Comment on FR Doc # E8-23561 - Pacific Rim Conservation

Comments on Proposed Rule Listing 48 Species on Kauai as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat Dr. Eric VanderWerf, 7 November 2008 General Comments I believe the ecosystem approach taken in this proposed listing rule is appropriate and effective, and helps to highlight the fact that protection and management of these species must be done at a landscape scale. For critical habitat in particular, designation of larger areas needed by the species for recovery and by the community of plants and animals on which these species depend will enhance recovery potential. Inclusion of areas that currently are “unoccupied” by a particular species is appropriate and necessary for recovery, and the ecosystem approach allows increased recognition of the importance of such areas in providing a chance for recovery. The ecosystems in which the Akikiki and Akekee are included are inconsistent among different portions of the proposed rule. This is confusing and must be corrected because it has important implications for critical habitat. The akekee is included in the montane wet and montane mesic ecosystems in Tables 1, 2, 4, and 5, but in Table 6 it is included only in the montane wet ecosystem. The akikiki is included only in the montane wet ecosystem in Tables 2 and 6, but in tables 1, 4, and 5 in it included in both the montane wet and montane mesic ecosystems. The best scientific evidence indicates that the akikiki and the akekee each should be included in both the montane wet and montane mesic ecosystems and that critical habitat should be designated for each of them in both ecosystems. The Akikiki currently has a more restricted distribution than the Akekee, but these two species shared similar distributions in the recent past that were much larger than their current distributions and that encompassed both ecosystems. The primary constituent elements needed by the Akekee and the Akikiki are found in both mesic and wet upland forests. Recovery of each species will require reestablishment in areas outside the currently known ranges, and will require both mesic and wet forests. Specific Comments Table 1. “Dryopteris” is misspelled in the Lowland mesic category. Table 2. It would be nice if the table heading were repeated on the top of each page. The description of the code PCO in Table 2 should be changed to read “predation by feral cats and introduced barn owls” to highlight the impact of the non-native barn owl. The native Pueo may also prey on the Akikiki and Akekee, but native Hawaiian forest birds evolved with the Pueo as a natural predator. Habitat Modification by Climate Change. This is a very serious threat to the akikiki and akekee, and I am glad to see that this factor is being considered appropriately in a government document. Cats and owls. The proposed rule states that feral cats are present in the Alakai Swamp, which is in the montane wet ecosystem, and this is true, but feral cats also occur throughout the entire island in virtually all habitat types, and this should be made clear. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The proposed rule correctly states that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) does not provide protection to the Akikiki, Akekee, or any other Hawaiian honeycreeper. In fact, the MBTA specifically and arbitrarily excludes Hawaiian honeycreepers. Protection under the MBTA was not extended to these species even when the list of protected species was recently revised by the USFWS. Proposed Listing Determinations. I concur with the determination that each of the species included in the proposed rule warrants listing as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Critical Habitat. I concur with the determination that designation of critical habitat is prudent for each of the species included in the proposed rule with the exception of Pritchardia hardyi. Tables 4 and 6 seem largely redundant and could be combined to make the rule more concise. For the Akekee, the list of primary constituent elements is stated as including elevations from 3,000 to 6,600 feet (1,000 to 2,000 meters). There are two problems with this. First, the maximum elevation on the island of Kauai is 5,243 feet, so this should be used as the maximum extent of the PCEs. Second, the ranges of elevations given in feet and meters do not agree; 1 meter equals 3.28 feet, so 1,000 meters is equivalent to 3,280 feet, not 3,000 feet. Moreover, the maps depicting the critical habitat units for the akekee do not appear to agree with the list of primary constituent elements (see below). Six critical habitat units are proposed for the akekee that encompass montane wet and montane mesic ecosystems, but the boundaries of some of these units do not make biological sense and do not appear to agree with descriptions of where the primary constituent elements occur. For example, between units 4 and 5 there is a large area of similar habitat that also contains the primary constituent elements needed by akekee, but this area is not included in any of the proposed critical habitat units. This area is at least partially occupied by akekee, I have seen them there myself on several occasions, so it clearly contains the elements they need. The western boundary of critical habitat unit 4 appears to largely coincide with the boundary of the Alakai Wildnerness Preserve, but the distribution of the primary constituent elements undoubtedly does not end at the edge of preserve. This is an artificial, political boundary that does not reflect the areas where the akekee actually occurs or the areas that contain the primary constituent habitat elements. Critical habitat unit 3 encompasses the isolated Namolokama Ridge, but Laau Ridge, which contains similar habitat, is not included in any of the units. Akikiki have been reported recently on Laau Ridge by Ken Wood, and the Service has provided funds to search for akikiki, akekee, and other rare forest birds on Laau Ridge. This support clearly indicates the Service recognizes the potential value of this area, so it is odd that it is not included in the proposed critical habitat. As mentioned previously, the proposed critical habitat for the akikiki should include areas in the montane mesic ecosystem in addition to the montane wet ecosystem. The areas proposed as critical habitat for the akikiki and akekee should be very similar, perhaps identical, because they have very similar habitat requirements. All of the comments above about critical habitat for the akekee therefore also apply to the akikiki. I also recommend that the Service look at its own Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds (USFWS 2006) for guidance on which areas should be considered critical habitat for the akikiki and the akekee. Although it was not listed at the time, the akikiki was included in the revised recovery plan as a candidate species, and the plan included a map of “recovery area” for the akikiki that encompassed an area considerably larger than that currently proposed as critical habitat. The description of criteria for inclusion of areas is quite similar between this proposed rule and the revised recovery plan, so it is not clear why the areas proposed as critical habitat ended up being so much smaller than the recovery area. It seems as though the critical habitat units were devised primarily with plants in mind, and then the animals were added to the lists of species that occurred in those units without specific consideration of which area were actually most appropriate for them. This may be one drawback of the ecosystem approach- the particular needs of certain species are lost in the attempt to identify areas that apply to all species. The critical habitat for akikiki and akekee should be redefined, with greater adherence to the prescribed criteria for inclusion, less reliance on political boundaries, and more careful consideration of the specific needs of these species. Literature Cited The VanderWerf and Roberts paper that is listed as in press has now been published, the complete reference information is: VanderWerf, E. A., and P. K. Roberts. 2008. Foraging and Nesting of the `Akikiki or Kaua`i Creeper (Oreomystis bairdi). Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:195-199.