Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Four Penguin Species as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act and Proposed Rule To List the Southern Rockhopper Penguin in the Campbell Plateau Portion of Its Range, 77264-77302 [E8-29673]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 244 (Thursday, December 18, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77264-77302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29673]



[[Page 77263]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings on 
Petitions To List Penguin Species as Threatened or Endangered Under the 
Endangered Species Act; Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 73 , No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 77264]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-IA-2008-0069; 96000-1671-0000-B6]
RIN 1018-AV73


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List Four Penguin Species as Threatened or Endangered 
Under the Endangered Species Act and Proposed Rule To List the Southern 
Rockhopper Penguin in the Campbell Plateau Portion of Its Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list four species of penguins as 
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). After a thorough review of all available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that the petitioned action for the 
Campbell Plateau portion of the range of the New Zealand/Australia 
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the southern rockhopper penguin 
(Eudyptes chrysocome) is warranted, and we propose to list this species 
as threatened under the Act in the Campbell Plateau portion of its 
range. This proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's protection 
to this species in that portion of its range. In addition, we find that 
listing under the Act is not warranted for the remainder of the range 
of the southern rockhopper penguin and throughout all or any portion of 
the range for the northern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi), 
macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus), and emperor penguin 
(Aptenodytes forsteri).

DATES: We made the finding announced in this document on December 18, 
2008. We will accept comments and information on the proposed rule 
received or postmarked on or before February 17, 2009. We must receive 
requests for public hearings on the proposed rule, in writing, at the 
address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by 
February 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments on Proposed Rule: If you wish to comment on the 
proposed rule to list the southern rockhopper penguin in the Campbell 
Plateau portion of its range, you may submit comments by one of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [FWS-R9-IA-2008-0069]; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. We will post all 
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we 
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public 
Comments Solicited section below for more information).
    Supporting Documents for 12-Month Finding: Supporting documentation 
we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708; facsimile 
703-358-2276. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, 
or questions concerning this finding to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Hall, Branch Chief, Division of 
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708; facsimile 
703-358-2276. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires 
the Service to make a finding known as a ``90-day finding,'' on whether 
a petition to add, remove, or reclassify a species from the list of 
endangered or threatened species has presented substantial information 
indicating that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum 
extent practicable, the finding shall be made within 90 days following 
receipt of the petition and published promptly in the Federal Register. 
If the Service finds that the petition has presented substantial 
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted 
(referred to as a positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act 
requires the Service to commence a status review of the species if one 
has not already been initiated under the Service's internal candidate 
assessment process. In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires 
the Service to make a finding within 12 months following receipt of the 
petition on whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted, 
or warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions (this 
finding is referred to as the ``12-month finding''). Section 4(b)(3)(C) 
of the Act requires that a finding of warranted but precluded for 
petitioned species should be treated as having been resubmitted on the 
date of the warranted but precluded finding, and is, therefore, subject 
to a new finding within 1 year and subsequently thereafter until we 
take action on a proposal to list or withdraw our original finding. The 
Service publishes an annual notice of resubmitted petition findings 
(annual notice) for all foreign species for which listings were 
previously found to be warranted but precluded.
    In this notice, we announce a 12-month finding on the petition to 
list four penguins: southern rockhopper penguin, northern rockhopper 
penguin, macaroni penguin, and emperor penguin. We will announce the 
12-month findings for the African penguin (Spheniscus demersus), 
yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes), white-flippered penguin 
(Eudyptula minor albosignata), Fiordland crested penguin (Eudyptes 
pachyrhynchus), Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti), and erect-
crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri) in one or more separate Federal 
Register notice(s).

Previous Federal Actions

    On November 29, 2006, the Service received a petition from the 
Center for Biological Diversity to list 12 penguin species under the 
Act: Emperor penguin, southern rockhopper penguin, northern rockhopper 
penguin, Fiordland crested penguin, snares crested penguin (Eudyptes 
robustus), erect-crested penguin, macaroni penguin, royal penguin 
(Eudyptes schlegeli), white-flippered penguin, yellow-eyed penguin, 
African penguin, and Humboldt penguin. Among them, the ranges of the 12 
penguin species include Antarctica, Argentina, Australian Territory 
Islands, Chile, French Territory Islands, Namibia, New Zealand, Peru, 
South Africa, and United Kingdom Territory Islands. The petition is 
clearly identified as such, and contains detailed information on the 
natural history, biology, status, and distribution of each of the 12 
species. It also contains information on what the petitioner reported 
as potential threats to the species from climate change and changes to 
the marine environment, commercial fishing activities, contaminants and 
pollution, guano extraction, habitat loss, hunting,

[[Page 77265]]

nonnative predator species, and other factors. The petition also 
discusses existing regulatory mechanisms and the perceived inadequacies 
to protect these species.
    In the Federal Register of July 11, 2007 (72 FR 37695), we 
published a 90-day finding in which we determined that the petition 
presented substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate 
that listing 10 species of penguins as endangered or threatened may be 
warranted: Emperor penguin, southern rockhopper penguin, northern 
rockhopper penguin, Fiordland crested penguin, erect-crested penguin, 
macaroni penguin, white-flippered penguin, yellow-eyed penguin, African 
penguin, and Humboldt penguin. Furthermore, we determined that the 
petition did not provide substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing the snares crested penguin and the 
royal penguin as threatened or endangered species may be warranted.
    Following the publication of our 90-day finding on this petition, 
we initiated a status review to determine if listing each of the 10 
species is warranted, and opened a 60-day public comment period to 
allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on 
the status of the 10 species of penguins. The public comment period 
closed on September 10, 2007. In addition, we attended the 
International Penguin Conference in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, a 
quadrennial meeting of penguin scientists from September 3-7, 2007 
(during the open public comment period), to gather information and to 
ensure that experts were aware of the status review and the open 
comment period. We also consulted with other agencies and range 
countries in an effort to gather the best available scientific and 
commercial information on these species.
    During the public comment period, we received over 4,450 
submissions from the public, concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, and other interested parties. 
Approximately 4,324 e-mails and 31 letters received by U.S. mail or 
facsimile were part of one letter-writing campaign and were 
substantively identical. Each letter supported listing under the Act, 
included a statement identifying ``the threat to penguins from global 
warming, industrial fishing, oil spills and other factors,'' and listed 
the 10 species included in the Service's 90-day finding. A further 
group of 73 letters included the same information plus information 
concerning the impact of ``abnormally warm ocean temperatures and 
diminished sea ice'' on penguin food availability and stated that this 
has led to population declines in southern rockhopper, Humboldt, 
African, and emperor penguins. These letters stated that the emperor 
penguin colony at Point Geologie has declined more than 50 percent due 
to global warming and provided information on krill declines in large 
areas of the Southern Ocean. They stated that continued warming over 
the coming decades will dramatically affect Antarctica, the sub-
Antarctic islands, the Southern Ocean and the penguins dependent on 
these ecosystems for survival. A small number of general letters and e-
mails drew particular attention to the conservation status of the 
southern rockhopper penguin in the Falkland Islands.
    Twenty submissions provided detailed, substantive information on 
one or more of the 10 species. These included information from the 
governments, or government-affiliated scientists, of Argentina, 
Australia, Namibia, New Zealand, Peru, South Africa, and the United 
Kingdom, from scientists, from 18 members of the U.S. Congress, and 
from one non-governmental organization (the original petitioner).
    On December 3, 2007, the Service received a 60-day Notice of Intent 
To Sue from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). CBD filed a 
complaint against the Department of the Interior on February 27, 2008, 
for failure to make a 12-month finding on the petition. On September 8, 
2008, the Service entered into a Settlement Agreement with CBD, in 
which we agreed to submit to the Federal Register 12-month findings for 
the 10 species of penguins, including the five penguin taxa that are 
the subject of this proposed rule, on or before December 19, 2008.
    We base our findings on a review of the best scientific and 
commercial information available, including all information received 
during the public comment period. Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, 
we are required to make a finding as to whether listing each of the 10 
species of penguins is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but 
precluded by higher priority listing actions.

Introduction

    In this notice, for each of the four species addressed, we first 
provide background information on the biology of the species. Next, we 
address each of the categories of factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act. For each factor, we first determine whether any stressors 
appear to be causing declines in numbers of the species at issue 
anywhere within the species' range. If we determine they are, then we 
evaluate whether these stressors are causing population-level declines 
that are significant to the determination of the conservation status of 
the species. If so, we describe it as a ``threat.'' In the subsequent 
finding section, we then consider each of the stressors and threats, 
individually and cumulatively, and make a determination with respect to 
whether the species is endangered or threatened according to the 
statutory standard.
    The term ``threatened species'' means any species (or subspecies 
or, for vertebrates, distinct population segments) that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the 
term ``foreseeable future.'' For the purpose of this notice, we define 
the ``foreseeable future'' to be the extent to which, given the amount 
and substance of available data, we can anticipate events or effects, 
or reliably extrapolate threat trends, such that we reasonably believe 
that reliable predictions can be made concerning the future as it 
relates to the status of the species at issue.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence.

Southern Rockhopper Penguin and Northern Rockhopper Penguins

Taxonomy

    Rockhopper penguins are among the smallest of the world's penguins, 
averaging 20 inches (in) (52 centimeters (cm)) in length and 6.6 pounds 
(lbs) (3 kilograms (kg)) in weight. They are the most widespread of the 
crested penguins (genus Eudyptes), and are so named because of the way 
they hop from boulder to boulder when moving

[[Page 77266]]

around their rocky colonies. Rockhopper penguins are found on islands 
from near the Antarctic Polar Front to near the Subtropical Convergence 
in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 
183).
    The taxonomy of the rockhopper complex is contentious. Formerly 
treated as three subspecies (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 182), recent 
papers suggested that these should be treated as two species (Jouventin 
et al. 2006, pp. 3,413-3,423) or three species (Banks et al. 2006, pp. 
61-67).
    Jouventin et al. (2006, pp. 3,413-3,423), following up on recorded 
differences in breeding phenology, song characteristics, and head 
ornaments used as mating signals, conducted genetic analysis between 
northern subtropical rockhopper penguins and southern sub-Antarctic 
penguins using the Subtropical Convergence, a major ecological boundary 
for marine organisms, as the dividing line between them. Their results 
supported the separation of E. chrysocome into two species, the 
southern rockhopper (E. chrysocome) and the northern rockhopper (E. 
moseleyi).
    Another recently published paper in the journal Polar Biology 
confirmed that there is more than one species of rockhopper penguins. 
Banks et al. (2006, pp. 61-67) compared the genetic distances between 
the three rockhopper subspecies and compared them with such sister 
species as macaroni penguins. Banks et al. (2006, pp. 61-67) suggested 
that three rockhopper subspecies--southern rockhopper (currently E. 
chrysocome chrysocome), eastern rockhopper (currently E. chrysocome 
filholi), and northern rockhopper (currently E. chrysocome moseleyi)--
should be split into three species.
    BirdLife International (2007, p. 1) has reviewed these two papers 
and made the decision to adopt, for the purposes of their continued 
compilation of information on the status of birds, the conclusion of 
Jouventin et al. (2006, p. 3,419) that there are two species of 
rockhopper penguin. In doing so, they noted that the proposed splitting 
of an eastern rockhopper species from E. chrysocome has been rejected 
on account of weak morphological differentiations between the 
circumpolar populations south of the Subtropical Convergence (Banks et 
al. 2006, p. 67). Furthermore those two groups are more closely related 
to each other in terms of genetic distance than either is to the 
northern rockhopper penguin (Banks et al. 2006, p. 65).
    We conclude that, while both analyses have merit, the split into a 
northern and southern species on the basis of both genetic and 
morphological differences represents the best available science. On the 
basis of our review, we accept the BirdLife International treatment of 
the rockhopper penguins as two species: The northern rockhopper penguin 
(E. moseleyi) and the southern rockhopper penguin (E. chrysocome).

Life History

    The life histories of northern and southern rockhopper penguins are 
similar. Breeding begins in early October (the austral spring) when 
males arrive at the breeding site a few days before females. Breeding 
takes place as soon as the females arrive, and two eggs are laid 4-5 
days apart in early November. The first egg laid is typically smaller 
than the second, 2.8 versus 3.9 ounces (oz) (80 versus 110 grams (g)), 
and is the first to hatch. Incubation lasts about 33 days and is 
divided into three roughly equal shifts. During the first 10-day shift, 
both parents are in attendance. Then, the male leaves to feed while the 
female incubates during the second shift. The male returns to take on 
the third shift. He generally remains for the duration of incubation 
and afterward to brood the chicks while the female leaves to forage and 
returns to feed the chicks. Such a system of extended shift duration 
requires lengthy fasts for both parents, but allows them to forage 
farther afield than would be the case if they had a daily change-over. 
The newly hatched chicks may have to wait up to a week before the 
female returns with their first feed. During this period, chicks are 
able to survive on existing yolk reserves, after which they begin 
receiving regular feedings of around 5 oz (150 g) in weight. By the end 
of the 25 days of brooding, chicks are receiving regular feedings 
averaging around 1 lb 5 oz (600 g). By this stage they are able to 
leave the nest and cr[egrave]che with other chicks, allowing both 
adults to forage to meet the chicks' increasing demands for food 
(Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 190).
    Northern rockhopper penguins and birds in the eastern colonies of 
southern rockhopper penguins typically rear only one of the two chicks. 
However, southern rockhopper penguins near the Falkland Islands are 
capable of rearing both chicks to fledging when conditions are 
favorable (Guinard et al. 1998, p. 226). In spite of this difference, 
southern rockhopper penguins average successful breeding of one chick 
per pair annually for the colony as a whole. Chicks fledge at around 10 
weeks of age, and adults then spend 20-25 days at sea building up body 
fat reserves in preparation for their annual molt. The molt lasts for 
around 25 days, and the birds then abandon the breeding site. They 
spend the winter feeding at sea, prior to returning the following 
spring (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 185).
    The range of southern and northern rockhopper penguins includes 
breeding habitat on temperate and sub-Antarctic islands around the 
Southern Hemisphere and marine foraging areas. In the breeding season, 
these marine foraging areas may lie within as little as 6 miles (mi) 
(10 kilometers (km)) of the colony (as at the Crozet Archipelago in the 
Indian Ocean), as distant as 97 mi (157 km) (as at the Prince Edward 
Islands in the Indian Ocean), or for male rockhoppers foraging during 
the incubation stage at the Falkland Islands in the Southwest Atlantic, 
as much as 289 mi (466 km) away (Sagar et al. 2005, p. 79; Putz et al. 
2003b, p. 141). Foraging ranges vary according to the geographic, 
geologic, and oceanographic location of the breeding sites and their 
proximity to sea floor features (such as the continental slope and its 
margins or the sub-Antarctic slope) and oceanographic features (such as 
the polar frontal zone or the Falkland current) (Sagar et al. 2005, pp. 
79-80). Winter at-sea foraging areas are less well-documented, but 
penguins from the Staten Island breeding colony at the tip of South 
America dispersed over a range of 501,800 square miles (mi\2\) (1.3 
million square kilometers (km\2\)) covering polar, sub-polar, and 
temperate waters in oceanic regions of the Atlantic and Pacific as well 
as shelf waters (Putz et al. 2006, p. 735) and traveled up to 1,242 mi 
(2,000 km) from the colony.

Southern Rockhopper Penguin

Distribution

    The southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome) is widely 
distributed around the Southern Ocean, breeding on many sub-Antarctic 
islands in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans (Shirihai 2002, p. 71). The 
species breeds on the Falkland Islands (United Kingdom, Argentina), 
Penguin and Staten Islands (Argentina) at the southern tip of South 
America, and islands of southern Chile. Farther to the east, the 
southern rockhopper penguin breeds on Prince Edward Islands (South 
Africa); Crozet and Kerguelen Islands (French Southern Territories); 
Heard, McDonald, and Macquarie Islands (Australia); and Campbell, 
Auckland, and Antipodes Islands (New Zealand) (BirdLife International 
2007, pp. 2-3; Woehler 1993, pp. 58-61).

[[Page 77267]]

Population

Falkland Islands

    At the Falkland Islands, between the census in 1932-33 and the 
census in 1995-96, there was a decline of more than 80 percent, with an 
overall rate of decline of 2.75 percent per year (Putz et al. 2003a, p. 
174). Reports of even greater declines (Bingham 1998, p. 223) have been 
revised after re-analysis of the original 1930's census data, which 
recorded an estimated 1.5 million southern rockhopper breeding pairs 
(Putz et al. 2003a, p. 174). The census in 2000-01 of 272,000 breeding 
pairs indicated stable numbers since the mid-1990s (297,000 breeding 
pairs) in the Falkland Islands (Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 389), 
although further declines since then (Putz et al. 2006, p. 742), and a 
lower figure of 210,000 breeding pairs in 2005-06, have been cited 
(Kirkwood et al. 2007, p. 266).
    The declines of southern rockhoppers in the Falkland Islands appear 
not to have been gradual. Clausen and Huin (2003, p. 394) state that 
``circumstantial evidence'' suggests that in the early 1980s, there 
were no more than 500,000 pairs, a decline of 66 percent since the 
1930s. By the mid-1990s, the total decline had reached 80 percent. A 
mass mortality event in the 1985-86 breeding season killed thousands of 
penguins and was linked to starvation before molt (Putz et al. 2003a, 
p. 174; Keyme et al. 2001, p. 168). In summary, although there has been 
a long-term decline in numbers at the Falkland Islands, numbers have 
not declined at a consistent rate, but rather, there have been periodic 
declines over a long period of time. As mentioned below, Schiavini 
(2000, p. 290) suggested that Falkland Island birds may be dispersing 
to Staten Island, potentially contributing to the stable or increasing 
numbers there.

Southern Tip of South America

    In the region of the southern tip of South America, large numbers 
of southern rockhopper penguins are reported with approximately 180,000 
breeding pairs in southern Argentina at Staten Island (Schiavini 2000, 
p. 286; Kirkwood et al. 2007, p. 266), 134,000 breeding pairs at Isla 
Noir (Oehler 2005, p. 7), 86,400 breeding pairs at Ildefonso 
Archipelago, and 132,721 breeding pairs at Diego Ramirez Archipelago 
(Kirkwood et al. 2007, p. 265). Kirkwood et al. (2007, p. 266) 
concluded that numbers for the southern tip of South America are 
approximately 555,000 breeding pairs. These relatively recent estimates 
are substantially larger than previous estimates of 175,000 breeding 
pairs reported in Woehler (1993, p. 61), but it is unclear whether this 
reflects population increases or more comprehensive surveys. In the 
Chilean archipelago, Kirkwood et al. (2007, p. 266) found no 
substantive evidence for overall changes in the number of penguins 
between the early 1980s and 2002, although one colony in the region 
(the Isla Recalada colony, a historical breeding site) declined from 
10,000 pairs in 1989 to none in 2005 (Oehler et al. 2007, p. 505). On 
the Argentine side, Schiavini (2000, p. 290) stated that the numbers at 
Staten Island are stable or increasing, perhaps as a result of a flux 
of birds from the Falkland Islands. In summary, the overall number of 
southern rockhopper penguins at the Falklands and the southern tip of 
South America is estimated at 765,000 breeding pairs distributed as 
follows: Falkland Islands, 27 percent; Argentina, 24 percent; and 
Chile, 48 percent. Based on the available information, there does not 
appear to be a declining trend in southern rockhopper penguin numbers 
on the southern tip of South America. Although there may have been 
population increases in the region based on the reported population 
numbers, it is unclear if these higher numbers reflect true increases 
in numbers, more comprehensive surveys, or movement of other penguins 
from the Falkland Islands.

Prince Edward Islands

    Two species of Eudyptes penguins breed at Marion Island (46.9 
degrees ([deg]) South (S) latitude, 37.9[deg] East (E) longitude), one 
of two islands in the sub-Antarctic Prince Edward Islands group in the 
southwest Indian Ocean. They are the southern rockhopper penguin (E. 
chrysocome) and the macaroni penguin (E. chrysolophus). For southern 
rockhopper penguins, the numbers of birds estimated to breed at Marion 
Island decreased by 61 percent from 173,000 pairs in 1994-95 to 67,000 
pairs in 2001-02 (Crawford et al. 2003, p. 490). The number of southern 
rockhopper penguins at nearby Prince Edward Island appears to have been 
stable since the 1980s with 35,000-45,000 pairs present (Crawford et 
al. 2003, p. 496). The decreases at Marion Island are thought to result 
from poor breeding success, with fledging rates lower than required for 
the colonies to remain in equilibrium; a decrease in the mass of males 
and females on arrival at the colony for breeding; and low mass of 
chicks at fledging (Crawford et al. 2003, p. 496). These changes are 
attributed to an inadequate supply of food for southern rockhopper 
penguins at Marion Island (Crawford et al. 2003, p. 487), presumably 
from a decrease in the availability of crustaceans or competition with 
other predators for food (Crawford et al. 2003, p. 496). Winter grounds 
of southern rockhopper penguins are not known. However, over-wintering 
conditions, which are reflected in the condition of birds arriving to 
breed, influence the proportion of adults that breed in the following 
summer and the outcome of breeding (Crawford et al. 2006, p. 185).

Crozet and Kerguelen Islands

    Jouventin et al. (2006, p. 3,417) referenced 1984 data from French 
Indian Ocean territories that showed 264,000 breeding pairs at Crozet 
Islands and 200,000 breeding pairs at Kerguelen Island. These figures 
did not agree with those presented by Woehler (1993, pp. 59-60) and, if 
accurate, represent an increase of about 25 percent for the Crozet 
Islands and over 100 percent for Kerguelen. We are not aware of 
reported declines at the Crozet and Kerguelen Islands.

Heard, McDonald, and Macquarie Islands

    Numbers at Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia) are reported as 
small, with an ``order of magnitude estimate'' of greater than 10,000 
pairs for Heard Island and greater than 10 pairs for McDonald (Woehler 
1993, p. 60). No information has been reported on trends in numbers in 
these areas. Order of magnitude estimates at Macquarie Island 
(Australia) reported 100,000-300,000 pairs in the early 1980s (Woehler 
1993, p. 60; Taylor 2000, p. 54). The 2006 Management Plan for the 
Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area reported that 
the total number of southern rockhopper penguins in this area may be as 
high as 100,000 breeding pairs, but estimates from 2006-07 indicate 
32,000-43,000 breeding pairs at Macquarie Island (BirdLife 
International 2008b, p. 2). Given the large range in the earlier 
categorical estimate, we cannot evaluate whether the more recent 
estimate represents a decline in numbers or a more precise estimate.

Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes Islands

    In New Zealand territory, southern rockhopper numbers at Campbell 
Island declined by 94 percent between the early 1940s and 1985 from 
approximately 800,000 breeding pairs to 51,500 (Cunningham and Moors 
1994, p. 34). The majority of the decline appears to have coincided 
with a period of warmed sea surface temperatures

[[Page 77268]]

between 1946 and 1956. It is widely inferred that warmer waters most 
likely affected southern rockhopper penguins through changes in the 
abundance, availability, and distribution of their food supply 
(Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34); recent research suggests they may 
have had to work harder to find the same food (Thompson and Sagar 2002, 
p. 11). According to standard photographic monitoring, numbers in most 
colonies at Campbell Island continued to decline from 1985 to the mid-
1990s (Taylor 2000, p. 54), although the extent of such declines has 
not been quantified in the literature. The New Zealand Department of 
Conservation (DOC) provided preliminary information from a 2007 
Campbell Island survey team that ``the population is still in decline'' 
(D. Houston 2008, p. 1), but quantitative analysis of these data have 
not yet been completed. At the Auckland Islands, a survey in 1990 found 
10 colonies produced an estimate of 2,700-3,600 breeding pairs of 
southern rockhopper penguins (Cooper 1992, p. 66). This was a decrease 
from 1983, when 5,000-10,000 pairs were counted (Taylor 2000, p. 54). 
There has been a large decline at Antipodes Islands from 50,000 
breeding pairs in 1978 to 3,400 pairs in 1995 (Taylor 2000, p. 54). 
There is no more recent data for Auckland or Antipodes Islands (D. 
Houston 2008, p. 1).

Other Status Classifications

    The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List 
classifies the southern rockhopper penguin as `Vulnerable' due to rapid 
population declines, which ``appear to have worsened in recent years.''

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Terrestrial Habitat

    There are few reports of destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of the terrestrial habitat of the southern rockhopper penguin. Analyses 
of large-scale declines of southern rockhopper penguins have uniformly 
ruled out that impacts to the terrestrial habitat have been a limiting 
factor to the species (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34; Keyme et al. 
2001, pp. 159-169; Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 394), and we have no 
reason to believe threats to the terrestrial habitat will emerge in the 
foreseeable future.

Climate-Related Changes in the Marine Environment

    Reports of major decreases in southern rockhopper penguin numbers 
have been linked to sea surface temperature changes and other apparent 
or assumed oceanographic or prey shifts in the vicinity of southern 
rockhopper penguin breeding colonies or their wintering grounds. Actual 
empirical evidence of changes has been difficult to compile, and 
conclusions of causality for observations at one site are often 
inferred from data from other studies at other sites, which may or may 
not be pertinent. In the most cited study, Cunningham and Moors (1994, 
pp. 27-36) concluded that drastic southern rockhopper penguin declines 
were related to increased sea surface temperature changes at Campbell 
Island in New Zealand. In another study, Crawford et al. (2003, p. 496) 
hypothesized altered distribution or decreased abundance of marine prey 
at Marion Island, where mean sea surface temperature increased by 2.5 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (1.4 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) between 1949 
and 2002, as a factor in a decline of southern rockhopper penguin 
numbers by 61 percent during that period (Crawford and Cooper 2003, p. 
415). Clausen and Huin (2003, p. 394), in discussing the factors that 
may be responsible for large-scale declines in this species at the 
Falkland Islands since the 1930s (and especially in the mid-1980s), 
found the most plausible explanation to be changes in sea surface 
temperatures, which could in turn affect the available food supply 
(Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 394). Extreme El Ni[ntilde]o-like warming of 
surface waters occurred during the 1985-86 period when the most severe 
decline occurred at the Falkland Islands (Boersma 1987, p. 96; Keyme et 
al. 2001, p. 168). None of these authors cites historical fisheries 
data to corroborate the hypothesis that prey abundance has been 
affected by changes in sea surface temperatures.
    As noted above, changes in oceanographic conditions and their 
possible impact on prey have been cited in reports of southern 
rockhopper penguin declines around the world (Cunningham and Moors 
1994, pp. 27-36; Crawford et al. 2003, p. 496; Crawford and Cooper 
2003, p. 415; Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 394). We examine the case of 
Campbell Island in depth in the following paragraphs, since this 
provides the most studied example.
    At Campbell Island, a 94-percent decrease in southern rockhopper 
penguin numbers occurred between the early 1940s and 1985. Cunningham 
and Moors (1994, pp. 27-36) compared the pattern of the penguin decline 
(from 800,000 breeding pairs in the early 1940s to 51,500 pairs in 
1985) to patterns of sea surface temperature change. The authors 
concluded that drastic southern rockhopper penguin declines were 
related to increased sea surface temperature changes at Campbell 
Island. They found that peaks in temperature were related to the 
periods of largest decline in numbers within colonies, in particular in 
1948-49 and 1953-54. One study colony rebounded in cooler temperatures 
in the 1960s; however, with temperature stabilization at higher levels 
(mean 49.5 [deg]F (9.7 [deg]C)) in the 1970s, declines continued. 
Colony sizes have continued to decline into the 1990s (Taylor 2000, p. 
54), and preliminary survey data indicate that numbers at Campbell 
Island continue to decline (Houston 2008, p. 1).
    Cunningham and Moors (1994, p. 34) concluded that warmer waters 
most likely affected the diet of the Campbell Island southern 
rockhopper penguins. In the absence of data on the 1940's diet of 
Campbell Island southern rockhopper penguins, the authors compared the 
1980's diet of the species at Campbell Island to southern rockhopper 
penguins elsewhere. They found the Campbell Island penguins eating 
primarily fish--southern blue whiting (Micromesisteus australis), dwarf 
codling (Austrophycis marginata), and southern hake (Merluccius 
australis)--while elsewhere southern rockhopper penguins were reported 
to eat mainly euphausiid crustaceans (krill) and smaller amounts of 
fish and squid. Based on this comparison of different areas, the 
authors concluded that euphausiids left the Campbell Island area when 
temperatures changed, forcing the southern rockhopper penguins to adopt 
an apparently atypical, and presumably less nutritious, fish diet. The 
authors concluded that this led to lower departure weights of chicks 
and contributed to adult declines (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34).
    Subsequent research, however, has not supported the theory that 
southern rockhopper penguins at Campbell Island switched prey as their 
``normal'' euphausiid prey moved to cooler waters (Cunningham and Moors 
1994, pp. 34-35). This hypothesis has been tested through stable 
isotope studies, which can be used to extract historical dietary 
information from bird tissues (e.g., feathers). In analyses of samples 
from the late 1800s to the present at Campbell Island and Antipodes 
Islands, Thompson and Sagar (2002, p. 11) found no evidence of a shift 
in southern rockhopper penguin diet during the

[[Page 77269]]

period of decline. They concluded that southern rockhopper penguins did 
not switch to a less suitable prey, but that overall marine 
productivity and the carrying capacity of the marine ecosystem declined 
beginning in the 1940s. With food abundance declining or food moving 
farther offshore or into deeper water, according to these authors, the 
southern rockhopper penguins maintained their diet over the long 
timescale, but were unable to find enough food in the less productive 
marine ecosystem (Thompson and Sagar 2002, p. 12).
    Hilton et al. (2006, pp. 611-625) expanded the study of carbon 
isotope ratios in southern and northern rockhopper penguin feathers to 
most breeding areas, except those at the Falkland Islands and the tip 
of South America, to look for global trends that might help explain the 
declines observed at Campbell Island. They found no clear global-scale 
explanation for large spatial and temporal-scale rockhopper penguin 
declines. While they found general support for lower primary 
productivity in the ecosystems in which rockhopper penguins feed, there 
were significant differences between sites. There was evidence of a 
shift in diet to lower trophic levels over time and in warm years, but 
the data did not support the idea that the shift toward lower primary 
productivity reflected in the diet resulted from an overall trend of 
rising sea temperatures (Hilton et al. 2006, p. 620). No detectable 
relationship between carbon isotope ratios and annual mean sea surface 
temperatures was found (Hilton et al. 2006, p. 620).
    In the absence of conclusive evidence for sea surface temperature 
changes as an explanation for reduced primary productivity, Hilton et 
al. (2006, p. 621) suggested that historical top-down effects in the 
food chain might have caused a reduction in phytoplankton growth rates. 
Reduced grazing pressure resulting from the large-scale removal of 
predators from the sub-Antarctic could have resulted in larger standing 
stocks of phytoplankton, which in turn could have led to lowered cell 
growth rates (which would be reflected in isotope ratios), with no 
effect on overall productivity of the system. Postulated top-down 
effects on the ecosystem of southern rockhopper penguins, which 
occurred in the time period before the warming first noted in the 
original Cunningham and Moors (1994, p. 34) study, are the hunting of 
pinniped populations to near extinction in the 18th and 19th centuries 
and the subsequent severe exploitation of baleen whale 
(Balaenopteridae) populations in the 19th and 20th centuries (Hilton et 
al. 2006, p. 621). While this top-down theory may explain the regional 
shift toward reduced primary productivity, it does not explain the 
decrease in abundance of food at specific penguin breeding and foraging 
areas.
    Hilton et al. (2006, p. 621) concluded that considerably more 
development of the links between isotopic monitoring of rockhopper 
penguins and the analysis of larger-scale oceanographic data is needed 
to understand effects of human activities on the sub-Antarctic marine 
ecosystem and the links between rockhopper penguin demography, ecology, 
and environment.
    Meteorologically, the events described for Campbell Island from the 
1940s until 1985, including the period of oceanic warming, occurred 
after a record cool period in the New Zealand region between 1900 and 
1935, the coldest period since record-keeping began (Cunningham and 
Moors 1994, p. 35). These historical temperature changes have been 
attributed to fluctuations in the position of the Antarctic Polar Front 
caused by changes in the westerly-wind belt (Cunningham and Moors 1994, 
p. 35). Photographic evidence suggests that southern rockhopper penguin 
numbers may have been significantly expanding as the early 1900s cool 
period came to an end (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 33) and just 
before the rapid decrease in numbers.
    Without longer-term data sets on southern rockhopper fluctuations 
in numbers of penguins at Campbell Island and longer temperature data 
records at a scale appropriate to evaluating impacts on this particular 
breeding colony, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the situation 
described there. There are even fewer data for Auckland and Antipodes 
Islands.
    For now, local-scale observations may be of more utility in 
explaining mass declines of southern rockhopper penguins. At the 
Falkland Islands, the mass starvation event of 1985-86 coincided with a 
Pacific El Nino event, and the unusually long and hot southern summer 
in the southwest Atlantic was analogous to the Pacific El Nino (Boersma 
1987, p. 96; Keyme et al. 2001, p. 160). There was an influx of warm 
water seabirds from the north, indicating movement of warm water into 
the area, and it was hypothesized that warm weather negatively affected 
the growth and presence of food in a manner similar to what occurs when 
the warm El Nino current extends southwards off the Pacific coast of 
Peru. Perturbations of upwellings essential to sustaining the normal 
food chain appear to have been caused by unusually strong westerly 
winds in the Atlantic, with prey failure leading to a starvation event 
(Boersma 1987, p. 96; Keyme et al. 2001, p. 168). The severe El Nino 
event of 1996-97 has also been cited as a possible factor in the 
decline and disappearance of the small Isla Recalada colony in Chile, 
with the suggestion that response to this climatic event may have been 
one factor leading birds at this colony to disperse to other areas such 
as the large Isla Noir colony 75 mi (125 km) away (Oehler et al. 2007, 
pp. 502, 505).
    In other local-scale observations, studies of winter behavior of 
southern rockhopper penguins foraging from colonies at Staten Island, 
Argentina, indicated that penguins respond behaviorally to different 
oceanographic conditions such as seasonal differences in sea surface 
temperatures by changing foraging strategies. Even with such behavioral 
plasticity, differences in winter foraging conditions (for example, 
between an average and a cold year) led to differences in adult 
survival, return rates to breeding colonies, and breeding success 
between years (Rey et al. 2007, p. 285).
    Changes in the marine environment and possible shifts in food 
abundance or distribution in the marine environment have been cited as 
leading to historical and present-day declines in three areas within 
the distribution of southern rockhopper penguins around the world--the 
Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic (80-percent decline), Marion 
Island in the Indian Ocean (61-percent), and the New Zealand sub-
Antarctic islands (Campbell Island (94-percent), Auckland Island (50-
percent), and the Antipodes Islands (93-percent)).
    While southern rockhopper penguin numbers have declined in some 
areas, there are significant areas of the southern rockhopper range 
(representing about one million pairs) where numbers have remained 
stable or increased. This indicates that the severity and pervasiveness 
of these factors in the marine environment are not uniform throughout 
the species' range. For example, declines have been reported at the 
Falkland Islands; however, nearby colonies at the southern tip of South 
America appear to have increased and now represent 72 percent of 
southern rockhopper abundance in the larger south Atlantic and 
southeast Pacific region. Similarly, at the Prince Edward Islands, 
declines have been documented at Marion Island; however, colonies at 
nearby Prince Edward Island have remained stable. As noted above, in 
large areas of the Indian Ocean, including the French Indian Ocean 
territories at Kerguelen

[[Page 77270]]

and Crozet Islands, large numbers are stable or increasing.
    This difference in trends in locations within the species' range, 
and the limitation of declines to regional areas, illustrates that 
while temperature changes in the marine environment have been widely 
cited as an indicator of changing oceanographic conditions for southern 
rockhopper penguins, there is not a unitary explanation for phenomena 
observed in the widely scattered breeding locations across the Southern 
Hemisphere. In fact, as illustrated for the most studied example at 
Campbell Island, a detailed analysis of causality has so far led to 
further questions, rather than a narrowing down of answers. 
Nevertheless, in the absence of any major factors on land, the best 
available information indicates that some change in the oceanographic 
ecosystem has led to past declines in southern rockhopper penguins in 
some regions and has the potential to lead to future declines in 
southern rockhopper penguin colonies in those regions of New Zealand.
    Large-scale measurements show that temperature changes have been 
occurring in the Southern Ocean since the 1960s. Overall, the upper 
ocean has warmed since the 1960s with dominant changes in the thick 
near-surface layers called ``sub-Antarctic Mode waters,'' located just 
north of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) (Bindoff et al. 2007, 
p. 401). In mid-depth waters--2,952 feet (ft) (900 meters (m))--
temperatures have increased throughout most of the Southern Ocean, 
having risen 0.31 [deg]F (0.17 [deg]C) between the 1950s and 1980s 
(Gille 2002, p. 1,275). However, the ocean temperature trends described 
are at too large a scale to relate meaningfully to the demographics of 
the southern rockhopper penguins, whether at any single penguin colony 
or breeding or foraging area, or to the variation in trends in colonies 
around the world at larger scales. We have noted above that attempts to 
ascribe trends in rockhopper penguin numbers to large-scale sea-
temperature changes using biological measurements of southern 
rockhopper population and foraging parameters have been unsuccessful in 
revealing any causal links.
    Despite larger-scale conclusions that Southern Ocean warming is 
occurring, we have not identified sea temperature data on an 
appropriate oceanographic scale to evaluate either historical trends or 
to make predictions on future trends and whether they will affect 
southern rockhoppers across the New Zealand/Australia region. For 
example, Gille (2002, p. 1,276) presented a figure of historical 
Southern Ocean deep-water temperatures to illustrate an overall warming 
trend. However, while the scale of measurement is too large to draw any 
conclusions at a local-scale, in the region of the New Zealand/
Australia portion of the species' range, the figure provided appears to 
show that ocean temperatures have decreased on average from the 1950s 
to the 1990s.
    Looking at the situation from the perspective of physical 
oceanography, attempts to describe the relationship between southern 
rockhopper penguin population trends and trends in ocean temperatures, 
based on large-scale oceanographic observations of temperature trends 
in the Southern Ocean, and to arrive at historical or predictive models 
of the impact of temperature trends on penguins are equally difficult. 
Such analyses are hampered by: (1) The fact that measurements of 
temperature and temperature trends are provided at an ocean-wide scale; 
(2) the measurement and averaging of temperatures over large water 
bodies or depths, which do not allow analysis of impacts at any one 
site or region or allow explanation of divergent trends between 
colonies in the same region; (3) lack of real-time data on temperature 
and trends at biologically meaningful geographical scales in the 
vicinity of breeding or foraging habitat for penguins; and (4) absence 
of consistent monitoring of southern rockhopper penguin abundance and 
demographic and biological parameters to relate to such oceanographic 
measurements. We have insufficient information to draw conclusions on 
whether directional changes in ocean temperatures are affecting 
southern rockhopper penguins throughout all of their range.
    We have examined areas of the range of the southern rockhopper 
penguin where numbers have declined, such as at Campbell Island and the 
Falkland Islands. At the same time, numbers in the majority of the 
range of the southern rockhopper penguin have remained stable or 
increased. For example, in the region of the southern tip of South 
America, numbers have increased and now represent 72 percent of 
southern rockhopper abundance in the larger south Atlantic and 
southeast Pacific regions. At the Prince Edward Islands, declines at 
Marion Island have been accompanied by stability at nearby Prince 
Edward Island. At Kerguelen and Crozet Islands, numbers are increasing 
or stable.
    Within the New Zealand/Australia portion of the species' range, the 
New Zealand islands have experienced severe declines; however, trend 
information for the Australian Macquarie Island colonies is much less 
certain, given the poor quality of the baseline estimate at Macquarie. 
Based on our review of the best available information (see above), we 
conclude that changes to the marine environment, which influence the 
southern rockhopper penguin, have affected the Campbell Plateau, but 
their effects on the Macquarie Ridge region are unknown. In the absence 
of identification of other significant threat factors and in light of 
the best available scientific information indicating that prey 
availability, productivity, or sea temperatures are affecting southern 
rockhopper penguins within the Campbell Plateau, we find that changes 
to the marine environment is a threat to the Campbell Plateau colonies 
of southern rockhopper penguins at Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes 
Islands.
    While rockhopper penguin numbers in certain areas of the species' 
range have been affected by changes to the marine environment, numbers 
in the majority of the range are stable or increasing. This indicates 
that the severity and pervasiveness of stressors in the marine 
environment are not uniform throughout the species' range, and we have 
not identified sea-temperature data on an appropriate oceanographic 
scale to be able to identify broad-scale trends or to make predictions 
on future trends about whether changes to the marine environment will 
affect southern rockhoppers penguins either across its range or within 
the New Zealand/Australia region.
    On this basis, we find that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of both its terrestrial and marine 
habitats is not a threat to the southern rockhopper penguin throughout 
all of its range now or in the future.

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Despite the overall increase in southern rockhopper penguin numbers 
in southern Chile, the Isla Recalada colony--a historical breeding 
site--declined from 10,000 pairs in 1989 to none in 2005 (Oehler et al. 
2007, p. 505). In attempting to explain this local decline, Oehler et 
al. (2007, p. 505) cited the collection of adult penguins for export to 
zoological parks from 1984-1992 as a disturbance that may have caused 
adult penguins to move to other areas, but this has not been verified. 
The authors also reported that between 1992 and 1997, in times of 
shortage of fish

[[Page 77271]]

bait, local fishermen harvested adult southern rockhopper penguins at 
the Isla Recalada colony for bait for crab pots (Oehler et al. 2007, p. 
505), but we have no information on the effect of this stressor in 
terms of numbers of individuals lost from the colony.
    Collection for zoological parks is now prohibited, and the species 
is not found in trade (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 54). There is no 
information that suggests this ban will be lifted in the future.
    Tourism and other human disturbance impacts are reported to have 
little effect on southern rockhopper penguins (BirdLife International 
2007, p. 3).
    In summary, although there is some evidence of historical and even 
relatively recent take of southern rockhopper penguins from the wild 
for human use, collection for zoological parks is no longer occurring, 
and other harvest that may be occurring for fish bait is not on a large 
enough scale to be a threat to this species. We have no reason to 
believe the levels of utilization will increase in the future. 
Therefore, we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to the species in 
any portion of its range now or in the future.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

    Investigations have ruled out disease as a significant factor in 
major population declines at Campbell Island in the 1940s and 1950s or 
in the sharp declines in the mid-1980s at the Falkland Islands. At 
Campbell Island, de Lisle et al. (1990, pp. 283-285) isolated avian 
cholera (Pasteurella multocida) from the lungs of dead chicks and 
adults sampled during the year of decline 1985-86 and the subsequent 
year 1986-87. They were unable to determine whether this was a natural 
infection in southern rockhopper penguins or one that had been 
introduced through the vectors of rats, domestic poultry, cats (Felis 
catus), dogs (Canis familiaris), or livestock that have been prevalent 
on the island in the past. While the disease was isolated in four 
separate colonies along the coast of Campbell Island, and there was 
evidence of very limited mortality from the disease, the authors 
concluded there was no evidence that mortality from this pathogen on 
its own may have caused the decline in numbers at Campbell Island 
(Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34). Assays for a variety of other 
infectious avian diseases found no antibody responses in southern 
rockhopper penguins at Campbell Island (de Lisle et al. 1990, pp. 284-
285).
    Following the precipitous decline of southern rockhopper penguins 
at the Falkland Islands in the 1985-86 breeding season, examinations 
and full necropsies were carried out for a large number of individuals. 
Mortality was primarily attributed to starvation. A large number of 
predisposing factors were ruled out, such as anthropogenic factors 
(oiling, fish net mortality, ingestion of plastic, trauma, or trapping 
at sea or on breeding grounds) or natural causes (heavy predation on or 
near breeding grounds, botulism at the breeding grounds, or 
dinoflagellate poisoning caused by red tides). Infectious diseases were 
considered in depth, but no specific disease was identified (Keyme et 
al. 2001, p. 166). A secondary factor, ``puffinosis,'' caused ulcers on 
the feet of some young penguins, but no mortality was associated with 
these lesions (Keyme et al. 2001, p. 167). Examination for potential 
toxic agents found high tissue concentrations for only cadmium; 
however, cadmium levels did not differ between the year of high 
mortality and the subsequent year when no unusual mortality occurred 
(Keyme et al. 2001, pp. 163-165).
    Bester et al. (2003, pp. 549-554) reported on the recolonization of 
sub-Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus tropicalis) and Antarctic fur 
seals (Arctocephalus gazelle) at Prince Edward Island. Rapid fur seal 
recolonization is taking place at this island. There are now an 
estimated minimum 72,000 sub-Antarctic fur seals (Bester et al. 2003, 
p. 553); the population has grown 9.5 percent annually since 1997-98. 
Similarly, at Marion Island, sub-Antarctic fur seal populations 
increased exponentially between 1975 and 1995. Adult populations were 
49,253 animals in 1994-95. Crawford and Cooper (2003, p. 418) expressed 
concern that the burgeoning presence of seals at Prince Edward and 
Marion Islands may be increasingly affecting southern rockhopper 
penguins through physical displacement from nesting sites, prevention 
of access to breeding sites, direct predation, and increasing 
competition between southern rockhopper penguins and seals for prey; 
however, these potential effects of fur seals on southern rockhopper 
penguins have not been investigated.
    At Campbell Island in New Zealand, de Lisle et al. (1990, p. 283) 
ruled out Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), which were present on the 
island at the time of precipitous declines, as a factor in those 
declines. Feral cats are present on Auckland Island, but have not been 
observed preying on chicks there (Taylor 2000, p. 55). Although it was 
suggested that introduced predators may affect breeding on Macquarie 
and Kerguelen Islands (Ellis et al. 1998, p. 49), no information was 
provided to support this idea.
    In summary, based on our review of the best available information 
we find that neither disease nor predation is a threat to the southern 
rockhopper penguin in any portion of its range, and no information is 
available that suggests this will change in the future.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The majority of sub-Antarctic islands are under protected status. 
For example, all New Zealand sub-Antarctic islands are nationally 
protected and inscribed as the New Zealand Subantarctic Islands World 
Heritage sites; human visitation of the islands is tightly restricted 
at all sites where penguins occur (Taylor 2000, p. 54; BirdLife 
International 2007, p. 4; UNEP WCMC (United Nations Environmental 
Program, World Conservation Monitoring Center) 2008a, p. 5). The 
Australian islands of Macquarie, Heard, and McDonald are also World 
Heritage sites with limited or no visitation and with management plans 
in place (UNEP WCMC 2008b, p. 6; UNEP WCMC 2008c, p. 6). In 1995, the 
Prince Edward Islands Special Nature Preserve was declared and 
accompanied by the adoption of a formal management plan (Crawford and 
Cooper 2003, p. 420). Based on our review of the existing regulatory 
mechanisms in place for each of these areas and our analysis of other 
threat factors, we find that the only inadequacy in existing regulatory 
mechanisms regarding the conservation of the southern rockhopper 
penguin (BirdLife International 2007, p. 4; Ellis et al. 1998, pp. 49, 
53) to be the inability to ameliorate the effects of changes to the 
marine environment on the species in the Campbell Plateau portion of 
its range.
    In Chile, collection for zoological display, which used to be 
permitted, is now prohibited, and the species is not found in trade 
(Ellis et al. 1998, p. 54). Fisheries activities in the Falkland 
Islands, which have increased dramatically since the 1970s, are now 
closely regulated. A series of conservation zones has been established, 
and the number of vessels fishing within these zones is regulated to 
prevent fish and squid stocks from becoming depleted. The Falkland 
Island Seabird Monitoring Program has been established to collect 
baseline data essential to identifying and detecting potential threats 
to seabirds (Putz et al.

[[Page 77272]]

2001, p. 794). As discussed under Factor E, current licensing 
arrangements limit squid harvest to between the beginning of February 
and the end of May and the beginning of August and the end of October, 
which minimizes overlap with the southern rockhopper penguin breeding 
season, when feeding demands are high (October to February) (Putz et 
al. 2001, p. 803).
    In summary, aside from the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to 
ameliorate the threat of changes in the marine environment in the 
Campbell Plateau portion of the species' range, we find that the 
existing national regulatory mechanisms are adequate regarding the 
conservation of southern rockhopper penguins in all other parts of the 
species' range. There is no information available to suggest these 
regulatory mechanisms will change in the future.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species

Fisheries

    While competition for prey with commercial fisheries has been 
listed as a potential factor affecting southern rockhopper penguins in 
various portions of their range (Ellis et al. 1998, pp. 49, 53), we 
have found that it is only in the Falkland Islands where this potential 
competition between commercial fisheries and southern rockhopper 
penguins has emerged and been addressed. Bingham suggests that rapid 
southern rockhopper penguin declines at the Falkland Islands in the 
1980's were a result of uncontrolled commercial fishing (but see 
analysis of El Nino under Factor A), but reports that following the 
establishment of a regulatory body in 1988, the effects of over-fishing 
at the Falkland Islands have been greatly mitigated (Bingham 2002, p. 
815), and southern rockhopper penguin populations have stopped 
declining. At the Falkland Islands, the inshore area adjacent to 
colonies is not subject to fishing activities (Putz et al. 2002, p. 
282). The diet of southern rockhopper penguins, in general, is 
dominated by crustaceans, with fish and squid varying in importance. At 
the Falkland Islands, squid, in particular Patagonian squid (Loligo 
gahi), is of greater importance in the diet than in other rockhopper 
penguins (Putz et al. 2001, p. 802). The Patagonian squid is also an 
important commercial species fished around the Falkland Islands. 
Current licensing arrangements limit squid harvest to between the 
beginning of February and the end of May and the beginning of August 
and the end of October, which minimizes overlap with the southern 
rockhopper penguin breeding season, when feeding demands are high 
(October to February). Nevertheless, reports of decreasing catch per 
unit of effort for squid indicate a declining squid stock over the 
1990s (Putz et al. 2001, p. 803). Coincidentally, Patagonian squid has 
declined in southern rockhopper penguin diets. However, southern 
rockhopper penguin diets have shifted to notothenid fish, a prey that 
has higher nutritional value than squid and that has become more 
common. It is not certain whether squid abundance or fish abundance is 
driving the switch. Bingham (1998, p. 6) reported that there is no 
direct evidence that food availability has been affected by commercial 
fishing, but both he and Putz et al. (2003b, p. 143) drew attention to 
the need for careful monitoring of southern rockhopper penguin prey 
availability in the face of commercial fisheries development.
    The winter foraging range of southern rockhopper penguins breeding 
at the Falkland Islands takes them into the area of longline fishing at 
Burdwood Bank and onto the northern Patagonian shelf. Birds are not in 
direct competition for fish prey species there. The risk of bycatch 
from longline fishing is not a threat to penguins, as it is to other 
seabird species, and on the northern Patagonian shelf where jigging is 
the primary fishing method, bycatch is not a significant threat (Putz 
et al. 2002, p. 282).
    In our review of fisheries activities, we found no other reports of 
documented fisheries interaction or possible competition for prey 
between southern rockhopper penguins and commercial fisheries or of 
documented fisheries bycatch in any other areas of the range of the 
southern rockhopper penguin.
    In summary, while fisheries activities have the potential to 
compete for the prey of southern rockhopper penguins, we find that 
there are adequate monitoring regimes and fisheries controls in place 
to manage fisheries interactions with southern rockhopper penguins 
throughout all of its range, and we have