, these two sites are 1953, which gives absolute protection to 80 to 90 percent of yellow-eyed penguin among those that have been intensively wildlife throughout New Zealand and nests on the mainland of the South and successfully protected from its surrounding marine economic zone. Island of New Zealand. Other efforts to introduced terrestrial predators between No one may kill or have in their remove or discourage predation have 1984 and 2005 (Lalas et al. 2007, p. possession any living or dead protected not been as successful. A widely 237), so declines can be directly wildlife unless they have appropriate applied approach of establishing attributed to sea lion predation. The authority. ‘‘vegetation buffers’’ around yellow-eyed predation has been attributed to one The species inhabits areas within penguin nest sites to act as barriers female, the daughter of the founding Rakiura National Park, which between predators and their prey was animal. Population modeling of the encompasses Stewart and Codfish found to actually increase predation effect of continued annual kills by sea Islands (Whenua Hou). Under section 4 rates. Predators preferred the buffer lions predicts the collapse of small of New Zealand’s National Parks Act of areas and used penguin paths within populations (fewer than 100 nests) 1980 and Park bylaws, ‘‘the native plants them to gain easy access to penguin subject to targeted predation by one and animals of the parks shall as far as nests (Alterio et al. 1998, p. 189). Given individual sea lion. At the current time, possible be preserved and the these conflicting reports, we cannot none of the 14 breeding sites at Otago introduced plants and animals shall as evaluate to what extent management Peninsula exceeds 100 nests. No action far as possible be eradicated.’’ In efforts are moving toward the goal of has been taken to control this predation, addition to national protection, all New protection of 50 percent of all yellow- although removal of predatory Zealand sub-Antarctic islands, eyed penguin nests on the mainland. individuals has been suggested (Lalas et including Auckland and Campbell Offshore, at Stewart and Codfish al. 2007, pp. 235–246). Similar Islands, are inscribed on the World Islands, there are a number of predation by New Zealand sea lions was Heritage List (2008, p. 16), although no introduced predators, but mustelids are observed at Campbell Island in 1988 additional protections are afforded by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

this designation. We do not have private efforts on these objectives can be attached and the lines can be information to evaluate whether and to continue. However, in the absence of miles long and can alternatively be what extent these National Park bylaws concrete information on implementation dragged along the seafloor or the surface reduce threats to the yellow-eyed of the plan and reports on its efficacy, of the ocean. Seabirds, particularly penguin in these areas. we did not rely on future measures petrels, are especially vulnerable to The yellow-eyed penguin is proposed in the Hoiho Recovery Plan in long-line fishing because they take considered a ‘‘threatened’’ species, and our threats analysis. baited hooks. In certain conditions, measures for its protection are outlined New Zealand has in place the New birds can get hooked and tangled in the under the New Zealand DOC’s Action Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response line and drown. This type of fishing Plan for Seabird Conservation in New Strategy, which provides the overall impacts a number of New Zealand Zealand (Taylor 2000, pp. 93–94) (see framework to mount a response to seabird species; however, the Action discussion of Factor D for Fiordland marine oil spills that occur within New Plan for Seabird Conservation indicates crested penguin). Ellis et al. (1998, p. Zealand’s area of responsibility. The it is unlikely that yellow-eyed penguins 91) reported that habitat has been aim of the strategy is to minimize the are caught in long-lines. The National purchased or reserved for penguins at effects of oil on the environment and Plan of Action to Reduce the Incidental the mainland Otago Peninsula, North human safety and health. The National Catch of Seabirds in New Zealand Otago and Catlins sites. Twenty Oil Spill Contingency Plan promotes a Fisheries does not identify this as a mainland breeding locations (out of an planned and nationally coordinated threat to yellow-eyed penguins estimated 32 to 42 sites) are reported to response to any marine oil spill that is (Ministry of Fisheries and New Zealand be under ‘‘statutory protection’’ against beyond the capability of a local regional DOC (MOF and NZDOC) 2004, p. 57)). further habitat loss. However, we have council or outside the region of any not found a complete breakdown of the local council (Maritime New Zealand Coastal Fishing Bycatch types of legal protection in place for 2007, p. 1). As discussed below under Otago Peninsula these areas, of the percent of the total Factor E, rapid containment of spills in mainland population encompassed remote areas and effective triage New Zealand’s National Plan of under such areas, or of the effectiveness, response under this plan have shown Action to Reduce the Incidental Catch of where they are in place, of such these to be effective regulatory Seabirds in New Zealand Fisheries, regulatory mechanisms in reducing the mechanisms (New Zealand Wildlife prepared by the MOF and NZDOC identified threats to the yellow-eyed Health Center 2007, p. 2; Taylor 2000, (2004, p. 57), indicated that yellow-eyed penguin. p. 94). penguins are being incidentally caught As a consequence of its threatened A review of the best available in inshore set fishing nets (also known designation, a 2000–2025 Recovery Plan information indicates that there are as gill nets). Gill nets are mesh nets, and for this species was developed. This general, or in some cases specific, they can at times be thousands of meters plan builds on the first phase (1985– protective or regulatory measures to long. A study of bycatch of yellow-eyed 1997) of Hoiho Recovery efforts address threats to the yellow-eyed penguins along the southeast coast of (McKinlay 2001, pp. 12–13). This plan penguin. The best available information South Island of New Zealand during the lays out future objectives and actions to indicates that despite the existence of period 1979–1997 identified gill-net meet the long-term goal of increasing these protective or regulatory measures entanglement as a significant threat to yellow-eyed penguin populations and to address the threats to the yellow-eyed the species (Darby and Dawson 2000, p. achieving active community penguin, local marine habitat 327). Fishing nets are used in various engagement in their conservation modification through oyster dredging in ways. They may be set as anchored nets (McKinlay 2001, pp. 1–24). The some areas (Factor A), disease and in long rows at or near the bottom of the Recovery Plan outlines proposed predation pressure (Factor C), and ocean, or sometimes drift with a fishing measures to address chronic factors gillnet fisheries bycatch (Factor E), vessel. Mortality was highest in areas historically affecting individual continue to act as threats to the yellow- adjacent to the Otago Peninsula (on the colonies, such as destruction or damage eyed penguin. We therefore find that the east coast of South Island, below Banks to colonies due to fire, livestock grazing, existing regulatory mechanisms are Peninsula) breeding grounds. and other manmade disturbance; currently inadequate to protect the Approximately 55 of 72 gill-netted predation by introduced predators; yellow-eyed penguin. penguins were found in this particular disease; and the impact of human area (Darby and Dawson 2000, p. 329) disturbance (especially through tourism Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade as bycatch. An analysis of 185 carcasses activities) (McKinlay 2001, pp. 15–22). Factors Affecting the Continued collected between 1975 and 1997 found Another objective of the plan is to Existence of the Species that 42 (23 percent) showed features provide enduring legal guarantees of The Action Plan for Seabird consistent with mortality from gill-net protections for breeding habitat through Conservation in New Zealand (Taylor entanglement. In that period, a further reservation or covenant (McKinlay 2001, 2000, p. 94) reported that there is no 30 entanglements were reported to p. 12). The best available information evidence that commercial or officials (Darby and Dawson 2000, p. does not allow us to evaluate in detail recreational fishing is impacting prey 327). While these numbers may appear the progress that has been made in availability for the yellow-eyed penguin. small for the timeframe under study, the meeting the eight objectives of the authors consider them to be 2000–2025 recovery plan, but as Offshore Fisheries Bycatch underestimates of actual bycatch discussed elsewhere, the population Long-line fisheries were indicated as mortality (Darby and Dawson 2000, p. recovery goals of the original earlier potentially having an effect on yellow- 331) because not all fishermen report plan continue to be hard to reach for all eyed penguins (BLI 2010b, p 2). Long- bycatch. but the Auckland Islands, and the line fishing uses a long line with baited Most gill-net entanglements reported development of anti-predator measures hooks attached to hanging fishing lines by Darby and Dawson (2000, p. 331) are is an ongoing challenge. We are aware, at various intervals. These lines are from a small geographic area at or near as discussed in analysis of other threat sometimes set using an anchor, or they the Otago Peninsula, near the small factors, that concerted public and can be left to drift. Thousands of hooks concentrations of yellow-eyed penguins.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45505

In 1996, for example, there were expect this threat to continue into the significant numbers of birds to approximately 350 breeding pairs of foreseeable future. encounter spills at that time as well. yellow-eyed penguin on the Otago Under Factor A, we concluded that Two spills have been recorded in this Peninsula. Given these small numbers, habitat modification by commercial overall region. In March 2000, the the authors report that gill-net bycatch oyster dredging is a threat to local fishing vessel Seafresh 1sank in Hanson may be severe at a local scale. One small yellow-eyed penguin colonies at Stewart Bay on the east coast of Chatham Island colony inside the entrance to Otago Island, but we have not found evidence and released 66 U.S. tons (T) (60 tonnes harbor suffered seven bycatch of direct competition for prey between (t)) of diesel fuel. Rapid containment of mortalities and was subsequently yellow-eyed penguins and human the oil at this remote location prevented abandoned. The death of 32 birds along fisheries activities. While following any wildlife casualties (New Zealand the north Otago coast over the period of penguins from mainland colonies fitted Wildlife Health Center 2007, p. 2). The the study is significant in light of the with Global Positioning System (GPS) same source reported that in 1998 the reported breeding population of only 39 dive loggers, Mattern et al. (2005, p. fishing vessel Don Wong 529ran pairs in this region, and, at Banks 270) noted that foraging tracks of adult aground at Breaksea Islets off Stewart Peninsula, 7 reported mortalities penguins were remarkably straight. Island. Approximately 331 T (300 t) of occurred where there were only 8–10 They hypothesized that individuals marine diesel were spilled along with breeding pairs (Darby and Dawson 2000, were following dredge marks from smaller amounts of lubricating and p. 331). Given the small sizes of local bottom trawls, but there is no waste oils. yellow-eyed penguin concentrations, information to indicate that fishery With favorable weather conditions this mortality rate is significant to the interaction has any impact on the and establishment of triage response, no maintenance of breeding colonies and penguins. Therefore, we find that casualties of the Don Wong 529pollution the survival of adults in the population. commercial or recreational fishing is not event were discovered (Taylor 2000, p. a threat to this species. However, local 94). There is no doubt that an oil spill Banks Peninsula marine habitat modification through near a breeding colony could have a In response to bycatch of various oyster dredging (commercial oyster major effect on this species (Taylor species, set net bans have been dredging is a threat to chick survival for 2000, p. 94). However, based on the implemented in the vicinity of the some colonies at Stewart Island), and wide distribution of yellow-eyed Banks Peninsula on the east coast of fisheries bycatch from coastal or inshore penguins around the mainland South South Island, which has been set net or gillnet fishing, continue to act Island, offshore, and on sub-Antarctic designated as a marine reserve. A 4– as threats to the yellow-eyed penguin in islands, the low number of previous month set net ban was primarily some areas of their range. incidents around New Zealand, and the designed to reduce entanglements of fact that each was effectively contained Oil and chemical spills Hector’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus under the New Zealand Marine Oil Spill hectori), as well as yellow-eyed We examined the possibility that oil Response Strategy and resulted in no penguins and white-flippered penguins and chemical spills may impact yellow- mortality or evidence of impacts on the (NZ DOC 2007, p. 1). Early reports were eyed penguins. Such spills, should they population, we find that oil and that this ban had been widely occur and not be effectively managed, chemical spills are not threats to the disregarded (Taylor 2000, p. 70). Based can have direct effects on marine yellow-eyed penguin. on the best available information, we are seabirds such as the yellow-eyed unable to conclude that these measures penguin. In the range of the yellow-eyed Yellow-eyed Penguin Finding at the Banks Peninsula had been penguin, the sub-Antarctic Campbell Yellow-eyed penguin populations effective in reducing bycatch of yellow- and Auckland Islands are remote from number approximately 1,600 breeding eyed penguins. The Hoiho Recovery shipping activity and the consequent pairs. After severe declines from the Plan states that bycatch is likely the risk of oil or chemical spills is low. The 1940s, mainland yellow-eyed penguin largest source of mortality at sea; the Stewart Islands populations at the populations have fluctuated at low Plan outlines the need for research and southern end of New Zealand and the numbers since the late 1980s. The total liaison with fisheries managers to southeast mainland coast populations mainland population (on the east coast inform implementation of further are in closer proximity to vessel traffic of South Island) of 450 breeding pairs measures to reduce the impact of fishing and human industrial activities which (Houston 2007, p. 3) is well below operations on yellow-eyed penguins may increase the possibility of oil or single-year levels recorded in 1985 and (McKinlay 2001, p. 19). We do not have chemical spill impacts. Much of the 1997 (600 to 650 pairs) and well below information on whether these proposed range of the yellow-eyed penguin on historical estimates of abundance (Darby measures have been implemented. mainland New Zealand lies near and Seddon 1990, p. 59). At Stewart Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, Dunedin, a South Island port city, and Island and its adjacent islands, there are we did not rely on these proposed a few individuals breed at Banks an estimated 180 breeding pairs. There measures to evaluate incidental take Peninsula just to the south of are an estimated 400 pairs at Campbell from gill-net entanglement. Christchurch, another major South Island where numbers have declined Based on the significant gill-net Island port. While yellow-eyed since 1997, and 570 pairs at the bycatch mortality of yellow-eyed penguins do not breed in large colonies, Auckland Islands. penguins along the southeast coast of their locally distributed breeding groups Some of the documented factors the South Island of New Zealand, which are found in a few critical areas on the affecting yellow-eyed penguin has the potential to impact over a coast of the South Island and its populations are tourism and predation. quarter of the population, we find that offshore islands. A spill event near the Predation occurs by introduced (and to fisheries bycatch is a threat to the mainland South Island city of Dunedin a lesser extent native) predators within yellow-eyed penguin. In spite of efforts and the adjacent Otago Peninsula could the species’ breeding range. The impact to regulate this activity, bycatch in have a major impact on the 14 breeding of predators is inferred from the decline coastal gill net fisheries is a threat to sites documented there. Nonbreeding of this species during the period of yellow-eyed penguins foraging from season distribution along the same introduced predator invasion and from mainland breeding areas; therefore, we coastlines provides the potential for documentation of continuing predator

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45506 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

presence and predation. New Zealand for a species which totals only 1,600 Zealand to address the threats to its laws including the bylaws of New breeding pairs rangewide. survival, the species has not recovered. Zealand’s national parks, which The yellow-eyed penguin is also Historical declines resulting from encompass some of the range of the impacted by ongoing activities in the habitat loss and predation are yellow-eyed penguin, provide some marine environment. Local marine exacerbated by the impacts of predators, protection for this species. New Zealand habitat modification of the sea floor disease, and the inadequacy of also has programs for eradication of through oyster dredging has been regulatory mechanisms throughout the nonnative invasive species, which implicated in food shortages at penguin species’ range. The threat of predation includes nonnative predators. However, colonies at Stewart Island, which by endemic sea lions is impacting while complete eradication of predators combined with disease, has led to years populations on the mainland and at the in isolated island habitats may be of 100 percent mortality of chicks at Campbell Islands. New or recurrent possible, permanent removal of the local breeding sites there. Bycatch in disease outbreaks are likely to cause introduced mammalian predators on the coastal gillnet fisheries is a threat to further declines throughout the range in yellow-eyed penguins foraging around mainland has not been achieved, and the foreseeable future. Just offshore of mainland breeding areas despite efforts the ongoing threat of predation remains. the southern tip of the South Island, to regulate this activity. In this case, local breeding groups at Stewart Island Both intensive trapping and physical regulatory mechanisms are currently have been impacted by disease in protection of significant breeding groups inadequate and we do not have any concert with food shortages brought on through fencing have proven successful information that would lead us to by alteration of their marine habitat. At for yellow-eyed penguins at local scales anticipate that this would change in the the Auckland Islands, the population in terms of reducing predation, but foreseeable future. has remained stable but exists at low existing efforts require ongoing We considered whether pollution numbers and, like all yellow-eyed commitment, and not all breeding areas from oil or chemicals is a threat to the penguin populations, is susceptible to have been protected. More recently, yellow-eyed penguin. Documented oil the emergence of disease and impacts of local-scale predation by New Zealand spill events have occurred within the predation. Increased tourism is taxing sea lions reestablishing a breeding range of this species in the last decade, the species based on the penguins’ presence at the mainland Otago but there have been no documented increased energy usage due to human Peninsula has become a threat to direct or indirect impacts on this presence. Because of the species’ low yellow-eyed penguin populations as this species. Such events are rare and New population size (estimated to be rare and endemic Otariid species Zealand oil spill response and approximately 1,600 breeding pairs); its recovers. This threat has also been contingency plans have been shown to continued decline in three out of four documented for Campbell Island. We be in place and effective in previous areas, the threats of predation by conclude that predation is still a events; therefore, we do not find this to primarily introduced species, disease, significant threat to yellow-eyed be a threat to the yellow-eyed penguin. fisheries bycatch, tourism, and the penguins. In considering the foreseeable future inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, Disease is an ongoing factor as it relates to the status of the yellow- we find that the yellow-eyed penguin is eyed penguin, we considered the threats negatively influencing yellow-eyed likely to become in danger of extinction acting on the yellow-eyed penguin, as penguin populations. Disease has within the foreseeable future throughout well as population trends. We seriously impacted both mainland and all of its range. considered the historical data to identify Stewart Island colonies of yellow-eyed any relevant existing trends that might Significant Portion of the Range penguins in the last two decades. In allow for reliable prediction of the Analysis mainland populations, avian malaria is future (in the form of extrapolating the To determine whether any portion of thought to have led to mortality of 31 trends). The available data indicate that the range of the yellow-eyed penguin percent of the adult population on the historical declines, which were the warrants further consideration as mainland of New Zealand in the early result of habitat loss and predation, endangered, we evaluated the 1990s, and an outbreak of continue in the face of the current geographic concentration of threats and Cornybacterium infection caused high threats of predation from introduced the significance of portions of the range chick mortality in 2004–2005 and predators, disease, gillnet fisheries to the conservation of the species. Our contributed to disease mortality at bycatch, and the inadequacy of evaluation was in the context of Stewart Island. Entire cohorts of regulatory mechanisms throughout the whether any potential threats are penguin chicks at one breeding location species’ range. Based on our analysis of concentrated in one or more areas of the at Stewart Island have been lost to the the best available information, we have projected range, such that if there were pathogen Leucocytozoon, especially at no reason to believe that population concentrated impacts, those populations times when other diseases and other trends will change in the future, or that might be threatened, and whether any stress factors, such as food shortages, the effects of current threats acting on such population or complex might were present. Given the ongoing history the species will be ameliorated in the constitute a significant portion of the of disease outbreaks at both the island foreseeable future. range. The word ‘‘range’’ is used here to and mainland locations, it is highly The yellow-eyed penguin has refer to the range in which the species likely that new or renewed disease experienced consistent widespread currently exists, and the word outbreaks will impact this species in the declines in the past, and declines and ‘‘significant’’ refers to the value of that foreseeable future with possible large- low population numbers persist. This portion of the range being considered to scale mortality of adults and chicks and species has a relatively high the conservation of the species. We also consequent breeding failures and reproductive rate (compared to other considered factors used to determine population reductions. Emergence or penguins) and substantial longevity. biological significance of a population, recurrence of such outbreaks on the Despite these life history traits, which including: the quality, quantity, and mainland, where there are currently 450 should provide the species with the distribution of habitat relative to the breeding pairs, or at island breeding ability to rebound, and despite public biological requirements of the species; areas could result in severe reductions and private efforts undertaken in New the historical value of the habitat to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45507

species; the frequency of use of the greater level of threat than populations acting on these populations nor did we habitat; the uniqueness or importance of at the Auckland and Campbell Islands. determine that either of these the habitat for other reasons such as In addition, the mainland population of populations have any unique biological breeding, feeding, or suitability for 450 pairs represents more than a quarter significance to the species as a whole. population expansion; and its genetic of the overall reported population of Therefore, we have determined that the diversity (the loss of genetically based 1,600 pairs, indicating that this may be Auckland Islands and Campbell Islands diversity may substantially reduce the a significant portion of the range. portions of the species population is not ability of the species to respond and Having met these two initial tests, we currently in danger of extinction, but is adapt to future environmental changes). analyzed whether this portion of the likely to become so within the We do not find that any one population range is both significant and foreseeable future. is more biologically significant than the endangered. There have been large In conclusion, we did not find that other three; however, we did find that fluctuations in the mainland population any one portion of the species’ the occurrence of certain threats is of yellow-eyed penguins since at least population contributes more uneven across the range of the yellow- 1980, with cyclical periods of substantially than others to the eyed penguin. On this basis, we population decline, followed by some representation, resiliency, or determined that some portions of the recovery. As described in our threat redundancy of the species. At this time, yellow-eyed penguin’s range might factor analysis, these larger fluctuations although the different populations face warrant further consideration as have been tied to changes in the marine different threats, there is no evidence to possibly endangered significant portions environment and the quality of food, as suggest that threats affect portions of the of its range. well as to periodic outbreaks of disease. range disproportionately, or will in the The yellow-eyed penguin’s range can The species is described as inherently foreseeable future. Therefore, we are be divided into four areas. The first area robust, but recovery from these listing the yellow-eyed penguin as consists of the mainland colonies fluctuations is hampered by chronic threatened throughout all of its range distributed along the southeast coast of predation threats as well as by the under the Act. the South Island of New Zealand. This ongoing impact of fisheries bycatch. The mainland area is separated from the combination of these cyclical and White-flippered Penguin (Eudyptula three island groups to the south. Just to chronic factors has kept the mainland minor albosignata) the south is the Stewart-Codfish Islands population fluctuating within the range Background group, which lies 18.75 mi (30 km) of a few hundred to about 600 pairs over Among those researchers who have below the mainland South Island across the last three decades. We have no considered the phylogeny of the the Fouveaux Strait. Stewart Island is a evidence that the single factor of Eudyptula penguins (little penguins) in large island of 1,091 square mi (mi2) fisheries bycatch is driving the species detail, Banks et al. (2002, p. 35), (1,746 square km (km2)), and Codfish toward extinction. Because the current Island is a small island of 8.75 mi2 (14 population trend for the mainland supported by Peucker et al. (2007, p. km2) located 6.25 mi (10 km) west of populations is one of decline and 126), make a strong case that the white- Stewart Island. The third and fourth fluctuation around low numbers, rather flippered penguin is part of one of two areas of yellow-eyed penguin habitat are than precipitous decline, and because distinct lineages, or clades, of Eudyptula the sub-Antarctic Auckland Islands and reproduction and recruitment are still species (the Australian-Otago clade and Campbell Island, which lie 300 mi (480 occurring, we have determined the the New Zealand clade, which includes km) and 380 mi (608 km), respectively, population is not currently in danger of the white-flippered penguin), each south of the southern tip of the South extinction, but is likely to become so descended from one common ancestor. Island. These four groups are clearly within the foreseeable future. Limited evidence for subspeciation isolated from each other and from other The Stewart-Codfish Islands within the New Zealand clade is found portions of the yellow-eyed penguin’s population represents only 11 percent of in some genetic differences, but the range. the overall population of yellow-eyed taxonomic status of the white-flippered We evaluated these four areas of the penguins and its habitat is small in penguin remains somewhat unclear entire range of the yellow-eyed penguin terms of geographical area. It is only (Peucker et al. 2007, p. 126). The New to determine which areas may warrant 18.75 mi (30 km) away from the Zealand DOC considers the white- further consideration. Under the five- mainland of New Zealand, where the flippered penguin, with its distinct life factor analysis, we determined that majority of this species resides. Marine history and morphological traits, as the predation, disease, and inadequacy of habitat modification due to oyster southern end of a clinal variation of the regulatory mechanisms are threats to the dredging was identified as a unique little penguin (Houston 2007, p. 3). yellow-eyed penguin throughout all of threat for the Stewart-Codfish Island Consistent with the findings of Banks et its range. In addition, we determined population. However, due to the al. (2002, p. 35), the New Zealand DOC that fisheries bycatch and marine proximity of this small population to recognizes the white-flippered penguin habitat modification from oyster the more numerous mainland as an endemic sub-species in its Action dredging are threats to the species in population portion of the range, and Plan for Seabird Conservation in New only some portions of its range. because the population is adjacent to Zealand (Taylor 2000, p. 69). We For the first two areas, two unique colonies at the southern tip of the South recognize the findings of Banks et al. threats were identified. Fisheries Island, we do not find that this portion (2002, p. 35), and the determination of bycatch was identified as a unique of the range is significant relative to the the New Zealand Department of threat for the mainland South Island conservation of this species. Therefore, Conservation, and consider the white- population; and marine habitat we have determined the population is flippered penguin (Eudyptula minor modification due to oyster dredging was not currently in danger of extinction but albosignata) as one of six recognized identified as a unique threat for the is likely to become so within the subspecies of the little penguin Stewart-Codfish Island population. foreseeable future. (Eudyptula minor). We accept the Therefore, we determined that yellow- With respect to the Auckland Islands white-flippered penguin as a eyed penguins on the mainland and on and Campbell Islands populations, there subspecies, Eudyptula minor the Stewart-Codfish Islands may face a were no additional threats found to be albosignata, which follows the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Integrated Taxonomic Information Zealand’s Threat Classification system recreational, scientific, or educational System (ITIS 2010). list, the white-flippered subspecies is purposes is not a threat to the white- The overall population of little listed as ‘‘acutely threatened—nationally flippered penguin. penguins, which are found around vulnerable,’’ indicating small to Factor C. Disease or Predation Australia and New Zealand, numbers moderate population and moderate 350,000 to 600,000 birds. The total recent or predicted decline There is no evidence of disease as a breeding population of the white- (Hitchmough et al. 2007, p. 45; Molloy threat to the white-flippered penguin. flippered subspecies, which is only et al. 2002, p. 20). This species was The most significant factor impacting found in New Zealand, is about 10,460 addressed in the Action Plan for Seabird white-flippered penguins is predation at birds (Challies and Burleigh 2004, p. 1). Conservation in New Zealand, and it Banks Peninsula by introduced It is estimated that the Peninsula-wide was ranked as Category B (second mammalian predators. Populations are population was tens of thousands of priority) on the Molloy and Davis threat reported to have declined drastically pairs at the time of European settlement. categories employed by the New since 1980 due to predation White-flippered penguins were ‘‘very Zealand DOC (Taylor 2000, p. 33). (Williamson and Wilson 2001, pp. 434– common’’ on the Banks Peninsula in the 435). Challies and Burleigh reported late 1800s (Challies and Burleigh 2004, Summary of Factors Affecting the that predation on white-flippered p. 4). Distribution of colonies was more White-flippered Penguin penguins is mainly by ferrets, feral cats, widespread on the shores of the Banks Factor A. The Present or Threatened and possibly stoats (2004, p. 1). We Peninsula during the 1950s, with Destruction, Modification, or know that introduced predators such as penguins nesting from the seaward Curtailment of White-flippered these as well as rats prey on penguins. headlands around to the inshore heads Penguin’s Habitat or Range They have been known to take chicks, of bays. eggs, and adults. On one occasion, 50 At Motunau Island there are an The terrestrial breeding habitat of the dead penguins were found with estimated 1,650 breeding pairs or about white-flippered penguin comprises the mustelid bite marks on their necks 4,590 birds (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 87). This shores of the Banks Peninsula south of (Challies 2009, pers. comm.). Dogs have population is reported to have increased Christchurch, New Zealand, and of also been cited as a potential predator slightly since the 1960s (Taylor 2000, p. Motunau Island about 62 mi (100 km) (Taylor 2000, p. 69). In the past 25 69). On Banks Peninsula, exhaustive north. Banks Peninsula has a years, predators have overrun colonies counts of all colonies in 2000–2001 and convoluted coastline of approximately at the accessible heads and sides of bays 2001–2002 found 68 colonies with a 186 mi (300 km), made up of outer coast at Banks Peninsula, reducing colony total of 2,112 nests or about 5,870 birds and deep embayments (Challies and distribution to less accessible and more (Challies and Burleigh 2004, p. 5). This Burleigh 2004, p. 1). Motunau is a small remote headlands and outer coasts detailed survey increased the previously island of less than 0.3 mi (0.5 km) in (Challies and Burleigh 2004, p. 4). reported minimum estimates of 550 length. While cattle or sheep sometimes Thirty-four colonies (50 percent) pairs published in 1998 (Ellis et al. trample nests at Banks Peninsula, white- surveyed in 2000 to 2002, containing 1998, p. 87), which were derived from flippered penguin nest sites are usually 1,345 nests (69 percent of the nests at partial surveys of only easily accessible in rocky areas or among tree roots where Banks Peninsula), were considered to be colonies (Challies and Burleigh 2004, p. they are inaccessible to such damage vulnerable to predation. Seven of the 12 1). While baseline information is (Taylor 2000, p. 69). Fire has also been largest colonies (each containing more lacking, Challies and Burleigh (2004, p. identified as a factor that could threaten than 20 nests) contained either the 5) have estimated that the present white-flippered penguin habitat, but we remains of penguins that had been population is less than 10 percent of the are not aware of documented fire preyed on or other evidence predators population that was occupied on the incidents (Taylor 2000, p. 69). had been there (Challies and Burleigh Peninsula prior to European settlement. On the basis of this information, we 2004, p. 4). The five large colonies not Detailed monitoring of four individual find that the present or threatened considered vulnerable to predation were colonies indicated that severe declines destruction, modification, or either protected by bluffs or, in one continue, with an overall loss of 83 curtailment of its habitat or range is not case, located on an island. percent of 489 nests monitored over the a threat to the white-flippered penguin. The encroachment of predators period from 1981–2000 (Challies and destroyed the most accessible colonies Factor B. Overutilization for Burleigh 2004, p. 4). first, in a progression from preferred The white-flippered penguin breeds Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or habitat at the heads of bays towards the on Motunau Island and the Banks Educational Purposes coast along a gradient of increasing Peninsula of the South Island of New White-flippered penguins are the coastal erosion. In the 1950s, penguins Zealand. Birds disperse locally around object of privately managed local were still nesting around the heads of the eastern South Island. Breeding tourism activities at the Banks bays. These colonies disappeared soon adults appear to remain close to nesting Peninsula (Taylor 2000, p. 70). Neither thereafter (Challies and Burleigh 2004, colonies in the nonbreeding season the New Zealand Action Plan for p. 4). Of four colonies of greater than 50 (Taylor 2000, p. 69; Challies and Seabird Conservation nor the IUCN nests on the sides of bays, one was Burleigh 2004, p. 5; Brager and Stanley Conservation Assessment and destroyed between 1981 and 2000, and 1999, p. 370). White-flippered penguins Management Plan provides any nest numbers in the other three colonies feed on small shoaling fish such as evidence that tourism is a factor were reduced by 72 to 77 percent. In pilchards (Sardinops neopilchardus) affecting white-flippered penguin these four colonies, the total number of and anchovies (Engraulis australis) populations (Taylor 2000, p. 69; Ellis et nests decreased 83 percent between (Brager and Stanley 1999, p. 370). al. 1998, p. 87). There is no evidence of 1981 and 2000, from 489 nests down to The little penguin is classified as a use of the species for other commercial, 85 nests. The surviving colonies are species of ‘‘Least Concern’’ in the IUCN recreational, scientific or educational almost all inside the bays close to the Red List (BirdLife International 2007, p. purposes. headlands or on the peripheral coast 1); there is no separate status for the On the basis of this information, we (Challies and Burleigh 2004, p. 4), with white-flippered subspecies. On New find that overutilization for commercial, white-flippered penguins breeding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45509

primarily on rocky sites backed by at Flea Bay, but Stony Bay populations funded by investigators or by grants bluffs. Challies and Burleigh (2004, p. 4) of white-flippered penguins were in from non-governmental organizations. concluded, given the subspecies’ decline. Even though such trapping Since then, the New Zealand DOC has historical habitat and the difficulties of efforts began in 1981, Challies and adopted the Action Plan for Seabird landing at these exposed breeding sites, Burleigh (2004, p. 5) concluded on the Conservation, which includes that predation has forced white- basis of data collected in the 2000–2001 recommendations on management of flippered penguins into marginal, non- and 2001–2002 breeding seasons that terrestrial threats to the white-flippered preferred habitat. the historic decline in white-flippered penguin as well as threats within the At the present time, colonies are penguin numbers was continuing. marine environment. We did not rely on largest either on inshore predator-free However, although the numbers are still these measures in our analysis because islands or in places on the mainland less than 10 percent of what existed at we do not have reports on which where predators are being controlled or the time of European settlement, since measures, if any, have been which are less accessible to predators. 2000, most of the penguin colonies have implemented and how they relate, in The historic decline in penguin grown by approximately 50 percent particular, to efforts to reduce the threat numbers is clearly continuing based on (Challies 2009, pers. comm.). of predation on white-flippered the current evidence of predation in At Motunau Island, the only other penguins at Banks Peninsula. existing recently surveyed colonies and breeding area for this subspecies, there The Banks Peninsula marine waters we expect this to continue into the are no introduced predators. Rabbits, have special protective status as a foreseeable future (Challies and which could have impacted breeding marine sanctuary, which was Burleigh 2004, p. 5). In addition to habitat, were eradicated in 1963 (Taylor established in 1988 and primarily documenting direct overland access to 2000, p. 70). The Action Plan for directed at protection of the Hector’s colonies by predators, Challies and Seabird Conservation in New Zealand dolphin (Cephelorhynchus hectori) from Burleigh (2004, p. 5) documented lists pest quarantine measures to bycatch in set nets. The 4–month set net predation at colonies thought not to be prevent new animal and plant pest ban, from November to the end of accessible over land. For example, there species reaching Motunau Island as a February, which also includes Motunau is evidence that stoats, which are good needed future management action Island, is designed to reduce swimmers, are reaching colonies at (Taylor 2000, p. 70), but we have no entanglements of these dolphins and to otherwise inaccessible parts of the reports on whether such measures are reduce the risk of entanglement of shoreline, indicating that the spread of now in place, and we cannot discount white-flippered penguins and yellow- predation continues. the current or future risk of predator eyed penguins (NZ DOC 2007, p. 1). Ten The potential for dispersal and introduction to Motunau Island. years ago, in the Action Plan for Seabird establishment of new colonies, which Predators are present at the larger Conservation, this ban was reported to might allow for expansion of white- Banks Peninsula colony (56 percent of have been widely disregarded (Taylor flippered penguin numbers, is also the nests for the subspecies), but not 2000, p. 70). That Action Plan states that severely limited by predation. Fifty currently at the smaller colony at restriction on the use of set nets near percent or more of adults attempt to nest Motunau Island (46 percent of the key white-flippered penguin colonies away from their natal colony. nests), although the risk of future may be necessary to protect the Historically, such movements led to predator introduction to Motunau Island subspecies and recommends an interchange between colonies and exists. On the basis of information on advocacy program to encourage set net maintenance of colony size even as the impact of predators, the failure of users to adopt practices that will dispersal took place. With the presence existing programs to eliminate them, minimize seabird bycatch. We have of predators, this dispersal now leads and the possibility of dispersal of information indicating that white- breeding birds to settle in areas predators to current predator-free areas flippered penguins are frequently accessible to predators where the such as Motunau Island, we conclude caught in set nets, and no current penguins are eventually killed (Challies that predation by introduced mammals information to indicate whether, or to and Burleigh 2004, p. 5). One is a threat to the white-flippered what extent, set net restrictions have consequence of this pattern of dispersal penguin. reduced take at either Banks Peninsula and predation is that colonies suffer a or Motunau Island. net loss of breeding adults. Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing New Zealand has in place The New Predator trapping started in 1981 on Regulatory Mechanisms Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Godley Head near Christchurch and is The white-flippered penguin is Strategy, which provides the overall carried out by a network of volunteers protected under New Zealand’s Wildlife framework to mount a response to and private landowners around the Act of 1953, which gives absolute marine oil spills that occur within New Banks Peninsula. Some small, predator- protection to wildlife throughout New Zealand’s area of responsibility. The proof fences were erected to protect Zealand and its surrounding marine aim of the strategy is to minimize the vulnerable colonies (Taylor 2000, p. 70; economic zone. No one may kill or have effects of oil on the environment and on Williamson and Wilson 2001, p. 435). It in their possession any living or dead human safety and health. The National is not clear how widespread such efforts protected wildlife unless they have Oil Spill Contingency Plan promotes a are over the large geographical area of appropriate authority. planned and nationally coordinated the Banks Peninsula or how successful In 1998, the IUCN Conservation response to any marine oil spill that is they are. Williamson and Wilson (2001, Assessment and Management Plan beyond the capability of a local regional p. 435) reported on two predator (CAMP) data sheet for white-flippered council or outside the region of any trapping programs that occurred in 1988 penguin (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 87) local council (Maritime New Zealand and 1991 at two relic colonies at the concluded that the deteriorating status 2007, p. 1). As discussed below under heads of Flea and Stony Bays. Predator of this subspecies was not a high Factor E, rapid containment of spills in trapping programs continue today priority for the New Zealand DOC due remote areas and effective triage (Challies 2009, pers. comm.). to budgetary constraints. The CAMP response under this plan have shown Preliminary results indicated white- noted that activities to date had not these to be effective regulatory flippered penguins numbers were stable been government funded, but self mechanisms (New Zealand Wildlife

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Health Center 2007, p. 2; Taylor 2000, fact declined or will decline in the likelihood that oil spill events, should p. 94). However, because the two major foreseeable future. We have found no they occur in this area, will impact concentrations of white-flippered documented information to indicate that white-flippered penguins. Therefore, we penguins are near a major South Island net restrictions have reduced take. find that oil spills are a threat to the port, we conclude under Factor E that Therefore, we find that bycatch of the white-flippered penguin. oil spills are a threat to this subspecies. white-flippered penguin by fishing Based on the analysis above, we find Given that existing programs have activities is a threat to this subspecies of that both fisheries bycatch and the failed to eliminate introduced predators penguin. potential for oil spills are threats to the and that these predators appear to be We have examined the possibility that white-flippered penguin now and in the spreading, we believe their impact on oil and chemical spills may impact foreseeable future. the white-flippered penguin will white-flippered penguins. Such spills, White-flippered Penguin Finding continue in the future. There is no should they occur and not be effectively information to suggest that the current managed, can have direct effects on Predation by introduced mammalian effects of bycatch will be reduced in the marine seabirds such as the white- predators is the most significant factor foreseeable future, nor that regulatory flippered penguin. The entire threatening white-flippered penguin mechanisms will become sufficient to subspecies nests in areas of moderate within the subspecies’ breeding range. address or ameliorate this threat to the shipping volume coming to Port Predation by introduced species has subspecies. Based on the occurrence of Lyttelton at Christchurch, New Zealand. contributed to the historical decline of previous oil spills around New Zealand This port lies adjacent to, and just north this subspecies since the late 1800s and and the location of the only two of, the Banks Peninsula and just south is reducing numbers at the current time. breeding populations of white-flippered of Motunau Island. On this basis, the In addition to reducing numbers in penguins adjacent to Christchurch, a Action Plan for Seabird Conservation in existing colonies, the presence of major South Island port, we find that oil New Zealand specifically identifies a predators has been documented as a spills will likely occur in the future. large oil spill as a key potential threat barrier to the dispersal of breeding birds Furthermore, because of the low overall to this species (Taylor 2000, pp. 69–70) and the establishment of new colonies, numbers of white-flippered penguins, and recommends that penguin colonies perhaps indicating larger declines are to there is a high likelihood that oil spill be identified as sensitive areas in oil be expected. New Zealand laws require events, should they occur in this area, spill contingency plans (Taylor 2000, protection of this native subspecies. will impact white-flippered penguins. pp. 70–71). Anti-predator efforts have not stopped On the basis of a review of available Two spills have been recorded in the declines of white-flippered penguins at information and on the basis of the overall region of the South Island of Banks Peninsula, although eradication continued threats of predation, fisheries New Zealand and its offshore islands. of predators has been achieved at bycatch (including the use of set nets), These spills did not impact the white- Motunau Island. Removal of introduced and oil spills to this subspecies, we find flippered penguin. In March 2000, the mammalian predators on the mainland that inadequacy of existing regulatory fishing vessel Seafresh 1sank in Hanson Banks Peninsula is an extremely mechanisms is a threat to the white- Bay on the east coast of Chatham Island difficult, if not impossible, task. flippered penguin. and released 66 T (60 t) of diesel fuel. Trapping and physical protection of a Rapid containment of the oil at this few local breeding groups through Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade remote location prevented any wildlife fencing have proven locally successful, Factors Affecting the Continued casualties (New Zealand Wildlife Health but these efforts are not widespread. Existence of the Species Center 2007, p. 2). The same source The Banks Peninsula, with 186 mi (300 In 2000, Taylor reported that New reported that, in 1998, the fishing vessel km) of coastline and approximately 70 Zealand’s Action Plan notes that white- Don Wong 529ran aground at Breaksea white-flippered penguin colonies, is a flippered penguins were frequently Islets, off Stewart Island. Approximately very large area to control, and predation caught in nearshore set nets, especially 331 T (300 t) of marine diesel was impacts will continue. The threat of around Motunau Island (p. 69). The spilled along with smaller amounts of reinvasion remains, both at Motunau number of birds currently caught is not lubricating and waste oils. With Island and in areas of the Banks known, but there is a history of favorable weather conditions and Peninsula where predator control has ‘‘multiple net catches’’ of penguins establishment of triage response, no been implemented (Taylor 2000, p. 70; around Motunau Island (Ellis et al, casualties from this oil spill event were Challies and Burleigh 2004, p. 5). 1998, p. 87). Restrictions on the use of discovered (Taylor 2000, p. 94). Therefore, we find that predation is a set nets in the areas of Banks Peninsula While New Zealand has a good record threat to the white-flippered penguin. and Motunau Island were instituted in of oil spill response, an oil spill in the The white-flippered penguin is also 1988 (see discussion under Factor D vicinity of one of the two breeding impacted by threats in the marine above), but bans on leaving nets set colonies of the white-flippered penguin, environment. While set-net bans have inshore overnight were reported to be which lie closely adjacent to the been in place since the 1980s to reduce widely disregarded a decade ago (Ellis industrial port of Port Lyttelton, could take of white-flippered penguins and et al. 1998, p. 87). Such impacts interact impact a large portion of the individuals other species, bycatch in coastal gill-net with the more severe threat of predation of this subspecies if not immediately fisheries is known to result in mortality at Banks Island, exacerbating declines contained. Previous spills have been in to white-flippered penguins foraging there. Reports indicate bycatch impacts more remote locations, with more from breeding areas. Although we do are most severe at Motunau Island, leeway for longer term response before not have quantitative data on the extent which is currently predator-free. oil impacted wildlife. Based on the of bycatch, the best available Although enforcement of all fisheries occurrence of previous spills around information indicates that take by set regulations has increased within the New Zealand, the low overall numbers nets is exacerbating the more severe past few years (Challies 2009, pers. of white-flippered penguins, and the threat of predation at Banks Island, comm.), based on the best available location of their only two breeding while such impacts are the primary information we do not have a basis to populations adjacent to Christchurch, a threat at Motunau Island. Based on the conclude that rates of bycatch have in major South Island port, there is a high best available scientific and commercial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45511

information, we conclude that bycatch Significant Portion of the Range of extinction at the Banks Peninsula is a threat to the white-flippered Analysis portion of its range at present. As a penguin. Having determined that the white- result, we have determined that there Documented oil spills have occurred flippered penguin is likely to become in are no significant portions of the range in the vicinity of the South Island of danger of extinction within the in which the subspecies is currently in New Zealand in the last decade. While foreseeable future throughout all of its danger of extinction. Therefore, we are such events are rare, future events have range, we also considered whether there listing the white-flippered penguin as the potential to impact white-flippered are any significant portions of its range threatened throughout all of its range penguins. If a spill event were to occur where the subspecies is currently in under the Act. near the city of Christchurch and the danger of extinction. adjacent Banks Peninsula, and not be Fiordland Crested Penguin (Eudyptes White-flippered penguins breed in pachyrhynchus) immediately contained, it would be very two areas; one area is on the shores of likely to impact either, or both, of the the Banks Peninsula south of Background two breeding sites of the white-flippered Christchurch on the mainland of New The Fiordland crested penguin, also penguin in a very short time, affecting Zealand, and the other area is Motunau known by its Maori name, tawaki, is up to 65 percent of the population at Island about 62 mi (100 km) north. endemic to the South Island of New one time. While New Zealand oil spill Colonization of any possible response and contingency plans have Zealand and adjacent offshore islands intermediate breeding range appears to been shown to be effective in previous southwards from Bruce Bay. The species be precluded by predation (Challies and 2 events, the location of the only two also nests on Solander Island (0.3 mi Burleigh 2004, p. 5). The Banks 2 2 breeding areas of this subspecies near (0.7 km ), Codfish Island (5 mi (14 Peninsula colony is larger, consisting of 2 industrial areas and marine transport km )), and islands off Stewart Island at about 2,110 breeding pairs; Motunau routes increase the likelihood that spill the south end of the South Island events will impact the white-flippered Island has about 1,635 breeding pairs. (Taylor 2000, p. 58). Major portions of penguin. During our analysis, we did not find the range are in Fiordland National Park Major reductions in the numbers of that there were any significant (4,825 mi2 (12,500 km2)) and Rakiura nests in individual colonies and the loss differences in the quality, quantity, or National Park (63 mi2 (163 km2)) on of colonies indicate the population of distribution of habitat relative to the Stewart Island and on adjacent islands. white-flippered penguin at Banks biological requirements of the species. Historically, there are reports of Peninsula is declining as the threat of Nor did we find that there was breeding north to the Cook Straits and predation impacts this subspecies. The uniqueness of either habitat for reasons perhaps on the southernmost part of the subspecies has a low population size such as breeding, feeding, or suitability North Island (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 69). (10,460 individuals), with breeding for population expansion. No genetic The Fiordland crested penguin breeds populations concentrated solely in two differences were found between the in colonies situated in inaccessible, highly localized breeding areas. Bycatch populations such that one or the other dense, temperate rainforest along shores from fisheries activities is an ongoing was found to be significant. and rocky coastlines, and sometimes in threat to members of this subspecies Threats in the marine environment, sandy bays. It feeds on fish, squid, breeding at both Motunau Island and particularly fisheries bycatch, have octopus, and krill (van Heezik 1989, pp. the Banks Peninsula. For both breeding similar impacts on the two areas. Given 151-156). areas, which are close to an industrial the proximity of each colony to the port Outside of the breeding season, the port and shipping lanes, oil spills are a of Christchurch, we conclude that oil birds have been sighted around the threat to the white-flippered penguin in spills are also an equal threat in both North and South Islands and south to the foreseeable future. areas. Predation by introduced predators the sub-Antarctic islands, and the In considering the foreseeable future is documented at Banks Peninsula, and species is a regular vagrant to as it relates to the status of the white- introduction of predators is a potential southeastern Australia (Simpson 2007, flippered penguin, we considered the future threat at Motunau Island, where p. 2; Taylor 2000, p. 58). Houston threats acting on the subspecies, as well population numbers are stable. Because (2007a, p. 2) of the New Zealand DOC as population trends. We considered the predation is a current threat in the comments that the appearance of historical data to identify any relevant Banks Peninsula portion of the range, vagrants in other locations is not existing trends that might allow for we considered whether the Banks necessarily indicative of the normal reliable prediction of the future (in the Peninsula portion of the range, where foraging range of Fiordland crested form of extrapolating the trends). population declines are ongoing, may be penguins; however, he also states that The available data indicate that the currently in danger of extinction. the non-breeding range of this species is historic decline in penguin numbers is Although the threat of introduced unknown. clearly continuing based on the current predators is greater at the Banks A five-stage survey effort, conducted evidence of predation by introduced Peninsula, two other factors offset this: during 1990–1995, documented all the species in existing recently surveyed a combination of local management major nesting areas of Fiordland crested colonies at Banks Island. Based on our protection of some colonies and the penguin throughout its known current analysis of the best available existence of inaccessible refugia from range (McLean and Russ 1991, pp. 183– information, we have no reason to predators for some small colonies on the 190; Russ et al. 1992, pp. 113–118; believe that population trends will outer coast and offshore rocks and McLean et al. 1993, pp. 85–94; change in the future, nor that the effects islands. The threat of predation is Studholme et al. 1994, pp. 133–143; of current threats acting on this somewhat greater at the Banks McLean et al. 1997, pp. 37–47). In these subspecies will be ameliorated in the Peninsula relative to Motunau Island, studies, researchers systematically foreseeable future. Therefore, we find but as discussed in our analysis under surveyed the entire length of the range that the white-flippered penguin is Factor D, the best available scientific of this species, working their way along likely to become in danger of extinction and commercial data suggest that this the coast on foot to identify and count within the foreseeable future throughout threat is not so disproportionately individual nests, and conducting small all of its range. severe as to place the species in danger boat surveys from a few meters offshore

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45512 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

to identify areas to survey on foot. The the placement of species into threat this species are unknown (Taylor 2000, coastline was also scanned from a categories according to both status p. 59). The plan identified the need for support ship, to identify areas to survey criteria and threat criteria. Relevant to future research on distribution and (McLean et al. 1993, p. 87). A final the Fiordland crested penguin movements of this species in the marine count of nests for the species resulted in evaluation are its low population size environment (Taylor 2000, p. 61). an estimate of between 2,500 and 3,000 and reported declines of greater than or Based on this analysis, we find that nests annually (McLean et al. 1997, p. equal to 60 percent of the total the present or future destruction, 45) and a corresponding number of population in the last 100 years (Molloy modification, or curtailment of the 2,500 to 3,000 breeding pairs. The et al. 2003, p. 20). terrestrial and marine habitat or range is staging of this survey effort reflects the not a threat to the Fiordland crested dispersed distribution of small colonies Summary of Factors Affecting the penguin. Fiordland Crested Penguin of this species along the convoluted and Factor B. Overutilization for inaccessible mainland and island Factor A. The Present or Threatened Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or coastlines of the southwest portion of Destruction, Modification, or Educational Purposes the South Island of New Zealand. Curtailment of the Fiordland Crested Long-term and current data on overall Penguin’s Habitat or Range Although human disturbance of changes in abundance are lacking. The colonies is rare because the birds June 2007 Fiordland National Park The Fiordland crested penguin has a generally nest in inaccessible sites, this Management Plan (New Zealand patchy breeding distribution from species exhibits high nest fidelity, and Department of Conservation (NZ DOC) Jackson Bay on the west coast of the their ability to reproduce may be 2007, p. 53) observed that Fiordland South Island of New Zealand southward significantly impacted by a small crested penguin numbers appear to be to the southwest tip of South Island and amount of human disturbance (St. Clair stable, and reported on the nesting southern offshore islands, including 1999, pp. 37-41). In more accessible success of breeding pairs at island (88 Stewart Island. A major portion of this areas, such as the northern portion of percent) versus mainland (50 percent) range is encompassed by the Fiordland the range at South Westland, large sites. The Management Plan raises National Park on South Island and concentrations of nests occur in areas uncertainty as to whether 50 percent Solander Island and Rakiura National accessible to people. In addition, nesting success will be sufficient to Park on Stewart Island and on adjacent tourism may disturb breeding (McLean maintain the mainland population long islands at the southern tip of New et al. 1997, p. 46; Taylor 2000, p. 58). term. Populations on Open Bay Island Zealand. The majority of the breeding The 2000 Action Plan for Seabird decreased by 33 percent between 1988 range of the Fiordland crested penguin Conservation in New Zealand stated and 1995 (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 70), and lies within national parks and is that guidelines are needed to control a long-term decline may have occurred currently protected from destruction visitor access to mainland penguin on Solander Island (Cooper et al. 1986, and modification. The only reported colonies and accessible sites should be p. 89). Historical data report thousands instance of terrestrial habitat protected as wildlife refuges (Taylor of individuals in locations where modification comes from the presence 2000, p. 60). It is unclear whether such numbers in current colonies are 100 or of deer (no species name provided) in measures have been implemented based fewer (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 69). The some colonies that may trample nests or on the information available. Research species account in the New Zealand open up habitat for predators (Taylor activities, particularly handling Action Plan for Seabird Conservation 2000, p. 58). Therefore, we find that the penguins for purposes such as insertion states that ‘‘the population status of the present destruction, modification, or of transponders and weighing, may also species throughout its breeding range is curtailment of the terrestrial habitat or disturb breeding birds. Houston (2007a, still unknown and will require long- range of the Fiordland crested penguin p. 1) reported that monitoring of term monitoring to assess changes’’ is not a threat to the species. breeding success at Jackson’s Head has (Taylor 2000, p. 58). The marine foraging range of the been abandoned due to concerns of The IUCN Red List (BirdLife Fiordland crested penguin is poorly adverse effects of the research on International 2010, p. 1) classifies this documented. Recent observations on the breeding success and recruitment. There species as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ because it has a foraging behavior of the species around is no evidence of use of the species for small population assumed to have been Stewart and Codfish Islands found birds other commercial, recreational, undergoing a rapid reduction of at least foraging very close to shore and in scientific, or educational purposes. 30 percent over the last 29 years. This shallow water (Houston 2007a, p. 2), The threat of human disturbance classification is based on trend data indicating the species may not be a could increase as tourism activities from a few sites. For example, at Open pelagic (open ocean) feeder. The species become more widespread in the region, Bay Island there was a 33 percent is a vagrant to more northerly areas of and we have no information that decrease for the time period 1988–1995. New Zealand and to southeastern indicates this threat will be alleviated The Fiordland crested penguin is listed Australia, but that is not considered for the Fiordland crested penguin in the as Category B (second priority) on the indicative of its normal foraging range foreseeable future. Because this species Molloy and Davis threat categories (Houston 2007a, p. 2). is so sensitive to human disturbance employed by the New Zealand DOC ‘‘Prey shortage due to sea temperature and exhibits high nest fidelity, we find (Taylor 2000, p. 33) and placed in the change’’ while foraging at sea has been that the present overutilization for second tier in New Zealand’s Action cited as a threat to Fiordland crested commercial, recreational, scientific, or Plan for Seabird Conservation. The penguins because of possible changes in educational purposes, particularly species is listed as ‘‘acutely threatened— prey distribution as a result of warming human disturbance from tourism, is a nationally endangered’’ on the New sea temperatures. ((Ellis et al. 2007, p. threat to the survival of the Fiordland Zealand Threat Classification System 6; Taylor 2000, p. 59). However, the crested penguin. list (Hitchmough et al. 2007, p. 38; Action Plan for Seabird Conservation in Molloy et al. 2003, pp. 13–23). Under New Zealand concluded that the effects Factor C. Disease or Predation this classification system, which is of oceanic changes or marine Reports from 1976 documented that nonregulatory, species experts assess perturbations such as El Nino events on Fiordland crested penguin chicks have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45513

been infected by the sandfly-borne destroying the eggs and killing the in their possession any living or dead protozoan blood parasite chicks of Fiordland crested penguins. At wildlife unless they have appropriate (Leucocytozoon tawaki) (Taylor 2000, p. Open Bay Island colonies, weka caused authority. 59) (see discussion under Factor C for 38 percent of egg mortality observed and The majority of the range of the the yellow-eyed penguin). Diseases such 20 percent of chick mortality (St. Clair Fiordland crested penguin is within the as avian cholera, which has caused the and St. Clair 1992, p. 61). The decline Fiordland National Park (which deaths of southern rockhopper penguin in numbers of Fiordland crested includes Solander Island) and adjacent adults and chicks at the Campbell penguin on the Solander Islands from parks, including Rakiura National Park Islands, are inferred to be a potential ‘‘plentiful’’ to a few dozen since 1948 on Stewart Island. Fiordland National problem in Fiordland crested penguin has also been attributed to egg predation Park covers 15 percent of public colonies (Taylor 2000, p. 59). However, by weka (Cooper et al. 1986, p. 89). conservation land in New Zealand. with no significant disease outbreaks Among the future management actions Under section 4 of New Zealand’s reported, the best available information identified as needed in New Zealand’s National Parks Act of 1980 and Park leads us to conclude that disease is not Action Plan for Seabird Conservation bylaws, ‘‘the native plants and animals a threat to this species. are eradicating weka from Solander of the parks shall as far as possible be Predation from introduced mammals Island and addressing the problem of preserved and the introduced plants and and birds is a threat to the Fiordland weka predation at Open Bay Islands animals shall as far as possible be crested penguin (Taylor 2000, p. 58; (Taylor 2000, p. 60). eradicated’’ (NZ DOC 2007, p. 24). The Ellis et al. 1998, p. 70). Comments The available data indicate that June 2007 Fiordland National Park received from the New Zealand DOC historical declines have been linked to Management Plan (NZ DOC 2007, pp. 1– link historical declines of Fiordland introduced predators on the South 4) contains, in its section on crested penguins to the time of arrival Island of New Zealand, and recently Preservation of Indigenous Species and of mammalian predators, particularly documented declines have been Habitats, a variety of objectives aimed at stoats, to the area (Houston 2007a, p. 1). attributed to introduced predators. maintaining biodiversity by preventing Only Codfish Island, where 144 nests Given the remote and widely dispersed the further loss of indigenous species have been observed, is fully protected range of the Fiordland crested penguin, from areas where they were previously from introduced mammalian and avian especially on the mainland of the South known to exist. The Fiordland crested predators (Studholme et al. 1994, p. Island, significant anti-predator efforts penguin is specifically referenced in the 142). This island lies closely adjacent to are largely impractical for this species. audit of biodiversity values to be Stewart Island, so the future possibility We are unaware of any time-bound plan preserved in the Park (NZ DOC 2007, p. of predator reintroduction is possible. to implement anti-predator protection 53). In addition, the Fiordland Marine Mustelids, especially stoats, are for Fiordland crested penguins or of any Management Act of 2005 establishes the reported to take eggs and chicks in significant efforts to stem ongoing rates Fiordland Marine area and 8 marine mainland colonies and may of predation. Therefore, we find that reserves within that area, which occasionally attack adult penguins predation by introduced species is encompass more than 2.18 million ac (Taylor 2000, p. 58). The Norway rat, reasonably likely to continue in the (882,000 ha) extending from the ship rat, and Pacific rat are also likely foreseeable future. Predator control northern boundary of the Park to the predators, but there is no direct programs have been undertaken on only southern boundary (excluding Solander evidence of rat predation of Fiordland a few islands in a limited portion of the Island) (NZ DOC 2007, p. 29). The crested penguins. Feral cats and pigs are Fiordland crested penguin’s range and species also inhabits Rakiura National also potential predators, but they are not are not practicable in the inaccessible Park on Stewart Island and Whenua common in nesting areas. Recent mainland South Island strongholds of Hou (Codfish Island) and is protected by observations since the development of the species (Taylor 2000, p. 59). New Zealand’s National Parks Act of the Action Plan (Taylor 2000, p. 58), Predation by introduced mammalian 1980 and Park bylaws. which originally discounted the impact species is the primary threat facing the The Fiordland National Park is of the introduced possum (Trichosurus Fiordland crested penguin on the encompassed in the Te Wahipounamu— vulpecula), indicate that this species has mainland South Island of New Zealand. South West New Zealand World now colonized the mainland range of On breeding islands free of mammalian Heritage Area. World Heritage areas are the Fiordland crested penguin in South predators, for example, on Open Bay designated under the World Heritage Westland and Fiordland. Initially Islands and Solander Island, an Convention because of their outstanding thought to be vegetarians, it is now introduced bird, the weka, is a predator universal value (NZ DOC 2007, p. 44). documented that possums eat birds, of Fiordland penguin eggs and chicks. Such designation does not confer eggs, and chicks and also compete for Only Codfish Island is fully protected additional protection beyond that burrows with native species. It is not yet from introduced mammalian and avian provided by national laws. known if they compete for burrows or predators. Therefore, we find that Despite these designations and the eat the eggs of Fiordland crested although predation by introduced possibility of future efforts, we have no penguins, as they do other native species is not a threat to the Fiordland information to indicate that measures species, but it is likely (Houston 2007b, crested penguin on Codfish Island, it is have been implemented that reduce the p. 1). Domestic dogs are also known to a threat to this species in other portions threats to the Fiordland crested kill adult penguins and disturb colonies of its range. penguin. near human habitation (Taylor 2000, p. The Fiordland crested penguin has 58). Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing been placed in the group of birds ranked Weka, which are omnivorous, Regulatory Mechanisms as second tier threat status in New flightless rails about the size of chickens The Fiordland crested penguin is Zealand’s Action Plan for Seabird and native to other regions of New protected under New Zealand’s Wildlife Conservation on the basis of its being Zealand, have been widely introduced Act of 1953, which gives absolute listed as ‘Vulnerable’ by IUCN Red List onto offshore islands of New Zealand. protection to wildlife throughout New Criteria and as Category B (second At Open Bay Islands and Solander Zealand and its surrounding marine priority) on the Molloy and Davis threat Islands, this species has been observed economic zone. No one may kill or have categories employed by the New

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Zealand DOC (Taylor 2000, p. 33). The Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade major human population centers. Thus Action Plan, while not a legally binding Factors Affecting the Continued the consequent risk of oil or chemical document, outlines actions and Existence of the Species spills is low. The Stewart Islands priorities intended to define the future Commercial fishing in much of the populations at the southern end of New direction of seabird management in New species’ range is a comparatively recent Zealand are in closer proximity to vessel Zealand. High-priority future development and is considered unlikely traffic and human industrial activities, management actions identified are to have played a significant role in which may increase the possibility of oil eradication of weka from Big Solander historic declines (Houston 2007a, p. 1). or chemical spill impacts. Two spills Island and development of a New Zealand’s Seabird Action Plan have been recorded in this overall management plan for the Open Bay noted that Fiordland crested penguins region. In March 2000, the fishing vessel Islands to address the problem of weka could potentially be caught in set nets Seafresh 1sank in Hanson Bay on the predation on Fiordland crested near breeding colonies and that trawl east coast of Chatham Island and penguins and other species. We do not nets are also a potential risk. released 66 T (60 t) of diesel fuel. Rapid have information to allow us to evaluate Competition with squid fisheries is also containment of the oil at this remote whether any of these proposed actions noted as a potential threat (Taylor 2000, location prevented any wildlife and priorities have been carried out and, p. 59; Ellis et al. 1998, p. 70; Ellis et al. casualties (New Zealand Wildlife Health therefore, have not relied on this 2007, p. 7). The 1998 CAMP Center 2007, p. 2). The same source reports that, in 1998, the fishing vessel information in our threat analysis. recommended research on foraging New Zealand has in place the New Don Wong 529ran aground at Breaksea ecology to identify potential Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Islets off Stewart Island. Approximately competition with commercial fisheries Strategy, which provides the overall 331 T (300 t) of marine diesel was and effects of climatic variation (Ellis et framework to mount a response to spilled along with smaller amounts of al. 1998, pp. 70–71), but we are not marine oil spills that occur within New lubricating and waste oils. With aware of the results of any such studies. Zealand’s area of responsibility. The favorable weather conditions and The New Zealand DOC (Houston 2007a, aim of the strategy is to minimize the establishment of triage response, no p. 1), in its comments on our 90–day effects of oil on the environment and on casualties from this pollution event petition finding (73 FR 77303), noted human safety and health. The National were discovered (Taylor 2000, p. 94). ‘‘ Oil Spill Contingency Plan promotes a that the assessment of threats overstates There is no doubt that an oil spill near ’’ planned and nationally coordinated the threat from fisheries to the a breeding colony could have a major response to any marine oil spill that is Fiordland crested penguin. The effect on this species (Taylor 2000, p. beyond the capability of a local regional distribution and behavior of this species 94). However, based on the remote council or outside the region of any may reduce the potential impact of distribution of Fiordland penguins local council (Maritime New Zealand bycatch. The Fiordland crested penguin around the mainland South Island, and 2007, p. 1). As discussed below under is distributed widely along the highly on offshore islands at the southern tip Factor E, rapid containment of spills in convoluted, sparsely populated, and of the South Island, the low number of remote areas and effective triage legally protected South Island coastline previous incidents around New response under this plan have shown for a linear distance of over 155 mi (250 Zealand, and the fact that each was these to be effective regulatory km), as well as along the coasts of effectively contained under the New mechanisms (New Zealand Wildlife several offshore islands. These marine Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Health Center 2007, p. 2; Taylor 2000, reserves are granted protection under Strategy and resulted in no mortality or p. 94). the Marine Reserves Act of 1971 (NZ evidence of impacts on the population, Major portions of the coastal and DOC 2010, pp. 1-3). The Act, in part, we find that oil and chemical spills are marine habitat of the Fiordland crested states that the reserves shall be not a threat to the Fiordland crested penguin are protected under a series of preserved as far as possible in their penguin. laws, and the species itself is covered natural state, marine life of the reserves In summary, while fisheries bycatch under the New Zealand Wildlife Act. shall as far as possible be protected and has been suggested as a potential source New Zealand’s National Parks Act preserved, the public shall have of mortality to the Fiordland crested specifically calls for controlling and freedom of access and entry to the penguin, the best available information eradicating introduced species. While reserves, and no person shall fish in a leads us to conclude that this is not a there has been limited success in marine reserve [unless specifically threat to this species. There is a low- controlling some predators of Fiordland authorized]. Significant feeding level potential for oil spill events to crested penguins at isolated island concentrations of the species, which impact this species, but the wide habitats comprising small portions of might be susceptible to bycatch, have dispersal of this species along the overall range, the comprehensive not been described. Given the absence inaccessible and protected coastlines legal protection of this species has not of documentation of actual impacts of leads us to conclude that potential oil surmounted the logistical and resource fisheries bycatch on the Fiordland spills are not a threat to the Fiordland constraints that stand in the way of crested penguin, we conclude that this crested penguin. Therefore, we find that limiting or eradicating predators on is a not threat to the species. other natural or manmade factors are larger islands and in inaccessible We have examined the possibility that not a threat to the species. mainland South Island habitats. oil and chemical spills may impact Furthermore, we are not able to evaluate Fiordland crested penguins. Such spills, Fiordland Crested Penguin Finding whether efforts to reduce the threats of should they occur and not be effectively The primary documented threat to the human disturbance discussed in Factor managed, can have direct effects on Fiordland crested penguin is predation B have been implemented or achieved marine seabirds such as the Fiordland by introduced mammalian and avian results. crested penguin. The range of the predators within the species’ breeding On the basis of this information, we Fiordland crested penguin on the range. We are only aware of one small find that inadequacy of existing southwest coast of the South Island of breeding location that is known to be regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the New Zealand is remote, far from free of predators. The impact of Fiordland crested penguin. shipping activity and away from any predators is evidenced by the major

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45515

historical decline of the Fiordland become more widespread in the region. introduced mammalian predators on the crested penguin during the period of While efforts to control this threat have mainland may be extremely difficult, if invasion by these predators of the South been undertaken, we have no not impossible. However, on the Island of New Zealand. Historical data information that allows us to conclude mainland, the nests are widely from about 1890 cites thousands of this threat will be alleviated for the distributed, and we believe therefore are Fiordland crested penguins in areas Fiordland crested penguin in the somewhat buffered from predators. where current surveys find colonies of foreseeable future. Although the predation rate is greater only 100 or fewer. Even though this The overall population of the than that of other species (Gustafson species is poorly known, an exhaustive Fiordland crested penguin is small 2005, p. 2), the mainland population has multi-year survey effort documented (2,500–3,000 pairs) and reported to be been able to persist and is not currently current low population numbers. Recent declining (Ellis et al. 2007, p. 6). The in danger of extinction. While the threat declines at Open Bay and Solander ongoing pressure of predation by of introduced predators is greater on the Islands have been documented as introduced mammalian and avian mainland, the population is being resulting from weka predation. The species on this endemic species over the managed to some extent, and the threats Fiordland crested penguin is a remote next few decades, with little possibility do not rise to the level that the and hard-to-study species. However, in of significant anti-predator intervention, mainland population is in imminent observing the impact of predators on and the potential for human disturbance danger of extinction. Due to the ability other similar naı¨ve, New Zealand to impact breeding populations, leads us of the mainland population to persist, penguins, such as the yellow-eyed to find that the Fiordland crested we find that there is not substantial (Darby and Seddon 1990, p. 45) and the penguin is likely to become in danger of information to conclude that the species white-flippered penguin (Challies and extinction within the foreseeable future in the mainland portion of its range may Burleigh 2004, p. 4), one can assume throughout all of its range. currently be in danger of extinction. that predators would have a similar Significant Portion of the Range As a result, while the best scientific impact on Fiordland crested penguins. Analysis and commercial data available allows us In considering the foreseeable future to make a determination as to the as it relates to the status of the Having determined that the Fiordland rangewide status of the Fiordland crested penguin is likely to become in Fiordland crested penguin, we crested penguin, we have determined danger of extinction within the considered the threats acting on the that there are no significant portions of foreseeable future throughout all of its species, as well as population trends. the range in which the species is range, we must consider whether there We considered the historical data to currently in danger of extinction. The are any significant portions of its range identify any relevant existing trends that species is widely distributed throughout where the species is in danger of might allow for reliable prediction of its range and current threats do not put the future (in the form of extrapolating extinction now. Fiordland crested penguins breed in the species in immediate danger of the trends). extinction. In conclusion, we have New Zealand laws and the bylaws of widely dispersed small colonies along the convoluted and inaccessible determined that there are no significant its national parks, which encompass the portions of the range in which the majority of the range of the Fiordland southwest coast of the western side of species is currently in danger of crested penguin, institute provisions to South Island, New Zealand, and extinction. Therefore, we are listing the ‘‘as far as possible’’ protect this species adjacent offshore islands southwards Fiordland crested penguin as threatened and to seek eradication of nonnative from Bruce Bay, including Stewart throughout all of its range under the invasive species. Unfortunately, while Island, Solander Island, and Codfish Act. complete eradication of predators, such Island. There are a total of 2,500 to as weka, in isolated island habitats (e.g., 3,000 breeding pairs throughout its Humboldt Penguin (Spheniscus Solander Island), may be possible, range. In our previous five-factor humboldti) analyses, we found that threats from removal of the introduced mammalian Background predators now known to be widespread human disturbance and inadequacy of in mainland Fiordland National Park is regulatory mechanisms have similar The Humboldt penguin is endemic to an extremely difficult, if not impossible, impacts on both island and mainland the west coast of South America from task. Similarly, physical protection of portions of the range. We also found Foca Island (5°12’0’’S) in northern Peru some breeding groups from predation, that a primary threat to the Fiordland to the Pun˜ ihuil Islands near Chiloe, as has been done for species such as the crested penguin is predation by Chile (42 °S) (Araya et al. 2000, p. 1). yellow-eyed and white-flippered introduced birds on islands and It breeds on islands off the coasts of penguins, is impractical for the introduced mammals on the mainland. both Peru and Chile. It is a congener Fiordland crested penguin. For other Major portions of this species’ range are (within the same genus) of the African penguin species located in more in Fiordland National Park and Rakiura penguin and has similar life history and accessible and more restricted ranges, National Park, and on Stewart Island ecological traits. the task of predator control has been and adjacent islands. The Fiordland Humboldt penguins historically bred undertaken at levels of effort meaningful National Park Management Plan on guano islands off the coast of Peru to the protection of those species. For reported that nesting success of and Chile (Araya et al. 2000, p. 1). Prior this remote and widely dispersed breeding pairs at island sites was greater to human mining of guano for fertilizer, species, predator control has only been than at mainland sites (88 and 55 the Humboldt penguin’s primary undertaken on a limited basis, and we percent, respectively). This led us to nesting habitat was in burrows tunneled have no reason to believe this threat to consider whether the threats in the into the deep guano substrate on the Fiordland crested penguin will be mainland portion of the range may offshore islands. While the guano is ameliorated in the foreseeable future. cause this portion of the range to be in produced primarily by three other The threat of human disturbance is danger of extinction now. While the species (the Guanay cormorant present in those areas of the range most eradication of predators, such as weka, (Phalacrocorax bouganvillii), the accessible to human habitation, but in isolated island habitats may be Peruvian booby (Sula variegate), and could increase as tourism activities possible, removal of the widespread Peruvian pelican (Pelecanus thagus)),

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45516 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Humboldt penguins depend on these the autumn breeding event is regularly penguins, 3,600 chicks, and 117 burrows for shelter from the heat and disrupted by rains more typical at that juveniles at that island in 2003 (2004, p. from predators. With the intensive latitude, and there is high reproductive 373). While 6,000 breeding birds had harvest of guano over the last century failure. Adults in the southern extent of been recorded in the 1980s, counts after and a half in both countries, Humboldt the range (south-central Chile) leave the 1985 had never exceeded 2,500 breeding penguins have been forced to nest out colonies in winter, presumably after birds (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 99). The in the open or seek shelter in caves or abandoning nesting efforts (Simeone et authors indicated that rather than under vegetation (Paredes and Zavalga al. 2002, p. 47). Peruvian and northern representing a sudden population 2001, pp. 199–205). Chilean colonies are only impacted by increase, the discrepancy may be a The distribution of the Humboldt rains and flooding during El Nin˜ o years, result of systematic underestimates in penguin is very closely associated with and during those years, nesting attempts eight previous counts at Isla Chanaral, the Humboldt (Peruvian) current. The are reduced as food supplies shift and which were all conducted using a upwelling of cold, highly productive adults forage farther away from nesting uniform methodology, but may not have waters off the coast of Peru provides a sites (Culik et al. 2000, p. 2317). considered the absence of penguins due continuous food source to vast schools The distribution of colonies within to breeding versus nonbreeding season of fish and large seabird populations the breeding range of the Humboldt in conducting the population estimate. (Hays 1986, p. 170). In the Chilean penguin in Peru has shifted south in Just to the south of this study area in the system to the south, upwelling is lighter recent years. This shift may be in Coquimbo region, Luna-Jorguera et al. and occurs more seasonally than in the response to a number of factors: counted a total of 10,300 penguins in Peruvian system (Simeone et al. 2002, p. (1) El Nin˜ o events in which prey on-land and at-sea counts conducted in 44). In all regions, Humboldt penguins distribution has been shown to move to 1999 (2000, p. 506). They found feed primarily on schooling fish such as the south (Culik et al. 2000, p. 2311); numbers higher than the most recent the anchovy (Engraulis ringens), (2) Increasing human pressure in previous census, which had estimated Auracanian herring (Strangomera central coastal areas; only 1,050 individuals in the Coquimbo (3) Long-term changes in prey bentincki), silversides (Odontesthes region (Luna-Jorguera et al. 2000, p. distribution (Paredes et al. 2003, p. 135); regia), garfish (Scomberesox saurus) 508). In 2007, Ellis et al. (2007, p. 7), or (Herling et al. 2005, p. 21), and Pacific estimated that there were approximately sardine (Sardinops sagax) (Simeone et (4) Overall increases in sea surface temperature. 30,000 to 35,000 individuals in the al. 2002, p. 47). Depending on the Chilean population. Other than the location and the year, the proportion of Modinger (1998, p. 67) estimated that historically there may have been a overall rangewide figures for the species each of these species in the diet varies. presented by Ellis et al. (2007, p. 7), no Periodic failure of the upwelling and million Humboldt penguins in the Humboldt Current. By 1936, there was current comprehensive estimate of the its impact on schooling fish and total number of penguins in Chile exists. fisheries off Peru and Ecuador were the already evidence of major population first recorded and signature phenomena declines and of breeding colonies made There are varied total population of El Nin˜ o Southern Oscillation events precarious by the harvest of guano from estimates for this species. As recently as (ENSO). El Nin˜ o events occur irregularly over 100 Peruvian islands (Araya et al. 2007, Ellis et al. (p. 7) reported a total every 2–7 years (National Oceanic and 2000, p. 1, Modinger et al. 1998, p. 1; population of 41,000 to 47,000 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Ellis et al. 2007, p. 7). individuals. However, BirdLife 2007, p. 4). This periodic warming of Estimates of the population in Peru International currently indicates that sea surface temperatures and have fluctuated in recent history. They there is an estimated total population of consequent upwelling failure affects were estimated to be between 3,500 and 3,000 to 12,000 (2009, p. 2). BLI is the primary productivity and the entire food 7,000 in 1981, with a subsequent official IUCN Red List Authority for web of the coastal ecosystem. Anchovy reported decrease to 2,100 to 3,000 birds. BLI supplies information for all of and sardine populations are especially individuals after the 1982–1983 El Nin˜ o the world’s birds to the IUCN Red List impacted, and these are the major diet event. In 1996, there were reported to be each year. The 2007 IUCN Red List of Humboldt penguins. During El Nin˜ o 5,500 individuals, and after the strong (BirdLife International 2007, p. 1) events, seabirds, fish, and marine 1997–1998 El Nin˜ o event, fewer than categorizes the Humboldt penguin as mammals experience reduced survival 5,000. In Peru, population surveys in ‘‘Vulnerable’’ on the basis of 30 to 49 and reproductive success, as well as the southern portion of the range in percent declines over the past three population crashes (Hays 1986, p. 170). 2006 found 41 percent more penguins generations and predicted over three Given the north-south distribution of than in 2004, increasing estimates for generations into the future. Thus, the Humboldt penguin along the that area from 3,100 individuals to 4,390 because BLI is the accepted authority for Peruvian and Chilean coasts, and supporting an overall population IUCN’s Red List for birds, we accept the researchers have looked for variation in estimate for Peru of 5,000 individuals estimate of the total population to be breeding and foraging along this (Instituto Nacional de Recursos between 3,000 and 12,000 birds. climatic gradient (Simeone et al. 2002, Naturales (INRENA) 2007, p. 1; IMARPE pp. 43–50). In dry Peruvian breeding 2007, p. 1). Summary of Factors Affecting the areas, where upwelling provides a In Chile, researchers estimated there Humboldt Penguin constant food source, penguins nest were 7,500 breeding Humboldt Factor A. The Present or Threatened throughout the year with two well- penguins in Chile in 1995–1996 (Ellis et Destruction, Modification, or defined peaks in breeding in the autumn al. 1998, p. 99; Luna-Jorguera et al. Curtailment of Humboldt Penguin’s and spring. Adults remain near the 2000, p. 508). This estimate for Chile Habitat or Range colony all year. Further south, in was significantly revised following northern and north-central Chile, the surveys conducted in 2002 and 2003 at The habitat of the Humboldt penguin birds follow the same pattern, despite Isla Chanaral, one of the most important consists of terrestrial breeding and stronger seasonal differences in weather breeding islands for the Humboldt molting sites and the marine (Simeone et al. 2002, pp. 48–49). They penguin (Mattern et al. 2004, p. 373). environment, which serves as a foraging also attempt to breed twice a year, but Mattern et al. counted 22,000 adult range year-round.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45517

Terrestrial Habitat had higher breeding success than habitat is a threat to the survival of the Modification of their terrestrial penguins breeding in the open, Humboldt penguin. illustrating the impact of loss of guano breeding habitat is a continuing threat to Marine Habitat Humboldt penguins. Humboldt penguin substrate on the survival of Humboldt breeding islands were, and continue to penguin populations. With respect to modification of the be, a source of guano for the fertilizer Guano harvesting continues on marine habitat of the Humboldt industry and have been exploited since Peruvian points and islands under penguin, periodic El Nin˜ o events have 1840 in both Peru and Chile. Between government control. The fisheries been shown to have significant effects 1840 and 1880, Peru exported an agency, Instituto del Mar del Peru on the marine environment on which estimated 12.7 million T (11.5 t) of (IMARPE), is working with the Humboldt penguins depend, because guano from its islands (Cushman 2007, parastatal (government-owned) guano they reduce the available food sources p. 1). Throughout the past century, Peru extraction company, PROABONOS, to for this species. These El Nin˜ o events has managed the industry through a limit the impacts of guano extraction on are considered to be the main marine variety of political and ecological penguins at certain colonies to ensure perturbation for the Humboldt penguin conflicts, including the devastating that harvest is conducted outside the impacting penguin colonies in Peru impacts of El Nin˜ o on populations of breeding season and that workers are (Hays 1986, pp. 169–180; Ellis et al. guano-producing birds and the restricted from disturbing penguins 1998, p. 101; INRENA 2007, p. 1) and competition between the fishing (IMARPE 2007, p. 2). In 1998, the Chile (Simeone et al. 2002, p. 43). The industry and the seabird populations Wildlife Conservation Society and strength and duration of El Nino events that are so valuable to guano PROABONOS fenced off penguin has increased since the 1970s. The production. After 1915, caretakers of the rookeries, which successfully prevented 1997–1998 event was the most extreme islands routinely hunted penguins for guano harvesters from harming wildlife on record (Trenberth et al. 2007, p. 288). food even as their guano nesting (Paredes et al. p. 136). The Humboldt Penguin Population and substrate was removed, which resulted Two major penguin colonies at Punta Habitat Viability Assessment (Araya et in penguins being virtually eliminated San Juan and Pachacamac Island are in al. 2000, pp. 7–8) concluded that, even from the guano islands (Cushman 2007, guano bird reserves. They are under the without El Nino and other impacts, p. 11). Harvest of guano continues on a management and protection of the documented rates of reproductive small scale today and is managed by guano extraction agency, which has success and survival would cause Proyecto Especial de Promocion del built walls to keep out people and declines in the Chilean populations. In Aprovechamiento de Abonos predators (UNEP World Conservation the absence of other human impacts, El Provenientes de Aves (PROABONOS), a Monitoring Center (UNEP WCMC) 2003, Nino events in Chile alone were small government company that p. 9). However, guano extraction is still projected to lead to 2.3 to 4.4 percent produces fertilizer for organic farming listed as a moderate threat to some annual population declines. Peruvian (Cushman 2007, p. 24). island populations within the Reserva population data for this species found Reports from 1936 described Nacional de Paracas (Lleellish et al. an overall population decline of 65 completely denuded guano islands and 2006, p. 4), and illegal guano extraction percent during the 1982–83 El Nin˜ o indicated that by 1936, Humboldt is listed by the Peruvian natural event (Hays 1986, p. 169). penguin populations had undergone a resource agency, Instituto Nacional de While we have not found comparable vast decline throughout the range (Ellis Recursos Naturales (INRENA), as one of documentation of the impact of the et al. 1998, p. 97). Guano, which was three primary threats to the Humboldt 1997–1998 event in Peru, few birds historically many meters deep, was penguin in Peru (INRENA 2007, p. 2). were recorded breeding at guano bird initially harvested down to the substrate The penguin Conservation Assessment reserves in 1998. At one colony, Punta level. Then, once the primary guano- and Management Plan (CAMP) (Ellis et San Juan, the number of breeding producing birds had produced another al. 1998, p. 101) recommended that the individuals appears to have declined by ankle-deep layer, it was harvested again. harvest of guano in Peru be regulated in as much as 75 percent between 1996 The Humboldt penguins, which order to preserve nesting habitat and and 1999 before a subsequent rebound formerly burrowed into the abundant reduce disturbance during the nesting (Paredes et al. 2003, p. 135). This guano, were deprived of their primary seasons. Although guano harvest is still suggests that a similar level of impact nesting substrate and forced to nest in a concern in Peru, guano harvest is from a single El Nin˜ o event in the future the open, where they are more reported to have ceased in Chile (UNEP could reduce current Peruvian susceptible to heat stress. In addition, WCMC 2003, p. 6). populations from 5,000 birds to 1,250 - their eggs and chicks are more Historical declines have resulted from 1,750 birds. Cyclical El Nino events vulnerable to predators. Alternatively, the destruction of Humboldt penguin’s cause high mortality among seabirds, they can be forced to resort to more nesting substrate by guano collection, but there is also high selection pressure precarious nesting sites (Ellis et al. and this loss of nesting habitat on Humboldt Current seabird 1998, p. 97). continues to impact the breeding populations such as the Humboldt Paredes and Zavalga (2001, pp. 199– success of the species in Peru. Although penguin to increase rapidly in numbers 205) investigated the importance of guano harvest is being managed to some after each event (Ellis et al. 1998, p. guano as a nesting substrate and found extent, we have no reason to believe the 101). Nonetheless, with strengthening El that Humboldt penguins at Punta San level of guano collection will change in Nino events, reduced Humboldt Juan, Peru, where guano harvest has the foreseeable future. We conclude, on penguin population numbers, and the ceased, preferred to nest in high- the basis of the extent and severity of compounding influence of other threat elevation sites where there was habitat modification and exploitation factors, such as ongoing competition adequate guano available for burrow throughout the range of the Humboldt with commercial fisheries for food excavation. As guano depth increased in penguin in both countries over the past sources which are discussed below the absence of harvest, the number of 170 years, and on the basis of ongoing under Factor E, the resiliency of penguins nesting in burrows increased. guano extraction in Peru, that Humboldt penguins to recover from Penguins using burrows on cliff tops modification of the terrestrial breeding cyclical El Nino events is highly likely

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

to be reduced from historical times WCMC 2010, p. 1). Prior to 1985, it was penguin’s spring and summer breeding (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 101). estimated that 9,264 Humboldt season. On the basis of this analysis, we find penguins had been exported to several Tourism has increased rapidly and that the present and threatened zoos around the world within a period with little regulation in the Humboldt destruction, modification, or of 32 years. Between the time the National Reserve and has caused nest curtailment of both its terrestrial and species was listed under CITES in 1981 destruction at Pun˜ ihuil Island in Chile. marine habitats, primarily due to El and 2008, there were 937 live CITES- In Peru, tourism is reported to be a Nin˜ o events and guano extraction, are permitted Humboldt penguin minimal to mid-level threat at Reserva threats to the Humboldt penguin. international shipments (UNEP-WCMC Nacional de Paracas (Lleellish et al. 2006, p. 4). Because Humboldt penguins Factor B. Overutilization for 2010, p. 1). Only one of these live are extremely sensitive to the presence Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or shipments (from Peru to Venezuela) of humans, the species’ breeding Educational Purposes indicated that its origin was from the wild; the other shipments all indicated success is impacted by increased levels While hunting of Humboldt penguins of tourism. Since the prime tourist that they were of captive origin. Chile for food and bait and harvesting of their season coincides with the species’ and Peru’s exports are included in these eggs have been long established on the spring and summer breeding season, we numbers. Peru exported 48 live animals coasts of Chile and Peru, it is not clear conclude that insufficiently regulated how much hunting persists today. At for educational and zoological purposes; tourism is a threat to the species. Pajaros Island in Chile, Humboldt Chile exported 10 live animals in 1981 Other human activities may disturb penguins are sometimes hunted for and none since then. We believe that penguins. For example, fishermen human consumption or for use as bait this limited amount of international hunting European rabbits (Oryctolagus in the crab fishery. At the Pun˜ ihuil trade, controlled via valid CITES cuniculus) disturbed penguins at Choros Islands farther south, they have also permits, is not a threat to the species. Island (Simeone et al. 2003, p. 328), but been hunted on occasion for use as crab Because commercial exportation of we do not conclude that this activity has bait (Simeone et al. 2003, p. 328; Humboldt penguins from Peru or Chile occurred at a scale that represents a Simeone and Schlatter 1998, p. 420). is now prohibited (Ellis et al. 1998, p. threat to the Humboldt penguin. Paredes et al. reported that as fishing 101, UNEP 2003, p. 8), export is no We have identified intentional take occurs more frequently in the proximity longer a threat to the species. (hunting of Humboldt penguins for food of penguin rookeries, fishermen have Tourism has been identified as a and bait and harvesting of their eggs) begun to take penguins for food in Peru potential threat to the Humboldt and unregulated tourism as threats to (2003, p. 136). Cheney (UNEP WCMC penguin. Since the 1990 designation of Humboldt penguins. Therefore, we find 2003, p. 6) reported an observation of a the Humboldt National Reserve, which that overutilization for commercial, fisherman taking 150 penguins to feed a includes the islands of Damas, Choros, recreational, scientific, or educational party. In 1995, egg harvest was listed as and Chanaral in Chile, tourism has purposes is a threat to the Humboldt the primary threat to Chilean increased rapidly but with little penguin. populations (UNEP WCMC 2003, p. 6), regulation (Ellenberg et al. 2006, p. 97). Factor C. Disease or Predation but recent information does not indicate Ellenberg et al. (2006, p. 99) found that whether that practice continues today. There is no information to indicate Humboldt penguin breeding success Paredes et al. (2003, p. 136) also that disease is a threat to the Humboldt varied with levels of tourism on these reported that guano harvesters penguin. three islands. Breeding success was very supplement their meager incomes and Various types of predation on diets through the collection of eggs and low at Damas Island, the most tourist Humboldt penguins have been chicks, although the fisheries agency, accessible island, which saw over documented. Simeone et al. (2003, p. IMARPE, is working with PROABONOS 10,000 visitors in 2003. Better breeding 331) reported that the presence of rats, to restrict workers from disturbing success was observed at Choros Island, rabbits, goats, and cats have been penguins (IMARPE 2007, p. 2). On the a less accessible island which saw fewer documented on islands along the basis of this information, we conclude than 1,000 visitors. The highest Chilean coast, but their actual impacts that localized intentional harvest may breeding success was observed at the on the Humboldt penguin population be ongoing. We have no basis to remote and largest Chanaral Island are unknown. In Chile, ‘‘rats were evaluate the effectiveness of reported colony, where tourist access was observed at Pa´jaros, Cachagua, and efforts to control this harvest. negligible. Unlike their congener Pa´jaros Nin˜ o [Islands]. At Pa´jaros Island, In 1981, the Humboldt penguin was (species within the same genus) the rats were present in large numbers and listed on Appendix I of the Convention Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus were observed to prey on penguin eggs on International Trade in Endangered magellanicus), Humboldt penguins and chicks’’ (Simeone et al. 2003, p. Species of Wild Fauna and Flora reacted to human presence and 328). Rats and cats are a significant (CITES). CITES regulates international displayed little habituation potential. threat because they eat eggs and chicks. trade in order to ensure that trade of the Their reactions indicate that there is a Luna-Jorquera et al. observed vampire species is compatible with the species’ strong need for tourism guidelines for bats preying upon juvenile Humboldt survival. International trade in this species (Ellenberg et al. 2006, p. penguins (1995, p. 471); however, there specimens of Appendix-I species is 103). Researchers described nest have been no other similar reports since authorized through permits or destruction by tourists at Pun˜ ihuil 1995. Foxes were reported to prey on certificates under certain circumstances, Island, a popular unregulated tourist Humboldt penguins at Pan de Azucar including verification that trade will not destination in southern Chile (Simeone National Park in Chile (Culik 2009 pers. be detrimental to the survival of the and Schlatter 1998, p. 420). Both the comm.). Limited conclusive data are species in the wild. It also must be attractiveness of the penguins for available for the Humboldt penguin; determined that the specimen (live tourism and the potential for increased however, based on studies of other animal, part, or product) was legally impacts from human disturbance stem species, it is very likely that predation acquired, and that the activity is not for from the coincidence of the prime is a significant threat to the species. primarily commercial purposes. (UNEP- tourist season with the Humboldt Simeone and Schlatter found that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45519

threat of predation has been shown to management of artesanal [sic] gill-net National Reserve and has caused nest result in rapid population declines in fisheries in Peru, except for restrictions destruction at Pun˜ ihuil Island in Chile. the past and that this threat is likely to on retaining cetaceans and penguins. In Peru, tourism is reported to be a continue in the foreseeable future due to Even these regulations are difficult to minimal to mid-level threat at Reserva the lack of control efforts to eradicate enforce in remote and isolated ports Nacional de Paracas (Lleellish et al. these predators (UNEP 2003, p. 7). such as San Juan.’’ Therefore, regulation 2006, p. 4). Because Humboldt penguins Therefore, on the basis of the best is still inadequate with respect to are extremely sensitive to the presence available information, we conclude that fisheries bycatch. of humans, the species’ breeding predation is a threat to the Humboldt Both countries have national success is impacted by increased levels penguin. authorities and national contingency of tourism. Since the prime tourist plans for oil spill responses. Chile has season coincides with the species’ Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing the capability to respond to Tier One spring and summer breeding season, we Regulatory Mechanisms (small spills with no outside conclude that insufficiently regulated The Humboldt penguin is listed as intervention) and Tier Two oil spill tourism is a threat to the species. ‘‘endangered’’ in Peru, the highest threat events (larger spills requiring additional We find that inadequacy of existing category under Peruvian legislation. outside resources and manpower) regulatory mechanisms, particularly due Take, capture, transport, trade, and (International Tankers Owners Pollution to the lack of enforcement of existing export are prohibited except for Federation Limited (ITOPF) 2003, p. 2). prohibitions related to fishing methods scientific or cultural purposes (IMARPE Although Peru responded well to an oil and management of fisheries bycatch, 2007, p. 1; UNEP WCMC 2003, p. 8). spill in 2008 near Paracas National and to insufficiently regulated tourism, Most breeding sites are protected by Reserve, as of 2009, Peru was not listed is a threat to the Humboldt penguin. designated areas. The principal breeding as having significant capability to Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade colonies are legally protected by respond to oil spill events (ITOPF 2009, Factors Affecting Its Continued PROABONOS, the institute which p. 1). Based on the ability of Chile to Existence manages guano extraction. The Reserva respond to threats, Peru’s successful Nacional de Paracas protects an area of response in 2008, and the location of Both large-scale commercial fisheries 1,293 mi2 (3,350 km2) of the coastal Humboldt penguins in an area where and small local fisheries compete for the marine ecosystem. In 2006, 1,375 they are not likely to be exposed to primary food of the Humboldt penguin penguins were observed in this reserve many oil spills, we find that oil spills throughout its range (BirdLife (Lleellish et al. 2006, pp. 5–6). However, are not a threat to the Humboldt International 2007, p. 4; Ellis et al. 1998, patrols of this area are inadequate to penguin. p. 100; Herling et al. 2005, p. 23; police illegal activities such as dynamite As indicated under factor B, tourism Hennicke and Culik 2005, p. 178). fishing (Lleellish et al. 2006, p. 4). has been identified as a threat to the While El Nin˜ o events (see Factor A) In 2008, the Chilean National Humboldt penguin. Since the 1990 cause severe fluctuations in Humboldt Commission for the Environment designation of the Humboldt National penguin numbers, overfishing and (CONAMA) listed this species as Reserve in Chile, tourism has increased entanglement (see Factor E) are vulnerable. Other protections include a rapidly with little regulation (Ellenberg identified as steady contributors to 30–year moratorium on hunting and et al. 2006, p. 97). Humboldt penguin underlying long-term declines (BirdLife capture of Humboldt penguins; and at breeding success varied based on levels International 2007, p. 4). Anchovies are least four major colonies are protected of tourism on these three islands. a primary component of Humboldt by Federal law. In fact, most terrestrial Breeding success was very low at Damas penguins’ diet. The anchovy fishery in sites where the species occurs are Island, the most tourist accessible Peru collapsed in the 1970s due to a within the national system of protected island, which saw over 10,000 visitors high number of catches and the areas (UNEP WCMC 2003, p. 8). in 2003. Better breeding success was overcapacity of fishing fleets, factors The species is listed in Appendix I of observed at Choros Island, a less that were exacerbated by the effects of CITES and in Appendix I of the accessible island which saw fewer than the 1972–1973 El Nin˜ o event. Twenty Convention on Migratory Species. Refer 1,000 visitors. The highest breeding years passed before it became clear that to the discussion of the application of success was observed at the remote and this fishery had recovered (Food and CITES under Factor B with respect to largest Chanaral Island colony, where Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2007, p. international trade. Because commercial tourist access was negligible. Humboldt 2). These recovered stocks continue to exportation of Humboldt penguins from penguins reacted to human presence be significantly impacted by major El Peru or Chile is not only prohibited and displayed little habituation Nin˜ o events, but have rebounded more (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 101, UNEP 2003, p. potential. Their reactions indicate that quickly recently. Peru reported anchovy 8), but also regulated under CITES, there is a strong need for tourism catches of 8.64 million T (9.6 million t) export is not a threat to the species. guidelines for this species (Ellenberg et in 2000, and 5.76 million T (6.4 million While legal protections are in place al. 2006, p. 103). Researchers described t) in 2001 (FAO 2007, p. 2). El Nin˜ o for the Humboldt penguin in both Chile nest destruction by tourists at Pun˜ ihuil events have caused periodic crashes of and Peru, in general it is reported that Island, a popular unregulated tourist the food supply of Humboldt penguins enforcement of such laws is limited due destination in southern Chile (Simeone in Peru and Chile in both the historic to inadequate resources and the remote and Schlatter 1998, p. 420). Both the and recent past. El Nin˜ o events, which location of penguin colonies (UNEP attractiveness of the penguins for occur irregularly every 2–7 years, have WCMC 2003, p. 8). The UNEP WCMC tourism and the potential for increased increased in frequency and intensity in Report on the Status of Humboldt impacts from human disturbance stem recent years. Commercial fishing in Penguins concluded that little has been from the coincidence of the prime combination with El Nin˜ o events has done to establish fishing-free zones and tourist season with the Humboldt contributed to the historic declines of that there has been slow progress in penguin’s spring and summer breeding Humboldt penguins, and the identified preventing penguins from being caught season. threat of El Nin˜ o will interact with in fishing nets. Majluf et al. (2002, p. Tourism has increased rapidly and fisheries during future El Nin˜ o episodes. 1342) stated, ‘‘There is currently no with little regulation in the Humboldt These events in combination with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

competition for prey from fisheries are (BLI 2010, p. 1). The Government of The use of explosives is recurrent in the likely to impact Humboldt penguins Peru lists incidental take by fisheries in marine area around Reserva Nacional de more frequently and more severely in fishing nets as one of the major sources Paracas, the primary center of the foreseeable future. Chile reported of penguin mortality (IMARPE 2007, p. population for penguins in Peru. fish catches of 1.25 million T (1.4 2). Paredes et al. (2003, p. 135) attribute Explosives use is especially prevalent in million t) in 2004 (FAO 2006, p. 4). In increased human disturbance to the the southern zone, an area that contains Chile, local-level commercial extraction changes in distribution of penguin more than 73 percent of the population, of specific fish species has reduced colonies southward in Peru. There are but does not receive as thorough those species in the diet of penguins, now fewer penguins on the central patrolling as the north (Lleellish et al. and fisheries’ extraction has the coastal area and more to the south. 2006, p. 4). potential to harm Humboldt penguins if Reports from Chile indicated a similar Oil and chemical spills can have overfishing occurs (Herling et al. 2005, level of impact on the species (Majluf et direct effects on the Humboldt penguin. p. 23). Researchers tracking the foraging al. 2002, pp. 1338–1343). In Peru, the The range of the species encompasses effort of penguins in northern Chile expansion of local-scale fisheries and major industrial ports along the coast of concluded that even small variations in the switching to new areas and fish both Chile and Peru. Approximately food supply, related to small changes in species is occurring. Local fisheries are 100,000 barrels per day of crude oil pass sea-surface temperature, led to unable to compete with larger through the coastal waters from the tip increased foraging time (Culik and commercial operations, bringing of South America to Panama (ITOPF Luna-Jorquera (1997, p. 555) and humans and penguins into increasing 2003, p. 1), with over 1,000 tankers Hennicke and Culik (2005, p. 178). They contact, and subsequently increasing calling annually at ports in the entire concluded that Humboldt penguins penguin mortality due to entanglement region. Major spill events in Chile have have high energetic costs to obtain food in fishing nets (Paredes et al. 2003, p. been limited to the area from the Straits even in non-El Nin˜ o years. The 135). Between 1991 and 1998, Majluf et of Magellan to the south of the range of synergistic actions of these fisheries al. (2002, pp. 1338–1343) recorded 922 the Humboldt penguin, and no major with El Nin˜ o events can be devastating deaths in fishing nets out of a events have been recorded for Peru to the Humboldt penguin, since population of approximately 4,000 (ITOPF 2000a, p. 2; ITOPF 2000b, p. 2). anchovies are one of the primary food breeding Humboldt penguins at Punta On May 25, 2007, about 92,400 gallons sources for the species. The San Juan, Peru. Take was highly (350,000 liters) of crude oil leaked into establishment of no-fishing zones variable between years, with the greatest San Vicente Bay in Talcuhuano, near encompassing the foraging range around incidental mortality occurring when Concepcion, Chile, during offloading of the breeding area at Pan de Azucar surface set drift gill nets were being fuel by the vessel New Constellation, Island has been recommended to buffer used to catch cojinovas (Seriolella with impacts on sea lions and seabirds, the species from possible catastrophic violace), a species that declined during including Humboldt penguins (Equipo effects of future El Nin˜ o events. the course of the study. A subsequent Ciudano 2007, p. 1). A similar spill of Competition between local fishermen study found that the risk of 2,206 T (2,000 t) of crude oil occurred (both for commercial and entanglement is highest when surface at an oil terminal off Lima in 1984, noncommercial consumption) and nets are set at night (Taylor et al. 2002, severely polluting beaches there (ITOPF penguins for local pelagic fish, p. 706). This level of incidental take was 2000b, p. 3). As noted in Factor D, Chile particularly anchovies (Herling et al. found to be unsustainable even without and Peru have limited ability to handle 2005, p. 21) exists. The farther penguins factoring in periodic El Nin˜ o impacts. spill cleanup. have to travel for food, the more energy In Chile, Simeone et al. (1999, pp. While there is a possibility of oil spill they expend (Davis 2001, p. 9) which 157–161) recorded that 605 Humboldt impacts as a result of incidents along leads to a reduced ability to survive. penguins drowned in drift gill nets set the Peruvian or Chilean coast, we find Herling et al. calculated that 1,400 T for corvina (Cilus gilberti) in the a number of factors mitigate against a (1,272 t) of fish are required in a Valparaiso region of central Chile finding that oil spills are a threat to the breeding season for 40,000 penguins. If between 1991 and 1996. Birds pursuing species. There is little history of spill fish are unavailable due to competition anchovies and sardines were apparently events in the region, and the breeding from fisheries, this could lead to unable to see the transparent nets in colonies of Humboldt penguin are decreased reproductive capabilities and their path and were entangled and widely dispersed along a very long starvation. (Herling et al. 2005, p. 21). drowned. These mortalities occurred coastline. In addition, the Humboldt Chile is monitoring the fisheries in outside of the breeding season when penguin’s distribution does not relation to El Nin˜ o episodes and penguins forage in large aggregations encompass the southern tip of South Humboldt penguins. However, on the and probably involved birds originating America where the risk of oil spill is basis of the best available information from beyond small, local colonies. The greatest. On this basis, we conclude that we conclude that competition for prey deaths recorded represent oil spill impacts are not a threat to the from commercial or local fisheries is underestimates of rangewide survival of the Humboldt penguin in currently a threat to the Humboldt mortality—the authors only studied one any portion of its range. penguin. of four major regions where corvina Other than El Nin˜ o events, which We find that the synergistic effects of fishing occurred. Incidental mortality were identified as a threat factor and El Nin˜ o combined with competition for from such fishing operations is thought discussed under factor A, the best prey from commercial or local fisheries to affect Humboldt penguins throughout available information does not indicate is likely to be a threat to the Humboldt the species’ range (Wallace et al. 1999, that climate change is likely to cause penguin within the foreseeable future by p. 442). Therefore, we conclude that this species to become in danger of causing a reduction in food availability fisheries bycatch is a threat to the extinction now or in the foreseeable for the penguins and an increase in Humboldt penguin. future. We rely primarily on synthesis energy expenditure. Fishing with explosives, such as documents (e.g., IPCC 2007) that present Incidental take by fishing operations dynamite, is listed by INRENA as one of the consensus view of a very large has been identified to be one of the most three major threats to Humboldt number of experts on climate change significant threat to Humboldt penguins penguins in Peru (INRENA 2007, p. 2). from around the world. We have found

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45521

that these synthesis reports, as well as Under Factor A, we find that the Under Factor E, we find that other the scientific papers used in those present or threatened destruction, natural or manmade factors are affecting reports or resulting from those reports, modification, or curtailment of the the continued existence of this species. represent the best available scientific Humboldt penguin’s habitat or range is First, the range of the Humboldt information we can use to inform our occurring. Historical threats to penguin along the coast of Chile and decision. Gille (2002, p. 1276) found terrestrial habitat, in particular the Peru does not have the same history of that ocean warming did occur in the destruction of Humboldt penguin major spills or the same level of 1950s and 1960s, but that it leveled off nesting substrate by guano collection, shipping traffic as ranges of other in the 1980s and 1990s. Climate-change have in part been responsible for the penguin species. Therefore, we scenarios estimate that the mean air massive historical decline of the conclude that oil spill impacts are not temperature could increase by more species, and this loss of nesting habitat a threat to the survival of the Humboldt than 3 °C (5.4 °F) by 2100 (IPCC 2007, continues to impact the breeding penguin. Industrial fisheries’ extraction, p. 46). Overall, there was an increase in success of the species. Effects of guano which in conjunction with El Nin˜ o ocean water temperature in the extraction on the current populations caused collapse of anchovy stocks in the Southern Hemisphere over the past 50 appear to have been reduced by 1970s, has had a historical influence on years. Additionally, during 2090-2099, designation of protected areas and the species and contributed to its long- precipitation is predicted to increase management of the limited guano term decline. The recovery of fish stocks across the sub-Antarctic and Antarctic harvesting that still occurs. However, at since the 1970s, however, has improved region, with a greater than 20 percent guano islands the availability and the food base of this species. Large-scale increase predicted for the Antarctic quality of nesting habitat is still commercial fisheries and local-scale continent. Ocean warming and sea level impacted by ongoing harvest. fisheries’ extraction are targeting the rise may occur based on increases in The impact of El Nin˜ o events, which same prey as the Humboldt penguin, global average air and ocean have caused periodic crashes of the food which is a current threat to the species. temperatures, widespread melting of sources of Humboldt penguins in Peru More importantly, incidental take by snow and ice, and rising global average and Chile in the historic and recent fisheries operations has emerged as the sea level ((IPCC 2007, p. 30). However, past, is a threat factor leading to most significant human-induced threat although the models above make general declines of this species. Given reduced to Humboldt penguins in both Chile and predictions at a large scale, we know of population sizes and the existence of Peru. Entanglement in gill nets caused no climate change models currently other significant threats, the resiliency significant documented mortality of available that make meaningful of the Humboldt penguin to respond to Humboldt penguins in both countries in predictions of climate change at a these cyclical El Nino events is greatly the 1990s. We have no reason to believe smaller scale that includes the range of reduced. Such events, which occur this will be ameliorated in the the Humboldt penguin. Given this lack irregularly every 2–7 years, have foreseeable future. Therefore, we find of information, we are unable to increased in frequency and intensity in that ongoing threat of incidental take conclude that climate change, sea level recent years and are likely to impact from fisheries bycatch and fishing with rise, or ocean warming other than El Humboldt penguins more severely in explosives are threats to the Humboldt Nino events, are a threat to the species. the foreseeable future. penguin. The Humboldt penguin is vulnerable Under Factor B, we find that the In summary, we find that the to various threats under Factor E. In species is being overutilized for Humboldt penguin is likely to become summary, we find that the synergistic commercial, recreational, scientific, or in danger of extinction within the effects of El Nin˜ o combined with educational purposes. Harvest of foreseeable future due to : (1) competition for prey from commercial Humboldt penguins for food, eggs and Destruction of its habitat by guano or local fisheries (competition with bait is a threat to the survival of the extraction; (2) high likelihood of El Nin˜ o fishermen in times of reduced food Humboldt penguin throughout its range. events impacting the prey of Humboldt availability), fisheries bycatch (catch in We have no reason to believe this threat penguins in cyclical 2- to 7–year gillnets), and fishing with explosives are will be ameliorated in the future. timeframes; (3) intentional harvest of threats to the survival of the Humboldt Tourism, if not properly managed or this species for meat, eggs, and bait, and penguin. regulated, has the potential to impact improperly managed tourism; (4) individual colonies; therefore, we inadequacy of existing regulatory Humboldt Penguin Finding conclude that inadequately managed mechanisms, particularly in the area of The Humboldt penguin has decreased tourism is currently a threat to the enforcement of existing prohibitions historically from what was believed by species. related to fishing methods and some to be more than a million birds in Under Factor C, on the basis of the management of fisheries bycatch and the 19th century to 41,000 to 47,000 best available information, we conclude inadequately regulated tourism; (5) birds today (Ellis et al. 1997, pp. 96-97; that predation is a threat to the predation by rats and cats; and (6) Ellis et al. 2007, p. 7.). Since 1981, the Humboldt penguin. incidental take from fisheries bycatch Peruvian population has fluctuated Under Factor D, there is evidence of and fishing with explosives. between 3,500 and 7,000 individuals, lack of enforcement and lack of with the most recent estimate at 5,000 significant measures to reduce the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) individuals. Estimates of the population impacts of bycatch and inadequately Section 3(15) of the Act defines in Chile (30,000 to 35,000 individuals) regulated tourism. Therefore, we find ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any distinct have been recently updated with that inadequacy of existing regulatory population segment of any species of improved documentation of a colony at mechanisms, particularly due to the vertebrate fish or wildlife which Isla Chanaral. The increase in the lack of enforcement of existing interbreeds when mature.’’ To interpret population estimate is believed to be a prohibitions related to fishing methods and implement the DPS provisions of correction of systematic undercounting and management of fisheries bycatch, the Act, the Service and National that occurred for 20 years; we cannot along with insufficiently regulated Marine Fisheries Service published a conclude that it signifies recent tourism, is a threat to the Humboldt Policy Regarding the Recognition of population increases in Chile. penguin. Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

in the Federal Register (DPS Policy) on significant, then the policy requires an concerns throughout the species’ range February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under analysis of the population segment’s in both countries. the DPS policy, three factors are conservation status in relation to the Based on our analysis, we do not find considered in a decision concerning the Act’s standards for listing (addition to that differences in conservation status or establishment and classification of a the list), delisting (removal from the management for Humboldt penguins possible DPS. These are applied list), or reclassification (i.e., whether the across the range countries are sufficient similarly to both endangered and population segment is endangered or to justify the use of international threatened wildlife. threatened). boundaries to satisfy the discreteness We determine: (1) The discreteness of Humboldt penguins have a criterion of the DPS Policy. Therefore, a population in relation to the continuous range from northern Peru to we have concluded that there are no remainder of the taxon to which it mid-southern Chile. We analyzed this population segments that satisfy the belongs; (2) the significance of the species to determine if a DPS existed discreteness criterion of the DPS Policy. population segment to the taxon to because its range spans two countries. As a consequence, we could not identify which it belongs; and (3) the population any geographic areas or populations that segment’s conservation status in relation Discreteness Analysis would qualify as a DPS under our 1996 to the Act’s standards for listing Under the DPS policy, a population DPS Policy (61 FR 4722). (addition to the list), delisting (removal segment of a vertebrate taxon may be Significant Portion of the Range from the list), or reclassification (i.e., considered discrete if it satisfies either Analysis whether the population segment is of the following conditions: (1) It is Given the continuous linear range of endangered or threatened). markedly separated from other the Humboldt penguin, which breeds The policy first requires the Service to populations of the same taxon as a from northern Peru to south-central determine that a vertebrate population consequence of physical, physiological, Chile, and the distribution of colonies is discrete in relation to the remainder ecological, or behavioral factors, or (2) it along that coast, no specific geographic of the taxon to which it belongs. is delimited by international boundaries Discreteness refers to the ability to portions of concern were immediately within which differences in control of apparent. Recent research found that delineate a population segment from exploitation, management of habitat, other members of a taxon based on long-term gene flow is occurring conservation status, or regulatory either (1) physical, physiological, between populations in Peru and Chile, mechanisms exist that are significant in ecological, or behavioral factors, or (2) but, as would be expected, it is affected light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. international governmental boundaries by geographic distance (Schlosser et al. that result in significant differences in With respect to discreteness criterion 2009, p. 839). The researchers further control of exploitation, management, or 1, we did not identify any marked suggest that this species should be habitat conservation status, or biological boundaries between managed as a metapopulation rather regulatory mechanisms that are populations within that range or any than as separate populations. significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) differences in physical, physiological, Overall, for each factor identified as a of the Act—the inadequacy of existing ecological, or behavioral factors among threat, we found that threats occurred regulatory mechanisms. any groups within that range. We found throughout the range. Terrestrial and Second, if we determine that the no reports of genetic or morphological marine habitat loss, which included the population is discrete under one or discontinuity between any discrete impacts of guano extraction and the more of the discreteness conditions, segments of the population. effects of El Nin˜ o, intentional harvest, then a determination is made as to The range of the Humboldt penguin insufficiently regulated tourism, the whether the population is significant to crosses the international boundary inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, the larger taxon to which it belongs. In between Peru and Chile, which leads to and fisheries bycatch were determined carrying out this examination, we evaluation of the second discreteness to be threats throughout the Humboldt consider available scientific evidence of factor. However, in our analysis of penguin’s range. the population’s importance to the differences between Peru and Chile in In reviewing our findings, one taxon to which it belongs. This conservation status, habitat difference within threat Factor A relates consideration may include, but is not management, and regulatory to the ongoing limited harvest of guano limited to the following: (1) The mechanisms, we have found no in Peru, while such harvest has stopped persistence of the population segment in significant differences between the two in Chile. In our finding, we indicated an ecological setting that is unique or countries. In both countries, intentional that both the historic and present unusual for the taxon; (2) evidence that take of penguins is prohibited, but some impacts of guano extraction were a loss of the population segment would illegal take occurs. Measures to address threat to the Humboldt penguin. On the result in a significant gap in the range fisheries bycatch are similar, but basis of this difference, we considered of the taxon; (3) evidence that the fisheries bycatch remains widespread. whether the Peruvian population of population segment represents the only Both countries provide protection to Humboldt penguin may be in danger of surviving natural occurrence of a taxon major breeding colonies of the species. extinction in a significant portion of its that may be more abundant elsewhere as The Chilean population is more range. The information available on an introduced population outside of its numerous, but the extent of their range local harvest patterns or population historic range; and (4) evidence that the is greater. Given the fact that problems trends in specific areas where guano discrete population segment differs in census data have only recently been harvest is documented does not allow markedly from other populations of the corrected, we cannot conclude that us to divide the range further. The most species in its genetic characteristics Chilean Humboldt penguin population recent 2006 estimate of the Peruvian from other populations of the species. A trends are different from the Peruvian population of the Humboldt penguin is population segment needs to satisfy trends or that conservation concerns are approximately 5,000 individuals. This only one of these conditions to be different. In fact, the impacts of habitat count includes an increase of 41 percent considered significant. loss, the effects of El Nin˜ o, intentional since 2004 in the southern portion of Lastly, if we determine that the take, inadequacy of regulatory the range, where 80 percent of the birds population is both discrete and mechanisms, and fisheries bycatch are are found. The overall population has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45523

fluctuated between 2,100 and 7,000 found numbers on Proclamation Island Classification System list (Hitchmough individuals since 1981, with (2,788 breeding pairs) (De Roy and et al. 2007, p. 38; Molloy et al. 2002, pp. fluctuations attributed to response to El Amey 2005) to be similar to the 13–23). Under this classification system, Nin˜ o events. While the population of numbers found in 1998, suggesting a which is nonregulatory, species experts Humboldt penguins in Peru has stable population, at least at that assess the placement of species into fluctuated at low numbers for many breeding site. threat categories according to both years, current evidence of increases over In 1978, the population on the status criteria and threat criteria. the last few years reflects continued Antipodes was thought to be similar in Summary of Factors Affecting the Erect- reproduction and resiliency of this size to that of the Bounty Islands (about Crested Penguin population. Therefore, we find that the 115,000 breeding pairs). Surveys in Humboldt penguin is not currently in 1995 indicated a population of 49,000 to Factor A. The Present or Threatened danger of extinction in the Peruvian 57,000 pairs in the Antipodes (Taylor Destruction, Modification, or portion of the range. 2000, p. 65). Tennyson (2002) estimated Curtailment of Erect-crested Penguin As a result, while the best available a population of 52,000 pairs in 1995. Habitat or Range Comparisons of photographs of nesting scientific and commercial data allow us There is little evidence of destruction, to make a determination as to the areas from the Antipodes show a constriction of colonies at some sites modification, or curtailment of erect- rangewide status of the Humboldt crested penguin breeding habitat on penguin, we have determined that there during the period 1978–1995. There have been no subsequent formal counts land at the Bounty and Antipodes are no significant portions of the range Islands. Feral animals such as sheep and in which the species is currently in of erect-crested penguins at either the Bounty Islands or the Antipodes, and cattle, which could trample nesting danger of extinction. Therefore, we are habitat, are absent. Competition for listing the Humboldt penguin as a visits to the islands are rare. Both observations and photographs taken by breeding habitat with fur seals is threatened species throughout its range reported to be minimal (Houston 2007, under the Act. researchers visiting these islands for other purposes have provided anecdotal p. 1). Erect-Crested Penguin (Eudyptes information that erect-crested penguin The New Zealand sub-Antarctic sclateri) colony sizes continue to decrease (Davis islands have been inscribed on the World Heritage List (World Heritage List Background 2001, p. 8; Houston 2008, pers. comm.). A few hundred birds formerly bred at 2008, p. 16). All islands are protected as The erect-crested penguin, a New Campbell Island farther to the southwest National Nature Reserves and are State- Zealand endemic, breeds on the Bounty in the 1940s (Bailey and Sorensen owned (World Heritage Committee Islands and Antipodes Islands, located 1962); in 1986–1987, a small number of Report 1998, p. 21). We find that the approximately 437 mi (700 km) and 543 birds (20 to 30 pairs) were observed present or threatened destruction, mi (870 km), respectively, southeast of there, but no breeding was seen (Taylor modification, or curtailment of the the South Island of New Zealand (NZ 2000, p. 65). Breeding on the Auckland terrestrial habitat or range of the erect- DOC 2006, pp. 27, 30). Its habitat Islands, also to the southwest, was crested penguin is not a threat to the consists of 8 of the 20 Bounty islands, considered a possibility, with one pair species. with a total area of 0.5 mi2 (1.3 km2). found breeding there in 1976 (Taylor Given the lack of terrestrial predators The Antipodes Islands consist of two 2000, p. 65). The most recent penguin at the majority of erect-crested penguin main islands and some minor islands. conservation assessment (Ellis et al. colony sites, the absence of direct The largest is Antipodes Island, 2007, p. 6) reported erect-crested competition with other species, and the consisting of 2,025 hectares (ha) (5,004 penguins are no longer present at lack of physical habitat destruction at acres (ac)), and the second island, Campbell or Auckland Islands. There is these sites, recent declines in erect- Bollons, consists of 50 ha (124 ac). one record of breeding on the mainland crested populations have been Erect-crested penguins nest in large, of the South Island of New Zealand at attributed to changes in the marine dense, conspicuous colonies, numbering Otago Peninsula, but it is unlikely there habitat. Penguins are susceptible to thousands of pairs, on rocky terrain was ever widespread breeding there local ecosystem perturbations because (BirdLife International 2007, p. 3). (Richdale 1950, pp. 152-166; Houston they are constrained by how far they can Winter distribution at sea is largely 2007, p. 3). Based on this information, swim from the terrestrial habitat in unknown. we do not consider these areas to be part search of food (Davis 2001, p. 9). It has The Action Plan for Seabird of the erect-crested penguin’s current been hypothesized that slight warming Conservation of New Zealand lists the range, and have not included them in of sea temperatures, which is attributed total world breeding population of erect- our analysis of the status of this species. to El Nin˜ o events, coupled with change crested penguin at 81,000 pairs +/- On the basis of declines of at least 50 in distribution of prey species due to a 4,000 pairs (Taylor 2000, p. 65). In 1978, percent in the past 45 years and a change in the ocean environment, is counts of erect-crested penguins at breeding range constricted to two having an impact on erect-crested Bounty Islands estimated 115,000 locations, the IUCN has listed the penguin colonies (Taylor 2000, p. 66; breeding pairs (Robertson and van Tets species as ‘‘Endangered’’ on the IUCN Ellis et al. 2007, p. 6). With respect to 1982, p. 315), but these counts are Red List (BirdLife International 2007, p. modification of the marine habitat of considered overestimations (Houston 1). It is ranked as Category B (second this species, periodic El Nin˜ o events 2007, p. 3). While the data were not priority) on the Molloy and Davis threat have been shown to have significant directly comparable, 1997 counts found categories used by the New Zealand effects on the marine environment on 27,956 pairs (Taylor 2000, p. 65), DOC (Taylor 2000, p. 33). On that basis, which species such as the erect crested suggesting that a large decline in it was placed in the second category of penguins depend. El Nin˜ o events are numbers may have occurred at the highest priority in the New Zealand known to reduce the available food Bounty Islands (BirdLife International Action Plan for Seabird Conservation sources such as fish species on which 2007, p. 2). There have been no (Taylor 2000, p. 33). The species is penguins rely heavily. These El Nin˜ o complete surveys of the species since listed as ‘‘acutely threatened—nationally events are considered to be the main 1997–1998; however, a 2004 survey endangered’’ on the New Zealand Threat marine perturbation for the erect-crested

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

penguins. The primary basis for this are found in colonies (Taylor 2000, p. (World Heritage List 2008, p. 16). World inference comes from studies of a 66). Heritage designation places an closely related species, the southern The only known mammalian obligation on New Zealand to ‘‘take rockhopper penguin at Campbell Island predators within the current range of the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 27), erect-crested penguin are mice, which administrative and financial measures where the population declined by 94 are present only on the main Antipodes necessary for the identification, percent between the early 1940s and Island. Although their eradication from protection, conservation, presentation 1985, from an estimated 800,000 this island is recommended as a future and rehabilitation of this heritage’’ breeding pairs to 51,500 (Cunningham management action in the Action Plan (World Heritage Convention 1972, p. 3). and Moors 1994, p. 34). The majority of for Seabird Conservation in New At the time of inscription of this site this decline appears to have coincided Zealand, we have found no reference to onto the World Heritage List in 1998, with a period of warmed sea surface these mice impacting the erect-crested human impacts were described as temperatures between 1946 and 1956. It penguins on this one island in their ‘‘limited to the effects of introduced is widely inferred that warmer waters range (Taylor 2000, p. 67). At the other species at Auckland and Campbell most likely affected southern islands in the Antipodes group (Bollons, Islands’’ (World Heritage Convention rockhopper penguins through changes Archway, and Disappointment) and at Nomination Documentation 1998, p. 1). in the abundance, availability, and the Bounty Islands, mammalian New Zealand has in place the New distribution of their food supply predators are not present. Feral cats, Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34). sheep, and cattle are also no longer Strategy, which provides the overall Recent research suggests they may have present (Taylor 2000, p. 66). The threat framework to mount a response to had to work harder to find the same of future introduction of invasive marine oil spills that occur within New food (Thompson and Sagar 2002, p. 11). species is being managed by the New Zealand’s area of responsibility. The The suggestion that erect-crested Zealand DOC, which has measures in aim of the strategy is to minimize the penguins may have been similarly place for quarantine of researchers effects of oil on the environment and working on sub-Antarctic islands (West human safety and health. The National impacted by changes in the marine 2005, p. 36). These quarantine measures Oil Spill Contingency Plan promotes a habitat during this time period is are an important step toward controlling planned and nationally coordinated strengthened by the fact that erect- the introduction of invasive species. At response to any marine oil spill that is crested penguin breeding colonies are this time, however, we have no means beyond the capability of a local regional now absent from Campbell Island (Ellis to measure their effectiveness. council or outside the region of any et al. 2007, p. 6); they disappeared from On the basis of this information, we local council (Maritime New Zealand the island during the same time period find that neither disease nor predation 2007, p. 1). As discussed below under (1940s to 1987) as the southern is a threat to the erect-crested penguin. Factor E, rapid containment of spills in rockhopper’s decline. In the 1940s, a Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing remote areas and effective triage few hundred erect-crested penguins response under this plan have shown Regulatory Mechanisms bred on the island (Taylor 2000, p. 65). these to be effective regulatory The latest IUCN assessment of the erect- All breeding islands of the erect- mechanisms (New Zealand Wildlife crested penguin found that oceanic crested penguin are protected by New Health Center 2007, p. 2; Taylor 2000, warming is a continuing threat, Zealand as National Nature Reserves. p. 94). resulting in a ‘‘very rapid decline’’ in The marine areas are managed under On the basis of national and more than 90 percent of the population, fisheries legislation (World Heritage international protections in place, we and thus is a threat of high impact to Committee Report 1998, p. 21). find that inadequacy of existing this species (BirdLife International The Action Plan for Seabird regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to 2007, p. 2 of ‘‘additional data’’). Conservation in New Zealand is in place the erect-crested penguin. Therefore, based on the best available and outlines previous conservation information, we find that the present or actions, future management actions Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade threatened destruction, modification, or needed, future survey and monitoring Factors Affecting the Continued curtailment of the erect-crested needs, and research priorities. Among Existence of the Species penguin’s marine habitat is a threat to the most relevant recommendations are New Zealand’s Action Plan for the species. pest quarantine measures to keep new Conservation of Seabirds notes that, Factor B. Overutilization for animal and plant pest species from while there is a possibility that erect- Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or reaching offshore islands and crested penguins could be caught in Educational Purposes eradication of mice from the main trawl nets or by other fishing activity, Antipodes Island (Taylor 2000, p. 67). there are no records of such (Taylor Aside from periodic surveys and the At least one of these recommendations 2000, p. 66). The IUCN noted that the possibility of a future research program has been put into place; as mentioned New Zealand DOC has limited legal focused on the diet and foraging of the under Factor C, strict required powers to control commercial species, we are unaware of any purpose quarantine measures are now in place harvesting in waters around the sub- for which the erect-crested penguin is for researchers and expeditions to all Antarctic islands and recommended currently being utilized. Therefore, we New Zealand sub-Antarctic islands to that the New Zealand Ministry of conclude that overutilization for prevent the introduction or re- Fisheries should be encouraged to commercial, recreational, scientific, or introduction of animal and plant pest address fisheries bycatch and squid educational purposes is not a threat to species (West 2005, p. 36). At this time, fishery impacts (World Heritage this species. we have no means to measure the Nomination—IUCN Technical Evaluation 1998, p. 25). As noted in the Factor C. Disease or Predation effectiveness of these quarantine measures. discussion under Factor A, the Action Avian disease has not been recorded In addition to national protection, all Plan for Conservation of New Zealand in erect-crested penguins, although of New Zealand sub-Antarctic islands Seabirds outlines research efforts that disease vectors of ticks and bird fleas are inscribed on the World Heritage List would provide more data on the diet

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45525

and activities and distribution of erect- response and contingency plans, which breeding areas, make this species even crested penguins at sea. Such research have been shown to be effective in more vulnerable to the threats from will assist in evaluating whether previous events even at remote changes in the marine habitat. El Nin˜ o competition for prey with fisheries or locations. The remoteness of Antipodes events can have an effect on the marine bycatch from fisheries’ activities is a and Bounty Islands and their extreme environment by causing changes in factor in declines of the erect-crested distance from major shipping routes or ocean currents. Warmer waters will not penguin. However, in the absence of shipping activity further lessen the contain the fish species normally preyed such research results, we have found no chance that oil and chemical spills upon by penguins. Ocean areas used by evidence that erect-crested penguins are would affect this species. On the basis penguins to forage for fish species may subject to fisheries bycatch. of the best available information, we be warmer during El Nin˜ o years, which We have examined the possibility that find that oil and chemical spills are not decreases food availability for the oil and chemical spills may impact a threat to the erect-crested penguin. penguins. Because the normal prey base erect-crested penguins. Such spills, is unavailable for the erect crested Erect-crested Penguin Finding should they occur and not be effectively penguins, they have to travel farther and managed, can have direct effects on Significant declines in numbers have expend more energy to obtain food. marine seabirds. A large proportion of been documented for the erect-crested We are unsure the exact mechanism erect-crested penguin populations are penguin between 1978 and 1997 at their causing the decline of the erect-crested found on two isolated, but widely two primary breeding grounds on the penguin populations, however data separated, island archipelagos during Bounty and Antipodes Islands. The indicate that the population is in a the breeding season. While the 138-mi latest population estimates from the late declining trend. Although changes in (221-km) distance between the two 1990s indicated there were the marine environment (Factor A) have primary breeding areas reduces the approximately 81,000 pairs of erect- been hypothesized to be responsible for likelihood of impacts affecting the entire crested penguins in these two primary the species’ decline, the cause of the population, the limited number of breeding grounds. The declines are decline are not definitively known. It is breeding areas is a concern relative to reported to be largest at Bounty Island, not necessary to identify the causes of the potential of oil spills or other although the extent of the decline is the decline with certainty to warrant catastrophic events. As a gregarious, uncertain due to the differing listing of a species under the Act. At colonial nesting species, erect-crested methodologies between the surveys this time, NZDOW can monitor any penguins are potentially susceptible to conducted there in 1978 and those threats to the species, but they currently mortality from local oil spill events conducted in 1997–1998. At the have no management tools to reduce during the breeding season. A Antipodes Islands, declines of 50 to 58 any suspected threats. Therefore, it is significant spill at either the Antipodes percent have been estimated between reasonably likely that these threats will or Bounty Islands could jeopardize more 1978 and 1995, with photographic continue in the future. We have no than one-third of the population of this evidence from those 2 years showing reason to believe that population trends species. The nonbreeding season obvious contraction in colony areas at will change in the future, nor that the distribution of erect-crested penguins is some sites (Taylor 2000, p. 65). Formal effects of current threats acting on the not well-documented, but there is the surveys have not been conducted since species will be ameliorated in the potential for birds to encounter spills the 1995 and 1997–1998 surveys foreseeable future. Therefore, on the within the immediate region of colonies referenced above for the Antipodes and basis of our analysis of the best available or, if they disperse more widely, Bounty Islands, respectively. The only scientific and commercial information, elsewhere in the marine environment. further information for this primary we conclude that, due to changes in the Based on previous incidents of oil and portion of the range is qualitative marine environment, the erect-crested is chemical spills around New Zealand, photographic evidence and observations likely to become in danger of extinction we might have concluded that this is a suggesting that declines continue. within the foreseeable future throughout threat to this species, were it not for The most recent detailed information, all of its range. New Zealand’s successful Oil Spill from a decade ago, indicated Response and Contingency Plan. For populations were in decline, with more Significant Portion of the Range example, in March 2000, the fishing recent qualitative information Analysis vessel Seafresh 1sank in Hanson Bay on suggesting declines continue. We have Erect-crested penguins breed on two the east coast of Chatham Island and no recent population assessments for primary island groups, Bounty and released 66 T (60 t) of diesel fuel. Rapid the erect-crested penguin. Although this Antipodes Islands, which lie about 138 containment of the oil at this very qualitative data is currently the best mi (221 km) from one another in the remote location prevented any wildlife information available, its use in South Pacific Ocean to the southwest of casualties (New Zealand Wildlife Health establishing a reliable population trend the South Island of New Zealand. The Center 2007, p. 2). The same source is limited. Despite the relatively high erect-crested penguin is documented as reported that, in 1998, the fishing vessel population numbers of this species in decline at these two islands. Our Don Wong 529ran aground at Breaksea estimated in 1998, the population rangewide threats analysis found that Islets, off Stewart Island, outside the numbers at the time showed a very high changes in the marine habitat—slight range of the erect-crested penguin. rate of decline. warming of sea surface temperatures Approximately 331 T (300 t) of marine The weight of evidence of available and their possible impact on prey diesel was spilled along with smaller information suggests that the changes in availability—have the same impact on amounts of lubricating and waste oils. the marine environment due to El Nin˜ o the two areas. No information is With favorable weather conditions and events may be the most likely cause of available that suggests this threat is establishment of triage response, no this species’ decline. This species’ disproportionate between these two casualties from this pollution event breeding colonies have been reduced to areas. The overall population number of were discovered (Taylor 2000, p. 94). only two breeding island groups, the erect-crested penguins is not low— The potential threat of oil or chemical separated from one another by 138 mi 27,956 pairs at Bounty Island and spills to the erect-crested penguin is (221 km). Lower population numbers, 49,000 to 57,000 pairs at the Antipodes mitigated by New Zealand’s oil spill combined with the limited number of Islands. Although the population

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 45526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

numbers have declined at a very high authorize the Secretary to encourage 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not rate and appear to be continuing to conservation programs for foreign be prepared in connection with decline, the most recent population endangered species and to provide regulations adopted under section 4(a) estimates indicate that the populations assistance for such programs in the form of the Act. We published a notice of both island groups are not currently of personnel and the training of outlining our reasons for this in danger of extinction. personnel. determination in the Federal Register As a result, while the best scientific The Act and its implementing on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). and commercial data allow us to make regulations set forth a series of general a determination as to the rangewide prohibitions and exceptions that apply References Cited status of the erect-crested penguin, we to all endangered and threatened A complete list of all references cited have determined that there are no wildlife. As such, these prohibitions in this rule is available on the Internet significant portions of the range in would be applicable to yellow-eyed at http://www.regulations.gov or upon which the species is currently in danger penguin, white-flippered penguin, request from the Endangered Species of extinction. Because we find that the Fiordland crested penguin, Humboldt Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service erect-crested penguin is not currently in penguin, and erect-crested penguin. (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION danger of extinction in these two Regulations governing permits are CONTACT section). portions of its range, we need not codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered address the question of significance for species, and at 17.32 for threatened Authors these populations. species. The prohibitions for threatened The primary authors of this final rule Therefore, we are listing the erect- species state that most of the are the staff members of the Branch of crested penguin as a threatened species prohibitions for endangered species also Foreign Species, Endangered Species throughout all of its range under the apply to threatened species. The Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Act. prohibitions under 50 CFR 17.21 make 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA Available Conservation Measures it illegal for any person subject to the 22203. jurisdiction of the United States to Conservation measures provided to ‘‘take’’ (take includes to harass, harm, List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 species listed as endangered or pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, threatened under the Act include Endangered and threatened species, capture, collect, or to attempt any of Exports, Imports, Reporting and recognition, requirements for Federal these) within the United States or upon protection, and prohibitions against recordkeeping requirements, the high seas, import or export, deliver, Transportation. certain practices. Recognition through receive, carry, transport, or ship in listing results in public awareness, and interstate or foreign commerce in the encourages and results in conservation Regulation Promulgation course of a commercial activity, or to actions by Federal governments, private sell or offer for sale in interstate or ■ agencies and groups, and individuals. Accordingly, we amend part 17, Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, foreign commerce, any endangered subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the and as implemented by regulations at 50 wildlife species. It also is illegal to Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or below: ship any such wildlife that has been to evaluate their actions within the PART 17—[AMENDED] United States or on the high seas with taken in violation of the Act. We may issue permits to carry out respect to any species that is proposed otherwise prohibited activities ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 or listed as endangered or threatened, involving endangered and threatened continues to read as follows: and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated. However, wildlife species under certain Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. circumstances. A permit must be issued 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99- given that the yellow-eyed penguin, 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. white-flippered penguin, Fiordland for the following purposes: for scientific crested penguin, Humboldt penguin, purposes, to enhance the propagation or ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding new and erect-crested penguin are not native survival of the species, and for entries for ‘‘Penguin, erect-crested,’’ to the United States, critical habitat is incidental take in connection with ‘‘Penguin, Fiordland Crested,’’ ‘‘Penguin, not being designated for these species otherwise lawful activities. Humboldt,’’ ‘‘Penguin, white-flippered,’’ under section 4 of the Act. Required Determinations and ‘‘Penguin, yellow-eyed’’ in Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes alphabetical order under BIRDS to the National Environmental Policy Act financial assistance for the development List of Endangered and Threatened (NEPA) and management of programs that the Wildlife as follows: Secretary of the Interior determines to We have determined that be necessary or useful for the environmental assessments and § 17.11 Endangered and threatened conservation of endangered and environmental impact statements, as wildlife. threatened species in foreign countries. defined under the authority of the * * * * * Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act National Environmental Policy Act of (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name endangered or habitat rules threatened

*******

BIRDS

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 45527

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name endangered or habitat rules threatened

*******

Penguin, erect-crested Eudyptes sclateri New Zealand, Entire T 771 NA NA Bounty Islands and Antipodes Islands

Penguin, Fiordland Eudyptes New Zealand, Entire T 771 NA NA crested pachyrhynchus South Island and offshore islands

*******

Penguin, Humboldt Spheniscus humboldti Eastern Pacific Entire T 771 NA NA Ocean— Chile, Peru

Penguin, white- Eudyptula minor New Zealand, Entire T 771 NA NA flippered albosignata South Island

Penguin, yellow-eyed Megadyptes antipodes New Zealand, Entire T 771 NA NA South Island and offshore islands

*******

* * * * * Navy, the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and Resources, National Marine Fisheries Dated: July 12, 2010 the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC)), is Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver issuing regulations to govern the Spring, MD 20910–3225 or by telephone unintentional taking of marine via the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Wendi Weber, mammals incidental to activities ). conducted in the Mariana Islands Range Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Service. Complex (MIRC) study area for the Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, period of July 2010 through July 2015. [FR Doc. 2010–18884 Filed 8–2–10; 8:45 am] NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166. The Navy’s activities are considered SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 4310–55–S military readiness activities pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act Availability of Supporting Information DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (MMPA), as amended by the National Extensive Supplementary Information Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal was provided in the proposed rule for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Year 2004 (NDAA). These regulations, this activity, which was published in Administration which allow for the issuance of ‘‘Letters the Federal Register on October 20, of Authorization’’ (LOAs) for the 2009 (74 FR 53796). This information 50 CFR Part 218 incidental take of marine mammals will not be reprinted here in its entirety; during the described activities and rather, all sections from the proposed [Docket No. 0907281180–0269–02] specified timeframes, prescribe the rule will be represented herein and will permissible methods of taking and other contain either a summary of the material RIN 0648–AX90 means of effecting the least practicable presented in the proposed rule or a note Taking and Importing Marine adverse impact on marine mammal referencing the page(s) in the proposed Mammals; Military Training Activities species or stocks and their habitat, as rule where the information may be and Research, Development, Testing well as requirements pertaining to the found. Any information that has and Evaluation Conducted Within the monitoring and reporting of such taking. changed since the proposed rule was Mariana Islands Range Complex DATES: Effective August 3, 2010 through published will be addressed herein. August 3, 2015. Additionally, this final rule responds to AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the comments received during the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and ADDRESSES: A copy of the Navy’s public comment period. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), application (which contains a list of the Commerce. references used in this document), Background ACTION: Final rule. NMFS’ Record of Decision (ROD), and Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the other documents cited herein may be MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct SUMMARY: NMFS, upon application from obtained by writing to Michael Payne, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) the U.S. Navy (Navy) on behalf of the Chief, Permits, Conservation and to allow, upon request, the incidental, Department of Defense (including the Education Division, Office of Protected but not intentional taking of marine

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:37 Aug 02, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES