[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65466-65508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22276]



[[Page 65465]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 184

September 22, 2016

Part II





 Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

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

[[Page 65466]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule becomes effective October 24, 2016.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

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

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

Previous Federal Action

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

[[Page 65467]]

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

Peer Review

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

[[Page 65468]]

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

[[Page 65469]]

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

Public Comments

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

Comments From States/Territories

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

[[Page 65470]]

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

Comments From the General Public

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

[[Page 65471]]

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

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

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

Background

Species Addressed in This Final Rule

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

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


[[Page 65472]]

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

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

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

[[Page 65473]]

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Pacific Sheath-Tailed Bat

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

[[Page 65474]]

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

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

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

American Samoa

    The National Park of American Samoa (NPSA) was established to 
preserve and protect the tropical forest and archaeological and 
cultural resources, to maintain the habitat of flying foxes, to 
preserve the ecological balance of the Samoan tropical forest, and, 
consistent with the preservation of these resources, to provide for the 
enjoyment of the unique resources of the Samoan tropical forest by 
visitors from around the world (Pub. L. 100-571, Pub. L. 100-336). 
Under a 50-year lease agreement between local villages, the American 
Samoa Government, and the Federal Government, approximately 8,000 ac 
(3,240 ha) of forested habitat on the islands of Tutuila, Tau, and Ofu 
are protected and managed, including suitable foraging habitat for the 
Pacific sheath-tailed bat (NPSA Lease Agreement 1993).

Samoa

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

[[Page 65475]]

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

Fiji

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

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

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

Factor C: Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 65476]]

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

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

American Samoa

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

[[Page 65477]]

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

Samoa

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

Fiji

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

Tonga

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

Vanuatu

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

[[Page 65478]]

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

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

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

[[Page 65479]]

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

[[Page 65480]]

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

[[Page 65481]]

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

Determination for the Pacific Sheath-Tailed Bat

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

Mao, Gymnomyza samoensis

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

[[Page 65482]]

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Mao

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

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

[[Page 65483]]

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

[[Page 65484]]

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

[[Page 65485]]

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

American Samoa

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

Samoa

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

[[Page 65486]]

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

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

Factor C: Disease or Predation

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

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

Samoa

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

[[Page 65487]]

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

American Samoa

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

[[Page 65488]]

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

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

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

[[Page 65489]]

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

Determination for the Mao

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

[[Page 65490]]

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

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

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

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Analysis

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

[[Page 65491]]

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

Discreteness

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

Significance

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

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

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

[[Page 65492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE16.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

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

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

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

[[Page 65493]]

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

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

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

Factor C: Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 65494]]

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

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

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

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

[[Page 65495]]

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

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

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

[[Page 65496]]

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

Snails

Eua zebrina

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

[[Page 65497]]

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

Summary of Factors Affecting Eua zebrina

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

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

[[Page 65498]]

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

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

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

Factor C: Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 65499]]

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

[[Page 65500]]

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

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

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

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

[[Page 65501]]

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

[[Page 65502]]

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

Determination for Eua zebrina

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

Ostodes strigatus

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

[[Page 65503]]

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

Summary of Factors Affecting Ostodes strigatus

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

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

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

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

Factor C: Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 65504]]

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

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

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

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

[[Page 65505]]

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

Determination for Ostodes strigatus

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

Available Conservation Measures

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

[[Page 65506]]

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

[[Page 65507]]

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

Required Determinations

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

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

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245 unless 
otherwise noted.

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


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed       Status        applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Bat, Pacific sheath-tailed        Emballonura          Wherever found.....          E   81 FR [Insert Federal
 (South Pacific subspecies) (=     semicaudata                                           Register page where the
 peapea vai, American Samoa; =     semicaudata.                                          document begins];
 tagiti, Samoa; = beka beka,                                                             September 22, 2016.
 Fiji).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Ground-dove, friendly (=          Gallicolumba stairi  U.S.A. (AS)........          E   81 FR [Insert Federal
 tuaimeo) (American Samoa DPS).                                                          Register page where the
                                                                                         document begins];
                                                                                         September 22, 2016.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mao (= maomao) (honeyeater).....  Gymnomyza samoensis  Wherever found.....          E   81 FR [Insert Federal
                                                                                         Register page where the
                                                                                         document begins];
                                                                                         September 22, 2016.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Snails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Snail [no common name]..........  Eua zebrina........  Wherever found.....          E   81 FR [Insert Federal
                                                                                         Register page where the
                                                                                         document begins];
                                                                                         September 22, 2016.
Snail [no common name]..........  Ostodes strigatus..  Wherever found.....          E   81 FR [Insert Federal
                                                                                         Register page where the
                                                                                         document begins];
                                                                                         September 22, 2016.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 65508]]

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