Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Guam Kingfisher, or Sihek, on Palmyra Atoll, USA, 19880-19894 [2023-06958]
Download as PDF
19880
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
DATES:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
This final rule is effective May 4,
2023.
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2022–0061;
FXES1113090FEDR–224–FF09E22000]
RIN 1018–BF61
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population
of the Guam Kingfisher, or Sihek, on
Palmyra Atoll, USA
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),
are releasing (meaning introducing) the
Guam kingfisher (Todiramphus
cinnamominus), known locally as the
sihek, on Palmyra Atoll as an
experimental population under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Currently, sihek exists
only in captivity and has been extinct in
the wild for more than 30 years. The
introduction on Palmyra Atoll is outside
sihek’s historical range because its
primary habitat within its native range
on Guam has been indefinitely altered
by the accidental introduction of the
predatory brown treesnake (Boiga
irregularis) in the mid-twentieth
century. Tools to manage brown
treesnakes at a landscape level are
beginning to be deployed, but it will
take time before these tools are effective
enough for the reintroduction of sihek
on Guam. We anticipate significant
declines in sihek population that
threaten the species’ viability before
reintroduction to Guam could occur.
The introduction of sihek to Palmyra
Atoll is not intended to be a permanent
introduction that would support a selfsustaining population; rather, it is
intended to facilitate the gathering of
information and analysis to optimize
efforts for reestablishment of the species
on Guam once brown treesnakes can be
sufficiently controlled at a landscape
scale. The introduction of sihek to
Palmyra Atoll is also likely to help
increase the global population of this
extinct-in-the-wild species in advance
of a reintroduction effort on Guam. We
classify this population as a
nonessential experimental population
(NEP) under the Act and provide
regulations for the take of sihek within
the NEP area. The best available data
indicate the introduction of sihek to
Palmyra Atoll is biologically feasible
and will promote the conservation of
the species.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Comments and materials we
received in response to our proposed
rule, as well as supporting documents
we used in preparing this final rule, are
available on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2022–0061.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan Laut, Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Rm 3–
122, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone
808–779–9939. Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind,
hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Jkt 259001
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
section 10(j) of the Endangered Species
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a
population of a threatened or
endangered species may be designated
as an experimental population prior to
its reintroduction. Experimental
populations can be designated only by
issuing a rule (hereafter referred to as a
‘‘10(j) rule’’).
What this document does. This rule
will designate sihek (Todiramphus
cinnamominus) introduced to Palmyra
Atoll as a nonessential experimental
population on the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations at 50
CFR 17.11(h) with a rule set forth at 50
CFR 17.84.
The basis for our action. Based on the
best scientific and commercial data
available (in accordance with 50 CFR
17.81), we find that introducing sihek to
Palmyra Atoll, with the regulatory
provisions in this final rulemaking, will
further the conservation of the species.
The nonessential experimental
population status is appropriate for the
introduced population because we have
determined that it is not essential to the
continued existence of the species in the
wild.
In the making of our finding that this
action will further the conservation of
the species, we evaluate any possible
adverse effects on the captive
population of sihek, the likelihood that
any such experimental population will
become established and survive in the
foreseeable future, the relative effects
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of
the species, and the extent to which the
introduced population may be affected
by existing or anticipated Federal or
State actions or private activities within
or adjacent to the experimental
population area. This rule also identifies
the boundaries of the experimental
population, explains our rationale for
why the population is not essential to
the continued existence of the species,
describes management restrictions,
protective measures, or other special
management concerns of that
population, and explains our rationale
for determining that the habitat for sihek
has been indefinitely altered or
destroyed, currently a requirement
under section 10(j) of the Act, and our
regulations in title 50 CFR 17.81, for
introducing a species outside its
historical range.
Peer review and public comment. To
ensure that our findings were based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analysis—and consistent with our
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered
Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270,
July 1, 1994), and additional guidance
(USFWS in litt. 2016)—we invited six
objective and independent specialists to
review our proposed rule. We received
three responses. We also considered all
comments and information received
during the public comment period. All
comments received during the peer
review process and the public comment
period have been incorporated into this
final rule or are addressed below in
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations.
Background
On August 31, 2022, we published in
the Federal Register a proposed rule to
establish a nonessential experimental
population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll
(87 FR 53429, August 31, 2022). The
comment period on the proposed rule
was open for 30 days, through
September 30, 2022. Comments on the
proposed rule are addressed below
under Summary of Comments and
Recommendations.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework for
Experimental Populations
Species listed as endangered or
threatened are afforded protection
primarily through the prohibitions in
section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of the
Act, among other things, prohibits take
of endangered wildlife. ‘‘Take’’ is
defined by the Act as harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to engage
in any such conduct. Section 7 of the
Act outlines the procedures for Federal
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
interagency cooperation to conserve
federally listed species and protect
designated critical habitat. Section 7
mandates that Federal agencies use their
existing authorities to further the
purposes of the Act by carrying out
programs for the conservation of listed
species. It also requires that Federal
agencies, in consultation with the
Service, ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of
a listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. Section 7 of
the Act does not affect activities
undertaken on private land unless they
are authorized, funded, or carried out by
a Federal agency.
The Act was amended in 1982 to
include section 10(j), which allows for
the designation of reintroduced
populations of listed species as
‘‘experimental populations.’’ The
provisions of section 10(j) were enacted
to ameliorate concerns that reintroduced
populations will negatively impact
landowners and other private parties, by
giving the Secretary greater regulatory
flexibility and discretion in managing
the reintroduced species to encourage
recovery in collaboration with partners,
especially private landowners. Under
section 10(j) of the Act, and our
regulations in title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the
Service may designate an endangered or
threatened species that has been or will
be released within its probable
historical range as an experimental
population. The Service may also
designate an experimental population
for an endangered or threatened species
outside of the species’ probable
historical range in extreme cases when
the Director of the Service finds that the
primary habitat of the species within its
historical range has been unsuitably and
irreversibly altered or destroyed. All
experimental populations are classified
as ‘‘nonessential’’ unless we determine
that the loss of the experimental
population would be likely to
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival of the species in the wild. The
sihek population we are establishing on
Palmyra Atoll is designated as
nonessential.
The nonessential experimental
population (NEP) designation allows us
to develop tailored ‘‘take’’ prohibitions
that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the
species. The protective regulations
adopted for an experimental population
in a section 10(j) rule contain the
applicable prohibitions and exceptions
for that population and apply to all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
areas described for the nonessential
population.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that
Federal agencies, in consultation with
the Service, ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of
a listed species or adversely modify its
critical habitat. For the purposes of
section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as
a threatened species when the
population is located within a National
Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National
Park Service. When NEPs are located
outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or
National Park Service unit, for the
purposes of section 7 we treat the
population as proposed for listing and
only sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the
Act apply. In these instances, a section
10j rule provides additional flexibility
in managing the nonessential
population because Federal agencies are
not required to consult with us under
section 7(a)(2) for an NEP. Section
7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use
their authorities to carry out programs
for the conservation of listed species.
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies
to confer (rather than consult) with the
Service on actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed to be listed.
Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states
that critical habitat shall not be
designated for any experimental
population that is determined to be
nonessential. Accordingly, we do not
designate critical habitat in areas where
we establish an NEP.
Before authorizing the release as an
experimental population of an
endangered or threatened species, and
before authorizing any necessary
transportation to conduct the release,
the Service must find that the release
will further the conservation of the
species. In making such a finding, the
Service uses the best scientific and
commercial data available to consider
the following factors (see 50 CFR
17.81(b)):
(1) Any possible adverse effects on
extant populations of a species as a
result of removal of individuals, eggs, or
propagules for introduction elsewhere
(see Donor Stock Assessment and
Effects on Donor Population, below);
(2) the likelihood that any such
experimental population will become
established and survive in the
foreseeable future (see Likelihood of
Population Establishment and Survival,
below);
(3) the relative effects that
establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of
the species (see Importance of the NEP
to Recovery Efforts, below); and
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19881
(4) the extent to which the introduced
population may be affected by existing
or anticipated Federal or State actions or
private activities within or adjacent to
the experimental population area (see
Management, below).
Furthermore, as set forth at 50 CFR
17.81(c), all regulations designating
experimental populations under section
10(j) of the Act must provide:
(1) Appropriate means to identify the
experimental population, including, but
not limited to, its actual or proposed
location, actual or anticipated
migration, number of specimens
released or to be released, and other
criteria appropriate to identify the
experimental population (see Location
and Boundaries of the NEP Area,
below);
(2) a finding, based solely on the best
scientific and commercial data
available, and the supporting factual
basis, on whether the experimental
population is, or is not, essential to the
continued existence of the species in the
wild (see Is the Experimental
Population Essential or Nonessential?,
below);
(3) management restrictions,
protective measures, or other special
management concerns for that
population, which may include, but are
not limited to, measures to isolate and/
or contain the experimental population
designated in the regulation from
natural populations (see Management,
below; and
(4) a process for periodic review and
evaluation of the success or failure of
the release and the effect of the release
on the conservation and recovery of the
species (see Monitoring and Evaluation,
below).
Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service
must consult with appropriate State fish
and wildlife agencies, local
governmental entities, affected Federal
agencies, and affected private
landowners in developing and
implementing experimental population
rules. To the maximum extent
practicable, section 10(j) rules represent
an agreement between the Service, the
affected State and Federal agencies, and
persons holding any interest in land that
may be affected by the establishment of
an experimental population.
Legal Status of the Species and Previous
Federal Actions
We listed sihek as an endangered
species under the Act on August 27,
1984 (49 FR 33881). At the time of
listing, sihek was known as the Guam
Micronesian kingfisher (Halcyon
cinnamomina cinnamomina). On June
23, 2015 (80 FR 35860), we updated our
List of Endangered and Threatened
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
19882
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) to reflect new
taxonomic information indicating that
the Guam Micronesian kingfisher
(Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina)
is now considered the Guam kingfisher
(Todiramphus cinnamominus).
Throughout this document, we refer to
the species as sihek because that is the
locally used common name on Guam.
We designated critical habitat for sihek
on October 28, 2004 (69 FR 62944),
consisting of 376 ac (153 ha) on
northern Guam. We finalized the Native
Forest Birds of Guam and Rota of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands Recovery Plan in 1990 and the
Revised Recovery Plan for Sihek or
Guam Micronesian Kingfisher (Halcyon
cinnamomina cinnamomina) in 2008
(73 FR 67541, November 14, 2008).
Sihek is a sexually dimorphic (the
sexes are outwardly different in
appearance) forest kingfisher (Baker
1951, p. 229). The adult male has a
brown head, neck, upper back, and
underparts. A black line extends around
the nape (back of the neck), and the eye
ring is black. The lower back, lesser and
underwing coverts, and shoulder
feathers are greenish-blue, and the tail is
blue. The bill is black. The female’s
markings are similar to the adult male,
but the upper breast, chin, and throat
are paler, and the remaining underparts
are white instead of cinnamon. Sihek
are relatively small, about 8 inches (in)
(20 centimeters (cm)) in length (Del
Hoyo et al. 2001, p. 220). Adult sihek
range in weight from 1.7–3.0 ounces (oz)
(53 to 85 grams (g)) (Baker 1951, p. 228;
Jenkins 1983, p. 21).
Sihek are socially monogamous, and
breeding activity appears to be
concentrated from December to July
(Marshall 1949, p. 210; Baker 1951, p.
228; Jenkins 1983, p. 23). They nest in
cavities, with nests documented in a
variety of trees, including Ficus spp.
(banyan), Cocos nucifera (coconut),
Artocarpus spp. (breadfruit), Pisonia
grandis (umumu), and Tristiropsis
obtusangula (faniok) (Baker 1951, p.
228; Jenkins 1983, p. 24; Marshall 1989,
p. 473). Both male and female sihek
incubate eggs and brood and feed
nestlings (Jenkins 1983, p. 24). Eggs are
white, and reported clutch sizes from
wild populations (n=3) were either one
or two eggs (Baker 1951, p. 228; Jenkins
1983, p. 24; Marshall 1989, p. 474).
Incubation, nestling, and fledgling
periods for sihek in the wild are
unknown. However, incubation and
nestling periods of captive birds
averaged 22 and 33 days, respectively
(Bahner et al. in litt. 1998, p. 21).
Sihek feed entirely on animal matter
including skinks (Scincidae), geckos
(Gekkonidae), various insects,
segmented worms (Annelida), and
hermit crabs (Coenobita spp.) (Marshall
1949, p. 210; Baker 1951, pp. 228–229;
Jenkins 1983, pp. 23–24). Seale (1901, p.
45) also reported that sihek were known
to prey on the chicks of domestic fowl,
and Marshall (1949, p. 210) noted fish
scales in the stomach contents of
collected sihek. They typically forage by
perching motionless on exposed
branches or telephone lines and
swooping down to capture prey off the
ground with their bill (Jenkins 1983, pp.
23–34). They will also capture prey off
nearby foliage and have been observed
gleaning insects from bark (Maben 1982,
p. 78).
Historical and Current Range
Habitat Use
Sihek is a nonmigratory species
endemic to Guam and historically
occurred in all habitats throughout
Guam except pure savanna and
wetlands (Marshall 1949, p. 210, Baker
1951 p. 229; Jenkins 1983, pp. 22–23).
They were described as ‘‘fairly
common’’ by Baker (1951, p. 229).
However, the population declined
rapidly in the mid-twentieth century
due primarily to predation by the brown
treesnake. The last remaining wild sihek
were taken into captivity between 1984
and 1986, and sihek were considered
extinct in the wild by 1988 (Wiles et al.
2003, p. 1357). For more than 30 years,
the species has existed only in captivity,
as discussed further in the Recovery
Efforts to Date section, below.
Relatively little is known about the
habitat use of sihek. Mature forests with
appropriate nest sites were probably an
important component for successful
reproduction and survival. Sihek are
cavity nesters and apparently requires
large, standing dead trees. Nest trees
were reported as averaging 43
centimeters (17 inches) in diameter
(Marshall 1989, p. 475). Sihek also
appear to require diverse vegetative
structure capable of providing a wide
range of both invertebrate and vertebrate
prey as well as exposed perches and
areas of open ground for foraging
(USFWS 2002, p. 63739). Good-quality
sihek habitat would therefore provide a
combination of closed canopy forest
with large, standing dead trees for
nesting, and areas of open understory or
Biological Information
Species Description
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Life Cycle
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
forest edges for foraging (Jenkins 1983,
pp. 22–23; Marshall 1989, pp. 475–476;
USFWS 2002, p. 63739).
Movement Ecology
Records of distributions and
intraspecific territorial behaviors for
sihek suggest they maintained exclusive
year-round territories (Jenkins 1983, pp.
24–25). Little else is known about their
movement ecology. On the island of
Pohnpei, Micronesian kingfishers
(Todiramphus reichenbachii), a species
from the same genus as sihek,
demonstrated an average territory size of
8.1 hectares (ha) (20 acres (ac)) and
showed stable boundaries within and
between years (Kesler and Haig 2007, p.
387); birds dispersing from their home
territory were observed to establish new
territories a maximum distance of 4,501
feet (1,372 meters) from the original site
(Kesler and Haig 2007, p. 389). Sihek is
an island endemic that has not been
observed flying over open ocean.
Causes of Decline and Threats
The primary cause of sihek’s
extinction in the wild was due to
predation by the introduced brown
treesnake (USFWS 2008, p. 21).
Individuals of this invasive species
probably arrived on Guam prior to 1950
as stowaways on shipping materials
(Savidge 1987, p. 662). Brown
treesnakes were likely introduced in
southern Guam and expanded their
range, reaching the northernmost point
of the island by 1968 (Savidge 1987, p.
663). Sihek were last recorded from
southern Guam in the 1970s (Drahos
1977, pp. 153–154), and by 1985,
Marshall (1989, p. 476) reported only 30
sihek in the northern part of the island.
Sihek were considered extinct in the
wild by 1988 (Wiles et al. 2003, p.
1357). The continued island-wide
presence of brown treesnakes on Guam
currently precludes consideration of
Guam as a viable reintroduction site for
sihek. Future reintroductions to Guam
could be considered only if brown
treesnakes were suppressed or
eradicated at a scale that would allow
for the survival of a reintroduced
population of sihek.
Other factors that likely impacted
sihek on Guam include predation by
feral cats (Felis catus), rats (Rattus spp.),
and monitor lizards (Varanus
tsukamotoi), habitat degradation from
development and typhoons, human
persecution, contaminants, and
competition with and harassment by
black drongos (Dicrurus macrocercus)
(USFWS 2008, pp. 16–17). Our Revised
Recovery Plan for Sihek or Guam
Micronesian Kingfisher (USFWS 2008,
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
pp. 16–26) provides further description
of these threats.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Recovery Efforts to Date
Criteria for reclassifying sihek from an
endangered to threatened species
(‘‘downlisting’’) include the
establishment of two subpopulations on
Guam (one in the north and one in the
south) of at least 500 individuals each
that are stable to increasing over at least
5 consecutive years; the protection and
management of habitat sufficient to
achieve the population criteria; and the
management of brown treesnakes and
other introduced predators at levels
sufficient to meet the population
criteria. The criteria to delist (remove
protections of the Act for) the sihek
include two subpopulations on Guam of
at least 1,000 individuals each (one in
the north and one in the south) that are
stable or increasing, with sufficient
habitat and predator control to support
the population criteria (USFWS 2008,
pp. 40–43). Our recovery plan
acknowledged that the interim step of
introducing sihek outside of its
historical range may be necessary before
we are able to reestablish sihek
populations on Guam (USFWS 2008, p.
40).
Habitat Protection
Over the past 30 years, the Service has
worked with a number of stakeholders
to provide habitat protection in support
of recovering Guam’s native species.
The habitat protections described below
were intended for federally listed
species on Guam in anticipation of the
eventual ability to control brown
treesnakes and allow the reintroduction
of sihek and other locally extinct
species. In 1993, the U.S. Air Force, U.S.
Navy, and the Service entered into a
memorandum of understanding to
create the Guam National Wildlife
Refuge. As per the terms of the
memorandum of understanding, the two
military branches entered into
cooperative agreements with the Service
in 1994 to designate Department of
Defense lands as overlay units in the
Guam National Wildlife Refuge (i.e.,
these overlay units of Refuge lands are
under the jurisdiction of the Department
of Defense but managed by the Service
as part of the Refuge). Currently the
Guam National Wildlife Refuge includes
152 ha (376 ac) of lands under the
jurisdiction of the Service and 9,300 ha
(22,980 ac) of overlay lands under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy and U.S.
Air Force, and all are managed by the
Service as the Refuge.
Additionally, the Government of
Guam established four reserves for
habitat protection. These lands are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
19883
under the jurisdiction of the CHamoru
Land Trust Commission of the
Government of Guam. The Commission
has the authority to change the status of
these lands to non-conservation areas as
they deem appropriate. Please see the
Revised Recovery Plan for Sihek or
Guam Micronesian Kingfisher (USFWS
2008, pp. 33–37) for further description
and maps of the Department of Defense
and Government of Guam protected
areas.
More recently, the Department of
Defense and the Service entered into
two agreements to protect or manage
habitat for sihek and other federally
listed species on Guam. A 2020
memorandum of understanding between
Joint Region Marianas and the Service
outlined a mutual understanding
regarding the intentions and future
considerations of a Department of
Defense readiness and environmental
protection integration initiative to
address conservation of upland
vegetation communities for sihek as
well as other federally listed species on
Guam (USFWS 2020). In 2015 a
memorandum of agreement between the
Department of the Navy and the Service
designated 2,118 ha (5,234 ac) of habitat
for the recovery and survival of sihek in
Northern Guam in response to loss of
habitat described in the Service’s 2015
Marine Corps Relocation Biological
Opinion (USFWS 2015, entire).
objectives and/or eradication (Siers et
al. in litt. 2020, p. 4).
Island-wide eradication of invasive
vertebrates has been achieved on 965
islands for various taxonomic groups
(see Keitt et al. 2011, https://
diise.islandconservation.org/); however,
snake eradication efforts are rare, and
there is only one other documented
ongoing effort to eradicate snakes from
an island (https://diise.islandconser
vation.org/). Additional technological
and methodological advancements
along with community engagement are
still needed to achieve landscape-scale
eradication of brown treesnakes on
Guam. The aerial delivery system tools
are operational, but full operational
implementation of the aerial
suppression program will require
further understanding of site-specific
effects of the technology and
development of efficient monitoring
protocols. Therefore, while
technological advances to control brown
treesnakes show promise as a tool, they
currently do not control snakes to a
level sufficient to allow the return of
sihek to Guam before significant
declines in the captive population of
sihek are likely to occur, discussed
further below. Thus, interim
conservation measures for sihek are
necessary to reduce its extinction risk
while brown treesnake suppression and
eradication methods are perfected and
implemented.
Brown Treesnake Control
Captive-Breeding Efforts
In 1983, the Association of Zoos &
Aquariums (AZA) initiated the Guam
Bird Rescue Project in response to the
widespread decline of Guam’s native
birds. Sihek was one of the Guam birds
selected under this program for captive
(ex situ) conservation efforts (Hutchins
et al. in litt. 1996, p. 4). Between 1984
and 1986, 29 sihek were translocated
from Guam to several zoos in the
mainland United States. The program
was established with the intent of being
a short-term rescue but due to the
continued presence of brown treesnakes
on Guam, ultimately led to an ongoing
breeding program. By 1990, the ex situ
population increased to 61 sihek in 12
mainland zoos. Currently, an estimated
139 sihek are held at 25 AZA
institutions and in a facility at the Guam
Department of Agriculture’s Division of
Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR)
(Newland, S., in litt. 2022a).
A Species Survival Plan Program for
sihek, developed by the AZA, has been
in place since 1986. In general, Species
Survival Plan Programs are established
to oversee the population management
of species within AZA-accredited
facilities. The plans typically include a
We currently lack adequate tools to
eradicate brown treesnakes from Guam,
and the continued presence of brown
treesnakes throughout the landscape
prevents the successful reestablishment
of sihek on Guam in the foreseeable
future. However, there is incremental
progress in addressing this threat. Since
2010, the interagency Brown Treesnake
Technical Working Group has advanced
landscape-scale brown treesnake
suppression capabilities with the
development and refinement of an aerial
delivery system for toxicant baiting,
comprising an automated bait
manufacturing system and an automated
dispensing module for applying baits
from aircraft. Aerial toxicant baiting has
recently been evaluated in both fenced
and non-fenced 55-ha (136-ac) sites;
brown treesnake suppression, but not
eradication, has been validated using
this technique (Siers et al. in litt. 2020,
p. 4). Further, simulated aerial baiting
for brown treesnake eradication within
a 5-ha (12-ac) brown treesnake
exclusion area indicates that some
brown treesnake size classes do not
consume baits and additional control
tools are needed to achieve suppression
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
19884
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
population studbook and an annual
breeding and transfer plan to ensure the
genetic and demographic health of the
population. The donor population is
carefully managed through the Species
Survival Plan Program to ensure the
population’s long-term viability.
Sihek are relatively difficult to
manage in zoos because of their
aggressive territorial behavior and
moderately expensive diet. In addition,
little forward progress toward a recovery
program in the wild has led to few new
institutions willing to hold or breed the
species, which ultimately limits
population growth. The small founding
population, as well as the limited ability
to increase the population beyond its
current size, has serious implications for
long-term survival of sihek.
Two separate population viability
analyses (PVAs) demonstrated rapid
declines in the population under
current conditions (Johnson et al. in litt.
2015, p. 8; Trask et al. 2021, p. 6).
Without changes to management
practices that increase reproduction
(i.e., reproductive output stays the
same), the sihek population is predicted
to decline to below 100 individuals by
the year 2040 (Johnson et al. 2015, p. 8);
and with a slight decrease in
reproductive output of just 7 percent,
the population is projected to decrease
to 25 individuals by 2040 (Johnson et al.
2015, p. 9). One of the PVAs
incorporated an inbreeding coefficient
into their models and demonstrated,
among other things, a rapid decline in
the population without an increase in
reproductive output such that in 50
years the mean population size is
projected to decline to approximately 30
individuals (Trask et al. 2021, entire).
The ex situ population of sihek is
therefore sensitive to even slight
reductions in reproductive output and is
at a heightened risk of extinction due to
small population dynamics in their
existing limited breeding and holding
space. However, a small increase in
average annual reproductive output
(from 2.54 hatchlings per female per
year to 2.70 hatchlings per female per
year) could support long-term (50-year)
sihek population viability as well as a
release program (Trask et al. 2021, p. 6).
Breeding facilities for sihek are
currently at capacity. Without the
ability to release sihek, the species’
population growth is constrained. The
sihek’s current small population size
puts the species at risk from stochastic
environmental events (e.g., disease
outbreaks in the ex situ population or
changes in the ability of facilities to
house and breed sihek) and
demographic threats (e.g., sex-ratio
biases, as well as from genetic threats
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
from increasing rates of loss of genetic
diversity and accumulation of
inbreeding). Further, maintaining the
species entirely under captive
environmental conditions puts the
species at risk from genetic adaptations
to captivity (Frankham 2008, entire).
This situation could result in
individuals having reduced fitness
under wild conditions and could
negatively impact the success of efforts
to ultimately recover the species on
Guam.
Reintroduction
No efforts have been made to
reintroduce sihek to its native range on
Guam due to the continued presence of
brown treesnakes, the primary threat
that caused its extinction in the wild.
Further, until recently, the ex situ
population of sihek was not large
enough to sustain a release program.
Analyses have shown that, with captive
management aimed at increasing
reproductive output, the ex situ
population can support the releases for
an experimental population on Palmyra
Atoll (Trask et al. 2021 p. 7).
Location and Boundaries of the NEP
Area
The NEP area for sihek occurs outside
the species’ historical range and
encompasses the 618 ac (250 ha) of
emergent land distributed among the 25
islands that make up Palmyra Atoll
(Collen et al. 2009, p. 712), and
inclusive of the lagoons surrounding
those islands. The islands vary in size
from approximately 0.24 to 242 ac (0.1
to 97.9 ha). Palmyra Atoll is located in
the Northern Line Islands,
approximately 1,000 miles (1,609 km)
south of Honolulu, Hawaii, and 3,647
miles (5,869 km) east of Guam (5°53′ N
latitude, 162°05′ W longitude). Palmyra
Atoll is considered a wet atoll with high
humidity, typically greater than 90
percent, and temperatures between 75
and 81 °F (24–27 °C) and rainfall
averages 175 inches (in) (444.5
centimeters (cm)) per year (Hathaway et
al. 2011, p. 6), without a specific rainy
season. Temperatures on Guam are
slightly higher, ranging 75–90 °F (24–32
°C), with rainfall averaging 98 in (249
cm), with the greatest rainfall occurring
between July and November (https://
www.weather-us.com/en/guam-usaclimate).
The closest landmass is more than
144 mi (232 km) from Palmyra. Given
this and the fact that sihek are an island
endemic not known to undertake longdistance flights over open ocean, it is
extremely unlikely that sihek would
move outside of the NEP area and
survive. Also, no other kingfisher
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
species occur on Palmyra Atoll, thus all
kingfishers on the atoll will be members
of the NEP.
Land Ownership
Palmyra Atoll is currently owned and
managed by the Service, The Nature
Conservancy, and the Cooper family.
The majority of the islands (390 ac (158
ha)), waters, and the coral reefs
surrounding Palmyra Atoll, up to 12
nautical miles to sea, are owned by the
United States and managed by the
Service as a National Wildlife Refuge.
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
was established in 2001 to protect,
restore, and enhance migratory birds,
coral reefs, and threatened and
endangered species in their natural
setting. The Nature Conservancy owns
two islands, Cooper and Menge (226 ac
(91.5 ha)), and cooperatively manages
the atoll with the Service. Home Island
(1.8 ac (0.71 ha)) is under private
fractional ownership by the Cooper
family, and the Service provides
stewardship for this island, providing it
the same protections as Refuge property
(Kropidlowski, in litt. 2021). Palmyra
Atoll is also part of the Pacific Remote
Islands Marine National Monument,
which was established in 2009 and is
co-managed by the Service and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Likelihood of Population Establishment
and Survival
In late 2020, we established a
recovery team for sihek whose purpose
is to assist the Service in developing
and implementing a conservation
strategy for reestablishing sihek in the
wild. Members of this team developed
a phased approach whereby learning
sites (sites used to test conservation
translocation procedures as well as
demographic and behavioral responses
of target species) help achieve the
overarching objectives of reducing
global sihek extinction risk, while also
refining techniques to establish viable
wild populations on Guam. Based on
habitat suitability, food resource
availability, and willing partners, we
have identified Palmyra Atoll as a
learning site.
The best available scientific data
indicate that the introduction of sihek
into suitable habitat is biologically
feasible and would promote the
conservation of the species. Coarse-scale
modeling indicated Palmyra could
support up to 15 breeding pairs (Laws
and Kesler in litt. 2011, p. 65). We
evaluated the ecological suitability of
Palmyra Atoll and concluded sufficient
habitat conditions and food resources
are available to support the small
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
number of sihek needed for a temporary
training site (USFWS unpublished data).
No known predators of sihek occur on
the Atoll. Further, we developed a
release and monitoring program that
includes interventions such as
supplemental feeding if needed to
increase the chances of survival. We
assessed the potential environmental
impacts of introducing sihek and
designating the population as an NEP on
Palmyra in an environmental
assessment (USFWS 2023) (See National
Environmental Policy Act section,
below). To minimize risk to the
ecosystem on Palmyra Atoll associated
with the introduction, we will monitor
for potential environmental impacts as
part of the release program (see
Monitoring and Evaluation, below).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Potential Effects of Activities on
Palmyra Atoll on Introduced Sihek
The effects of Federal, State, or
private actions and activities on
Palmyra Atoll that are ongoing and
expected to continue are not likely to
adversely affect the sihek within the
NEP area. Public access to Palmyra Atoll
is extremely limited and available in
only the following ways: (1) working
for, contracting with, or volunteering for
the Service or The Nature Conservancy;
(2) conducting scientific research via
Service special use permits; (3)
invitation through the Service or The
Nature Conservancy; or (4) by private
recreational sailboat or motorboat. With
prior approval by the Service, privately
owned vessels are permitted to access
the Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife
Refuge. A maximum of two vessels are
allowed at one time. Access to Cooper
Island must be arranged and secured
through The Nature Conservancy.
Activities currently occurring in the
NEP area, and those likely to occur, are
not likely to impede the introduction
effort. Current activities on Palmyra
Atoll include an ongoing rainforest
restoration project, operation of a
research station, and limited recreation.
The rainforest restoration project
includes control of nonnative coconut
trees, and opportunistic planting and
seeding of native tree species. The
Nature Conservancy manages a research
station, and visiting scientists are
required to obtain a permit from the
Service to ensure compatibility with the
mission of the Refuge. The Nature
Conservancy also provides guided
recreational activities (fishing, kayaking)
to a small number of visitors to the
Atoll. No significant development is
planned on the Atoll for the foreseeable
future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
Importance of the NEP to Recovery
Efforts
This nonessential experimental
population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll
will promote the conservation and
recovery of the species. The
International Union for the
Conservation of Nature’s Guidelines for
Reintroduction and Other Conservation
Translocations (2013, p. 4) identifies
several criteria to consider prior to
undertaking a reintroduction, including
‘‘strong evidence that the threat(s) that
caused any previous extinction have
been correctly identified and removed
or sufficiently reduced.’’ Although the
basic habitat components required by
sihek on Guam are still present, they
have been made unavailable to sihek
due to the ongoing and pervasive threat
of brown treesnakes (see Recovery
Efforts to Date). Innovations in brown
treesnake management show promise
for controlling their populations at a
landscape level but not within the time
needed before we expect deleterious
declines in the ex situ sihek population.
The current captive-only sihek
population is at high risk of extinction,
and a moderate decline in reproductive
output is likely to have long-term
negative consequences on the survival
probability for this species (see CaptiveBreeding Efforts and Reintroduction).
The number of breeding institutions
participating in sihek management is
limited and declining (Newland in litt.
2021b), further increasing the risk of
reduced breeding effort and its
associated population decline.
Advancements in brown treesnake
control show promise for reintroducing
sihek to its native range on Guam in the
future and that remains a recovery goal,
but current control methods are not
likely to be able to eradicate this threat
prior to substantial forecasted declines
in the sihek population.
Introducing a species outside its
historical range per our current
regulation at 50 CFR 17.81 requires the
Service to find that a species’ primary
habitat has been irreversibly altered or
destroyed. While sihek’s primary habitat
on Guam has not been irreversibly
altered or destroyed in perpetuity, we
interpret the meaning of ‘‘irreversibly
altered or destroyed’’ in the context of
the unique conditions facing sihek and
the very limited current alternatives to
prevent its extinction. The habitat on
Guam has been irreversibly altered and
destroyed for a period of time
meaningful to the survival of the
species. The ex situ population of sihek
is extremely vulnerable to rapid
population decline and extinction risk
under current reproductive conditions
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19885
(Johnson et al 2015, p. 8, Trask et al.
2021, p. 6) such that increased
reproductive output is paramount for
population viability (Trask et al 2021, p.
7). Holding and breeding space at
breeding institutions is limited,
preventing growth of the ex situ
population. Methods to control brown
treesnakes on Guam are not sufficient to
prevent significant predation on native
bird species at this time and prevents us
from releasing sihek there presently.
Improvements in landscape-scale snake
management are under development
and are making incremental progress
but will not be available for use prior to
expected significant declines in the
sihek population. Because of the
immediate need to increase
reproductive output and due to the
continued presence of brown treesnakes
on Guam, we find that sihek’s habitat on
Guam is irreversibly altered or
destroyed for the purpose of this action,
that is, until management of snakes at a
landscape level makes it suitable for
reintroduction and recovery.
We are releasing sihek onto Palmyra
Atoll, which is outside its historical
range, for the following purposes: (1)
invigorate the ex situ conservation
program to increase reproductive output
by increasing breeding space at existing
facilities and/or recruiting additional
facilities to join the ex situ conservation
program; and (2) develop and refine
release and monitoring methods to be
applied when reestablishing a
population on Guam to recover the
species. Release of sihek on Palmyra
Atoll will improve the likelihood of
successful reintroduction and recovery
on Guam by: (1) providing the
opportunity to develop and test release
and monitoring techniques, (2)
providing information on sihek’s ability
to survive in the wild, (3) assessing how
much human intervention is required to
support a wild population, (4)
increasing the global population of
sihek as an extension of the ex situ
population as well as invigorating the
breeding program, and (5) potentially
serving as a source of wild-hatched
birds for future releases on Guam or
other sites.
Is the Experimental Population
Essential or Nonessential?
When we establish experimental
populations under section 10(j) of the
Act, we must determine whether that
population is essential or nonessential
to the continued existence of the
species. This determination is based
solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available. We consider
an experimental population essential if
its loss would be likely to appreciably
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
19886
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
reduce the likelihood of survival of that
species in the wild (50 CFR 17.80(b)).
We are designating the population of
sihek on Palmyra Atoll as nonessential
for the following reasons:
(1) No populations of sihek occur in
the wild currently;
(2) the experimental population area
is too small to support a self-sustaining
wild population of sihek (Laws and
Kesler 2011, p. 63) and is intended only
as a temporary training site (i.e.,
approximately 10 or more years) for us
to improve release techniques,
monitoring, and adaptive management
for population establishment on Guam,
when its habitat is available; and
(3) loss of the experimental
population would not preclude other
recovery options, including future
efforts to establish sihek populations
elsewhere.
In addition, we evaluated the
potential impacts of the establishment
of the experimental population on the
ex situ population. Establishment of the
experimental population will not affect
the potential to establish a future, selfsustaining, wild population of sihek on
Guam for the following reasons:
(1) The majority of the sihek
population will remain in an ex situ
population distributed among 25
facilities, where they are carefully
managed according to the Species
Survival Plan Program (Newland in litt.
2021a); and
(2) only a small number of individuals
will be removed from the ex situ
population for release on Palmyra Atoll,
and these removals are expected to have
minimal impact on the survival of the
ex situ population (see Donor Stock
Assessment and Effects on Donor
Population, below).
As mentioned above in Importance of
the NEP to Recovery Efforts, the
introduction on Palmyra Atoll will
further the conservation of sihek both in
terms of improving the status of the ex
situ population and in increasing the
likelihood of success in establishing
wild populations. In the near term, we
anticipate that the introduction of sihek
to Palmyra Atoll will invigorate the ex
situ breeding program and result in
more breeding space at existing
facilities, more institutions joining the
program, or both, ultimately resulting in
a larger population if additional
institutions join. Space is a limiting
factor for this extinct-in-the-wild
species, and demonstrating our
continued efforts to recover it in the
wild will likely increase interest in the
species (Newland in litt. 2022b). In the
longer term, the information gathered
from observing the species under wild
conditions, development of suitable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
release and monitoring methods, and
assessment of how much human
intervention might be needed to support
a wild population will improve future
release efforts. Lastly, wild-hatched
sihek could be a complementary source,
alongside captive-bred birds, for
translocation to Guam or other sites.
Release Procedures
Late-stage nestlings or recent
fledglings will be flown to Palmyra
Atoll where they will be held in release
aviaries for up to 1 month. Three sets of
three flight aviaries will be established
across Palmyra Atoll at, or close to,
locations where habitat appears most
suitable. During this time, sihek will
undergo acclimation and training to
respond to supplementary feeding
signals. Prior to release, all sihek will be
fitted with a radio transmitter consistent
with the Bird Banding Laboratory of
North America’s guidelines that
transmitters be no more than 3 percent
of a bird’s body weight (Gustafson et al.
1997).
Release from aviaries will be via
opening of a panel in the aviary wall to
allow individuals to come and go freely.
We will monitor each sihek daily,
immediately after release and
throughout their first year of release.
Once released, sihek will be exposed to
conditions in the wild that the species
has not encountered in more than 30
years. While still being held in prerelease aviaries on Palmyra Atoll, we
will provide natural prey items as much
or as often as necessary so the sihek can
learn to forage on multiple food sources.
Further, sihek will be trained to come to
feeders through reinforcement with a
whistle, thus allowing for a way to
provide supplemental food if needed.
We will also conduct a thorough health
assessment on each individual prior to
release to ensure they are in good body
condition. After release, we will
monitor sihek daily, and if an
individual is sick or injured, we may
intervene and bring it back under
human care temporarily.
After the first year, we may reduce the
intensity of monitoring if few or no
problems are observed. Sihek
monitoring will cover a range of
components, including general behavior
(maintenance, foraging, locomotion,
conspecific interactions); health
(weights collected remotely at feeding
stations, fecal samples, and semiannual
capture and assessment); and breeding
(pairing, territoriality, nest excavation,
nest building, egg laying and clutch
size, hatch date, nestling survival, and
fledge success). Additional details of the
release procedures are provided in the
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Sihek Management Plan (Andrews et al.
in litt. 2022).
Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on
Donor Population
The donor population for the
introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll is
the ex situ population of sihek. This
population is distributed among 25
breeding facilities in the U.S. mainland
and on Guam (24 AZA institutions and
1 Guam Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources (DAWR) facility),
with the population being managed
through the Sihek Species Survival Plan
Program (see Captive-Breeding Efforts).
The most recent population count
documented 139 birds (Newland in litt.
2022a). The population size remains
below the target of 200 individuals
identified in the 2020 Species Survival
Plan Program (Newland et al. 2020, p.
2) in large part due to limited holding
capacity across the breeding facilities.
Recent funding for the construction of
another facility at Brookfield Zoo, as
well as for the transfer to and
maintenance of sihek at that facility, has
allowed for growth of the population.
The current Species Survival Plan
Program coordinator is actively seeking
additional AZA institutions to
participate in the sihek breeding effort,
and this solicitation will likely be aided
by releases to Palmyra Atoll and the
recent progress in recovery planning for
the species.
Population models indicate that an
increase in breeding (i.e., production of
hatchlings) is required to ensure the
sustainable removal of individuals from
the ex situ population for release to
Palmyra (Johnson et al. 2015, p. 13, and
Trask et al. 2021, p. 6). We have
observed measurable population
increases when there has been focused
management to increase productivity in
the ex situ population. Between 2004
and 2013, the sihek population
increased from 61 birds to a peak of 157
birds because of increased reproductive
output using multiple clutching (when
a breeding pair is induced to produce
more than one clutch of eggs per year
by removing and artificially incubating
the first clutch of eggs) (Newland et al.
in litt. 2020, pp. 4–5). The best available
information indicates that increasing ex
situ reproductive output to rates seen
between 2004 and 2013 is likely to
support a release program on Palmyra
without negatively impacting the longterm viability of the species (Trask et al.
2021, p. 6).
Only a small number of sihek will be
removed from the ex situ population for
release on Palmyra Atoll. We plan to
remove up to 9 in the first year, and
fewer than 9 in subsequent years, to
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
ultimately achieve a target of 10
breeding pairs. The release cohort will
consist of hatch-year sihek that will be
reared under pathogen- and vector-free
conditions. All individuals will be
health-screened prior to release. Release
cohorts will consist of sihek that are
relatively unrelated to each other (i.e.,
sihek with low mean kinship), and that
have a relatively low individual
inbreeding coefficient. In addition to
genetic considerations for released
individuals, retaining maximum genetic
diversity within the ex situ population
is a priority; therefore, individuals
identified as genetically valuable (i.e.,
with a low mean kinship coefficient,
such that they are genetically
underrepresented in the ex situ
population) will be retained in the ex
situ population. We will assess selection
of individuals in release cohorts for
follow up translocations based on both
the sex ratio and genetics of the
introduced population on Palmyra
Atoll, as well as that of the donor
population.
Species Survival Plan Program annual
reports (see Captive-Breeding Efforts)
will continue throughout the releases
and will be reviewed to ensure that
removal of individuals for release will
not be detrimental to the stability of the
ex situ population. If negative impacts
on the donor population are detected,
we will pause releases while donor
population health is improved. Given
the careful management of the donor
population, the ability to increase its
productivity via multiple clutching, and
the relatively small number of sihek that
will be released annually, negative
impacts to the donor population are
expected to be minimal.
Management
We will collaborate with Guam
DAWR, Zoological Society of London,
AZA, Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife
Refuge, and The Nature Conservancy on
releases, monitoring, coordination, and
other tasks as needed to ensure
successful introduction of the species to
Palmyra Atoll. A few specific
management considerations are
addressed below.
Incidental Take: Experimental
population rules contain specific
prohibitions and may provide
exceptions regarding the taking of
individual animals under the Act. The
specific prohibitions and exceptions we
adopt in this final rule are compatible
with most routine human activities
anticipated in the NEP area (e.g.,
resource monitoring, invasive species
management, and research; see
Importance of the NEP to Recovery
Efforts, above). Section 3(19) of the Act
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
defines ‘‘take’’ as ‘‘to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct.’’
‘‘Incidental take’’ is further defined as
take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an
otherwise lawful activity. Incidental
take of sihek within the experimental
population area will be allowed,
provided that the take is unintentional
and not due to negligent conduct.
Special Handling/Intentional Take:
Employees of the Service, Guam DAWR,
The Nature Conservancy, Zoological
Society of London, AZA facilities
holding sihek, and authorized agents
acting on behalf of the Service or these
other entities may intentionally take
sihek through handling sihek for
scientific purposes; relocating
individuals or bringing individuals into
captivity for the purposes of increasing
sihek survival or fecundity; aiding sick
or injured sihek; salvaging dead sihek;
disposing of a dead specimen; or aiding
in law enforcement investigations
involving the sihek. Any other person
would need to acquire a permit from the
Service for these activities.
Interagency Consultation: For
purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
section 10(j) of the Act and our
regulations (50 CFR 17.83) provide that
nonessential experimental populations
are treated as species proposed for
listing under the Act except on National
Park Service and National Wildlife
Refuge System lands, where they are
treated as threatened species for the
purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
We will address our section 7(a)(2)
consultation obligations for sihek within
the Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge
through a programmatic intra-Service
consultation completed prior to
releasing birds. Any activities outside of
those analyzed in our programmatic
consultation that may affect sihek
within the NEP area will be addressed
through future individual intra-Service
section 7 consultations.
Public Awareness and Cooperation:
On November 18, 2021, in cooperation
with Guam DAWR, we engaged the
Governor of Guam and constituents to
inform them of our plans to introduce
sihek to Palmyra Atoll. We coordinated
closely with the co-manager of Palmyra
Atoll (The Nature Conservancy)
throughout the planning process, and
we expect our coordination with them
will continue through the duration of
the project. We publicized availability
of the proposed rule (87 FR 53429,
August 31, 2022) and the opportunity
for comment with a press release
(https://fws.gov/story/2022-08/usfwsproposes-experimental-population-
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19887
sihek-palmyra-atoll). We also sent
letters to 14 conservation partners,
notifying them of the availability of the
proposed rule and requesting
comments.
Monitoring and Evaluation
We will monitor the health, habitat
use, behavior, foraging activity,
movement, breeding, and survival of all
sihek released and hatched at Palmyra
Atoll. We will attempt to weigh sihek
daily at supplementary feeding
platforms with inbuilt scales. Passive
collection of fecal material from these
supplementary feeding platform visits
will be screened for gastrointestinal
parasite loads and examination of diet.
We will attempt to capture individuals
twice each year for a more thorough
physical examination (weight,
condition, ectoparasite load, feather
fault bar analysis). During these
captures, we will take a blood sample,
which will be stored in ethanol for later
diagnostics of blood parasites, and a
blood smear made for visual
examination of blood parasites and
white blood cell count analysis. Further,
we will collect a fecal sample
opportunistically and a cloacal swab for
later bacterial culture.
Once each sihek is released, we will
track it and attempt to log its location
at least once daily to document postrelease movement patterns and territory
establishment. Individuals will be
located via radio transmitter tracking or
visual searches. During observations, we
will record behaviors including
maintenance, perching, ingestion,
excretion, locomotion, vocalizations,
and interactions. We will record food
items whenever feeding is observed in
free-flying sihek.
We will attempt to closely monitor all
breeding attempts to determine timing
of pairing, nest building, egg laying and
clutch size, hatch date, nestling
survival, and fledge success. Unhatched
eggs will be collected for analysis of
fertility and embryo development.
Recovered dead nestlings will be
necropsied in the field and samples
taken for later laboratory analysis for
cause of death. Where possible,
surviving nestlings will be weighed
every third day throughout development
until banding age. During banding, we
will collect a range of samples as
specified above for adult health
sampling.
We will create a resighting history for
each sihek released or hatched into the
population. We intend to monitor sihek
and their prey species with the full-time
presence of staff on Palmyra, at least
until intensive monitoring shows: (1)
sihek are foraging independently and
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
19888
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
exhibiting behaviors typical of
Todiramphus species; and (2) sihek are
not having undesirable impacts on prey
species populations (undesirable
impacts are discussed further in the
sections below). If the two situations
described above occur, then we may
reduce staffing to less than full time and
monitor sihek and the environment less
intensively. If undesirable impacts on
prey species populations are not
resolvable, we would evaluate whether
this was an unacceptable impact
requiring termination of the program.
Unacceptable impacts are discussed
below, in Exit Strategy.
Ecosystem Impacts
As Palmyra Atoll is outside the native
range of the sihek, introduction of sihek
to Palmyra Atoll could have potential
impacts on native species. The
International Union for the
Conservation of Nature, Species
Specialist Commission, Invasive Species
Specialist Group recognizes several
different mechanisms of impact that
introduced species (that others have
sometimes called alien species) can
have on native ecosystems (Pagad et al.
2015, pp. 130–132). These include
impacts through predation, competition,
hybridization, or transmission of
disease-causing pathogens to native
species (Blackburn et al. 2014, pp. 4–7).
To assess the potential impacts that
sihek may have on Palmyra Atoll and
the mechanisms through which these
impacts may occur, researchers on the
recovery team conducted an
environmental impact assessment,
based on the Environmental Impact
Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT)
(Blackburn et al. 2014, entire) and the
Generic Impact Scoring System
(Nentwig et al. 2010, entire). This
process involved consulting with a
range of relevant experts (n=19), who
were asked to provide their judgment on
the level of impact that sihek may have
through each potential impact
mechanism. Impact levels were
described in a range from the lowest
level of ‘‘minimal,’’ where effects are
negligible, to the highest level of
‘‘massive,’’ where impacts result in local
extinction(s) and community-level
changes are irreversible. We evaluated
the relative risk of competition,
hybridization, predation impacts, and
disease transmission in an
environmental assessment. Based on our
analysis in the environmental
assessment, we conclude there is no risk
of competition or hybridization, and
there are sufficient measures in place to
prevent disease transmission from the
introduction. In addition, the planned
intensive monitoring will be sufficient
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
to detect, and provide a timely response
to, potential impacts of the sihek on the
recipient ecosystem on Palmyra Atoll.
In the EICAT assessment, experts
considered predation by sihek to be the
most likely impact of sihek introduction
to Palmyra (although the magnitude of
this factor was judged to be moderate at
most). The EICAT assessment experts’
scoring generally assessed the
introduction of a novel avian predator.
Therefore, we will focus post-release
environmental monitoring on potential
sihek prey species that are native to
Palmyra Atoll. We will obtain sihek diet
information through behavioral
observation and fecal samples, as
described above (Release Procedures
and Monitoring and Evaluation). This
information will highlight major
components of sihek post-release diet
and help guide more focused
monitoring.
At a minimum, we will coordinate
with The Nature Conservancy and
Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge to
carry out annual monitoring on a range
of suitable prey items, as described
above. We will use the most appropriate
survey methods for different taxa. If
dietary and behavioral observations of
released sihek suggest a particular
prevalence and abundance of specific
prey items that are of conservation
concern, we will establish more
frequent monitoring surveys. We will
analyze post-release monitoring data to
obtain estimates of abundance and
density for reference taxa. These
estimates will then be compared with
pre-release monitoring data, collected in
the weeks prior to release, with
estimates from paired locations across
the island in a before-after, controlimpact experimental design. In the
event we find estimated impacts to be
unacceptably high, such as preferential
prey selection for one species such that
it has population-level effects, we will
activate an appropriate response (see
Exit Strategy, below).
Our present monitoring plan relies on
a combination of targeted prey species
surveys and information from existing
monitoring of released birds. Our
monitoring approach balances the
negative impacts of frequent invasive
surveys with the need to identify
serious negative consequences of the
sihek releases on the recipient site.
Active monitoring will be for 2 years
after the first release, and we will
regularly assess results through monthly
summaries, analyses at 6-month
intervals, and annual predictive
modeling. After the first 2 years, we will
determine whether to continue at full
intensity, reduce the intensity of our
monitoring, or discontinue monitoring.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Factors that will impact our decision
making regarding monitoring include
evidence of:
• Sihek prey selection for a single
species, which could indicate
population impacts to that species;
• detection of significant changes in
abundance of prey in areas with sihek
compared with areas without sihek; or
• shifts in community composition
and diversity that differ significantly
between areas with sihek and areas
without sihek.
If any undesirable impacts are
causally linked to the introduction of
sihek, we will weigh the benefits and
risks in consultation with the recovery
team and The Nature Conservancy to
determine whether to continue ongoing
management, adopt risk mitigation
strategies, or terminate the program (see
Exit Strategy, below).
Annual reports summarizing
monitoring and management activities
will be developed by the Zoological
Society of London in collaboration with
the Service, The Nature Conservancy,
and the Sihek Recovery Team.
Exit Strategy
Depending on the circumstances, the
Service may either terminate or pause
the release program to address
identified issues before possibly
resuming. These scenarios and the
Service’s expected response are detailed
below.
The Service will terminate the release
program on Palmyra Atoll if:
(1) Monitoring indicates the benefits
from the Palmyra population (including
learning and refining release and
support strategies for eventual releases
on Guam) no longer outweigh the risks
to the species or the welfare of the NEP
or ex situ population; or
(2) monitoring shows unacceptable
impacts on the ecosystem that can be
clearly causally linked to the
introduction of sihek.
In addition to these ‘‘must terminate’’
scenarios, the Service may also
terminate the release program:
(3) When the purposes of the program
have been realized (e.g., we have
developed successful release and
monitoring methodologies to apply to
future release efforts or we have
demonstrated sihek can survive and
reproduce in the wild without human
intervention, see Importance of the NEP
to Recovery Efforts), although we do not
anticipate this scenario until 10 or more
years after the first release.
The Service may also temporarily
suspend the program to address issues
that arise before program termination
under any of the three scenarios above.
The monitoring team will summarize
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
information they collect on a regular
basis and will share it with the recovery
team and the managers of Palmyra Atoll
(the Service and The Nature
Conservancy). If results indicate the
program is approaching scenario (1) or
(2) above, then the Service, in
consultation with the recovery team and
The Nature Conservancy, will determine
if terminating the program is the best
way to avoid these outcomes, or
whether the program should be paused,
and adaptive steps taken to address
them before resuming the program.
Regular monitoring and reporting will
also inform progress toward achieving
program goals and scenario (3) above:
The Service will determine—in
consultation with the recovery team and
The Nature Conservancy—when the
purpose of the NEP has been achieved
such that the program can come to an
end. When the Service terminates the
program, the Service will also address
what will happen with any remaining
individuals in the NEP, i.e., whether
they will be relocated to captivity,
relocated to other suitable habitat, or
remain on Palmyra, based on the
circumstances at the time of
termination.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on
August 31, 2022 (87 FR 53429), we
requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the
proposal by September 30, 2022. In
addition, in accordance with our joint
policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and updated guidance issued on
August 22, 2016 (USFWS 2016, entire),
we solicited peer review of our
proposed rule from six knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise in
conservation translocation, endangered
species management, Pacific Island
birds, and Guam native bird species. We
received responses from three peer
reviewers. We also contacted
appropriate Federal and State agencies,
local experts, and organizations, and
other interested parties and invited
them to comment on the proposal.
We reviewed all comments received
from the public and peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information
regarding the establishment of an
experimental population of sihek on
Palmyra Atoll. Comments on these
issues and information are addressed in
the following summary and have been
incorporated into this final rule as
appropriate. Changes other than minor
word changes for clarification or
correction incorporated into the final
rule are summarized in the Summary of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
Changes from the Proposed Rule
section, below.
Peer Review Comments
All peer reviewers expressed support
for the introduction of an experimental
population of sihek with an associated
10(j) rule and agreed that the action is
likely to contribute to the conservation
of the species. Comments from peer
reviewers resulted in updates in two
areas of this final rule (see Summary of
Changes from Proposed Rule).
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer
indicated their support for establishing
a 10(j) experimental population because
of the negative consequences of
maintaining a species solely in
captivity, including risks associated
with small population size and
inbreeding depression.
Response: Recent population viability
models (Johnson et al. 2015 in litt and
Trask et al. 2021) have demonstrated
rapid declines in the captive population
if the reproductive rate remains the
same. Breeding facilities are currently at
capacity, and the sihek’s population
growth is constrained. The
establishment of an experimental
population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll
will provide an opportunity to increase
the sihek population, and to expose a
portion of this population to habitat
conditions in the wild for the first time
in more than 30 years.
(2) Comment: Multiple reviewers
commented that, at present, sihek
habitat on Guam is compromised by the
continued presence of brown
treesnakes. They stated that,
nevertheless, good progress is being
made towards the eventual eradication
of brown treesnakes such that future
restoration of sihek to Guam remains an
attainable goal.
Response: Reestablishing populations
of sihek on Guam is an essential
component of the recovery strategy for
sihek, as expressed in the recovery
criteria of the sihek recovery plan
(USFWS 2008, pp. 42–43). We presently
cannot release sihek within their
historical range due to the continued
presence of brown treesnakes. The
establishment of an experimental
population on Palmyra Atoll will allow
us the needed testing of field techniques
for the future reintroduction of sihek on
Guam, once landscape-scale
management of brown treesnakes is
implemented and effective. In recent
years, technological advances to control
brown treesnakes show promise as a
tool to control snakes at a landscape
level. However, they are not yet
sufficient to protect sihek from
unsustainable predation, and therefore
it is not possible to reintroduce sihek to
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19889
Guam before significant declines in the
ex situ population are expected to
occur. Thus, the establishment of an
experimental population on Palmyra
Atoll helps reduce sihek extinction risk
while brown treesnake control methods
are refined and implemented.
(3) Comment: One reviewer stated
that releasing sihek onto Palmyra Atoll
as an experimental population is
reasonable and scientifically sound.
They went on to state that considerable
work has been conducted to assess the
suitability of Palmyra for Guam
kingfishers, and to consider the
possibilities of negative consequences to
the fauna of Palmyra. The reviewer
further stated that the process of
introducing, managing, and monitoring
sihek on Palmyra would provide
invaluable knowledge for doing so
eventually on Guam. As a result, the
reviewer stated that the 10(j)
experimental population of sihek will
greatly increase the probability of
success for a future Guam
reintroduction.
Response: Introducing a species
outside its historical range has inherent
risks, both to the species and the
ecosystem into which it is being
introduced. We evaluated the extinction
risk to sihek and determined the
experimental population on Palmyra
Atoll would further the species’
recovery by increasing the worldwide
population, developing and refining
release techniques, and establishing a
source of wild-adapted birds for future
releases. We also evaluated the
suitability of Palmyra Atoll for sihek
through an assessment of prey
availability and habitat suitability based
on available information. We will
monitor sihek and prey species to
evaluate potential impacts to their
populations. If negative changes in
populations are causally linked to sihek
and are undesirable, we will weigh the
benefits and risks in consultation with
the recovery team and The Nature
Conservancy to determine whether to
continue ongoing management, adopt
risk mitigation strategies, or terminate
the program (see Exit Strategy, above).
(4) Comment: One reviewer
commented that successfully
establishing a population of sihek on
Palmyra would not only allow the
species to exist in the wild again,
allowing for beneficial behaviors and
adaptations to be maintained, but would
also be an important source of
individuals for the reintroduction of
sihek to Guam when conditions allow.
Additionally, the process of
introducing, managing, and monitoring
sihek on Palmyra would provide
invaluable knowledge for doing so
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
19890
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
eventually on Guam. Therefore, the
reviewer stated that the 10(j)
experimental population of sihek will
greatly increase the probability of
success for a future Guam
reintroduction.
Response: The successful
establishment of the experimental
population on Palmyra will advance
conservation and recovery of the
species. .
Public Comments
(1) Comment: Several commenters
shared their support for the proposed
10(j) experimental population as a first
step toward recovering the sihek.
Response: In our efforts to further the
conservation of sihek, we will learn
valuable information that will inform
future release efforts, including release
techniques, behavior in wild conditions,
and monitoring methods. We will also
increase the number of sihek in
existence and have a small population
of wild birds to potentially help source
future translocation efforts. Without the
forethought of those who brought sihek
into captivity and the effort of the
institutions that have managed the
populations during this time, the sihek
would have been lost.
(2) Comment: One commenter noted
the importance of involving CHamoru
scientists and cultural practitioners in
the development and implementation of
the project.
Response: The Service values
incorporating biological and cultural
perspectives of the CHamoru people in
sihek recovery efforts. At the beginning
of translocation site selection and
project development in 2019, the
Service held a workshop on Guam to
receive input and feedback from
cultural leaders. The intent of the
workshop was to acknowledge and
better understand the significant
connection the sihek has with the
CHamoru people and their culture. We
recognize that the release of sihek is
about much more than saving a species.
Given the sihek’s cultural and biological
importance to Guam, the Service
developed several objectives for
connecting with the community that are
reflected in work plans that complement
this 10(j) regulatory process under the
Act. Throughout project planning, in
coordination with our partners, we
actively sought out local and indigenous
community involvement. Today, the
Service continues to work with the
Guam DAWR, scientists, cultural
practitioners, and the public as we
collaborate to return the sihek back to
the wild. At the time of introduction,
due to limited transportation
infrastructure and the distance of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
Palmyra Atoll from Guam,
accommodating more local involvement
or protocols may be challenging. The
Service welcomes continued
discussions with the CHamoru
community to address scientific and
cultural protocols for the sihek.
(3) Comment: One commenter noted
the importance of an outreach program
on Guam to increase awareness of sihek
and to engender support for the
establishment of an experimental
population on Palmyra Atoll.
Response: A partner on Guam was
awarded a nationally competitive grant
to assist with Guam outreach efforts. It
is a multifaceted, multiyear outreach
program to be implemented prior to and
concurrent with the Service’s sihek
release and monitoring projects. The
program was developed by the Service’s
partners and Guam-based collaborators
with expertise in science and education,
as well as with CHamoru language and
culture. This outreach will engage 40
teachers, train high school students, and
engage more than 2,000 fourth-grade
students in the first year. This program
will also empower students and
teachers to take action to protect the
sihek and Guam’s natural resources,
while promoting an appreciation of the
sihek’s cultural significance. A
CHamoru Sihek Storybook will be
produced in the CHamoru language,
along with a sihek activity book, and a
website with updateable sihek resources
and student contributions. A sihekfocused curriculum will be created and
shared with teachers and students.
The outreach program is designed to
increase awareness of the sihek’s story:
its threats, the status and importance of
the sihek captive population, and future
goals of the sihek recovery project.
Expanding its reach beyond schools and
with the public, the outreach program
will share information at island-wide
events and through local media and will
enable the Service and its partners to
showcase outreach milestones and
successes.
(4) Comment: One commenter
expressed concern about our proposal to
decrease ecosystem and prey monitoring
if we detect negligible impacts from the
introduction of sihek and suggested that
we further define ‘‘unacceptable’’
impacts.
Response: Many potential prey
species occur on Palmyra Atoll, and we
have relatively little knowledge about
what sihek will preferentially feed upon
after release, other than using general
assumptions about prey size and
Todiramphus biology. Detecting the
impact of released sihek on prey species
and the recipient ecological community
is likely to require a relatively large
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
sample size, replicated in space and
time, to achieve sufficient statistical
power. Our monitoring plan relies on a
combination of targeted prey species
surveys and information from
monitoring released birds. Our
monitoring approach balances the
negative impacts of frequent invasive
surveys with the need to identify
serious negative consequences of the
sihek releases on the recipient site.
Active monitoring will occur for at least
2 years after the first release, and we
will regularly assess results through
monthly summaries, more in-depth
analyses at 6-month intervals, and
annual predictive modeling. After the
first 2 years, we will determine whether
to continue at full intensity, downscale,
or discontinue monitoring.
In this final rule we have clarified that
we will evaluate if impacts are
undesirable relative to sihek predation
on local species for purposes of our
monitoring strategy based on the
following factors:
• sihek prey selection for a single
species, which could indicate
population impacts to that species;
• detection of significant changes in
abundance of prey in areas with sihek
compared with areas without sihek; or
• shifts in community composition
and diversity that differ significantly
between areas with sihek and areas
without sihek.
If any undesirable impacts are
causally linked to the introduction of
sihek, we will weigh the benefits and
risks in consultation with the recovery
team and The Nature Conservancy to
determine whether to continue ongoing
management, adopt risk mitigation
strategies, or terminate the program (see
Exit Strategy, above).
As to the commenter’s request that we
provide specific definitions for
‘‘unacceptable’’ impacts that require
termination of the program, we are
unable to define specific, quantitative
parameters to do so. Rather, through our
continued monitoring and coordination
and consultation with the recovery team
and The Nature Conservancy, we expect
to keep ahead of any potential negative
impacts to the ecosystem as a result of
the introduction in order to adaptively
respond before termination would be
required.
(5) Comment: One commenter stated
that the removal of eggs from the captive
population would have a deleterious
impact and increase extinction risk,
particularly if the released individuals
do not survive.
Response: We intend to introduce a
small number of sihek to Palmyra Atoll:
9 individuals in the first year, with
additional, likely smaller, cohorts of
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
birds in subsequent years to reach a
target population of 20 birds. Evaluation
has shown that a small increase in the
average annual reproductive output
(from 2.54 hatchlings per female per
year to 2.70 hatchlings per female per
year) could support long-term (50-year)
sihek population viability as well as a
release program (Trask et al. 2021, p. 6).
Further, we would remove eggs from
captive-breeding pairs during
incubation, and allow the pair to lay
another clutch, thus replacing the birds
removed from the ex situ (captive)
population, which will—from a
demographic standpoint—negate the
loss of these individuals. The ex situ
population is the only population of
sihek in the world, so we will monitor
it closely to ensure that there are no
negative impacts to its viability and
potential growth. We have included
triggers for pausing or ending the release
program; a negative impact to the ex situ
population is one of the triggers for
enacting one of those strategies.
(6) Comment: One commenter noted
that the captive (ex situ) sihek
population is small, and that measures
will need to be in place to ensure the
introduced population on Palmyra can
survive.
Response: We recognize the
importance of ensuring the integrity of
the captive (ex situ) population of sihek
and implementing measures to
maximize the odds that the introduced
population on Palmyra survives. Only a
small number of sihek will be removed
from the ex situ population (up to nine
in the first year), and the best available
information indicates the ex situ
population can support this program
without negative impacts to its viability.
Once released on Palmyra, sihek will be
exposed to conditions in the wild—
conditions that the species has not
encountered in more than 30 years.
While still being held in pre-release
aviaries on Palmyra Atoll, we will
provide natural prey items as necessary
so the sihek can learn to forage on
multiple food sources. Further, birds
will be trained to come to feeders
through reinforcement with an
associated sound, thus allowing
supplemental food provisioning if
needed. We will also conduct a
thorough health assessment of each
individual prior to release to ensure
they are in good body condition. After
release, we will monitor individuals
daily. If a bird is sick or injured, we may
intervene and bring it in under
veterinary care as needed.
(7) Comment: One commenter was
concerned that sihek might consume
prey items with residual amounts of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
rodenticide from the 2011 eradication of
rats from Palmyra Atoll.
Response: Amplification of toxicants
through the food chain can be a concern
in predator eradication programs. A
study to evaluate potential impacts on
Palmyra Atoll (Wegmann et al. 2019,
entire) collected samples of numerous
species, including potential sihek prey
items, and tissue analyses showed no
residue in invertebrates or geckos 3
years after the rat eradication. Thus,
secondary exposure to rodenticide
through consumption of exposed prey
items is highly unlikely.
(8) Comment: One commenter
expressed concern that sihek might
consume prey items that have ingested
rodenticides used to prevent rats from
reinvading Palmyra Atoll.
Response: Rodents were eradicated
from Palmyra in 2011, and efforts to
reduce the likelihood of reintroduction
include a limited use of rodenticide
when planes or ships arrive at the Atoll.
Rodenticide is applied only around the
points of entry (runway and dock), and
baits are contained within bait boxes
(Wegmann in litt. 2022a). This
application occurs for two days prior to
a plane or ship arriving and remains in
place for four days after the arrival of a
plane and for 16 days after the arrival
of a ship. The bait stations are
monitored for rodent signs, and hermit
crabs (Coenobita brevimanus and C.
perlatus) on which sihek feed. The bait
stations are placed on ‘‘crab-resistant’’
platforms to minimize entry by crabs, so
very few crabs access the bait stations,
and those that are found weigh
generally around 2.8 oz (80g), which is
well outside the size class of prey that
sihek can take (Wegmann in litt. 2022b,
Andrews et al. 2022, p. 19). Further,
research showed no residue in
invertebrates 3 years after the rat
eradication (Wegmann et al. 2019). As a
result, secondary exposure to
rodenticide through consumption of
exposed crustaceans is highly unlikely.
If this unlikely scenario occurs, we will
evaluate methods to further minimize
such exposure risk (e.g., improving the
stations to further reduce the ability of
crabs to enter), while balancing the need
to prevent the reinvasion of Palmyra by
rodents. We would also consider the use
of non-toxicant biosecurity methods.
(9) Comment: Three commenters were
concerned about potential predation of
sihek by brown treesnakes on Palmyra
Atoll.
Response: No brown treesnakes occur
on Palmyra Atoll. Sihek released on
Palmyra Atoll will not be exposed to
any predation pressure as no known
predators of sihek occur on the Atoll.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19891
(10) Comment: One commenter was
concerned with introduced sihek
competing with other species on
Palmyra Atoll, such as black drongo.
Response: Black drongos occur on
Guam but do not occur on Palmyra
Atoll.
No other native or nonnative species
on Palmyra Atoll share the same diet or
habitat preferences as the sihek. Thus,
sihek will not directly compete with any
species on Palmyra Atoll.
Summary of Changes From Proposed
Rule
Comments received by the public and
peer reviewers resulted in updates in
two areas from the proposed rule to the
final rule. In the final rule preamble, we:
• Provide more detail regarding how
we will determine if releasing sihek on
Palmyra Atoll will have undesirable
impacts to prey species (see Ecosystem
Impacts); and
• Provide more detail regarding
management of released sihek (see
Release Procedures).
Findings
Based on the best scientific and
commercial data available (in
accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find
that releasing sihek onto Palmyra Atoll
with the regulatory provisions in this
rulemaking will further the conservation
of the species. We find that the
continued presence of the brown
treesnake on Guam means that sihek’s
native habitat has been unsuitably and
irreversibly altered or destroyed for the
foreseeable future such that the
introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll
outside of its probable historical range
is warranted and consistent with our
regulations at 50 CFR 17.81. We define
the foreseeable future as the period of
time before significant declines in the ex
situ population of sihek are likely to
occur. The nonessential experimental
population status is appropriate for the
introduced population; the potential
loss of the experimental population
would not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival of the species
in the wild because there are currently
no sihek remaining in the wild.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget will review all
significant rules. OIRA has determined
that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
19892
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
for improvements in the Nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
Executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
whenever a Federal agency is required
to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare, and make available for public
comment, a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of an
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the
factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We certify that this rule does
not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small
entities. The following discussion
explains our rationale.
The areas that are affected under this
rule are restricted to Palmyra Atoll.
Because of the regulatory flexibility for
Federal agency actions provided by the
NEP designation and the exemption for
incidental take in the rule, we do not
expect this rule to have significant
effects on any activities within Federal,
State, or private lands within the NEP
area. In regard to section 7(a)(2) of the
Act, the sihek population will be treated
as proposed for listing, and, therefore,
Federal action agencies are not required
to consult on their activities, except on
National Wildlife Refuge System lands,
where the NEP will be treated as a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
threatened species for the purposes of
section 7 of the Act.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer (rather than
consult) with the Service on actions that
are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for
listing. However, because the NEP is, by
definition, not essential to the survival
of the species, and no sihek exist in the
wild outside of the NEP area that could
be impacted, conferring will likely
never be required for the sihek
population within the NEP area.
Furthermore, the results of a conference
are advisory in nature and do not
restrict agencies from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing activities.
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to use their authorities
to carry out programs to further the
conservation of listed species, which
would apply on any lands within the
NEP area. On National Wildlife Refuge
System lands within the NEP area, the
sihek would be treated as a threatened
species for the purposes of section 7 of
the Act. As a result, and in accordance
with our regulations, some
modifications to proposed Federal
actions within National Wildlife Refuge
System lands may occur to benefit the
sihek, but we do not expect projects to
be substantially modified because these
lands are already administered in a
manner that is compatible with sihek
conservation.
This rule broadly authorizes
incidental take of the sihek within the
NEP area. The regulations implementing
the Act define ‘‘incidental take’’ as take
that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise
lawful activity, such as habitat
management, infrastructure
maintenance, and other activities in the
NEP area that are in accordance with
Federal, Tribal, State, and local laws
and regulations. Intentional take for
authorized data collection or recovery
purposes by authorized personnel are
also allowed under the NEP designation.
Other forms of intentional take would
require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery
permit under the Act.
The only private landowners on
Palmyra Atoll are The Nature
Conservancy and the Cooper family.
The principal activities on private
property near the release site are
associated with scientific field station
operations, including the operation of a
landing strip for aircraft, and some
limited recreation. The presence of the
sihek is not likely to significantly affect
the use of lands for these purposes
because no new or additional economic
or regulatory restrictions will be
imposed upon private landowners due
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to the presence of the sihek. Therefore,
this rulemaking is not expected to have
any significant adverse impacts to
activities on private lands within the
NEP area.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.):
(1) This rule does not ‘‘significantly or
uniquely’’ affect small governments. We
have determined and certify pursuant to
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,
that, if adopted, this rulemaking would
not impose a cost of $100 million or
more in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. A small
government agency plan is not required.
Small governments are not affected
because the NEP designation does not
place additional requirements on any
city, county, or other local
municipalities.
(2) This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year (i.e., it is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act).
This NEP designation for sihek does not
impose any additional management or
protection requirements on the States or
other entities.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order
12630, the rule does not have significant
takings implications. When introduced
populations of federally listed species
are designated as nonessential
experimental populations, the Act’s
regulatory requirements regarding the
introduced population are significantly
reduced. This rule would allow for the
taking of sihek when such take is
incidental to an otherwise legal activity.
A takings implication assessment is
not required because this rule: (1)
Would not effectively compel a property
owner to suffer a physical invasion of
property and (2) would not deny all
economically beneficial or productive
use of the land or aquatic resources.
This rule would substantially advance a
legitimate government interest
(conservation and recovery of a listed
species) and would not present a barrier
to all reasonable and expected beneficial
use of private property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, we have considered whether this
rule has significant federalism effects
and have determined that a federalism
assessment is not required. This rule
does not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
19893
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. In keeping
with Department of the Interior policy,
we requested information from and
coordinated development of this rule
with the affected resource agencies in
Guam. Achieving the recovery goals for
this species will contribute to its
eventual delisting. No intrusion on
Territory policy or administration is
expected, roles or responsibilities of
Federal or Territory governments would
not change, and fiscal capacity would
not be substantially directly affected.
The rule operates to maintain the
existing relationship between the
Territory and the Federal Government
and is being undertaken in coordination
with the Territory of Guam. We have
coordinated closely with the Guam
Department of Agriculture in the
preparation of this rule. Therefore, this
rule does not have significant federalism
effects or implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism assessment
pursuant to the provisions of Executive
Order 13132.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 4729),
the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule would not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections (3)(a)
and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new
collection of information that requires
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). OMB has previously approved
the information collection requirements
associated with permitting and
reporting requirements associated with
native endangered and threatened
species, and experimental populations,
Common name
*
and assigned the following OMB
Control Numbers:
• 1018–0094, ‘‘Federal Fish and
Wildlife Permit Applications and
Reports—Native Endangered and
Threatened Species; 50 CFR parts 10,
13, and 17’’ (expires 01/31/2024), and
• 1018–0095, ‘‘Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, Experimental
Populations, 50 CFR 17.84’’ (expires 9/
30/2023).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with all provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), we have analyzed the
impact of this final rule. In cooperation
with The Nature Conservancy, we
prepared an environmental assessment,
and we determined based on that
assessment that the proposed action of
implementing the introduction of sihek
to Palmyra Atoll will not have a
significant impact on the environment,
which we documented in a finding of
no significant impact (FONSI) (USFWS
2023).
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
(E.O. 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to prepare statements of energy
effects when undertaking certain
actions. This rule is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, and use. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action,
and no statement of energy effects is
required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this rule is available upon request
from the Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FWS–R1–ES–2022–0061.
Scientific name
*
Where listed
*
Status
*
Author
The primary author of this rule is
Megan Laut of the Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Signing Authority
Wendi Weber, Acting Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on February 13,
2023, for publication. On March 19,
2023, Martha Williams, Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
authorized the undersigned to sign the
document electronically and submit it
to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication as an official document of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife under BIRDS by revising the
entry for ‘‘Kingfisher, Guam (sihek)’’ (as
added February 2, 2023, at 88 FR 7134,
and effective May 3, 2023) to read as
follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
*
*
*
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Birds
*
Kingfisher, Guam
(=sihek).
*
Todiramphus
cinnamominus.
Kingfisher, Guam
(=sihek).
Todiramphus
cinnamominus.
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
*
*
Wherever found, except
where listed as an experimental population.
U.S.A. (Palmyra Atoll) ...
*
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
*
E ................
*
*
49 FR 33881, 8/27/1984; 50 CFR 17.95(b) CH.
XN .............
88 [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER page where the
document begins], 4/4/2023; 50 CFR
17.84(a) 10j.
*
Frm 00093
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
*
04APR1
*
19894
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
3. Amend § 17.84 by adding paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
■
§ 17.84
Special rules—vertebrates.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
(a) Guam kingfisher, sihek
(Todiramphus cinnamominus).
(1) Where is the occurrence of sihek
designated as a nonessential
experimental population (NEP)? The
nonessential experimental population
(NEP) area for the sihek is Palmyra
Atoll. Palmyra Atoll is located in the
Northern Line Islands, approximately
1,000 miles (1,609 km) south of
Honolulu, Hawaii (5° 53′N latitude, 162°
05′W longitude). The extent of the NEP
area for sihek is the 250 ha (618 ac) of
emergent land distributed among 25
islands, inclusive of the lagoons
surrounding those islands.
(2) What take of sihek is allowed in
the NEP area? (i) Throughout the sihek
NEP area, you will not be in violation
of the Act if you take a sihek, provided
such take is nonnegligent and incidental
to a lawful activity, such as habitat
management, invasive species
management, or scientific research and
monitoring, and you report the take as
soon as possible as provided under
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Any person with a valid permit
issued by the Service under § 17.32 may
take sihek in the NEP area, pursuant to
the terms of the permit. Additionally,
any employee or authorized agent of the
Service, Guam Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources, The Nature
Conservancy, Zoological Society of
London, or Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, who is designated and
trained to capture, handle, band, attach
transmitters, and collect biological
samples, when acting in the course of
official duties, may take a sihek within
the NEP area if such action is necessary
to:
(A) Handle birds for scientific
purposes such as banding, measuring,
and sample collection;
(B) Relocate individuals or bring
individuals into captivity for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Apr 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
purposes of increasing sihek survival or
fecundity;
(C) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned
sihek;
(D) Salvage a dead specimen that may
be useful for scientific study;
(E) Dispose of a dead specimen;
(F) Aid in law enforcement
investigations involving the sihek; or
(G) Take sihek into captivity in
accordance with the exit strategy of the
program (see paragraph (a)(5) of this
section).
(iii) Any take pursuant to paragraph
(a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)(C) through (E) of this
section must be reported as soon as
possible to the Permits Coordinator,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office,
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 (808/792–
9400), who will determine the
disposition of any live or dead
specimens.
(3) What take of sihek is not allowed
in the NEP area? (i) Except as expressly
allowed in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, all of the provisions of
§ 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the sihek in
areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, and any manner of take of
a member of the NEP not described
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is
prohibited.
(ii) You must not possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or
export, by any means whatsoever, any
sihek or part thereof from the
experimental population taken in
violation of the regulations in this
paragraph (a) or in violation of
applicable Territorial laws or
regulations or the Act.
(iii) It is unlawful for you to attempt
to commit, solicit another to commit, or
cause to be committed, any take of
sihek, except as expressly allowed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4) How will the effectiveness of this
introduction be monitored? The Service
will evaluate the introduction on an
annual basis. This evaluation will
include, but will not be limited to, a
review and assessment of management
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
issues, sihek movements, and postrelease behavior; food resources and
dependence of sihek on supplemental
food; fecundity of the population;
causes and rates of mortality; program
costs; impacts to the ex situ population;
and information gathered to inform
releases on Guam or other sites.
(5) When will this introduction end?
Depending on the circumstances, the
Service may either terminate the release
program or temporarily pause the
release program to address identified
issues before resuming. When the
Service terminates the program, the
Service will address the disposition of
any remaining individuals in the NEP,
i.e., whether they will be relocated to
captivity or to other suitable habitat or
whether they would remain on Palmyra,
based on the circumstances at the time
of termination.
(i) The Service will terminate the
release program on Palmyra Atoll if
monitoring indicates that:
(A) The benefits from the Palmyra
population (including developing and
refining release and support strategies
for eventual releases on Guam) no
longer outweigh the risks to the species
or the welfare of the NEP or ex situ
population; or
(B) Unacceptable impacts on the
ecosystem can be clearly causally linked
to the introduction of sihek.
(ii) The Service may also terminate
the release program when one or more
of the objectives of the program have
been achieved (e.g., we have developed
successful release and monitoring
methodologies to apply to future release
efforts or we have demonstrated that
sihek can survive and reproduce in the
wild without human intervention).
*
*
*
*
*
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of
Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and
Analytics of the Joint Administrative
Operations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–06958 Filed 4–3–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\04APR1.SGM
04APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19880-19894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06958]
[[Page 19880]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0061; FXES1113090FEDR-224-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-BF61
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of the Guam Kingfisher, or Sihek,
on Palmyra Atoll, USA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), are
releasing (meaning introducing) the Guam kingfisher (Todiramphus
cinnamominus), known locally as the sihek, on Palmyra Atoll as an
experimental population under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Currently, sihek exists only in captivity and has been
extinct in the wild for more than 30 years. The introduction on Palmyra
Atoll is outside sihek's historical range because its primary habitat
within its native range on Guam has been indefinitely altered by the
accidental introduction of the predatory brown treesnake (Boiga
irregularis) in the mid-twentieth century. Tools to manage brown
treesnakes at a landscape level are beginning to be deployed, but it
will take time before these tools are effective enough for the
reintroduction of sihek on Guam. We anticipate significant declines in
sihek population that threaten the species' viability before
reintroduction to Guam could occur. The introduction of sihek to
Palmyra Atoll is not intended to be a permanent introduction that would
support a self-sustaining population; rather, it is intended to
facilitate the gathering of information and analysis to optimize
efforts for reestablishment of the species on Guam once brown
treesnakes can be sufficiently controlled at a landscape scale. The
introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll is also likely to help increase
the global population of this extinct-in-the-wild species in advance of
a reintroduction effort on Guam. We classify this population as a
nonessential experimental population (NEP) under the Act and provide
regulations for the take of sihek within the NEP area. The best
available data indicate the introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll is
biologically feasible and will promote the conservation of the species.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 4, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials we received in response to our
proposed rule, as well as supporting documents we used in preparing
this final rule, are available on https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0061.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Laut, Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Blvd.,
Rm 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-779-9939. Individuals in
the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under section 10(j) of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a population of a
threatened or endangered species may be designated as an experimental
population prior to its reintroduction. Experimental populations can be
designated only by issuing a rule (hereafter referred to as a ``10(j)
rule'').
What this document does. This rule will designate sihek
(Todiramphus cinnamominus) introduced to Palmyra Atoll as a
nonessential experimental population on the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at
50 CFR 17.11(h) with a rule set forth at 50 CFR 17.84.
The basis for our action. Based on the best scientific and
commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find
that introducing sihek to Palmyra Atoll, with the regulatory provisions
in this final rulemaking, will further the conservation of the species.
The nonessential experimental population status is appropriate for the
introduced population because we have determined that it is not
essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild.
In the making of our finding that this action will further the
conservation of the species, we evaluate any possible adverse effects
on the captive population of sihek, the likelihood that any such
experimental population will become established and survive in the
foreseeable future, the relative effects that establishment of an
experimental population will have on the recovery of the species, and
the extent to which the introduced population may be affected by
existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private activities
within or adjacent to the experimental population area. This rule also
identifies the boundaries of the experimental population, explains our
rationale for why the population is not essential to the continued
existence of the species, describes management restrictions, protective
measures, or other special management concerns of that population, and
explains our rationale for determining that the habitat for sihek has
been indefinitely altered or destroyed, currently a requirement under
section 10(j) of the Act, and our regulations in title 50 CFR 17.81,
for introducing a species outside its historical range.
Peer review and public comment. To ensure that our findings were
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis--and
consistent with our Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act
Activities (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994), and additional guidance (USFWS
in litt. 2016)--we invited six objective and independent specialists to
review our proposed rule. We received three responses. We also
considered all comments and information received during the public
comment period. All comments received during the peer review process
and the public comment period have been incorporated into this final
rule or are addressed below in Summary of Comments and Recommendations.
Background
On August 31, 2022, we published in the Federal Register a proposed
rule to establish a nonessential experimental population of sihek on
Palmyra Atoll (87 FR 53429, August 31, 2022). The comment period on the
proposed rule was open for 30 days, through September 30, 2022.
Comments on the proposed rule are addressed below under Summary of
Comments and Recommendations.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Experimental Populations
Species listed as endangered or threatened are afforded protection
primarily through the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act. Section 9
of the Act, among other things, prohibits take of endangered wildlife.
``Take'' is defined by the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Section 7 of the Act outlines the procedures for Federal
[[Page 19881]]
interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and
protect designated critical habitat. Section 7 mandates that Federal
agencies use their existing authorities to further the purposes of the
Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed species. It
also requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service,
ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
Section 7 of the Act does not affect activities undertaken on private
land unless they are authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal
agency.
The Act was amended in 1982 to include section 10(j), which allows
for the designation of reintroduced populations of listed species as
``experimental populations.'' The provisions of section 10(j) were
enacted to ameliorate concerns that reintroduced populations will
negatively impact landowners and other private parties, by giving the
Secretary greater regulatory flexibility and discretion in managing the
reintroduced species to encourage recovery in collaboration with
partners, especially private landowners. Under section 10(j) of the
Act, and our regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate an endangered or threatened
species that has been or will be released within its probable
historical range as an experimental population. The Service may also
designate an experimental population for an endangered or threatened
species outside of the species' probable historical range in extreme
cases when the Director of the Service finds that the primary habitat
of the species within its historical range has been unsuitably and
irreversibly altered or destroyed. All experimental populations are
classified as ``nonessential'' unless we determine that the loss of the
experimental population would be likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. The sihek
population we are establishing on Palmyra Atoll is designated as
nonessential.
The nonessential experimental population (NEP) designation allows
us to develop tailored ``take'' prohibitions that are necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. The
protective regulations adopted for an experimental population in a
section 10(j) rule contain the applicable prohibitions and exceptions
for that population and apply to all areas described for the
nonessential population.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. For the
purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened
species when the population is located within a National Wildlife
Refuge or unit of the National Park Service. When NEPs are located
outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit,
for the purposes of section 7 we treat the population as proposed for
listing and only sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the Act apply. In
these instances, a section 10j rule provides additional flexibility in
managing the nonessential population because Federal agencies are not
required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2) for an NEP. Section
7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out
programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(4)
requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the
Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed to be listed.
Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat
shall not be designated for any experimental population that is
determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we do not designate
critical habitat in areas where we establish an NEP.
Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of an
endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary
transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find that the
release will further the conservation of the species. In making such a
finding, the Service uses the best scientific and commercial data
available to consider the following factors (see 50 CFR 17.81(b)):
(1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species
as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for
introduction elsewhere (see Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor
Population, below);
(2) the likelihood that any such experimental population will
become established and survive in the foreseeable future (see
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival, below);
(3) the relative effects that establishment of an experimental
population will have on the recovery of the species (see Importance of
the NEP to Recovery Efforts, below); and
(4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected
by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private
activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area (see
Management, below).
Furthermore, as set forth at 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations
designating experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Act
must provide:
(1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population,
including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual
or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be
released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental
population (see Location and Boundaries of the NEP Area, below);
(2) a finding, based solely on the best scientific and commercial
data available, and the supporting factual basis, on whether the
experimental population is, or is not, essential to the continued
existence of the species in the wild (see Is the Experimental
Population Essential or Nonessential?, below);
(3) management restrictions, protective measures, or other special
management concerns for that population, which may include, but are not
limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the experimental
population designated in the regulation from natural populations (see
Management, below; and
(4) a process for periodic review and evaluation of the success or
failure of the release and the effect of the release on the
conservation and recovery of the species (see Monitoring and
Evaluation, below).
Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate
State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected
Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and
implementing experimental population rules. To the maximum extent
practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the
Service, the affected State and Federal agencies, and persons holding
any interest in land that may be affected by the establishment of an
experimental population.
Legal Status of the Species and Previous Federal Actions
We listed sihek as an endangered species under the Act on August
27, 1984 (49 FR 33881). At the time of listing, sihek was known as the
Guam Micronesian kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina). On June
23, 2015 (80 FR 35860), we updated our List of Endangered and
Threatened
[[Page 19882]]
Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) to reflect new taxonomic information indicating
that the Guam Micronesian kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina)
is now considered the Guam kingfisher (Todiramphus cinnamominus).
Throughout this document, we refer to the species as sihek because that
is the locally used common name on Guam. We designated critical habitat
for sihek on October 28, 2004 (69 FR 62944), consisting of 376 ac (153
ha) on northern Guam. We finalized the Native Forest Birds of Guam and
Rota of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Recovery Plan
in 1990 and the Revised Recovery Plan for Sihek or Guam Micronesian
Kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina) in 2008 (73 FR 67541,
November 14, 2008).
Biological Information
Species Description
Sihek is a sexually dimorphic (the sexes are outwardly different in
appearance) forest kingfisher (Baker 1951, p. 229). The adult male has
a brown head, neck, upper back, and underparts. A black line extends
around the nape (back of the neck), and the eye ring is black. The
lower back, lesser and underwing coverts, and shoulder feathers are
greenish-blue, and the tail is blue. The bill is black. The female's
markings are similar to the adult male, but the upper breast, chin, and
throat are paler, and the remaining underparts are white instead of
cinnamon. Sihek are relatively small, about 8 inches (in) (20
centimeters (cm)) in length (Del Hoyo et al. 2001, p. 220). Adult sihek
range in weight from 1.7-3.0 ounces (oz) (53 to 85 grams (g)) (Baker
1951, p. 228; Jenkins 1983, p. 21).
Historical and Current Range
Sihek is a nonmigratory species endemic to Guam and historically
occurred in all habitats throughout Guam except pure savanna and
wetlands (Marshall 1949, p. 210, Baker 1951 p. 229; Jenkins 1983, pp.
22-23). They were described as ``fairly common'' by Baker (1951, p.
229). However, the population declined rapidly in the mid-twentieth
century due primarily to predation by the brown treesnake. The last
remaining wild sihek were taken into captivity between 1984 and 1986,
and sihek were considered extinct in the wild by 1988 (Wiles et al.
2003, p. 1357). For more than 30 years, the species has existed only in
captivity, as discussed further in the Recovery Efforts to Date
section, below.
Life Cycle
Sihek are socially monogamous, and breeding activity appears to be
concentrated from December to July (Marshall 1949, p. 210; Baker 1951,
p. 228; Jenkins 1983, p. 23). They nest in cavities, with nests
documented in a variety of trees, including Ficus spp. (banyan), Cocos
nucifera (coconut), Artocarpus spp. (breadfruit), Pisonia grandis
(umumu), and Tristiropsis obtusangula (faniok) (Baker 1951, p. 228;
Jenkins 1983, p. 24; Marshall 1989, p. 473). Both male and female sihek
incubate eggs and brood and feed nestlings (Jenkins 1983, p. 24). Eggs
are white, and reported clutch sizes from wild populations (n=3) were
either one or two eggs (Baker 1951, p. 228; Jenkins 1983, p. 24;
Marshall 1989, p. 474). Incubation, nestling, and fledgling periods for
sihek in the wild are unknown. However, incubation and nestling periods
of captive birds averaged 22 and 33 days, respectively (Bahner et al.
in litt. 1998, p. 21).
Sihek feed entirely on animal matter including skinks (Scincidae),
geckos (Gekkonidae), various insects, segmented worms (Annelida), and
hermit crabs (Coenobita spp.) (Marshall 1949, p. 210; Baker 1951, pp.
228-229; Jenkins 1983, pp. 23-24). Seale (1901, p. 45) also reported
that sihek were known to prey on the chicks of domestic fowl, and
Marshall (1949, p. 210) noted fish scales in the stomach contents of
collected sihek. They typically forage by perching motionless on
exposed branches or telephone lines and swooping down to capture prey
off the ground with their bill (Jenkins 1983, pp. 23-34). They will
also capture prey off nearby foliage and have been observed gleaning
insects from bark (Maben 1982, p. 78).
Habitat Use
Relatively little is known about the habitat use of sihek. Mature
forests with appropriate nest sites were probably an important
component for successful reproduction and survival. Sihek are cavity
nesters and apparently requires large, standing dead trees. Nest trees
were reported as averaging 43 centimeters (17 inches) in diameter
(Marshall 1989, p. 475). Sihek also appear to require diverse
vegetative structure capable of providing a wide range of both
invertebrate and vertebrate prey as well as exposed perches and areas
of open ground for foraging (USFWS 2002, p. 63739). Good-quality sihek
habitat would therefore provide a combination of closed canopy forest
with large, standing dead trees for nesting, and areas of open
understory or forest edges for foraging (Jenkins 1983, pp. 22-23;
Marshall 1989, pp. 475-476; USFWS 2002, p. 63739).
Movement Ecology
Records of distributions and intraspecific territorial behaviors
for sihek suggest they maintained exclusive year-round territories
(Jenkins 1983, pp. 24-25). Little else is known about their movement
ecology. On the island of Pohnpei, Micronesian kingfishers (Todiramphus
reichenbachii), a species from the same genus as sihek, demonstrated an
average territory size of 8.1 hectares (ha) (20 acres (ac)) and showed
stable boundaries within and between years (Kesler and Haig 2007, p.
387); birds dispersing from their home territory were observed to
establish new territories a maximum distance of 4,501 feet (1,372
meters) from the original site (Kesler and Haig 2007, p. 389). Sihek is
an island endemic that has not been observed flying over open ocean.
Causes of Decline and Threats
The primary cause of sihek's extinction in the wild was due to
predation by the introduced brown treesnake (USFWS 2008, p. 21).
Individuals of this invasive species probably arrived on Guam prior to
1950 as stowaways on shipping materials (Savidge 1987, p. 662). Brown
treesnakes were likely introduced in southern Guam and expanded their
range, reaching the northernmost point of the island by 1968 (Savidge
1987, p. 663). Sihek were last recorded from southern Guam in the 1970s
(Drahos 1977, pp. 153-154), and by 1985, Marshall (1989, p. 476)
reported only 30 sihek in the northern part of the island. Sihek were
considered extinct in the wild by 1988 (Wiles et al. 2003, p. 1357).
The continued island-wide presence of brown treesnakes on Guam
currently precludes consideration of Guam as a viable reintroduction
site for sihek. Future reintroductions to Guam could be considered only
if brown treesnakes were suppressed or eradicated at a scale that would
allow for the survival of a reintroduced population of sihek.
Other factors that likely impacted sihek on Guam include predation
by feral cats (Felis catus), rats (Rattus spp.), and monitor lizards
(Varanus tsukamotoi), habitat degradation from development and
typhoons, human persecution, contaminants, and competition with and
harassment by black drongos (Dicrurus macrocercus) (USFWS 2008, pp. 16-
17). Our Revised Recovery Plan for Sihek or Guam Micronesian Kingfisher
(USFWS 2008,
[[Page 19883]]
pp. 16-26) provides further description of these threats.
Recovery Efforts to Date
Criteria for reclassifying sihek from an endangered to threatened
species (``downlisting'') include the establishment of two
subpopulations on Guam (one in the north and one in the south) of at
least 500 individuals each that are stable to increasing over at least
5 consecutive years; the protection and management of habitat
sufficient to achieve the population criteria; and the management of
brown treesnakes and other introduced predators at levels sufficient to
meet the population criteria. The criteria to delist (remove
protections of the Act for) the sihek include two subpopulations on
Guam of at least 1,000 individuals each (one in the north and one in
the south) that are stable or increasing, with sufficient habitat and
predator control to support the population criteria (USFWS 2008, pp.
40-43). Our recovery plan acknowledged that the interim step of
introducing sihek outside of its historical range may be necessary
before we are able to reestablish sihek populations on Guam (USFWS
2008, p. 40).
Habitat Protection
Over the past 30 years, the Service has worked with a number of
stakeholders to provide habitat protection in support of recovering
Guam's native species. The habitat protections described below were
intended for federally listed species on Guam in anticipation of the
eventual ability to control brown treesnakes and allow the
reintroduction of sihek and other locally extinct species. In 1993, the
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and the Service entered into a memorandum of
understanding to create the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. As per the
terms of the memorandum of understanding, the two military branches
entered into cooperative agreements with the Service in 1994 to
designate Department of Defense lands as overlay units in the Guam
National Wildlife Refuge (i.e., these overlay units of Refuge lands are
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense but managed by the
Service as part of the Refuge). Currently the Guam National Wildlife
Refuge includes 152 ha (376 ac) of lands under the jurisdiction of the
Service and 9,300 ha (22,980 ac) of overlay lands under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force, and all are managed
by the Service as the Refuge.
Additionally, the Government of Guam established four reserves for
habitat protection. These lands are under the jurisdiction of the
CHamoru Land Trust Commission of the Government of Guam. The Commission
has the authority to change the status of these lands to non-
conservation areas as they deem appropriate. Please see the Revised
Recovery Plan for Sihek or Guam Micronesian Kingfisher (USFWS 2008, pp.
33-37) for further description and maps of the Department of Defense
and Government of Guam protected areas.
More recently, the Department of Defense and the Service entered
into two agreements to protect or manage habitat for sihek and other
federally listed species on Guam. A 2020 memorandum of understanding
between Joint Region Marianas and the Service outlined a mutual
understanding regarding the intentions and future considerations of a
Department of Defense readiness and environmental protection
integration initiative to address conservation of upland vegetation
communities for sihek as well as other federally listed species on Guam
(USFWS 2020). In 2015 a memorandum of agreement between the Department
of the Navy and the Service designated 2,118 ha (5,234 ac) of habitat
for the recovery and survival of sihek in Northern Guam in response to
loss of habitat described in the Service's 2015 Marine Corps Relocation
Biological Opinion (USFWS 2015, entire).
Brown Treesnake Control
We currently lack adequate tools to eradicate brown treesnakes from
Guam, and the continued presence of brown treesnakes throughout the
landscape prevents the successful reestablishment of sihek on Guam in
the foreseeable future. However, there is incremental progress in
addressing this threat. Since 2010, the interagency Brown Treesnake
Technical Working Group has advanced landscape-scale brown treesnake
suppression capabilities with the development and refinement of an
aerial delivery system for toxicant baiting, comprising an automated
bait manufacturing system and an automated dispensing module for
applying baits from aircraft. Aerial toxicant baiting has recently been
evaluated in both fenced and non-fenced 55-ha (136-ac) sites; brown
treesnake suppression, but not eradication, has been validated using
this technique (Siers et al. in litt. 2020, p. 4). Further, simulated
aerial baiting for brown treesnake eradication within a 5-ha (12-ac)
brown treesnake exclusion area indicates that some brown treesnake size
classes do not consume baits and additional control tools are needed to
achieve suppression objectives and/or eradication (Siers et al. in
litt. 2020, p. 4).
Island-wide eradication of invasive vertebrates has been achieved
on 965 islands for various taxonomic groups (see Keitt et al. 2011,
https://diise.islandconservation.org/); however, snake eradication
efforts are rare, and there is only one other documented ongoing effort
to eradicate snakes from an island (https://diise.islandconservation.org/). Additional technological and
methodological advancements along with community engagement are still
needed to achieve landscape-scale eradication of brown treesnakes on
Guam. The aerial delivery system tools are operational, but full
operational implementation of the aerial suppression program will
require further understanding of site-specific effects of the
technology and development of efficient monitoring protocols.
Therefore, while technological advances to control brown treesnakes
show promise as a tool, they currently do not control snakes to a level
sufficient to allow the return of sihek to Guam before significant
declines in the captive population of sihek are likely to occur,
discussed further below. Thus, interim conservation measures for sihek
are necessary to reduce its extinction risk while brown treesnake
suppression and eradication methods are perfected and implemented.
Captive-Breeding Efforts
In 1983, the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) initiated the
Guam Bird Rescue Project in response to the widespread decline of
Guam's native birds. Sihek was one of the Guam birds selected under
this program for captive (ex situ) conservation efforts (Hutchins et
al. in litt. 1996, p. 4). Between 1984 and 1986, 29 sihek were
translocated from Guam to several zoos in the mainland United States.
The program was established with the intent of being a short-term
rescue but due to the continued presence of brown treesnakes on Guam,
ultimately led to an ongoing breeding program. By 1990, the ex situ
population increased to 61 sihek in 12 mainland zoos. Currently, an
estimated 139 sihek are held at 25 AZA institutions and in a facility
at the Guam Department of Agriculture's Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources (DAWR) (Newland, S., in litt. 2022a).
A Species Survival Plan Program for sihek, developed by the AZA,
has been in place since 1986. In general, Species Survival Plan
Programs are established to oversee the population management of
species within AZA-accredited facilities. The plans typically include a
[[Page 19884]]
population studbook and an annual breeding and transfer plan to ensure
the genetic and demographic health of the population. The donor
population is carefully managed through the Species Survival Plan
Program to ensure the population's long-term viability.
Sihek are relatively difficult to manage in zoos because of their
aggressive territorial behavior and moderately expensive diet. In
addition, little forward progress toward a recovery program in the wild
has led to few new institutions willing to hold or breed the species,
which ultimately limits population growth. The small founding
population, as well as the limited ability to increase the population
beyond its current size, has serious implications for long-term
survival of sihek.
Two separate population viability analyses (PVAs) demonstrated
rapid declines in the population under current conditions (Johnson et
al. in litt. 2015, p. 8; Trask et al. 2021, p. 6). Without changes to
management practices that increase reproduction (i.e., reproductive
output stays the same), the sihek population is predicted to decline to
below 100 individuals by the year 2040 (Johnson et al. 2015, p. 8); and
with a slight decrease in reproductive output of just 7 percent, the
population is projected to decrease to 25 individuals by 2040 (Johnson
et al. 2015, p. 9). One of the PVAs incorporated an inbreeding
coefficient into their models and demonstrated, among other things, a
rapid decline in the population without an increase in reproductive
output such that in 50 years the mean population size is projected to
decline to approximately 30 individuals (Trask et al. 2021, entire).
The ex situ population of sihek is therefore sensitive to even slight
reductions in reproductive output and is at a heightened risk of
extinction due to small population dynamics in their existing limited
breeding and holding space. However, a small increase in average annual
reproductive output (from 2.54 hatchlings per female per year to 2.70
hatchlings per female per year) could support long-term (50-year) sihek
population viability as well as a release program (Trask et al. 2021,
p. 6).
Breeding facilities for sihek are currently at capacity. Without
the ability to release sihek, the species' population growth is
constrained. The sihek's current small population size puts the species
at risk from stochastic environmental events (e.g., disease outbreaks
in the ex situ population or changes in the ability of facilities to
house and breed sihek) and demographic threats (e.g., sex-ratio biases,
as well as from genetic threats from increasing rates of loss of
genetic diversity and accumulation of inbreeding). Further, maintaining
the species entirely under captive environmental conditions puts the
species at risk from genetic adaptations to captivity (Frankham 2008,
entire). This situation could result in individuals having reduced
fitness under wild conditions and could negatively impact the success
of efforts to ultimately recover the species on Guam.
Reintroduction
No efforts have been made to reintroduce sihek to its native range
on Guam due to the continued presence of brown treesnakes, the primary
threat that caused its extinction in the wild. Further, until recently,
the ex situ population of sihek was not large enough to sustain a
release program. Analyses have shown that, with captive management
aimed at increasing reproductive output, the ex situ population can
support the releases for an experimental population on Palmyra Atoll
(Trask et al. 2021 p. 7).
Location and Boundaries of the NEP Area
The NEP area for sihek occurs outside the species' historical range
and encompasses the 618 ac (250 ha) of emergent land distributed among
the 25 islands that make up Palmyra Atoll (Collen et al. 2009, p. 712),
and inclusive of the lagoons surrounding those islands. The islands
vary in size from approximately 0.24 to 242 ac (0.1 to 97.9 ha).
Palmyra Atoll is located in the Northern Line Islands, approximately
1,000 miles (1,609 km) south of Honolulu, Hawaii, and 3,647 miles
(5,869 km) east of Guam (5[deg]53' N latitude, 162[deg]05' W
longitude). Palmyra Atoll is considered a wet atoll with high humidity,
typically greater than 90 percent, and temperatures between 75 and 81
[deg]F (24-27 [deg]C) and rainfall averages 175 inches (in) (444.5
centimeters (cm)) per year (Hathaway et al. 2011, p. 6), without a
specific rainy season. Temperatures on Guam are slightly higher,
ranging 75-90 [deg]F (24-32 [deg]C), with rainfall averaging 98 in (249
cm), with the greatest rainfall occurring between July and November
(https://www.weather-us.com/en/guam-usa-climate).
The closest landmass is more than 144 mi (232 km) from Palmyra.
Given this and the fact that sihek are an island endemic not known to
undertake long-distance flights over open ocean, it is extremely
unlikely that sihek would move outside of the NEP area and survive.
Also, no other kingfisher species occur on Palmyra Atoll, thus all
kingfishers on the atoll will be members of the NEP.
Land Ownership
Palmyra Atoll is currently owned and managed by the Service, The
Nature Conservancy, and the Cooper family. The majority of the islands
(390 ac (158 ha)), waters, and the coral reefs surrounding Palmyra
Atoll, up to 12 nautical miles to sea, are owned by the United States
and managed by the Service as a National Wildlife Refuge. Palmyra Atoll
National Wildlife Refuge was established in 2001 to protect, restore,
and enhance migratory birds, coral reefs, and threatened and endangered
species in their natural setting. The Nature Conservancy owns two
islands, Cooper and Menge (226 ac (91.5 ha)), and cooperatively manages
the atoll with the Service. Home Island (1.8 ac (0.71 ha)) is under
private fractional ownership by the Cooper family, and the Service
provides stewardship for this island, providing it the same protections
as Refuge property (Kropidlowski, in litt. 2021). Palmyra Atoll is also
part of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, which was
established in 2009 and is co-managed by the Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival
In late 2020, we established a recovery team for sihek whose
purpose is to assist the Service in developing and implementing a
conservation strategy for reestablishing sihek in the wild. Members of
this team developed a phased approach whereby learning sites (sites
used to test conservation translocation procedures as well as
demographic and behavioral responses of target species) help achieve
the overarching objectives of reducing global sihek extinction risk,
while also refining techniques to establish viable wild populations on
Guam. Based on habitat suitability, food resource availability, and
willing partners, we have identified Palmyra Atoll as a learning site.
The best available scientific data indicate that the introduction
of sihek into suitable habitat is biologically feasible and would
promote the conservation of the species. Coarse-scale modeling
indicated Palmyra could support up to 15 breeding pairs (Laws and
Kesler in litt. 2011, p. 65). We evaluated the ecological suitability
of Palmyra Atoll and concluded sufficient habitat conditions and food
resources are available to support the small
[[Page 19885]]
number of sihek needed for a temporary training site (USFWS unpublished
data). No known predators of sihek occur on the Atoll. Further, we
developed a release and monitoring program that includes interventions
such as supplemental feeding if needed to increase the chances of
survival. We assessed the potential environmental impacts of
introducing sihek and designating the population as an NEP on Palmyra
in an environmental assessment (USFWS 2023) (See National Environmental
Policy Act section, below). To minimize risk to the ecosystem on
Palmyra Atoll associated with the introduction, we will monitor for
potential environmental impacts as part of the release program (see
Monitoring and Evaluation, below).
Potential Effects of Activities on Palmyra Atoll on Introduced Sihek
The effects of Federal, State, or private actions and activities on
Palmyra Atoll that are ongoing and expected to continue are not likely
to adversely affect the sihek within the NEP area. Public access to
Palmyra Atoll is extremely limited and available in only the following
ways: (1) working for, contracting with, or volunteering for the
Service or The Nature Conservancy; (2) conducting scientific research
via Service special use permits; (3) invitation through the Service or
The Nature Conservancy; or (4) by private recreational sailboat or
motorboat. With prior approval by the Service, privately owned vessels
are permitted to access the Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. A
maximum of two vessels are allowed at one time. Access to Cooper Island
must be arranged and secured through The Nature Conservancy. Activities
currently occurring in the NEP area, and those likely to occur, are not
likely to impede the introduction effort. Current activities on Palmyra
Atoll include an ongoing rainforest restoration project, operation of a
research station, and limited recreation. The rainforest restoration
project includes control of nonnative coconut trees, and opportunistic
planting and seeding of native tree species. The Nature Conservancy
manages a research station, and visiting scientists are required to
obtain a permit from the Service to ensure compatibility with the
mission of the Refuge. The Nature Conservancy also provides guided
recreational activities (fishing, kayaking) to a small number of
visitors to the Atoll. No significant development is planned on the
Atoll for the foreseeable future.
Importance of the NEP to Recovery Efforts
This nonessential experimental population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll
will promote the conservation and recovery of the species. The
International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Guidelines for
Reintroduction and Other Conservation Translocations (2013, p. 4)
identifies several criteria to consider prior to undertaking a
reintroduction, including ``strong evidence that the threat(s) that
caused any previous extinction have been correctly identified and
removed or sufficiently reduced.'' Although the basic habitat
components required by sihek on Guam are still present, they have been
made unavailable to sihek due to the ongoing and pervasive threat of
brown treesnakes (see Recovery Efforts to Date). Innovations in brown
treesnake management show promise for controlling their populations at
a landscape level but not within the time needed before we expect
deleterious declines in the ex situ sihek population. The current
captive-only sihek population is at high risk of extinction, and a
moderate decline in reproductive output is likely to have long-term
negative consequences on the survival probability for this species (see
Captive-Breeding Efforts and Reintroduction). The number of breeding
institutions participating in sihek management is limited and declining
(Newland in litt. 2021b), further increasing the risk of reduced
breeding effort and its associated population decline. Advancements in
brown treesnake control show promise for reintroducing sihek to its
native range on Guam in the future and that remains a recovery goal,
but current control methods are not likely to be able to eradicate this
threat prior to substantial forecasted declines in the sihek
population.
Introducing a species outside its historical range per our current
regulation at 50 CFR 17.81 requires the Service to find that a species'
primary habitat has been irreversibly altered or destroyed. While
sihek's primary habitat on Guam has not been irreversibly altered or
destroyed in perpetuity, we interpret the meaning of ``irreversibly
altered or destroyed'' in the context of the unique conditions facing
sihek and the very limited current alternatives to prevent its
extinction. The habitat on Guam has been irreversibly altered and
destroyed for a period of time meaningful to the survival of the
species. The ex situ population of sihek is extremely vulnerable to
rapid population decline and extinction risk under current reproductive
conditions (Johnson et al 2015, p. 8, Trask et al. 2021, p. 6) such
that increased reproductive output is paramount for population
viability (Trask et al 2021, p. 7). Holding and breeding space at
breeding institutions is limited, preventing growth of the ex situ
population. Methods to control brown treesnakes on Guam are not
sufficient to prevent significant predation on native bird species at
this time and prevents us from releasing sihek there presently.
Improvements in landscape-scale snake management are under development
and are making incremental progress but will not be available for use
prior to expected significant declines in the sihek population. Because
of the immediate need to increase reproductive output and due to the
continued presence of brown treesnakes on Guam, we find that sihek's
habitat on Guam is irreversibly altered or destroyed for the purpose of
this action, that is, until management of snakes at a landscape level
makes it suitable for reintroduction and recovery.
We are releasing sihek onto Palmyra Atoll, which is outside its
historical range, for the following purposes: (1) invigorate the ex
situ conservation program to increase reproductive output by increasing
breeding space at existing facilities and/or recruiting additional
facilities to join the ex situ conservation program; and (2) develop
and refine release and monitoring methods to be applied when
reestablishing a population on Guam to recover the species. Release of
sihek on Palmyra Atoll will improve the likelihood of successful
reintroduction and recovery on Guam by: (1) providing the opportunity
to develop and test release and monitoring techniques, (2) providing
information on sihek's ability to survive in the wild, (3) assessing
how much human intervention is required to support a wild population,
(4) increasing the global population of sihek as an extension of the ex
situ population as well as invigorating the breeding program, and (5)
potentially serving as a source of wild-hatched birds for future
releases on Guam or other sites.
Is the Experimental Population Essential or Nonessential?
When we establish experimental populations under section 10(j) of
the Act, we must determine whether that population is essential or
nonessential to the continued existence of the species. This
determination is based solely on the best scientific and commercial
data available. We consider an experimental population essential if its
loss would be likely to appreciably
[[Page 19886]]
reduce the likelihood of survival of that species in the wild (50 CFR
17.80(b)). We are designating the population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll
as nonessential for the following reasons:
(1) No populations of sihek occur in the wild currently;
(2) the experimental population area is too small to support a
self-sustaining wild population of sihek (Laws and Kesler 2011, p. 63)
and is intended only as a temporary training site (i.e., approximately
10 or more years) for us to improve release techniques, monitoring, and
adaptive management for population establishment on Guam, when its
habitat is available; and
(3) loss of the experimental population would not preclude other
recovery options, including future efforts to establish sihek
populations elsewhere.
In addition, we evaluated the potential impacts of the
establishment of the experimental population on the ex situ population.
Establishment of the experimental population will not affect the
potential to establish a future, self-sustaining, wild population of
sihek on Guam for the following reasons:
(1) The majority of the sihek population will remain in an ex situ
population distributed among 25 facilities, where they are carefully
managed according to the Species Survival Plan Program (Newland in
litt. 2021a); and
(2) only a small number of individuals will be removed from the ex
situ population for release on Palmyra Atoll, and these removals are
expected to have minimal impact on the survival of the ex situ
population (see Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor Population,
below).
As mentioned above in Importance of the NEP to Recovery Efforts,
the introduction on Palmyra Atoll will further the conservation of
sihek both in terms of improving the status of the ex situ population
and in increasing the likelihood of success in establishing wild
populations. In the near term, we anticipate that the introduction of
sihek to Palmyra Atoll will invigorate the ex situ breeding program and
result in more breeding space at existing facilities, more institutions
joining the program, or both, ultimately resulting in a larger
population if additional institutions join. Space is a limiting factor
for this extinct-in-the-wild species, and demonstrating our continued
efforts to recover it in the wild will likely increase interest in the
species (Newland in litt. 2022b). In the longer term, the information
gathered from observing the species under wild conditions, development
of suitable release and monitoring methods, and assessment of how much
human intervention might be needed to support a wild population will
improve future release efforts. Lastly, wild-hatched sihek could be a
complementary source, alongside captive-bred birds, for translocation
to Guam or other sites.
Release Procedures
Late-stage nestlings or recent fledglings will be flown to Palmyra
Atoll where they will be held in release aviaries for up to 1 month.
Three sets of three flight aviaries will be established across Palmyra
Atoll at, or close to, locations where habitat appears most suitable.
During this time, sihek will undergo acclimation and training to
respond to supplementary feeding signals. Prior to release, all sihek
will be fitted with a radio transmitter consistent with the Bird
Banding Laboratory of North America's guidelines that transmitters be
no more than 3 percent of a bird's body weight (Gustafson et al. 1997).
Release from aviaries will be via opening of a panel in the aviary
wall to allow individuals to come and go freely. We will monitor each
sihek daily, immediately after release and throughout their first year
of release. Once released, sihek will be exposed to conditions in the
wild that the species has not encountered in more than 30 years. While
still being held in pre-release aviaries on Palmyra Atoll, we will
provide natural prey items as much or as often as necessary so the
sihek can learn to forage on multiple food sources. Further, sihek will
be trained to come to feeders through reinforcement with a whistle,
thus allowing for a way to provide supplemental food if needed. We will
also conduct a thorough health assessment on each individual prior to
release to ensure they are in good body condition. After release, we
will monitor sihek daily, and if an individual is sick or injured, we
may intervene and bring it back under human care temporarily.
After the first year, we may reduce the intensity of monitoring if
few or no problems are observed. Sihek monitoring will cover a range of
components, including general behavior (maintenance, foraging,
locomotion, conspecific interactions); health (weights collected
remotely at feeding stations, fecal samples, and semiannual capture and
assessment); and breeding (pairing, territoriality, nest excavation,
nest building, egg laying and clutch size, hatch date, nestling
survival, and fledge success). Additional details of the release
procedures are provided in the Sihek Management Plan (Andrews et al. in
litt. 2022).
Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor Population
The donor population for the introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll
is the ex situ population of sihek. This population is distributed
among 25 breeding facilities in the U.S. mainland and on Guam (24 AZA
institutions and 1 Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources
(DAWR) facility), with the population being managed through the Sihek
Species Survival Plan Program (see Captive-Breeding Efforts). The most
recent population count documented 139 birds (Newland in litt. 2022a).
The population size remains below the target of 200 individuals
identified in the 2020 Species Survival Plan Program (Newland et al.
2020, p. 2) in large part due to limited holding capacity across the
breeding facilities. Recent funding for the construction of another
facility at Brookfield Zoo, as well as for the transfer to and
maintenance of sihek at that facility, has allowed for growth of the
population. The current Species Survival Plan Program coordinator is
actively seeking additional AZA institutions to participate in the
sihek breeding effort, and this solicitation will likely be aided by
releases to Palmyra Atoll and the recent progress in recovery planning
for the species.
Population models indicate that an increase in breeding (i.e.,
production of hatchlings) is required to ensure the sustainable removal
of individuals from the ex situ population for release to Palmyra
(Johnson et al. 2015, p. 13, and Trask et al. 2021, p. 6). We have
observed measurable population increases when there has been focused
management to increase productivity in the ex situ population. Between
2004 and 2013, the sihek population increased from 61 birds to a peak
of 157 birds because of increased reproductive output using multiple
clutching (when a breeding pair is induced to produce more than one
clutch of eggs per year by removing and artificially incubating the
first clutch of eggs) (Newland et al. in litt. 2020, pp. 4-5). The best
available information indicates that increasing ex situ reproductive
output to rates seen between 2004 and 2013 is likely to support a
release program on Palmyra without negatively impacting the long-term
viability of the species (Trask et al. 2021, p. 6).
Only a small number of sihek will be removed from the ex situ
population for release on Palmyra Atoll. We plan to remove up to 9 in
the first year, and fewer than 9 in subsequent years, to
[[Page 19887]]
ultimately achieve a target of 10 breeding pairs. The release cohort
will consist of hatch-year sihek that will be reared under pathogen-
and vector-free conditions. All individuals will be health-screened
prior to release. Release cohorts will consist of sihek that are
relatively unrelated to each other (i.e., sihek with low mean kinship),
and that have a relatively low individual inbreeding coefficient. In
addition to genetic considerations for released individuals, retaining
maximum genetic diversity within the ex situ population is a priority;
therefore, individuals identified as genetically valuable (i.e., with a
low mean kinship coefficient, such that they are genetically
underrepresented in the ex situ population) will be retained in the ex
situ population. We will assess selection of individuals in release
cohorts for follow up translocations based on both the sex ratio and
genetics of the introduced population on Palmyra Atoll, as well as that
of the donor population.
Species Survival Plan Program annual reports (see Captive-Breeding
Efforts) will continue throughout the releases and will be reviewed to
ensure that removal of individuals for release will not be detrimental
to the stability of the ex situ population. If negative impacts on the
donor population are detected, we will pause releases while donor
population health is improved. Given the careful management of the
donor population, the ability to increase its productivity via multiple
clutching, and the relatively small number of sihek that will be
released annually, negative impacts to the donor population are
expected to be minimal.
Management
We will collaborate with Guam DAWR, Zoological Society of London,
AZA, Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, and The Nature Conservancy
on releases, monitoring, coordination, and other tasks as needed to
ensure successful introduction of the species to Palmyra Atoll. A few
specific management considerations are addressed below.
Incidental Take: Experimental population rules contain specific
prohibitions and may provide exceptions regarding the taking of
individual animals under the Act. The specific prohibitions and
exceptions we adopt in this final rule are compatible with most routine
human activities anticipated in the NEP area (e.g., resource
monitoring, invasive species management, and research; see Importance
of the NEP to Recovery Efforts, above). Section 3(19) of the Act
defines ``take'' as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.'' ``Incidental take'' is further defined as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise
lawful activity. Incidental take of sihek within the experimental
population area will be allowed, provided that the take is
unintentional and not due to negligent conduct.
Special Handling/Intentional Take: Employees of the Service, Guam
DAWR, The Nature Conservancy, Zoological Society of London, AZA
facilities holding sihek, and authorized agents acting on behalf of the
Service or these other entities may intentionally take sihek through
handling sihek for scientific purposes; relocating individuals or
bringing individuals into captivity for the purposes of increasing
sihek survival or fecundity; aiding sick or injured sihek; salvaging
dead sihek; disposing of a dead specimen; or aiding in law enforcement
investigations involving the sihek. Any other person would need to
acquire a permit from the Service for these activities.
Interagency Consultation: For purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the
Act, section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations (50 CFR 17.83)
provide that nonessential experimental populations are treated as
species proposed for listing under the Act except on National Park
Service and National Wildlife Refuge System lands, where they are
treated as threatened species for the purposes of section 7(a)(2) of
the Act. We will address our section 7(a)(2) consultation obligations
for sihek within the Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge through a
programmatic intra-Service consultation completed prior to releasing
birds. Any activities outside of those analyzed in our programmatic
consultation that may affect sihek within the NEP area will be
addressed through future individual intra-Service section 7
consultations.
Public Awareness and Cooperation: On November 18, 2021, in
cooperation with Guam DAWR, we engaged the Governor of Guam and
constituents to inform them of our plans to introduce sihek to Palmyra
Atoll. We coordinated closely with the co-manager of Palmyra Atoll (The
Nature Conservancy) throughout the planning process, and we expect our
coordination with them will continue through the duration of the
project. We publicized availability of the proposed rule (87 FR 53429,
August 31, 2022) and the opportunity for comment with a press release
(https://fws.gov/story/2022-08/usfws-proposes-experimental-population-sihek-palmyra-atoll). We also sent letters to 14 conservation partners,
notifying them of the availability of the proposed rule and requesting
comments.
Monitoring and Evaluation
We will monitor the health, habitat use, behavior, foraging
activity, movement, breeding, and survival of all sihek released and
hatched at Palmyra Atoll. We will attempt to weigh sihek daily at
supplementary feeding platforms with inbuilt scales. Passive collection
of fecal material from these supplementary feeding platform visits will
be screened for gastrointestinal parasite loads and examination of
diet. We will attempt to capture individuals twice each year for a more
thorough physical examination (weight, condition, ectoparasite load,
feather fault bar analysis). During these captures, we will take a
blood sample, which will be stored in ethanol for later diagnostics of
blood parasites, and a blood smear made for visual examination of blood
parasites and white blood cell count analysis. Further, we will collect
a fecal sample opportunistically and a cloacal swab for later bacterial
culture.
Once each sihek is released, we will track it and attempt to log
its location at least once daily to document post-release movement
patterns and territory establishment. Individuals will be located via
radio transmitter tracking or visual searches. During observations, we
will record behaviors including maintenance, perching, ingestion,
excretion, locomotion, vocalizations, and interactions. We will record
food items whenever feeding is observed in free-flying sihek.
We will attempt to closely monitor all breeding attempts to
determine timing of pairing, nest building, egg laying and clutch size,
hatch date, nestling survival, and fledge success. Unhatched eggs will
be collected for analysis of fertility and embryo development.
Recovered dead nestlings will be necropsied in the field and samples
taken for later laboratory analysis for cause of death. Where possible,
surviving nestlings will be weighed every third day throughout
development until banding age. During banding, we will collect a range
of samples as specified above for adult health sampling.
We will create a resighting history for each sihek released or
hatched into the population. We intend to monitor sihek and their prey
species with the full-time presence of staff on Palmyra, at least until
intensive monitoring shows: (1) sihek are foraging independently and
[[Page 19888]]
exhibiting behaviors typical of Todiramphus species; and (2) sihek are
not having undesirable impacts on prey species populations (undesirable
impacts are discussed further in the sections below). If the two
situations described above occur, then we may reduce staffing to less
than full time and monitor sihek and the environment less intensively.
If undesirable impacts on prey species populations are not resolvable,
we would evaluate whether this was an unacceptable impact requiring
termination of the program. Unacceptable impacts are discussed below,
in Exit Strategy.
Ecosystem Impacts
As Palmyra Atoll is outside the native range of the sihek,
introduction of sihek to Palmyra Atoll could have potential impacts on
native species. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
Species Specialist Commission, Invasive Species Specialist Group
recognizes several different mechanisms of impact that introduced
species (that others have sometimes called alien species) can have on
native ecosystems (Pagad et al. 2015, pp. 130-132). These include
impacts through predation, competition, hybridization, or transmission
of disease-causing pathogens to native species (Blackburn et al. 2014,
pp. 4-7).
To assess the potential impacts that sihek may have on Palmyra
Atoll and the mechanisms through which these impacts may occur,
researchers on the recovery team conducted an environmental impact
assessment, based on the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien
Taxa (EICAT) (Blackburn et al. 2014, entire) and the Generic Impact
Scoring System (Nentwig et al. 2010, entire). This process involved
consulting with a range of relevant experts (n=19), who were asked to
provide their judgment on the level of impact that sihek may have
through each potential impact mechanism. Impact levels were described
in a range from the lowest level of ``minimal,'' where effects are
negligible, to the highest level of ``massive,'' where impacts result
in local extinction(s) and community-level changes are irreversible. We
evaluated the relative risk of competition, hybridization, predation
impacts, and disease transmission in an environmental assessment. Based
on our analysis in the environmental assessment, we conclude there is
no risk of competition or hybridization, and there are sufficient
measures in place to prevent disease transmission from the
introduction. In addition, the planned intensive monitoring will be
sufficient to detect, and provide a timely response to, potential
impacts of the sihek on the recipient ecosystem on Palmyra Atoll.
In the EICAT assessment, experts considered predation by sihek to
be the most likely impact of sihek introduction to Palmyra (although
the magnitude of this factor was judged to be moderate at most). The
EICAT assessment experts' scoring generally assessed the introduction
of a novel avian predator. Therefore, we will focus post-release
environmental monitoring on potential sihek prey species that are
native to Palmyra Atoll. We will obtain sihek diet information through
behavioral observation and fecal samples, as described above (Release
Procedures and Monitoring and Evaluation). This information will
highlight major components of sihek post-release diet and help guide
more focused monitoring.
At a minimum, we will coordinate with The Nature Conservancy and
Palmyra National Wildlife Refuge to carry out annual monitoring on a
range of suitable prey items, as described above. We will use the most
appropriate survey methods for different taxa. If dietary and
behavioral observations of released sihek suggest a particular
prevalence and abundance of specific prey items that are of
conservation concern, we will establish more frequent monitoring
surveys. We will analyze post-release monitoring data to obtain
estimates of abundance and density for reference taxa. These estimates
will then be compared with pre-release monitoring data, collected in
the weeks prior to release, with estimates from paired locations across
the island in a before-after, control-impact experimental design. In
the event we find estimated impacts to be unacceptably high, such as
preferential prey selection for one species such that it has
population-level effects, we will activate an appropriate response (see
Exit Strategy, below).
Our present monitoring plan relies on a combination of targeted
prey species surveys and information from existing monitoring of
released birds. Our monitoring approach balances the negative impacts
of frequent invasive surveys with the need to identify serious negative
consequences of the sihek releases on the recipient site. Active
monitoring will be for 2 years after the first release, and we will
regularly assess results through monthly summaries, analyses at 6-month
intervals, and annual predictive modeling. After the first 2 years, we
will determine whether to continue at full intensity, reduce the
intensity of our monitoring, or discontinue monitoring. Factors that
will impact our decision making regarding monitoring include evidence
of:
Sihek prey selection for a single species, which could
indicate population impacts to that species;
detection of significant changes in abundance of prey in
areas with sihek compared with areas without sihek; or
shifts in community composition and diversity that differ
significantly between areas with sihek and areas without sihek.
If any undesirable impacts are causally linked to the introduction
of sihek, we will weigh the benefits and risks in consultation with the
recovery team and The Nature Conservancy to determine whether to
continue ongoing management, adopt risk mitigation strategies, or
terminate the program (see Exit Strategy, below).
Annual reports summarizing monitoring and management activities
will be developed by the Zoological Society of London in collaboration
with the Service, The Nature Conservancy, and the Sihek Recovery Team.
Exit Strategy
Depending on the circumstances, the Service may either terminate or
pause the release program to address identified issues before possibly
resuming. These scenarios and the Service's expected response are
detailed below.
The Service will terminate the release program on Palmyra Atoll if:
(1) Monitoring indicates the benefits from the Palmyra population
(including learning and refining release and support strategies for
eventual releases on Guam) no longer outweigh the risks to the species
or the welfare of the NEP or ex situ population; or
(2) monitoring shows unacceptable impacts on the ecosystem that can
be clearly causally linked to the introduction of sihek.
In addition to these ``must terminate'' scenarios, the Service may
also terminate the release program:
(3) When the purposes of the program have been realized (e.g., we
have developed successful release and monitoring methodologies to apply
to future release efforts or we have demonstrated sihek can survive and
reproduce in the wild without human intervention, see Importance of the
NEP to Recovery Efforts), although we do not anticipate this scenario
until 10 or more years after the first release.
The Service may also temporarily suspend the program to address
issues that arise before program termination under any of the three
scenarios above. The monitoring team will summarize
[[Page 19889]]
information they collect on a regular basis and will share it with the
recovery team and the managers of Palmyra Atoll (the Service and The
Nature Conservancy). If results indicate the program is approaching
scenario (1) or (2) above, then the Service, in consultation with the
recovery team and The Nature Conservancy, will determine if terminating
the program is the best way to avoid these outcomes, or whether the
program should be paused, and adaptive steps taken to address them
before resuming the program.
Regular monitoring and reporting will also inform progress toward
achieving program goals and scenario (3) above: The Service will
determine--in consultation with the recovery team and The Nature
Conservancy--when the purpose of the NEP has been achieved such that
the program can come to an end. When the Service terminates the
program, the Service will also address what will happen with any
remaining individuals in the NEP, i.e., whether they will be relocated
to captivity, relocated to other suitable habitat, or remain on
Palmyra, based on the circumstances at the time of termination.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on August 31, 2022 (87 FR 53429), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by September 30, 2022. In addition, in accordance with our
joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July
1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and updated guidance issued on August 22, 2016
(USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited peer review of our proposed rule
from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise in
conservation translocation, endangered species management, Pacific
Island birds, and Guam native bird species. We received responses from
three peer reviewers. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, local experts, and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
We reviewed all comments received from the public and peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
establishment of an experimental population of sihek on Palmyra Atoll.
Comments on these issues and information are addressed in the following
summary and have been incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.
Changes other than minor word changes for clarification or correction
incorporated into the final rule are summarized in the Summary of
Changes from the Proposed Rule section, below.
Peer Review Comments
All peer reviewers expressed support for the introduction of an
experimental population of sihek with an associated 10(j) rule and
agreed that the action is likely to contribute to the conservation of
the species. Comments from peer reviewers resulted in updates in two
areas of this final rule (see Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule).
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated their support for
establishing a 10(j) experimental population because of the negative
consequences of maintaining a species solely in captivity, including
risks associated with small population size and inbreeding depression.
Response: Recent population viability models (Johnson et al. 2015
in litt and Trask et al. 2021) have demonstrated rapid declines in the
captive population if the reproductive rate remains the same. Breeding
facilities are currently at capacity, and the sihek's population growth
is constrained. The establishment of an experimental population of
sihek on Palmyra Atoll will provide an opportunity to increase the
sihek population, and to expose a portion of this population to habitat
conditions in the wild for the first time in more than 30 years.
(2) Comment: Multiple reviewers commented that, at present, sihek
habitat on Guam is compromised by the continued presence of brown
treesnakes. They stated that, nevertheless, good progress is being made
towards the eventual eradication of brown treesnakes such that future
restoration of sihek to Guam remains an attainable goal.
Response: Reestablishing populations of sihek on Guam is an
essential component of the recovery strategy for sihek, as expressed in
the recovery criteria of the sihek recovery plan (USFWS 2008, pp. 42-
43). We presently cannot release sihek within their historical range
due to the continued presence of brown treesnakes. The establishment of
an experimental population on Palmyra Atoll will allow us the needed
testing of field techniques for the future reintroduction of sihek on
Guam, once landscape-scale management of brown treesnakes is
implemented and effective. In recent years, technological advances to
control brown treesnakes show promise as a tool to control snakes at a
landscape level. However, they are not yet sufficient to protect sihek
from unsustainable predation, and therefore it is not possible to
reintroduce sihek to Guam before significant declines in the ex situ
population are expected to occur. Thus, the establishment of an
experimental population on Palmyra Atoll helps reduce sihek extinction
risk while brown treesnake control methods are refined and implemented.
(3) Comment: One reviewer stated that releasing sihek onto Palmyra
Atoll as an experimental population is reasonable and scientifically
sound. They went on to state that considerable work has been conducted
to assess the suitability of Palmyra for Guam kingfishers, and to
consider the possibilities of negative consequences to the fauna of
Palmyra. The reviewer further stated that the process of introducing,
managing, and monitoring sihek on Palmyra would provide invaluable
knowledge for doing so eventually on Guam. As a result, the reviewer
stated that the 10(j) experimental population of sihek will greatly
increase the probability of success for a future Guam reintroduction.
Response: Introducing a species outside its historical range has
inherent risks, both to the species and the ecosystem into which it is
being introduced. We evaluated the extinction risk to sihek and
determined the experimental population on Palmyra Atoll would further
the species' recovery by increasing the worldwide population,
developing and refining release techniques, and establishing a source
of wild-adapted birds for future releases. We also evaluated the
suitability of Palmyra Atoll for sihek through an assessment of prey
availability and habitat suitability based on available information. We
will monitor sihek and prey species to evaluate potential impacts to
their populations. If negative changes in populations are causally
linked to sihek and are undesirable, we will weigh the benefits and
risks in consultation with the recovery team and The Nature Conservancy
to determine whether to continue ongoing management, adopt risk
mitigation strategies, or terminate the program (see Exit Strategy,
above).
(4) Comment: One reviewer commented that successfully establishing
a population of sihek on Palmyra would not only allow the species to
exist in the wild again, allowing for beneficial behaviors and
adaptations to be maintained, but would also be an important source of
individuals for the reintroduction of sihek to Guam when conditions
allow. Additionally, the process of introducing, managing, and
monitoring sihek on Palmyra would provide invaluable knowledge for
doing so
[[Page 19890]]
eventually on Guam. Therefore, the reviewer stated that the 10(j)
experimental population of sihek will greatly increase the probability
of success for a future Guam reintroduction.
Response: The successful establishment of the experimental
population on Palmyra will advance conservation and recovery of the
species. .
Public Comments
(1) Comment: Several commenters shared their support for the
proposed 10(j) experimental population as a first step toward
recovering the sihek.
Response: In our efforts to further the conservation of sihek, we
will learn valuable information that will inform future release
efforts, including release techniques, behavior in wild conditions, and
monitoring methods. We will also increase the number of sihek in
existence and have a small population of wild birds to potentially help
source future translocation efforts. Without the forethought of those
who brought sihek into captivity and the effort of the institutions
that have managed the populations during this time, the sihek would
have been lost.
(2) Comment: One commenter noted the importance of involving
CHamoru scientists and cultural practitioners in the development and
implementation of the project.
Response: The Service values incorporating biological and cultural
perspectives of the CHamoru people in sihek recovery efforts. At the
beginning of translocation site selection and project development in
2019, the Service held a workshop on Guam to receive input and feedback
from cultural leaders. The intent of the workshop was to acknowledge
and better understand the significant connection the sihek has with the
CHamoru people and their culture. We recognize that the release of
sihek is about much more than saving a species. Given the sihek's
cultural and biological importance to Guam, the Service developed
several objectives for connecting with the community that are reflected
in work plans that complement this 10(j) regulatory process under the
Act. Throughout project planning, in coordination with our partners, we
actively sought out local and indigenous community involvement. Today,
the Service continues to work with the Guam DAWR, scientists, cultural
practitioners, and the public as we collaborate to return the sihek
back to the wild. At the time of introduction, due to limited
transportation infrastructure and the distance of Palmyra Atoll from
Guam, accommodating more local involvement or protocols may be
challenging. The Service welcomes continued discussions with the
CHamoru community to address scientific and cultural protocols for the
sihek.
(3) Comment: One commenter noted the importance of an outreach
program on Guam to increase awareness of sihek and to engender support
for the establishment of an experimental population on Palmyra Atoll.
Response: A partner on Guam was awarded a nationally competitive
grant to assist with Guam outreach efforts. It is a multifaceted,
multiyear outreach program to be implemented prior to and concurrent
with the Service's sihek release and monitoring projects. The program
was developed by the Service's partners and Guam-based collaborators
with expertise in science and education, as well as with CHamoru
language and culture. This outreach will engage 40 teachers, train high
school students, and engage more than 2,000 fourth-grade students in
the first year. This program will also empower students and teachers to
take action to protect the sihek and Guam's natural resources, while
promoting an appreciation of the sihek's cultural significance. A
CHamoru Sihek Storybook will be produced in the CHamoru language, along
with a sihek activity book, and a website with updateable sihek
resources and student contributions. A sihek-focused curriculum will be
created and shared with teachers and students.
The outreach program is designed to increase awareness of the
sihek's story: its threats, the status and importance of the sihek
captive population, and future goals of the sihek recovery project.
Expanding its reach beyond schools and with the public, the outreach
program will share information at island-wide events and through local
media and will enable the Service and its partners to showcase outreach
milestones and successes.
(4) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about our proposal to
decrease ecosystem and prey monitoring if we detect negligible impacts
from the introduction of sihek and suggested that we further define
``unacceptable'' impacts.
Response: Many potential prey species occur on Palmyra Atoll, and
we have relatively little knowledge about what sihek will
preferentially feed upon after release, other than using general
assumptions about prey size and Todiramphus biology. Detecting the
impact of released sihek on prey species and the recipient ecological
community is likely to require a relatively large sample size,
replicated in space and time, to achieve sufficient statistical power.
Our monitoring plan relies on a combination of targeted prey species
surveys and information from monitoring released birds. Our monitoring
approach balances the negative impacts of frequent invasive surveys
with the need to identify serious negative consequences of the sihek
releases on the recipient site. Active monitoring will occur for at
least 2 years after the first release, and we will regularly assess
results through monthly summaries, more in-depth analyses at 6-month
intervals, and annual predictive modeling. After the first 2 years, we
will determine whether to continue at full intensity, downscale, or
discontinue monitoring.
In this final rule we have clarified that we will evaluate if
impacts are undesirable relative to sihek predation on local species
for purposes of our monitoring strategy based on the following factors:
sihek prey selection for a single species, which could
indicate population impacts to that species;
detection of significant changes in abundance of prey in
areas with sihek compared with areas without sihek; or
shifts in community composition and diversity that differ
significantly between areas with sihek and areas without sihek.
If any undesirable impacts are causally linked to the introduction
of sihek, we will weigh the benefits and risks in consultation with the
recovery team and The Nature Conservancy to determine whether to
continue ongoing management, adopt risk mitigation strategies, or
terminate the program (see Exit Strategy, above).
As to the commenter's request that we provide specific definitions
for ``unacceptable'' impacts that require termination of the program,
we are unable to define specific, quantitative parameters to do so.
Rather, through our continued monitoring and coordination and
consultation with the recovery team and The Nature Conservancy, we
expect to keep ahead of any potential negative impacts to the ecosystem
as a result of the introduction in order to adaptively respond before
termination would be required.
(5) Comment: One commenter stated that the removal of eggs from the
captive population would have a deleterious impact and increase
extinction risk, particularly if the released individuals do not
survive.
Response: We intend to introduce a small number of sihek to Palmyra
Atoll: 9 individuals in the first year, with additional, likely
smaller, cohorts of
[[Page 19891]]
birds in subsequent years to reach a target population of 20 birds.
Evaluation has shown that a small increase in the average annual
reproductive output (from 2.54 hatchlings per female per year to 2.70
hatchlings per female per year) could support long-term (50-year) sihek
population viability as well as a release program (Trask et al. 2021,
p. 6). Further, we would remove eggs from captive-breeding pairs during
incubation, and allow the pair to lay another clutch, thus replacing
the birds removed from the ex situ (captive) population, which will--
from a demographic standpoint--negate the loss of these individuals.
The ex situ population is the only population of sihek in the world, so
we will monitor it closely to ensure that there are no negative impacts
to its viability and potential growth. We have included triggers for
pausing or ending the release program; a negative impact to the ex situ
population is one of the triggers for enacting one of those strategies.
(6) Comment: One commenter noted that the captive (ex situ) sihek
population is small, and that measures will need to be in place to
ensure the introduced population on Palmyra can survive.
Response: We recognize the importance of ensuring the integrity of
the captive (ex situ) population of sihek and implementing measures to
maximize the odds that the introduced population on Palmyra survives.
Only a small number of sihek will be removed from the ex situ
population (up to nine in the first year), and the best available
information indicates the ex situ population can support this program
without negative impacts to its viability. Once released on Palmyra,
sihek will be exposed to conditions in the wild--conditions that the
species has not encountered in more than 30 years. While still being
held in pre-release aviaries on Palmyra Atoll, we will provide natural
prey items as necessary so the sihek can learn to forage on multiple
food sources. Further, birds will be trained to come to feeders through
reinforcement with an associated sound, thus allowing supplemental food
provisioning if needed. We will also conduct a thorough health
assessment of each individual prior to release to ensure they are in
good body condition. After release, we will monitor individuals daily.
If a bird is sick or injured, we may intervene and bring it in under
veterinary care as needed.
(7) Comment: One commenter was concerned that sihek might consume
prey items with residual amounts of rodenticide from the 2011
eradication of rats from Palmyra Atoll.
Response: Amplification of toxicants through the food chain can be
a concern in predator eradication programs. A study to evaluate
potential impacts on Palmyra Atoll (Wegmann et al. 2019, entire)
collected samples of numerous species, including potential sihek prey
items, and tissue analyses showed no residue in invertebrates or geckos
3 years after the rat eradication. Thus, secondary exposure to
rodenticide through consumption of exposed prey items is highly
unlikely.
(8) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that sihek might
consume prey items that have ingested rodenticides used to prevent rats
from reinvading Palmyra Atoll.
Response: Rodents were eradicated from Palmyra in 2011, and efforts
to reduce the likelihood of reintroduction include a limited use of
rodenticide when planes or ships arrive at the Atoll. Rodenticide is
applied only around the points of entry (runway and dock), and baits
are contained within bait boxes (Wegmann in litt. 2022a). This
application occurs for two days prior to a plane or ship arriving and
remains in place for four days after the arrival of a plane and for 16
days after the arrival of a ship. The bait stations are monitored for
rodent signs, and hermit crabs (Coenobita brevimanus and C. perlatus)
on which sihek feed. The bait stations are placed on ``crab-resistant''
platforms to minimize entry by crabs, so very few crabs access the bait
stations, and those that are found weigh generally around 2.8 oz (80g),
which is well outside the size class of prey that sihek can take
(Wegmann in litt. 2022b, Andrews et al. 2022, p. 19). Further, research
showed no residue in invertebrates 3 years after the rat eradication
(Wegmann et al. 2019). As a result, secondary exposure to rodenticide
through consumption of exposed crustaceans is highly unlikely. If this
unlikely scenario occurs, we will evaluate methods to further minimize
such exposure risk (e.g., improving the stations to further reduce the
ability of crabs to enter), while balancing the need to prevent the
reinvasion of Palmyra by rodents. We would also consider the use of
non-toxicant biosecurity methods.
(9) Comment: Three commenters were concerned about potential
predation of sihek by brown treesnakes on Palmyra Atoll.
Response: No brown treesnakes occur on Palmyra Atoll. Sihek
released on Palmyra Atoll will not be exposed to any predation pressure
as no known predators of sihek occur on the Atoll.
(10) Comment: One commenter was concerned with introduced sihek
competing with other species on Palmyra Atoll, such as black drongo.
Response: Black drongos occur on Guam but do not occur on Palmyra
Atoll.
No other native or nonnative species on Palmyra Atoll share the
same diet or habitat preferences as the sihek. Thus, sihek will not
directly compete with any species on Palmyra Atoll.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
Comments received by the public and peer reviewers resulted in
updates in two areas from the proposed rule to the final rule. In the
final rule preamble, we:
Provide more detail regarding how we will determine if
releasing sihek on Palmyra Atoll will have undesirable impacts to prey
species (see Ecosystem Impacts); and
Provide more detail regarding management of released sihek
(see Release Procedures).
Findings
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available (in
accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find that releasing sihek onto
Palmyra Atoll with the regulatory provisions in this rulemaking will
further the conservation of the species. We find that the continued
presence of the brown treesnake on Guam means that sihek's native
habitat has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or destroyed for
the foreseeable future such that the introduction of sihek to Palmyra
Atoll outside of its probable historical range is warranted and
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81. We define the
foreseeable future as the period of time before significant declines in
the ex situ population of sihek are likely to occur. The nonessential
experimental population status is appropriate for the introduced
population; the potential loss of the experimental population would not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the
wild because there are currently no sihek remaining in the wild.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling
[[Page 19892]]
for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We certify that this rule does not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The
following discussion explains our rationale.
The areas that are affected under this rule are restricted to
Palmyra Atoll. Because of the regulatory flexibility for Federal agency
actions provided by the NEP designation and the exemption for
incidental take in the rule, we do not expect this rule to have
significant effects on any activities within Federal, State, or private
lands within the NEP area. In regard to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the
sihek population will be treated as proposed for listing, and,
therefore, Federal action agencies are not required to consult on their
activities, except on National Wildlife Refuge System lands, where the
NEP will be treated as a threatened species for the purposes of section
7 of the Act.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer
(rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing.
However, because the NEP is, by definition, not essential to the
survival of the species, and no sihek exist in the wild outside of the
NEP area that could be impacted, conferring will likely never be
required for the sihek population within the NEP area. Furthermore, the
results of a conference are advisory in nature and do not restrict
agencies from carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities. Section
7(a)(1) of the Act requires Federal agencies to use their authorities
to carry out programs to further the conservation of listed species,
which would apply on any lands within the NEP area. On National
Wildlife Refuge System lands within the NEP area, the sihek would be
treated as a threatened species for the purposes of section 7 of the
Act. As a result, and in accordance with our regulations, some
modifications to proposed Federal actions within National Wildlife
Refuge System lands may occur to benefit the sihek, but we do not
expect projects to be substantially modified because these lands are
already administered in a manner that is compatible with sihek
conservation.
This rule broadly authorizes incidental take of the sihek within
the NEP area. The regulations implementing the Act define ``incidental
take'' as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying
out an otherwise lawful activity, such as habitat management,
infrastructure maintenance, and other activities in the NEP area that
are in accordance with Federal, Tribal, State, and local laws and
regulations. Intentional take for authorized data collection or
recovery purposes by authorized personnel are also allowed under the
NEP designation. Other forms of intentional take would require a
section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit under the Act.
The only private landowners on Palmyra Atoll are The Nature
Conservancy and the Cooper family. The principal activities on private
property near the release site are associated with scientific field
station operations, including the operation of a landing strip for
aircraft, and some limited recreation. The presence of the sihek is not
likely to significantly affect the use of lands for these purposes
because no new or additional economic or regulatory restrictions will
be imposed upon private landowners due to the presence of the sihek.
Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to have any significant
adverse impacts to activities on private lands within the NEP area.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
(1) This rule does not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, that, if adopted, this rulemaking would not impose
a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. A small government agency plan is not
required. Small governments are not affected because the NEP
designation does not place additional requirements on any city, county,
or other local municipalities.
(2) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year (i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This NEP designation
for sihek does not impose any additional management or protection
requirements on the States or other entities.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications. When introduced populations of
federally listed species are designated as nonessential experimental
populations, the Act's regulatory requirements regarding the introduced
population are significantly reduced. This rule would allow for the
taking of sihek when such take is incidental to an otherwise legal
activity.
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule:
(1) Would not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property and (2) would not deny all economically beneficial
or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would
substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation
and recovery of a listed species) and would not present a barrier to
all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered
whether this rule has significant federalism effects and have
determined that a federalism assessment is not required. This rule does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
[[Page 19893]]
between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we requested
information from and coordinated development of this rule with the
affected resource agencies in Guam. Achieving the recovery goals for
this species will contribute to its eventual delisting. No intrusion on
Territory policy or administration is expected, roles or
responsibilities of Federal or Territory governments would not change,
and fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. The
rule operates to maintain the existing relationship between the
Territory and the Federal Government and is being undertaken in
coordination with the Territory of Guam. We have coordinated closely
with the Guam Department of Agriculture in the preparation of this
rule. Therefore, this rule does not have significant federalism effects
or implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment
pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 13132.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 7, 1996, 61 FR
4729), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule would
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new collection of information that
requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has
previously approved the information collection requirements associated
with permitting and reporting requirements associated with native
endangered and threatened species, and experimental populations, and
assigned the following OMB Control Numbers:
1018-0094, ``Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications
and Reports--Native Endangered and Threatened Species; 50 CFR parts 10,
13, and 17'' (expires 01/31/2024), and
1018-0095, ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
Experimental Populations, 50 CFR 17.84'' (expires 9/30/2023).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with all provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), we have analyzed the impact of this final
rule. In cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, we prepared an
environmental assessment, and we determined based on that assessment
that the proposed action of implementing the introduction of sihek to
Palmyra Atoll will not have a significant impact on the environment,
which we documented in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
(USFWS 2023).
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of
energy effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
statement of energy effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at https://www.regulations.gov
in Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2022-0061.
Author
The primary author of this rule is Megan Laut of the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Signing Authority
Wendi Weber, Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on February 13, 2023, for publication. On March
19, 2023, Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically
and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife under BIRDS by revising the entry for ``Kingfisher,
Guam (sihek)'' (as added February 2, 2023, at 88 FR 7134, and effective
May 3, 2023) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Kingfisher, Guam (=sihek)...... Todiramphus Wherever found, E................ 49 FR 33881, 8/27/
cinnamominus. except where 1984; 50 CFR 17.95(b)
listed as an \CH\.
experimental
population.
Kingfisher, Guam (=sihek)...... Todiramphus U.S.A. (Palmyra XN............... 88 [Insert Federal
cinnamominus. Atoll). Register page where
the document begins],
4/4/2023; 50 CFR
17.84(a) \10j\.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19894]]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by adding paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
(a) Guam kingfisher, sihek (Todiramphus cinnamominus).
(1) Where is the occurrence of sihek designated as a nonessential
experimental population (NEP)? The nonessential experimental population
(NEP) area for the sihek is Palmyra Atoll. Palmyra Atoll is located in
the Northern Line Islands, approximately 1,000 miles (1,609 km) south
of Honolulu, Hawaii (5[deg] 53'N latitude, 162[deg] 05'W longitude).
The extent of the NEP area for sihek is the 250 ha (618 ac) of emergent
land distributed among 25 islands, inclusive of the lagoons surrounding
those islands.
(2) What take of sihek is allowed in the NEP area? (i) Throughout
the sihek NEP area, you will not be in violation of the Act if you take
a sihek, provided such take is nonnegligent and incidental to a lawful
activity, such as habitat management, invasive species management, or
scientific research and monitoring, and you report the take as soon as
possible as provided under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under
Sec. 17.32 may take sihek in the NEP area, pursuant to the terms of
the permit. Additionally, any employee or authorized agent of the
Service, Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, The Nature
Conservancy, Zoological Society of London, or Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, who is designated and trained to capture, handle, band,
attach transmitters, and collect biological samples, when acting in the
course of official duties, may take a sihek within the NEP area if such
action is necessary to:
(A) Handle birds for scientific purposes such as banding,
measuring, and sample collection;
(B) Relocate individuals or bring individuals into captivity for
the purposes of increasing sihek survival or fecundity;
(C) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned sihek;
(D) Salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific
study;
(E) Dispose of a dead specimen;
(F) Aid in law enforcement investigations involving the sihek; or
(G) Take sihek into captivity in accordance with the exit strategy
of the program (see paragraph (a)(5) of this section).
(iii) Any take pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)(C)
through (E) of this section must be reported as soon as possible to the
Permits Coordinator, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala
Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 (808/792-9400), who
will determine the disposition of any live or dead specimens.
(3) What take of sihek is not allowed in the NEP area? (i) Except
as expressly allowed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, all of the
provisions of Sec. 17.31(a) and (b) apply to the sihek in areas
identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and any manner of take
of a member of the NEP not described under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section is prohibited.
(ii) You must not possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export, by any means whatsoever, any sihek or part thereof
from the experimental population taken in violation of the regulations
in this paragraph (a) or in violation of applicable Territorial laws or
regulations or the Act.
(iii) It is unlawful for you to attempt to commit, solicit another
to commit, or cause to be committed, any take of sihek, except as
expressly allowed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4) How will the effectiveness of this introduction be monitored?
The Service will evaluate the introduction on an annual basis. This
evaluation will include, but will not be limited to, a review and
assessment of management issues, sihek movements, and post-release
behavior; food resources and dependence of sihek on supplemental food;
fecundity of the population; causes and rates of mortality; program
costs; impacts to the ex situ population; and information gathered to
inform releases on Guam or other sites.
(5) When will this introduction end? Depending on the
circumstances, the Service may either terminate the release program or
temporarily pause the release program to address identified issues
before resuming. When the Service terminates the program, the Service
will address the disposition of any remaining individuals in the NEP,
i.e., whether they will be relocated to captivity or to other suitable
habitat or whether they would remain on Palmyra, based on the
circumstances at the time of termination.
(i) The Service will terminate the release program on Palmyra Atoll
if monitoring indicates that:
(A) The benefits from the Palmyra population (including developing
and refining release and support strategies for eventual releases on
Guam) no longer outweigh the risks to the species or the welfare of the
NEP or ex situ population; or
(B) Unacceptable impacts on the ecosystem can be clearly causally
linked to the introduction of sihek.
(ii) The Service may also terminate the release program when one or
more of the objectives of the program have been achieved (e.g., we have
developed successful release and monitoring methodologies to apply to
future release efforts or we have demonstrated that sihek can survive
and reproduce in the wild without human intervention).
* * * * *
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-06958 Filed 4-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P