Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for the Rota Bridled White-Eye (Zosterops rotensis) From the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: October 3, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 192)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50383-50390]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03oc01-29]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI16

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Endangered Status for the Rota Bridled White-Eye (Zosterops rotensis)
From the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose endangered
status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for
the Rota bridled white-eye (Zosterops rotensis), a bird. The Rota
bridled white-eye is a recognized species of white-eyes endemic to the
Mariana archipelago, which comprises the U.S. Territory of Guam and the
U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Rota bridled
white-eye is endemic to the island of Rota, and was once widespread,
possibly occupying forested habitat at all elevations. The total
population of the Rota bridled white-eye was estimated at 1,167
individuals in 1996, which is a decline of 89 percent from the 1982
estimated population. The population estimate of Rota bridled white-
eyes in 1999 was 1,092 (Amidon 2000). The Rota bridled white-eye is
currently found in four patches of mature wet forests at elevations
above 200 meters (650 feet) in elevation. The reasons for this species'
decline is likely due to degradation or loss of habitat due to
development, agricultural activities, and naturally occurring events;
avian disease; predation; and pesticides. This proposal, if made final,
would implement the protection provisions of the Act.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by
December 3, 2001. Public hearing requests must be received by November
19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods.
(1) You may submit written comments to the Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana
Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850.
(2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
rota_bwe_pr@fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited section below
for file format and other information about electronic filing.
(3) You may hand-deliver comments to our office at 300 Ala Moana
Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, Hawaii.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands
Office, at the above address (telephone 808/541-3441; facsimile 808/
541-3470).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Rota bridled white-eye (Zosterops rotensis) is endemic to the
island of Rota, U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI). Rota is approximately 86 square kilometers (km\2\) (33 sq miles
(mi\2\)) and is the fourth largest island in the Mariana Islands
archipelago. The island of Rota is composed of a series of uplifted
coral limestone plateaus with a volcanic outcrop. The climate is
tropical marine with high humidity and uniform temperatures throughout
the year. Average daytime temperatures are approximately 12 degrees
Celsius (80

[[Page 50384]]

degrees Fahrenheit), with approximately 200 centimeters (cm) (80 inches
(in)) of rainfall annually and about 80 percent humidity. Rainfall
averages 27 cm (10.6 in) per month during the wet season and 9.6 cm
(3.8 in) per month during the dry season.
The Rota bridled white-eye is a small, flocking bird in the Family
Zosteropidae, Order Passeriformes. The name white-eye is derived from
the ring of white feathers around each eye. The plumage is tinged with
yellow, and the bill, legs, and feet are yellow-orange (Pratt et al.
1987). Wing, tail, and tarsal lengths taken from 21 birds captured by
the Mariana Avian Rescue and Survey (MARS) Project averaged 5.6 cm (2.2
in), 3.8 cm (1.5 in), and 2.6 cm (1 in), respectively (Scott
Derrickson, National Zoological Park, in litt. 1998). Average weights
taken from birds captured for the MARS Project were 9.7 grams (0.3
ounces) for males and 9.2 grams (0.3 ounces) for females (S.
Derrickson, in litt. 1998).
Baker (1951) reports that the Rota bridled white-eye was first
grouped with a population of birds on Palau as Zosterops semperi. The
Rota bridled white-eye was later described as a separate subspecies, Z.
semperi rotensis, by Takatsukasa and Yamashina (1931). All of the
Micronesian bridled white-eyes were then placed under one species, Z.
conspicillatus, by Stresemann (1931). Later, the bridled white-eyes in
the Mariana Islands were recognized as three separate subspecies: Z. c.
rotensis (Rota); Z. c. saypani (Saipan and Tinian); and Z. c.
conspicillatus (Guam) (Fancy and Snetsinger 1996). However, the Rota
bridled white-eye has been considered to be a full species, Z.
rotensis, on the basis of unpublished differences in plumage,
vocalizations, and behavior (H. D. Pratt, in litt. 1994, as cited in
Collar et al. 1994). Recent genetic evidence from mitochondrial DNA
sequences (Slikas et al. 2000) supported the recognition of the species
proposed by Pratt et al. (1987), and also showed that two distinct
lineages occur within the Marianas, one on Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and
Aguijan, and the other on Rota. Both recent authorities on the taxonomy
of Micronesian white-eyes thus agree that the Rota population is
distinct from others in the Marianas and should be recognized as a
separate species, which therefore is referred to here as the Rota
bridled white-eye (Z. rotensis).
The most extensive work on bridled white-eye foraging and social
behavior was conducted on Saipan. Craig (1989, 1990) found that bridled
white-eyes on Saipan forage in flocks of 10 to 40 individuals in the
upper outer layers in the leaves of trees in both limestone forests and
Leucaena leucocephala (tangantangan) thickets. Bridled white-eyes on
Saipan and Guam have also been recorded in other habitats, including
suburban areas, beach strand, wetlands, and grasslands (Craig 1996;
Jenkins 1983). They forage primarily by gleaning insects from leaves in
the upper, outer layers of trees, but also feed on seeds, nectar,
flowers, and fruits (Craig 1996).
Foraging behaviors recorded by Craig and Taisacan (1994) found that
the foraging behavior of the Rota bridled white-eye appeared similar to
that of bridled white-eyes on Saipan. Most foraging took place in the
upper, outer layer of canopy trees where they gleaned for insects on
leaves and branches. They are known to forage in trees that are 15 cm
(6 in) in diameter at breast height (dbh) or smaller (Fred Amidon,
pers. comm. 1999). The tree species commonly used by white-eyes on
Saipan for foraging were not recorded by Craig (1989, 1990). However,
Amidon (2000) commonly observed Rota bridled white-eyes foraging in
upper leaves and branches of Elaeocarpus joga (yoga), Hernandia
labyrnthica (oschal), and Merrilliodendron megacarpum (faniok).
The typical flock of Rota bridled white-eyes consists of five to
seven birds, which is small compared to those on Saipan; this may be
due to low numbers of birds on Rota. Craig and Taisacan (1994) believe
the white-eye flocks on Rota may be composed of related individuals,
based upon their observations of frequent food begging in the flocks.
The home ranges of the flocks are estimated to be at least 150 meters
(m) (495 feet (ft)) in diameter (Craig and Taisacan 1994).
Very little is known about the breeding biology of the Rota bridled
white-eye. Twenty-three nests have been recorded (Yamashina 1932; Pratt
1985; Lusk and Taisacan 1997; Amidon 2000). The smallest nest tree dbh
recorded was 23 cm (9 in) (Amidon 2000). The discovery dates of these
nests indicate that the breeding season extends at least from December
to August. However, a year-round breeding season may be more likely, as
indicated by breeding records of bridled white-eye species and
subspecies (Marshall 1949; Jenkins 1983). The recorded clutch sizes
from four Rota bridled white-eye nests were one to two light blue eggs
(Yamashina 1932; Amidon et al. unpublished data). Descriptions of eggs
of other Mariana bridled white-eyes indicates that completed clutches
consist of two to three light blue-green eggs (Yamashina 1932; Jenkins
1983). Observations of 7 active nests by Amidon (2000) indicate
incubation and nestling periods of at least 10 and up to 12 days and an
observation of one banded nestling indicates a fledgling period of at
least 8 days. Rota bridled white-eye nests were commonly suspended
between branchlets and leaf petioles and were composed of rootlets,
woven grass or Pandanus spp. fibers, moss, spider webs, and a yellow
cottony material (Lusk and Taisacan 1997; Amidon 2000). Nests were
found above 320 m (1056 ft) elevation in Hernandia labyrinthica,
Elaeocarpus joga, Merrilliodendron megacarpum, and Acacia confusa
(sosugi) trees with dbh between 23 cm (9 in) and 602 cm (237 in) (Pratt
1985; Lusk and Taisacan 1997; Amidon 2000).
Very little is known about the past distribution and abundance of
bridled white-eyes on Rota. Early descriptions by Baker (1948)
described this species as numerous and found at lower elevations.
Residents of Rota during the post World War II years also remember
seeing white-eyes at low elevations in Songsong Village (Engbring et
al. 1986). However, in 1975, Pratt et al. (1979) found no white-eyes in
the lowland areas and only observed birds on the central plateau. The
current distribution of Rota bridled white-eyes indicates that the
highest densities are found in the high-elevation wet limestone forests
(Fancy and Snetsinger 1996; Amidon 2000). All Rota bridled white-eye
nests with recorded locations (22 out of 23 nests) were also recorded
in high-elevation wet forest (Pratt 1985; Lusk and Taisacan 1997;
Amidon 2000). Whether this distribution is the result of habitat
preference or is simply an artifact of the population decline is
unknown; however, the species appears to have been mostly limited to
the upper elevation forests since at least the 1960s (Fancy and
Snetsinger 1996).
In 1977, a survey was conducted only on the upper plateau and
densities were estimated white-eye densities to be 22 birds/
km2 (35 birds/mi2) (Ralph and Sakai (1979). The
first island-wide survey of forest birds was conducted in 1982. During
this survey, bridled white-eyes were only found in forested areas above
300 m (984 ft) (Engbring et al. 1986). The average bridled white-eye
density on Rota was determined to be 183 birds/km2 (292
birds/mi \2\) (\1/16\ the average density on Tinian) with an island
population estimate of 10,763 birds. Other surveys following the 1982
survey showed little change in the white-eye distribution, but did show
a decline in white-eye numbers (Engbring 1987, 1989; Craig and Taisacan
1994). In

[[Page 50385]]

a 1994 survey, it was found that densities had decreased by 27 percent
(155 birds/km2 (248 birds/mi2)) from the 1982
estimate (Ramsey and Harrod 1995). In the fall of 1996, a survey by
Fancy and Snetsinger (1996) estimated the population of Rota bridled
white-eyes to be 1,167 birds. This estimate indicated an 89 percent
decline from the 1982 estimate. In addition, this survey determined
that the population was restricted primarily to four patches of forest
covering an area of about 254 hectares (ha) (628 acres (ac)) above 200
m (656 ft) elevation. Ninety-four percent of the Rota bridled white-
eyes were found to occur in these patches. The white-eye population was
estimated to be at 1,092 after a survey conducted in 1999 (Amidon
2000).
Forests in these four high-density areas can be described as a type
of cloud forest because of the cloud buildup over the central plateau
region, which results in flourishing wet forests with growths of
epiphytic ferns and orchids (Fosberg 1960; Falanruw et al. 1989).
Amidon (2000) found that the primary overstory component of three of
the four high-density Rota bridled white-eye areas is Hernandia
labyrinthica with Elaeocarpus joga. The remaining area is almost
exclusively made up of Merrilliodendron megacarpum in the overstory.
Currently, 85 percent of the Rota bridled white-eye population
occurs on public lands and 15 percent occurs on private lands. There is
no U.S. government-owned land in the CNMI; all public lands are
administered by the CNMI government. Approximately 60 percent of the
land on Rota is publicly owned, although much of it has been leased to
private individuals.
The Rota bridled white-eye is listed as a critically endangered
species in the most recent list of threatened animals of the world by
the World Conservation Union (IUCN) (1999). The IUCN list provides an
assessment of the conservation status of species on a global scale in
order to highlight species threatened with extinction and, therefore,
promote their conservation. A critically endangered species is one
facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the
immediate future. Also, in 1991, the CNMI government listed the Rota
bridled white-eye as threatened or endangered.

Previous Federal Action

Federal action on the Rota bridled white-eye began when we
published a Notice of Review in the Federal Register on December 30,
1982 (47 FR 58454). The Rota bridled white-eye was included as a
Category 2 candidate for Federal listing. Category 2 species were those
for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were
not currently available to support proposed rules. Subsequent Notices
of Review published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), January 6,
1989 (54 FR 554), and November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804) also listed this
species as a Category 2 species.
In the November 15, 1994, Notice of Review (59 FR 58982), the Rota
bridled white-eye was moved from a Category 2 candidate to a Category 1
candidate for Federal listing. Category 1 species were those for which
we had on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and
threats to support preparations of listing proposals, but for which
listing proposals had not yet been published because they were
precluded by other listing activities.
In the February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), and September 19, 1997 (62
FR 49398), Candidate Notices of Review, we discontinued category
designations and the Rota bridled white-eye was listed as a candidate
species. We define candidate species as those for which we have
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support proposals to list the species as threatened or endangered.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and our regulations (50 CFR part 424) issued
to implement the listing provisions of the Act established the
procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists. A species may be
determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. These factors and
their application to the Rota bridled white-eye (Zosterops rotensis)
are listed below.

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

The Mariana Islands were believed to have been colonized by humans
at least 4,000 years ago (Craib 1983). Before European contact, the
island of Rota was thought to have had a large population of people who
moved into the area from insular southeast Asia and Melanesia, and who
modified most of the island's vegetation (Fosberg 1960). During the
Spanish administration (1521 to 1899), the island was largely
depopulated, and the vegetation probably recovered on most of the
island until the Japanese administration from 1914 to 1944 (Fosberg
1960; Engbring et al. 1986). During the Japanese administration, much
of the level land was cleared for sugar cane cultivation, and areas on
the upper terrace were cleared for phosphate mining (Fosberg 1960;
Engbring et al. 1986). Rota was not invaded during World War II, but
was bombed (Engbring et al. 1986). In 1946, one-fourth of the total
area of Rota was covered in well-developed forest, but this was broken
into small parcels or located along the base of cliffs (Fosberg 1960).
By the mid-1980s, Engbring et al. (1986) reported that 60 percent of
Rota was composed of native forest, although a good portion of this was
in an altered condition. The most mature native forests were found
along the cliffs of the upper plateau, with the forests on level
portions of the island being primarily secondary growth. Today, less
than 58 percent of the native limestone forest remains (Falanruw et al.
1989), and plans for further projects, such as agricultural homesteads
and resort development in the As Mundo area, continue to threaten the
remaining limestone forest, and the available habitat for the Rota
bridled white-eye.
Although the habitat in the limestone forest is threatened, the
majority of the high-elevation forests along the upper plateau have not
been threatened by development and clearing in the past because of
their rugged topography. They have, however, received extensive typhoon
damage in recent years. In 1988, typhoon Roy hit Rota with winds of
over 241 kilometers per hour (150 miles per hour) and completely
defoliated almost all of the forests of Rota (Fancy and Snetsinger
1996). In some areas, 50 percent of trees were downed, and 100 percent
suffered limb damage. The wet forests of the upper cliffline were
drastically altered by this storm and have not recovered well (Fancy
and Snetsinger 1996). In December 1997, super typhoon Paka hit Rota,
and much of the upper plateau was defoliated again. These storms have
limited the available nesting and foraging sites for the Rota bridled
white-eye.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Valued for their songs, some species and subspecies of white-eyes
are kept as pets in Asian countries (Moreau and Kikkawa 1985). However,
there are no reports of Rota bridled white-eyes in the pet trade.
Unrestricted collecting or hunting is not known to be a factor
currently affecting this species. Vandalism may be a potential concern
for this species. For example, on Rota, rare plants have been the
target of vandals who feared the plant's existence was an impediment to
development

[[Page 50386]]

(Raulerson and Rinehart 1997). However, we have no evidence of such
vandalism directly affecting Rota bridled white-eyes.

C. Disease or Predation

Black drongos (Dicrurus macrocercus), also known as king crow, are
thought to have been introduced to Rota from Taiwan by the Japanese
South Seas Development Company in 1935 to control destructive insects
(Baker 1948). Black drongos are noted for their aggression toward and
occasional predation on small passerines (Ali and Ripley 1972; Maben
1982). On Guam, black drongos have been observed eating an Eurasian
tree sparrow (Passer montanus) (Maben 1982), rufous fantails (Rhipidura
rufifrons), a Guam swiftlet (Collocalia bartschi) (Perez 1968), and
either a bridled white-eye or a Guam flycatcher (Myiagra freycineti)
(Drahos 1977). A black drongo was observed eating a bridled white-eye
on Rota (Amidon 2000). Maben (1982) observed black drongos harassing
birds such as native and introduced doves (Order Columbidae), cardinal
(Micronesian) honeyeaters (Myzomela rubratra), and Micronesian
starlings (Aplonis opaca). Harassment by the drongo of potential
predators like crows and raptors has also been noted (Ali and Ripley
1972; Maben 1982; Melville 1991).
Craig and Taisacan (1994) believe that a relationship exists
between the abundance of black drongos and the decline and range
restriction of the bridled white-eye on Rota. They believe the
distributions of black drongos and potential prey, like the Rota
bridled white-eye and the rufous fantail, show that black drongo
predation may be a factor in the decline of these species. Engbring et
al. (1986) found black drongos abundant in lowlands and uncommon in the
forests of the upper plateau where the Rota bridled white-eye is found.
In lowland areas, the rufous fantail was also found to be uncommon,
while birds too large to be prey of black drongos were abundant
(Engbring et al. 1986).
On the other hand, Fancy and Snetsinger (1996) believe that black
drongos could not be responsible for the distributional changes and
population decline of the white-eye. Studies of black drongos on Guam
by Maben (1982) found that, although they would harass other birds,
black drongos did not regularly attempt to prey on them. Birds have
also been reported to forage within black drongo territories and nest
near active black drongo nests without harassment (Ali and Ripley 1972;
Shukkur and Joseph 1980; Maben 1982). Michael Lusk of the Service
(unpublished data) observed no interactions between black drongos and
Rota bridled white-eyes during a 1993-1994 study of their interactions
on Rota (cited in Fancy and Snetsinger 1996). However, it is possible
that black drongo predation or harassment may be limiting the recovery
of the bridled white-eye on Rota (Fancy and Snetsinger 1996).
The brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) was found to be the major
factor in the decline of native forest birds on Guam (Savidge 1986,
1987). There have been 43 sightings and 8 captures of brown tree snakes
on Saipan since 1982 (Grant Beauprez, CNMI Department of Fish and
Wildlife, in litt. 2000), and a population of this voracious predator
may now be established on Saipan (Vogt 2000). Presently, no
observations of live brown tree snakes have been recorded on Rota,
although two dead, confirmed brown tree snakes have been found on Rota
(Rodda, pers. comm. 1998). Fancy and Snetsinger (1996) do not believe
that brown tree snakes are the likely cause of the Rota bridled white-
eye decline. The Rota bridled white-eye decline has been island-wide
and has not followed the pattern that occurred on Guam in which the
range expansion of the brown tree snake correlated with the range
contraction of forest birds (Savidge 1987). Also, the densities of rats
on Rota appear very high and would have declined if snakes were a
problem on the island. However, given that the brown tree snake exists
on Guam and may now exist in Saipan, and that two dead brown tree
snakes were found on Rota, the accidental introduction of the brown
tree snake to Rota is a constant potential threat.
Two species of introduced rat, Asian house rat (Rattus tanezumi)
and Polynesian rat (R. exulans), have been recorded on Rota (Johnson
1962; Flannery 1995). Recent work by Service personnel on Rota, and
opportunistic trapping and observations for the Guam rail release
program, have indicated that high densities of rats exist on Rota
(Fancy and Snetsinger 1996). Introduced rats have been found to be
important predators of native birds in Hawaii, New Zealand, and other
Pacific Islands (Atkinson 1977, 1985; Robertson et al. 1994). However,
the role of rats in the population decline and range restriction of the
Rota bridled white-eye is unknown. Fancy and Snetsinger (1996)
indicated that other causes may have led to the decline, but did not
rule out the possibility that rat predation may be an important
mortality factor for Rota bridled white-eyes.
Disease has also been implicated as a potential cause for the
population decline and range restriction of the Rota bridled white-eye.
In Hawaii, research has indicated that avian disease was a significant
factor in the decline and distributional change of the native avifauna
(van Riper et al. 1986, Warner 1968). Observations made by biologists
and veterinarians who have worked on Rota, however, do not indicate the
presence of pathogens or of an epidemic occurring there (Fancy and
Snetsinger 1996, Pratt 1983). Research on Guam has not revealed the
presence of significant levels of disease (Savidge 1986). The presence
of the haematozoans Plasmodium spp. (Savidge 1986) and Haemoproteus
spp. (Marshall 1949; Savidge 1986) in bridled white-eyes on Saipan has
been reported. However, these parasites were considered to be
relatively benign based on the good physical condition of the birds
(Savidge 1986). Since no studies on the presence and effect of disease
on the native birds of Rota have been conducted, the effects of disease
on the decline and range restriction of the Rota bridled white-eye
remains unclear.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

In 1991, the CNMI government listed the Rota bridled white-eye as
threatened or endangered (the CNMI makes no distinction between the
threatened and endangered categories) (Public Law 2-51). However, no
regulations prohibit the taking of CNMI threatened and endangered
species (Kevin Garlick, Service, in litt. 1997).
A current activity that may provide some help in stabilization and
protection for this bird on Rota is designation of the Sabana Protected
Area (Area). The Area occurs on a plateau of shifting agricultural
lands within a mosaic of native forest, and was designated as a
protected area in 1994 through Rota Local Law No. 9-1 (Sabana Protected
Area Management Committee 1996). A plan was developed to manage the
Area as part of an effort by the CNMI government to limit development
in this upper elevation area (Sabana Protected Area Management
Committee 1996). Zones of activities have been designated for the Area,
with rules established for each zone. A number of activities can occur
in the Area in certain zones, such as farming, hunting, forestry, and
medicinal use of plants. Many of these activities require a permit from
the CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources. Conservation zones
within the Area have been established in areas critical to the
continued survival of bats

[[Page 50387]]

on Rota (Sabana Protected Area Management Committee 1996). These
conservation zones also correspond to most of the current range of the
Rota bridled white-eye. However, vegetation that is 15 cm (6 in.) dbh
or less may be permitted to be removed in certain zones, including the
bat conservation zone. Removal of this vegetation may have negative
effects on the bridled white-eye nesting and foraging habitat. While
preservation of these forested areas is believed to also be essential
for the long-term stability of the Rota bridled white-eye, not all of
the species' habitat occurs within the Sabana Protected Area. Since the
Rota bridled white-eye is not protected from take as a CNMI-listed
species, and since the Sabana Protected Area affords some, but likely
inadequate, habitat protection for this species, regulatory mechanisms
to protect this species are inadequate.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

The use of pesticides has been implicated as a potential factor in
the decline of the Rota bridled white-eye (Fancy and Snetsinger 1996).
However, little information is available on the use of pesticides in
the post World War II Mariana Islands. The U.S. military is reported to
have liberally applied DDT (1, 1-bis (chlorophenyl)-2, 2, 2
trichloroethane) on the Mariana Islands during and after WWII (Baker
1946; Grue 1985). Pesticide use on Guam was implicated as a potential
factor in the decline of Guam's avifauna (Jenkins 1983; Diamond 1984).
But concentrations of DDT and DDE (1, 1-bis (chlorophenyl)-2, 2-
dichloroethane) in swiftlet carcasses and guano were considered to be
too low to cause mortality or reproductive failure (Grue 1985; Savidge
1986). The insecticide malathion was also used to control the
introduced melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae) in 1988 and 1989 on Rota
(Engbring 1989). However, a study to monitor the status of birds on
Rota before and after the insecticide application did not detect any
adverse effects on populations there (Engbring 1989). Approximately 90
to 95 percent of crops grown on Rota are root crops, such as sweet
potato and taro, so pesticide use tends to be minimal. The most
commonly used insecticides on Rota are diazinon, sevin, and malathion,
which are used to control insects on vegetables and livestock (John
Morton, Service, pers. comm. 1998). It is not known what impacts these
insecticides have on the Rota bridled white-eye.
The small population size and limited distribution of the Rota
bridled white-eye places this species at risk from naturally occurring
events and environmental factors. Typhoons, in particular, pose a
serious threat, directly and indirectly, to the white-eye and other
avian populations (Wiley and Wunderle 1993). Direct effects include
mortality from winds and rains. Indirect effects include the loss of
food supplies, foraging habitat substrates, nests, nest and roost
sites, and microclimate changes. For example, in December 1997, super
typhoon Paka defoliated trees and removed large amounts of epiphytic
growth and associated organic matter from the limestone forests of Rota
(John Morton, pers. comm. 1998). This may have resulted in lower
quality habitat and decreased availability of nesting material for the
Rota bridled white-eye.
We have carefully evaluated the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by this species in determining to propose this rule. Based on
this evaluation, we propose to list the Rota bridled white-eye as
endangered. The Rota bridled white-eye is endemic to the island of
Rota, and its population has declined an estimated 89 percent over the
past 16 years. This species is threatened by one or more of the
following: Habitat degradation or loss due to development, agricultural
activities, and naturally occurring events such as typhoons; avian
disease; predation by black drongos, rats, and potentially the brown
tree snake; pesticides; and inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms.
The small population size and limited distribution makes this species
particularly vulnerable to extinction from random environmental events.
Because the Rota bridled white-eye is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, it fits the
definition of endangered as defined in the Act.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time
it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied
by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures
needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act
is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat designation, by definition, directly affects only
Federal agency actions through consultation under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and our implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the species
is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent when one or both of the following situations exist--(1) the
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
We find that designating critical habitat is prudent for the Rota
bridled white-eye. Consistent with applicable regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)(i)) and recent case law, we do not expect that the
identification of critical habitat will increase the degree of threat
to this species of taking or other human activity. In the absence of a
finding that critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
any benefits would result from critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. In the case of this species, there may be
some benefits to designation of critical habitat. The primary
regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7 requirement that
Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that destroys or
adversely modifies critical habitat. While a critical habitat
designation for habitat currently occupied by this species would not be
likely to change the section 7 consultation outcome because an action
that destroys or adversely modifies such critical habitat would also be
likely to result in jeopardy to the species, in some instances section
7 consultation would be triggered only if critical habitat is
designated-for example, unoccupied habitat that may become occupied in
the future. Some educational or informational benefits also may result
from designation of critical habitat.
Because of the sharp population decline and currently precariously
low numbers of Rota bridled white-eye individuals, we are not spending
resources on the proposal of critical

[[Page 50388]]

habitat with the proposal to list this species. Section 4(b)(6)(C) of
the Act states that the final critical habitat designation shall be
published with the final listing determination unless ``* * * (i) it
is essential to the conservation of such species that the regulation
implementing such determination be promptly published; * * *''
We will develop a proposal to designate critical habitat for the
Rota bridled white-eye as soon as feasible given our financial
constraints and in coordination with the priority of other listing
actions.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to endangered or threatened species
under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for
Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing encourages and results in conservation
actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private organizations,
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with States and requires that recovery plans be developed
for all listed species. Funding may be available through section 6 of
the Act for the State to conduct recovery activities. The protection
required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and
harm are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50
CFR Part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with
us 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,
section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the listed 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 us, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Federal agency actions that may require conference or consultation
include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers involvement in projects such as
the construction of roads and bridges; Natural Resource Conservation
Service projects; Federal Emergency Management Agency activities; and
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development projects.
There are no federally owned lands on the island of Rota. Parts of
Rota have been used as, or are under consideration for use as, training
areas by U.S. armed forces. In the past, some military training has
occurred at the Rota airport and on Angyuta, an island near the
commercial port. Neither area contains native limestone forest.
Federally supported activities that could affect the Rota bridled
white-eye or its habitat in the future include, but are not limited to,
low-level helicopter maneuvers over areas occupied by Rota bridled
white-eyes.
Listing the Rota bridled white-eye provides for the development and
implementation of a recovery plan for the species. This plan will bring
together Federal, State, and regional agency efforts for conservation
of the species. A recovery plan will establish a framework for agencies
to coordinate their recovery efforts. The plan will set recovery
priorities and estimate the costs of the tasks necessary to accomplish
the priorities. It will also describe the site-specific management
actions necessary to achieve conservation and survival of the species.
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)(2) of the Act, implemented
by 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered species, 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, or collect; or
attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in
the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal
to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken illegally. Further, it is illegal for any person to
attempt to commit, to solicit another person to commit, or to cause to
be committed, any of these acts. Certain exceptions apply to our agents
and State conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits
are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in the course of
otherwise lawful activities. Permits are also available for zoological
exhibitions, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with
the purposes of the Act. Requests for copies of the regulations
regarding listed wildlife and inquiries about permits and prohibitions
may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological
Services, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E. 11th, Avenue, Portland,
Oregon 97232-4181, (telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).
Our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), is to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the
time a species is listed those activities that would or would not
likely be a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species. We
believe that permitted scientific activities or recreational activities
within forested areas that support populations of bridled white-eyes
would not likely result in a violation of section 9.
Activities that we believe could potentially harm the Rota bridled
white-eye, and would likely violate section 9, include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping of the species;
(2) Intentional introduction of exotic species that compete with or
prey on bird species, such as the introduction of the predatory brown
tree snake to islands that support bird populations;
(3) Activities that disturb bridled white-eyes from nesting sites
and feeding areas, and unauthorized destruction or alteration of
forested areas required by the bridled white-eye for foraging,
perching, breeding, or rearing young; and
(4) Engaging in the unauthorized import or export of this bird or
interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across State lines and
international boundaries).
Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Field
Supervisor of our Pacific Islands Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited.

[[Page 50389]]

Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be
critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this species; and,
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their
possible impacts on this species.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods, as listed above
in ADDRESSES. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit comments
as an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and
encryption. Please include ``Attn: [RIN 1018-AI16]'' and your name and
return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a
confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message,
contact us directly by calling our Pacific Islands Office at phone
number 808/541-3441. Please note that this e-mail address will be
closed out at the termination of the public comment period.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Commenters may request that we withhold their home
address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some
circumstances, we may also withhold a commenter's identity, as
allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you
must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment.
However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent
consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for
a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date
of publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Address your
requests to the Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek expert opinions of at least three appropriate
independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of
such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We will send copies of this
proposed rule immediately following publication in the Federal Register
to these peer reviewers. We will invite these peer reviewers to
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions
and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule during the preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an environmental impact statement and
environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any collections of information that
require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information
collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for endangered and
threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned clearance number
1018-0094. This rule does not alter that information collection
requirement. For additional information concerning permits and
associated requirements for endangered animal species, see 50 CFR
17.22.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this proposal is
available upon request from the Pacific Islands Office (see ADDRESSES
section).

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is Leila Gibson, Fish and
Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
record keeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in
alphabetical order under BIRDS, to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

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

* * * * * * *
BIRDS

[[Page 50390]]

* * * * * * *
White-eye, Rota bridled........ Zosterops rotensis Western Pacific Entire........... E NA NA
Ocean--U.S.A.
(Commonwealth of
the Northern
Mariana Islands).

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

Dated: September 27, 2001.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 01-24659 Filed 10-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for the Rota Bridled White-Eye (Zosterops rotensis) From the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Local Navigation