Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the Hawaiian Goose From Endangered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule, 13919-13942 [2018-06571]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13919-13942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06571]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2017-0050; FXES11130900000C6-189-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BC10


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the 
Hawaiian Goose From Endangered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
propose to reclassify the Hawaiian goose (nene) (Branta (=Nesochen) 
sandvicensis) from endangered to threatened, and we propose a rule 
under section 4(d) of the Act to enhance conservation of the species 
through range expansion and management flexibility. This proposal is 
based on a thorough review of the best available scientific data, which 
indicate that the species' status has improved such that it is not 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. We also propose to correct the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to reflect that Nesochen is not 
currently a scientifically accepted generic name for this species, and 
to acknowledge the Hawaiian name ``nene'' as an alternative common 
name. We seek information, data, and comments from the public on this 
proposal.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June 
1, 2018. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic 
comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date.

[[Page 13920]]

We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the 
address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by May 17, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2017-0050, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!'' Please ensure that you 
have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2017-0050, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3808.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Document availability: The proposed rule is available on https://www.regulations.gov. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed 
rule will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during 
normal business hours, at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-
792-9400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor, 
telephone: 808-792-9400. Direct all questions or requests for 
additional information to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific 
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, 
Honolulu, HI 96850. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant 
reclassification from endangered to threatened if it no longer meets 
the definition of endangered (in danger of extinction). The Hawaiian 
goose (nene) is listed as endangered, and we are proposing to 
reclassify nene as threatened because we have determined it is no 
longer in danger of extinction. Reclassifications can only be made by 
issuing a rulemaking. Furthermore, changes to the take prohibitions in 
section 9 of the Act, such as those we are proposing for this species 
under a section 4(d) rule, can only be made by issuing a rulemaking.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or a 
combination of five factors: (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; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the nene is 
no longer at risk of extinction and, therefore, does not meet the 
definition of endangered, but is still affected by the following 
current and ongoing threats to the extent that the species meets the 
definition of a threatened species under the Act:
     Habitat destruction and modification due to urbanization, 
agricultural activities, nonnative ungulates, and nonnative vegetation;
     Predation by nonnative mammals such as mongooses, cats, 
dogs, rats, and pigs;
     Diseases such as toxoplasmosis, avian pox, avian botulism, 
avian malaria, omphalitis, West Nile virus, and avian influenza;
     Human activities such as motor vehicle collisions, 
collisions at wind energy facilities, artificial hazards (e.g., fences, 
fishing nets, erosion control material), feeding and habituation, and 
recreational activities (e.g., human visitation at parks and refuges); 
and
     Stochastic events such as drought and hurricanes.
    Environmental effects from climate change are likely to exacerbate 
the impacts of drought and hurricanes, and flooding of nene habitat due 
to sea level rise may become a threat in the future. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts do not effectively 
address the introduction and spread of nonnative plants and animals and 
other threats to the nene.
    We are proposing to promulgate a section 4(d) rule. We are 
proposing to modify the normal take prohibitions to allow certain 
activities conducted on lands where nene occur or where they would 
occur if we were to reintroduce them to areas of their historical 
distribution. Under the proposed 4(d) rule, take of nene caused by 
actions resulting in intentional harassment that is not likely to cause 
direct injury or mortality, control of introduced predators, or habitat 
enhancement beneficial to nene would be not be prohibited. The proposed 
4(d) rule identifies these activities to provide protective mechanisms 
to landowners and their agents so that they may continue with certain 
activities that are not anticipated to cause direct injury or mortality 
to nene and that will facilitate the conservation and recovery of nene. 
Federally implemented, funded, or permitted actions would continue to 
be subject to the requirements of section 7 of the Act and eligible for 
an incidental take exemption through section 7(o).

Information Requested

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be based on the best available scientific and commercial data and will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we invite 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, Native 
Hawaiian organizations, or any other interested parties to submit 
comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed 
rule. Comments should be as specific as possible. We are specifically 
requesting comments on:
    (1) The appropriateness of our proposal to reclassify nene from 
endangered to threatened.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a reclassification 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which 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; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to the nene and existing regulations that 
may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
the species and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its 
habitat.
    (6) Any information on foreseeable changes to State land use or 
County land use planning within the

[[Page 13921]]

boundaries of the nene's range that may affect future habitat 
availability for the nene.
    (7) The appropriateness of a rule under section 4(d) of the Act to 
allow certain actions to take nene, and any additional actions that 
should be considered for authorization.
    (8) The appropriateness of a rule under section 4(d) of the Act to 
allow interstate commerce for nene in captivity outside Hawaii.
    (9) Any additional information pertaining to the promulgation of a 
rule under section 4(d) of the Act to allow certain actions that may 
take nene.
    (10) Relevant data on climate change and potential impacts to the 
nene and its habitat.
    We will take into consideration all comments and any additional 
information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule 
that differs from this proposal. All comments, including commenters' 
names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the 
supporting record. Please include sufficient information with your 
submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) 
to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you 
include. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we receive, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will 
be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. We must receive a request for a public hearing, 
in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 
the date specified in DATES. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register at least 15 days before the hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative 
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we 
will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate independent 
specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in 
this proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the 
peer reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal 
Register. This assessment will be completed during the public comment 
period. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions are 
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. 
Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.

Background

Previous Federal Action

    On March 11, 1967, the Secretary of the Interior identified nene as 
an endangered species (32 FR 4001), under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C. 
668aa(c)). On March 8, 1969, the Secretary of the Interior again 
identified nene as an endangered species (34 FR 5034) under section 
1(c) of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. On October 13, 
1970, the Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife listed 
nene as an endangered species (35 FR 16047) under the authority of the 
new regulations implementing the Endangered Species Conservation Act 
(ESCA) of 1969. Species listed as endangered under the ESCA of 1969 
were automatically included in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife when the Endangered Species Act (Act) was enacted in 1973.
    On February 14, 1983, the Service released the Nene Recovery Plan 
(USFWS 1983). On September 24, 2004, the Service published for comment 
(69 FR 57356) the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Nene (USFWS 2004). 
The Draft Revised Recovery Plan presented additional information on the 
status of the species, factors affecting species recovery, and an 
updated framework for species recovery.
    A 5-year status review of the nene was completed on September 30, 
2011 (USFWS 2011a). This review concluded that nene continued to meet 
the definition of an endangered species under the Act, and recommended 
no change in the classification of nene as endangered. However, current 
information indicates the species is not in danger of extinction and 
may warrant reclassification from endangered to threatened.

Species Information

    The original rules identifying nene as an endangered species (32 FR 
4001, 34 FR 5034, 35 FR 16047) listed its scientific name as Branta 
sandvicensis and its common name as ``Hawaiian goose (Nene).'' 
Currently the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 
CFR 17.11) gives its scientific name as Branta (=Nesochen) 
sandvicensis, and its common name as ``Hawaiian goose,'' without 
indicating ``nene'' as an alternative common name. This species was 
once placed in the genus Nesochen by the American Ornithologists' Union 
(AOU) (1982); however, it was subsequently reassigned to the genus 
Branta (AOU 1993) based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA by Quinn et 
al. (1991). Thus, Branta sandvicensis is the only currently accepted 
scientific name. The common name ``Hawaiian goose'' continues to be 
accepted by the ornithological community (AOU 1998). However, the 
Hawaiian common name ``nene'' is also widely familiar to the public and 
is, for example, frequently referenced in governmental documents within 
the State of Hawaii (e.g., Hawaii Department of Land and Natural 
Resources (DLNR) 2005). Therefore, we are including in this document a 
proposal to return to the scientific and common names that were used in 
the original listing rules, with ``nene'' as an accepted alternative 
common name.
    The nene is a medium-sized goose with an overall length of 
approximately 25 to 27 inches (in) (63 to 65 centimeters (cm)) (Banko 
et al. 1999, p. 2). The plumage of both sexes is similar (Banko et al. 
1999, p. 2). This species is

[[Page 13922]]

adapted to a terrestrial and largely non-migratory lifestyle in the 
Hawaiian Islands with limited freshwater habitat (Banko et al. 1999, p. 
1). Adaptations to a terrestrial lifestyle include increased hindlimb 
size, decreased forelimb size, more upright posture, and reduced 
webbing between the toes compared to other species of Branta (Banko et 
al. 1999, p. 1; Olson and James 1991, p. 42). Compared to the related 
Canada goose (Branta canadensis), nene wings are about 16 percent 
smaller in size and their flight is not as strong (Banko et al. 1999, 
p. 9). Nene are capable of inter-island and high altitude flight, but 
they do not migrate out of the Hawaiian archipelago (Banko et al. 1999, 
p. 9).
    Nene currently use shrublands, grasslands, sparsely vegetated lava 
flows, and human-altered habitats ranging from coastal to alpine 
environments (Wilson and Evans 1890-1899, p. 186; Munro 1944, pp. 41-
42; Scott et al. 1986, p. 77; Banko et al. 1999, pp. 4-5). In the 
grassy shrublands and sparsely vegetated lava flows on the islands of 
Hawaii and Maui, nene nest, raise their young, forage, and molt (Banko 
et al. 1999, p. 2). Some nene populations on these islands move 
seasonally from montane foraging grounds to lowland or midelevation 
nesting areas (Banko et al. 1999, p. 2). On the island of Kauai, nene 
are primarily found using lowland habitats such as coastal wetlands at 
Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), with the exception of the Na 
Pali Coast (USFWS 2004, pp. 15, 17).
    Nene are currently known to occupy various habitat and vegetation 
community types ranging from coastal dune vegetation and nonnative 
grasslands (such as golf courses, pastures, and rural areas) to 
sparsely vegetated low- and high-elevation lava flows, mid-elevation 
native and nonnative shrubland, cinder deserts, native alpine 
grasslands and shrublands, and open and nonnative alpine shrubland-
woodland community interfaces (Banko et al. 1999, pp. 4-6). On the 
island of Kauai, nene also use a number of coastal wetland areas 
including taro loi (ponds) (A. Marshall 2017a, pers. comm.). Nene are 
browsing-grazers; the composition of their diet depends largely on the 
vegetative composition of their surrounding habitats, and they appear 
to be opportunistic in their choice of food plants as long as they meet 
nutritional demands (Banko et al. 1999, pp. 6-8; Woog and Black 2001, 
p. 324). Nene may exhibit seasonal movements to grasslands in periods 
of low berry production and wet conditions that produce grass with a 
high water content and resultant higher protein content. The sites 
currently used by nene for nesting range from coastal lowland to 
subalpine zones and demonstrate considerable variability in features 
(Banko et al. 1999, pp. 4-5). However, the current distribution of nene 
nesting sites has been influenced by the location of release sites of 
captive-bred individuals (Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife 
(DOFAW) 2012, pp. 9-10). Historical reports from the island of Hawaii 
indicate that nene bred and molted primarily in the lowlands during 
winter months and moved upslope in the hotter and drier summer months 
(Henshaw 1902, p. 105; Munro 1944, pp. 41-42; Banko 1988, p. 35). 
Reproductive success is relatively low in upland habitats on the 
islands of Hawaii and Maui, and higher in lowland habitat on Kauai 
(Banko et al. 1999, p. 19).
    Nene have an extended breeding season with eggs being laid from 
August to April (Banko et al. 1999, p. 12). Nesting peaks in December, 
and most goslings hatch from December to January (Banko et al. 1999, 
p.12). On the island of Kauai, nene frequently nest earlier (A. 
Marshall 2017a, pers. comm.). Nene nest on the ground, in a shallow 
scrape in the dense shade of a shrub or other vegetation. A clutch 
typically contains three to five eggs, and incubation lasts for 29 to 
32 days (Banko et al. 1999, pp. 14-15). Once hatched, the young may 
remain in the nest for 1 to 2 days; all hatchlings depart the nest 
after the last egg is hatched (Banko et al. 1999, p. 12). Fledging 
(i.e., development of wing feathers large enough for flight) occurs at 
10 to 12 weeks for captive birds, but may be later in the wild (Banko 
et al. 1999, p. 18). During molt, adults are flightless for a period of 
4 to 6 weeks and generally attain their flight feathers at about the 
same time as their offspring. When flightless, goslings and adults are 
extremely vulnerable to predators such as cats, dogs, and mongoose. 
After molting and fledging, around June to September, family groups 
frequently congregate in post-breeding flocks, often far from nesting 
areas. Nene reach sexual maturity at 1 year of age, but usually do not 
form pair bonds until the second year. Females are highly philopatric 
(loyal to their place of birth) and nest near their natal area, while 
males more often disperse (Banko et al. 1999, p. 13).
    Nene and one or more now extinct species of Branta are thought to 
have once been widely distributed among the main Hawaiian Islands. 
Fossil remains of nene have been found on Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and 
Kauai (Olson and James 1991, p. 43). However, nene fossils have not yet 
been found on Niihau (USFWS 2004, p. 6). On Oahu, all fossils appear to 
be of a related but extinct Branta form (Olson and James 1991, p. 43). 
The fossil record indicates the prehistoric (before 1778) range of nene 
was much greater than the historically observed range (Banko et al. 
1999, p. 1). However, it is difficult to estimate original nene 
population numbers because the species composition and even gross 
structure of the vegetation before Polynesian arrival is poorly 
understood (USFWS 2004, p. 7). By 1960, fewer than 30 nene remained on 
Hawaii Island (Smith 1952, p. 1). The release of captive-bred nene, 
which began in 1960, helped save the species from imminent extinction 
(USFWS 2004, pp. 2-3). As a result of such programs, wild populations 
of nene now occur on four of the main Hawaiian Islands. As of 2016, the 
Statewide population of wild Hawaiian geese was estimated to have 
reached 2,855 individuals; the wild populations on the islands of 
Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Kauai, and Oahu were estimated to have 1,095, 
616, 35, 1,107, and 2 individuals, respectively (Nene Recovery Action 
Group [NRAG] 2017, unpublished). For maps of areas currently used by 
nene, see USFWS (2017).

Recovery Planning

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
``objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of [section 4 of the 
Act], that the species be removed from the list.'' However, revisions 
to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (adding, 
removing, or reclassifying a species) must be based on determinations 
made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 
4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a species is 
endangered or threatened (or not) because of one or more of five threat 
factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the determination be 
made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available.'' While recovery plans provide important guidance to the 
Service, States, and other partners on methods of enhancing 
conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as 
measurable criteria against which to measure

[[Page 13923]]

progress towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot 
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations 
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the 
status of a species on, or to remove a species from, the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately 
based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data then 
available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered 
species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information 
differs from the recovery plan.
    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan 
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded 
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we 
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and the 
species is robust enough to delist. In other cases, recovery 
opportunities may be discovered that were not known when the recovery 
plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods 
identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species 
may be learned that was not known at the time the recovery plan was 
finalized. The new information may change the extent to which existing 
criteria are appropriate for recognizing recovery of the species. 
Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive 
management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance provided in 
a recovery plan.
    In 1983, the Service published the Nene Recovery Plan and concluded 
that the nene population in the wild was declining; however, the exact 
causes of the decline were not clearly understood (USFWS 1983, p. 24). 
The Statewide population was estimated at approximately 600 nene with 
390  120 nene on Hawaii Island and 112 nene on Maui. Based 
on the available data, the plan recommended the primary objective to 
delist the species was establishing a population of 2,000 nene on 
Hawaii Island and 250 nene on Maui, well distributed in secure habitat 
and maintained exclusively by natural reproduction (USFWS 1983, p. 24). 
The plan focused on maintenance of wild populations through annual 
releases of captive-reared birds to prevent further population decline, 
habitat management including control of introduced predators, and 
conducting research to determine factors preventing nene recovery and 
appropriate actions to overcome these factors. The plan also 
acknowledged that more research, biological data, and better population 
models would lead to a reassessment of recovery efforts and criteria 
for delisting the species.
    On September 24, 2004, the Service published for comment (69 FR 
57356) the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Nene (USFWS 2004). The draft 
revised recovery plan presented additional information on the status of 
the species, factors affecting species recovery, and an updated 
framework for species recovery. At the time, the Statewide population 
was estimated at 1,300 nene with populations on Hawaii (349), Maui 
(336), Kauai (564), and Molokai (55). The primary factors affecting the 
nene recovery in the wild were: (1) Predation by introduced mammalian 
predators (Factor C), (2) inadequate nutrition (Factor E), (3) lack of 
lowland habitat (Factor A), (4) human-caused disturbance and mortality 
(Factor E), (5) behavioral issues (Factor E), (6) genetic issues 
(Factor E), and (7) disease (Factor C). The draft revised recovery plan 
recommended the following criteria for downlisting the nene from 
endangered to threatened: (1) Self-sustaining populations exist on 
Hawaii, Maui Nui (Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe), and Kauai (target 
of at least 2,000 birds distributed in 7 populations over 15 years); 
and (2) sufficient suitable habitat to sustain the target population 
levels on each island is identified, protected, and managed in 
perpetuity (USFWS 2004, pp. 50-52). Self-sustaining was defined as 
maintaining (or increasing) established population levels without 
additional releases of captive-bred nene, although manipulation such as 
predator control or pasture management may need to be continued. The 
draft revised recovery plan stated that consideration for delisting 
could occur once all of the downlisting criteria had been met, and 
population levels on Hawaii, Maui Nui, and Kauai had all shown a stable 
or increasing trend (from downlisting levels) for a minimum of 15 
additional years (i.e., for total of 30 years).
    As noted above, substantial self-sustaining populations exist and 
are well distributed in multiple localities on Hawaii Island, Maui, and 
Kauai (NRAG 2017; USFWS 2017), totaling nearly 3,000 individuals. The 
species continues to be conservation-reliant (i.e., dependent on long-
term management commitments to active predator control and habitat 
management), but with ongoing management we expect these populations to 
continue to be self-sustaining without additional releases of captive-
bred birds. As discussed below under Factor A, certain habitat stresses 
continue to exist, but as nene have proven adaptable to diverse native 
and human-modified habitats, it appears that with active management the 
extent and quality of existing breeding habitat is sufficient to 
support robust populations in multiple localities throughout the range. 
Additional management in seasonally occupied non-breeding habitat would 
improve population viability.
    The 2004 draft revised recovery plan sets forth the general 
recovery strategy for nene (USFWS 2004, p. 47), as follows. In order 
for nene populations to survive they should be provided with generally 
predator-free breeding areas and sufficient food resources. Human-
caused disturbance and mortality should be minimized, and genetic and 
behavioral diversity maximized. The goal of recovery stated in the 
draft revised recovery plan is to enable the conservation of nene by 
using a mix of natural and human-altered habitats in such a way that 
the life-history needs of the species are met and the populations 
become self-sustaining. While it is important to restore nene as a 
functioning component of the native ecosystem to ensure long-term 
species survival, it should be noted that nene currently successfully 
use a gradient of habitats ranging from highly altered to completely 
natural. Additionally, some populations exhibit behaviors that differ 
from what it is believed wild birds historically displayed. Nene are a 
highly adaptable species, which bodes well for recovery of the species.
    Conservation needs and activities to recover nene vary among 
islands due to differences in factors affecting nene populations both 
within and among islands. For example, although mongooses occur on 
Hawaii, Maui, and Molokai, Kauai does not yet have an established 
mongoose population; thus predator control priorities there are 
different. In addition, elevations used by nene vary among sites and 
among islands, and vegetation available to nene also differs between 
sites and by island.

Implementation of Recovery Actions for the Nene

    Nene are now more abundant than when they were federally listed as 
endangered in 1967, largely due to a captive propagation program that 
began in 1949 before the species was listed and continued through 2011. 
The program was initiated prior to Hawaiian statehood in collaboration 
between Territory of Hawaii biologists and private partners, and was 
operated by the Division of Fish and Game of the territorial 
government. The initial site of the captive propagation operation was 
at

[[Page 13924]]

Pohakuloa on Hawaii Island. Operations moved to Olinda, Maui, in 1989. 
In 1994, a new partnership was established between the DLNR, the 
Service, and The Peregrine Fund (TPF) to expand facilities and 
operations for captive propagation to include Hawaiian forest bird 
species. The Peregrine Fund established captive propagation operations 
at a newly built propagation facility in Keauhou on Hawaii Island in 
addition to the operations at Olinda. In 2000, management of the 
captive propagation program was transferred to the Zoological Society 
of San Diego. In addition, a number of zoos and private facilities in 
the United States and abroad continue to maintain and breed nene in 
captivity (Kear and Berger 1980, pp. 59-77; A. Marshall 2017b, pers. 
comm.). The existence of privately owned nene outside of Hawaii 
provides additional insurance against extinction of the species, but 
due to concerns about disease introduction, they are not currently used 
as a source for supplementation of the wild population and are not 
considered a significant contributor of conservation of the species. 
However, they are still subject to permitting requirements under the 
Act for interstate commerce.
    Smaller operations to breed nene in open-top pens in semi-captive 
environments were conducted at Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala National 
Parks. In some cases, wild birds were placed into the pens where they 
could breed protected from predators. The young fledged from the pens 
to disperse to the surrounding areas. In some cases, birds were 
released directly into the wild farther from the pens.
    In the years between 1960 and 2008, some 2,800 captive-bred nene 
were released into areas of their former range at more than 20 sites 
throughout the main Hawaiian Islands. Most releases of captive birds 
used open-top pens to provide protection from predators. The pens 
provide protection to the birds as long as they are inside the pens, 
and the birds frequently returned to breed in the same pens in 
subsequent years.
    Many of the earlier releases were accompanied by little or no 
management of predators and habitats. Monitoring of released birds 
showed high mortality and low nesting success, indicating that food 
availability and predators had a significant impact on wild populations 
(Banko 1992, pp. 102-104). The highest levels of survival and 
reproductive success were documented at Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala 
National Parks, where more intensive management of threats was 
initiated, demonstrating the need and benefits of habitat management 
and predator control (Black et al. 1997, p. 1,171). Recent years have 
seen an increase in the capacity of conservation agencies and partners 
to manage habitat and control predators on larger spatial scales. 
Although not all release sites have supported sustained populations, 
areas in which predators are low or controlled and habitat is managed 
for native food plant species have allowed nene to fare better (Hawaii 
Division of Forestry and Wildlife 2012, p. 19).
    Recent studies on movements of nene using satellite telemetry 
documented the re-establishment of traditional movement patterns in two 
breeding subpopulations on Hawaii Island (Hess et al. 2012, pp. 480-
482). Nene spent the breeding and molting seasons at lower elevations 
from September to April, and moved to higher elevation areas during the 
non-breeding season in May to August. Hess et al. (2012, pp. 479, 482) 
contend that this movement pattern may be beneficial to nene for the 
following reasons: (1) Altitudinal migration may allow nene to track 
availability of food resources not otherwise seasonally available 
(Black et al. 1997, pp. 1,170-1,171); (2) migration may enhance 
survival during the non-breeding season by avoiding nonnative predators 
in (lowland) breeding areas; (3) nene may be able to reduce exposure to 
human activities by occupying high-elevation areas during the non-
breeding season; and (4) there may be opportunities for greater genetic 
exchange if pair bonds are formed between individuals from separate 
breeding subpopulations at non-breeding locations. This movement 
pattern is believed to have occurred historically (Banko et al. 1999, 
pp. 3-4).

Population Viability Analyses

    Black and Banko (1994) conducted a population viability analysis 
using the VORTEX software program to model the long-term fate of nene 
under three different management scenarios: (1) No further releases or 
management, (2) releases mirroring those of the past 30 years, and (3) 
increased management without further releases. The report concluded 
that only under the third scenario could all three populations (Hawaii, 
Maui, and Kauai) survive for 200 years, and that reintroduction alone 
as a management tool may continue to be effective in delaying 
extinction on Hawaii, but will not lead to a self-sustaining 
population. The study concluded that enhanced management efforts, which 
include an appropriate predator control effort, would enable nene to 
reach a self-sustaining level.
    Another population viability analysis was conducted for nene in 
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park to examine management options more 
specific to that area (Hu 1998). First year mortality was identified as 
the primary limiting factor for nene in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. 
From 1990 to 1996, survival of fledglings averaged 84 percent for 
females and 95 percent for males, while survival from laying to 
fledging ranged from 7 to 19.5 percent (mean 12 percent; Hu 1998, pp. 
84-85). While predator control had reduced egg predation, fledging 
success remained low, largely due to inadequate nutrition. The study 
found that open-top pens cannot sustain a viable nene population in 
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The study suggests that while 
management techniques such as grassland management, supplemental 
feeding, and cultivation of native food plants may sustain nene in 
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, such approaches require considerable 
effort and would require increasing resource expenditures. Thus, Hu 
(1998, pp. 107-114) suggested that nene would be more secure if they 
were integrated into habitat management instituted on a larger scale 
that would involve the creation of native-dominated, fire-adapted 
landscapes at low and mid-elevations in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 
and more efficient, widespread predator control techniques, allowing 
reestablishment of their seasonal movement patterns between various 
locations.
    Black et al. (1997) analyzed survival data from 1960 through 1990 
for released nene on the island of Hawaii and found that the highest 
mortality rate was found among newly released goslings during drought 
years. They also found that nene at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park had 
the lowest annual mortality rates. The three main factors affecting 
mortality rates were found to be release method, age at time of 
release, and year of release. Releasing pre-fledged goslings with 
parents or foster parents from open-top pens during years with 
sufficient rainfall was found to be the most successful release method 
on the island of Hawaii (Black et al. 1997, p. 1,170). On Kauai, where 
mongooses are not yet established, protecting the nesting area from 
other predators, such as dogs and cats, was found to be extremely 
successful (T. Telfer 1998, pers. comm., as cited in USFWS 2004).
    Amidon (2017) recently conducted a preliminary assessment of the 
short-term population trends in nene populations on the four main 
Hawaiian Islands where nene currently occur. This assessment used 
count-based and demographic models (Morris and Doak 2002, pp. 8-9) 
developed with readily available information on each

[[Page 13925]]

population (Hu 1998; Hu 1999, unpubl. as cited in Banko et al.; USFWS 
2004; Bailey and Tamayose 2016, in litt.; Kendall 2016, in litt.; 
Uyehara 2016a, in litt.) projected over a 20-year time period assuming 
constant management. Count-based models (for Hawaii Volcanoes National 
Park, the island of Maui, Haleakala National Park, the island of 
Molokai, and the island of Kauai) showed an increase or leveling off 
around current population estimates (Amidon 2017, pp. 10-16). 
Demographic models variously projected level or slightly declining 
populations (Hakalau Forest NWR and Haleakala National Park) or 
continued increase (Kauai NWR Complex) (Amidon 2017, pp. 18-21). 
Available data did not allow modeling of nene populations on lands 
outside national parks and national wildlife refuges, where management 
and population trends are likely to differ.

Current Status Summary

    In conclusion, the implementation of recovery actions for nene has 
significantly reduced the risk of extinction for the species. On the 
brink of extinction, the captive propagation and release program 
successfully increased the number of individuals and re-established 
populations throughout the species' range on Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and 
Hawaii Island. Studies of foraging behavior identified nene food 
preferences and nutritional value of food resources contributing to a 
greater understanding of habitat requirements during the breeding and 
non-breeding seasons. Current populations are sustained by ongoing 
management (e.g., predator control, habitat management for feral 
ungulates and nonnative plants). On Hawaii Island, research indicates 
that traditional movements are being restored, which could be expected 
to improve survival and breeding, as well as genetic exchange between 
subpopulations. Recent population modeling data suggest that certain 
key populations are expected to maintain current levels or increase 
into the future if the current level of management is continued.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying 
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined 
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife 
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of vertebrate 
fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A 
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species 
because of any of one or a combination of the five factors described in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same five 
factors in reclassifying a species from endangered to threatened (i.e., 
downlisting). We may downlist a species if the best available 
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species no longer 
meets the definition of endangered, but instead meets the definition of 
threatened because the species' status has improved to the point that 
it is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, but the species is not fully recovered.
    Determining whether a species has improved to the point that it can 
be downlisted requires consideration of whether the species is 
endangered or threatened because of the same five categories of threats 
specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species is ``endangered'' 
for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a ``significant portion of its range'' and is ``threatened'' if it 
is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a ``significant portion of its range.''
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and during the 
five-factor analysis, we attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to the 
risk of extinction of the species, such that the species warrants 
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the 
Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a species 
negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species 
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to 
suggest that the potential threat is likely to materialize and that it 
has the capacity (i.e., it should be of sufficient magnitude and 
extent) to affect the species' status such that it meets the definition 
of endangered or threatened under the Act.
    In the following analysis, we evaluate the status of the nene 
throughout all of its range as indicated by the five-factor analysis of 
threats currently affecting, or that are likely to affect the species 
within the foreseeable future.

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

    The draft revised recovery plan identified the lack of lowland 
habitat and inadequate nutrition as two habitat-related stressors 
limiting nene recovery (USFWS 2004, pp. 29-30). Nene continue to be 
affected by historic and ongoing habitat destruction and modification 
caused by urbanization, agricultural activities, drought, feral 
ungulates, and nonnative plants. These factors limit suitable breeding 
and flocking habitat, constraining the recovery of nene populations.
    Historical habitat loss was largely a result of human activities 
such as urban development and land conversion for agricultural 
activities, particularly in lowland areas. Degradation of lowland 
habitats used by nene began with Polynesian colonization (around 1,600 
years ago) and has continued since European arrival over the past 200 
years (Kirch 1982, pp. 7-10). Impacts to lowland habitat included 
clearing of land for settlements and agriculture; increased frequency 
of fire; heavy grazing, browsing, and soil disturbance by introduced 
deer, cattle, goats, sheep, and pigs; and the spread of nonnative 
plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 103-107).
    The threat of destruction and modification of habitat, particularly 
in lowland areas, by urbanization and land use conversion, including 
agriculture, is ongoing and expected to continue to limit the amount of 
nene foraging and nesting habitat. Past land use practices have 
resulted in great reduction or loss of native vegetation below 2,000 
feet (ft) (600 meters (m)) throughout the Hawaiian Islands (TNC 2006). 
Hawaii's agricultural industries (e.g., sugar cane, pineapple) have 
been declining in importance, and large tracts of former agricultural 
lands are being converted into residential areas or left fallow (TNC 
2007). In addition, Hawaii's population has increased almost 10 percent 
in the past 10 years, further increasing demands on limited land and 
water resources in the islands (Hawaii Department of Business, Economic 
Development and Tourism 2013, in litt.). While breeding habitat has 
some level of protection in the national parks, national wildlife 
refuges, and some

[[Page 13926]]

State lands, there is little to no protection for habitat that nene use 
outside the breeding season. Nene are vulnerable at this time as well 
as during the breeding season as they are moving around to different 
areas, exposing them to additional predation in unprotected habitat, 
poor availability of suitable foraging habitat, and interactions with 
humans and human structures (wind towers, vehicles, etc). Human 
activities associated with the development and urbanization of lowland 
habitat will continue to impact nene. For example, nene collide with 
trees, fences, and particularly motor vehicles (Banko and Elder 1990; 
Banko et al. 1999). Nene are attracted to feeding opportunities 
provided by mowed grass, weeds, and human handouts. Feeding, in 
particular, makes nene vulnerable to collisions along roadsides as they 
frequently become tame and unafraid of human activity (Banko et al. 
1999). Mortality is high in human-modified habitats due to increased 
predation, collisions, and human-caused accidents (Banko et al. 1999).
    The alteration of lowland areas and increasing pressure from human 
activities (including hunting; see Factor B discussion, below) led to 
the extirpation of nene on Kauai and Molokai, and the loss of 
seasonally important lowland breeding habitat in leeward regions of 
islands with elevations above 5,000 ft (1,524 m) (Maui and Hawaii) 
(Baldwin 1945). From the time of European arrival (in the late 1700s) 
until the late 1800s, nene were thought to be all but extirpated, 
except for a widely distributed population on the island of Hawaii 
(Baldwin 1945, pp. 27-30). By the 1940s, Baldwin (1945, p. 35) 
estimated a reduction in the range of nene on Hawaii Island from 2,475 
square miles (mi\2\) (6,410 square kilometers (km\2\)) to 1,150 mi\2\ 
(2,979 km\2\), a loss of over half of its remaining range on Hawaii 
Island since European contact. At the time the captive propagation 
program began in the late 1950s, the remaining wild nene were 
restricted to montane habitats in the ``saddle area'' between Mauna Loa 
and Mauna Kea on Hawaii Island (Baldwin 1945, p. 33).
    Feral ungulates and nonnative plants led to further degradation of 
nene habitat by negatively impacting forage quality, shelter, and 
potential nest sites. Grazing and browsing by introduced cattle, goats, 
and sheep converted significant portions of native montane forest and 
shrubland between 1,640 and 6,562 ft (500 and 2,000 m) to wild 
grassland and managed pastureland dominated by nonnative species 
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 59-63, 63-67). Effects of nonnative 
ungulates have been somewhat less severe above 6,562 ft (2,000 m) 
because nonnative weeds are less prevalent (Banko et al. 1999, p. 6). 
Nonnative plants adversely affect native habitat in Hawaii by: (1) 
Modifying the availability of light, (2) altering soil-water regimes, 
(3) modifying nutrient cycling, and (4) altering fire regimes of native 
plant communities (i.e., the ``grass/fire cycle'' that converts native-
dominated plant communities to nonnative plant communities) (Smith 
1985, pp. 180-181; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 74; D'Antonio and 
Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 6).
    Studies indicate that inadequate nutritional quality is a limiting 
factor on nene reproduction and gosling survival, especially on Hawaii 
and Maui (USFWS 2004, pp. 29-30). Proper nutrition is critical for 
successful reproduction. Breeding females require carbohydrates and 
protein to increase fat reserves for egg laying and incubation; 
goslings require high-protein foods for growth and development (Ankney 
1984, pp. 364-370; Banko et al. 1999, p. 7). Banko (1992, pp. 103-104) 
suggested that low breeding rates (20 to 63 percent) and low nest 
success (44 percent) at several sites on Maui and Hawaii from 1979 to 
1981 were likely attributable to poor quality or low availability of 
foods. Baker and Baker (1995, p. 2; 1999, p. 12) found that the high 
rates of gosling mortality (57 to 81 percent) in Haleakala National 
Park during the mid-1990s were due to starvation and dehydration. 
Between 1989 and 1999, lack of adequate food or water also appeared to 
be a factor limiting nene recruitment in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 
(Rave et al. 2005, p. 14). In many instances of gosling mortality, the 
actual cause of death may be exposure because goslings are weakened by 
malnutrition (at hatching) and were unable to keep up with parents, and 
therefore got chilled or overheated and died (Baker and Baker 1999, p. 
13). Emaciation was the most common cause of death diagnosed in 71 out 
of 300 adult and gosling mortalities submitted to the National Wildlife 
Health Research Center between 1992 and 2013 for which a cause of death 
was identified (Work et al. 2015, p. 692). More cases of emaciation 
were diagnosed on Hawaii Island (32), and to a lesser extent Kauai (21) 
and Maui (13), perhaps reflecting the rates of hatching and fledgling 
success and nutritional quality of habitats on the respective islands. 
Habitat also continues to be reduced due to the spread of unpalatable 
alien grasses (e.g., guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), sword grass 
(Miscanthus floridulus)) and other weeds (e.g., koa haole (Leucaena 
leucocephala), lantana (Lantana camara)), as this spread diminishes 
foraging opportunities (Banko et al. 1999, p. 23). Therefore, 
inadequate nutritional quality due to the lack of suitable foraging 
opportunities in and around current breeding areas, particularly at 
higher elevations on Maui and Hawaii Island, coupled with the loss of 
lowland breeding areas across its range, is expected to continue as a 
threat to the nene.
    Drought has been identified as a factor contributing to nene 
mortality. Drought reduces the amount and quality of available forage, 
thereby increasing the risk of nene mortality due to starvation and 
dehydration; thus, for example, nene exhibited higher rates of 
mortality in drought years during the prolonged island-wide drought 
between 1976 and 1983 on Hawaii Island (Black et al. 1997, pp. 1,165-
1,169). Drought was also thought to have contributed to the population 
decline (10 percent) at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in the late 
1990s (Rave et al. 2005, p. 12). Numerous and recurrent droughts have 
been historically documented throughout the Hawaiian Islands 
(Giambelluca et al. 1991, pp. 3-4; Hawaii Civil Defense 2011, ch. 14, 
pp. 1-12), with the most severe events often associated with the El 
Ni[ntilde]o phenomenon (Hawaii Civil Defense 2011, p. 14-3). Based on 
the frequency of drought and its population-level impacts to nene, we 
conclude that the threat of drought is ongoing and likely to continue 
periodically into the foreseeable future.
    Recovery efforts initially focused on the establishment of 
populations with the majority of releases of captive-bred nene at high-
elevation native shrublands (above 5,000 ft (1,524 m)) on Hawaii Island 
and Maui. High-elevation nesting areas are less modified than lowlands 
(Banko et al. 1999, p. 6), but may provide poorer quality habitat for 
nene foraging and nesting, due to drier conditions and phenology of 
food plants, which limit available food resources during critical pre-
breeding and breeding periods (Black et al. 1994, pp. 101-103; Black et 
al. 1997, p. 1,170). Black et al. (1997, p. 1,169) found that nene that 
remained at high-elevation sites year-round exhibited lower rates of 
reproductive success and survival than those that dispersed from 
release sites. Nene survival and breeding success improved by moving 
away from dry upper montane volcanic scrubland to managed grasslands or 
managed ranchland, or if they were provided supplemental feed and 
water,

[[Page 13927]]

particularly in drought years (Black et al. 1994, p. 103; Black et al. 
1997, pp. 1,169-1,170). Subsequent reintroductions at low- and mid-
elevation sites, first on Kauai and Hawaii Island, and more recently on 
eastern Molokai and western Maui, demonstrated the ability of nene to 
successfully become re-established in these areas.
    Currently, nene are found in a range of habitats from sea level to 
subalpine zones on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii Island. 
Populations are centered around release sites and rely on continued 
land use protections and habitat management (including predator 
control) to sustain populations in these areas. On Maui Nui and Hawaii 
Island, the majority of the nene nest in managed areas at mid- to high-
elevation habitats, including Haleakala National Park, Hawaii Volcanoes 
National Park, and Puu Oo Ranch/Puu 6677; and at lower elevation sites, 
including Hanaula, Piiholo Ranch, Haleakala Ranch (Waiopae), and Puu O 
Hoku Ranch (Molokai). On Kauai, most nene nest and live year-round in 
areas below 984 ft (300 m), where large expanses of managed grasslands 
(including golf courses) and low levels of predation (mostly due to the 
absence of a mongoose population) have led to a stable and increasing 
nene population. The majority of the Kauai population is centered in 
and around the Hanalei and Kilauea Point NWRs.
    Many of the areas where nene occur in the wild are afforded some 
level of habitat enhancement that focuses on increasing the survival 
and reproduction of nene. Habitat enhancement can include predator 
control, mowing, outplanting, and supplemental feeding. Hawaii 
Volcanoes National Park has areas where many of these types of 
enhancement occur. For instance, park staff maintain two predator-
resistant open-topped pens, 4 and 5 hectares (10 and 13 acres) in size, 
as safe-breeding sites with supplemental feed and occasional mowing. In 
addition, predator control is conducted at key brooding sites, and some 
areas may be closed to human use during the nene breeding season. The 
Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife also provides supplemental 
food for nene populations on Hawaii Island. Haleakala National Park has 
controlled ungulate populations and horses intermittently grazing in 
Paliku pasture. Kauai DOFAW also has predator control programs and may 
provide supplemental feed during drought years. Mowing, grazing, and 
irrigating grass can improve its attractiveness to geese by increasing 
the protein content (Sedinger and Raveling 1986, p. 302; Woog and Black 
2001, pp. 324-328).
    Highly altered landscapes and nonnative vegetation also can 
significantly affect nene recovery. For example, nene on Kauai 
primarily use lowland areas in highly altered, human-impacted habitats 
such as pastures, agricultural fields, golf courses, and highly 
degraded waste areas (USFWS 2004, pp. 41-42). Nene have been very 
successful in these areas, indicating their adaptability to a variety 
of habitats. Lowlands, however, are often unsuitable because of intense 
human activity or dense predator populations placing nene at greater 
risk of predation, and hazardous situations such as habituation to 
human feeding, vehicle collisions, and golf ball strikes (Natural 
Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2007, p. 7). The recovery of nene 
is dependent on a variety of habitats ranging from highly altered, 
managed habitats to habitats consisting of primarily native species, 
and it may not be feasible to restore habitats to native species in all 
areas used by nene. It is believed that nene currently require 
availability of a diverse suite of food resources that may include both 
nonnative and native vegetation (Baldwin 1947, pp. 108-120; Black et 
al. 1994, pp. 103-105; Banko et al. 1999, pp. 6-7). However, the 
current amount and distribution of suitable breeding, foraging, and 
flocking habitat continues to be a limiting factor for the nene.
    Our analyses of Factor A under the Act include consideration of 
ongoing and projected changes in climate, and the impacts of global 
climate change and increasing temperatures on Hawaii ecosystems, all of 
which are the subjects of active research. Analysis of the historical 
record indicates surface temperature in Hawaii has been increasing 
since the early 1900s, with relatively rapid warming over the past 30 
years. The average increase since 1975 has been 0.48 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) (0.27 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) per decade for annual mean 
temperature at elevations above 2,600 ft (800 m) and 0.16[emsp14][deg]F 
(0.09 [deg]C) per decade for elevations below 2,600 ft (800 m) 
(Giambelluca et al. 2008, pp. 3-4). Based on models using climate data 
downscaled for Hawaii, the ambient temperature is projected to increase 
by 3.8 to 7.7[emsp14][deg]F (2.1 to 4.3 [deg]C) over the 21st century, 
depending on elevation and the emissions scenario (Liao et al. 2015, p. 
4344). Environmental conditions in tropical montane habitats can be 
strongly influenced by changes in sea surface temperature and 
atmospheric dynamics (Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 504-505; Pounds 
et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 
2002, pp. 14,246-14,248; Giambelluca and Luke 2007, pp. 13-15). On the 
main Hawaiian Islands, predicted changes associated with increases in 
temperature include a shift in vegetation zones upslope; a similar 
shift in animal species' ranges; changes in mean precipitation with 
unpredictable effects on local environments; increased occurrence of 
drought cycles; and increases in intensity and numbers of hurricanes 
(tropical cyclones with winds of 74 miles per hour or higher) (Loope 
and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 514-515; U.S. Global Change Research Program 
(US-GCRP) 2009, pp. 10, 12, 17-18, 32-33; Giambelluca 2013, p. 6). The 
effect on nene of these changes associated with temperature increase is 
detailed in the following paragraphs.
    The forecast of changes in precipitation is highly uncertain 
because it depends, in part, on how the El Ni[ntilde]o-La Ni[ntilde]a 
weather cycle (an episodic feature of the ocean-atmosphere system in 
the tropical Pacific having important global consequences for weather 
and climate) might change (State of Hawaii 1998, pp. 2-10). The 
historical record indicates that Hawaii tends to be dry (relative to a 
running average) during El Ni[ntilde]o phases and wet during La 
Ni[ntilde]a phases (Chu and Chen 2005, pp. 4809-4810). However, over 
the past century, the Hawaiian Islands have experienced a decrease in 
precipitation of just over 9 percent (US National Science and 
Technology Council 2008, p. 61) and a decreasing trend (from the long-
term mean) is evident in recent decades (Chu and Chen 2005, pp. 4802-
4803; Diaz et al. 2005, pp. 1-3). Models of future rainfall downscaled 
for Hawaii generally project increasingly wet windward slopes and mild 
to extreme drying of leeward areas in particular during the middle and 
late 21st century (Timm and Diaz 2009, p. 4262; Elison Timm et al. 
2015, pp. 95, 103-105). Altered seasonal moisture regimes can have 
negative impacts on plant growth cycles and overall negative impacts on 
native ecosystems (US-GCRP 2009, pp. 32-33). Long periods of decline in 
annual precipitation result in a reduction of moisture availability; an 
increase in drought frequency and intensity; and a self-perpetuating 
cycle of nonnative plant invasion, fire, and erosion (US-GCRP 2009, pp. 
32-33; Warren 2011, pp. 221-226). Overall, more frequent El Ni[ntilde]o 
events are predicted to produce less precipitation for the Hawaiian 
Islands. These

[[Page 13928]]

projected decreases in precipitation are important stressors for nene 
because they experience substantially higher mortality from starvation 
in drought years (Hess 2011, p. 59). In addition, the drying trend, 
especially on leeward sides of islands, creates suitable conditions for 
increased invasion by nonnative grasses and enhances the risk of 
wildfire.
    Tropical cyclone frequency and intensity are projected to change as 
a result of increasing temperature and changing circulation associated 
with climate change over the next 100 to 200 years (Vecchi and Soden 
2007, pp. 1068-1069, Figures 2 and 3; Emanuel et al. 2008, p. 360, 
Figure 8; Yu et al. 2010, p. 1371, Figure 14). In the central Pacific, 
modeling projects an increase of up to two additional tropical cyclones 
per year in the main Hawaiian Islands by 2100 (Murakami et al. 2013, p. 
2, Figure 1d). In general, tropical cyclones with the intensities of 
hurricanes have been an uncommon occurrence in the Hawaiian Islands. 
From the 1800s until 1949, hurricanes were only rarely reported from 
ships in the area. Between 1950 and 1997, 22 hurricanes passed near or 
over the Hawaiian Islands, and 5 of these caused serious damage 
(Businger 1998, in litt.). A recent study shows that, with a projected 
shift in the path of the subtropical jet stream northward, away from 
Hawaii, more storms will be able to approach and reach the Hawaiian 
Islands from an easterly direction, with Hurricane Iselle in 2014 being 
an example (Murakami et al. 2013, p. 751). At high-elevation nesting 
sites, frequent heavy precipitation may affect gosling survival during 
the cooler months (Hess et al. 2012, p. 483). More frequent and intense 
tropical storms are likely to increase the number of nest failures and 
gosling mortalities in mid- and high-elevation habitats on Maui and 
Hawaii where nene are already at risk of exposure and starvation due to 
inadequate nutrition (Baker and Baker 1995, p. 13; K. Misajon 2016, 
pers. comm.; J. Tamayose 2016, pers. comm.). In addition, projected 
warmer temperatures and increased storm severity resulting from climate 
change are likely to exacerbate other