Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3423 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Gordon, at (215) 814–2039, or by 

email at gordon.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: January 5, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1338 Filed 1–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2011–0110; 

4500030114] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the ‘I’iwi as 

Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

‘i’iwi (Vestiaria coccinea) as endangered 

or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), 

and designate critical habitat. Based on 

our review, we find that the petition 

presents substantial information 

indicating that listing the ‘i’iwi may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of the 

species to determine if listing the ‘i’iwi 

as endangered or threatened is 

warranted. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding 

this species. Based on the status review, 

we will issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before March 

26, 2012. Please note that if you are 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES section, below), the 

deadline for submitting an electronic 

comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

this date. After March 26, 2012, you 

must submit information directly to the 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section below). Please note that we 

might not be able to fully address or 

incorporate information that we receive 

after the above requested date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– 

R1–ES–2011–0110, which is the docket 

number for this finding. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R1– 

ES–2011–0110; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information we 

receive on http://www.regulations.gov. 

This generally means that we will post 

any personal information you provide 

us (see the Request for Information 

section below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor, 

Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122, 

Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone (808– 

792–9400); or by facsimile (808–792– 

9581). If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TTD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the ‘i’iwi from 

governmental agencies, the cultural 

community, the scientific community, 

industry, and any other interested 

parties. We seek information on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(3) The potential cumulative effects of 

these factors that may endanger or 

threaten the ‘i’iwi. 

(4) Management programs for the 

conservation of the ‘i’iwi. 

(5) The potential effects of climate 

change on the ‘i’iwi and its habitat. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing the ‘i’iwi is 

warranted, we will propose critical 

habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) 

of the Act) under section 4 of the Act, 

to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, at the time we propose to 

list the species. Therefore, within the 

geographical range currently occupied 

by the ‘i’iwi, we also request data and 

information on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ 

(2) Where these features are currently 

found, and 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

In addition, we request data and 

information on ‘‘specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the 

conservation of the species.’’ Please 

provide specific comments and 

information as to what, if any, critical 

habitat you think we should propose for 

designation if the species is proposed 

for listing, and why such habitat meets 

the requirements of section 4 of the Act. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding is 

available for you to review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or you may make 

an appointment during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On August 25, 2010, we received a 

petition dated August 24, 2010, from 

Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Dr. Tony Povilitis, Life 

Net, requesting that the ‘i’iwi be listed 

as endangered or threatened and that 

critical habitat be designated under the 

Act. The petition clearly identified itself 

as such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioners as required by 50 CFR 

424.14(a). In a September 10, 2010, 

letter to the petitioners, we responded 

that we had reviewed the information 

presented in the petition and 

determined that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the 

species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act 

was not warranted. We also stated that 

we were required to complete a 

significant number of listing and critical 

habitat actions in Fiscal Year 2010, 

including complying with court orders 

and court-approved settlement 

agreements with specific deadlines, 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines, and high priority listing 

actions. Our listing and critical habitat 

funding for Fiscal Year 2010 was 

committed to complying with these 

court orders, settlement agreements, and 

statutory deadlines. Therefore, we were 

unable to further address the petition to 

list the ‘i’iwi at that time. This finding 

addresses the petition. 

Previous Federal Action(s) 

To date, no Federal actions have been 

taken with regard to the ‘i’iwi. 

Species Information 

The ‘i’iwi is a member of the family 

Fringillidae, and the endemic subfamily 

Drepanidinae (Hawaiian honeycreepers) 

(Pratt et al. 2009, pp. 114, 122). The 

‘i’iwi is placed in the monotypic genus 

(a genus of only one species) Vestiaria, 

and is classified as a discrete species by 

the American Ornithologists’ Union 

(AOU 1998, p. 677). The ‘i’iwi is a 

medium-sized forest bird (total body 

length is approximately 5.5 inches (in) 

(14 centimeters (cm)), with bright scarlet 

feathers, black wings and tail, and a 

small white patch on its inner 

secondaries (shorter flight feathers along 

the inner wing). The bill is long, curved, 

and salmon in color. Juveniles are a buff 

color with black spots, and have shorter 

bills that change in color from dusky 

yellow to salmon as they mature 

(Hawaii Audubon Society 2011, p. 97). 

‘I’iwi songs are complex with variable 

creaks, often described as a rusty hinge, 

whistles, or gurgling sounds, and they 

sometimes mimic other birds (Hawaii 

Audubon Society 2011, p. 97). The diet 

consists primarily of nectar from the 

flowers of Metrosideros polymorpha 

(ohia), Sophora chrysophylla (mamane), 

plants in the bellflower 

(Campanulaceae) family (Pratt et al. 

2009, p. 193), insects, and spiders 

(Hawaii Audubon Society 2011, p. 97; 

Pratt et al. 2009, p. 193). The breeding 

season starts as early as October and 

continues through August (Hawaii 

Audubon Society 2011, p. 97). Peak 

breeding is from February through June 

and coincides with peak flowering of 

Metrosideros polymorpha (Fancy and 

Ralph 1997, p. 2). ‘I’iwi nest sites are 

typically found in the upper canopy of 

Metrosideros polymorpha (Hawaii 

Audubon Society 2011, p. 97), and are 

cup-shaped nests made of twigs and 

lined with lichens and moss (Hawaii 

Audubon Society 2011, p. 97). Breeding 

pairs remain together during the season, 

and defend a small area around the nest 

and disperse after breeding (Fancy and 

Ralph 1997, p. 2). Clutch size typically 

consists of two eggs, with an ‘i’iwi pair 

incubating one to two broods per year 

(Hawaii Audubon Society 2011, p. 97). 

Habitat, Distribution, and Status 

The ‘i’iwi occurs on the five largest 

Hawaiian islands (Hawaii, Maui, 

Molokai, Oahu, and Kauai), and is most 

abundant in montane wet, closedcanopied, high-stature Metrosideros 

polymorpha and Acacia koa (koa)- 

Metrosideros polymorpha forests above 

approximately 4,900 feet (ft) (1,500 

meters (m)) in elevation (Pratt et al. 

2009, p. 122). The largest population 

(more than 340,000 birds) and range 

(approximately 770 square miles (sq mi) 

(2,000 square kilometers (sq km)) occur 

on Hawaii Island (Scott et al. 1986 in 

Pratt et al. 2009, p. 122). On the 

windward (eastern) side of Hawaii 

Island, ‘i’iwi populations are generally 

declining other than in high-elevation 

forest areas. ‘I’iwi populations appear to 

be stable in the main unit of Hakalau 

Forest National Wildlife Refuge, KulaniKeahou, and possibly in the Kau 

district, in the southeast portion of 

Hawaii Island (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123). 

On the leeward (western) side of Hawaii 

Island, the number of ‘i’iwi appears to 

have declined between 1986 and 2009 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123). 

The ‘i’iwi occurs in two disjunct 

populations on Maui. The east Maui 

population on the windward slopes of 

Haleakala was estimated to number 

approximately 19,000 birds in 1980, 

although subsequent surveys indicated 

higher densities and probable higher 

numbers (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123). The 

west Maui population was estimated to 

number approximately 180 birds in 

1980, and they were restricted to a 6.2- 

sq-mi (16-sq-km) area, approximately 19 

mi (30 km) from the eastern population. 

Subsequent surveys indicated the 

population persists at very low densities 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123). Twelve ‘i’iwi 

were detected during 1979 surveys on 

Molokai, and surveys in 1988, 1995, and 

2004 detected only 2, 1, and 3 birds 

respectively, which indicate the 

Molokai population is at high risk of 

extirpation (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3425 

The species’ precipitous decline on 

Oahu was evident by the early 1900s 

(Fancy and Ralph, 1998 in Pratt et al. 

2009, p. 123). On Oahu, surveys from 

the mid-1990s recorded only 8 

individuals located in three areas 

isolated from each other in the Waianae 

and Koolau mountain ranges. The Oahu 

population was estimated to number 

fewer than 50 birds in 1991 (Ellis et al. 

1992 in Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123), 

indicating it also faces likely extirpation 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123). 

On Kauai, the ‘i’iwi population also 

appears to be in decline. In the early 

1970s, the ‘i’iwi occurred down to 

approximately 2,900 ft (900 m) in 

elevation, with the population estimated 

at approximately 26,000 birds across 54 

sq mi (140 sq km). By 2000, the 

population had decreased to 

approximately 10,000 birds, and the 

species’ range was reduced to 

approximately 39 sq mi (100 sq km), 

with occurrences mostly restricted to 

elevations above 3,600 ft (1,100 m). 

Based on the 1968–1973 surveys, the 

core population in the interior Alakai 

Plateau (above 3,900 ft (1,200 m)) was 

estimated to be approximately 7,800 

birds. Subsequent surveys in this area 

yielded highly variable densities, but 

indicated this portion of the population 

is presently stable (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 

123). 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424, set forth procedures for adding 

species to, or removing a species from, 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A 

species may be determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species due to 

one or more of the five factors described 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(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. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species may warrant listing as 

endangered or threatened as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information shall contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to the ‘i’iwi, as 

presented in the petition and other 

information available in our files, is 

substantial, thereby indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. Our 

evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petitioners claim that 52 percent 

of the ‘i’iwi’s forest habitat on the island 

of Hawaii and 85 percent on the island 

of Oahu has been cleared for crops, 

livestock grazing, tree plantations, and 

urban development (Petition, p. 7). The 

petition also states that ‘i’iwi habitat is 

being lost and degraded by nonnative 

feral ungulates, including pigs (Sus 

scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), domestic 

sheep (Ovis aries), mouflon sheep (Ovis 

gmelini musimon), axis deer (Axis axis), 

black-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus), and cattle (Bos taurus) (Pratt 

et al. 2009, p. 556). According to the 

petitioners, feral ungulates destroy 

forest understory vegetation, eliminate 

food plants for birds, create mosquito 

breeding sites, open the forest floor to 

weed invasion, transport weeds into 

native forests, cause soil erosion, 

disrupt seedling regeneration of native 

plants, and girdle young trees (Petition, 

pp. 7–8). The petitioners claim that the 

‘i’iwi’s native forests that provide food 

and nesting sites are being displaced by 

nonnative plants, a displacement which 

increases the risk of fire (Petition, p. 8). 

According to the petitioners, rats (Rattus 

spp.) consume native plants and impact 

their regeneration, reducing their 

availability as food resources and 

habitat for the ‘i’iwi (see Factor E). The 

petition also claims nonnative insects 

may reduce or eliminate native insects 

that pollinate plants important to the 

‘i’iwi (Petition, p. 8). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Habitat Conversion 

Information provided by the 

petitioners and readily available in our 

files indicates the ‘i’iwi may be 

declining due to loss, degradation, and 

modification of its native forest habitat. 

The consequences of past land use 

practices, such as agricultural 

conversion for food crops, ranching, and 

tree plantations, or for urban 

development, have resulted in little or 

no native vegetation remaining below 

2,000 ft (600 m) throughout the 

Hawaiian Islands (The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) 2007). Agriculture 

has been declining as a priority land 

use, and large tracts of former 

agricultural lands are being converted 

into residential areas or being allowed 

to remain fallow (TNC 2007). Hawaii’s 

population has also increased 

approximately 10 percent in 10 years, 

increasing demands on limited land and 

water resources (Hawaii Department of 

Business, Economic Development and 

Tourism (DBEDT) 2010). The ‘i’iwi is 

most abundant above 4,900 ft (1,500 m) 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 122), but likely no 

longer occurs in low- and mid-elevation 

native forests below that elevation 

because of a number of factors, 

including habitat loss and degradation 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 238) (also see Factor 

C). 

Nonnative Ungulates 

Introduced mammals have greatly 

impacted the native vegetation and 

native fauna of the Hawaiian Islands, 

with impacts accelerating following the 

arrival of Captain James Cook in 1778. 

The Cook expedition and subsequent 

explorers introduced a European race of 

pigs and other livestock, such as goats, 

to serve as food sources for seagoing 

explorers (Tomich 1986, pp. 120–121; 

U.S. Geological Survey 1998, p. 752). 

The mild climate of the islands, 

combined with the lack of competitors 

or predators, led to the successful 

establishment of large populations of 

these introduced mammals, to the 

detriment of native Hawaiian species 

and ecosystems. The presence of 

introduced nonnative mammals is 

considered to be one of the primary 

factors underlying the alteration and 

degradation of native plant communities 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and habitats on Kauai, Oahu, Maui, 

Molokai, and Hawaii islands, where the 

‘i’iwi occurs (Pratt et al. 2009, pp. 150– 

152). 

Pigs are widely recognized as one of 

the greatest threats to forest ecosystems 

in Hawaii (Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; 

Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195; Pratt 

et al. 2009, p. 54), and occur on each of 

the five islands where the ‘i’iwi occurs. 

Pigs are extremely destructive, and 

directly and indirectly impact native 

forest communities. While rooting in the 

earth in search of invertebrates and 

plant material, pigs disturb and destroy 

native vegetation, and trample plants 

and seedlings. They may also reduce or 

eliminate plant regeneration by 

consuming seeds and seedlings (Diong 

1982, pp. 161–164). In forest habitats, 

pigs consume many native plants 

including lobelioids (plants in the 

bellflower family), which are an 

important nectar source for nectarivorus 

birds such as the ‘i’iwi (Pratt et al. 2009, 

p. 150). Pigs also tear open tree fern 

trunks when feeding, leaving troughs 

that fill with rain water and develop 

into mosquito breeding sites (Pratt et al. 

2009, p. 150); mosquitoes may carry 

avian malaria (see Factor C). Their 

continued rooting on the forest floor 

promotes the establishment of 

nonnative plants, particularly grasses, 

ferns, and aggressive shrubs. Pigs are 

also responsible for dispersing some of 

the most invasive rainforest weeds (Pratt 

et al. 2009, p. 150). Their rooting 

contributes to erosion by clearing 

vegetation and creating large areas of 

disturbed soil, particularly on slopes 

(Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; Smith 1985, pp. 

190, 192, 196, 200, 204, 230–231; Stone 

1985, pp. 254–255, 262–264; Medeiros 

et al. 1986, pp. 27–28; Scott et al. 1986, 

pp. 360–361; Tomich 1986, pp. 120– 

126; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 64– 

65; Loope et al. 1991, pp. 1–21; Wagner 

et al. 1999, p. 51–52). 

Goats occupy a wide variety of 

habitats on each of the five islands 

where the ‘i’iwi occurs. Goats are able 

to access and forage in extremely rugged 

terrain, have a high reproductive 

capacity (Clarke and Cuddihy 1980, pp. 

C–19, C–20; Culliney 1988, p. 336; 

Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 64), and are 

believed to have completely eliminated 

some plant species from the islands 

(Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p. 21). 

Goats can be highly destructive to 

natural vegetation and contribute to 

erosion by trampling roots and 

seedlings, eating young trees and young 

shoots of plants before they can become 

established, creating trails that can 

damage native vegetation, destabilizing 

substrate, creating gullies that 

exacerbate erosion, promoting the 

invasion of nonnative plants, and 

dislodging stones from ledges that can 

damage vegetation below (van Riper and 

van Riper 1982, pp. 35–35; Cuddihy and 

Stone 1990, p. 64). Feral goats have been 

reported to impact the reproduction of 

native tree species such as Acacia koa 

and Sophora chrysophylla (mamane), 

which provide forest habitat and a 

source of nectar for the ‘i’iwi (Pratt et al. 

2009, p. 152). 

Domestic sheep were introduced to 

five Hawaiian Islands (Niihau, Kauai, 

Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii), but are 

currently known only on Hawaii Island 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 151). Their 

browsing behavior and stripping of bark 

from native Sophora chrysophylla trees 

on Mauna Kea has been documented as 

a threat to endangered palila (Loxioides 

bailleui), a Hawaiian forest bird that is 

completely dependent on that species 

for food and habitat. However, we do 

not have any information in our files 

that would indicate this activity may be 

also a direct threat to the ‘i’iwi. 

Mouflon sheep were introduced to 

Lanai and Hawaii islands in the 1950s 

for sport hunting purposes, and have 

become widely established (Tomich 

1986, pp. 163–168; Cuddihy and Stone 

1990, p. 66; Hess 2008, p. 1). Mouflon 

sheep are grazers and browsers, and 

have decimated vast areas of native 

forest and shrubland as a result of this 

behavior (Stone 1985, p. 271; Cuddihy 

and Stone 1990, pp. 63, 66; Hess 2008, 

p. 3). Studies on the island of Hawaii 

found that two of the plant species most 

affected are Acacia koa and Sophora 

chrysophylla, both of which provide 

food and habitat for the ‘i’iwi (Giffin 

1981, pp. 22–23; Scowcroft and Conrad 

1992, pp. 628–662; Hess 2008, p. 3). 

Mouflon sheep also create trails and 

pathways through thick vegetation, 

which leads to increased runoff and 

erosion because of soil compaction. 

According to Pratt et al. (2009, p. 151), 

mouflon sheep represent a threat to 

forest bird habitat wherever they occur. 

Axis deer were introduced to Molokai 

and Maui, where the ‘i’iwi occurs 

(Tomich 1986, p. 126), and in April 

2011, it was confirmed that they had 

been introduced illegally to the island of 

Hawaii (Cravalho 2011, in litt.). On 

Molokai, axis deer are thought to occur 

throughout the island, from the coast to 

the summit (approximately 5,000 ft 

(1,500 m)) (Kessler 2011, pers. comm.). 

They prefer to browse and graze in 

lower more open vegetated areas, but 

can move into urban and forested areas 

to search for food during drought 

conditions, as was observed on Maui 

between 1998 and 2001 (Medeiros 2010, 

pers. comm.; Waring 1996, in litt., p. 5; 

Nishibayashi 2001, in litt.). Axis deer 

can be highly destructive to native 

vegetation, and contribute to erosion by 

creating trails that convey water. They 

eat young trees and plants before they 

can become established, damage native 

vegetation, and destabilize substrate. 

They can also dislodge stones from 

ledges, causing rockfalls and landslides, 

which damage the vegetation below 

(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63–64). 

Their reproductive potential, extreme 

habitat flexibility and ability to use 

diverse types of forage make them a 

serious threat to forest bird habitat, 

including the forest habitat used by the 

‘i’iwi (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 152). 

Black-tailed deer (also known as mule 

deer) were introduced on Kauai in 1961, 

for sport hunting. They are currently 

limited to the western side of Kauai, up 

to 4,000 ft (1,200 m) in elevation, where 

they feed on a variety of native (e.g., 

Acacia koa and Metrosideros 

polymorpha) and nonnative plants 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 152; 75 FR 18959, 

April 13, 2010). During dry periods, 

black-tailed deer have been reported in 

native forest bird habitat, including 

‘i’iwi habitat, in the Alakai Swamp on 

Kauai (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 152). In 

addition to directly impacting native 

plants through browsing, they likely 

serve as a primary source for spreading 

nonnative plants by distributing seeds 

through their feces as they travel (Center 

for Invasive Plant Management 2009, p. 

2). 

Cattle were introduced to the 

Hawaiian Islands in 1793. Large feral 

herds (as many as 12,000 on the island 

of Hawaii) developed as a result of 

restrictions on the killing of cattle, 

decreed by King Kamehameha I over 

200 years ago (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, 

p. 40). Although relatively small cattle 

ranches were developed on Kauai, 

Oahu, Molokai, west Maui, and 

Kahoolawe, much larger ranches 

encompassing tens of thousands of acres 

were established on east Maui and 

Hawaii Island (Stone 1985, pp. 256, 260; 

Broadbent in litt., 2010). Establishing 

cattle ranches required the logging of 

native Acacia koa trees, which 

converted native forest habitat to 

agricultural grassland (Tomich 1986, p. 

140; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 47). 

According to Pratt et al. (2009, p. 149), 

cattle are present on Kauai, Molokai, 

Maui, and Hawaii, where the ‘i’iwi 

occurs. They eat native vegetation, 

trample roots and seedlings, cause 

erosion, create disturbed areas into 

which alien plants invade, and spread 

seeds of alien plants in their feces and 

on their bodies. Forests in areas grazed 

by cattle are converted to grassland 

pasture, and plant cover is reduced for 

many years following their removal. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3427 

During this time, this degraded habitat 

is unsuitable as forest bird habitat 

(Tomich 1986, pp. 140–150; Cuddihy 

and Stone 1990, p. 29). 

Nonnative Plants 

Native vegetation on all the main 

Hawaiian Islands has undergone 

extreme alteration because of past and 

present land management practices such 

as ranching, nonnative species 

introductions, and agricultural 

development (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, 

pp. 27, 58). The original native flora of 

Hawaii consisted of about 1,000 taxa, 89 

percent of which were endemic (species 

that occur only in the Hawaiian 

Islands). Since humans arrived, over 

800 nonnative plant taxa have been 

introduced, approximately 100 of which 

have become injurious in Hawaii (Smith 

1985, p. 180; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, 

p. 73; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45). 

When plantation owners (and the thenterritorial government of Hawaii) 

became alarmed at the reduction of 

water resources for their crops as a 

result of native forest destruction, they 

introduced nonnative trees for 

reforestation. Ranchers also introduced 

pasture grasses and other nonnative 

plants for agricultural purposes, which 

introduced other weed species. Other 

nonnative plants were imported to 

Hawaii for potential horticultural value 

(Scott et al. 1986, pp. 361–363; Cuddihy 

and Stone 1990, p. 73), or for food and 

cultural reasons by various groups, 

including Polynesians. Nonnative plants 

adversely impact native habitat in 

Hawaii, including forest habitat used by 

the ‘i’iwi, by modifying or altering light 

availability, soil-water regimes, and 

nutrient cycling processes. They also 

alter fire characteristics by opening 

areas where successive fires can burn 

farther into native habitats, destroying 

native vegetation and creating 

conditions that favor the establishment 

of nonnative species (Cuddihy and 

Stone, 1990, p. 74; D’Antonio and 

Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Smith 1985, pp. 

180–181; Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 6). 

Rats 

According to the petitioners, the 

nonnative black rat impacts forest bird 

habitat by feeding on native plant fruits 

and flowers (Petition, p. 8), which 

impacts native plant regeneration. 

Snetsinger et al. (1994, p. 47) stated that 

few studies have documented the food 

habits of several introduced mammals 

in Hawaii, particularly in upland 

forests. However, Pratt et al. (2009, pp. 

152–153) reported that rats feed on 

seeds and flowers, and strip bark from 

plants, changing the composition of 

native forest plant communities, 

including habitat that supports the 

‘i’iwi. 

Insects 

The petition (Petition, p. 8) claims 

introduced predatory insects may 

reduce or eliminate specialized native 

insects that pollinate plants important 

to the ‘i’iwi. According to Pratt et al. 

(2009, p. 153), Metrosideros 

polymorpha, the native tree that 

provides habitat and food for the ‘i’iwi, 

may be particularly susceptible to 

damage by the nonnative two-spotted 

leaf-hopper (Sophonia rufofascia). This 

insect was first reported on Oahu in 

1987, and now occurs on each of the 

main Hawaiian islands. However, we 

have no substantive information 

indicating this species, or any other 

predatory insects, may present a threat 

to the ‘i’iwi. 

Summary of Factor A 

In summary, we find that information 

provided in the petition, and other 

information in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information to indicate that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to habitat destruction, modification, or 

curtailment caused by nonnative 

animals (feral pigs, goats, mouflon 

sheep, axis deer, black-tailed deer, 

cattle, and rats) and nonnative plants. 

Land use practices, such as agriculture 

(e.g., food crop production, ranching, 

tree plantations) and urban 

development, have significantly 

reduced native vegetation below 2,000 ft 

(600 m) (TNC 2007) throughout the 

Hawaiian Islands. The resulting 

conversion of native to nonnative 

habitat likely reduced the availability of 

lowland forest habitat for native birds, 

including the ‘i’iwi (Pratt et al. 2009, pp. 

146–148). The ‘i’iwi appears to be 

restricted to forest habitat above 2,000 ft 

(600 m) in elevation, and usually above 

3,600 ft (1,100 m), because of habitat 

loss and degradation. The prevalence of 

mosquito-borne avian diseases at lower 

elevations may also be a factor in this 

apparent habitat constriction (see Factor 

C). 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petitioners did not present 

information suggesting overutilization 

may be a current threat to the ‘i’iwi, and 

we have no information in our files in 

this regard. We will further investigate 

whether overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes may be a threat to the ‘i’iwi 

during the status review. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information Provided in the Petition 

Disease 

The petitioners claim avian disease is 

a primary reason for the decline of the 

‘i’iwi and other Hawaiian honeycreepers 

(Petition, p. 8). They state experimental 

evidence demonstrates the high 

susceptibility of the ‘i’iwi to avian 

malaria, with mortality significantly 

higher in birds exposed to malariainfected mosquitoes than in uninfected 

controls (Petition, p. 8). According to 

Atkinson et al. (2001), Freed et al. 

(2005), and Valkiunas (2005), as cited in 

the petition (Petition, p. 9), some 

individual birds are capable of an 

immunological response to some strains 

of malaria (i.e., birds are infected but 

able to survive), but it is likely these 

birds retain chronic infection for life. In 

addition, there is likely a reduced 

survivorship of these birds in the wild 

due to a host of other factors, including 

challenges to the immune system by 

stress, excessive energy expenditure, 

weight loss, predation, unfavorable 

weather, and other diseases like avian 

pox (Petition, p. 9). The petition states 

that avian pox is also a threat to the 

‘i’iwi, and its lethal effects have been 

experimentally demonstrated in 

Hawaiian honeycreepers (Petition, p. 9). 

The petition (Petition, p. 9) cites 

Atkinson et al. (2005), who found that 

a significant proportion of Hawaiian 

forest birds with avian pox also had 

avian malaria, which suggested an 

interaction between the two diseases. 

The petitioners claim ‘i’iwi 

populations are on a downward 

trajectory, similar to the decline of 

federally endangered Hawaiian forest 

birds that are vulnerable to disease, 

such as the akikiki (Oreomystis bairdi), 

the akekee (Loxops caeruleirostris), and 

the Hawaii akepa (Loxops coccineus 

coccineus) (Pratt et al. 2009, pp. 126 and 

127). The petitioners also claim the 

effects of climate change are expected to 

increase the ‘i’iwi’s exposure to avian 

disease (Petition, pp. 9–11). 

The petition claims ectoparasites, 

such as chewing lice (order 

Phthiraptera), may increase ‘i’iwi 

morbidity, reduce the ability of birds to 

survive environmental challenges, and 

affect the ability of parasitized birds to 

successfully overcome diseases such as 

avian malaria and pox (Petition, p. 11). 

According to the petitioners, additional 

disease risks to the ‘i’iwi include 

potential introductions of the West Nile 

virus, new avian malaria vectors, and 

biting midges (Culicoides) that transmit 

avian diseases (Petition, p. 11). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Predation 

According to the petition (Petition, p. 

11), predation by introduced rats (Rattus 

spp.), which are abundant at high 

elevations, is a serious threat to adult 

Hawaiian forest birds and their nests, 

including the ‘i’iwi. The petitioners also 

claim that predation by feral cats (Felis 

domesticus), the native short-eared owl 

or pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis), 

the introduced barn owl (Tyto alba), and 

the introduced small Indian mongoose 

(Herpestes auropunctatus) may also 

threaten the ‘i’iwi (Petition, p. 11). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Disease 

Several studies cited in Pratt et al. 

(2009, pp. 234–252, 405–425) identified 

substantial threats from avian malaria 

and pox to Hawaii’s native forest birds, 

including the ‘i’iwi. Other studies 

indicate avian diseases transmitted by 

the introduced southern house mosquito 

(Culex quinquefasciatus), including 

avian pox and malaria, play a major role 

in limiting the distribution of many 

Hawaiian forest bird species (Benning et 

al. 2002, p. 14,246; Pratt et al. 2009, p. 

234). Like many other native Hawaiian 

forest birds, ‘i’iwi are no longer 

observed at lower elevations, and are 

restricted to higher elevation montane 

forest habitat, where mosquitoes and the 

diseases they carry are less prevalent 

(Scott et al. 1986, pp. 367–368; Pratt et 

al. 2009, pp. 237–238). 

Native Hawaiian forest birds are more 

susceptible to malaria than are 

nonnative bird species (van Riper et al. 

1986, pp. 327–328; Pratt et al. 2009, p. 

238). They evolved in the absence of 

mosquito-borne avian diseases, and 

became exposed to avian pox and 

malaria when mosquitoes were 

accidentally introduced to the islands in 

1827 with imported cage birds and 

domestic fowl (Yorinks and Atkinson 

2000, p. 731; Pratt et al. 2009, pp. 235– 

236, 406). Avian malaria appears to be 

highly pathogenic for the Hawaiian 

honeycreepers, including the ‘i’iwi 

(Yorinks and Atkinson 2000, p. 737; 

Pratt et al. 2009, pp. 238–240). Atkinson 

et al. (1995, p. 1) described 

extraordinarily high mortality of birds 

infected with malaria in a pathogenicity 

study of avian malaria in experimentally 

infected ‘i’iwi. Another study 

demonstrated that the native forest bird 

apapane (Himatione sanguinea), when 

experimentally infected with malaria, 

demonstrated altered behaviors that 

increase their vulnerability to predation 

(Yorinks and Atkinson 2000, pp. 731– 

738). Infected birds devoted less time to 

locomotory activities involving flight, 

walking, or hopping, as well as 

stationary activities such as singing, 

preening, feeding, and probing. This 

susceptibility to avian malaria, in 

combination with observations that 

other Hawaiian honeycreepers have 

become restricted to high-elevation 

forests, led Atkinson et al. (1995, p. 1) 

and Pratt et al.(2009, p. 251) to predict 

that a shift in the current mosquito 

distribution to higher elevations could 

be disastrous for species with already 

reduced populations. In addition, 

climate change may exacerbate this 

threat by increasing the elevation at 

which regular transmission of avian 

malaria occurs (Benning et al. 2002, pp. 

14,246–14,247). See Factor D for a more 

complete discussion of the potential 

relationship between avian malaria and 

climate change. 

The limited information about the 

potential effects of avian pox virus on 

Hawaiian forest birds is based on 

observations of pox-like lesions on 

captured wild birds (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 

242). VanderWerf (2001, cited in Pratt et 

al. 2009, p. 242) found a correlation 

between pox epizootics and decreases in 

the size of breeding cohorts in the 

Hawaii elepaio (Chasiempis 

sandwichensis), a native forest bird. 

Little is known about the interaction of 

avian pox and avian malaria. Some 

studies indicate infections of pox and 

malaria are independent of each other, 

although other studies found concurrent 

malaria infections were more frequent 

than expected in birds with pox like 

lesions (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 244). 

Accordingly, more research is needed to 

fully understand the possible effects of 

pox virus on the ‘i’iwi. 

Although the petition asserts the 

potential introduction of the West Nile 

virus to Hawaii may have severe 

impacts on Hawaii’s native birds, this 

virus has not been recorded in Hawaii, 

and there is no experimental or other 

data available with which to assess the 

susceptibility of the ‘i’iwi to this 

potential disease. The petitioners did 

not provide any information or studies 

substantiating the claim that biting 

midges or other avian malaria vectors 

may be a threat to the ‘i’iwi, and we 

have no information in our files in this 

regard. There is some evidence that 

chewing lice (Phthiraptera) increase 

food requirements of host bird species, 

which reduces their individual immune 

defenses against disease. However, there 

is no indication chewing lice represent 

a threat to the ‘i’iwi, which have 

shortened upper bills that may be 

effective in removing lice (Freed et al. 

2008, pp. 1,017, 1,019). 

Predation 

At least three rat species have been 

introduced to the Hawaiian Islands. The 

Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) and the 

black rat (Rattus rattus) occur primarily 

in dry to wet habitats, while the Norway 

rat (Rattus norvegicus) is typically 

observed in manmade habitats, such as 

urban areas or agricultural fields 

(Tomich 1986, p. 41). The Polynesian 

rat is an agile climber but is seldom 

observed in trees, which may be due to 

competitive exclusion by the larger 

black rat (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 276). The 

black rat is considered to be the most 

significant avian predator among the 

three rat species (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 

275). It is known to prey on incubating 

forest birds, their eggs, and nestlings in 

mesic and wet forest habitats 

(Snetsinger et al. 2005, p. 83; Tweed et 

al. 2006, p. 753). The Norway rat is not 

believed to be a threat to forest birds 

because of its limited distribution in 

forest habitats (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 277). 

Forest bird predation by feral cats has 

been documented since the late 1800s 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 277). Feral cats are 

believed to prey on roosting or 

incubating native forest bird adults, on 

eggs, and on young (Scott et al. 1986, 

pp. 363–364; VanderWerf and Smith 

2002, p. 73). Although most common at 

lower elevations, they have been 

observed in high-elevation rain forests 

on Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii (Scott et al. 

1986, p. 363; Tweed et al. 2006, p. 753). 

In montane wet forests on Hawaii 

Island, native forest birds are a regular 

component in the diet of feral cats 

(Smucker et al. 2000, p. 233). An 

examination of the stomach contents of 

118 feral cats at Hakalau forest 

determined that native and introduced 

birds were the most common prey item 

(Banko et al. 2004, p. 16.2). 

Although the petition describes 

potential adverse impacts of the small 

Indian mongoose on native forest birds, 

they are weak climbers and there is no 

indication they represent a threat to 

canopy-dwelling birds (Pratt et al. 2009, 

p. 278), such as the ‘i’iwi. 

Two species of owls, the native pueo 

and the introduced barn owl, are known 

to prey on forest birds. Between 1996 

and 1998, 10 percent of nest failures of 

a rare forest bird on Kauai, the puaiohi 

(Mayadestes palmeri), were attributed to 

owls (Snetsinger et al. 1994, p. 47; 

Snetsinger et al. 2005, pp. 72, 79). The 

‘i’iwi occurs in the same habitat as the 

puaiohi, and may be exposed to similar 

threats. 

Summary of Factor C 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3429 

well as other information in our files, 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

because of disease threats such as avian 

malaria and avian pox, and predation by 

nonnative rats, cats, and potentially by 

native and nonnative owls. We did not 

find substantial scientific or commercial 

information in the petition or in our 

files that would indicate the West Nile 

virus, chewing lice infestation, or 

predation by the small Indian mongoose 

represent potential threats to the ‘i’iwi. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Information Provided in the Petition 

Climate Change 

The petitioners claim existing U.S. 

and international regulatory 

mechanisms, including the United 

Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, 

are inadequate to safeguard the ‘i’iwi 

against the effects of climate change, 

and inadequate to conserve highelevation forests needed to serve as 

refugia for native forest birds, including 

the ‘i’iwi, from the climate-induced 

advance of mosquito-transmitted avian 

diseases (Petition, pp. 12–13). The 

petitioners also claim existing laws such 

as the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq.), Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), Clean Water 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) provide authority to executive 

branch agencies to require virtually all 

major U.S. sources to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, but U.S. agencies fail to 

implement or only partially implement 

those laws (Petition, p. 12). 

Habitat Conservation 

The petition claims most of the lands 

identified for forest bird recovery are 

not being managed for conservation, and 

most management actions identified in 

forest bird recovery plans to restore and 

conserve habitat have either not been 

implemented or are inadequately 

implemented (Petition, p. 13). 

According to the petitioners (Petition, p. 

13), conflicting management goals and 

policies involving State forest lands, the 

lack of funding, conflicts between 

management of game animals and 

conservation of rare native species, and 

agency decisions regarding land uses 

contribute to the inadequate protection 

of native forest birds. They also stated 

the ‘i’iwi, like all other Hawaiian 

honeycreepers, is not included on the 

list of species protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 

U.S.C. 703 et seq.), and thus receives no 

protection under Federal law. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Climate Change 

Environmental conditions that may 

result from climate change and their 

potential impacts on the ‘i’iwi are 

unpredictable at this time (see Factor E, 

below). Although there are some 

existing regulatory mechanisms to 

address anthropogenic causes of climate 

change, there are no known regulatory 

mechanisms in place at the national or 

international level that directly and 

effectively reduce or reverse this overall 

trend. 

Habitat Conservation 

There are no existing regulatory 

mechanisms that were written to 

specifically conserve or protect highelevation forest habitat needed by the 

‘i’iwi, or mitigate habitat-related threats 

described under Factors A, C, and E. 

Some State regulations might have an 

indirect impact on protecting this 

habitat. For example, although 

nonnative ungulates destroy and 

degrade ‘i’iwi habitat, the State of 

Hawaii supports and manages game 

mammal hunting (H.A.R. 13–123; DLNR 

2009, pp. 20–21) in areas inhabited by 

this species. Many public hunting areas 

are not fenced, which allows game 

mammals unrestricted access to most 

areas across the landscape. While fences 

have been installed to protect certain 

areas from game mammals, these efforts 

have not been adequate to prevent 

native forest bird habitat degradation 

and destruction on a larger scale. The 

Hawaii Department of Agriculture 

(HDOA) regulates the import of plants 

into the State from domestic origins 

under Hawaii Revised Statute 150A, and 

while all plants require inspection upon 

entry into the State and must be 

‘‘apparently free’’ of insects and 

diseases, not all plants require import 

permits. Nonnative plants have been 

shown to outcompete native plants and 

convert native-dominated plant 

communities to nonnative plant 

communities, throughout the ‘i’iwi’s 

range. Accordingly, developing 

management strategies or other 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

nonnative plants to ‘i’iwi habitat may be 

an important habitat conservation need. 

Nonnative Species 

The capacity of Federal and State 

agencies and their nongovernmental 

partners to mitigate the effects of 

introduced pests in Hawaii is limited 

because of the large number of taxa 

causing damage (Coordinating Group on 

Alien Pest Species (CGAPS) 2009, pp. 

1–14). The CGAPS partnership was 

formed in 1995, and is comprised 

primarily of managers from major 

Federal, State, county, and private 

agencies and organizations that work 

with invasive species in Hawaii. The 

CGAPS goal was to influence policy and 

funding decisions, improve 

communication, increase collaboration, 

and promote public awareness of 

invasive species (CGAPS 2009). The 

CGAPS facilitated the formation of the 

Hawaii Invasive Species Council (HISC), 

which was created by gubernatorial 

executive order in 2002. The HISC is 

responsible for coordinating local 

initiatives for the prevention and 

control of invasive species, by providing 

policy level direction and planning for 

the State departments responsible for 

invasive species issues. In 2003, the 

Governor signed Act 85 into law, 

conveying statutory authority to the 

HISC to continue to coordinate 

approaches among the various State and 

Federal agencies, and international and 

local initiatives for the prevention and 

control of invasive species (DLNR 2003, 

p. 3–15; HISC 2009; H.R.S. Chapters 

194–2(a)). 

Many established invasive plants 

have currently limited but expanding 

ranges. Resources available to reduce 

their spread are limited, and largely 

focused on those that cause significant 

economic or environmental damage to 

public and private lands. The State 

noxious weed list (H.A.R. Chapter 4–68) 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture— 

Animal Plant Health Inspection 

Service—Plant Protection Quarantine 

(USDA–APHIS–PPQ) Restricted Plants 

List prohibit the importation of a 

limited number of noxious weeds. The 

State allows the importation of plant 

taxa shipped from domestic ports 

(HLRB 2002; USDA–APHIS–PPQ), and 

USDA–APHIS–PPQ risk assessments for 

plant pests are based on species 

considered threats to the continental 

United States. These assessments may 

not address the many species that could 

be pests in Hawaii (HLRB 2002; USDA– 

APHIS–PPQ; CGAPS 2009, pp. 1–14). In 

addition, unless specifically prohibited 

or restricted, Federal regulations allow 

plants to be imported to Hawaii from 

international ports. 

State of Hawaii law prohibits the 

importation of animals unless 

specifically authorized (Hawaii 

Legislative Reference Bureau (HLRB) 

2002). Generally, the HDOA has sole 

responsibility to regulate species 

entering Hawaii from other parts of the 

United States. Its authority extends only 

to interstate movement, that is, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

materials coming from the continental 

United States, and it relies on referrals 

from U.S. Customs, USDA–APHIS–PPQ, 

and the Service’s Office of Law 

Enforcement to intercept foreign and 

trust territory items imported into the 

United States that are prohibited by the 

State of Hawaii. The Hawaii Board of 

Agriculture is responsible for enforcing 

the list of species prohibited by statute 

and determining which plant and 

animal species are prohibited or 

permitted into the State. The board 

maintains three lists for animals: 

conditionally approved (permit required 

for importation), restricted (permit 

required for both importation and 

possession), and prohibited. If an 

animal is not included on either of the 

first two lists, importation into the State 

is prohibited. 

The importation or transportation of 

invasive vertebrate species is regulated 

under the injurious wildlife provisions 

of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 

3371 et seq.) by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Fowler et al. 2007, pp. 

353–359). Fowler et al. 2007 (p. 353) 

evaluated the efficacy of the Lacey Act 

at disrupting the injurious wildlife 

invasion processes, and concluded that, 

while the Lacey Act may have been 

somewhat effective at preventing 

transport into the country of the few 

taxa listed prior to their introduction, 

over half of the listed taxa were already 

present when listed, and most taxa that 

were already established in the wild 

continued to spread after listing. The 

authors suggest that if the goals of the 

Lacey Act are to be achieved in the face 

of increasing international trade in live 

organisms, revision or replacement of 

the provision would be necessary 

(Fowler et al. 2007, p. 353). 

The introduction of most nonnative 

invertebrate pests to the State of Hawaii 

likely has been and continues to be 

accidental or incidental to other 

activities. Although Hawaii State 

government and Federal agencies have 

regulations and some controls in effect, 

as identified above, the introduction 

and movement of nonnative invertebrate 

pest species between islands and from 

one watershed to the next continues. 

For example, an average of 20 new alien 

invertebrate species have been 

introduced to Hawaii per year since 

1970, an increase of 25 percent over the 

previous totals between 1930 to 1970 

(TNC 1992, p. 8). 

The lack of adequate staffing, 

facilities, and equipment for Federal 

and State pest inspectors and identifiers 

in Hawaii devoted to invasive species 

interdiction has been identified as a 

critical biosecurity gap (USDA–APHIS– 

PPQ 2007; HLRB 2002; CGAPS 2009). 

State laws have recently been passed 

that allow the HDOA to collect fees for 

quarantine inspection of freight entering 

Hawaii (e.g., Act 36 (2011) H.R.S. 

150A—5.3), and legislation was signed 

into law in 2011 (H.B. 1568) requiring 

commercial harbors and airports in 

Hawaii to provide biosecurity and 

inspection facilities to facilitate the 

movement of cargo through the ports. 

Nonnative species may prey upon, 

modify, or destroy habitat, or directly 

compete with the ‘i’iwi for food, space, 

and other necessary resources. On the 

basis of the above information, existing 

regulatory mechanisms do not appear to 

adequately protect the ‘i’iwi’s habitat 

from the threat of new introductions of 

nonnative species, or the expansion of 

nonnative species on and between 

islands and watersheds. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703–712) is the 

domestic law that implements the 

United States’ commitment to four 

international conventions (with Canada, 

Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the 

protection of shared migratory bird 

resources, and each of the conventions 

protects selected species of birds. Under 

the MBTA, it is illegal to pursue, hunt, 

take, capture, kill, possess, sell, 

purchase, barter, import, export, or 

transport any migratory bird, or any 

part, nest, or egg, unless authorized 

under a permit issued by the Secretary 

of the Interior. The petitioners claim the 

‘i’iwi is not a protected species under 

the MBTA. However, contrary to the 

petitioner’s claim, the ‘i’iwi is protected 

under the MBTA (75 FR 9282; March 1, 

2010). As the petitioners did not present 

information suggesting that 

overcollection is a threat to the ‘i’iwi, 

and we have no information in our files 

in this regard (see Factor B), we did not 

find substantial scientific or commercial 

information that the MBTA is an 

inadequate regulatory mechanism. 

Summary of Factor D 

The petition suggests that 

international and national-level 

regulatory mechanisms may not be 

adequate to address the environmental 

effects of climate change to the ‘i’iwi, 

which will be further evaluated during 

our 12-month status review. The 

capacity of Federal and State agencies 

and their nongovernmental partners in 

Hawaii to mitigate the effects of 

introduced pests, such as ungulates and 

weeds, appears to be limited by 

resources and the large number of taxa 

currently causing damage (CGAPS 2009, 

pp. 1–14). Because the control of 

established pests is largely focused on a 

few invasive species that cause 

significant economic or environmental 

damage to public or private lands, the 

impacts of those and other established 

pests (e.g., nonnative ungulates, weeds, 

and invertebrates) are expected to 

continue. Environmental changes that 

may affect the ‘i’iwi could include 

habitat loss or alteration, changes in 

disturbance regimes (e.g. storms and 

hurricanes), and the movement of 

mosquitoes and bird diseases to higher 

elevations (see Factor C). In addition, 

the State’s current management of 

nonnative game mammals may be 

inadequate to prevent the degradation 

and destruction of native forest bird 

habitat used by the ‘i’iwi (see Factor A). 

Existing State and Federal regulatory 

mechanisms do not appear to be 

effectively preventing the introduction 

and spread of nonnative plant and 

animal species from outside and 

between islands and watersheds within 

the State of Hawaii. There is, however, 

no substantial scientific or commercial 

information in the petition or in our 

files indicating that the ‘i’iwi may be 

threatened by overutilization, or that the 

MBTA is inadequate to protect this 

species from that potential threat. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Information Provided in the Petition 

Climate Change and Avian Diseases 

The petitioners state that climate 

change will facilitate the spread of avian 

diseases and severely curtail the ‘i’iwi’s 

range (Petition, p. 7). Please refer to 

Factor C above, which identifies the 

specific concerns raised by the 

petitioners and discusses the potential 

interrelationship between climate 

change and avian disease. 

Hurricanes 

The petitioners state that hurricanes 

have devastating effects on island birds 

(Foster et al. 2004, cited in the Petition, 

p. 14), and can reduce habitat by 

blowing down trees and creating forest 

openings that facilitate the spread of 

nonnative plants. According to the 

petitioners, the ‘i’iwi decline on Kauai 

may have been associated with 

Hurricane Iniki in 1992, and attributed 

to birds having to find alternative nectar 

resources at lower elevations after the 

storm, where the risk of malaria 

transmission is higher (Petition, p. 14). 

The petitioners claim hurricane 

intensity is likely to increase with 

increasing global temperatures, although 

their frequency may decrease (Petition, 

p. 14). They allege strong winds can 

carry disease-transmitting mosquitoes to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3431 

higher elevations, potentially resulting 

in avian disease outbreaks. They 

identified the avian malaria outbreak 

above 6,200 ft (1,900 m) elevation on the 

island of Hawaii as evidence of this 

potential disease pathway (Petition, p. 

14, citing Freed et al., 2005). 

Volcanism 

According to the petition, volcanic 

eruption and inundation of habitat by 

lava is a potential threat to the ‘i’iwi and 

other native forest birds on the island of 

Hawaii (Petition, p. 14). They identified 

the inundation of prime habitat for the 

native honeycreeper ou (Psittirostra 

psittacea) in the Upper Waiakea Forest 

Reserve in 1984, which destroyed 

thousands of acres of forest and created 

a treeless corridor over 0.6 mi (1 km) 

wide, as evidence of this potential 

threat. 

Competition 

The petition states nonnative birds 

and insects may compete with native 

Hawaiian forest birds for food and other 

resources, including the malariaresistant nonnative Japanese white-eye 

(Zosterops japonicus). They cite a study 

by Fancy and Ralph (1998) that found 

negative correlations between Japanese 

white-eye and ‘i’iwi densities as 

supporting evidence (Petition, pp. 14– 

15). 

Population Fragmentation and Isolation 

The petitioners state that ‘i’iwi 

populations are fragmented and reduced 

in size and range (Petition, p. 15). 

According to Primack (2006, cited in 

Petition, p. 15), there is an extinction 

risk from random demographic 

fluctuations, localized catastrophes (e.g., 

severe storms, wildfire, disease, 

volcanism, etc.), inbreeding depression, 

and genetic drift for small population 

units. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Climate Change and Avian Diseases 

We find that the information provided 

in the petition, as well as other 

information in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information to indicate that climate 

change and avian diseases may present 

a threat to the ‘i’iwi. 

The average worldwide ambient air 

temperature (at sea level) is projected to 

increase by about 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F) (2.3 degrees Centigrade (°C)), with 

a range of 2.7–6.7 °F (1.5–3.7 °C) by 

2100 (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) 2007). According 

to citations in Pratt et al. (2009, p. 564), 

overall temperature increases in the 

tropics are predicted to increase about 

3.6–5.4 °F (2–3 °C), and mean 

temperature increases are already 

occurring in the Hawaiian Islands. 

Overall, the daily temperature range in 

Hawaii is decreasing, resulting in a 

warmer environment, especially at 

higher elevations and at night (Pratt et 

al. 2009, p. 564). In the main Hawaiian 

Islands, predicted changes associated 

with increases in temperature include 

shifts in vegetation zones to higher 

elevations, shifts in animal species’ 

ranges, changes in mean precipitation 

with unpredictable effects on local 

environments, increased occurrence of 

drought cycles, and increases in the 

intensity and number of hurricanes 

(Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 514– 

515; U.S. Global Change Research 

Program (US–GCRP) 2009). 

The synergistic implications of 

climate change and habitat 

fragmentation are the most threatening 

facet of climate change for biodiversity, 

according to Hannah et al. (2005, p. 4). 

The magnitude and intensity of the 

impacts of global climate change and 

increasing temperatures on native 

Hawaiian ecosystems are uncertain, and 

there are no climate change studies that 

specifically address impacts to the 

‘i’iwi. Changes to weather patterns such 

as droughts and floods will likely occur 

because of increased annual average 

temperatures related to more frequent El 

Nin ̃ o episodes in Hawaii (Giambelluca 

et al. 1991, p. v). However, there is high 

uncertainty in predicting changes to 

future weather patterns, because they 

partly depend on how the El Nin ̃ o-La 

Nin ̃ a weather cycle (a disruption of the 

ocean atmospheric system in the 

tropical Pacific having important global 

consequences for weather and climate) 

might change (DBEDT 1998, pp. 2–10). 

Environmental changes that may affect 

the ‘i’iwi could include habitat loss or 

alteration, changes in disturbance 

regimes (e.g., storms and hurricanes), 

and the establishment of mosquitoes 

and bird diseases at higher elevations 

(Pratt et al. 2009, p. 564). Despite 

considerable progress in understanding 

the impacts of climate change on many 

of the processes that contribute to El 

Nin ̃ o variability, it is not possible to 

predict whether weather patterns will 

be enhanced or damped, or if the 

frequency of events will change (Collins 

et al. 2010, p. 391). 

Environmental changes triggered by 

global warming that may affect the ‘i’iwi 

could include habitat loss or alteration, 

changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., 

storms and hurricanes), and the 

movement of mosquitoes and bird 

diseases to higher elevations (Pratt et al. 

2009, p. 564). If this occurs, ‘i’iwi 

populations in mid- and high-elevation 

forests could potentially decline, similar 

to observations made in lower elevation 

forests (Pratt et al. 2009, pp. 123, 238). 

We will more fully evaluate this 

potential threat in our status review. 

Hurricanes 

Climate modeling has projected 

changes in tropical cyclone frequency 

and intensity due to global warming 

over the next 100 to 200 years (Vecchi 

and Soden 2007, pp. 1,068–1,069; 

Emanuel et al. 2008, p. 360, Figure 8; Yu 

et al. 2010, p. 1,371). The frequency of 

hurricanes generated by tropical 

cyclones is projected to decrease in the 

central Pacific (i.e., the Northwestern 

and main Hawaiian Islands, including 

those that provide ‘i’iwi habitat), 

although storm intensity (strength) is 

projected to increase (Vecchi and Soden 

2007, pp. 1,068–1,069; Emanuel et al. 

2008, p. 360, Figure 8; Yu et al. 2010, 

p. 1,371). Although climate models 

include projections for the frequency 

and intensity of Pacific tropical 

cyclones, there are no projections for 

changes in their duration (which 

currently runs from May through 

November). In general, hurricanes have 

been a rare occurrence in the Hawaiian 

Islands. From the 1800s until 1949, 

hurricanes were only rarely reported 

from ships in the area. Between 1950 

and 1997, 22 hurricanes passed near or 

over the Hawaiian Islands, 5 of which 

caused serious damage (Businger 1998, 

in litt., pp. 1–2). Hurricanes can destroy 

native vegetation and open the native 

canopy, allowing an invasion of 

nonnative plant species (Kitayama and 

Mueller-Dombois 1995, p. 671). 

Following Hurricane Iniki in 1992, the 

‘i’iwi population declined significantly 

on Kauai, which may have been due to 

several factors, including direct 

mortality, long-term impacts on food 

resources, and the need to seek food 

resources in areas where birds may have 

been exposed to disease-transmitting 

mosquitoes (Conant et al. 1998 cited in 

Foster et al. 2004, p. 724). Similar 

effects to ‘i’iwi populations could occur 

on other Hawaiian Islands, if they are 

exposed to hurricanes of comparable 

magnitude and intensity. 

Volcanism 

The petition claims that substantial 

‘i’iwi habitat loss could occur as a result 

of volcanic eruptions on Hawaii Island, 

comparable to the Upper Waiakea forest 

habitat destroyed by lava flows in 1984. 

Although the largest population of the 

‘i’iwi occurs on Hawaii, which is the 

youngest and only volcanically active 

island in the Hawaiian chain, there is no 

information demonstrating volcanic 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

activity may represent a threat to this 

species or to its habitat. However, we 

will further investigate the petitioners’ 

concern during our status review for 

this species. 

Competition 

There was little information presented 

in the petition, and we have no 

information in our files, regarding 

competition between the ‘i’iwi and 

nonnative birds for habitat and food 

resources. In addition, the diets of 

nonnative birds in Hawaii are poorly 

described, and comparison studies of 

the diets of native and nonnative birds 

have not been published (Pratt et al. 

2009, p. 325). Although some studies 

suggest that the Japanese white-eye may 

compete with the ‘i’iwi and other native 

forest birds, additional research is 

needed to confirm whether this is 

occurring (Mountainspring and Scott 

1985; Ralph and Noon 1988; Freed et al. 

2008 cited in Pratt et al. 2009, p. 325). 

Population Fragmentation and Isolation 

On Oahu, the most recent 

comprehensive ‘i’iwi surveys were 

conducted from 1994 to 1996, during 

which only eight birds were recorded in 

three isolated populations (Pratt et al. 

2009, p. 123). On west Maui, a 1980 

survey estimated the population to 

number fewer than 200 birds, and 

subsequent surveys found lower 

numbers (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123). The 

west Maui population is separated from 

the east Maui population (estimated at 

approximately 19,000 birds in 1980) by 

over 30 km (17 mi). More recent surveys 

indicate the east Maui population may 

now be higher (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 123). 

On Molokai, a 2004 survey recorded 

only three birds (Pratt et al. 2009, p. 

123). 

Small, isolated populations often 

exhibit reduced levels of genetic 

variability, diminishing the species’ 

capacity to adapt and respond to 

environmental changes, thereby 

lessening the probability of long-term 

persistence (Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 

4; Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 361). 

These populations are also more 

susceptible to reduced reproductive 

vigor due to inbreeding depression and 

genetic drift. Challenges associated with 

small population size and vulnerability 

to random demographic fluctuations or 

natural catastrophes can also be further 

magnified by synergistic interactions 

with other threats, such as those 

discussed above (see Factors A and C). 

Summary of Factor E 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information in our files, 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

the ‘i’iwi may be threatened by 

environmental changes triggered by 

global warming, changes in disturbance 

regimes (e.g., storms and hurricanes), 

and the movement of mosquitoes and 

bird diseases to higher elevations. 

Certain ‘i’iwi populations may also be 

threatened because of their small size 

and isolation from other populations, 

making them susceptible to inbreeding 

depression, genetic drift, and random 

demographic fluctuations, or natural 

catastrophes. We did not find 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information in the petition or in our 

files to indicate that volcanism may be 

a threat to the continued existence of 

the ‘i’iwi. Although there is no 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that competition 

with nonnative birds represents a threat 

to the ‘i’iwi, we will further investigate 

this claim during our status review. 

Finding 

On the basis of our review under 

section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

determine that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

‘i’iwi throughout its entire range may be 

warranted. The petition presents 

substantial information indicating the 

‘i’iwi may be threatened by the 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat from nonnative 

animals (feral pigs, goats, mouflon, deer, 

and cattle; rats; and insects) and 

nonnative plants (Factor A); disease 

(avian malaria and pox) and predation 

by nonnative animals (rats, cats, and 

possibly barn owls), and possibly the 

native pueo (Factor C); inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms to prevent 

degradation and destruction of native 

forest bird habitat by nonnative game 

mammals, and the introduction and 

spread of nonnative plant and animal 

species (Factor D); and environmental 

changes triggered by climate change 

(storm and hurricane intensity, upslope 

movement of disease-transmitting 

mosquitoes), and the species’ 

occurrence in small and isolated 

populations (Factor E). The petition 

does not present substantial information 

that the ‘i’iwi may be threatened by 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes (Factor B). Because we have 

found that the petition presents 

substantial information indicating that 

listing the ‘i’iwi may be warranted, we 

are initiating a status review to 

determine whether listing this species 

under the Act is warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

necessarily mean that the 12-month 

finding will result in a warranted 

finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

is available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Pacific Islands Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Pacific Islands 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: January 6, 2012. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1043 Filed 1–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS