Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016) 2016 Federal Register, 81 FR 65465-65508; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65465-65508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22276]

[[Page 65465]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 184

September 22, 2016

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for
Five Species From American Samoa; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 65466]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2015-0128; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ97

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status
for Five Species From American Samoa

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
for two endemic American Samoan land snails (Eua zebrina and Ostodes
strigatus), the American Samoa distinct population segment of the
friendly ground-dove, the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, (South Pacific
subspecies) (Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata), and the mao
(Gymnomyza samoensis). The effect of this regulation will be to add
these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES: This rule becomes effective October 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands. Comments and
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in
preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments, materials, and documentation that we
considered in this rulemaking will be available by appointment, during
normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122,
Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808-792-9400; or by facsimile at
808-792-9581.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor, Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, HI
96850, by telephone 808-792-9400 or by facsimile 808-792-9581. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, a
species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be
completed by issuing a rule. Critical habitat is to be designated, to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined
to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
What this rule does. This rule will finalize the listing of two
American Samoa land snails, Eua zebrina (no common name) and Ostodes
strigatus (no common name), the American Samoa distinct population
segment (DPS) of the friendly ground-dove (Gallicolumba stairi), and
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat (South Pacific subspecies) (Emballonura
semicaudata semicaudata; ``bat'' or ``Pacific sheath-tailed bat''
hereafter) and the mao (Gymnomyza samoensis) as endangered species.
Delineation of critical habitat requires, within the geographical
area occupied by the species, identification of the physical or
biological features essential to the species' conservation. Information
regarding the life functions and habitats associated with these life
functions is complex, and informative data are largely lacking for the
five species from American Samoa. A careful assessment of the areas
that may have the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations or protections, and thus qualify for designation as
critical habitat, will require a thorough assessment. We require
additional time to analyze the best available scientific data in order
to identify specific areas appropriate for critical habitat designation
and to prepare and process a proposed rule. Accordingly, critical
habitat is not determinable at this time.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting a species
continued existence. One or more of the five American Samoa species are
experiencing population-level impacts as a result of the following
current and ongoing threats:
Habitat loss and fragmentation or degradation due to
agriculture and urban development, nonnative ungulates, and nonnative
plants.
Collection for commercial purposes (snails only).
Predation by nonnative snails and nonnative flatworms
(snails only).
Predation by feral cats and rats.
Small numbers of individuals and populations.

Existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately address these threats.
Environmental effects from climate change are likely to exacerbate many
of these threats, and may become a direct threat to all five species in
the future.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments on our proposal
from 16 independent specialists to ensure that our determination is
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We also
considered all comments and information received during the public
comment periods and public hearing.

Previous Federal Action

Please refer to the proposed listing rule, published in the Federal
Register on October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61568), for previous Federal
actions for these species prior to that date. The publication of the
proposed listing rule opened a 60-day public comment period that closed
on December 14, 2015. We published a public notice of the proposed rule
on October 21, 2015, in the local Samoa News newspaper, at the
beginning of the comment period. On January 5, 2016 (81 FR 214), we
published a notice reopening the comment period for an additional 30
days in order to allow interested parties more time to comment on the
proposed rule. In that same document, we announced the date and time of
the public hearing and informational meeting held on January 21, 2016,
Tutuila Island, American Samoa. The second comment period closed on
February 4, 2016. In total, we accepted public comments on the proposed
rule for 90 days.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We solicited comments during the 60-day public comment period (80
FR 61568, October 13, 2015), in a reopened comment period between
January 5 and February 4, 2016 (81 FR 214, January 5, 2016), and during
a public hearing held in American Samoa on January 21, 2016. We also
contacted appropriate Federal and Territorial agencies, scientific
experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited
them to comment on the proposal. In

[[Page 65467]]

addition, for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat and the mao, we contacted
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) management and scientific authorities competent
to issue comparable documentation in the countries of Samoa, Fiji,
Tonga, and Vanuatu seeking comment on the proposed rule. All
substantive information provided during the comment periods has either
been incorporated directly into this final determination or is
addressed below.
During the comment periods, we received a total of 16 comment
letters on the proposed listing of the 5 species from American Samoa.
We received helpful information from the National Park of American
Samoa about their surveys, monitoring, and mapping of natural resources
in the park, and we have incorporated this information where relevant.
In this final rule, we only address those comments directly relevant to
the proposed listing of the five species. We received several comments
that were not germane to the proposed listing of the five species (for
example, information on other American Samoa species not included in
the proposed rule); such comments are not addressed in this final rule.
One comment letter each was from the American Samoa Government
Office of the Governor, the American Samoa Government Office of Samoan
Affairs, and a Federal agency; and six comment letters were from
individuals. Seven letters were responses requested from peer
reviewers. The American Samoa Government Office of the Governor
requested a public hearing and informational meetings regarding the
proposed rule, which we provided, as described above. During the public
hearing, four individuals made oral comments on the proposed rule.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from 16 individuals with
scientific expertise on American Samoa and bats, birds, and snails of
South Pacific islands and their habitats, biological needs, and
threats, including familiarity with the five species, the geographic
region in which these species occur, and principles of conservation
biology. We received responses from seven of these individuals.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the
five species. All seven peer reviewers generally supported our methods
and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve the final rule. Two peer reviewers agreed
particularly with our evaluation of scientific data informing our
assessment of the conservation status of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.
Similarly, three peer reviewers agreed particularly with our assessment
of the conservation status of the two snails, Eua zebrina and Ostodes
strigatus, and one peer reviewer agreed particularly with our status
assessment of the mao and friendly ground-dove. Peer reviewer comments
are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final
rule as appropriate (see also Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule).
General Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer disagreed with the conclusion that
climate change is a projected threat and not a current threat to the
species. The reviewer asked whether the Service's conclusion is that
(a) climate change is not yet occurring and consequently is not a
current threat; or (b) climate change is already occurring, but it is
not yet affecting these species. The reviewer cited various recent
local, regional, and world-wide evidence that climate change is
occurring (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-
National Climatic Data Center 1960-2013; Australian Bureau of
Meteorology (BOM) & Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization (CSIRO) 2011, Volumes 1 & 2; 2014; Pirhalla et al. 2011;
Monahan and Fisichelli 2014) and that it is already having major
impacts to species and ecosystems (Keener et al. 2012,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014).
Our Response: We agree with the reviewer that observed increases in
air and sea temperatures, carbon dioxide concentrations, and sea levels
exist in American Samoa and the region, and that these are current
conditions. We further agree that the trajectory of observed changes in
climate is unlikely to change in the coming decades. However, neither
of the choices provided by the reviewer accurately reflect our
conclusion with regard to whether we consider climate change to be a
current threat to these species. Although we cannot predict the timing,
extent, or magnitude of specific impacts, we do expect the effects of
climate change to exacerbate the current threats to these species, such
as habitat loss and degradation.
Peer Review Comments on the Pacific Sheath-Tailed Bat
(2) Comment: Two peer reviewers provided additional references and
personal observations regarding the foraging behavior and habitat of
the species E. semicaudata and other bats in the family Emballonuridae
(Kalko 1995, pp. 262-265; Gorreson et al. 2009, p. 336; Valdez et al.
2011, pp. 306-307; Marques et al. 2015, pp. 6-EV-9-EV).
Our Response: We have incorporated all new relevant information
regarding the bat's foraging behavior and foraging habitat in this
final rule.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer reported the discovery of previously
unknown caves with appropriate habitat for the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat on Tau Island. The commenter also reported anecdotal sightings of
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat on Tutuila and Tau Islands.
Our Response: We appreciate this new information. We hope that
future surveys will yield confirmed observations of bats using the
caves on Tau. Given the anecdotal nature of the sightings on Tutuila
and Tau and the similarity in flight behavior between small bats and
the white-rumped swiftlet (Aerodramus spodiopygius; common in American
Samoa), the possibility exists that these anecdotal observations were
of birds, not bats. We hope to learn of confirmed sightings that would
indicate that the Pacific sheath-tailed bat may still occur on Tutuila
and Tau.
(4) Comment: Two peer reviewers provided additional information
regarding the impacts of goats on the habitat of the Pacific sheath-
tailed bat. One of the reviewers pointed out that overgrazing of the
forest understory by goats had resulted in little or no recruitment of
canopy tree species in areas of known populations of the bat on some
small islands in the Lau Group in Fiji and on Aguiguan Island in the
Northern Mariana Islands, where the endangered Mariana subspecies (E.
semicaudata rotensis) occurs, as documented by Gorreson et al. (2009,
p. 339). The peer reviewer noted earlier predictions that the effects
of overgrazing would result in the demise of the forests that are so
important for the species (e.g., Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 46).
The same reviewer commented that grazing by goats greatly minimizes
clutter resulting from a well-developed shrub layer, thereby opening
foraging spaces for bats under the canopy. In addition, the reviewer
cited reports that the bat was doing well in highly overgrazed forests
on Yaqueta and Aiwa

[[Page 65468]]

Islands (Fiji) (Palmeirim et al. 2005, pp. 28-29), and Aguiguan Island
(Valdez et al. 2011, p. 302).
Lastly, the reviewer added that, generally, a total release of the
grazing pressure may allow rapid growth of shrubs and concomitant
increase in understory clutter and thus potentially reduce foraging
space for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat. Consequently, the peer
reviewer suggested that any goat control efforts should be carefully
planned to balance the importance of recruitment of tree canopy species
and foraging spaces under the canopy.
Our Response: We appreciate the information provided by the
reviewers regarding the potential impacts of goat grazing on the bat
and its habitat in Fiji. We agree with the reviewer's observation that,
although grazing and browsing by goats may benefit the bat in the near
term by maintaining an open understory that provides foraging habitat
(e.g., Esselsytn et al. 2004, p. 307; Palmeirim et al. 2005, pp. 28-
29), in the long term the activities of goats are likely to result in
the loss of the forest on which the bat depends by inhibiting
recruitment of native forest trees and facilitating dispersal of
nonnative invasive plants (Esselsytn et al. 2004, p. 307; Palmeirim et
al. 2005, p. 46; Berger et al. 2011, pp. 36, 38, 40, 42-47;
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Statewide
Assessment and Resource Strategy (SWARS) 2010, p. 15; Kessler 2011, pp.
320-323; Pratt 2011, pp. 2, 36; Welch et al. 2016). We, therefore,
continue to regard habitat destruction and degradation by goat browsing
as a threat to the continued existence of the bat in Fiji, although we
recognize that this is a threat that must be addressed with care to
maintain the open understory that provides foraging habitat for the
bat.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the genetic differences
between the South Pacific subspecies E. s. semicaudata and the Palau
and Mariana subspecies, E. s. palauensis and E. s. rotensis,
respectively, are greater than typically reported between mammalian
subspecies. The reviewer suggested that this level of divergence
increases the conservation value of the remaining populations of E. s.
semicaudata.
The reviewer also commented that the description of the current
Pacific sheath-tailed bat distribution in Fiji is overly optimistic and
suggested revision to a more conservative description based on the
bat's likely extirpation on Viti Levu, an island that represents more
than half the land area in Fiji.
The same reviewer also requested clarification in the discussion
regarding the threat to the bat from metapopulation breakdown, and in
particular requested clarification regarding the location of
significant source populations in Fiji. Finally, the reviewer commented
that the future impact of sea level rise on populations of the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat is not likely to be restricted to high islands and in
fact is likely to be even greater on low islands, such as low limestone
islands where this species is present.
Our Response: We agree that genetic differentiation underscores the
need to conserve the South Pacific subspecies of the Pacific sheath-
tailed bat. We have incorporated the information on the bat's
distribution in Fiji into this final rule, and we have clarified the
discussion regarding the metapopulation breakdown threat to the bat.
The continued decline of the only significant source populations of
Pacific sheath-tailed bat (on large islands in Fiji, especially the
Viti Levu Group) greatly diminishes the probability of recolonization
and persistence within Fiji as well as throughout the remainder of its
range. Of particular note, the bat is currently considered to be
extirpated or nearly extirpated on the largest Fijian island where the
bat was once considered common. Regarding the portion of the reviewer's
comment on the impact of sea level rise, we agree that any impacts of
future sea level rise on the Pacific sheath-tailed bat in Fiji are
likely to be worse on low islands than on high islands where the bat is
known to occur.
Peer Review Comments on the American Samoa DPS of the Friendly Ground-
Dove
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer cited a recent study that reported a
detection of the friendly ground-dove at a single location on Tau
Island (Judge et al. 2013, pp. 14-15). The reviewer further commented
that, although a possible range extension to Tau Island would be a
positive change in the distribution of this rare species, the report of
a single detection on another island would not change the Service's
determination of threatened or endangered status, given three extensive
bird surveys conducted on Tau Island in 1975-76, 1986, and 2011
(Amerson et al. 1982, Engbring and Ramsey 1989, Judge et al. 2013) and
various additional surveys conducted there by the American Samoa
Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources.
Our Response: We agree that a single detection does not necessarily
signify a range extension of American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-
dove to include Tau Island. In addition to the past and ongoing surveys
cited by the reviewer, recent bird banding efforts conducted on Tau
Island between 2013 and 2015 also failed to report the friendly ground-
dove (Pyle et al. 2014, pp. 7, 19; Pyle et al. 2015, pp. 7, 21). On the
other hand, this report does suggest the possible movement of friendly
ground-doves from Ofu and Olosega Islands to Tau Island.
(7) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the friendly ground-dove
has not been pushed into higher elevation areas throughout its range
(as asserted by Watling (2001, p. 118)), and still occurs at low
elevations in some areas in Samoa, such as Salelologa lowland forest on
Savaii and on Nuutele Island off the coast of Upolu. The reviewer also
provided specific information indicating that predation by the
Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) should be considered a threat to the
friendly ground-dove in American Samoa in addition to that of the black
rat (R. rattus).
Our Response: In the proposed rule, we stated that the loss of
lowland and coastal forest has been implicated as a limiting factor for
populations of the friendly ground-dove, and as a result, the species
has been pushed into more disturbed areas or forested habitat at higher
elevations (Watling 2001, p. 118). The two areas cited by the reviewer,
Nuutele Island and Saleloga, are sites where native lowland forest is
intact and provides habitat that can support populations of the
friendly ground-dove. However, our analysis of the available
information indicates that these areas are exceptional, and that the
loss of lowland and coastal forests remains a threat to the friendly
ground-dove throughout its range, including in American Samoa. The fact
that the species is known from only those lowland areas in Samoa that
remain mostly forested provides supporting evidence of this ongoing
threat. In American Samoa, lowland and coastal habitats on Ofu and
Olosega have largely been converted to villages, grasslands, or coconut
plantations, and the loss of these habitats to agriculture and
development is expected to continue. We have added predation by the
Polynesian rat as a threat to the friendly ground-dove in this final
rule.
Peer Review Comments on Eua zebrina and Ostodes strigatus
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that collection for
scientific purposes is not a current threat to Eua zebrina and
expressed doubt that it contributed to the decline of this species. The
peer reviewer added that

[[Page 65469]]

collection of Eua zebrina for other purposes (e.g., commercial,
educational, or recreational) is also not a current threat.
The same reviewer commented that predation by the rosy wolf snail
(Euglandina rosea) cannot be considered the major existing threat to
the native snail fauna in American Samoa in the absence of a
quantitative evaluation of the importance of rosy wolf snail predation
relative to other threats such as habitat destruction and predation by
rats. The reviewer further stated that predation by the rosy wolf snail
may be less of a threat to adult individuals of O. strigatus than to E.
zebrina, because the former may be protected by its operculum (trap-
door-like structure closing the shell aperture). The reviewer added
that the rosy wolf snail feeds on small snails by swallowing them
whole, but feeds on large snails by attacking them via the open shell
aperture. The commenter further noted that both E. zebrina and O.
strigatus adults are considered large from the perspective of the rosy
wolf snail. If O. strigatus can close the aperture with the operculum
when threatened by the rosy wolf snail, the predator may find access
difficult; but whether this is the case is not known. Lastly, the
reviewer noted that whether juveniles (i.e., small snails) are more
susceptible is also not known. The reviewer also stated that the
protection provided by the Tutuila section of the National Park of
American Samoa (NPSA) does not apply to Ostodes strigatus because this
species is only known from the western part of Tutuila, which is not
within the NPSA's boundaries. Finally, the reviewer commented that the
statement ``all live snails were found on understory vegetation beneath
intact forest canopy'' is probably correct for most E. zebrina, but
should not be attributed to all Samoan land snails.
Our Response: Regarding the threat of over-collection, we agree
with the reviewer that collection for scientific purposes is not a
current threat to Eua zebrina or Ostodes strigatus. We erroneously
included ``overutilization for scientific purposes'' in our assessment
of threats to these species in the proposed rule, and have removed this
factor from the Summary of Factors Affecting E. zebrina section in this
final rule. However, we maintain that collection for scientific
purposes likely contributed to a reduction in the number of E. zebrina
in the wild (Hadfield 1986, p. 322). We recognize that at the time the
majority of collections were made for scientific purposes, E. zebrina
was neither at risk of extinction nor did the numbers collected
increase the risk of its extinction, and we have found no evidence that
the species is collected for educational purposes. We disagree with the
peer reviewer's comment that collecting for commercial or recreational
purposes is not a current threat. There is evidence, albeit mostly in
the past, of the practice of using snail shells to make decorative
items for personal adornments and for sale or display. Importantly,
however, the proposed rule provided evidence of the current sale of Eua
zebrina and other Pacific Island snails on the internet. Therefore, we
maintain that collection for commercial or recreational purposes is a
current threat to Eua zebrina.
We consider the threat of predation by the rosy wolf snail to be
one of several threats to the survival of Eua zebrina, and have made
this clarification in the final rule (see Summary of Factors Affecting
Eua zebrina, below). While the operculum of adult individuals of O.
strigatus may offer protection from predation by the rosy wolf snail,
we maintain our finding that predation by the rosy wolf snail is a
current threat to O. strigatus based on the vulnerability of small,
juvenile individuals of this species to being swallowed whole by
predatory snails. We disagree with the reviewer's statement regarding
the lack of protection provided to O. strigatus by the NPSA.
Information in our files indicates the occurrence of O. strigatus
within the boundaries of the NPSA (Miller 1993, p. 23). Finally, we
agree with the reviewer's comment that the statement ``all live snails
were found on understory vegetation beneath intact forest canopy'' may
hold true for E. zebrina, but should not be attributed to all Samoan
land snails, and we have made this correction in this final rule.
(9) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that funding should be
allocated to evaluate the status of the two snail species and others
prior to listing. The reviewer also suggested the increasing prevalence
of the rat lungworm (Angiostrongylus cantonensis) throughout the
Pacific poses an unknown, but likely serious, threat of disease to land
snails. The reviewer added that further studies are desperately needed.
Our Response: We evaluated the status of the two snails prior to
listing them. We found them to be candidates for listing in May 2005
and reviewed the available information on them each year in our annual
Candidate Notice of Review. To issue our proposal to list these species
under the Act, we evaluated their status and found that they met the
definition of endangered. We agree that additional data regarding the
five species from American Samoa would be desirable. However, under the
Act, we are required to make listing determinations solely on the basis
of the best available scientific and commercial data [emphasis ours]
(sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act). We appreciate the
reviewer raising the potential threat of disease to native land snails
such as E. zebrina and O. strigatus posed by the rat lungworm. However,
at this time, we do not have information that leads us to conclude that
the rat lungworm poses a current threat to the two snails.

Public Comments

In general, commenters did not express strong support for or
opposition to the proposed listing. Some commenters expressed concerns
regarding the potential impacts of the proposed listing on public- and
private-sector projects and on cultural practices. Other commenters
suggested that additional information on the five species was needed.
Our responses are provided below.

Comments From States/Territories

(10) Comment: The Governor of American Samoa and two public
commenters expressed concern that listing the five species as
endangered could affect such activities as land clearing, development,
planned wind power production, and cultural practices.
Our Response: We understand that concern exists about the effects
on land use and cultural practices of listing species as threatened or
endangered under the Act. Once a species is listed as endangered under
the Act certain protective measures apply. These measures include
prohibitions under section 9(a)(1) of the Act that make take (defined
as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect; or to attempt any of these) of listed wildlife species illegal
and requirements for Federal agencies to consult with the Service under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species. See
Available Conservation Measures, below, for detailed descriptions of
requirements and prohibitions, respectively, under sections 7 and 9 of
the Act.
We encourage any project proponents or landowners to work closely
with the Service if activities on their land may negatively affect
listed species. If a Federal agency action is associated with the
activity (e.g., funding, permit issuance, or other support or

[[Page 65470]]

authorization), the Federal agency is required to consult with the
Service under section 7 (a)(2) of the Act. If there is no Federal
involvement in the activity, we can help those project proponents or
landowners determine whether a habitat conservation plan (HCP) or safe
harbor agreement (SHA) may be appropriate. These plans or agreements
provide for the conservation of the listed species while providing the
project proponent or landowner with a permit for incidental take of the
species during the course of otherwise lawful activities, such as those
mentioned in the Governor's comment letter, including cultural
practices that may affect any of these five species.
(11) Comment: The Governor of American Samoa requested assistance
from the Service in making improvements to Territorial law in order to
allow local government agencies to work with the Service to conserve
listed species and their habitats.
Our Response: We recognize and welcome the Governor's request for
assistance. The Service and the American Samoa Government have met to
discuss the necessary improvements to Territorial law required for the
Service's conservation assistance programs to States or Territories for
threatened and endangered species in accordance with section 6 of the
Act, and we remain available to provide further assistance as needed.
(12) Comment: A member of the Office of Samoan Affairs supported
our assessment of the threat of cats and rats to the five species. The
member added that disease carried and spread by cats and rats
contributed to the endangered status of the five species.
Our Response: We appreciate the comment by the Office of Samoan
Affairs. Our review of the best scientific and commercial data
available does not indicate that disease is currently a factor
affecting the continued existence of the five species. We welcome any
information on this topic that becomes available in the future.

Comments From the General Public

(13) Comment: One commenter asked how species are protected once
listed as endangered. Another commenter asked how the Service works to
reestablish populations of species after they are listed as endangered.
Our Response: Once a species is added to either of the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, it is afforded
protection under the Act. For example, section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any
action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species; section 9(a)(1) of the Act prohibits
the take of listed wildlife species (includes harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any
of these). Activities to reestablish and recover listed species, and
details of sections 7 and 9 of the Act, are described below, under
Available Conservation Measures.
(14) Comment: One commenter stated that the use of insecticides is
contributing to the decline of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat by
reducing prey populations such as mosquitoes and other insects.
Our Response: We evaluated the effects of pesticide use on the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat in the proposed rule (80 FR 61568, October
13, 2015). The use of pesticides may negatively affect the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat as a result of direct toxicity and the reduction in
the availability of insect prey. Pesticides are known to adversely
affect bat populations, either by secondary poisoning when bats consume
contaminated insects or by reducing the availability of insect prey
(Hutson et al. 2001, p. 138; Mickleburgh et al. 2002, p. 19).
Pesticides may have contributed to declines and loss of the Mariana
subspecies of Pacific sheath-tailed bat on islands where pesticides
were once applied in great quantities (Guam, Saipan, and Tinian) (Wiles
and Worthington 2002, p. 17).
In American Samoa and Samoa, current levels of pesticide use are
likely lower than several decades ago when their use, particularly
during the years in which taro was grown on large scales for export
(1975-1985), coincided with the decline of bats in both places and has
been implicated as the cause (Tarburton 2002, p. 107). However, Grant
et al. (1994, pp. 135-136) dismissed the role of insecticides in the
decline of the bat in American Samoa based on the absence of a similar
population crash in the insectivorous white-rumped swiftlet (Aerodramus
spodiopygius) and the limited use of agricultural and mosquito-control
pesticides. On the island of Taveuni in Fiji, where bat populations
have persisted at low levels over the last 10 years (Palmeirim et al.
2005, p. 62, Malotaux 2012, in litt.), several locals reported that
pesticide use was quite widespread, and their use may be similar on
other Fijian islands (Malotaux 2012, in litt.). We do not have
information about pesticide use in Tonga or Vanuatu. The best available
information does not indicate that pesticide use is a current threat to
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat or that it is likely to become a threat
in the future.
(15) Comment: One commenter stated that flooding or high water
levels during Hurricanes Ofa (1990) and Val (1991) may have washed out
snails such as E. zebrina and O. strigatus from stream areas.
Our Response: In the proposed rule, we considered the effects of
natural disturbances such as hurricanes and their associated impacts
under Factor E: Other Natural and Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence for both E. zebrina and O. strigatus. The
information we have does not indicate that either snail species was
washed out of stream areas, per se, by heavy rains and flooding
associated with hurricanes Ofa and Val; these are land snails, and they
do not inhabit aquatic environments. However, hurricanes likely have
adverse impacts on the habitat of E. zebrina and O. strigatus by
destroying vegetation, opening the canopy, and thus modifying the
availability of light and moisture, and creating disturbed areas
conducive to invasion by nonnative plant species (Elmqvist et al. 1994,
p. 387; Asner and Goldstein 1997, p. 148; Harrington et al. 1997, pp.
539-540; Lugo 2008, pp. 373-375, 386). Such impacts destroy or modify
habitat elements (e.g., stem, branch, and leaf surfaces, undisturbed
ground, and leaf litter) required to meet the snails' basic life-
history requirements. In addition, high winds and intense rains from
hurricanes can also dislodge individual snails from the leaves and
branches of their host plants and deposit them on the forest floor
where they may be crushed by falling vegetation or exposed to predation
by nonnative rats and snails (Hadfield 2011, pers. comm.). Therefore,
we consider the threat of flooding and high water levels associated
with the high wind and intense rains caused by hurricanes to be a
factor in the continued existence of E. zebrina and O. strigatus.
(16) Comment: Two commenters recommended that the proposed
rulemaking needed to be explained to traditional leaders, local people,
and to a larger audience than attended the public hearing and
informational meeting.
Our Response: We conducted a public hearing and public
informational meeting on January 21, 2016, at which Service staff were
available to answer questions from the public with Samoan language
translation provided at both events. We published a notice of the

[[Page 65471]]

availability of the proposed rule in the local newspaper and accepted
public comments on the proposed rule for a total of 90 days. We sent
notification of publication of the proposed rule and public comment
periods by mail to the Congressional Representative, American Samoa
Government agencies, and local stakeholders. We conducted numerous
radio and television interviews at local stations and provided
information on the five species and the rulemaking process. We made a
presentation and answered questions regarding the proposed rulemaking
during a meeting with the members of the Office of Samoan Affairs on
January 25, 2016, and we also conducted meetings with the American
Samoa Government Department of Agriculture, Department of Marine and
Wildlife Resources, Office of the Attorney General; and Federal agency
partners including the National Park of American Samoa, NOAA-National
Ocean Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource
Conservation Service.
(17) Comment: Two commenters recommended further study of the
species proposed for listing as endangered.
Our Response: We are required to make our determination based on
the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of our
rulemaking. We considered the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the five species to evaluate their potential status
under the Act. We solicited peer review of our evaluation of the
available data, and peer reviewers supported our analysis. Science is a
cumulative process, and the body of knowledge is ever-growing. In light
of this fact, the Service will always take new research into
consideration. If new scientific information supports revision of this
rule in the future, the Service will issue a proposed rule consistent
with the Act and our established work priorities at that time.
(18) Comment: One commenter questioned why species thought to be
extirpated in American Samoa, such as the mao, are being considered for
listing. The commenter also expressed concern regarding the
reintroduction of such species.
Our Response: We previously determined that the mao warranted
listing under the Act (79 FR 72450; December 4, 2014) and present our
determination of its status as endangered in this final rule. A species
may become extirpated in a portion of its range and be listed
throughout its range. The mao occurred historically on Tutuila, but is
now considered to be extirpated there. If the mao occurs once again on
Tutuila, whether as a result of natural dispersal or a reintroduction
program, this species will be subject to the protections of the Act
there.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Once
a species is listed as endangered or threatened under the Act,
conservation measures provided to such species include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. For more information, please see Available
Conservation Measures, below. The Service is required under section
4(f)(1) of the Act to prepare recovery plans for newly listed species,
unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation
of the species. Reestablishing a threatened or endangered species in
its former range is often necessary to enable or sustain recovery.
Successful species recovery efforts necessitate the Service working
collaboratively with Federal, State, and local agencies, conservation
organizations, the business community, landowners, and other concerned
citizens. Therefore, we look forward to working collaboratively with
all stakeholders in efforts to conserve the mao and other listed
species.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered
comments from the peer reviewers and public on the proposed listings
for the five species. This final rule incorporates the following
substantive changes to our proposed rule, based on the comments we
received:
(1) We have added habitat destruction or modification by feral
goats as a threat to the continued existence or survival of the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat in Fiji (see the discussion below under Pacific
sheath-tailed bat, Summary of Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range).
(2) We erroneously included ``overutilization for scientific
purposes'' in our assessment of threats to Eua zebrina in the proposed
rule and have removed this factor from the Summary of Factors Affecting
E. zebrina in this final rule.
Other than the two changes just discussed and minor changes in
response to recommendations, in this final rule, we made no substantive
changes to the proposed rule.

Background

Species Addressed in This Final Rule

The table below (table 1) provides the common name, scientific
name, listing status, and range for the species that are the subjects
of this final rule.

Table 1--Species Addressed in This Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name [Samoan name or other
local name] Scientific name Listing status Locations where listed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific sheath-tailed bat (South Emballonura, Endangered................. American Samoa, Fiji,
Pacific subspecies) [beka beka, semicaudata, Samoa, Tonga,
peapea vai, tagiti]. semicaudata. Vanuatu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mao [maomao]....................... Gymnomyza, samoensis.. Endangered................. American Samoa, Samoa.
Friendly (shy) ground-dove Gallicolumba stairi... Endangered................. American Samoa DPS.
[tuaimeo].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No common name..................... Eua zebrina........... Endangered................. American Samoa.
No common name..................... Ostodes strigatus..... Endangered................. American Samoa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65472]]

Please refer to the proposed listing rule (80 FR 61568; October 13,
2015) for geographic descriptions of the Samoan Archipelago, Samoa,
Kingdom of Tonga, Republic of Fiji, Republic of Vanuatu, Territory of
the Wallis and Futuna Islands and for additional factual details of the
factors affecting the species, such as descriptions of nonnative plant
species that affect the species' habitat. Our assessment evaluated the
biological status of the five species and threats affecting their
continued existence. The assessment was based upon the best available
scientific and commercial data and, except where noted below (and in
the Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule, above), has not changed as a
result of the new information obtained during the comment periods.

Pacific sheath-tailed bat (South Pacific subspecies), Emballonura
semicaudata ssp. semicaudata, Peapea vai (American Samoa), Tagiti
(Samoa), Beka beka (Fiji)

The Pacific sheath-tailed bat is a member of the Emballonuridae, an
Old World bat family that has an extensive distribution primarily in
the tropics (Nowak 1994, pp. 90-91). A Samoan specimen was first
described by Peale in 1848 as Vespertilio semicaudatus (Lyon and Osgood
1909, p. 259). The species was later included in the genus Emballonura
(Temminck 1838; cited in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System
(ITIS) 2014) and is now known as Emballonura semicaudata (Smithsonian
Institution 1909; Tate and Archbold 1939, p. 8). This species is a
small bat. Males have a forearm length of about 1.8 in (45 millimeters
(mm)), and weigh approximately 0.2 ounces (oz) (5.5 grams (g)), and
females are slightly larger in size and weight (Lemke 1986, p. 744;
Nowak 1994, p. 91; Flannery 1995, p. 326; Uyehara and Wiles 2009, p.
5).
The Pacific sheath-tailed bat was once common and widespread in
Polynesia, eastern Melanesia, and Micronesia and is the only
insectivorous bat recorded from a large part of this area (Hutson et
al. 2001, p. 138). Sheath-tailed bats are rich brown to dark brown
above and paler below (Walker and Paradiso 1983, p. 211). The common
name ``sheath-tailed bat'' refers to the nature of the tail attachment:
The tail pierces the tail membrane, and its tip appears completely free
on the upper surface of the membrane (Walker and Paradiso 1983, p.
209). The Pacific sheath-tailed bat (all subspecies) is listed as
Endangered in the 2015 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of
Nature) Red List (Bonaccorso and Allison 2008). Endangered is IUCN's
second most severe category of extinction assessment, which equates to
a very high risk of extinction in the wild. IUCN criteria include the
rate of decline, population size, area of geographic distribution, and
degree of population and distribution fragmentation; however, IUCN
rankings do not confer any actual protection or management.
Four subspecies of Pacific sheath-tailed bats are currently
recognized: E. s. rotensis, endemic to the Mariana Islands (Guam and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI); listed as
endangered in 2014 (80 FR 59497, October 1, 2015), and referred to here
as the Mariana subspecies); E. s. sulcata in Chuuk and Pohnpei; E. s.
palauensis in Palau; and E. s. semicaudata in American Samoa, Samoa,
Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu (Koopman 1997, pp. 358-360; Oyler-McCance et
al. 2013, pp. 1,030-1,036), referred to here as the South Pacific
subspecies. Recent analysis found greater genetic differences between
E. s. rotensis, E. s. palauensis, and E. s. semicaudata than typically
reported between mammalian subspecies (Oyler-McCance et al. 2013, p.
1,030). Hereafter, ``bat'' or ``Pacific sheath-tailed bat'' refers to
the South Pacific subspecies unless otherwise noted.
All subspecies of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat appear to be cave-
dependent, roosting during the day in a wide range of cave types,
including overhanging cliffs, crevices, lava tubes, and limestone caves
(Grant 1993, p. 51; Grant et al. 1994, pp. 134-135; Hutson et al. 2001,
p. 139; Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 28). Large roosting colonies appear
fairly common in the Palau subspecies, but smaller aggregations may be
more typical of at least the Mariana subspecies and perhaps other
species of Emballonura (Wiles et al. 1997, pp. 221-222; Wiles and
Worthington 2002, pp. 15, 17). The Mariana subspecies, which persists
only on the island of Aguiguan (CNMI), appears to prefer relatively
large caves (Wiles et al. 2009, p. 15 in O'Shea and Valdez 2009). The
limestone cave ecosystem of the Mariana subspecies on Aguiguan is
characterized by constant temperature, high relative humidity, and no
major air movement (O'Shea and Valdez 2009, pp. 77-78). Such basic
habitat data are lacking for the South Pacific subspecies of Pacific
sheath-tailed bat, but may be important because the alteration of
climate conditions has been implicated in the abandonment of roost
caves by other bat species (Hutson et al. 2001, p. 101). Pacific
sheath-tailed bats are commonly found sharing caves with swiftlets
(Aerodramus spp.) (Lemke 1986, p. 744; Hutson et al. 2001, p. 139;
Tarburton 2002, p. 106; Wiles and Worthington 2002, p. 7, Palmeirim et
al. 2005, p. 28). All subspecies of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat are
nocturnal and typically emerge around dusk to forage on flying insects
(Hutson et al. 2001, p. 138; Craig et al. 1993, p. 51). The Mariana
Islands subspecies forages almost entirely in forests (native and
nonnative) near their roosting caves (Esselstyn et al. 2004, p. 307).
Other subspecies in Micronesia have been observed foraging beneath the
canopy of dense native forest (on Pohnpei) and over town streets (Palau
and Chuuk) (Bruner and Pratt 1979, p. 3). The bat's preferred foraging
habitat is mature well-structured forest with a high and dense canopy
(Kalko 1995, pp. 262-265; Esselstyn et al. 2004, p. 307; Palmeirim et
al. 2005, p. 29; (Gorreson et al. 2009, p. 336; Valdez et al. 2011, pp.
306-307; Marques et al. 2015, pp. 6-EV-9-EV).
In American Samoa, Amerson et al. (1982, p. 74) estimated a total
population of approximately 11,000 Pacific sheath-tailed bats in 1975
and 1976. A precipitous decline of the bat on the island of Tutuila has
been documented since 1990 (Grant et al. 1994, p. 134; Koopman and
Steadman 1995, pp. 9-10; Helgen and Flannery 2002, pp. 4-5). Knowles
(1988, p. 65) recorded about 200 in 1988, and in 1993, observers caught
one bat and saw only three more (Grant et al. 1994, p. 134). A single
bat was also observed on two occasions in a small cave north of Alao
(Grant et al. 1994, pp. 134-135). Additional small caves and lava tubes
have been checked for bats and swiftlets, however, Tutuila is entirely
volcanic and does not have the extensive limestone cave systems that
provide bat roosting habitat in the Mariana Islands and other Pacific
island groups (Grant et al. 1994, p. 135). Two individuals were last
observed in the cave at Anapeapea Cove on the north shore of Tutuila in
1998 (Hutson et al. 2001, p. 138). Surveys conducted by the Department
of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) in 2006 failed to detect the
presence of this species (DMWR 2006, p. 53). In an attempt to ascertain
whether the species is still extant, DMWR conducted surveys consisting
of acoustic sweeps and cave checks on all main islands in 2008 and
2012, and no bats were detected (Fraser et al. 2009, p. 9; U.R.
Tulafono 2011, in litt.; DMWR 2013, in litt.). Based on its decline and
the lack of detections since it was last seen in 1998, this species is
thought to be nearly extirpated (if not already extirpated) in American
Samoa (DMWR 2006, p. 54; Uyehara and Wiles

[[Page 65473]]

2009, p. 5). DMWR continues to conduct acoustic surveys in search of
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat in American Samoa (Miles 2015a, in
litt.).
In Samoa, the Pacific sheath-tailed bat is known from the two main
islands of Upolu and Savaii, but the species has experienced a severe
decline over the last several decades, and has been observed only
rarely since Cyclones Ofa (1990) and Val (1991) (Lovegrove et al. 1992,
p. 30; Park et al. 1992, p. 47; Tarburton 2002, pp. 105-108). This
species was previously abundant on Upolu with an individual cave
estimated to support several thousand individuals (Ollier et al. 1979,
pp. 22, 39). A survey of 41 lava tube caves and other locations on
Upolu and Savaii conducted from 1994 to 1997 detected a total of 5
individuals at two sites, which had declined to 2 individuals total by
the end of the survey (Hutson 2001, p. 139; Tarburton 2002, pp. 105-
108, Tarburton 2011, p. 38). In Samoa, the Pacific sheath-tailed bat
occupies sea caves and lava tubes located from the coast up to
elevations of 2,500 ft (762 m) that range from 49 ft (15 m) to more
than 2,130 ft (650 m) in length; vary in height and width, number of
openings, and degree of branching; and may be subject to rockfalls and
flooding during high rain events (Tarburton 2011, pp. 40-49).
In Tonga, the distribution of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat is not
well known. It has been recorded on the island of Eua and Niaufoou
(Rinke 1991, p. 134; Koopman and Steadman 1995, p. 7), and is probably
absent from Ata and Late (Rinke 1991, pp. 132-133). In 2007, ten nights
of acoustic surveys on Tongatapu and Eua failed to record any
detections of this species (M. Pennay pers. comm. in Scanlon et al.
2013, p. 456). Pennay describes Eua as the place most likely to support
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat because of the island's large tracts of
primary forest and many rocky outcrops and caves, but he considers the
bat to be extremely rare or extirpated from both islands (M. Pennay
pers. comm. in Scanlon et al. 2013, p. 456).
In Fiji, the Pacific sheath-tailed bat is distributed throughout
the archipelago, on large islands such as Vanua Levu and Taveuni,
medium-sized islands in the Lau group (Lakeba, Nayau, Cicia, Vanua
Balavu), and small islets such as Yaqeta in the Yasawa group and Vatu
Vara and Aiwa in the Lau group (Palmeirim et al. 2005, pp. 31-32).
Pacific sheath-tailed bats in Fiji roost in lava tubes and limestone
caves of varying length and width, beneath rock outcrops, and in cave-
like areas formed by irregularly shaped boulders located in areas along
the coast and up to 6.2 mi (10 km) inland (Palmierim et al. 2007, pp.
1-13). Running water or pools of water are a common occurrence in
inland caves with streams running through or coastal caves that are
tidally influenced (Palmierim et al. 2007, pp. 1-13). Habitat
surrounding roost sites includes undisturbed forest, secondary forest,
cultivated areas, and forested cliffs (Palmierim et al. 2007, pp. 1-
13). The species was reported as common some decades ago on the small,
volcanic island of Rotuma, a Fijian dependency, approximately 372 mi
(600 km) from the Fiji archipelago (Clunie 1985, pp. 154-155). Although
widely distributed, the species clearly has suffered a serious decline
since the 1950s as evidenced by a contraction of its range and a
decline in density and abundance on the islands where it still occurs
(Flannery 1995, p. 327; Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 31). In 2000 to 2001,
bats were absent or present in diminished numbers in many of the caves
known previously to be occupied on 30 Fijian islands, and villagers
reported that small bats, presumably Pacific sheath-tailed bats, were
no longer commonly seen (Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 31).
The species is predicted to be extirpated or nearly so on Kadavu,
Vanua Levu, and Fiji's largest island, Viti Levu, where it was known to
be widespread until the 1970s (Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 31; Scanlon et
al. 2013, p. 453). Field observations during the 2000 to 2001 surveys
documented a single large colony of several hundred individuals on
Yaqeta Island in the Yasawa group and a large colony on Vatu Vara
Island in the Lau group, but otherwise only a few to dozens of
individuals scattered among caves on small and remote islands in the
Lau group (Palmeirim et al. 2005, pp. 55-62). Scanlon et al. 2013 (p.
453) revisited the large cave colony on Yaqeta between 2007 and 2011
and described it as without any evidence of any recent use by bats
(e.g., odor, fresh guano) and probably abandoned. The loss of the
Yaqeta colony and the species' overall declining trend across the
archipelago led Scanlon et al. 2013 (p. 456) to infer a reduction in
population size of greater than 80 percent over the last 10 years. The
most important remaining sites for the protection of this species are
likely those on small and mid-sized islands in Lau where bats still
occur (Palmeirim et al. 2007, p. 512).
In Vanuatu, the Pacific sheath-tailed bat is known from two museum
specimens, one collected in 1929 and one collected before 1878, both on
the main island of Espiritu Santo (Helgen and Flannery 2002, pp. 210-
211). No subsequent expeditions have recorded sheath-tailed bats,
suggesting that this species was either extirpated or perhaps never
actually occurred in Vanuatu (Medway and Marshall 1975, pp. 32-33; Hill
1983, pp. 140-142; Flannery 1995, p. 326; Helgen and Flannery 2002, pp.
210-211; Palmeirim et al. 2007, p. 517). For example, Medway and
Marshall (1975, p. 453) detected seven other small, insectivorous bats
(family Microchiroptera) in Vanuatu, but failed to observe the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat, possibly as a result of survey sites and methods.
However, the Vanuatu provenance of the two specimens is not in question
(Helgen and Flannery 2002, p. 211). The current disjunct distribution
of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat (all subspecies) is suggestive of
extinctions (Flannery 1995, p. 45), and the possible extirpation of the
South Pacific subspecies from Vanuatu could be an example of this
possibility (Helgen and Flannery 2002, p. 211). The bat's status in
Vanuatu is unknown, and a basic inventory of Vanuatu's bat fauna is
lacking (Helgen and Flannery 2002, p. 211).
In summary, the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, once widely distributed
across the southwest Pacific islands of American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga,
and Fiji, has undergone a significant decline in numbers and
contraction of its range. Reports of possible extirpation or extremely
low numbers in American Samoa and Samoa, steep population declines in
Fiji, and the lack of detections in Tonga and Vanuatu, suggest that the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat is vulnerable to extinction throughout its
range. The remaining populations of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat
continue to experience habitat loss from deforestation and development,
predation by introduced mammals, and human disturbance of roosting
caves, all of which are likely to be exacerbated in the future by the
effects of climate change (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Pacific
Sheath-tailed Bat discussion below). In addition, low population
numbers and the breakdown of the metapopulation equilibrium across its
range render the remaining populations of Pacific sheath-tailed bat
more vulnerable to chance occurrences such as hurricanes.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Pacific Sheath-Tailed Bat

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the

[[Page 65474]]

Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted
based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.

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

Habitat Destruction and Modification by Deforestation
Deforestation has caused the destruction and modification of
foraging habitat of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat as a result of the
loss of cover and reduction of available insect prey. The loss of
native plant diversity associated with the conversion of native forests
to agriculture and other uses usually results in a corresponding
reduction in the diversity and number of flying insects (Hespenheide
1975, pp. 84, 96; Waugh and Hails 1983, p. 212; Tarburton 2002, p.
107). Deforestation results from logging, agriculture, development, and
hurricanes (Government of Samoa 2001, p. 59; Wiles and Worthington
2002, p. 18). Based on the preference of the Mariana subspecies for
foraging in forested habitats near their roost caves, Wiles et al.
(2011, p. 307) predict that past deforestation in the Mariana
archipelago may be a principal factor in limiting their current
population to the island of Aguiguan, which has healthy native forest.
Similarly, in Fiji, most sheath-tailed bat colonies are found roosting
in caves in or near good forest (e.g., closed canopy, native forest)
(Palmeirim et al. 2005, pp. 36, 44); however, much of it has been lost
on the large Fijian islands (Palmeirim et al. 2007, p. 515).
Deforestation has been extensive and is ongoing across the range of
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat. On the island of Tutuila, American
Samoa, agriculture and development cover approximately 24 percent of
the island and are concentrated in the coastal plain and low-elevation
areas where loss of forest is likely to have modified foraging habitat
for sheath-tailed bats (American Samoa Community College (ASCC) 2010,
p. 13). In Samoa, the amount of forested area declined from 74 to 46
percent of total land area between 1954 and 1990 (Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) 2005 in litt.). Between 1978 and 1990, 20 percent of
all forest losses in Samoa were attributable to logging, with 97
percent of the logging having occurred on Savaii (Government of Samoa
1998 in Whistler 2002, p. 132). Forested land area in Samoa continued
to decline at a rate of roughly 2.1 percent or 7,400 ac (3,000 ha)
annually from 1990 to 2000 (FAO 2005 in litt.). As a result, there is
very little undisturbed, mature forest left in Samoa (Watling 2001, p.
175; FAO 2005 in litt.).
Today, only 360 ac (146 ha) of native lowland rainforests (below
2,000 ft or 600 m) remain on Savaii and Upolu as a result of logging,
agricultural clearing, residential clearing (including relocation due
to tsunami), and natural causes such as rising sea level and hurricanes
(Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) 2013, p. 47).
On Upolu, direct or indirect human influence has caused extensive
damage to native forest habitat (above 2,000 ft or 600 m) (MNRE 2013,
p. 13). Although forested, almost all upland forests on Upolu are
largely dominated by introduced species today. Savaii still has
extensive upland forests, which are for the most part undisturbed and
composed of native species (MNRE 2013, p. 40). Although the large
Fijian islands still have some areas of native forest, much of it has
been lost (e.g., 17 percent between 1990 and 2000; FAO 2005 in litt.),
and commercial logging continues (Palmeirim et al. 2007, p. 515). The
best available information does not provide the current status of
native forests and rates of forest loss in Tonga or Vanuatu. Native
forests are preferred foraging habitat of the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat, and deforestation is occurring in Fiji (where the last relatively
large population occurs), and in Samoa, and has occurred in American
Samoa. Therefore, we conclude that habitat destruction and modification
by deforestation is a current threat to the species. This threat is
concentrated in Fiji and Samoa, which comprise roughly 62 percent of
the land area and occupy the center of the bat's range.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by the Feral Goats
Overgrazing by nonnative feral goats has resulted in the
destruction and degradation of forests on island ecosystems (Esselsytn
et al. 2004, p. 307; Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 46; Berger et al. 2011,
pp. 36, 38, 40, 42-47; CNMI-SWARS 2010, p. 15; Kessler 2011, pp. 320-
323; Pratt 2011, pp. 2, 36; Welch et al. 2016). Overgrazing of the
forest understory by goats resulted in little or no recruitment of
canopy tree species in areas of known populations of the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat on small islands in the Lau Group in Fiji (Palmeirim
et al. 2005, p. 46) and on Aguiguan Island in the Northern Mariana
Islands, where the endangered Mariana subspecies (E. semicaudata
rotensis) occurs (Gorreson et al. 2009, p. 339). Palmeirim et al.
(2005, p. 46) predicted that continued overgrazing would result in the
demise of the forests that are so important for the Pacific sheath-
tailed bat. Despite the reported negative impacts of goat browsing on
tree recruitment, the current amount of well-developed forest canopy
habitat and availability of food resources suggest that the bat is
currently able to persist on islands where feral goat browsing is
occurring (Esselsytn et al. 2004, p. 307; Palmeirim et al. 2005, pp.
28-29). However, because the direct and indirect impacts of goat
browsing on the preferred foraging habitat of the bat are currently
occurring and expected to continue into the future in Fiji, we conclude
that habitat destruction and degradation by goat browsing is a threat
to the continued existence of the bat in Fiji.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range

American Samoa

Samoa

As of 2014, a total of approximately 58,176 ac (23,543 ha), roughly
8 percent of the total land area of Samoa (285,000 ha) was enlisted in
terrestrial protected areas, with the majority located in five national
parks covering a total of 50,629 ac (20,489 ha), overlapping several
sites known to be previously occupied by the

[[Page 65475]]

bat (Tarburton 2002, pp. 105-107; Tarburton 2011, pp. 43-46).

Fiji

Fiji currently has 23 terrestrial protected areas covering 188 sq
mi (488 sq km) or 2.7 percent of the nation's land area (Fiji
Department of Environment 2014, pp. 20-21). Most notably, on Taveuni
Island, the Bouma National Heritage Park (3,500 ac (1,417 ha)), Taveuni
Forest Reserve (27,577 ac (11,160 ha)), and Ravilevu Reserve (9.934 ac
(4,020 ha)) may contain caves and could provide important foraging
habitat for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat (Fiji Department of
Environment 2011; Naikatini 2015, in litt.; Scanlon 2015a, in litt.).
Additional areas of remnant forest and important bat habitat are also
managed informally under traditional custodial management systems
(Scanlon 2015a, in litt.).
Summary of Factor A
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, habitat destruction and degradation by deforestation, as a
result of logging and land-clearing for agriculture and other land-
uses, is occurring throughout the range of the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat. Although the conservation efforts described above provide some
protection from timber harvesting and forest clearing for agriculture
and development within protected areas, they do not provide protection
of all of the sheath-tailed bat's habitat from these activities, or
from grazing and browsing by feral goats or habitat degradation and
destruction by hurricanes, such that listing is not warranted. Habitat
destruction and modification and range curtailment are current threats
to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat that are likely to persist in the
future.

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

In the analysis for our proposed rule, we had no information
indicating that the Pacific sheath-tailed bat is collected for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. We have
received no new information. When this final listing becomes effective
(see DATES, above), research and collection of this species will be
regulated through permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

Predation by Nonnative Mammals
Predation by nonnative mammals (mammals that occur in an area as a
result of introduction by humans) is a factor in the decline of the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat throughout its range. Terrestrial predators
may be able to take the bat directly from its roosts, which are often
in exposed sites such as shallow caves, rock overhangs, or cave
entrances. Domestic and feral cats (Felis catus) can capture low-flying
bats; cats have been documented to wait for bats as they emerge from
caves and capture them in flight (Tuttle 1977 in Palmeirim et al. 2005,
p. 33; Ransome 1990 in Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 33; Woods et al. 2003,
pp. 178, 188). Consequently, even a few cats can have a major impact on
a population of cave-dwelling bats (Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 34).
Of the predators introduced to Fiji, cats are the most likely to
prey on bats (Palmeirim et al. 2005, pp. 33-34). On Cicia Island in the
Lau group in Fiji, Palmeirim et al. (2005, p. 34) observed a cat next
to the entrance of a cave where Pacific sheath-tailed bats roosted, far
from any human settlement. On Lakeba (Lau), a cave that once harbored a
large colony of Pacific sheath-tailed bats is now empty and called Qara
ni Pusi (cave of the cat; (Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 34)). Feral cats
are also present on Tutuila and on the Manua Islands in American Samoa,
(Freifeld 2007, pers. comm.; Arcilla 2015, in litt.). Feral cats have
also been documented in Samoa, Tonga, and are likely present in Vanuatu
(Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p. 32; Freifeld 2007, pers. comm.; Arcilla
2015, in litt.).
Rats (Rattus spp.) may also prey on the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.
Rats are omnivores and opportunistic feeders and have a widely varied
diet consisting of nuts, seeds, grains, vegetables, fruits, insects,
worms, snails, eggs, frogs, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Fellers
2000, p. 525; Global Invasive Species Database 2011). Rats are known to
prey on non-volant (young that have not developed the ability to fly)
bats at roosting sites and can be a major threat to bat colonies (Wiles
et al. 2011, p. 306). Of several nonnative rats found on islands in the
Pacific, black rats (R. rattus) likely pose the greatest threat to
Pacific sheath-tailed bats because of their excellent climbing
abilities (Palmeirim 2015, in litt.). Although we lack direct evidence
of black rats preying on Pacific sheath-tailed bats, this rat species
has had documented, adverse impacts to other colonial species of small
bats, such as Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in
California (Fellers 2000, pp. 524-525), and several species (Mystacina
spp.) in New Zealand (Daniel and Williams 1984, p. 20). Based on
observations of swiftlets, cave-nesting birds often share bats'
roosting caves, where smooth rock overhangs in tall caverns provide
nesting surfaces safe from rats, cats, and other predators (Tarburton
2011, p. 38). However, bats roosting in caves with low ledges or those
that are filled with debris as a result of rockfalls or severe weather
events are likely to either abandon such caves or become more
accessible to predators such as rats. Rats have been postulated as a
problem for the Mariana subspecies of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat
(Wiles et al. 2011, p. 306); their remaining roost sites on Aguiguan
appear to be those that are inaccessible to rodents (Wiles and
Worthington 2002, p. 18; Berger et al. 2005, p. 144). Nonnative rats
are present throughout the range of Pacific sheath-tailed bats
(Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p. 32), and although we lack information
about the impact of rats on this species, based on information from
other bat species, we consider rats to be predators of this species.
In summary, nonnative mammalian predators such as rats and feral
cats are present throughout the range of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.
Predation of related subspecies and other cave-roosting bats by rats
and feral cats strongly suggests a high probability of predation of the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat. Based on the above information, we conclude
that predation by rats and feral cats is a current and future threat to
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat throughout its range.
Disease
Disease may contribute to the decline of the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat, especially because of the bat's communal roosting (Wiles and
Worthington 2002, p. 13). Microchiropterans have been severely affected
by certain diseases, such as white nose syndrome in North America;
therefore, the possibility exists that an undetected disease has led or
contributed to the extirpation of this species on several islands
(Malotaux 2012a in litt.). However, disease has not been observed
either in the Mariana or South Pacific subspecies of Pacific sheath-
tailed bat (Palmeirim et al. 2007, p. 517; Wiles et al. 2011, p. 306).
The best available information does not indicate that disease is a
threat to this species; therefore, we conclude that disease is not a
current threat to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat or likely to become a
threat in the future.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats of predation by

[[Page 65476]]

feral cats or rats to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.
Summary of Factor C
In summary, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we consider predation by nonnative mammals to be an
ongoing threat to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat that will continue into
the future. We do not find that disease is a threat to the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat, or that it is likely to become one in the future.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The Act requires that the Secretary assess available regulatory
mechanisms in order to determine whether existing regulatory mechanisms
may be inadequate as designed to address threats to the species being
evaluated (Factor D). Under this factor, we examine whether existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the potential threats
to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat discussed under other factors. In
determining whether the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms constitutes
a threat to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, we analyzed the existing
Federal, Territorial, and international laws and regulations that may
address the threats to this species or contain relevant protective
measures. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude the need
for listing if we determine that such mechanisms adequately address the
threats to the species such that listing is not warranted.

American Samoa

In American Samoa no existing Federal laws, treaties, or
regulations specify protection of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat's
foraging habitat from the threats of agriculture and development,
protect its known roosting caves from disturbance, or address the
threat of predation by nonnative mammals such as rats and feral cats.
While some existing Territorial laws and regulations have the potential
to afford the species some protection, their implementation does not
achieve that result. The DMWR is given general statutory authority to
``manage, protect, preserve, and perpetuate marine and wildlife
resources'' and to promulgate rules and regulations to this end
(American Samoa Code Annotated (ASCA), title 24, chapter 3). This
agency conducts monitoring surveys, conservation activities, and
community outreach and education about conservation concerns. However,
to our knowledge, DMWR has not used this authority to undertake
conservation efforts for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat such as habitat
protection and control of nonnative predators (DMWR 2006, pp. 79-80).
The Territorial Endangered Species Act provides for appointment of
a Commission with the authority to nominate species as either
endangered or threatened (ASCA, title 24, chapter 7). Regulations
adopted under the Coastal Management Act (ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et seq.)
also prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species listed as
threatened or endangered by the American Samoa Government (ASG)
(American Samoa Administrative Code (ASAC) Sec. 26.0220.I.c). However,
the ASG has not listed the bat as threatened or endangered, so these
regulatory mechanisms do not provide protection for this species.
Commercial hunting and exportation of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat
is prohibited under ASCA, title 24, chapter 23, ``Conservation of
Flying Foxes,'' which also authorizes and directs the ASG DMWR to
monitor flying fox populations, protect roosting areas from
disturbance, and conduct other activities to manage and protect the
species. This law identifies the Pacific sheath-tailed bat as a
``flying fox species'' (ASCA Sec. 24.2302), but it has not led to
measures implemented to protect the Pacific sheath-tailed bat or its
habitat from known threats. The sale and purchase of all native bats is
prohibited, and the take, attempt to take, and hunting of all native
bats are prohibited unless explicitly allowed during an officially
proclaimed hunting season (ASAC Sec. 24.1106); take is defined as
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect or to attempt to engage in such conduct (ASAC Sec.
24.1101(f)). However, we do not consider hunting or other forms of
utilization to be a threat to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.
Under a 50-year lease agreement between local villages, the
American Samoa Government, and the Federal Government, approximately
8,000 ac (3,240 ha) of forested habitat on the islands of Tutuila, Tau,
and Ofu are protected and managed in the National Park of American
Samoa (NPSA Lease Agreement 1993). There is the potential for
development surrounding park in-holdings, but such forest clearing
would be isolated and small in scale compared to the large tracts of
forested areas protected. Although the lease agreement results in
overall protection of the lands in the national park from development,
this protection does not reduce or eliminate the range-wide threats to
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat to the extent that listing is not
warranted.
Under ASCA, title 24, chapter 06 (Quarantine), the director of the
Department of Agriculture (DOA) has the authority to promulgate
agriculture quarantine restrictions concerning animals. Using this
authority, the DOA has restricted the importation of insects, farm
animals, and ``domestic pets,'' including exotic animals, to entry by
permit only (See ASAC Sec. 24.0305 et seq.). Yet these restrictions do
not expressly extend to all non-domesticated animals, nor does the DMWR
have any consultative role in restricting entry of animals (or plants)
harmful to wildlife or native flora. Accordingly, existing statutes and
regulations leave a great deal of discretion to the DOA, which may not
block the entry of animals harmful to native species or their habitats
(DMWR 2006, p. 80). These regulations do not require any measures to
control nonnative animals, such as mammalian predators, that already
are established and proving harmful to native species and their
habitats.
The Territorial Coastal Management Act establishes a land use
permit (LUP) system for development projects and a Project Notification
Review System (PNRS) for multi-agency review and approval of LUP
applications (ASAC Sec. 26.0206). The standards and criteria for
review of LUP applications include requirements to protect Special
Management Areas (SMA), Unique Areas, and ``critical habitats'' where
``sustaining the natural characteristics is important or essential to
the productivity of plant and animal species, especially those that are
threatened or endangered'' on all lands and in coastal waters in the
territory not under federal management authority (ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et
seq.). To date, three SMAs have been designated (Pago Pago Harbor,
Leone Pala, and Nuuuli Pala; ASAC Sec. 26.0221), and all are in
coastal and mangrove habitats on the south shore of Tutuila that likely
provide little foraging habitat and no roosting habitat for the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat. The only Unique Area designated to date is the
Ottoville Rainforest (American Samoa Coastal Management Program 2011,
p. 52), also on Tutuila's south shore, which hypothetically may provide
some foraging habitat for Pacific sheath-tailed bats, but it is a
relatively small island of native forest in the middle of the heavily
developed Tafuna Plain (Trail 1993, p. 4), far from the last known
roost sites of this species. To the best of our knowledge, no critical
habitats, as defined in the ASCA, have been designated.
Nonetheless, these laws and regulations are designed to ensure that

[[Page 65477]]

``environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration,'' and
include provisions and requirements that could address to some degree
threats to native forests and other habitats important to the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat, even though individual species are not named (ASAC
Sec. 26.0202 et seq.). Because the implementation of these regulations
has been minimal, and because review of permits is not rigorous and
does not reliably include the members of the PNRS Board responsible for
management of wildlife and natural resources (ASCA Sec. 26.026.C),
issuance of permits has not provided the habitat protection necessary
for the conservation of the species and there has been a continued loss
of native habitat important to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat and other
species as a result of land clearing for agriculture and development
(DMWR 2006, p. 71). We conclude that the implementation of the Coastal
Management Act and its PNRS does not address the threat of habitat
destruction and degradation to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.
In summary, some existing Territorial laws and regulatory
mechanisms have the potential to offer some level of protection for the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat and its habitat but are not currently
implemented in a manner that would do so. The DMWR has not exercised
its statutory authority to address threats, such as nonnative species,
to the bat. The bat is not listed pursuant to the Territorial
Endangered Species Act. The Coastal Management Act and its implementing
regulations have the potential to address this threat more
substantively, but are inadequately implemented. The lease agreements
that establish the National Park of American Samoa do provide some
protection of the bat's habitat from land-clearing for agriculture, but
do not address other threats to the bat. Therefore, we conclude that
regulatory mechanisms in American Samoa do not reduce or eliminate the
threats to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.

Samoa

In Samoa, the Animals Ordinance 1960 and the Protection of Wildlife
Regulations 2004 regulate the protection, conservation, and utilization
of terrestrial or land-dwelling species (MNRE and the Secretariat of
the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) 2012, p. 5). These
laws and regulations prohibit, and establish penalties for committing,
the following activities: (1) The taking, keeping, or killing of
protected and partially protected animal species; (2) harm of flying
species endemic to Samoa; and (3) the export of any bird from Samoa
(MNRE and SPREP 2012, pp. 5-6). As described above, the Pacific sheath-
tailed bat is neither endemic to the Samoan archipelago, nor is it
listed as a ``flying species endemic to Samoa'' under the Protection of
Wildlife Regulations 2004. Therefore, it is not protected by the
current regulations.
The Planning and Urban Management Act 2004 (PUMA) and PUMA
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation (2007) were enacted to
ensure all development initiatives are properly evaluated for adverse
environmental impacts (MNRE 2013, p. 93). The information required
under PUMA for Sustainable Management Plans (Para. 18, Consultation)
and Environmental Impact Assessments (Para. 46, Matters the Agency
shall consider) does not include specific consideration for species or
their habitat (PUMA 2004, as amended). Other similar approval
frameworks mandated under other legislation address specific stressors
and activities. These include the permit system under the Lands Surveys
and Environment Act 1989 for sand mining and coastal reclamation, and
ground water exploration and abstraction permits under the Water
Resources Act 2008 (MNRE 2013, p. 93). The PUMA process has been
gaining in acceptance and use; however, information is lacking on its
effectiveness in preventing adverse impacts to species or their
habitats (MNRE 2013, p. 93).
The Forestry Management Act 2011 aims to provide for the effective
and sustainable management and utilization of forest resources. This
law creates the requirement for a permit or license for commercial
logging or harvesting of native, agro-forestry, or plantation forest
resources (MNRE and SPREP 2012, p. 18). Permitted and licensed
activities must follow approved Codes of Practice, forestry harvesting
plans, and other requirements set by the Ministry of Natural Resources
and Environment. Certain restrictions apply to actions on protected
lands such as national parks and reserves. Permits or licenses may
designate certain areas for the protection of the biodiversity,
endangered species, implementation of international conventions, or
water resources or area determined to be of significance on which no
forestry activities may be undertaken (Forestry Management Act 2011,
Para. 57). Although this law includes these general considerations for
managing forest resources, it does not specifically provide protection
to habitat for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, and it does not appear to
have been effective for that purpose.

Fiji

In Fiji, the Endangered and Protected Species Act (2002) regulates
the international trade, domestic trade, possession, and transportation
of species protected under CITES and other species identified as
threatened or endangered under this act. Under the law, the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat is recognized as an ``indigenous species not listed
under CITES.'' Its recognition under the law can garner public
recognition of the importance of conserving the bat and its habitat
(Tuiwawa 2015, in litt.); however, because the focus of the legislation
is the regulation of foreign and domestic trade, and the bat is not a
species in trade, this law is not intended to provide protection for
the bat or its habitat within Fiji. The best available information does
not identify any laws or regulations protecting the habitat of the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat in Fiji.

Tonga

In Tonga, the Birds and Fish Preservation (Amendment) Act 1989 is a
law to ``make provision for the preservation of wild birds and fish.''
The law protects birds and fish, and provides for the establishment of
protected areas, but it does not specifically protect the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat or its habitat (Kingdom of Tonga 1988, 1989).

Vanuatu

In Vanuatu, the Environment Management and Conservation Act (2002)
provides for conservation, sustainable development, and management of
the environment of Vanuatu. Areas of the law that may apply to species
protection are the Environmental Impact Assessment process, which
includes an assessment of protected, rare, threatened, or endangered
species or their habitats in project areas, laws on bioprospecting, and
the creation of Community Conservation Areas for the management of
unique genetic, cultural, geological, or biological resources
(Environmental Management and Conservation Act, Part 3, Environmental
Impact Assessment). Although the EMCA contains the regulatory
provisions mentioned above, they do not sufficiently address the
ongoing threats of deforestation, predation, and small population size
for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat in Vanuatu. The Wild Bird Protection
law (Republic of Vanuatu 2006) is limited to birds and does not offer
protection to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat or its habitat.

[[Page 65478]]

Summary of Factor D
Based on the best available information, some existing regulatory
mechanisms have the potential to offer protection, but their
implementation does not reduce or remove threats to the Pacific sheath-
tailed bat. In American Samoa the DMWR has not exercised its statutory
authority to address threats to the bat such as predation by nonnative
species, the bat is not listed pursuant to the Territorial Endangered
Species Act, and the Coastal Management Act's land use permitting
process is implemented inadequately to reduce or remove the threat of
habitat destruction or modification to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.
In Samoa, laws and regulations that provide for species protection do
not include the bat in lists of protected species, and laws and
regulations governing environmental review of development projects do
not include consideration of native species or their habitat. Forestry
management laws provide for protection of native species and habitat
through permitting and licensing processes but have not resulted in
amelioration of habitat loss in Samoa. Fiji's endangered species law is
focused on trade, and the Pacific sheath-tailed bat is not a species in
trade and derives no conservation benefit from this law. Laws and
regulations governing management of wildlife and native forest in Tonga
and Vanuatu do not provide specific protections for the bat or its
habitat, or have not resulted in conservation of habitat sufficient to
preclude the need to list Pacific sheath-tailed bat. In sum, we
conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms do not address the threats
to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Roost Disturbance
Disturbance of roosting caves has contributed to the decline of the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat throughout its range. Disturbance of roost
caves by humans is likely to have occurred as a result of recreation,
harvesting of co-occurring bat species, and, more commonly, guano
mining (Grant et al. 1994, p. 135; Tarburton 2002, p. 106; Wiles and
Worthington 2002, p. 17; Palmeirim et al. 2005, pp. 63, 66; Malotaux
2012a in litt.; Malotaux 2012b in litt.). Roost disturbance is a well-
known problem for many cave-dwelling species (Palmeirim et al. 2005, p.
3). Roosts are important sites for bats for mating, rearing young, and
hibernating (in mid- and high-latitude species). Roosts often
facilitate complex social interactions, offer protection from inclement
weather, help bats conserve energy, and minimize some predation risk
(Kunz and Lumsden 2003, p. 3); therefore, disturbance at caves and
being repeatedly flushed from their roosts may cause bats to incur
elevated energetic costs and other physiological stress and potentially
increased risk of predation while in flight. Roost disturbance thus
would negatively affect the survival and reproduction of the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat.
In American Samoa, human disturbance at the two caves known to be
historical roost sites for the bat is likely to be minimal. Guano
mining occurred in the Anapeapea caves in the 1960s (Amerson et al.
1982, p. 74), but ceased due to the high salt content as a result of
flooding with seawater during cyclones (Grant et al. 1994, p. 135). On
Taveuni, Fiji, a cave known to be used as a roosting cave for the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat is under more immediate threat by humans, as
the cave is situated close to farmland, and is often used by locals
(Malotaux 2012a, p. 3). On Upolu, Samoa, caves previously known to
support bats are well-known and often visited by tourists; one within O
le Pupu Pue National Park and others on village land (Tarburton 2011,
pp. 40, 44). Swiftlets (Aerodramus spp.) are still observed in
significant numbers in these caves (Tarburton 2011, p. 40), but these
birds may be more tolerant than bats of human disturbance. We do not
have information on human disturbance of roosts in Tonga or Vanuatu.
Goats are certain to enter caves for shelter from the sun and
consequently can disturb roosting bats, although the extent of this
disturbance is unknown (Scanlon 2015b, in litt.). Feral goats have been
observed entering caves on Aguiguan Island for shelter, which disrupts
colonies of the endangered swiftlet and is believed to disturb the
Mariana subspecies of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat (Wiles and
Worthington 2002, p. 17; Cruz et al. 2008, p. 243; Scanlon 2015b, in
litt.). Researchers found that if caves that were otherwise suitable
for bats were occupied by goats, there were no bats present in the
caves (Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources 1995, p. 95). On
Yaqeta Island, Fiji, a cave once known to support several hundred
Pacific sheath-tailed bats but now abandoned, is located within a small
forest fragment frequented by goats (Scanlon et al. 2013, p. 453).
Populations of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat are concentrated in
the caves where they roost, and chronic disturbance of these sites can
result in the loss of populations, as described above. Because so few
populations of this bat remain, loss of additional populations to roost
disturbance further erodes its diminished abundance and distribution.
Based on the above information, roost disturbance at caves accessible
to humans and animals such as feral goats is a current threat and will
likely continue to be a threat into the future.
Pesticides
The use of pesticides may negatively affect the Pacific sheath-
tailed bat as a result of direct toxicity and a reduction in the
availability of insect prey. Pesticides are known to adversely affect
bat populations, either by secondary poisoning when bats consume
contaminated insects or by reducing the availability of insect prey
(Hutson et al. 2001, p. 138; Mickleburgh et al. 2002, p. 19).
Pesticides may have contributed to declines and loss of the Mariana
subspecies of Pacific sheath-tailed bat on islands where pesticides
were once applied in great quantities (Guam, Saipan, and Tinian) (Wiles
and Worthington 2002, p. 17).
In American Samoa and Samoa, current levels of pesticide use are
likely lower than several decades ago when their use, particularly
during the years in which taro was grown on large scales for export
(1975-1985), coincided with the decline of bats in both places and has
been implicated as the cause (Tarburton 2002, p. 107). However, Grant
et al. (1994, pp. 135-136) dismissed the role of insecticides in the
decline of the bat in American Samoa based on the absence of a similar
population crash in the insectivorous white-rumped swiftlet (Aerodramus
spodiopygius) and the limited use of agricultural and mosquito-control
pesticides. On the island of Taveuni in Fiji, where bat populations
have persisted at low levels over the last 10 years (Palmeirim et al.
2005, p. 62, Malotaux 2012, in litt.), several locals reported that
pesticide use was quite widespread, and their use may be similar on
other Fijian islands (Malotaux 2012, in litt.). We do not have
information about pesticide use in Tonga or Vanuatu. The best available
information does not lead us to conclude that the use of pesticides is
a current threat to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat or that it is likely
to become one in the future.
Hurricanes
Although severe storms are a natural disturbance with which the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat has coexisted for millennia, such storms
exacerbate other threats to the species by adversely

[[Page 65479]]

affecting habitat and food resources and pose a particular threat to
its small and isolated remaining populations. American Samoa, Samoa,
Fiji, Tonga, and Vanuatu are irregularly affected by hurricanes
(Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011 Vol. 1, p. 41). Located in the Southern
Hemisphere, these countries experience most hurricanes during the
November to April wet season, with the maximum occurrence between
January and March (Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011 Vol. 1, p. 47). In the
41-year period ending in 2010, more than 280 hurricanes passed within
250 mi (400 km) of Samoa (52 storms), Tonga (71), Fiji (70), and
Vanuatu (94) (Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011, pp. 76, 186, 216, 244). In
recent decades, several major (named) storms have hit American Samoa
and Samoa (Tusi in 1987, Ofa in 1990, Val in 1991, Heta in 2004, and
Olaf in 2005 (MNRE 2013, pp. 31-32; Federal Emergency Management Agency
2015, in litt.)); Tonga (Waka in 2001 and Ian in 2014 (Tonga
Meteorological Service 2006, in litt.; World Bank 2014, in litt.));
Fiji (Tomas in 2010 (Digital Journal 2010, in litt.)); and, most
recently, Vanuatu (Pam in 2015 (BBC 2015, in litt.)).
The high winds, waves, strong storm surges, high rainfall, and
flooding associated with hurricanes, particularly severe hurricanes
(with sustained winds of at least 150 mi per hour or 65 m per second)
cause direct mortality of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat. Cyclones Ofa
(1990) and Val (1991) removed the dense vegetation that had obscured
the entrance to the larger cave at Anapeapea Cove, inundated the cave
with water, filled it with coral and fallen trees, and washed the cave
walls clean (Craig et al. 1993, p. 52; Grant et al. 1994, p. 135). The
majority of sheath-tailed bats in the cave likely were killed when the
hurricane hit (Grant et al. 1994, p. 135).
Hurricanes also cause direct mortality of the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat as a result of the bats' inability to forage during extended
periods of high wind or rain, during which they may starve. Cyclone Val
(December 1991) remained stationary over the Samoan archipelago for 4
days, and Pacific sheath-tailed bats likely were unable to feed during
this time (Grant et al. 1994, p. 135). Despite the ability of Pacific
sheath-tailed bats to enter torpor to survive episodes of inclement
weather, the high ambient temperatures in Samoa may preclude the energy
savings necessary to sustain a small (4-7-g) torpid bat for an extended
period (Grant et al. 1994, p. 135).
Hurricanes may also cause modification of the roosting habitat of
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat by modifying vegetation in and around
cave entrances and altering climate conditions within roosting caves as
a result. Microchiropterans, such as the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, can
spend over half their lives in their roosts; consequently, the
microclimate of these habitats can exert a strong influence over their
heat-energy balance (Campbell et al. 2011, p. 174). The presence of
nearby forest cover and a well-developed tree canopy at cave entrances
is likely to be important in maintaining temperature and relative
humidity, and minimizing air movement in bat roosts, while allowing for
passage. O'Shea and Valdez (2009, pp. 77-78) characterized the
limestone cave ecosystem of the Mariana subspecies on Aguiguan as
having constant temperature, high relative humidity, and no major air
movement. Although such data are lacking for the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat, alteration of climate conditions has been implicated in the
abandonment of roost caves by other bat species (Hutson et al. 2001, p.
101).
Loss of forest cover and associated insect prey for bats as a
result of hurricanes can reduce foraging opportunities. Following
Cyclones Ofa (1990) and Val (1991), about 90 percent of the forests on
Upolu and Savaii were blown over or defoliated (Park et al. 1992, p. 4;
Elmqvist et al. 2002, pp. 385, 388). Tarburton (2002, p. 107) noted
that the abundance of flying insects remained low for weeks after
cyclones had defoliated trees. Although the Pacific sheath-tailed bat
has the capacity to forage in a variety of habitats, a study of habitat
use by the Mariana subspecies showed a clear preference for forested
habitats (Esselstyn et al. 2004, p. 307). Finally, the Pacific sheath-
tailed bat's severely diminished abundance and distribution increase
the likelihood that mortality events will cause population-level
impacts and increase the vulnerability of populations and of the
species to environmental catastrophes. Based on the information
described above, we consider hurricanes to be a factor that exacerbates
other threats to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat.
Low Numbers of Individuals and Populations
The low numbers of individuals and populations of this subspecies
place the Pacific sheath-tailed bat at great risk of extinction from
inbreeding and stochastic events such as storms. The threat is
significant for cave-dwelling species whose populations are often
highly localized with few numbers of animals that can easily be lost in
a severe storm, disease outbreak, or disturbance to the roost caves
(Wiles and Worthington 2002, p. 20).
Species that undergo significant habitat loss and degradation and
face other threats resulting in decline in numbers and range reduction
are inherently highly vulnerable to extinction resulting from localized
catastrophes such as severe storms or disease outbreaks, climate change
effects, and demographic stochasticity (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Gilpin
and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 24-34; Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 607). Conditions leading to this level of vulnerability
are easily reached by island species that face numerous threats such as
those described above. Small populations persisting in fragmented
habitat face increased risk from environmental catastrophes, such as
hurricanes, which could immediately extinguish some or all of the
remaining populations; demographic stochasticity that could leave the
species without sufficient males or females to be viable; or inbreeding
depression or loss of adaptive potential that can be associated with
loss of genetic diversity and result in eventual extinction (Shaffer
1981, p. 131; Lacy 2000, pp. 40, 44-46). The problems associated with
small population size and vulnerability to natural catastrophes or
random demographic or genetic fluctuations are further magnified by
synergistic interactions with ongoing threats such as those discussed
above under Factors A and C (Lacy 2000, pp. 45-47).
Breakdown of the Metapopulation Equilibrium
The Pacific sheath-tailed bat is thought to have a metapopulation
structure (Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 29), and will only persist in an
archipelago if the island colonization rate is sufficiently high to
compensate for the rate of extirpation caused by stochastic factors on
individual islands (Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 36). However, the
colonization rate is obviously proportional to the availability of
source populations; immigration of bats to recolonize sites or islands
where the species was extirpated is dependent on sufficient numbers of
animals existing in multiple other sites or islands within dispersal
distance (Hanski and Gilpin 1991, pp. 4-14). Consequently, the
extirpation of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat from some islands,
particularly from the largest islands, may in the long term result in
the permanent regional extinction of the species, even if suitable
environmental conditions persist on some islands (Palmeirim et al.
2005, p. 36). For example, the continued decline of the only
significant source

[[Page 65480]]

population of Pacific sheath-tailed bat in the Fijian archipelago
greatly diminishes the probability of recolonization and persistence
throughout the remainder of its range in Fiji, where it is currently
considered to be extirpated or nearly extirpated. The loss of a
functioning metapopulation is a current threat and will continue to be
a threat in the future.
Effects of Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. Currently, there are no climate change
studies that address impacts to the specific habitat of the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat. There are, however, climate change studies that
address potential changes in the tropical Pacific on a broader scale.
In our analyses, we reference the scientific assessment and climate
change predictions for the western Pacific region prepared by the
Pacific Climate Change Science Program (PCCSP), a collaborative
research partnership between the Australian Government and 14 Pacific
Island countries, including Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu (Australian
BOM and CSIRO 2011 Vol. 1, p. 15). The assessment builds on the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), and presents regional predictions for the area roughly between
25[deg] S. to 20[deg] N. and 120[deg] E. to 150[deg] W. (excluding the
Australian region south of 10[deg] S. and west of 155[deg] E.)
(Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011 Vol. 1, pp. 14, 20). The findings for
Samoa (13[deg] S. and 171[deg] E) may be used as a proxy for American
Samoa (14 [deg]S. and 170[deg] W.).
The annual average air temperatures and sea surface temperatures
are projected to increase in American Samoa, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, and
Vanuatu, as well as throughout the western Pacific region (Australian
BOM and CSIRO 2011 Vol. 2, pp. 91, 198, 228, 258). The projected
regional warming is around 0.5-1.0 [deg]C by 2030, regardless of the
emissions scenario. By 2055, the warming is generally 1.0-1.5 [deg]C
with regional differences depending on the emissions scenario.
Projected changes associated with increases in temperature include, but
are not limited to, changes in mean precipitation with unpredictable
effects on local environments (including ecosystem processes such as
nutrient cycling), increased occurrence of drought cycles, increases in
the intensity and number of severe storms, sea-level rise, a shift in
vegetation zones upslope, and shifts in the ranges and lifecycles of
individual species (Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 514-515; Pounds et
al. 1999, pp. 611-612; IPCC AR4 2007, p. 48; Emanuel et al. 2008, p.
365; U.S. Global Change Research Program (US-GCRP) 2009, pp. 145-149,
153; Keener et al. 2010, pp. 25-28; Sturrock et al. 2011, p. 144;
Townsend et al. 2011, pp. 14-15; Warren 2011, pp. 221-226; Finucane et
al. 2012, pp. 23-26; Keener et al. 2012, pp. 47-51).
In the western Pacific region, increased ambient temperatures are
projected to lead to increases in annual mean rainfall, the number of
heavy rain days (20-50 mm), and extreme rainfall events in American
Samoa, Samoa Fiji, Tonga, and Vanuatu (Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011
Vol. 1, p. 178; Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011 Vol. 2, pp. 87-88, 194-
195, 224-225, 254-255). Impacts of increased precipitation on the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat are unknown.
Hurricanes are projected to decrease in frequency in this part of
the Pacific but increase in severity as a result of global warming
(Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011 Vol. 2, pp. 88, 195, 225, 255). The high
winds, waves, strong storm surges, high rainfall, and flooding
associated with hurricanes, particularly severe hurricanes (with
sustained winds of 150 mi (240 km) per hour), have periodically caused
great damage to roosting habitat of Pacific sheath-tailed bats and to
native forests that provide their foraging habitat (Craig et al. 1993,
p. 52; Grant et al. 1994, p. 135; Tarburton 2002, pp. 105-108;
Palmeirim et al. 2005, p. 35), as described in the ``Hurricanes''
section, above.
In the western Pacific region, sea level is projected to rise 1.18
to 6.3 in (30 to 160 mm) by 2030, 2.6 to 12.2 in (70 to 310 mm) by
2055, and 8.3 in to 2 ft (210 to 620 mm) by 2090 under the high-
emissions scenario (Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011 Vol. 2, pp. 91, 198,
228, 258). The Pacific sheath-tailed bat is known to roost in areas
close to the coast and forage in the adjacent forested areas at or near
sea-level, as well as inland and at elevations up to 2,500 ft (762 m).
The impacts of projected sea-level rise on low-elevation and coastal
roosting and foraging habitat are likely to reduce and fragment the
bat's habitat on individual high islands.
In summary, although we lack information about the specific effects
of projected climate change on the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, we
anticipate that increased ambient temperature, precipitation, hurricane
intensity, and sea-level rise and inundation would create additional
stresses on the bat and on its roosting and foraging habitat because it
is vulnerable to these disturbances. The risk of extinction as a result
of the effects of climate change increases when a species' range and
habitat requirements are restricted, its habitat decreases, and its
numbers and number of populations decline (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-11). In
addition, the fragmented range, diminished number of populations, and
low total number of individuals have caused the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat to lose redundancy and resilience rangewide. Therefore, we would
expect the Pacific sheath-tailed bat to be particularly vulnerable to
the habitat impacts of projected environmental effects of climate
change (Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 504-505; Pounds et al. 1999,
pp. 611-612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp.
14,246-14,248; Giambelluca and Luke 2007, pp. 13-15). Although we
cannot predict the timing, extent, or magnitude of specific impacts, we
do expect the effects of climate change to exacerbate the current
threats to these species, such as habitat loss and degradation.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat from
roost disturbance, low numbers, hurricanes, climate change effects, or
breakdown of the metapopulation equilibrium.
Summary of Factor E
In summary, based on the best scientific and commercial information
available, we consider other natural and manmade factors to be current
and ongoing threats to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat. Roost
disturbance, small population size, and breakdown of the metapopulation
dynamic are threats to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat and are likely to
continue in the future. The bat's small and isolated remaining
populations are vulnerable to natural environmental catastrophes such
as hurricanes, and the threats of small population size and hurricanes
are likely to continue into the future. Due to reduced levels of
pesticide use and the uncertainty regarding impacts to this species, we
do not consider the use of pesticides to be a threat to the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat. We expect this species and its habitat to be
particularly vulnerable to the environmental effects of climate change.
Even though the specific and cumulative effects of climate change on
the sheath-tailed bat are presently unknown and we are not able to
determine with confidence the future magnitude of this threat, we
anticipate that climate change will

[[Page 65481]]

continue to exacerbate other threats to this species.
Synergistic Effects
In our analysis of the five factors, we found that the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat is likely to be affected by loss of forest habitat,
predation by nonnative mammals, roost disturbance, loss of range-wide
metapopulation dynamics, and small population size. We also identify
several potential sources of risk to the species (e.g., disease,
pesticides) that we do not consider to have a current, significant
effect on the Pacific sheath-tailed bat because of their low occurrence
today or apparently minimal overall impact on the species. Multiple
stressors acting in combination have greater potential to affect the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat than each factor alone. For example,
projected warmer temperatures and increased storm severity resulting
from climate change may enhance the spread of nonnative invasive plants
in the bat's forest habitat, and increased ambient temperature and
storm severity resulting from climate change are likely to exacerbate
other, direct threats to the species; these effects of climate change
are projected to increase in the future. The combined effects of
environmental, demographic, and catastrophic-event stressors,
especially on a small population, can lead to a decline that is
unrecoverable and results in extinction (Brook et al. 2008, pp. 457-
458). The impacts of the stressors described above, which might be
sustained by a larger, more resilient population, have the potential in
combination to rapidly affect the size, growth rate, and genetic
integrity of a species that persists as small, disjunct populations.
Thus, factors that, by themselves, may not have a significant effect on
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, may affect the subspecies when
considered in combination.

Determination for the Pacific Sheath-Tailed Bat

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat. We find that the Pacific sheath-
tailed bat is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire
range based on the severity and immediacy of the ongoing threats
described above. Habitat loss and degradation due to deforestation
(throughout the entire range) and overgrazing by goats (Fiji),
predation by nonnative mammals, human disturbance of roost caves, and
stochastic events such as hurricanes, floods, or disease outbreaks,
which all pose a particular threat to the small and isolated remaining
populations and probable low total abundance throughout its range,
render the Pacific sheath-tailed bat in its entirety highly susceptible
to extinction as a consequence of these imminent threats. The
vulnerability of the species and its cave habitat to the impacts of
predation and human disturbance is exacerbated by hurricanes and likely
to be further exacerbated in the future by the effects of climate
change, such as sea level rise, extreme rain events, and increased
storm severity. The breakdown of the Pacific sheath-tailed bat's
metapopulation structure is expected to reduce opportunities for
repopulation following local extirpations of dwindling populations due
to stochastic events. In addition, the continued decline of the last
relatively large population of this species in Fiji further diminishes
the probability of persistence throughout the remainder of its range
where it is currently considered to be extirpated or nearly extirpated.
In summary, habitat destruction and modification from deforestation
is a threat to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat that is occurring
throughout its range (Factor A). The threat of predation by nonnative
predators such as rats and feral cats is ongoing (Factor C). Human
disturbance of roost caves, low numbers of individuals and populations
and their concomitant vulnerability to catastrophic events such as
hurricanes, and the breakdown of the metapopulation structure all are
current threats to the bat as well (Factor E). All of these factors
pose threats to the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, whether we consider
their effects individually or cumulatively. Existing regulatory
mechanisms and conservation efforts do not address the threats to the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat (Factor D), and all of these threats will
continue in the future.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' Based on the severity and immediacy of
threats currently affecting the species, we find that the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat is presently in danger of extinction throughout its
entire range. The imminent threats of habitat loss and degradation,
predation by nonnative rats and cats, the small and declining number of
individuals and populations, the effects of small population size, and
stochastic events such as hurricanes render this species in its
entirety highly susceptible to extinction; for this reason, we find
that threatened species status is not appropriate for the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we are listing the Pacific sheath-tailed bat as
endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have
determined that the Pacific sheath-tailed bat is endangered throughout
all of its range, no portion of its range can be ``significant'' for
purposes of the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species.'' See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR
37577, July 1, 2014).

Mao, Gymnomyza samoensis

The genus Gymnomyza refers to birds in the honeyeater family
Meliphagidae, which are restricted to a few islands in the southwestern
Pacific Ocean. The mao (Gymnomyza samoensis), also called maomao, is
one of three honeyeater species in the genus (Mayr 1945, p. 100). We
have carefully reviewed the available taxonomic information (Watling
2001, p. 174; BirdLife International 2013; Gill and Donsker 2015; ITIS
2015a) and have concluded the species is a valid taxon.
The mao is a large honeyeater approximately 11 to 12 in (28 to 31
cm) long with dark plumage varying from blackish on the head and breast
to olive-green on the wings, tail, and body (Stirnemann et al. 2015a,
p. 1). It has an olive-green stripe under the eye. The bill is long,
curved, and black in adults. Males have blue-grey and brown eyes, and
females have brown eyes only (Stirnemann et al. 2015b, p. 383). Males
are significantly larger than females with respect to wing, bill,
tarsus, and tail length, although there is considerable overlap in size
(Stirnemann et al. 2015, pp. 380-381 Wilson J.). Juveniles have a
shorter bill than adults, and eye color changes 2 months post-fledging
(Stirnemann et al. 2015, p. 383). The mao is a very vocal species and
makes a variety of loud distinctive calls with bouts of calling lasting
up to a minute (Watling 2001, p. 174). Calls differ between sexes
(Stirnemann et al. 2015b, p. 382).
The mao is endemic to the Samoan archipelago. The species was
thought to

[[Page 65482]]

be primarily restricted to mature, well-developed, moist, mossy forests
at upper elevations (Watling 2001, p. 175; Engbring and Ramsey 1989, p.
68), but has recently been observed at elevations ranging from 932 to
5,075 ft (284 to 1,547 m) and in ecosystems including lowland
rainforest, disturbed secondary forest, and montane rainforest (MNRE
2006, pp. 9-10). The birds use the mid- to upper-canopy levels of the
forest and will also forage along forest edges and brushy forest
openings (Engbring and Ramsey 1989, p. 68). The mao has also been
recorded visiting coconut trees near the coast (Watling 2001, p. 175).
Butler and Stirnemann (2013, p. 30) provide the following
information about the mao's habitat use. The birds occur only in
forested areas with a canopy layer, including modified habitat such as
plantations where large trees also are present. They do not occur in
logged areas with no large trees or canopy. Mao are primarily found in
the high canopy layer, but also spend considerable time foraging on the
trunks of trees and feeding on nectar sources near the ground (such as
ginger (family Zingiberaceae)) and in low bushes (such as Heliconia
spp.). The mao selects territories with high tree species diversity and
with appropriate nectar sources and a large tree from which the male
sings. Trees near a commonly used singing tree are selected for
nesting. No particular tree species is used for nesting, but all nests
are built more than 5 m (16 ft) above the ground.
Stirnemann et al. 2015a (pp. 4-7) provide the following information
about mao life history and breeding behavior based on a study of 26
nesting attempts. The mao have an extended breeding season that can
occur over 9 to 10 months, although peak egg-laying appears to occur
from late May to October. One egg is produced per clutch. The nest
consists of young branches of various trees and contains little lining
(Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 25). Nests are oval, cup-shaped,
approximately 5.5 in (14 cm) by 3.1 in (8 cm), and are constructed in
the junction of branches. Incubation lasts 19 days, and chicks fledge
22 to 24 days after hatching. Juveniles are dependent on adults for
approximately 8 to 10 weeks post-fledging. The female is almost
exclusively responsible for incubation and feeding the chick, and both
adults defend the nest. The mao will re-nest if the first nest fails,
but not if the first nesting attempt produces a chick. Pairs are highly
territorial with high site fidelity. The mao's extended breeding
season, extended parental care period (100 to 120 days), and limited
re-nesting attempts suggest a maximum annual reproductive capacity of
one chick; notably low in comparison with other honeyeaters (Stirnemann
et al. 2015a, p. 8).
The mao's diet consists primarily of nectar, and also includes some
invertebrates and fruit (MNRE 2006, p. 11). Nectar is an especially
important food source during the breeding season, and the mao will
defend nectar patches (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 30). The mao eats
invertebrates by probing dead material and moss, and by gleaning from
emerging leaves (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 30). Females forage for
invertebrates under dead leaves on the forest floor to feed their
fledglings (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 30). Fledglings solicit food
from the female by begging continually from the forest floor (Butler
and Stirnemann 2013, p. 28).
The mao was once found throughout Savaii and Upolu (Samoa) likely
in forests ranging from the coast to mountain tops (MNRE 2006, p. 2).
It is endemic to the islands of Savaii and Upolu, Samoa, and Tutuila
Island, American Samoa (Engbring and Ramsey 1989, p. 68; Watling 2001,
p. 174). The mao was observed during an 1839 expedition on Tutuila
(Amerson et al. 1982, p. 72); two male specimens were collected there
in 1924, and an unconfirmed observation of the mao on Tutuila was
reported in 1977 (Engbring and Ramsey 1989, p. 68; Watling 2001, p.
174).
The mao is currently found only on the islands of Savaii and Upolu
in Samoa (Amerson et al. 1982, p. 72; Engbring and Ramsey 1989, p. 68;
Watling 2001, p. 74; MNRE 2006, p. 2). In 1984, the mao was reported as
common in undisturbed upland forests (foothill, montane, and cloud
forests above 1,970 ft (600 m)) of Upolu and Savaii (Bellingham and
Davis 1988, p. 124). A decline in distribution was observed in the
1990s following a period in which several powerful hurricanes hit
Samoa: Tusi (1987), Ofa (1990), and Val (1991) (Lovegrove 1992, p. 26;
MNRE 2006, pp. 2, 4). Otherwise, no detailed surveys of the mao were
conducted before 2005, and little information exists regarding changes
in abundance and distribution (MNRE 2006, p. 2). Surveys conducted in
2005-2006 found mao at seven sites on Upolu and Savaii in upland
forested habitat, yielded a rough estimate of 500 individuals and
indicated that numbers are declining (MNRE 2006, p. 4; Tipamaa 2007, in
litt., cited in Birdlife International 2012). The Rapid Biodiversity
Assessment of Upland Savaii, Samoa, conducted in 2012, detected small
numbers of the mao at two sites on the island (Atherton and Jefferies
2012, p. 14), and it is possible that the species has particular
habitat requirements that have become limited in Samoa (MNRE 2013, p.
12). None of the recent surveys (Atherton and Jeffries 2012, p. 110;
MNRE 2015, p. 87) or studies (Butler and Stirnemann 2013) has yielded
an updated population estimate. However, researchers observed that the
species is rarer than previously thought and recommended that
comprehensive surveys be conducted to generate a new population
estimate (Stirnemann 2015, in litt).
The mao is likely extirpated from Tutuila Island in American Samoa
(Freifeld 1999, p. 1,208). Surveys conducted on Tutuila Island in 1982
and 1986 and from 1992 to 1996 did not detect the mao (Amerson et al.
1982, p. 72; Engbring and Ramsey 1989; p. 68; Freifeld 2015, in litt.).
Given that the species is noisy and conspicuous, it is unlikely that a
population on Tutuila was missed during the surveys (Engbring and
Ramsey 1989; p. 68). More recent surveys conducted by DMWR in forested
habitats likely to support mao failed to detect their presence, further
indicating the likelihood that the species no longer occurs on Tutuila
(MacDonald 2015 in litt.).
A general decline in distribution and numbers has resulted in
small, increasingly fragmented populations estimated to comprise fewer
than 1,000 mature individuals (MNRE 2006, p. 4; Tipamaa 2007, in litt.,
cited in Birdlife International 2012; Stirnemann 2015, in litt.). The
mao is listed as Endangered in the 2014 IUCN Red List (Birdlife
International 2012). Endangered is IUCN's second most severe category
of extinction assessment, which equates to a very high risk of
extinction in the wild. IUCN criteria include the rate of decline,
population size, area of geographic distribution, and degree of
population and distribution fragmentation; however, IUCN rankings do
not confer any actual protection or management.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Mao

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

Habitat Destruction and Modification by Deforestation
Several thousand years of subsistence agriculture and more recent
commercial agriculture has resulted in the alteration and great
reduction in area of forests at lower elevations in the Samoan
archipelago (Whistler 1994, p. 40; Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998, p.

[[Page 65483]]

361; Whistler 2002, pp. 130-131). In American Samoa, forest clearing
for agriculture has contributed to habitat loss and degradation of
forests in the lowland areas on Tutuila, and has the potential to
spread into higher elevations and previously undisturbed forest;
however, owing to limits on the feasibility of land-clearing imposed by
the island's extreme topography, large areas of mature native
rainforest have persisted. Deforestation, therefore, is unlikely to
have been a cause of the mao's extirpation on this island in American
Samoa.
The loss of forested habitat in Samoa is a primary threat to the
mao (MNRE 2006, p. 5). Between 1954 and 1990, the amount of forested
area declined from 74 to 46 percent of total land area in Samoa (Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 2005 in litt.). Between 1978 and
1990, 20 percent of all forest losses in Samoa were attributable to
logging, with 97 percent of the logging having occurred on Savaii
(Government of Samoa 1998 in Whistler 2002, p. 132). Forested land area
in Samoa continued to decline at a rate of roughly 2.1 percent or 7,400
ac (3,000 ha) annually from 1990 to 2000 (FAO 2005 in litt.). As a
result, there is very little undisturbed, mature forest left in Samoa
(Watling 2001, p. 175; FAO 2005 in litt.).
The clearing of land for commercial agriculture has been the
leading cause of deforestation in Samoa--more so than plantations or
logging (Whistler 2002, p. 131). The transition from subsistence
agriculture to developing cash crops for export (e.g., taro, bananas,
cacao) coupled with rapid population growth and new technologies, led
to increased forest clearing in Samoa (Paulson 1994, pp. 326-332;
Whistler 2002, pp. 130-131). Today, only 360 ac (146 ha) of native
lowland rainforests (below 2,000 ft or 600 m) remain on Savaii and
Upolu as a result of logging, agricultural clearing, residential
clearing (including relocation due to tsunami), and natural causes such
as rising sea level and hurricanes (MNRE 2013, p. 47). On Upolu, direct
or indirect human influence has caused extensive damage to native
forest habitat above 2,000 ft (600 m) (MNRE 2013, p. 13). Although
upland Upolu is forested, almost all of the upland forests are largely
dominated by introduced species today (MNRE 2013, p. 12).
Savaii still has extensive upland forests that are for the most
part undisturbed and composed of native species (MNRE 2013, p. 40).
However, forest clearance remains an ongoing threat to the mao (MNRE
2006, p. 5). Logging is slowing down because the most accessible forest
has largely been removed, but is an ongoing problem on Savaii despite
years of effort to phase it out (MNRE 2006, p. 5; Atherton and Jeffries
2012, p. 17). Shifting or slash-and-burn cultivation is an increasing
concern in upland forest that provides important refuges for the mao
because farmers use forestry roads from heavily logged lowland forests
to gain access to formerly inaccessible land (MNRE 2006, p. 5). For
example, there is much concern about potential forest loss because of
road that has been bulldozed into the cloud forest (above 3,280 ft
(1,000 m)) on Savaii, apparently illegally (Atherton and Jeffries 2012,
p. 16). Such roads provide vectors for invasive nonnative plant and
animal species as well, thus exacerbating those threats to the mao and
its habitat (Atherton and Jeffries 2012, p. 108).
Habitat quality has also degraded with the loss of closed forest
space (MNRE 2006, p. 5; Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 22). An analysis
in 1999 identified 32 percent of the total forest cover as ``open''
forest (less than 40 percent tree cover) and less than 0.05 percent as
``closed'' forest, largely as a result of damage from Cyclones Ofa and
Val (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 22). An additional 24 percent of
the forest cover is classified as secondary re-growth forest. As a
result, the montane forest in Samoa is now extremely open and patchy
with fewer food resources for birds, including the mao (Butler and
Stirnemann 2013, p. 22). The montane forests are also increasingly
vulnerable to invasion by nonnative trees and other plants (Butler and
Stirnemann 2013, p. 22), which adversely affect native forests through
competition for light, nutrients, and water; chemical inhibition; and
prevention of reproduction. Loss of forest is likely to affect the mao
by reducing breeding, nesting, and foraging habitat, increasing forest
fragmentation, and increasing the abundance and diversity of invasive
species (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 22).
On the island of Tutuila, American Samoa, agriculture and urban
development covers approximately 24 percent of the island, and up to 60
percent of the island contains slopes of less than 30 percent where
additional land clearing is feasible (ASCC 2010, p. 13; DWMR 2006, p.
25). Farmers are increasingly encroaching into some of the steep
forested areas as a result of suitable flat lands already being
occupied with urban development and agriculture (ASCC 2010, p. 13).
Consequently, agricultural plots have spread from low elevations up to
middle and some high elevations on Tutuila.
In summary, deforestation by land-clearing for agriculture has been
the major contributing factor in the loss and degradation of forested
habitat for the mao throughout its range in Samoa and American Samoa,
and logging has been an additional major factor in loss and degradation
of forest habitat in Samoa. The majority of the lowland forests have
either been lost or fragmented by land-clearing for agriculture. Upland
areas in Samoa have suffered extensive deforestation from logging and
are increasingly at risk as agriculture and development expand into
these areas. Based on the above information, we conclude that the
threat of habitat destruction and modification by agriculture and
development is a current threat to the mao and will continue into the
future.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants
Nonnative plants are known to have invaded ecosystems in American
Samoa and Samoa, with documented adverse impacts to native forests
(Space and Flynn 2000, pp. 5, 12; Space and Flynn 2002, pp. 4-5;
Whistler 2002, p. 122; Atkinson and Medeiros 2006, pp. 17-18; Craig
2009, pp. 94, 98; ASCC 2010, p. 22; NPSA 2012, in litt.; Atherton and
Jeffries 2012, p. 103; Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 30; MNRE 2013, p.
29). The native flora of the Samoan archipelago (plant species that
were present before humans arrived) consisted of approximately 550
taxa, 30 percent of which were endemic (species that occur only in the
American Samoa and Samoa) (Whistler 2002, p. 8). An additional 250
plant species have been intentionally or accidentally introduced and
have become naturalized, with 20 or more of these considered invasive
or potentially invasive in American Samoa (Whistler 2002, p. 8; Space
and Flynn 2000, pp. 23-24). Of these approximately 20 or more nonnative
pest plant species, at least 10 have altered or have the potential to
alter the habitat of the mao and the other 4 species proposed for
listing (Atkinson and Medeiros 2006, p. 18; Craig 2009, pp. 94, 97-98;
ASCC 2010, p. 15).
Nonnative plants can degrade native habitat in Pacific island
environments by: (1) Modifying the availability of light through
alterations of the canopy structure; (2) altering soil-water regimes;
(3) modifying nutrient cycling; (4) ultimately converting native-
dominated plant communities to nonnative plant communities; and (5)
increasing the frequency of landslides and erosion (Smith 1985, pp.
217-218; Cuddihy and Stone, 1990, p. 74; Matson 1990, p. 245; D'Antonio
and Vitousek

[[Page 65484]]

1992, p. 73; Vitousek et al. 1997, pp. 6-9; Atkinson and Medeiros 2006,
p. 16). Nonnative plant species often exploit the disturbance caused by
other factors such as hurricanes, agriculture and development, and
feral ungulates, and thus, in combination reinforce or exacerbate their
negative impacts to native habitats. Although the areas within the
National Park of American Samoa (NPSA, on the islands of Tutuila, Ofu,
and Tau) contain many areas that are relatively free of human
disturbance and nonnative invasive species and that largely represent
pre-contact vegetation, the threat of invasion and further spread by
nonnative plant species poses immense cause for concern (Atkinson and
Medeiros 2006, p. 17; ASCC 2010, p. 22).
The invasive vines Merremia peltata and Mikania micrantha have
serious impacts in forested areas and prevent reforestation of former
agriculture areas in Samoa and American Samoa; they are prolific
invaders of forest gaps and disturbed sites and can have a smothering
effect on growing trees, blocking sunlight to subcanopy and undergrowth
vegetation (MNRE 2013, p. 29). Similarly, several invasive trees also
negatively affect native forests in Samoa by outcompeting native
species in forest gaps, getting established and moving further into old
secondary regrowth and primary forests. A significant portion of
Samoa's forest are now classified as secondary regrowth dominated by
invasive tree species such as Falcataria moluccana (albizia, tamaligi),
Castilla elastica (Mexican rubber tree, pulu mamoe), Spathodea
campanulata (African tulip, faapasi), and Funtumia elastica (African
rubber tree, pulu vao) (MNRE 2013, p. 29). In addition, the invasive
shrub Clidemia hirta is found in remote areas of upland forests in
Savaii (Atherton and Jeffries 2012, p. 103).
Although the mao forage and occasionally nest in modified habitat,
such as plantation areas where nonnative trees that provide nectar and
nesting habitat (e.g., Falcataria moluccana) may occur, these habitats
lack the high tree-species diversity preferred by the mao and also
place the species at a greater risk of predation by nonnative predators
(see Factor C below) (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 30). Please refer
to the proposed rule (80 FR 61568; October 13, 2015) for descriptions
of nonnative plant species that have the greatest negative impacts to
the native forest habitat for the mao in American Samoa (Space and
Flynn 2000, pp. 23-24; Craig 2009, pp. 94, 96-98; ASCC 2010, p. 15). In
summary, while the best available information does not provide the
exact distribution of nonnative plant species in the range of the mao,
the habitat-modifying impacts of nonnative species are expected to
continue and are not likely to be reduced in the future. Based on the
above information, we conclude that the threat of habitat destruction
and modification by nonnative plant species is a current threat to the
mao and will continue into the future.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Ungulates
Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) cause multiple negative impacts to island
ecosystems, including the destruction of vegetation, spread of invasive
nonnative plant species, and increased soil erosion. In addition, feral
cattle (Bos taurus) consume tree seedlings and browse saplings, and
combined with undergrowth disturbance, prevent forest regeneration,
subsequently opening the forest to invasion by nonnative species
(Cuddihy 1984, p. 16).
Feral pigs are known to cause deleterious impacts to ecosystem
processes and functions throughout their worldwide distribution (Aplet
et al. 1991, p. 56; Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 201; Campbell and Long
2009, p. 2,319). Feral pigs are extremely destructive and have both
direct and indirect impacts on native plant communities. Pigs are a
major vector for the establishment and spread of invasive, nonnative
plant species by dispersing plant seeds on their hooves and fur, and in
their feces (Diong 1982, pp. 169-170, 196-197), which also serve to
fertilize disturbed soil (Siemann et al. 2009, p. 547). In addition,
pig rooting and wallowing contributes to erosion by clearing vegetation
and creating large areas of disturbed soil, especially on slopes (Smith
1985, pp. 190, 192, 196, 200, 204, 230-231; Stone 1985, pp. 254-255,
262-264; Tomich 1986, pp. 120-126; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 64-65;
Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; Loope et al. 1991, pp. 18-19; Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, p. 52; Nogueira-Filho et al. 2009, p. 3,681; CNMI-SWARS
2010, p. 15; Dunkell et al. 2011, pp. 175-177; Kessler 2011, pp. 320,
323). Erosion resulting from rooting and trampling by pigs impacts
native plant communities by contributing to watershed degradation and
alteration of plant nutrient status, and increasing the likelihood of
landslides (Vitousek et al. 2009, pp. 3,074-3,086; Chan-Halbrendt et
al. 2010, p. 251; Kessler 2011, pp. 320-324). In the Hawaiian Islands,
pigs have been described as the most pervasive and disruptive nonnative
influence on the unique native forests, and are widely recognized as
one of the greatest current threats to Hawaii's forest ecosystems
(Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195).
In American Samoa, feral pigs continue to negatively affect
forested habitats. Feral pigs have been present in American Samoa since
humans first settled the islands (American Samoa Historic Preservation
Office 2015, in litt.). In the past, hunting pressure kept their
numbers down, however, increasing urbanization and increasing
availability of material goods has resulted in the decline in the
practice of pig hunting to almost nothing (Whistler 1992, p. 21; 1994,
p. 41). Feral pigs are moderately common to abundant in many forested
areas, where they spread invasive plants, damage understory vegetation,
and destroy riparian areas by their feeding and wallowing behavior
(DMWR 2006, p. 23; ASCC 2010, p. 15). Feral pigs are a serious problem
in the NPSA because of the damage they cause to native vegetation
through their rooting and wallowing (Whistler 1992, p. 21; 1994, p. 41;
Hoshide 1996, p. 2; Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 48; Togia pers. comm. in
Loope et al. 2013, p. 321). Such damage to understory vegetation is
likely to reduce foraging opportunities for the mao. Pig densities have
been reduced in some areas by snaring and hunting, but remain high in
other areas (ASCC 2010, p. 15).
In Samoa, feral pigs are present throughout lowland and upland
areas on Savaii, and are considered to have a negative impact on the
ecological integrity of upland forests of Savaii, an important
conservation area for the mao and other rare species (Atherton and
Jeffries 2012, p. 17). During recent surveys, feral pig activity was
common at most sites in upland forests on Savaii, and was even detected
at the upper range of the mao at an elevation of 4,921 ft (1,500 m)
(Atherton and Jefferies 2012, pp. 103, 146).
Significant numbers of feral cattle were present in an upland site
where their trampling had kept open grassy areas within forested flats,
and where mao had previously been observed (Atherton and Jeffries 2012,
pp. 103-105). Trampling in forested areas damages understory vegetation
and is likely to reduce foraging opportunities for mao as well as
provide vectors for invasion by nonnative plants. In summary, the
widespread disturbance caused by feral ungulates is likely to continue
to negatively impact the habitat of the mao. Based on the above
information, we conclude that habitat destruction and modification by
feral ungulates is a threat to the mao.

[[Page 65485]]

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range

American Samoa

The National Park of American Samoa (NPSA) was established to
preserve and protect the tropical forest and archaeological and
cultural resources, to maintain the habitat of flying foxes, to
preserve the ecological balance of the Samoan tropical forest, and,
consistent with the preservation of these resources, to provide for the
enjoyment of the unique resources of the Samoan tropical forest by
visitors from around the world (Pub. L. 100-571, Pub. L. 100-336).
Under a 50-year lease agreement between local villages, the American
Samoa Government, and the Federal Government, approximately 8,000 ac
(3,240 ha) of forested habitat on the islands of Tutuila, Tau, and Ofu
are protected and managed (NPSA Lease Agreement 1993).
Several programs and partnerships to address the threat of
nonnative plant species have been established and are ongoing in
American Samoa. Since 2000, the NPSA has implemented an invasive plant
management program that has focused on monitoring and removal of
nonnative plant threats. The nonnative plant species prioritized for
removal include the following: Adenanthera pavonina or lopa, Castilla
elastica or pulu mamoe, Falcataria moluccana or tamaligi, Leucaena
leucocephala or lusina, and Psidium cattleianum or strawberry guava
(Togia 2015, in litt.). In particular, efforts have been focused on the
removal of the tamiligi from within the boundaries of the NPSA as well
as in adjacent areas (Hughes et al. 2012).
The thrip Liothrips urichi is an insect that was introduced to
American Samoa in the 1970s as a biocontrol for the weed Clidemia hirta
(Tauiliili and Vargo 1993, p. 59). This thrip has been successful at
controlling Clidemia on Tutuila. Though Clidemia is still common and
widespread throughout Tutuila, thrips inhibit its growth and vigor,
preventing it from achieving ecological dominance (Cook 2001, p. 143).
In 2004, the American Samoa Invasive Species Team (ASIST) was
established as an interagency team of nine local government and Federal
agencies. The mission of ASIST is to reduce the rate of invasion and
impact of invasive species in American Samoa with the goals of
promoting education and awareness on invasive species and preventing,
controlling, and eradicating invasive species. In 2010, the U.S. Forest
Service conducted an invasive plant management workshop for Territorial
and Federal agencies, and local partners (Nagle 2010 in litt.). More
recently, the NPSA produced a field guide of 15 invasive plants that
the park and its partners target for early detection and response (NPSA
2012, in litt.).
In 1996, the NPSA initiated a feral pig control program that
includes fencing and removal of pigs using snares in the Tutuila Island
and Tau Island Units. Two fences have been constructed and several
hundred pigs have been removed since 2007 (Togia 2015, in litt.). The
program is ongoing and includes monitoring feral pig activity twice per
year and additional removal actions as needed (Togia 2015, in litt.).

Samoa

In 2006, the Government of Samoa developed a recovery plan for the
mao. The recovery plan identifies goals of securing the mao,
maintaining its existing populations on Upolu and Savaii, and
reestablishing populations at former sites (MNRE 2006). The plan has
eight objectives: (1) Manage key forest areas on Upolu and Savaii where
significant populations of the mao remain; (2) carry out detailed
surveys to identify the numbers of pairs and establish monitoring; (3)
increase understanding of the breeding and feeding ecology; (4)
establish populations on rat-free islands or new mainland sites
(including feasibility of reintroduction to American Samoa); (5)
evaluate development of a captive-management program; (6) develop a
public awareness and education program; (7) develop partnerships to
assist in the mao recovery; and (8) establish a threatened bird
recovery group to oversee the implementation and review of this plan
and other priority bird species. These objectives have not all been
met, and currently funding is not available to update the plan
(Stirnemann in litt., 2016). In 2012, a detailed study provided
information on the mao's diet, habitat use, reproductive success, and
survival, which are important life-history requirements that can be
used to implement recovery efforts (Butler and Stirnemann 2013).
The Mt. Vaea Ecological Restoration Project surveyed and mapped the
presence of native bird and plant species and invasive plant species
within lowland forest habitat of the 454-ac (183-ha) Mt. Vaea Scenic
Reserve on Upolu, Samoa (Bonin 2008, pp. 2-5). The project was
envisioned as the first demonstration project of invasive species
management and forest restoration in Samoa. Phase I of the project
resulted in the development of a restoration plan recommending removal
of five priority invasive plant species and planting of native tree
species (Bonin 2008, pp. viii, 24). Phase 2 of the project resulted in
identifying techniques for treatment of two problematic rubber species
(Castilla elastica or pulu mamoe and Funtumia elastica or pulu vao) and
replanting areas with native tree species (Bonin 2010, pp. 20-21).
The Two Samoas Environmental Collaboration Initiative brings
together government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
institutions from American Samoa and Samoa and provides a platform for
a single concerted effort to manage threats to environmental resources
such as the management of fisheries, land-based sources of pollution,
climate change, invasive species, and key or endangered species (MNRE
2014, p. 67). In 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the
collaborative effort between the two countries was signed by the two
agencies responsible for conservation of species and their habitats,
MNRE (Samoa) and DMWR (American Samoa). This initiative establishes a
framework for efforts to recover the mao in American Samoa and Samoa.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that the destruction, modification, and
curtailment of the mao's habitat and range are ongoing threats and
these threats will continue into the future. The destruction and
modification of habitat for the mao is caused by agriculture, logging,
feral ungulates, and nonnative plant species, the impacts of all of
which are exacerbated by hurricanes (see Factor E). The most serious
threat identified has been the loss of forested habitat caused by
forest clearing for agriculture, and logging. Although some protection
of the mao's forest habitat in specific areas results from the efforts
described above, none of these efforts reduces the threats of habitat
loss to logging and conversion for agriculture (in Samoa) or habitat
degradation by feral pigs, invasive, nonnative plants, and hurricanes
(in Samoa and American Samoa) to the extent that listing is not
warranted. All of these threats are ongoing and interact to exacerbate
negative impacts and increase the vulnerability of extinction of the
mao.

[[Page 65486]]

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

In the analysis for our proposed rule, we had no information
indicating that overutilization has led to the loss of populations or a
significant reduction in numbers of mao. We have received no new
information. When this final listing becomes effective (see DATES,
above), research and collection of this species will be regulated
through permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

Nest predation by rats has negative impacts on many island birds,
including the mao (Atkinson 1977, p. 129; 1985, pp. 55-70; Butler and
Stirnemann 2013, p. 29; O'Donnell et al. 2015, pp. 24-26). Rats have
been identified as the main cause of decline in the closely related
Gymnomyza aubryana in New Caledonia (MNRE 2006, p. 8). Juveniles
spending time on the forest floor are also at risk from predation by
feral cats (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 31). In American Samoa,
because large areas of good-quality, closed-canopy forest habitat
remain, factors in addition to deforestation are likely responsible for
the extirpation of the mao from American Samoa, including predation by
rats and cats. The mao's low reproductive rate (one juvenile per year)
and extended breeding season also increase the likelihood of
population-level effects of predation (Stirnemann et al. 2015a, p. 8).
Other potential predators include the native barn owl (Tyto alba) and
wattled honeyeater (Foulehaio carunculatus); however, adults can
potentially drive these species away from the nest (Butler and
Stirnemann 2013, p. 31).
Butler and Stirnemann (2013, p. 29) captured footage of one nest
depredation event by a black rat, which took a mao egg. The rat gained
access to the egg by jumping on the incubating female's back from the
branch above, driving the female off the nest. Combined with the
disappearance of two females during the breeding season, this footage
suggests that adult females are potentially vulnerable to predation on
the nest at night, while they are incubating (Butler and Stirnemann
2013, p. 31), a phenomenon documented or suspected in other island bird
species, which lack innate behavioral defenses against nonnative
mammalian predators (see for example Robertson et al. 1994, p. 1,084;
Armstrong et al. 2006, p. 1,034; VanderWerf 2009, p. 741). This
potential bias toward predation of females has the potential to create
a skewed sex ratio in mao populations (Robertson et al. pp. 1,083-
1,084).
The location of mao nests affects their vulnerability to predation
by rats. Nests in close proximity to plantation habitats, where rats
are most abundant, are particularly susceptible and experience low
reproductive success (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 31). Nests within
50 meters of a plantation are 40 percent more likely to be depredated
than nests in forested areas farther from plantations (Butler and
Stirnemann 2013, p. 31). Habitat loss from clearing of native forest
combined with an expansion of plantations in Samoa may lead to an
increase in rat populations (which find ample food in plantation
habitats) and a potential for an increase in the mao nest predation
rate.
Predation by feral cats has been directly responsible for the
extinction of numerous birds on oceanic islands (Medina et al. 2011, p.
6). Native mammalian carnivores are absent from oceanic islands because
of their low dispersal ability, but once introduced by humans, they
become significant predators on native animals such as seabirds and
landbirds that are not adapted to predation by terrestrial carnivores
(Nogales et al. 2013, p. 804; Scott et al. 1986, p. 363; Ainley et al.
1997, p. 24; Hess and Banko 2006, in litt.). The considerable amount of
time spent on the ground (up to 7 days) and poor flight ability of mao
chicks post-fledging increases the risk of predation by feral cats
(Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 28). Evidence of feral cat presence
exists in montane forests and along an elevational gradient on Savaii
(Atherton and Jeffries 2012, pp. 76, 103). Predation by feral cats has
been posited as a contributing factor in the mao's extirpation from
Tutuila (Stirnemann 2015, in litt.); however, feral cats have not
commonly been observed in native forest areas on Tutuila (Arcilla 2016,
in litt.). It should be noted that feral cats have been observed in
remote and forested areas on Tau Island, should these areas be
considered for mao recovery efforts (Badia 2014, in litt.; Arcilla
2016, in litt.). Based on the above information, we conclude that
predation by rats and cats is a current threat to the mao that is
likely to continue in the future.
Disease
Field and laboratory investigations suggest that avian malaria may
be indigenous and non-pathogenic in American Samoa and, therefore, is
unlikely to affect bird populations (Jarvi et al. 2003, p. 636; Seamon
2004a, in litt.). The best available information does not indicate
there are other diseases affecting the mao populations in Samoa (MNRE
2006, p. 8).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
A project to restore habitat for the mao and other priority species
by removing the threat of predation by the Polynesian rat (R. exulans)
was attempted on the uninhabited islands of Nuutele (267 ac (108 ha))
and Nuulua (62 ac (25 ha)) off the eastern end of Upolu, Samoa (Tye
2012, in litt). The demonstration project aimed to eradicate the
Polynesian rat from both islands through aerial delivery of baits.
Post-project monitoring detected rats on Nuutele, suggesting that rats
survived the initial eradication effort or were able to recolonize the
island (Tye 2012, in litt.).
Summary of Factor C
In summary, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that disease is not a current threat to the
mao, nor is it likely to become a threat in the future. Because of its
low reproductive rate (1 egg per clutch) and vulnerability to predation
at multiple life-history stages (eggs, chicks, fledglings, and adults),
we conclude that the threat of predation by rats and feral cats is an
ongoing threat to the mao that will continue into the future.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

In determining whether the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms
constitutes a threat to the mao, we analyzed the existing Federal,
Territorial, and international laws and regulations that may address
the threats to this species or contain relevant protective measures.

Samoa

The Government of Samoa has enacted numerous laws and regulations
and has signed on to various international agreements that address a
wide range of activities such as land tenure and development,
biodiversity, wildlife protection, forestry management, national parks,
biosecurity, and the extraction of water resources (MNRE 2013, pp. 148-
149; MNRE 2014, p. 57).
The Protection of Wildlife Regulations 2004 regulates the
protection, conservation, and utilization of terrestrial or land-
dwelling species (MNRE and SPREP 2012, p. 5). These regulations
prohibit, and establish penalties for committing, the following
activities: (1) The taking, keeping, or

[[Page 65487]]

killing of protected and partially protected animal species; (2) harm
of flying species endemic to Samoa; and (3) the export of any bird from
Samoa (MNRE and SPREP 2012, pp. 5-6). The mao is endemic to the Samoan
archipelago, but it is not listed as a ``flying species endemic to
Samoa'' under these regulations.
The Planning and Urban Management Act 2004 (PUMA) and PUMA
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation (2007) were enacted to
ensure all development initiatives are properly evaluated for adverse
environmental impacts (MNRE 2013, p. 93). The information required for
Sustainable Management Plans and Environmental Impact Assessments does
not include specific consideration for species or their habitat
(Planning and Urban Management Act 2004, as amended). Other similar
approval frameworks mandated under other legislation address specific
threats and activities. These include the permit system under the Lands
Surveys and Environment Act 1989 for sand mining and coastal
reclamation, and ground water exploration and abstraction permits under
the Water Resources Act 2008 (MNRE 2013, p. 93). The PUMA process has
been gaining in acceptance and use; however, information on its
effectiveness in preventing adverse impacts to species or their
habitats is lacking (MNRE 2013, p. 93).
The Forestry Management Act 2011 regulates the effective and
sustainable management and utilization of forest resources. This law
creates the requirement for a permit or license for commercial logging
or harvesting of native, agro-forestry, or plantation forest resources
(MNRE and SPREP 2012, p. 18). Permitted and licensed activities must
follow approved Codes of Practice, forestry harvesting plans, and other
requirements set by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
License or permit holders must also follow laws relating to national
parks and reserves, and all provisions of management plans for any
national park or reserve. Under this act, lands designated as protected
areas for the purposes of the protection of biodiversity and endangered
species prohibit any clearing for cultivation or removal of forest
items from protected areas without prior consent of the MNRE (Forestry
Management Act 2011, Para. 57). Although this law includes these
general considerations for managing forest resources, and possibly
provides some protection from forest removal in the mao's habitat, it
does not address habitat degradation by nonnative invasive plants and
feral ungulates, or the impacts of permitted logging roads or illegal
roads, both of which create vectors into native forest for these
nonnative species (Atherton and Jeffries 2012, pp. 14-15).
The Quarantine (Biosecurity) Act 2005 forms part of the system to
combat the introduction of invasive species and manage existing
invasions. It is the main legal instrument to manage the deliberate or
accidental importation of invasive species, pests, and pathogens and
also to deal with such species should they be found in Samoa (MNRE and
SPREP 2012, p. 38). This legislation also provides a risk assessment
procedure for imported animals, plants, and living modified organisms.
Although this law provides for management of invasive species,
including those that degrade or destroy native forest habitat for the
mao, we do not have information indicating the degree to which it has
been implemented or effectiveness of such efforts.
In Samoa, there are several regulatory and nonregulatory protected
area systems currently in place that protect and manage terrestrial
species and their habitats; these include national parks, nature
reserves, conservation areas, and village agreements. The National
Parks and Reserves Act (1974) created the statutory authority for the
protection and management of national parks and nature reserves.
Conservation areas, unlike national parks and nature reserves,
emphasize the importance of conservation, but at the same time address
the need for sustainable development activities within the conservation
area. Village agreements are voluntary agreements or covenants
developed and signed by local villages and conservation organizations
that stipulate specific conservation measures or land use prohibitions
in exchange for significant development aid. As of 2014, a total of
approximately 58,176 ac (23,543 ha), roughly 8 percent of the total
land area of Samoa (285,000 ha) were enlisted in terrestrial protected
areas, with the majority located in five national parks covering a
total of 50,629 ac (20,489 ha) overlapping several key conservation
areas identified for the mao (MNRE 2006, p. 14; MNRE 2014, p. 57).
Although the protected status of these lands affords some protection to
the mao's forest habitat within these areas, it does not address range-
wide threats such as predation by nonnative predators or habitat
degradation by nonnative plants.
Conservation International (CI) and the Secretariat of the Pacific
Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) in collaboration with the
Ministry of Natural Resources Environment identified eight terrestrial
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) intended to ensure representative
coverage of all native ecosystems with high biodiversity values, five
of which are targeted to benefit the conservation of the mao (CI et al.
2010, p. 12): Eastern Upolu Craters, Uafato-Tiavea Coastal Forest, O le
Pupu Pue National Park, Apia Catchments, and Central Savaii Rainforest.
All five KBAs also overlap with Important Bird Areas designated by
BirdLife International (Schuster 2010, pp. 16-43). Currently, these
five KBAs, which are nonregulatory, are under various degrees of
protection and conservation management, including national parks,
Community Conservation Areas, and areas with no official protective
status (CI et al. 2010, p. 12). Many of the KBAs and protected areas
mentioned above are still faced with increasing pressures in large part
due to difficulties of their location on customary lands (traditional
village system) and the ongoing threats of development, invasive
species, and logging (MNRE 2009, p. 1; CI et al. 2010, p. 12). The
decline of closed forest habitat has been a result of logging on Savaii
and agricultural clearing on the edges of National Parks and Reserves
(MNRE 2006, p. 5).
In 2006, the Government of Samoa developed a 10-year recovery plan
for the mao. The recovery plan identifies goals of securing the mao,
maintaining its existing populations on Upolu and Savaii, and
reestablishing populations at former sites (MNRE 2006). This plan is
nonregulatory in nature, its goals have not been met, and as of this
writing, resources are not available to update and renew the plan
(Stirnemann 2016, in litt.).
In summary, existing regulatory mechanisms have the potential to
address the threat of habitat destruction and degradation to the mao in
Samoa, and provide some benefit to the species in this regard. However,
these policies and legislation do not reduce or eliminate the threats
to the mao in Samoa such that listing is not warranted.

American Samoa

In American Samoa no existing Federal laws, treaties, or
regulations specify protection of the mao's habitat from the threat of
deforestation, or address the threat of predation by nonnative mammals
such as rats and feral cats. However, some existing Territorial laws
and regulations have the potential to afford the species some
protection, but their implementation does not achieve that result. The
DMWR

[[Page 65488]]

is given statutory authority to ``manage, protect, preserve, and
perpetuate marine and wildlife resources'' and to promulgate rules and
regulations to that end (ASCA, title 24, chapter 3). This agency
conducts monitoring surveys, conservation activities, and community
outreach and education about conservation concerns. However, to our
knowledge, the DMWR has not used this authority to undertake
conservation efforts for the mao such as habitat protection and control
of nonnative predators such as rats and cats (DMWR 2006, pp. 79-80).
The Territorial Endangered Species Act provides for appointment of
a Commission with the authority to nominate species as either
endangered or threatened (ASCA, title 24, chapter 7). Regulations
adopted under the Coastal Management Act (ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et seq.)
also prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species (ASAC
Sec. 26.0220.I.c). However, the ASG has not listed the mao as
threatened or endangered, so these regulatory mechanisms do not provide
protection for this species.
Under ASCA, title 24, chapter 08 (Noxious Weeds), the Territorial
DOA has the authority to ban, confiscate, and destroy species of plants
harmful to the agricultural economy. Similarly, under ASCA, title 24,
chapter 06 (Quarantine), the director of DOA has the authority to
promulgate agriculture quarantine restrictions concerning animals.
These laws may provide some protection against the introduction of new
nonnative species that may have negative effects on the mao's habitat
or become predators of the mao, but these regulations do not require
any measures to control invasive nonnative plants or animals that
already are established and proving harmful to native species and their
habitats (DMWR 2006, p. 80) (see Factor D for the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat, above).
As described above, the Territorial Coastal Management Act
establishes a land use permit (LUP) system for development projects and
a Project Notification Review System (PNRS) for multi-agency review and
approval of LUP applications (ASAC Sec. 26.0206). The standards and
criteria for review of LUP applications include requirements to protect
Special Management Areas (SMA), Unique Areas, and ``critical habitats''
(ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et. seq.). To date, the SMAs that have been
designated (Pago Pago Harbor, Leone Pala, and Nuuuli Pala; ASAC Sec.
26.0221), do not provide habitat for the mao. The only Unique Area
designated to date, the Ottoville Rainforest (American Samoa Coastal
Management Program 2011, p. 52), hypothetically may provide some
foraging habitat for the mao, but it is a small (20-ac (8-ha)) island
of native forest in the middle of the heavily developed Tafuna Plain
(Trail 1993, pp. 1, 4), far from large areas of native forest. These
laws and regulations are designed to ensure that ``environmental
concerns are given appropriate consideration,'' and include provisions
and requirements that could address to some degree threats to native
forest habitat required by the mao, even though individual species are
not named (ASAC Sec. 26.0202 et seq.). Because the implementation of
these regulations has been minimal and the review of permits is not
rigorous, the permit system has not provided the habitat protection
necessary to provide for the conservation of the mao, and loss of
native forest habitat important to the mao and other species as a
result of land-clearing for agriculture and development has continued
(DMWR 2006, p. 71). We conclude that the implementation of the Coastal
Management Act and its PNRS is inadequate to address the threat of
habitat destruction and degradation to the mao (see Factor D for the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat for further details).
In summary, existing Territorial laws and regulatory mechanisms
have the potential to offer some level of protection for the mao and
its habitat if it were to be reintroduced to American Samoa but are not
currently implemented in a manner that would do so. The DMWR has not
exercised its statutory authority to address threats to the mao such as
predation by nonnative predators; the mao is not listed pursuant to the
Territorial Endangered Species Act; and the Coastal Management Act and
its implementing regulations have the potential to address the threat
of habitat loss to deforestation more substantively, but the
implementation of this law does not address the threats to the mao.
Summary of Factor D
Based on the best available information, no existing Federal
regulatory mechanisms address the threats to the mao. Some existing
regulatory mechanisms in Samoa and American Samoa have the potential to
offer some protection of the mao and its habitat, but their
implementation does not reduce or remove threats to the species such as
habitat destruction or modification or predation by nonnative species
such that listing is not warranted. For these reasons, we conclude that
existing regulatory mechanisms do not address the threats to the mao.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Hurricanes
Hurricanes are a common natural disturbance in the tropical Pacific
and have occurred in the Samoan archipelago with varying frequency and
intensity (see Factor E discussion for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat).
Catastrophic events such as hurricanes can be a major threat to the
persistence of species already experiencing population-level impacts of
other stressors (MNRE 2006, p. 8). Two storms in the 1990s, Cyclones
Ofa (1990) and Val (1991), severely damaged much of the remaining
forested habitat in Samoa, reducing forest canopy cover by 73 percent
(MNRE 2006, pp. 5, 7). In addition, Cyclone Evan struck Samoa in 2012
causing severe and widespread forest damage, including defoliation and
downed trees in 80 to 90 percent of the Reserves and National Parks on
Upolu (Butler and Stirnemann 2013, p. 41). Secondary forests also were
severely damaged by the storm, and most trees in the known mao
locations were stripped of their leaves, fruits, and flowers (Butler
and Stirnemann 2013, p. 41). Hurricanes thus exacerbate forest
fragmentation and invasion of native forests by nonnative species,
stressors that reduce breeding, nesting, and foraging habitat for the
mao (see Factor A, above). Although severe storms are a natural
disturbance with which the mao has coexisted for millennia, such storms
exacerbate the threats to its remaining small, isolated populations by
at least temporarily damaging or redistributing habitat and food
resources for the birds and causing direct mortality of individuals
(Wiley and Wunderle 1993, pp. 340-341; Wunderle and Wiley 1996, p.
261). If the mao was widely distributed, had ample habitat and
sufficient numbers, and were not under chronic pressure from
anthropogenic threats such as introduced predators, it might recover
from hurricane-related mortality and the temporary loss or
redistribution of resources in the wake of severe storms. However, this
species' current status makes it highly vulnerable to catastrophic
chance events, such as hurricanes, which occur frequently throughout
its range in Samoa and American Samoa.
Low Numbers of Individuals and Populations
Species with low numbers of individuals, restricted distributions,
and small, isolated populations are often more susceptible to
extinction as a result of natural catastrophes such as

[[Page 65489]]

hurricanes or disease outbreaks, demographic fluctuations, or
inbreeding depression (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; see Factor E discussion
for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, above). These problems associated
with small population size are further magnified by interactions with
each other and with other threats, such as habitat loss and predation
(Lacy 2000, pp. 45-47; see Factor A and Factor C, above).
We consider the mao to be vulnerable to extinction because of
threats associated with its low number of individuals--perhaps not more
than a few hundred birds--and low numbers of populations. These threats
include environmental catastrophes, such as hurricanes, which could
immediately extinguish some or all of the remaining populations;
demographic stochasticity that could leave the species without
sufficient males or females to be viable; and inbreeding depression or
loss of adaptive potential that can be associated with loss of genetic
diversity and result in eventual extinction (Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Lacy
2000, pp. 40, 44-46). Combined with ongoing habitat destruction and
modification by logging, agriculture, development, nonnative plant
species, and feral ungulates (Factor A) and predation by rats and feral
cats (Factor C), the effects of these threats to small populations
further increases the risk of extinction of the mao.
Effects of Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate (see Factor E discussion for the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat). The magnitude and intensity of the impacts of
global climate change and increasing temperatures on western tropical
Pacific island ecosystems currently are unknown. In addition, there are
no climate change studies that address impacts to the specific habitats
of the mao. The scientific assessment completed by the Pacific Science
Climate Science Program provides general projections or trends for
predicted changes in climate and associated changes in ambient
temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, and sea level rise for
countries in the western tropical Pacific region including Samoa (used
also as a proxy for American Samoa) (Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011,
Vol. 1 & Vol. 2; see Factor E discussion for the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat for summary).
Although we do not have specific information on the impacts of the
effects of climate change to the mao, increased ambient temperature and
precipitation, and increased severity of hurricanes, would likely
exacerbate other threats to this species as well as provide additional
stresses on its habitat. The probability of species extinction as a
result of climate change impacts increases when its range is
restricted, habitat decreases, and numbers of populations decline (IPCC
2007, p. 48). The mao is limited by its restricted range and low
numbers of individuals. Therefore, we expect this species to be
particularly vulnerable to the environmental effects of climate change
and subsequent impacts to its habitat, even though the specific and
cumulative effects of climate change on the mao are presently unknown
and we are not able to determine the magnitude of this future threat
with confidence. Although we cannot predict the timing, extent, or
magnitude of specific impacts, we do expect the effects of climate
change to exacerbate the current threats to these species, such as
habitat loss and degradation.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats of hurricanes and low numbers of
individuals or the effects of climate change that negatively impact the
mao. However, the completion of a plan for the mao's recovery in Samoa
in 2006, basic research on the species' life-history requirements,
population monitoring, and cooperation between the Governments of
American Samoa and Samoa may contribute to the conservation of the mao.
Synergistic Effects
In our analysis of the five factors, we found that the mao is
likely to be affected by loss of forest habitat, predation by nonnative
mammals, and the vulnerability of its small, isolated population to
chance demographic and environmental occurrences. In addition,
increased ambient temperature and storm severity resulting from climate
change are likely to exacerbate other, direct threats to the mao and in
particular place additional stress on its habitat; these effects of
climate change are projected to increase in the future. Multiple
stressors acting in combination have greater potential to affect the
mao than each factor alone. For example, projected warmer temperatures
and increased storm severity may enhance the spread of nonnative
invasive plants in the mao's forest habitat. The combined effects of
environmental, demographic, and catastrophic-event stressors,
especially on a small population, can lead to a decline that is
unrecoverable and results in extinction (Brook et al. 2008, pp. 457-
458). The impacts of any one of the stressors described above might be
sustained by a species with a larger, more resilient population, but in
combination habitat loss, predation, small-population risks, and
climate change have the potential to rapidly affect the size, growth
rate, and genetic integrity of a species like the mao that persists as
small, disjunct populations. Thus, the synergy among factors may result
in greater impacts to the mao than any one stressor by itself.

Determination for the Mao

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to mao. This large honeyeater endemic to the Samoan archipelago is
vulnerable to extinction because of the loss and degradation of its
forested habitat, predation by nonnative mammals, and the impact of
stochastic events to species that are reduced to small population size
and limited distribution.
The threat of habitat destruction and modification from
agriculture, logging, and development, nonnative plants, and nonnative
ungulates is occurring throughout the range of the mao, and is not
likely to be reduced in the future (Factor A). The threat of predation
from nonnative predators such as rats and feral cats is ongoing and
likely to continue in the future (Factor C). Additionally, the low
numbers of individuals and populations of the mao render the species
vulnerable to environmental catastrophes such as hurricanes,
demographic stochasticity, and inbreeding depression (Factor E). These
factors pose threats to the mao whether we consider their effects
individually or cumulatively. Existing regulatory mechanisms and
conservation efforts do not address the threats to this species (Factor
D), and all of these threats are likely to continue in the future.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' Based on the severity and immediacy of
threats currently affecting the species, we find that the mao is
presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range. The
imminent threats of habitat loss and degradation, predation by
nonnative rats and feral cats, the small number of individuals, the
effects

[[Page 65490]]

of small population size, restricted range, and stochastic events such
as hurricanes render this species in its entirety highly susceptible to
extinction; for this reason, we find that threatened species status is
not appropriate for the mao. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the mao
as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have
determined that the mao is endangered throughout all of its range, no
portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See
the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion
of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577, July 1,
2014).

American Samoa Population of the Friendly Ground-Dove, Gallicolumba
stairi, Tuaimeo (American Samoa, Samoa)

The genus Gallicolumba is distributed throughout the Pacific and
Southeast Asia and is represented in the oceanic Pacific by six
species. Three species are endemic to Micronesian islands or
archipelagos, two are endemic to island groups in French Polynesia, and
Gallicolumba stairi is endemic to Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji (Sibley and
Monroe 1990, p. 206). The species name used here, the friendly ground-
dove, was derived from ``Friendly Islands'' (i.e., Tonga), where it is
purported to have been first collected (Watling 2001, p. 118). Because
of its shy and secretive habits, this species is also often referred to
as the shy ground-dove (Pratt et al. 1997, pp. 194-195). Some authors
recognize two subspecies of the friendly ground-dove: One, slightly
smaller, in the Samoan archipelago (G. s. stairi), and the other in
Tonga and Fiji (G. s. vitiensis) (Mayr 1945, pp. 131-132). However,
morphological differences between the two are slight (Watling 2001, p.
117), and no genetic or other studies have validated the existence of
separate subspecies.
The friendly ground-dove is a medium-sized dove, approximately 10
in (26 cm) long. Males have rufous-brown upperparts with a bronze-green
iridescence, the crown and nape are grey, the wings rufous with a
purplish luster, and the tail is dark brown. The abdomen and belly are
dark brown-olive, while the breast shield is dark pink with a white
border. Immature birds are similar to adults but are uniformly brown.
Females are dimorphic in Fiji and Tonga, where a brown phase (tawny
underparts and no breast shield) and pale phase (similar to males but
duller) occur. In Samoa and American Samoa, only the pale phase is
known to occur (Watling 2001, p. 117).
In American Samoa, the friendly ground-dove is typically found on
or near steep, forested slopes, particularly those with an open
understory and fine scree or exposed soil (Tulafono 2006, in litt.).
Elsewhere the species is known to inhabit brushy vegetation or native
forest on offshore islands, native limestone forest (Tonga), and forest
habitats on large, high islands (Steadman and Freifeld 1998, p. 617;
Clunie 1999, pp. 42-43; Freifeld et al. 2001, p. 79; Watling 2001, p.
118). This bird spends most of its time on the ground, and feeds on
seeds, fruit, buds, snails, and insects (Clunie 1999, p. 42; Craig
2009, p. 125). The friendly ground-dove typically builds a nest of
twigs several feet from the ground or in a tree fern crown, and lays
one or two white eggs (Clunie 1999, p. 43). Nesting was also observed
in a log less than a meter off the ground (Stirnemann 2015, in litt.).
The friendly ground-dove is uncommon or rare throughout its range
in Fiji, Tonga, Wallis and Futuna, Samoa, and American Samoa (Steadman
and Freifeld 1998, p. 626; Schuster et al. 1999, pp. 13, 70; Freifeld
et al. 2001, pp. 78-79; Watling 2001, p. 118; Steadman 1997, pp. 745,
747), except for on some small islands in Fiji (Watling 2001, p. 118).
The status of the species as a whole is not monitored closely
throughout its range, but based on available information, the friendly
ground-dove persists in very small numbers in Samoa (Schuster et al.
1999, pp. 13, 70; Freifeld et al. 2001, pp. 78-79), and is considered
to be among the most endangered of native Samoan bird species (Watling
2001, p. 118). In Tonga, the species occurs primarily on small,
uninhabited islands and in one small area of a larger island (Steadman
and Freifeld 1998, pp. 617-618; Watling 2001, p. 118). In Fiji, the
friendly ground-dove is thought to be widely distributed but uncommon
on large islands and relatively common on some small islands (Watling
2001, p. 118).
In American Samoa, the species was first reported on Ofu in 1976
(Amerson et al. 1982, p. 69), and has been recorded infrequently on Ofu
and more commonly on Olosega since the mid-1990s (Amerson et al. 1982,
p. 69; Seamon 2004a, in litt.; Tulafono 2006, in litt.). Amerson et al.
(1982, p. 69) estimate a total population of about 100 birds on Ofu and
possibly Olosega. Engbring and Ramsey (1989, p. 57) described the
population on Ofu as ``very small,'' but did not attempt a population
estimate. More than 10 ground-doves were caught on Olosega between 2001
and 2004, suggesting that numbers there are greater than on Ofu, but
birds may move between the two islands (Seamon 2004a, in litt.), which
once were a single land mass and are today connected by a causeway that
is roughly 490 feet (ft) (150 meters (m)) long. No current population
estimate is available; the secretive habits of this species make
monitoring difficult. Monitoring surveys over the last 10 years do not,
however, suggest any change in the relative abundance of the friendly
ground-dove (Seamon 2004a, in litt.). The DMWR biologists regularly
observe this species at several locations on Ofu and Olosega (DMWR
2013, in litt.), and have initiated a project to color-band the
population in order to better describe their distribution and status on
the two islands (Miles 2015b, in litt.). The American Samoa population
of the friendly ground-dove likely persists at low absolute numbers
(Amerson et al. 1982, p. 69; Engbring and Ramsey 1989, p. 57), and at
low abundance relative to other Samoan forest bird species (Amerson et
al. 1982, p. 69; Seamon 2004, in litt.; Tulafono 2006, in litt.; Pyle
2016, in litt.).

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Analysis

Under the Act, we have the authority to consider for listing any
species, subspecies, or for vertebrates, any distinct population
segment (DPS) of these taxa if there is sufficient information to
indicate that such action may be warranted. To guide the implementation
of the DPS provisions of the Act, we and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA-Fisheries), published the Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy) in the Federal Register on February
7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under our DPS Policy, we use two elements to
assess whether a population segment under consideration for listing may
be recognized as a DPS: (1) The population segment's discreteness from
the remainder of the species to which it belongs and (2) the
significance of the population segment to the species to which it
belongs. If we determine that a population segment being considered for
listing is a DPS, then the population segment's conservation status is
evaluated based on the five listing

[[Page 65491]]

factors established by the Act to determine if listing it as either
endangered or threatened is warranted. Below, we evaluate the American
Samoa population of the friendly ground-dove to determine whether it
meets the definition of a DPS under our Policy.

Discreteness

Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The American Samoa population of the friendly ground-dove, a
cryptic, understory-dwelling dove not noted for long-distance
dispersal, is markedly separate from other populations of the species.
The genus Gallicolumba is widely distributed in the Pacific, but
populations of the friendly ground-dove are restricted to a subset of
islands (often small, offshore islets) in any archipelago where they
occur, or even to limited areas of single islands in Polynesia
(Steadman and Freifeld 1998, pp. 617-618; Freifeld et al. 2001, p. 79;
Watling 2001, p. 118). Unlike other Pacific Island columbids, this
species does not fly high above the canopy; it is an understory species
that forages largely on the ground and nests near the ground (Watling
2001, p. 118). Furthermore, members of the genus that are restricted to
individual archipelagos, single islands, or offshore islets are
presumed to be relatively sedentary, weak, or reluctant fliers, with
inter-island flights rarely observed (Baptista et al. 1997, pp. 95,
179-187, Freifeld et al. 2001, p. 79). Therefore, there is a low
likelihood of frequent dispersal or immigration over the large
distances that separate the American Samoa population on Ofu and
Olosega islands from the other populations in Samoa (118 miles mi (190
km)), Tonga (430 mi (690 km)), and Fiji (more than 625 mi (1,000 km)).
In addition, the American Samoan island of Tutuila lies between the
American Samoa population and the nearest population in Samoa, and no
Tutuila records of the friendly ground-dove exist. For these reasons,
it is likely that populations of the friendly ground-dove, which occur
in three archipelagos, are ecologically isolated from each other (i.e.,
the likelihood is low that a population decimated or lost would be
rebuilt by immigration from another population).
Based on our review of the available information, we have
determined that the American Samoa population of the friendly ground-
dove is markedly separate from other populations of the species due to
geographic (physical) isolation from friendly ground-dove populations
in Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji (Fig. 1). The geographic distance between the
American Samoa population and other populations coupled with the low
likelihood of frequent long-distance exchange between populations
further separate the American Samoa population from other populations
of this species throughout its range. Therefore, we have determined
that the American Samoa population of friendly ground-dove meets a
condition of our DPS policy for discreteness.

Significance

Under our DPS Policy, once we have determined that a population
segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological
significance to the larger taxon to which it belongs. This
consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Evidence of the
persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting
that is unusual or unique for the taxon, (2) evidence that loss of the
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon, (3) evidence that the population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range, or
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. At
least one of these criteria is met. We have found substantial evidence
that loss of the American Samoa population of the friendly ground-dove
would constitute a significant gap in the range of this species, and
thus this population meets our criteria for significance under our
Policy.
The American Samoa population of the friendly ground-dove
represents the easternmost distribution of this species. The loss of
this population would truncate the species' range by approximately 100
mi (161 km), or approximately 15 percent of the linear extent of its
range, which trends southwest-to-northeast from Fiji to Tonga to Wallis
and Futuna, Samoa, and American Samoa. Unlike other Pacific Island
columbids, this species does not fly high above the canopy; it is an
understory species that forages largely on the ground and nests near
the ground (Watling 2001, p. 118). Because of its flight limitations,
the friendly ground-dove is unlikely to disperse over the long
distances between American Samoa and the nearest surrounding
populations. Therefore, the loss of the American Samoa population
coupled with the low likelihood of recolonization from the nearest
source populations in Samoa, Fiji, and Tonga would create a significant
gap in the range of the friendly ground-dove.

Summary of DPS Analysis Regarding the American Samoa Population of the
Friendly Ground-Dove

Given that both the discreteness and the significance elements of
the DPS policy are met for the American Samoa population of the
friendly ground-dove, we find that the American Samoa population of the
friendly ground-dove is a valid DPS. Therefore, the American Samoa DPS
of friendly ground-dove is a listable entity under the Act, and we now
assess this DPS's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standards for listing, (i.e., whether this DPS meets the definition of
an endangered or threatened species under the Act).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 65492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE16.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

Summary of Factors Affecting the American Samoa DPS of the Friendly
Ground-Dove

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

Habitat Destruction and Modification by Agriculture and Development
The loss or modification of lowland and coastal forests has been
implicated as a limiting factor for populations of the friendly ground-
dove and has likely pushed this species into more disturbed areas or
forested habitat at higher elevations (Watling 2001, p. 118). Several
thousand years of subsistence agriculture and more recent, larger-scale
agriculture have resulted in the alteration and great reduction in area
of forests at lower elevations in American Samoa (see Factor A
discussion for the mao). On Ofu, the coastal forest where the ground-
dove has been recorded, and which may be the preferred habitat for this
species range-wide (Watling 2001, p. 118), largely has been converted
to villages, grasslands, or coconut plantations (Whistler 1994, p.
127). However, none of the land-clearing or development projects
proposed for Ofu or Olosega in recent years has been approved or
initiated in areas known to be frequented by friendly ground-doves
(Tulafono 2006, in litt.; Stein et al. 2014, p. 25). Based on the above
information, we find that agriculture and development have caused
substantial destruction and modification of the habitat of the friendly
ground-dove in American Samoa and have likely resulted in the
curtailment of its range in American Samoa. Habitat destruction and
modification by agriculture is expected to continue into the future,
but probably at a low rate; the human population on Ofu and Olosega has
been declining over recent decades and was estimated at 176 (Ofu) and
177 (Olosega) in 2010 (American Samoa Government 2013, p. 8). However,
because any further loss of habitat to land-clearing will further
isolate the remaining populations of this species in American Samoa, we
conclude that habitat destruction and modification by agriculture is a
current threat to the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove
that will continue in the future.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range
The National Park of American Samoa (NPSA) was established to
preserve and protect the tropical forest and

[[Page 65493]]

archaeological and cultural resources, to maintain the habitat of
flying foxes, to preserve the ecological balance of the Samoan tropical
forest, and, consistent with the preservation of these resources, to
provide for the enjoyment of the unique resources of the Samoan
tropical forest by visitors from around the world (Pub. L. 100-571,
Pub. L. 100-336). Under a 50-year lease agreement between local
villages, the American Samoa Government, and the Federal Government,
approximately 73 ac (30 ha) on Ofu Island are located within park
boundaries (NPSA Lease Agreement 1993). While the majority of the
park's land area on Ofu consists of coastal and beach habitat,
approximately 30 ac (12 ha) in the vicinity of Sunuitao Peak may
provide forested habitat for the friendly ground-dove.
Summary of Factor A
Past clearing for agriculture and development has resulted in the
significant destruction and modification of coastal forest habitat for
the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove. Land-clearing for
agriculture is expected to continue in the future, but likely at a low
rate. However, the degraded and fragmented status of the remaining
habitat for the ground-dove is likely to be exacerbated by hurricanes
(see Factor E discussion). While the NPSA provides some protection for
the forested habitat required by the friendly ground-dove within the
park, it is not of sufficient quantity to ameliorate the impacts from
habitat loss elsewhere on Ofu and Olosega islands, or from habitat
degradation and loss caused by hurricanes (inside and outside the
park). Therefore, we consider habitat destruction and modification to
be a threat to this DPS.

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

Pigeon-catching was a traditional practice in ancient Samoan
society (Craig 2009, p. 104). Hunting of terrestrial birds and bats in
American Samoa primarily for subsistence purposes continued until the
documented decline of wildlife populations led to the enactment of a
hunting ban and formal hunting regulations (Craig et al. 1994, pp. 345-
346). The bird species most commonly taken were the Pacific pigeon or
lupe (Ducula ducula) and the purple-capped fruit-dove or manutagi
(Ptilinopus porphyraceus). Although the many-colored fruit dove or
manuma (Ptilinopus perousii) is too rare to be sought by hunters, a few
may have been killed each year by hunters in search of the Pacific
pigeon or purple-capped fruit-dove (Craig 2009, p. 106). The accidental
killing of the friendly ground-dove by hunters in pursuit of other bird
species (during a sanctioned hunting season; see Factor D) has the
potential to occur. Poaching is not considered a threat to the friendly
ground-dove in American Samoa (Seamon 2004a, in litt.; 2004b, in
litt.). In addition, the use of firearms on the islands of Ofu and
Olosega has rarely, if ever, been observed (Caruso 2015a, in litt.). In
the proposed rule, we had no information indicating that
overutilization has led to the loss of populations or a significant
reduction in numbers of the friendly ground-dove in American Samoa. We
have received no new information. In summary, based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we do not consider
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to be a threat to the American Samoa DPS of the
friendly ground-dove. When this final listing becomes effective (see
DATES, above), research and collection of this species will be
regulated through permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

Disease
Research suggests that avian malaria may be indigenous and non-
pathogenic in American Samoa, and, therefore, is unlikely to limit
populations of the friendly ground-dove (Jarvi et al. 2003, p. 636;
Seamon 2004a, in litt.). Although other blood parasites are common in
many bird species in American Samoa, none have been reported to date in
friendly ground-dove samples (Atkinson et al. 2006, p. 232). The best
available information does not show there are other avian diseases that
may be affecting this species.
Predation
Depredation by introduced mammalian predators is the likely cause
of widespread extirpation of the friendly ground-dove throughout
portions of its range (Steadman and Freifeld 1998, p. 617; Watling
2001, p. 118). Three species of rats occur in American Samoa and are
likely to be present on the islands of Ofu and Olosega: The Polynesian
rat, Norway rat, and black rat (Atkinson 1985, p. 38; DMWR 2006, p. 22;
Caruso 2015b, in litt.). Domestic cats are widespread on Ofu and have
been observed in the proximity of areas where friendly ground-doves
have been detected (Arcilla 2015, in litt.). Feral cats are likely to
occur on Olosega because of its physical connection to Ofu.
Predation by rats is well known to have caused population decline
and extirpation in many island bird species (Atkinson 1977, p. 129;
1985, pp. 55-70; O'Donnell et al. 2015, pp. 24-26), especially species
that nest on or near the ground or in burrows (Bertram and Nagorsen
1995, pp. 6-10; Flint 1999, p. 200; Carlile et al. 2003, p. 186). For
example, black rats were responsible for the near extirpation of the
burrow-nesting Galapagos petrel on Floreana Island (Cruz and Cruz 1987,
pp. 3-13), and for the extinction of the ground-nesting Laysan rail
(Porzana palmeri), which had been translocated to Midway Atoll prior to
the loss of the Laysan population (Fisher and Baldwin 1946, p. 8). The
best available information is not specific to rat predation on the
American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove, but the pervasive
presence of rats throughout American Samoa makes it likely that they
play a role in limiting populations of this species.
Predation by cats has been directly responsible for the extinction
of numerous birds on oceanic islands (Medina et al. 2011, p. 6). Native
mammalian carnivores are absent from oceanic islands because of their
low dispersal ability, but once introduced by humans, they become
significant predators on native animals such as seabirds and landbirds
that are not adapted to predation by terrestrial carnivores (Nogales et
al. 2013, p. 804; Scott et al. 1986, p. 363; Ainley et al. 1997, p. 24;
Hess and Banko 2006, in litt.). Domestic cats have been observed in
remote areas known to be frequented by ground-doves and may prey on
friendly ground-doves and other species that nest on or near the ground
(Arcilla 2015, in litt.). Therefore, the threat of predation by feral
cats could have a significant influence on this species, particularly
given that the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove
population appears to be very small and limited to small areas on the
islands of Ofu and Olosega.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats of predation by feral cats or rats to
the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove.
Summary of Factor C
In summary, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that disease is not a factor in the continued
existence of the friendly ground-dove. Because

[[Page 65494]]

island birds such as the friendly ground-dove are extremely vulnerable
to predation by nonnative predators, the threat of predation by rats
and feral cats is likely to continue and is considered a threat to the
continued existence of this DPS.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

In American Samoa no existing Federal laws, treaties, or
regulations specify protection of the friendly ground-dove's habitat
from the threat of deforestation, or address the threat of predation by
nonnative mammals such as rats and feral cats. However, some existing
Territorial laws and regulations have the potential to afford the
species some protection, but their implementation does not achieve that
result. The DMWR is given statutory authority to ``manage, protect,
preserve, and perpetuate marine and wildlife resources'' and to
promulgate rules and regulations to that end (ASCA, title 24, chapter
3). This agency conducts monitoring surveys, conservation activities,
and community outreach and education about conservation concerns.
However, to our knowledge, the DMWR has not used this authority to
undertake conservation efforts for the friendly ground-dove such as
habitat protection and control of nonnative predators such as rats and
cats (DMWR 2006, pp. 79-80).
The Territorial Endangered Species Act provides for appointment of
a Commission with the authority to nominate species as either
endangered or threatened (ASCA, title 24, chapter 7). Regulations
adopted under the Coastal Management Act (ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et seq.)
also prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species (ASAC
Sec. 26.0220.I.c). However, the ASG has not listed the friendly
ground-dove as threatened or endangered, so these regulatory mechanisms
do not provide protection for this species.
Under ASCA, title 24, chapter 08 (Noxious Weeds), the Territorial
DOA has the authority to ban, confiscate, and destroy species of plants
harmful to the agricultural economy. Similarly, under ASCA, title 24,
chapter 06 (Quarantine), the director of DOA has the authority to
promulgate agriculture quarantine restrictions concerning animals.
These laws may provide some protection against the introduction of new
nonnative species that may have negative effects on the friendly
ground-dove's habitat or become predators of the species, but these
regulations do not require any measures to control invasive nonnative
plants or animals that already are established and proving harmful to
native species and their habitats (DMWR 2006, p. 80) (see Factor D for
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, above).
As described above, the Territorial Coastal Management Act
establishes a land use permit (LUP) system for development projects and
a Project Notification Review System (PNRS) for multi-agency review and
approval of LUP applications (ASAC Sec. 26.0206). The standards and
criteria for review of LUP applications include requirements to protect
Special Management Areas (SMA), Unique Areas, and ``critical habitats''
(ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et. seq.). To date, the SMAs that have been
designated (Pago Pago Harbor, Leone Pala, and Nuuuli Pala; ASAC Sec.
26.0221), are all on Tutuila and do not provide habitat for the
friendly ground-dove, which occurs only on the islands of Ofu and
Olosega. The only Unique Area designated to date, the Ottoville
Rainforest (American Samoa Coastal Management Program 2011, p. 52),
also is on Tutuila and does not provide habitat for the friendly
ground-dove. These laws and regulations are designed to ensure that
``environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration,'' and
include provisions and requirements that could address to some degree
threats to native forest habitat required by the friendly ground-dove,
even though individual species are not named (ASAC Sec. 26.0202 et
seq.). Because the implementation of these regulations has been minimal
and review of permits is not rigorous, the permit system may not
provide the habitat protection necessary to provide for the
conservation of the friendly ground-dove and instead result in loss of
native habitat important to this and other species as a result of land-
clearing for agriculture and development (DMWR 2006, p. 71). We
conclude that the implementation of the Coastal Management Act and its
PNRS does not address the threat of habitat destruction and degradation
to the friendly ground-dove to the extent that listing is not warranted
(see Factor D for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat for further details).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, existing Territorial laws and regulatory mechanisms
have the potential to offer some level of protection for the American
Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove and its habitat but are not
currently implemented in a manner that would do so. The DMWR has not
exercised its statutory authority to address threats to the ground-dove
such as predation by nonnative predators; the species is not listed
pursuant to the Territorial Endangered Species Act; and the Coastal
Management Act and its implementing regulations have the potential to
address the threat of habitat loss to deforestation more substantively,
but this law is inadequately implemented. Based on the best available
information, some existing regulatory mechanisms have the potential to
offer some protection of the friendly ground-dove and its habitat, but
their implementation does not reduce or remove threats to the species
such as habitat destruction or modification or predation by nonnative
species. For these reasons, we conclude that existing regulatory
mechanisms do not address the threats to the American Samoa DPS of the
friendly ground-dove.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Hurricanes
Hurricanes may cause the direct and indirect mortality of the
friendly ground-dove, as well as modify its already limited habitat
(see Factor A above). This species has likely coexisted with hurricanes
for millennia in American Samoa, and if the friendly ground-dove was
widely distributed in American Samoa, had ample habitat and sufficient
numbers, and was not under chronic pressure from anthropogenic threats
such as habitat loss and introduced predators, it might recover from
hurricane-related mortality and the temporary loss or redistribution of
resources in the wake of severe storms. For example, Hurricanes Heta
(in January 2004) and Olaf (in February 2005) destroyed suitable
habitat for the friendly ground-dove at one of the areas on Olosega
where this species was most frequently encountered; detections of
ground-doves in other, less storm-damaged areas subsequently increased,
suggesting they had moved from the area affected by the storms (Seamon
2005, in litt.; Tulafono 2006, in litt.). However, this species'
current status in American Samoa makes it highly vulnerable to chance
events, such as hurricanes.
Low Numbers of Individuals and Populations
Species with a low total number of individuals, restricted
distributions, and small, isolated populations are often more
susceptible to extinction as a result of natural catastrophes,
demographic fluctuations, or inbreeding depression (Shaffer 1981, p.
131; see Factor E discussion for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat, above).
The American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove

[[Page 65495]]

is at risk of extinction because of its probable low remaining number
of individuals and distribution restricted to small areas on the
islands of Ofu and Olosega, conditions that render this DPS vulnerable
to the small-population stressors listed above. These stressors include
environmental catastrophes, such as hurricanes, which could immediately
extinguish some or all of the remaining populations; demographic
stochasticity that could leave the species without sufficient males or
females to be viable; and inbreeding depression or loss of adaptive
potential that can be associated with loss of genetic diversity and
result in eventual extinction. These small-population stressors are a
threat to the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove, and this
threat is exacerbated by habitat loss and degradation (Factor A) and
predation by nonnative mammals (Factor C).
Effects of Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate (see Factor E discussion for the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat). The magnitude and intensity of the impacts of
global climate change and increasing temperatures on western tropical
Pacific island ecosystems are currently unknown. In addition, there are
no climate change studies that address impacts to the specific habitats
of the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove. The scientific
assessment completed by the Pacific Science Climate Science Program
provides general projections or trends for predicted changes in climate
and associated changes in ambient temperature, precipitation,
hurricanes, and sea level rise for countries in the western tropical
Pacific region including Samoa (Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011, Vol. 1
and 2; used as a proxy for American Samoa) (see Factor E discussion for
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat).
Although we do not have specific information on the impacts of
climate change to the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove,
increased ambient temperature and precipitation, increased severity of
hurricanes, and sea level rise and inundation would likely exacerbate
other threats to its habitat. Although hurricanes are part of the
natural disturbance regime in the tropical Pacific, and the friendly
ground-dove has evolved in the presence of this disturbance, the
projected increase in the severity of hurricanes resulting from climate
change is expected to exacerbate the hurricane-related impacts such as
habitat destruction and modification and availability of food resources
of the friendly ground-dove, whose diet consists mainly of seeds,
fruit, buds, and young leaves and shoots (Watling 2001, p. 118). The
probability of species extinction as a result of climate change impacts
increases when a species' range is restricted, its habitat decreases,
and its numbers are declining (IPCC 2007, p. 8). The friendly ground-
dove is limited by its restricted range, diminished habitat, and small
population size. Therefore, we expect the friendly ground-dove to be
particularly vulnerable to the environmental impacts of projected
changes in climate and subsequent impacts to its habitat. Although we
cannot predict the timing, extent, or magnitude of specific impacts, we
do expect the effects of climate change to exacerbate the current
threats to these species, such as habitat loss and degradation.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats of hurricanes, low numbers of
individuals, and climate change effects that negatively affect the
American Samoa DPS of the friendly-ground-dove.
Synergistic Effects
In our analysis of the five factors, we found that the American
Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove is likely to be affected by loss
of forest habitat, especially in lowland and coastal areas, predation
by nonnative mammals, and the vulnerability of its small, isolated
population to chance demographic and environmental occurrences. We also
identify the effects of climate change as another source of risk to the
species because increased ambient temperature and storm severity
resulting from climate change are likely to exacerbate other, direct
threats to the ground-dove in American Samoa, and in particular place
additional stress on its habitat; these effects of climate change are
projected to increase in the future. Multiple stressors acting in
combination have greater potential to affect the ground-dove than each
factor alone. For example, projected warmer temperatures and increased
storm severity will likely enhance the spread of nonnative invasive
plants in the ground-dove's coastal forest habitat. The combined
effects of environmental, demographic, and catastrophic-event
stressors, especially on a small population, can lead to a decline that
is unrecoverable and results in extinction (Brook et al. 2008, pp. 457-
458). The impacts of any one of the stressors described above might be
sustained by a species with a larger, more resilient population, but in
combination, habitat loss, predation, small-population risks, and
effects of climate change have the potential to rapidly affect the
size, growth rate, and genetic integrity of a species like the American
Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove that persists as small, disjunct
populations. Thus, the synergy among factors may result in greater
impacts to the species than any one stressor by itself.

Determination for the American Samoa DPS of the Friendly Ground-Dove

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove. The American
Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove is vulnerable to extinction
because of its reduced population size and distribution, habitat loss,
and depredation by nonnative mammals.
The habitat of the American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove
remains degraded and destroyed by past land-clearing for agriculture,
and hurricanes exacerbate the poor status of this habitat, a threat
that is likely to continue in the future (Factor A) and worsen under
the projected effects of climate change. The threat of predation by
nonnative mammals such as rats and cats is a current threat and likely
to continue in the future (Factor C). The DPS of the friendly ground-
dove persists in low numbers of individuals and in few and disjunct
populations on two small islands (Factor E), a threat that interacts
synergistically with other threats. These factors pose threats to the
American Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove, whether we consider
their effects individually or cumulatively. Current Territorial
wildlife laws and regulations and conservation efforts do not address
the threats to this DPS (Factor D), and these threats will continue in
the future.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' Based on the severity and immediacy of
threats currently affecting the species, we find that the American
Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its range. The imminent threats of habitat

[[Page 65496]]

loss and degradation, predation by nonnative rats and feral cats, the
small number of individuals and populations, the effects of small
population size, a range restricted to small areas of two small islands
in American Samoa, and stochastic events such as hurricanes render this
species in its entirety highly susceptible to extinction; for this
reason, we find that threatened species status is not appropriate for
the friendly ground-dove. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we are listing the American
Samoa DPS of the friendly ground-dove as endangered in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have
determined that the DPS of the friendly ground-dove is endangered
throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be
``significant'' for purposes of the definitions of ``endangered
species'' and ``threatened species.'' See the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014).

Snails

Eua zebrina

Eua zebrina, a tropical tree snail in the family Partulidae, occurs
solely on the islands of Tutuila and Ofu in American Samoa. Snails in
this family (which includes three genera: Eua, Partula, and Samoana)
are widely distributed throughout the high islands of Polynesia,
Melanesia, and Micronesia in the south- and west-Pacific basin (Johnson
et al. 1986a, pp. 161-177; Goodacre and Wade 2001, p. 6; Lee et al.
2014, pp. 2, 6-8). Many of the roughly 120 or more partulid species,
including Eua zebrina, are restricted to single islands or isolated
groups of islands (Kondo 1968, pp. 75-77; Cowie 1992, p. 169).
The Samoan partulid tree snails in the genera Eua and Samoana are a
good example of this endemism. Cowie's (1998) taxonomic work is the
most recent and accepted taxonomic treatment of this species.
Eua zebrina varies in color ranging from almost white to pale-
brown, to dark brown or purplish; with or without a zebra-like pattern
of flecks and lines (Cowie and Cooke 1999, pp. 29-30). Most E. zebrina
shells have transverse patterning (distinct coloration perpendicular to
whorls) with a more flared aperture (i.e., tapered or wide-rimmed shell
lip) than species of the related genus Samoana (Cowie et al. in prep.).
Adult Tutuila snail shells usually fall between 0.7 and 0.8 in (18 to
21 mm) in height and between 0.4 and 0.5 in (11 to 13 mm) in width.
The biology of Samoan partulid snails has not been extensively
studied, but there is considerable information on the partulid snails
of the Mariana Islands (Crampton 1925a, pp. 1-113; Cowie 1992, pp. 167-
191; Hopper and Smith 1992, pp. 77-85) and Society Islands (Crampton
1925b, pp. 5-35; Crampton 1932, pp. 1-194; Murray et al. 1982, pp. 316-
325; Johnson et al. 1986a, pp. 167-177; Johnson et al. 1986b, pp. 319-
327). Snails in the family Partulidae are predominantly nocturnal,
arboreal herbivores that feed mainly on partially decayed and fresh
plant material (Murray 1972 cited in Cowie 1992, p. 175; Murray et al.
1982, p. 324; Cowie 1992, pp. 167, 175; Miller 2014, pers. comm.).
Partulids are slow growing and hermaphroditic (Cowie 1992, pp. 167,
174). Eggs develop within the maternal body and hatch within or
immediately after extrusion; they may or may not receive nourishment
directly from the parent prior to extrusion (Cowie 1992, p. 174). Some
species in the family are known to be self-fertile, but most partulids
rely predominantly on out-crossing (Cowie 1992, pp. 167, 174). Adult
partulids generally live about 5 years and give birth about every 20
days, producing about 18 offspring per year (Cowie 1992, pp. 174, 179-
180).
Partulids can have a single preferred host plant or multiple host
plants, in addition to having preference toward anatomical parts of the
plant (i.e., leaves, branch, or trunk). Habitat partitioning may occur
among three partulids on Tutuila (Murray et al. 1982, pp. 317-318;
Cooke 1928, p. 6). Cooke (1928, p. 6) observed that Samoana conica and
S. abbreviata were commonly found on trunks and branches, and Eua
zebrina was commonly found on leaves, but could also be found on trunks
and branches, as well as on the ground in the leaf litter. A similar
partitioning of habitat has been reported for the Partula of the
Society Islands (Murray et al. 1982, p. 316). The snails are typically
found scattered on understory vegetation in forest with intact canopy
33 to 66 ft (10 to 20 m) above the ground (Cowie and Cook 1999, pp. 47-
49; Cowie 2001, p. 219). The importance of native forest canopy and
understory for Samoan land snails cannot be underestimated; all live
snails were found on understory vegetation beneath intact forest canopy
(Miller 1993, p. 16).
Review of long-term changes in the American Samoa land snail fauna
based on surveys from 1975 to 1998 and pre-1975 collections
characterized 3 of 12 species as being stable in numbers, with the rest
described as declining in numbers, including E. zebrina (Solem 1975, as
cited in Cowie 2001, pp. 214-216; Christensen 1980, p. 1; Miller 1993,
p. 13; Cowie 2001, p. 215). Eua zebrina was historically known only
from the island of Tutuila (Cowie and Cook 2001, p. 49), and until
1975, it was considered widespread and common (Cowie 2001, p. 215). The
large number of collections (927) of this species from Tutuila between
the 1920s and 1960s indicate this species was clearly widely
distributed and abundant; some collections included hundreds of
specimens (Cowie and Cook 2001, p. 154). In addition, the enormous
number of shells of this species used in hotel chandeliers also
suggests its previous abundance (Cowie 1993, p. 1). Then, in 1993, only
34 live individuals of E. zebrina were found at 2 of 9 sites on
Tutuila, with only shells found at 4 other sites (Miller 1993, pp. 11-
13). In a 1998 survey, E. zebrina was seen alive at 30 of 87 sites
surveyed for land snails on Tutuila, and at 1 of 58 sites surveyed in
the Manua Islands (Ofu, Olosega, and Tau), where it was observed for
the first time on Ofu (Cowie and Cook 1999, pp. 13, 22; Cowie 2001, p.
215). During the 1998 survey, 1,102 live E. zebrina were recorded on
Tutuila, and 88 live E. zebrina were recorded on Ofu (Cowie and Cook
1999, p. 30).
The uneven distribution of the 1,102 live snails on Tutuila
suggests an overall decline in distribution and abundance; 479 live
snails were recorded at 3 survey sites in one area, 165 live snails
were recorded at 7 survey sites, and fewer than 10 snails were recorded
at each of the remaining 20 sites (Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 30). On
Tutuila, the survey sites with the highest numbers of E. zebrina
(except one site, Amalau) are concentrated in the central area of the
National Park of American Samoa: Toa Ridge, Faiga Ridge, and eastwards
to the Vatia powerline trail and along Alava Ridge in these areas
(Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 30). We are unaware of any systematic surveys
conducted for E. zebrina since 1998; however, E. zebrina are still
periodically observed by American Samoan field biologists (Miles 2015c,
in litt.). Because the island of Ofu in the Manua Islands does not yet
have the predatory rosy wolf snail (see Factor C. Disease or
Predation), the population of Eua zebrina on Ofu is of

[[Page 65497]]

major conservation significance (Cowie 2001, p. 217).

Summary of Factors Affecting Eua zebrina

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

Habitat Destruction and Modification by Agriculture and Development
Several thousand years of subsistence agriculture and more recent
plantation agriculture has resulted in the alteration and great
reduction in area of forests on the relatively flat land at lower
elevations throughout American Samoa (Whistler 1994, p. 40; Mueller-
Dombois and Fosberg 1998, p. 361). The threat of land conversion to
unsuitable habitat (i.e., steep topography at elevations above the
coastal plain) will accelerate if the human population continues to
grow or if the changes in the economy shift toward commercial
agriculture (DMWR 2006, p. 71).
On the island of Tutuila, the NPSA provides approximately 2,533 ac
(1,025 ha) of forested habitat on Tutuila that is largely protected
from clearing for agriculture and development and managed under a 50-
year lease agreement with the American Samoa Government and multiple
villages (NPSA Lease Agreement 1993). In addition, areas of continuous,
undisturbed native forest on northwestern Tutuila outside of the NPSA
boundaries may support additional populations of E. zebrina, but survey
data for these areas are lacking. However, agriculture and urban
development covers approximately 24 percent of the island, and up to 60
percent of the island contains slopes of less than 30 percent where
additional land-clearing is feasible (ASCC 2010, p. 13; DWMR 2006, p.
25). Farmers are increasingly encroaching into some of the steep
forested areas as a result of suitable flat lands already being
occupied with urban development and agriculture (ASCC 2010, p. 13).
Consequently, agricultural plots on Tutuila have spread from low
elevations up to middle and some high elevations on Tutuila,
significantly reducing the forest area and thus reducing the resilience
of the native forest and populations of native snails. In addition,
substantial housing increases are also projected to occur in some rural
forests along the northern coastline of Tutuila, and in a few scattered
areas near existing population bases with established roads (Stein et
al. 2014, p. 24). These areas are outside of known snail locations
within NPSA, but they do include forested habitat where snails may
occur.
The development of roads, trails, and utility corridors has also
caused habitat destruction and modification in or adjacent to existing
populations of Eua zebrina on Tutuila (Cowie and Cook 1999, pp. 3, 30).
Development and agriculture along the Alava Ridge road and in the areas
surrounding the Amalau inholding within NPSA pose a threat to
populations of E. zebrina in these areas (Whistler 1994, p. 41; Cowie
and Cook 1999, pp. 48-49). In addition, construction activities,
regular vehicular and foot trail access, and road maintenance
activities cause erosion and the increased spread of nonnative plants
resulting in further destruction or modification of habitat (Cowie and
Cook 1999, pp. 3, 47-48). In summary, although the NPSA protects some
forested habitat for the species, agriculture and development have
contributed to habitat destruction and modification, and continue to be
a threat to E. zebrina on Tutuila. The available information does not
indicate that agriculture and development are a current threat to the
single known population of E. zebrina on Ofu. However, because the vast
majority of individuals and populations of this species occur on
Tutuila, we consider agriculture and development to be a current and
ongoing threat to E. zebrina.
Habitat Destruction or Modification by Feral Pigs
Feral pigs are known to cause deleterious impacts to ecosystem
processes and functions throughout their worldwide distribution (Aplet
et al. 1991, p. 56; Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 201; Campbell and Long
2009, p. 2,319). Feral pigs are extremely destructive and have both
direct and indirect impacts on native plant communities. Pigs are a
major vector for the establishment and spread of invasive, nonnative
plant species by dispersing plant seeds on their hooves and fur, and in
their feces (Diong 1982, pp. 169-170, 196-197), which also serve to
fertilize disturbed soil (Siemann et al. 2009, p. 547). In addition,
pig rooting and wallowing contributes to erosion by clearing vegetation
and creating large areas of disturbed soil, especially on slopes (Smith
1985, pp. 190, 192, 196, 200, 204, 230-231; Stone 1985, pp. 254-255,
262-264; Tomich 1986, pp. 120-126; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 64-65;
Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; Loope et al. 1991, pp. 18-19; Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, p. 52; Nogueira-Filho et al. 2009, p. 3,681; CNMI-SWARS
2010, p. 15; Dunkell et al. 2011, pp. 175-177; Kessler 2011, pp. 320,
323).
Erosion resulting from rooting and trampling by pigs impacts native
plant communities by contributing to watershed degradation, alteration
of plant nutrient status, and increasing the likelihood of landslides
(Vitousek et al. 2009, pp. 3,074-3,086; Chan-Halbrendt et al. 2010, p.
251; Kessler 2011, pp. 320-324). In the Hawaiian Islands, pigs have
been described as the most pervasive and disruptive nonnative influence
on the unique native forests and are widely recognized as one of the
greatest current threats to Hawaii's forest ecosystems (Aplet et al.
1991, p. 56; Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195).
Feral pigs have been present in American Samoa since humans settled
these islands (American Samoa Historic Preservation Office 2015, in
litt.). In the past, hunting pressure kept their numbers down, however,
increasing urbanization and increasing availability of material goods
has resulted in the decline in the practice of pig hunting to almost
nothing (Whistler 1992, p. 21; 1994, p. 41). Feral pigs are moderately
common to abundant in many forested areas, where they spread invasive
plants, damage understory vegetation, and destroy riparian areas by
their feeding and wallowing behavior (DMWR 2006, p. 23; ASCC 2010, p.
15). Feral pigs are a serious problem in the NPSA because of the damage
they cause to native vegetation through their rooting and wallowing
(Whistler 1992, p. 21; 1994, p. 41; Hoshide 1996, p. 2; Cowie and Cook
1999, p. 48; Togia pers. comm. in Loope et al. 2013, p. 321). Pig
densities have been reduced in some areas (Togia 2015, in litt.), but
without control methods that effectively reduce feral pig populations,
they are likely to persist and remain high in areas that provide
habitat for E. zebrina (Hess et al. 2006, p. 53; ASCC 2010, p. 15).
Based on the reliance of E. zebrina on understory vegetation under
native forest canopy, as well as the snail's potential to feed on the
ground in the leaf litter, the actions by feral pigs of rooting,
wallowing, and trampling, and the associated impacts to native
vegetation and soil, negatively affect the habitat of E. zebrina and
are a current threat to the species.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plant Species
Nonnative plant species can seriously modify native habitat and
render it unsuitable for native snail species (Hadfield 1986, p. 325).
Although some Hawaiian tree snails have been recorded on nonnative
vegetation, it is more generally the case that native snails throughout
the Pacific are specialized to survive only on the native plants with

[[Page 65498]]

which they have evolved (Cowie 2001, p. 219). Cowie (2001, p. 219)
reported few observations of native snails, including Eua zebrina, in
disturbed habitats on Tutuila.
The native flora of the Samoan archipelago (plant species that were
present before humans arrived) consisted of approximately 550 taxa, 30
percent of which were endemic (species that occur only in the American
Samoa and Samoa) (Whistler 2002, p. 8). An additional 250 plant species
have been intentionally or accidentally introduced and have become
naturalized with 20 or more of these considered invasive or potentially
invasive in American Samoa (Whistler 2002, p. 8; Space and Flynn 2000,
pp. 23-24). Of these approximately 20 or more nonnative pest plant
species, at least 10 have altered or have the potential to alter the
habitat of the species listed in this final rule (Atkinson and Medeiros
2006, p. 18; Craig 2009, pp. 94, 97-98; ASCC 2010, p. 15).
Nonnative plants can degrade native habitat in Pacific island
environments by: (1) Modifying the availability of light through
alterations of the canopy structure; (2) altering soil-water regimes;
(3) modifying nutrient cycling; (4) ultimately converting native-
dominated plant communities to nonnative plant communities; and (5)
increasing the frequency of landslides and erosion (Smith 1985, pp.
217-218; Cuddihy and Stone, 1990, p. 74; Matson 1990, p. 245; D'Antonio
and Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Vitousek et al. 1997, pp. 6-9; Atkinson and
Medeiros 2006, p. 16). Nonnative plant species often exploit the
disturbance caused by other factors such as hurricanes, agriculture and
development, and feral ungulates, and thus, in combination reinforce or
exacerbate their negative impacts to native habitats. Although the
areas within the National Park of American Samoa on the islands of
Tutuila, Ofu, and Tau contain many areas that are relatively free of
human disturbance and nonnative plant invasion and largely represent
pre-contact vegetation, the threat of invasion and further spread by
nonnative plant species poses immense cause for concern (Space and
Flynn 2000, pp. 23-24; Craig 2009, pp. 94, 96-98; Atkinson and Medeiros
2006, p. 17; ASCC 2010, p. 22; ASCC 2010, p. 15).
For brief descriptions of the nonnative plants that impose the
greatest negative impacts to the native habitats in American Samoa,
please refer to the proposed rule (80 FR 61568; October 13, 2015). In
summary, based on the habitat-modifying impacts of nonnative plant
species, habitat destruction and modification by nonnative plant
species is and will continue to be a threat to Eua zebrina.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range
Several programs and partnerships to address the threat of habitat
modification by nonnative plant species and feral pigs have been
established and are ongoing within areas that provide habitat for E.
zebrina (see Factor A discussion for the mao). In addition,
approximately 2,533 ac (1,025 ha) of forested habitat within the
Tutuila Unit of the NPSA are protected and managed under a 50-year
lease agreement with the American Samoa Government and multiple
villages contributing to the conservation of E. zebrina (NPSA Lease
Agreement 1993). Although the habitat for E. zebrina within the
national park is protected from large-scale land-clearing, it is not
protected from modification by feral pigs or invasive plants inside or
outside of the park.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we consider the threats of destruction, modification, and
curtailment of the species habitat and range to be ongoing threats to
Eua zebrina. The decline of the native land snails in American Samoa
has resulted, in part, from the loss of native habitat to agriculture
and development, disturbance by feral pigs, and the establishment of
nonnative plant species; these threats are ongoing, and are likely
exacerbated by impacts to native forest structure from hurricanes.
While there are some efforts to address these impacts, such as
establishment of the NPSA, they do not address habitat degradation and
destruction by nonnative mammals and plants where the snail occurs to
the extent that listing is not warranted. All of the above threats are
ongoing and interact to exacerbate the negative impacts and increase
the vulnerability of extinction of E. zebrina.

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

Tree snails can be found around the world in tropical and
subtropical regions and have been valued as collectibles for centuries.
For example, the endemic Hawaiian tree snails within the family
Achatinellidae were extensively collected for scientific and
recreational purposes by Europeans in the 18th to early 20th centuries
(Hadfield 1986, p. 322). During the 1800s, collectors sometimes took
more than 4,000 snails in several hours (Hadfield 1986, p. 322).
Repeated collections of hundreds to thousands of individuals may have
contributed to decline in these species by reduction of reproductive
potential (removal of breeding adults) as well as by reduction of total
numbers (Hadfield 1986, p. 327). In the Hawaiian genus Achatinella,
noted for its colorful variations, 22 species are now extinct and the
remaining 19 species endangered due in part to this original collection
pressure (Hadfield 1986, p. 320).
In the proposed rule, we erroneously included ``overutilization for
scientific purposes'' in our assessment of threats to Eua zebrina. We
maintain that collection for scientific purposes likely contributed to
a reduction in the number of E. zebrina in the wild; however, we
recognize that at the time the majority of collections were made for
scientific purposes, E. zebrina was neither at risk of extinction nor
did the numbers collected increase the risk of its extinction.
In American Samoa, thousands of partulid tree snail shells (mostly
E. zebrina) have been collected and used for decorative purposes (e.g.,
chandeliers) (Cowie 1993, pp. 1, 9). In general, the collection of tree
snails persists to this day, and the market for rare tree snails serves
as an incentive to collect them. A recent search of the Internet found
a Web site advertising the sale of E. zebrina as well as three other
Partulid species (Conchology, Inc. 2015, in litt.). Based on the
history of collection of E. zebrina, the evidence of its sale on the
Internet, and the vulnerability of the small remaining populations of
this species, we consider over-collection for commercial and
recreational purposes to be a threat to the continued existence of E.
zebrina. When this final listing becomes effective (see DATES, above),
research and collection of this species will be regulated through
permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

Disease
We are not aware of any threats to Eua zebrina that would be
attributable to disease.
Predation by Nonnative Snails
At present, the major existing threat to long-term survival of the
native snail fauna in American Samoa is predation by the nonnative rosy
wolf snail, the most commonly recommended biological control agent of
the giant African snail (Achatina fulica), which also is an invasive
nonnative species in

[[Page 65499]]

American Samoa. In 1980, the rosy wolf snail was released on Tutuila to
control the giant African snail (Lai and Nakahara 1980 as cited in
Miller 1993, p. 9). By 1984, the rosy wolf snail was considered to be
well established on Tutuila, having reached the mountains (Eldredge
1988, pp. 122, 124-125), and by 2001 was reported as widespread within
the National Park of American Samoa on Tutuila (Cowie and Cook 2001,
pp. 156-157). While there are no records of introduction of the rosy
wolf snail to the Manua Islands (Ofu, Olosega, and Tau), this species
has been reported on Tau (Miller 1993, p. 10). The absence of the rosy
wolf snail on the islands of Ofu and Olosega is significant because E.
zebrina is present on Ofu (Miller 1993, p. 10, Cowie and Cook 2001, p.
143; Cowie et al. 2003, p. 39).
Numerous studies show that the rosy wolf snail feeds on endemic
island snails and is a major agent in their declines and extinctions
(Hadfield and Mountain 1981, p. 357; Howarth 1983, p. 240, 1985, p.
161, 1991, p. 489; Clarke et al. 1984, pp. 101-103; Hadfield 1986, p.
327; Murray et al. 1988, pp. 150-153; Hadfield et al. 1993, pp. 616-
620; Cowie 2001, p. 219). Live individuals of the rosy wolf snail have
been observed within meters of partulids on Tutuila, including E.
zebrina and Samoana conica (Miller 1993, p. 10). Shells of E. zebrina
and S. conica were found on the ground at several of the locations
surveyed on Tutuila, along with numerous shells and an occasional live
individual of the rosy wolf snail (Miller 1993, pp. 13, 23-28). The
population of E. zebrina on Nuusetoga Island, a small islet off the
north shore of Tutuila, was probably isolated from an ancestral parent
population on Tutuila in prehistoric time (Miller 1993, p. 13). No live
rosy wolf snails were found on this offshore islet in 1992, and E.
zebrina on the islet were deemed safe from predatory snails at that
time (Miller 1993, p. 13). Due to the widespread presence of the rosy
wolf snail on Tutuila and the high probability of its unintentional
introduction into additional areas within the range of E. zebrina,
predation by the rosy wolf snail is a current threat to E. zebrina that
will continue into the future.
Predation by several other nonnative carnivorous snails, Gonaxis
kibweziensis, Streptostele musaecola, and Gulella bicolor, has been
suggested as a potential threat to Eua zebrina and other native land
snails. Species of Gonaxis, also widely introduced in the Pacific in
attempts to control the giant African snail, have been implicated,
though less strongly, in contributing to the decline of native snail
species in the region (Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 46). Gonaxis
kibweziensis was introduced on Tutuila in American Samoa in 1977
(Eldredge 1988, p. 122). This species has been reported only from
Tutuila (Miller 1993, p. 9, Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 36) and is not as
common as the rosy wolf snail (Miller 1993, p. 11). However, the two
other predatory snails have been recorded on the Manua Islands: S.
musaecola from Tutuila, Tau, and Ofu; and G. bicolor on Ofu (Cowie and
Cook 1999, pp. 36-37).
The potential impacts of these two species on the native fauna are
unknown; both are much smaller than the rosy wolf snail and G.
kibweziensis and were rarely observed during surveys (Cowie and Cook
1999, pp. 36-37, 46). However, Solem (1975 as cited in Miller 1993, p.
16) speculated that S. musaecola might have a role in the further
decline of native species, and Miller (1993, p. 16) considered that it
``undoubtedly had a negative impact.'' Despite the lack of current
information on the abundance of G. kibweziensis, but because of its
predatory nature and the declining trend and small remaining
populations of E. zebrina, we consider this species to be a threat to
the continued existence E. zebrina. However, because of their
previously observed low abundance and comparatively small size, and the
lack of specific information regarding their impacts to E. zebrina, we
do not consider predation by G. bicolor or S. musaecola to be a threat
to the continued existence of E. zebrina. In summary, predation by the
nonnative rosy wolf snail and Gonaxis kibweziensis is a current threat
to E. zebrina and will continue into the future.
Predation by the New Guinea or Snail-Eating Flatworm
Predation by the nonnative New Guinea or snail-eating flatworm
(Platydemus manokwari) is a threat to E. zebrina. The extinction of
native land snails on several Pacific Islands has been attributed to
this terrestrial flatworm, native to western New Guinea (Ohbayashi et
al. 2007, p. 483; Sugiura 2010, p. 1,499). The New Guinea flatworm was
released in an unsanctioned effort to control the giant African snail
(Achatina fulica) in Samoa in the 1990s (Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 47).
In 2002, this species was likely present within the Samoan archipelago
but was not yet introduced to American Samoa (Cowie 2002, p. 18).
However, by 2004, this predatory flatworm had been found on the islands
of Tutuila and Tau (Craig 2009, p. 84).
The New Guinea flatworm has contributed to the decline of native
tree snails due to its ability to ascend into trees and bushes (Sugiura
and Yamaura 2009, p. 741). Although mostly ground-dwelling, the New
Guinea flatworm has also been observed to climb trees and feed on
partulid tree snails (Hopper and Smith 1992, p. 82). Areas with
populations of the flatworm usually lack partulid tree snails or have
declining numbers of snails (Hopper and Smith 1992, p. 82). Because E.
zebrina feeds on the ground as well as in shrubs and trees, it faces
increased risk of predation by the New Guinea flatworm (Cooke 1928, p.
6). In summary, due to the presence of the New Guinea flatworm on
Tutuila, and the high probability of its accidental introduction to the
islands of Ofu and Olosega, predation by the New Guinea flatworm is a
current threat to E. zebrina that will continue into the future.
Predation by Rats
Rats are likely responsible for the greatest number of animal
extinctions on islands throughout the world, including extinctions of
various snail species (Towns et al. 2006, p. 88). Rats are known to
prey upon arboreal snails endemic to Pacific islands and can devastate
populations (Hadfield et al. 1993, p. 621). Rat predation on tree
snails has been observed on the Hawaiian Islands of Lanai (Hobdy 1993,
p. 208; Hadfield 2005, in litt, p. 4), Molokai (Hadfield and Saufler
2009, p. 1,595), and Maui (Hadfield 2006, in litt.). Three species of
rats are present in American Samoa: The Polynesian rat, probably
introduced by early Polynesian colonizers, and Norway and black rats,
both introduced subsequent to western contact (Atkinson 1985, p. 38;
Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 47; DMWR 2006, p. 22). Polynesian and Norway
rats are considered abundant in American Samoa, but insufficient data
exist on the populations of black rats (DMWR 2006, p. 22).
Evidence of predation by rats on E. zebrina was observed at several
locations on Tutuila (Miller 1993, pp. 13, 16). Shells of E. zebrina
were damaged in a fashion that is typical of rat predation; the shell
is missing a large piece of the body whorl or the apex (Miller 1993, p.
13). Old shells may be weathered in a similar fashion, except that the
fracture lines are not sharp and angular. Frequent evidence of
predation by rats was also observed on native land snails during
subsequent surveys (Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 47). In summary, based on
the presence of rats on Tutuila and Ofu, evidence of predation, and the
effects of rats on

[[Page 65500]]

native land snail populations, predation by rats is a threat to E.
zebrina and is likely to continue to be a threat in the future.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats of predation by rats, nonnative
snails, or flatworms to E. zebrina.
Summary of Factor C
In summary, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we consider predation by the rosy wolf snail, Gonaxis
kibweziensis, New Guinea flatworm, and rats to be a threat to E.
zebrina that will continue in the future.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

No existing Federal laws, treaties, or regulations specify
protection of E. zebrina's habitat from the threat of deforestation, or
address the threat of predation by nonnative species such as rats, the
rosy wolf snail, and the New Guinea flatworm. Some existing Territorial
laws and regulations have the potential to afford E. zebrina some
protection, but their implementation does not achieve that result. The
DMWR is given statutory authority to ``manage, protect, preserve, and
perpetuate marine and wildlife resources'' and to promulgate rules and
regulations to that end (ASCA, title 24, chapter 3). This agency
conducts monitoring surveys, conservation activities, and community
outreach and education about conservation concerns. However, to our
knowledge, the DMWR has not used this authority to undertake
conservation efforts for E. zebrina such as habitat protection and
control of nonnative molluscs and rats (DMWR 2006, pp. 79-80).
The Territorial Endangered Species Act provides for appointment of
a Commission with the authority to nominate species as either
endangered or threatened (ASCA, title 24, chapter 7). Regulations
adopted under the Coastal Management Act (ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et seq.)
also prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species (ASAC
Sec. 26.0220.I.c). However, the ASG has not listed E. zebrina as
threatened or endangered, so these regulatory mechanisms do not provide
protection for this species.
Under ASCA, title 24, chapter 08 (Noxious Weeds), the Territorial
DOA has the authority to ban, confiscate, and destroy species of plants
harmful to the agricultural economy. Similarly, under ASCA, title 24,
chapter 06 (Quarantine), the director of DOA has the authority to
promulgate agriculture quarantine restrictions concerning animals.
These laws may provide some protection against the introduction of new
nonnative species that may have negative effects on E. zebrina's
habitat or become predators of the species, but these regulations do
not require any measures to control invasive nonnative plants or
animals that already are established and proving harmful to native
species and their habitats (DMWR 2006, p. 80) (see Factor D for the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat, above).
As described above, the Territorial Coastal Management Act
establishes a land use permit (LUP) system for development projects and
a Project Notification Review System (PNRS) for multi-agency review and
approval of LUP applications (ASAC Sec. 26.0206). The standards and
criteria for review of LUP applications include requirements to protect
Special Management Areas (SMA), Unique Areas, and ``critical habitats''
(ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et. seq.). To date, all of the SMAs that have been
designated (Pago Pago Harbor, Leone Pala, and Nuuuli Pala; ASAC Sec.
26.0221) are in coastal and mangrove habitats on the south shore of
Tutuila and do not provide habitat for E. zebrina. The only Unique Area
designated to date is the Ottoville Rainforest (American Samoa Coastal
Management Program 2011, p. 52), also on Tutuila's south shore, which
could provide habitat for E. zebrina, but it is a relatively small
island of native forest in the middle of the heavily developed Tafuna
Plain (Trail 1993, p. 4), and we do not have any information that the
species occurs there.
These laws and regulations are designed to ensure that
``environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration,'' and
include provisions and requirements that could address to some degree
threats to native forest habitat required by E. zebrina on Tutuila and
Ofu, even though individual species are not named (ASAC Sec. 26.0202
et seq.). Because the implementation of these regulations has been
minimal and review of permits is not rigorous, issuance of permits may
not provide the habitat protection necessary to provide for the
conservation of E. zebrina, and land-clearing for agriculture and
development have continued to impact the species (DMWR 2006, p. 71). We
conclude that the implementation of the Coastal Management Act and its
PNRS does not address the threat of habitat destruction and degradation
to E. zebrina (see Factor D for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat for
further details).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, existing Territorial laws and regulatory mechanisms
have the potential to offer some level of protection for E. zebrina and
its habitat but are not currently implemented in a manner that would do
so. The DMWR has not exercised its statutory authority to address
threats to E. zebrina such as predation by nonnative predators, and the
species is not listed pursuant to the Territorial Endangered Species
Act.
The Coastal Management Act and its implementing regulations have
the potential to address the threat of habitat loss to deforestation
more substantively, but in practice do not appear to do so. Based on
the best available information, some existing regulatory mechanisms
have the potential to offer some protection of E. zebrina and its
habitat, but their implementation does not reduce or remove threats to
the species such as habitat destruction or modification or predation by
nonnative species. For these reasons, we conclude that existing
regulatory mechanisms do not address the threats to E. zebrina.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Hurricanes
Hurricanes are a common natural disturbance in the tropical Pacific
and have occurred in American Samoa with varying frequency and
intensity (see Factor E discussion for the Pacific sheath-tailed bat).
Hurricanes may adversely impact the habitat of E. zebrina by destroying
vegetation, opening the canopy, and thus modifying the availability of
light and moisture, and creating disturbed areas conducive to invasion
by nonnative plant species (Elmqvist et al. 1994, p. 387; Asner and
Goldstein 1997, p. 148; Harrington et al. 1997, pp. 539-540; Lugo 2008,
pp. 373-375, 386). Such impacts destroy or modify habitat elements
(e.g., stem, branch, and leaf surfaces, undisturbed ground, and leaf
litter) required to meet the snails' basic life-history requirements.
In addition, high winds and intense rains from hurricanes can also
dislodge individual snails from the leaves and branches of their host
plants and deposit them on the forest floor where they may be crushed
by falling vegetation or exposed to predation by nonnative rats and
snails (see ``Disease or Predation,'' above) (Hadfield 2011, pers.
comm.).
The negative impact on E. zebrina caused by hurricanes was strongly

[[Page 65501]]

suggested by surveys that failed to detect any snails in areas
bordering agricultural plots or in forest areas that were severely
damaged by three hurricanes (1987, 1990, and 1991) (Miller 1993, p.
16). Under natural conditions, loss of forest canopy to hurricanes did
not pose a great threat to the long-term survival of these snails
because there was enough intact forest with healthy populations of
snails that would support dispersal back into newly regrown canopy
forest. Similarly, forest damage may only be temporary and limited to
defoliation or minor canopy damage, and vary depending on the aspect of
forested areas in relation to the direction of approaching storms
(Pierson et al. 1992, pp. 15-16). In general, forests in American
Samoa, having evolved with the periodic disturbance regime of
hurricanes, show remarkable abilities for regeneration and recovery,
apart from catastrophic events (Webb et al. 2011, pp. 1,248-1,249).
Nevertheless, the destruction of native vegetation and forest
canopy, and modification of light and moisture conditions both during
and in the months and possibly years following hurricanes, can
negatively impact the populations of E. zebrina. In addition, today,
the impacts of habitat loss and degradation caused by other factors
such as nonnative plant species (see ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Nonnative Plant Species'' above), agriculture and urban
development (see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Agriculture
and Development'' above) and feral pigs (see ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Feral Pigs''), are exacerbated by hurricanes. As snail
populations decline and become increasingly isolated, future hurricanes
are more likely to lead to the loss of populations or the extinction of
species such as this one that rely on the remaining canopy forest.
Therefore, we consider the threat of hurricanes to be a factor in the
continued existence of E. zebrina.
Low Numbers of Individuals and Populations
Species that undergo significant habitat loss and degradation and
other threats resulting in decline and range reduction are inherently
highly vulnerable to extinction resulting from localized catastrophes
such as severe storms or disease outbreaks, climate change effects, and
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 24-34;
Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607). Conditions
leading to this level of vulnerability are easily reached by island
species that face numerous threats such as those described above for E.
zebrina. Small, isolated populations that are diminished by habitat
loss, predation, and other threats can exhibit reduced levels of
genetic variability, which can diminish the species' capacity to adapt
to environmental changes, thereby increasing the risk of inbreeding
depression and reducing the probability of long-term persistence
(Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 24-34; Pimm et
al. 1988, p. 757). The problems associated with small occurrence size
and vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or natural
catastrophes are further magnified by interactions with other threats,
such as those discussed above (see Factor A, Factor B, and Factor C,
above).
We consider E. zebrina vulnerable to extinction because of threats
associated with low numbers of individuals and low numbers of
populations. This species has suffered a serious decline and is limited
by its slow reproduction and growth (Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 31).
Threats to E. zebrina include: habitat destruction and modification by
hurricanes, agriculture and development, nonnative plant species and
feral pigs; collection and overutilization; and predation by the rosy
wolf snail, Gonaxis kibweziensis, and the New Guinea flatworm. The
effects of these threats are compounded by the current low number of
individuals and populations of E. zebrina.
Effects of Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate (see Factor E discussion for the Pacific
sheath-tailed bat). The magnitude and intensity of the impacts of
global climate change and increasing temperatures on western tropical
Pacific island ecosystems currently are unknown. In addition, there are
no climate change studies that address impacts to the specific habitats
of E. zebrina. The scientific assessment completed by the Pacific
Science Climate Science Program (Australian BOM and CSIRO 2011, Vol. 1
and Vol. 2) provides general projections or trends for predicted
changes in climate and associated changes in ambient temperature,
precipitation, hurricanes, and sea level rise for countries in the
western tropical Pacific region including Samoa (used as a proxy for
American Samoa) (see Factor E discussion for the Pacific sheath-tailed
bat for additional discussion).
Although we do not have specific information on the impacts of the
effects of climate change to E. zebrina, increased ambient temperature
and precipitation and increased severity of hurricanes will likely
exacerbate other threats to this species as well as provide additional
stresses on its habitat. The probability of species extinction as a
result of climate change impacts increases when its range is
restricted, habitat decreases, and numbers of populations decline (IPCC
2007, p. 48). Eua zebrina is limited by its restricted range in small
areas on two islands and small total population size. Therefore, we
expect this species to be particularly vulnerable to environmental
impacts of climate change and subsequent impacts to its habitat.
Although we cannot predict the timing, extent, or magnitude of specific
impacts, we do expect the effects of climate change to exacerbate the
current threats to this species, such as habitat loss and degradation.
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats of hurricanes, low numbers of
individuals, and effects of climate change that negatively affect E.
zebrina.
Synergistic Effects
In our analysis of the five factors, we found that the snail Eua
zebrina is likely to be affected by loss of forest habitat,
overcollection for commercial purposes, predation by nonnative snails,
flatworms, and rats, and the vulnerability of its small, isolated
populations to chance demographic and environmental occurrences. We
also identify climate change effects as another source of risk to the
species because increased ambient temperature and storm severity
resulting from climate change are likely to exacerbate other direct
threats to E. zebrina in American Samoa, and in particular place
additional stress on its habitat; these effects of climate change are
projected to increase in the future. Multiple stressors acting in
combination have greater potential to affect E. zebrina than each
factor alone. For example, projected warmer temperatures may enhance
reproduction in nonnative predatory snails and flatworms or the spread
of nonnative invasive plants. The combined effects of environmental,
demographic, and catastrophic-event stressors, especially on small
populations, can lead to a decline that is unrecoverable and results in
extinction (Brook et al. 2008, pp. 457-458). The impacts of any one of
the stressors described above might be

[[Page 65502]]

sustained by a species with larger, more resilient populations, but in
combination, habitat loss, predation, small-population risks, and
climate change have the potential to rapidly affect the size, growth
rate, and genetic integrity of a species like E. zebrina that persists
as small, disjunct populations. Thus, the synergy among factors may
result in greater impacts to the species than any one stressor by
itself.

Determination for Eua zebrina

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to E. zebrina. This endemic partulid tree snail restricted to the
islands of Tutuila and Ofu in American Samoa has declined dramatically
in abundance and is expected to continue along this declining trend in
the future.
The threat of habitat destruction and modification from agriculture
and development, nonnative plant species, and feral pigs is occurring
throughout the range of E. zebrina and is not likely to be reduced in
the future (Factor A). The threat of overutilization for commercial and
recreational purposes has likely contributed to the historical decline
of E. zebrina, is a current threat to the species, and is likely to
continue into the future (Factor B). The threat of predation from
nonnative snails, a nonnative predatory flatworm, and rats is of the
highest magnitude, and likely to continue in the future (Factor C).
Additionally, the low numbers of individuals and populations of E.
zebrina are likely to continue (Factor E), and these small isolated
populations face increased risk of extinction from stochastic events
such as hurricanes. Small population threats are compounded by the
threats of habitat destruction and modification, overutilization,
predation, and regulatory mechanisms that do not address the threats to
the species. These factors pose threats to E. zebrina whether we
consider their effects individually or cumulatively. Current
Territorial wildlife laws and conservation efforts do not address the
threats to the species (Factor D), and these threats will continue in
the future.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that Eua zebrina is presently
in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on the
severity and immediacy of the ongoing and projected threats described
above. The imminent threats of habitat loss and degradation, predation
by nonnative snails and flatworms, the small number of individuals,
limited distribution, the effects of small population size, and
stochastic events such as hurricanes render this species in its
entirety highly susceptible to extinction; for this reason, we find
that threatened species status is not appropriate for Eua zebrina.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we are listing Eua zebrina as endangered in accordance
with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have
determined that the snail E. zebrina is endangered throughout all of
its range, no portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes
of the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened
species.'' See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR
37577, July 1, 2014).

Ostodes strigatus

Ostodes strigatus, a light tan- to cream-colored tropical ground-
dwelling snail in the family Poteriidae, is endemic to the island of
Tutuila in American Samoa (Girardi 1978, pp. 193, 214; Miller 1993, p.
7). Ostodes strigatus is a member of the superfamily Cyclophoroidea and
the family Poteriidae (= Neocyclotidae) (Cowie 1998, p. 24; Girardi
1978, p. 192; Vaught 1989, p. 16; ITIS 2015c). The family Poteriidae
consists of tropical land snails throughout Central America, the
northern end of South America, and the South Pacific. The genus Ostodes
is endemic to the Samoan archipelago (Girardi 1978, pp. 191, 242). The
defining characteristics of species within the family Poteriidae
include a pallium cavity (lung-like organ) and an operculum (a shell
lid or ``trap door'' used to close the shell aperture when the snail
withdraws inward, most commonly found in marine snails) (Girardi 1978,
pp. 214, 222-224; Vaught 1989, p. 16; Barker 2001, pp. 15, 25).
Ostodes strigatus has a white, turbinate (depressed conical) shell
with 4 to 5 whorls and distinctive parallel ridges, reaching a size of
0.3 to 0.4 in (7 to 11 mm) in height, 0.4 to 0.5 in (9 to 12 mm) in
diameter at maturity (Girardi 1978, pp. 222-223; Abbott 1989, p. 43).
Its operculum is acutely concave to cone-shaped, with broad, irregular
spirals from center to edge (Girardi 1978, pp. 198, 213, 222-224). True
radial patterning is seldom found on the upper shell surface, and never
on the ventral surface, which is usually entirely smooth (Girardi 1978,
p. 223).
Ostodes strigatus is found on the ground in rocky areas under
relatively closed canopy with sparse understory plant coverage at
elevations below 1,280 ft (390 m) (Girardi 1978, p. 224; Miller 1993,
pp. 13, 15, 23, 24, 27). Moisture supply is the principal environmental
influence on Ostodes land snails (Girardi 1978, p. 245). The degree of
moisture retention is controlled primarily by vegetation cover, with
heavy forest retaining moisture at ground level longer than open forest
or cleared areas (Girardi 1978, p. 245).
Ostodes species were collected only in areas with heavy tree cover
(Solem pers. comm. in Girardi 1978, p. 245), but the relative
importance of rainfall and soil type in maintaining moisture supply was
not assessed in these areas (Girardi 1978, p. 245). Nevertheless,
relatively closed canopy or heavy tree cover and their roles in
maintaining moisture supply appears to be an important habitat factor
for O. strigatus.
Although the biology of the genus Ostodes is not well studied, and,
therefore, the exact diet is unknown, it is highly probable that O.
strigatus feeds at least in part on decaying leaf litter and fungus
(Girardi 1978, p. 242; Miller 2014, pers. comm.). The approximate age
at which these snails reach full sexual maturity is unknown (Girardi
1978, p. 194). Once they reach maturity and can successfully reproduce,
it is likely adult snails deposit their eggs into leaf litter where
they develop and hatch.
Ostodes strigatus is known only from the western portion of the
island of Tutuila in American Samoa, including the center and southeast
edge of the central plateau, and the extreme southern coast and
mountain slope near Pago Pago, with an elevation range of 60 to 390 m
(197 to 1,280 ft) (Girardi 1978, p. 224; B. P. Bishop Museum 2015, in
litt.).
Until 1975, O. strigatus was considered widespread and common, but
has since declined significantly (Miller 1993, p. 15; Cowie 2001, p.
215). In 1992, a survey of nine sites on Tutuila reported several live
individuals (and abundant empty shells) from a single site on the
western end of the island (Maloata Valley) and only shells (no live
individuals) at three sites in the central part of the island (Miller
1993, pp. 23-27). At each of the four sites where live O. strigatus or
empty shells were found, the predatory rosy wolf

[[Page 65503]]

snail was common or abundant (Miller 1993, p. 23). In 1998, surveys
within the newly established National Park of American Samoa (NPAS) on
northern Tutuila did not detect any live O. strigatus or shells (Cowie
and Cook 2001, pp. 143-159); however, Cowie and Cook (1999, p. 24) note
that these areas were likely outside the range of O. strigatus. We are
unaware of any surveys conducted for this species since 1998; however,
local field biologists that frequent the forest above Maloata Valley
for other biological field work report they have not seen O. strigatus
(Miles 2015c, in litt.). Observations of live individuals at a single
location on western Tutuila more than 20 years ago suggest that this
species has undergone a significant reduction in its range and numbers
(Miller 1993, pp. 15, 23-27; Cowie 2001, p. 215). Live individuals or
shells of O. strigatus have not been reported since 1992, and no
systematic surveys have been conducted for this species since the late
1990s (Cowie and Cook 1999, p. 24; Miles 2015c, in litt.).

Summary of Factors Affecting Ostodes strigatus

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

The threats of nonnative plants, agriculture and development, and
feral pigs negatively impact the habitat of Ostodes strigatus in a
manner similar to that described for Eua zebrina (see Factor A
discussion for Eua zebrina above). For the same reasons described in
the Factor A discussion for E. zebrina, we consider the threats of
destruction, modification, and curtailment of the species habitat and
range to be significant ongoing threats to Ostodes strigatus. The
decline of the native land snails in American Samoa has resulted, in
part, from the loss of native habitat to agriculture and development,
impacts to native forest structure from hurricanes, the establishment
of nonnative plant species, and disturbance by feral pigs; these
threats are ongoing and interact to exacerbate negative impacts and
increase the vulnerability of extinction of O. strigatus.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range
Several programs and partnerships to address the threat of habitat
modification by nonnative plant species and feral pigs have been
established and are ongoing within areas that provide habitat for O.
strigatus (see Factor A discussion for the mao). In addition,
approximately 2,533 ac (1,025 ha) of forested habitat within the
Tutuila Unit of the NPSA are protected and managed under a 50-year
lease agreement with the American Samoa Government and multiple
villages within a portion of the range of O. strigatus (NPSA Lease
Agreement 1993). Although some of the habitat for O. strigatus is
protected by the NPSA lease agreement from large-scale land-clearing,
the national park designation does not protect this species' habitat
outside the park, or protect habitat inside or outside the park from
degradation or destruction by feral pigs or invasive nonnative plants.

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

In the proposed rule, we erroneously included ``overutilization for
scientific purposes'' in our assessment of threats to Ostodes
strigatus. We maintain that collection for scientific purposes likely
contributed to a reduction in the number of O. strigatus in the wild;
however, we recognize that at the time the majority of collections were
made for scientific purposes, O. strigatus was neither at risk of
extinction nor did the numbers collected increase the risk of its
extinction. We have no evidence of this species having been collected
for other purposes. In summary, based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, we do not consider the overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes to be a
current threat to O. strigatus. When this final listing becomes
effective (see DATES, above), research and collection of this species
will be regulated through permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of
the Act.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

Disease
We are not aware of any threats to Ostodes strigatus that would be
attributable to disease.
Predation by Nonnative Snails
The nonnative rosy wolf snail is widespread on Tutuila and has been
shown to contribute to the decline and extinction of native land snails
(see Factor C discussion for Eua zebrina). Several live individuals and
numerous shells of the rosy wolf snail were found in the same sites in
which live individuals (one site) and numerous shells (three sites) of
O. strigatus were found (Miller 1993, pp. 23-27). Due to its widespread
presence on Tutuila, predation by the rosy wolf snail is considered a
threat to O. strigatus.
Predation by several other nonnative carnivorous snails, Gonaxis
kibweziensis, Streptostele musaecola, and Gulella bicolor, has been
suggested as a potential threat to O. strigatus and other native land
snails (see Factor C discussion for Eua zebrina). Despite the lack of
current information on the abundance of G. kibweziensis, but because of
its predatory nature and the documented decline and lack of recent
sightings of O. strigatus, we consider the predation by G. kibweziensis
to be a threat to O. strigatus. Because of their previously observed
low abundance, comparatively small size, and lack of specific
information regarding impacts to O. strigatus, we do not consider
predation by G. bicolor or S. musaecola as threats to O. strigatus that
will continue in the future. In summary, predation by the nonnative
rosy wolf snail and Gonaxis kibweziensis is a current threat to O.
strigatus and will continue into the future.
Predation by New Guinea or Snail-eating Flatworm
The nonnative New Guinea or snail-eating flatworm has been the
cause of decline and extinction of native land snails (see Factor C
discussion for Eua zebrina). This predatory flatworm is found on
Tutuila. The ground-dwelling habit of O. strigatus and its occurrence
in the leaf litter places O. strigatus at a greater risk of exposure to
the threat of predation by this terrestrial predator. Therefore,
predation by P. manokwari is considered a threat to O. strigatus that
will continue in the future.
Predation by Rats
Rats are known to prey upon endemic land snails and can devastate
populations (see Factor C discussion for Eua zebrina). Three rat
species are present in American Samoa, and frequent evidence of
predation by rats on the shells of native land snails was reported
during surveys (Miller 1993, p. 16; Cowie and Cook 2001; p. 47). Based
on the presence of rats on Tutuila and evidence that they prey on
native snails, the threat of predation by rats is likely to continue
and is a significant factor in the continued existence of Ostodes
strigatus that will continue in the future.
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Disease or Predation
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats of predation by rats, nonnative
snails, or flatworms to O. strigatus.

[[Page 65504]]

Summary of Factor C
In summary, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we consider predation by the rosy wolf snail, Gonaxis
kibweziensis, the New Guinea flatworm, and rats to be a threat to O.
strigatus that will continue in the future.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

No existing Federal laws, treaties, or regulations specify
protection of the habitat of O. strigatus from the threat of
deforestation, or address the threat of predation by nonnative species
such as rats, the rosy wolf snail, and the New Guinea flatworm. Some
existing Territorial laws and regulations have the potential to afford
O. strigatus some protection, but their implementation does not achieve
that result. The DMWR is given statutory authority to ``manage,
protect, preserve, and perpetuate marine and wildlife resources'' and
to promulgate rules and regulations to that end (ASCA, title 24,
chapter 3). This agency conducts monitoring surveys, conservation
activities, and community outreach and education about conservation
concerns. However, to our knowledge, the DMWR has not used this
authority to undertake conservation efforts for O. strigatus such as
habitat protection and control of nonnative molluscs and rats (DMWR
2006, pp. 79-80).
The Territorial Endangered Species Act provides for appointment of
a Commission with the authority to nominate species as either
endangered or threatened (ASCA, title 24, chapter 7). Regulations
adopted under the Coastal Management Act (ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et seq.)
also prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species (ASAC
Sec. 26.0220.I.c). However, the ASG has not listed O. strigatus as
threatened or endangered, so these regulatory mechanisms do not provide
protection for this species.
Under ASCA, title 24, chapter 08 (Noxious Weeds), the Territorial
DOA has the authority to ban, confiscate, and destroy species of plants
harmful to the agricultural economy. Similarly, under ASCA, title 24,
chapter 06 (Quarantine), the director of DOA has the authority to
promulgate agriculture quarantine restrictions concerning animals.
These laws may provide some protection against the introduction of new
nonnative species that may have negative effects on the habitat of O.
strigatus or become predators of the species, but these regulations do
not require any measures to control invasive nonnative plants or
animals that already are established and proving harmful to native
species and their habitats (DMWR 2006, p. 80) (see Factor D for the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat, above).
As described above, the Territorial Coastal Management Act
establishes a land use permit (LUP) system for development projects and
a Project Notification Review System (PNRS) for multi-agency review and
approval of LUP applications (ASAC Sec. 26.0206). The standards and
criteria for review of LUP applications include requirements to protect
Special Management Areas (SMA), Unique Areas, and ``critical habitats''
(ASCA Sec. 24.0501 et. seq.). To date, all of the SMAs that have been
designated (Pago Pago Harbor, Leone Pala, and Nuuuli Pala; ASAC Sec.
26.0221) are in coastal and mangrove habitats on the south shore of
Tutuila and do not provide habitat for O. strigatus, which is known
only from the interior western portion of the island. The only Unique
Area designated to date is the Ottoville Rainforest (American Samoa
Coastal Management Program 2011, p. 52), also on Tutuila's south shore,
which could possibly provide habitat for O. strigatus, but it is a
relatively small island of native forest in the middle of the heavily
developed Tafuna Plain (Trail 1993, p. 4), far from the areas where O.
strigatus has been recorded.
These laws and regulations are designed to ensure that
``environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration'' and
include provisions and requirements that could address to some degree
threats to native forest habitat required by O. strigatus, even though
individual species are not named (ASAC Sec. 26.0202 et seq.). Because
the implementation of these regulations has been minimal and review of
permits is not rigorous, the permit system may not provide the habitat
protection necessary to provide for the conservation of O. strigatus
and instead result in loss of native habitat important to this and
other species as a result of land-clearing for agriculture and
development (DMWR 2006, p. 71). We conclude that the implementation of
the Coastal Management Act and its PNRS does not address the threat of
habitat destruction and degradation to O. strigatus (see Factor D for
the Pacific sheath-tailed bat for further details).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, existing Territorial laws and regulatory mechanisms
have the potential to offer some level of protection for O. strigatus
and its habitat but are not currently implemented in a manner that
would do so. The DMWR has not exercised its statutory authority to
address threats to O. strigatus such as predation by nonnative
predators; the species is not listed pursuant to the Territorial
Endangered Species Act; and the Coastal Management Act and its
implementing regulations have the potential to address the threat of
habitat loss to deforestation more substantively, but this law is
inadequately implemented. Based on the best available information, some
existing regulatory mechanisms have the potential to offer some
protection of O. strigatus and its habitat, but their implementation
does not reduce or remove threats to the species such as habitat
destruction or modification or predation by nonnative species. For
these reasons, we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms do not
address the threats to O. strigatus.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Low Numbers of Individuals and Populations
Species with low numbers of individuals, restricted distributions,
and small, isolated populations are often more susceptible to
extinction as a result of reduced levels of genetic variation,
inbreeding depression, reproduced reproductive vigor, random
demographic fluctuations, and natural catastrophes such as hurricanes
(see Factor E discussion for Eua zebrina, above). The problems
associated with small occurrence size and vulnerability to random
demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes such as severe storms
or hurricanes are further magnified by interactions with other threats,
such as those discussed above (see Factor A, Factor B, and Factor C,
above).
We consider O. strigatus to be vulnerable to extinction due to
impacts associated with low numbers of individuals and low numbers of
populations because this species has suffered a serious decline in
numbers and has not been observed in recent years (Miller 1993, pp. 23-
27). Threats to O. strigatus include: Habitat destruction and
modification by hurricanes, agriculture and development, nonnative
plant species and feral pigs; and predation by the rosy wolf snail,
Gonaxis kibweziensis, and the New Guinea flatworm. The effects of these
threats are compounded by the current low number of individuals and
populations of O. strigatus.
Effects of Climate Change
We do not have specific information on the impacts of the effects
of climate change to O. strigatus, and our

[[Page 65505]]

evaluation of the impacts of climate change to this species is the same
as that for E. zebrina, above (and see Factor E discussion for the
Pacific sheath-tailed bat). Increased ambient temperature and
precipitation and increased severity of hurricanes would likely
exacerbate other threats to this species as well as provide additional
stresses on its habitat. The probability of species extinction as a
result of climate change impacts increases when its range is
restricted, habitat decreases, and numbers of populations decline (IPCC
2007, p. 48). Ostodes strigatus is limited by its restricted range in
one portion of Tutuila and small population size. Therefore, we expect
this species to be particularly vulnerable to environmental impacts of
climate change and subsequent impacts to its habitat. Although we
cannot predict the timing, extent, or magnitude of specific impacts, we
do expect the effects of climate change to exacerbate the current
threats to these species, such as habitat loss and degradation.
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
We are unaware of any conservation actions planned or implemented
at this time to abate the threats of hurricanes, low numbers of
individuals, and the effects of climate change that negatively impact
O. strigatus.
Synergistic Effects
In our analysis of the five factors, we found that the snail
Ostodes strigatus is likely to be affected by loss of forest habitat,
predation by nonnative snails, flatworms, and rats, and the
vulnerability of its small, isolated populations to chance demographic
and environmental occurrences. We also identify climate change as
another source of risk to the species because increased ambient
temperature and storm severity resulting from climate change are likely
to exacerbate other, direct threats to O. strigatus in American Samoa,
and in particular place additional stress on its habitat; these effects
of climate change are projected to increase in the future. Multiple
stressors acting in combination have greater potential to affect O.
strigatus than each factor alone. For example, projected warmer
temperatures may enhance reproduction in nonnative predatory snails and
flatworms or the spread of nonnative invasive plants. The combined
effects of environmental, demographic, and catastrophic-event
stressors, especially on small populations, can lead to a decline that
is unrecoverable and results in extinction (Brook et al. 2008, pp. 457-
458). The impacts of any one of the stressors described above might be
sustained by a species with larger, more resilient populations, but in
combination habitat loss, predation, small-population risks, and
climate change have the potential to rapidly affect the size, growth
rate, and genetic integrity of a species like O. strigatus that
persists as small, disjunct populations. Thus, the synergy among
factors may result in greater impacts to the species than any one
stressor by itself.

Determination for Ostodes strigatus

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Ostodes strigatus. Observations of live individuals at a single
location on western Tutuila more than 20 years ago suggest that this
species has undergone a significant reduction in its range and numbers.
The threat of habitat destruction and modification from agriculture and
development, hurricanes, nonnative plant species, and feral pigs is
occurring throughout the range of O. strigatus and is not likely to be
reduced in the future. The impacts from these threats are cumulatively
of high magnitude (Factor A). The threat of predation from nonnative
snails, rats, and the nonnative predatory flatworm is of the highest
magnitude, and likely to continue in the future (Factor C).
Additionally, the low numbers of individuals and populations of O.
strigatus, i.e., the possible occurrence of this species restricted to
a single locality where it was observed more than 20 years ago, is
likely to continue (Factor E) and is compounded by the threats of
habitat destruction and modification and predation. These factors pose
threats to O. strigatus whether we consider their effects individually
or cumulatively. Current Territorial wildlife laws and conservation
efforts do not address the threats to the species (Factor D), and these
threats will continue in the future.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that Ostodes strigatus is
presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on
the severity and immediacy of the ongoing and projected threats
described above. The loss and degradation of its habitat, predation by
nonnative snails and flatworms, small number of individuals, limited
distribution, the effects of small population size, and stochastic
events such as hurricanes render this species in its entirety highly
susceptible to extinction as a consequence of these imminent threats;
for this reason, we find that a threatened species status is not
appropriate for O. strigatus. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are listing Ostodes
strigatus as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the
snail O. strigatus is endangered throughout all of its range, no
portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See
the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion
of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577, July 1,
2014).

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing creates public awareness and can
stimulate conservation by Federal, Territorial, and local agencies,
private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation
with the States and Territories and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed,
in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-

[[Page 65506]]

sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed followed by preparation of a draft
and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State or Territorial agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Pacific Islands Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Territories, nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions
include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation),
research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and
education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished
solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or
solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts on all lands.
When these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, U.S. Territory of American Samoa
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection or recovery of these species. Information
on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be
found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for these species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on these species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited
financial assistance for the development and management of programs
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful
for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to
encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to
provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the
training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) any such species
within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States or
upon the high seas; to import into or export from the United States any
such species; to deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in
interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the
course of commercial activity, any such species; or sell or offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species. In addition,
prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act make it unlawful to possess,
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any
such species taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a
permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, or for
incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed species and
inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Ecological Services, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181
(telephone 503-231-6131; facsimile 503-231-6243).
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
Activities that result in take of any of the five species in American
Samoa by causing significant habitat modification or degradation such
that it causes actual injury by significantly impairing essential
behaviors. This may include, but is not limited to, introduction of
nonnative species in American Samoa that prey upon the listed species
or the release in the territory of biological control agents that
attack any life-stage of these species.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding

[[Page 65507]]

prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pacific Region, Ecological Services, Endangered Species
Permits, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR
97232-4181 (telephone 503-231-6131; facsimile 503-231-6243).

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-
ES-2015-0128 and upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--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; 4201-4245 unless
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, as follows:
0
a. By adding an entry for ``Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed (South Pacific
subspecies)'' (Emballonura semicaudata semicaudata) in alphabetical
order under MAMMALS; and
0
b. By adding entries for ``Ground-dove, friendly (American Samoa DPS)''
(Gallicolumba stairi) and ``Mao (honeyeater)'' (Gymnomyza samoensis) in
alphabetical order under BIRDS; and
0
c. By adding entries for ``Eua zebrina'' and ``Ostodes strigatus'' in
alphabetical order under SNAILS.
The additions read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed Emballonura Wherever found..... E 81 FR [Insert Federal
(South Pacific subspecies) (= semicaudata Register page where the
peapea vai, American Samoa; = semicaudata. document begins];
tagiti, Samoa; = beka beka, September 22, 2016.
Fiji).

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Ground-dove, friendly (= Gallicolumba stairi U.S.A. (AS)........ E 81 FR [Insert Federal
tuaimeo) (American Samoa DPS). Register page where the
document begins];
September 22, 2016.

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mao (= maomao) (honeyeater)..... Gymnomyza samoensis Wherever found..... E 81 FR [Insert Federal
Register page where the
document begins];
September 22, 2016.

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Snail [no common name].......... Eua zebrina........ Wherever found..... E 81 FR [Insert Federal
Register page where the
document begins];
September 22, 2016.
Snail [no common name].......... Ostodes strigatus.. Wherever found..... E 81 FR [Insert Federal
Register page where the
document begins];
September 22, 2016.

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65508]]

Dated: September 1, 2016.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22276 Filed 9-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P