# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Four Penguin Species as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act and Proposed Rule To List the Southern Rockhopper Penguin in the Campbell Plateau Portion of Its Range

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AE8-29673

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** December 18, 2008
- **Citation:** 73 FR 77264

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-IA-2008-0069; 96000-1671-0000-B6]
RIN 1018-AV73
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Four Penguin Species as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act and Proposed Rule To List the Southern Rockhopper Penguin in the Campbell Plateau Portion of Its Range

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule and notice of 12-month petition finding.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list four species of penguins as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of all available scientific and commercial information, we find that the petitioned action for the Campbell Plateau portion of the range of the New Zealand/Australia Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the southern rockhopper penguin (
Eudyptes chrysocome
) is warranted, and we propose to list this species as threatened under the Act in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range. This proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's protection to this species in that portion of its range. In addition, we find that listing under the Act is not warranted for the remainder of the range of the southern rockhopper penguin and throughout all or any portion of the range for the northern rockhopper penguin (
Eudyptes moseleyi
), macaroni penguin (
Eudyptes chrysolophus
), and emperor penguin (
Aptenodytes forsteri
).

DATES:

We made the finding announced in this document on December 18, 2008. We will accept comments and information on the proposed rule received or postmarked on or before February 17, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings on the proposed rule, in writing, at the address shown in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by February 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES:

Comments on Proposed Rule
: If you wish to comment on the proposed rule to list the southern rockhopper penguin in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range, you may submit comments by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov
. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-R9-IA-2008-0069]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov
. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments Solicited section below for more information).

Supporting Documents for 12-Month Finding
: Supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708; facsimile 703-358-2276. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela Hall, Branch Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708; facsimile 703-358-2276. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires the Service to make a finding known as a “90-day finding,” on whether a petition to add, remove, or reclassify a species from the list of endangered or threatened species has presented substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, the finding shall be made within 90 days following receipt of the petition and published promptly in the
Federal Register
. If the Service finds that the petition has presented substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted (referred to as a positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service to commence a status review of the species if one has not already been initiated under the Service's internal candidate assessment process. In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Service to make a finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition on whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions (this finding is referred to as the “12-month finding”). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a finding of warranted but precluded for petitioned species should be treated as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted but precluded finding, and is, therefore, subject to a new finding within 1 year and subsequently thereafter until we take action on a proposal to list or withdraw our original finding. The Service publishes an annual notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but precluded.

In this notice, we announce a 12-month finding on the petition to list four penguins: southern rockhopper penguin, northern rockhopper penguin, macaroni penguin, and emperor penguin. We will announce the 12-month findings for the African penguin (
Spheniscus demersus
), yellow-eyed penguin (
Megadyptes antipodes
), white-flippered penguin (
Eudyptula minor albosignata
), Fiordland crested penguin (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus), Humboldt penguin (
Spheniscus humboldti
), and erect-crested penguin (
Eudyptes sclateri
) in one or more separate
Federal Register
notice(s).

Previous Federal Actions

On November 29, 2006, the Service received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list 12 penguin species under the Act: Emperor penguin, southern rockhopper penguin, northern rockhopper penguin, Fiordland crested penguin, snares crested penguin (
Eudyptes robustus
), erect-crested penguin, macaroni penguin, royal penguin (
Eudyptes schlegeli
), white-flippered penguin, yellow-eyed penguin, African penguin, and Humboldt penguin. Among them, the ranges of the 12 penguin species include Antarctica, Argentina, Australian Territory Islands, Chile, French Territory Islands, Namibia, New Zealand, Peru, South Africa, and United Kingdom Territory Islands. The petition is clearly identified as such, and contains detailed information on the natural history, biology, status, and distribution of each of the 12 species. It also contains information on what the petitioner reported as potential threats to the species from climate change and changes to the marine environment, commercial fishing activities, contaminants and pollution, guano extraction, habitat loss, hunting,

nonnative predator species, and other factors. The petition also discusses existing regulatory mechanisms and the perceived inadequacies to protect these species.

In the
Federal Register
of July 11, 2007 (72 FR 37695), we published a 90-day finding in which we determined that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing 10 species of penguins as endangered or threatened may be warranted: Emperor penguin, southern rockhopper penguin, northern rockhopper penguin, Fiordland crested penguin, erect-crested penguin, macaroni penguin, white-flippered penguin, yellow-eyed penguin, African penguin, and Humboldt penguin. Furthermore, we determined that the petition did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the snares crested penguin and the royal penguin as threatened or endangered species may be warranted.

Following the publication of our 90-day finding on this petition, we initiated a status review to determine if listing each of the 10 species is warranted, and opened a 60-day public comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of the 10 species of penguins. The public comment period closed on September 10, 2007. In addition, we attended the International Penguin Conference in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, a quadrennial meeting of penguin scientists from September 3-7, 2007 (during the open public comment period), to gather information and to ensure that experts were aware of the status review and the open comment period. We also consulted with other agencies and range countries in an effort to gather the best available scientific and commercial information on these species.

During the public comment period, we received over 4,450 submissions from the public, concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties. Approximately 4,324 e-mails and 31 letters received by U.S. mail or facsimile were part of one letter-writing campaign and were substantively identical. Each letter supported listing under the Act, included a statement identifying “the threat to penguins from global warming, industrial fishing, oil spills and other factors,” and listed the 10 species included in the Service's 90-day finding. A further group of 73 letters included the same information plus information concerning the impact of “abnormally warm ocean temperatures and diminished sea ice” on penguin food availability and stated that this has led to population declines in southern rockhopper, Humboldt, African, and emperor penguins. These letters stated that the emperor penguin colony at Point Geologie has declined more than 50 percent due to global warming and provided information on krill declines in large areas of the Southern Ocean. They stated that continued warming over the coming decades will dramatically affect Antarctica, the sub-Antarctic islands, the Southern Ocean and the penguins dependent on these ecosystems for survival. A small number of general letters and e-mails drew particular attention to the conservation status of the southern rockhopper penguin in the Falkland Islands.

Twenty submissions provided detailed, substantive information on one or more of the 10 species. These included information from the governments, or government-affiliated scientists, of Argentina, Australia, Namibia, New Zealand, Peru, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, from scientists, from 18 members of the U.S. Congress, and from one non-governmental organization (the original petitioner).

On December 3, 2007, the Service received a 60-day Notice of Intent To Sue from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). CBD filed a complaint against the Department of the Interior on February 27, 2008, for failure to make a 12-month finding on the petition. On September 8, 2008, the Service entered into a Settlement Agreement with CBD, in which we agreed to submit to the
Federal Register
12-month findings for the 10 species of penguins, including the five penguin taxa that are the subject of this proposed rule, on or before December 19, 2008.

We base our findings on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period. Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a finding as to whether listing each of the 10 species of penguins is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions.

Introduction

In this notice, for each of the four species addressed, we first provide background information on the biology of the species. Next, we address each of the categories of factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For each factor, we first determine whether any stressors appear to be causing declines in numbers of the species at issue anywhere within the species' range. If we determine they are, then we evaluate whether these stressors are causing population-level declines that are significant to the determination of the conservation status of the species. If so, we describe it as a “threat.” In the subsequent finding section, we then consider each of the stressors and threats, individually and cumulatively, and make a determination with respect to whether the species is endangered or threatened according to the statutory standard.

The term “threatened species” means any species (or subspecies or, for vertebrates, distinct population segments) that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future.” For the purpose of this notice, we define the “foreseeable future” to be the extent to which, given the amount and substance of available data, we can anticipate events or effects, or reliably extrapolate threat trends, such that we reasonably believe that reliable predictions can be made concerning the future as it relates to the status of the species at issue.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

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. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Southern Rockhopper Penguin and Northern Rockhopper Penguins

Taxonomy

Rockhopper penguins are among the smallest of the world's penguins, averaging 20 inches (in) (52 centimeters (cm)) in length and 6.6 pounds (lbs) (3 kilograms (kg)) in weight. They are the most widespread of the crested penguins (genus
Eudyptes
), and are so named because of the way they hop from boulder to boulder when moving

around their rocky colonies. Rockhopper penguins are found on islands from near the Antarctic Polar Front to near the Subtropical Convergence in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 183).

The taxonomy of the rockhopper complex is contentious. Formerly treated as three subspecies (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 182), recent papers suggested that these should be treated as two species (Jouventin
et al.
2006, pp. 3,413-3,423) or three species (Banks
et al.
2006, pp. 61-67).

Jouventin
et al.
(2006, pp. 3,413-3,423), following up on recorded differences in breeding phenology, song characteristics, and head ornaments used as mating signals, conducted genetic analysis between northern subtropical rockhopper penguins and southern sub-Antarctic penguins using the Subtropical Convergence, a major ecological boundary for marine organisms, as the dividing line between them. Their results supported the separation of
E. chrysocome
into two species, the southern rockhopper (
E. chrysocome
) and the northern rockhopper (
E. moseleyi
).

Another recently published paper in the journal
Polar Biology
confirmed that there is more than one species of rockhopper penguins. Banks
et al.
(2006, pp. 61-67) compared the genetic distances between the three rockhopper subspecies and compared them with such sister species as macaroni penguins. Banks
et al.
(2006, pp. 61-67) suggested that three rockhopper subspecies—southern rockhopper (currently
E. chrysocome chrysocome
), eastern rockhopper (currently
E. chrysocome filholi
), and northern rockhopper (currently
E. chrysocome moseleyi
)—should be split into three species.

BirdLife International (2007, p. 1) has reviewed these two papers and made the decision to adopt, for the purposes of their continued compilation of information on the status of birds, the conclusion of Jouventin
et al.
(2006, p. 3,419) that there are two species of rockhopper penguin. In doing so, they noted that the proposed splitting of an eastern rockhopper species from
E. chrysocome
has been rejected on account of weak morphological differentiations between the circumpolar populations south of the Subtropical Convergence (Banks
et al.
2006, p. 67). Furthermore those two groups are more closely related to each other in terms of genetic distance than either is to the northern rockhopper penguin (Banks
et al.
2006, p. 65).

We conclude that, while both analyses have merit, the split into a northern and southern species on the basis of both genetic and morphological differences represents the best available science. On the basis of our review, we accept the BirdLife International treatment of the rockhopper penguins as two species: The northern rockhopper penguin (
E. moseleyi
) and the southern rockhopper penguin (
E. chrysocome
).

Life History

The life histories of northern and southern rockhopper penguins are similar. Breeding begins in early October (the austral spring) when males arrive at the breeding site a few days before females. Breeding takes place as soon as the females arrive, and two eggs are laid 4-5 days apart in early November. The first egg laid is typically smaller than the second, 2.8 versus 3.9 ounces (oz) (80 versus 110 grams (g)), and is the first to hatch. Incubation lasts about 33 days and is divided into three roughly equal shifts. During the first 10-day shift, both parents are in attendance. Then, the male leaves to feed while the female incubates during the second shift. The male returns to take on the third shift. He generally remains for the duration of incubation and afterward to brood the chicks while the female leaves to forage and returns to feed the chicks. Such a system of extended shift duration requires lengthy fasts for both parents, but allows them to forage farther afield than would be the case if they had a daily change-over. The newly hatched chicks may have to wait up to a week before the female returns with their first feed. During this period, chicks are able to survive on existing yolk reserves, after which they begin receiving regular feedings of around 5 oz (150 g) in weight. By the end of the 25 days of brooding, chicks are receiving regular feedings averaging around 1 lb 5 oz (600 g). By this stage they are able to leave the nest and crèche with other chicks, allowing both adults to forage to meet the chicks' increasing demands for food (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 190).

Northern rockhopper penguins and birds in the eastern colonies of southern rockhopper penguins typically rear only one of the two chicks. However, southern rockhopper penguins near the Falkland Islands are capable of rearing both chicks to fledging when conditions are favorable (Guinard
et al.
1998, p. 226). In spite of this difference, southern rockhopper penguins average successful breeding of one chick per pair annually for the colony as a whole. Chicks fledge at around 10 weeks of age, and adults then spend 20-25 days at sea building up body fat reserves in preparation for their annual molt. The molt lasts for around 25 days, and the birds then abandon the breeding site. They spend the winter feeding at sea, prior to returning the following spring (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 185).

The range of southern and northern rockhopper penguins includes breeding habitat on temperate and sub-Antarctic islands around the Southern Hemisphere and marine foraging areas. In the breeding season, these marine foraging areas may lie within as little as 6 miles (mi) (10 kilometers (km)) of the colony (as at the Crozet Archipelago in the Indian Ocean), as distant as 97 mi (157 km) (as at the Prince Edward Islands in the Indian Ocean), or for male rockhoppers foraging during the incubation stage at the Falkland Islands in the Southwest Atlantic, as much as 289 mi (466 km) away (Sagar
et al.
2005, p. 79; Putz
et al.
2003b, p. 141). Foraging ranges vary according to the geographic, geologic, and oceanographic location of the breeding sites and their proximity to sea floor features (such as the continental slope and its margins or the sub-Antarctic slope) and oceanographic features (such as the polar frontal zone or the Falkland current) (Sagar
et al.
2005, pp. 79-80). Winter at-sea foraging areas are less well-documented, but penguins from the Staten Island breeding colony at the tip of South America dispersed over a range of 501,800 square miles (mi
2
) (1.3 million square kilometers (km
2
)) covering polar, sub-polar, and temperate waters in oceanic regions of the Atlantic and Pacific as well as shelf waters (Putz
et al.
2006, p. 735) and traveled up to 1,242 mi (2,000 km) from the colony.

Southern Rockhopper Penguin

Distribution

The southern rockhopper penguin (
Eudyptes chrysocome
) is widely distributed around the Southern Ocean, breeding on many sub-Antarctic islands in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans (Shirihai 2002, p. 71). The species breeds on the Falkland Islands (United Kingdom, Argentina), Penguin and Staten Islands (Argentina) at the southern tip of South America, and islands of southern Chile. Farther to the east, the southern rockhopper penguin breeds on Prince Edward Islands (South Africa); Crozet and Kerguelen Islands (French Southern Territories); Heard, McDonald, and Macquarie Islands (Australia); and Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes Islands (New Zealand) (BirdLife International 2007, pp. 2-3; Woehler 1993, pp. 58-61).

Population

Falkland Islands

At the Falkland Islands, between the census in 1932-33 and the census in 1995-96, there was a decline of more than 80 percent, with an overall rate of decline of 2.75 percent per year (Putz
et al.
2003a, p. 174). Reports of even greater declines (Bingham 1998, p. 223) have been revised after re-analysis of the original 1930's census data, which recorded an estimated 1.5 million southern rockhopper breeding pairs (Putz
et al.
2003a, p. 174). The census in 2000-01 of 272,000 breeding pairs indicated stable numbers since the mid-1990s (297,000 breeding pairs) in the Falkland Islands (Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 389), although further declines since then (Putz
et al.
2006, p. 742), and a lower figure of 210,000 breeding pairs in 2005-06, have been cited (Kirkwood
et al.
2007, p. 266).

The declines of southern rockhoppers in the Falkland Islands appear not to have been gradual. Clausen and Huin (2003, p. 394) state that “circumstantial evidence” suggests that in the early 1980s, there were no more than 500,000 pairs, a decline of 66 percent since the 1930s. By the mid-1990s, the total decline had reached 80 percent. A mass mortality event in the 1985-86 breeding season killed thousands of penguins and was linked to starvation before molt (Putz
et al.
2003a, p. 174; Keyme
et al.
2001, p. 168). In summary, although there has been a long-term decline in numbers at the Falkland Islands, numbers have not declined at a consistent rate, but rather, there have been periodic declines over a long period of time. As mentioned below, Schiavini (2000, p. 290) suggested that Falkland Island birds may be dispersing to Staten Island, potentially contributing to the stable or increasing numbers there.

Southern Tip of South America

In the region of the southern tip of South America, large numbers of southern rockhopper penguins are reported with approximately 180,000 breeding pairs in southern Argentina at Staten Island (Schiavini 2000, p. 286; Kirkwood
et al.
2007, p. 266), 134,000 breeding pairs at Isla Noir (Oehler 2005, p. 7), 86,400 breeding pairs at Ildefonso Archipelago, and 132,721 breeding pairs at Diego Ramirez Archipelago (Kirkwood
et al.
2007, p. 265). Kirkwood
et al.
(2007, p. 266) concluded that numbers for the southern tip of South America are approximately 555,000 breeding pairs. These relatively recent estimates are substantially larger than previous estimates of 175,000 breeding pairs reported in Woehler (1993, p. 61), but it is unclear whether this reflects population increases or more comprehensive surveys. In the Chilean archipelago, Kirkwood
et al.
(2007, p. 266) found no substantive evidence for overall changes in the number of penguins between the early 1980s and 2002, although one colony in the region (the Isla Recalada colony, a historical breeding site) declined from 10,000 pairs in 1989 to none in 2005 (Oehler
et al.
2007, p. 505). On the Argentine side, Schiavini (2000, p. 290) stated that the numbers at Staten Island are stable or increasing, perhaps as a result of a flux of birds from the Falkland Islands. In summary, the overall number of southern rockhopper penguins at the Falklands and the southern tip of South America is estimated at 765,000 breeding pairs distributed as follows: Falkland Islands, 27 percent; Argentina, 24 percent; and Chile, 48 percent. Based on the available information, there does not appear to be a declining trend in southern rockhopper penguin numbers on the southern tip of South America. Although there may have been population increases in the region based on the reported population numbers, it is unclear if these higher numbers reflect true increases in numbers, more comprehensive surveys, or movement of other penguins from the Falkland Islands.

Prince Edward Islands

Two species of
Eudyptes
penguins breed at Marion Island (46.9 degrees (°) South (S) latitude, 37.9° East (E) longitude), one of two islands in the sub-Antarctic Prince Edward Islands group in the southwest Indian Ocean. They are the southern rockhopper penguin (
E. chrysocome
) and the macaroni penguin (
E. chrysolophus
). For southern rockhopper penguins, the numbers of birds estimated to breed at Marion Island decreased by 61 percent from 173,000 pairs in 1994-95 to 67,000 pairs in 2001-02 (Crawford
et al.
2003, p. 490). The number of southern rockhopper penguins at nearby Prince Edward Island appears to have been stable since the 1980s with 35,000-45,000 pairs present (Crawford
et al.
2003, p. 496). The decreases at Marion Island are thought to result from poor breeding success, with fledging rates lower than required for the colonies to remain in equilibrium; a decrease in the mass of males and females on arrival at the colony for breeding; and low mass of chicks at fledging (Crawford
et al.
2003, p. 496). These changes are attributed to an inadequate supply of food for southern rockhopper penguins at Marion Island (Crawford
et al.
2003, p. 487), presumably from a decrease in the availability of crustaceans or competition with other predators for food (Crawford
et al.
2003, p. 496). Winter grounds of southern rockhopper penguins are not known. However, over-wintering conditions, which are reflected in the condition of birds arriving to breed, influence the proportion of adults that breed in the following summer and the outcome of breeding (Crawford
et al.
2006, p. 185).

Crozet and Kerguelen Islands

Jouventin
et al.
(2006, p. 3,417) referenced 1984 data from French Indian Ocean territories that showed 264,000 breeding pairs at Crozet Islands and 200,000 breeding pairs at Kerguelen Island. These figures did not agree with those presented by Woehler (1993, pp. 59-60) and, if accurate, represent an increase of about 25 percent for the Crozet Islands and over 100 percent for Kerguelen. We are not aware of reported declines at the Crozet and Kerguelen Islands.

Heard, McDonald, and Macquarie Islands

Numbers at Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia) are reported as small, with an “order of magnitude estimate” of greater than 10,000 pairs for Heard Island and greater than 10 pairs for McDonald (Woehler 1993, p. 60). No information has been reported on trends in numbers in these areas. Order of magnitude estimates at Macquarie Island (Australia) reported 100,000-300,000 pairs in the early 1980s (Woehler 1993, p. 60; Taylor 2000, p. 54). The 2006 Management Plan for the Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area reported that the total number of southern rockhopper penguins in this area may be as high as 100,000 breeding pairs, but estimates from 2006-07 indicate 32,000-43,000 breeding pairs at Macquarie Island (BirdLife International 2008b, p. 2). Given the large range in the earlier categorical estimate, we cannot evaluate whether the more recent estimate represents a decline in numbers or a more precise estimate.

Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes Islands

In New Zealand territory, southern rockhopper numbers at Campbell Island declined by 94 percent between the early 1940s and 1985 from approximately 800,000 breeding pairs to 51,500 (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34). The majority of the decline appears to have coincided with a period of warmed sea surface temperatures

between 1946 and 1956. It is widely inferred that warmer waters most likely affected southern rockhopper penguins through changes in the abundance, availability, and distribution of their food supply (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34); recent research suggests they may have had to work harder to find the same food (Thompson and Sagar 2002, p. 11). According to standard photographic monitoring, numbers in most colonies at Campbell Island continued to decline from 1985 to the mid-1990s (Taylor 2000, p. 54), although the extent of such declines has not been quantified in the literature. The New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC) provided preliminary information from a 2007 Campbell Island survey team that “the population is still in decline” (D. Houston 2008, p. 1), but quantitative analysis of these data have not yet been completed. At the Auckland Islands, a survey in 1990 found 10 colonies produced an estimate of 2,700-3,600 breeding pairs of southern rockhopper penguins (Cooper 1992, p. 66). This was a decrease from 1983, when 5,000-10,000 pairs were counted (Taylor 2000, p. 54). There has been a large decline at Antipodes Islands from 50,000 breeding pairs in 1978 to 3,400 pairs in 1995 (Taylor 2000, p. 54). There is no more recent data for Auckland or Antipodes Islands (D. Houston 2008, p. 1).

Other Status Classifications

The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List classifies the southern rockhopper penguin as ‘Vulnerable’ due to rapid population declines, which “appear to have worsened in recent years.”

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

Terrestrial Habitat

There are few reports of destruction, modification, or curtailment of the terrestrial habitat of the southern rockhopper penguin. Analyses of large-scale declines of southern rockhopper penguins have uniformly ruled out that impacts to the terrestrial habitat have been a limiting factor to the species (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34; Keyme
et al.
2001, pp. 159-169; Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 394), and we have no reason to believe threats to the terrestrial habitat will emerge in the foreseeable future.

Climate-Related Changes in the Marine Environment

Reports of major decreases in southern rockhopper penguin numbers have been linked to sea surface temperature changes and other apparent or assumed oceanographic or prey shifts in the vicinity of southern rockhopper penguin breeding colonies or their wintering grounds. Actual empirical evidence of changes has been difficult to compile, and conclusions of causality for observations at one site are often inferred from data from other studies at other sites, which may or may not be pertinent. In the most cited study, Cunningham and Moors (1994, pp. 27-36) concluded that drastic southern rockhopper penguin declines were related to increased sea surface temperature changes at Campbell Island in New Zealand. In another study, Crawford
et al.
(2003, p. 496) hypothesized altered distribution or decreased abundance of marine prey at Marion Island, where mean sea surface temperature increased by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1.4 degrees Celsius (°C)) between 1949 and 2002, as a factor in a decline of southern rockhopper penguin numbers by 61 percent during that period (Crawford and Cooper 2003, p. 415). Clausen and Huin (2003, p. 394), in discussing the factors that may be responsible for large-scale declines in this species at the Falkland Islands since the 1930s (and especially in the mid-1980s), found the most plausible explanation to be changes in sea surface temperatures, which could in turn affect the available food supply (Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 394). Extreme El Niño-like warming of surface waters occurred during the 1985-86 period when the most severe decline occurred at the Falkland Islands (Boersma 1987, p. 96; Keyme
et al.
2001, p. 168). None of these authors cites historical fisheries data to corroborate the hypothesis that prey abundance has been affected by changes in sea surface temperatures.

As noted above, changes in oceanographic conditions and their possible impact on prey have been cited in reports of southern rockhopper penguin declines around the world (Cunningham and Moors 1994, pp. 27-36; Crawford
et al.
2003, p. 496; Crawford and Cooper 2003, p. 415; Clausen and Huin 2003, p. 394). We examine the case of Campbell Island in depth in the following paragraphs, since this provides the most studied example.

At Campbell Island, a 94-percent decrease in southern rockhopper penguin numbers occurred between the early 1940s and 1985. Cunningham and Moors (1994, pp. 27-36) compared the pattern of the penguin decline (from 800,000 breeding pairs in the early 1940s to 51,500 pairs in 1985) to patterns of sea surface temperature change. The authors concluded that drastic southern rockhopper penguin declines were related to increased sea surface temperature changes at Campbell Island. They found that peaks in temperature were related to the periods of largest decline in numbers within colonies, in particular in 1948-49 and 1953-54. One study colony rebounded in cooler temperatures in the 1960s; however, with temperature stabilization at higher levels (mean 49.5 °F (9.7 °C)) in the 1970s, declines continued. Colony sizes have continued to decline into the 1990s (Taylor 2000, p. 54), and preliminary survey data indicate that numbers at Campbell Island continue to decline (Houston 2008, p. 1).

Cunningham and Moors (1994, p. 34) concluded that warmer waters most likely affected the diet of the Campbell Island southern rockhopper penguins. In the absence of data on the 1940's diet of Campbell Island southern rockhopper penguins, the authors compared the 1980's diet of the species at Campbell Island to southern rockhopper penguins elsewhere. They found the Campbell Island penguins eating primarily fish—southern blue whiting (
Micromesisteus australis
), dwarf codling (
Austrophycis marginata
), and southern hake (
Merluccius australis
)—while elsewhere southern rockhopper penguins were reported to eat mainly euphausiid crustaceans (krill) and smaller amounts of fish and squid. Based on this comparison of different areas, the authors concluded that euphausiids left the Campbell Island area when temperatures changed, forcing the southern rockhopper penguins to adopt an apparently atypical, and presumably less nutritious, fish diet. The authors concluded that this led to lower departure weights of chicks and contributed to adult declines (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34).

Subsequent research, however, has not supported the theory that southern rockhopper penguins at Campbell Island switched prey as their “normal” euphausiid prey moved to cooler waters (Cunningham and Moors 1994, pp. 34-35). This hypothesis has been tested through stable isotope studies, which can be used to extract historical dietary information from bird tissues (
e.g.
, feathers). In analyses of samples from the late 1800s to the present at Campbell Island and Antipodes Islands, Thompson and Sagar (2002, p. 11) found no evidence of a shift in southern rockhopper penguin diet during the

period of decline. They concluded that southern rockhopper penguins did not switch to a less suitable prey, but that overall marine productivity and the carrying capacity of the marine ecosystem declined beginning in the 1940s. With food abundance declining or food moving farther offshore or into deeper water, according to these authors, the southern rockhopper penguins maintained their diet over the long timescale, but were unable to find enough food in the less productive marine ecosystem (Thompson and Sagar 2002, p. 12).

Hilton
et al.
(2006, pp. 611-625) expanded the study of carbon isotope ratios in southern and northern rockhopper penguin feathers to most breeding areas, except those at the Falkland Islands and the tip of South America, to look for global trends that might help explain the declines observed at Campbell Island. They found no clear global-scale explanation for large spatial and temporal-scale rockhopper penguin declines. While they found general support for lower primary productivity in the ecosystems in which rockhopper penguins feed, there were significant differences between sites. There was evidence of a shift in diet to lower trophic levels over time and in warm years, but the data did not support the idea that the shift toward lower primary productivity reflected in the diet resulted from an overall trend of rising sea temperatures (Hilton
et al.
2006, p. 620). No detectable relationship between carbon isotope ratios and annual mean sea surface temperatures was found (Hilton
et al.
2006, p. 620).

In the absence of conclusive evidence for sea surface temperature changes as an explanation for reduced primary productivity, Hilton
et al.
(2006, p. 621) suggested that historical top-down effects in the food chain might have caused a reduction in phytoplankton growth rates. Reduced grazing pressure resulting from the large-scale removal of predators from the sub-Antarctic could have resulted in larger standing stocks of phytoplankton, which in turn could have led to lowered cell growth rates (which would be reflected in isotope ratios), with no effect on overall productivity of the system. Postulated top-down effects on the ecosystem of southern rockhopper penguins, which occurred in the time period before the warming first noted in the original Cunningham and Moors (1994, p. 34) study, are the hunting of pinniped populations to near extinction in the 18th and 19th centuries and the subsequent severe exploitation of baleen whale (Balaenopteridae) populations in the 19th and 20th centuries (Hilton
et al.
2006, p. 621). While this top-down theory may explain the regional shift toward reduced primary productivity, it does not explain the decrease in abundance of food at specific penguin breeding and foraging areas.

Hilton
et al.
(2006, p. 621) concluded that considerably more development of the links between isotopic monitoring of rockhopper penguins and the analysis of larger-scale oceanographic data is needed to understand effects of human activities on the sub-Antarctic marine ecosystem and the links between rockhopper penguin demography, ecology, and environment.

Meteorologically, the events described for Campbell Island from the 1940s until 1985, including the period of oceanic warming, occurred after a record cool period in the New Zealand region between 1900 and 1935, the coldest period since record-keeping began (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 35). These historical temperature changes have been attributed to fluctuations in the position of the Antarctic Polar Front caused by changes in the westerly-wind belt (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 35). Photographic evidence suggests that southern rockhopper penguin numbers may have been significantly expanding as the early 1900s cool period came to an end (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 33) and just before the rapid decrease in numbers.

Without longer-term data sets on southern rockhopper fluctuations in numbers of penguins at Campbell Island and longer temperature data records at a scale appropriate to evaluating impacts on this particular breeding colony, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the situation described there. There are even fewer data for Auckland and Antipodes Islands.

For now, local-scale observations may be of more utility in explaining mass declines of southern rockhopper penguins. At the Falkland Islands, the mass starvation event of 1985-86 coincided with a Pacific El Nin

o event, and the unusually long and hot southern summer in the southwest Atlantic was analogous to the Pacific El Nin

o (Boersma 1987, p. 96; Keyme
et al.
2001, p. 160). There was an influx of warm water seabirds from the north, indicating movement of warm water into the area, and it was hypothesized that warm weather negatively affected the growth and presence of food in a manner similar to what occurs when the warm El Nin

o current extends southwards off the Pacific coast of Peru. Perturbations of upwellings essential to sustaining the normal food chain appear to have been caused by unusually strong westerly winds in the Atlantic, with prey failure leading to a starvation event (Boersma 1987, p. 96; Keyme
et al.
2001, p. 168). The severe El Nin

o event of 1996-97 has also been cited as a possible factor in the decline and disappearance of the small Isla Recalada colony in Chile, with the suggestion that response to this climatic event may have been one factor leading birds at this colony to disperse to other areas such as the large Isla Noir colony 75 mi (125 km) away (Oehler
et al.
2007, pp. 502, 505).

In other local-scale observations, studies of winter behavior of southern rockhopper penguins foraging from colonies at Staten Island, Argentina, indicated that penguins respond behaviorally to different oceanographic conditions such as seasonal differences in sea surface temperatures by changing foraging strategies. Even with such behavioral plasticity, differences in winter foraging conditions (for example, between an average and a cold year) led to differences in adult survival, return rates to breeding colonies, and breeding success between years (Rey
et al.
2007, p. 285).

Changes in the marine environment and possible shifts in food abundance or distribution in the marine environment have been cited as leading to historical and present-day declines in three areas within the distribution of southern rockhopper penguins around the world—the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic (80-percent decline), Marion Island in the Indian Ocean (61-percent), and the New Zealand sub-Antarctic islands (Campbell Island (94-percent), Auckland Island (50-percent), and the Antipodes Islands (93-percent)).

While southern rockhopper penguin numbers have declined in some areas, there are significant areas of the southern rockhopper range (representing about one million pairs) where numbers have remained stable or increased. This indicates that the severity and pervasiveness of these factors in the marine environment are not uniform throughout the species' range. For example, declines have been reported at the Falkland Islands; however, nearby colonies at the southern tip of South America appear to have increased and now represent 72 percent of southern rockhopper abundance in the larger south Atlantic and southeast Pacific region. Similarly, at the Prince Edward Islands, declines have been documented at Marion Island; however, colonies at nearby Prince Edward Island have remained stable. As noted above, in large areas of the Indian Ocean, including the French Indian Ocean territories at Kerguelen

and Crozet Islands, large numbers are stable or increasing.

This difference in trends in locations within the species' range, and the limitation of declines to regional areas, illustrates that while temperature changes in the marine environment have been widely cited as an indicator of changing oceanographic conditions for southern rockhopper penguins, there is not a unitary explanation for phenomena observed in the widely scattered breeding locations across the Southern Hemisphere. In fact, as illustrated for the most studied example at Campbell Island, a detailed analysis of causality has so far led to further questions, rather than a narrowing down of answers. Nevertheless, in the absence of any major factors on land, the best available information indicates that some change in the oceanographic ecosystem has led to past declines in southern rockhopper penguins in some regions and has the potential to lead to future declines in southern rockhopper penguin colonies in those regions of New Zealand.

Large-scale measurements show that temperature changes have been occurring in the Southern Ocean since the 1960s. Overall, the upper ocean has warmed since the 1960s with dominant changes in the thick near-surface layers called “sub-Antarctic Mode waters,” located just north of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) (Bindoff
et al.
2007, p. 401). In mid-depth waters—2,952 feet (ft) (900 meters (m))—temperatures have increased throughout most of the Southern Ocean, having risen 0.31 °F (0.17 °C) between the 1950s and 1980s (Gille 2002, p. 1,275). However, the ocean temperature trends described are at too large a scale to relate meaningfully to the demographics of the southern rockhopper penguins, whether at any single penguin colony or breeding or foraging area, or to the variation in trends in colonies around the world at larger scales. We have noted above that attempts to ascribe trends in rockhopper penguin numbers to large-scale sea-temperature changes using biological measurements of southern rockhopper population and foraging parameters have been unsuccessful in revealing any causal links.

Despite larger-scale conclusions that Southern Ocean warming is occurring, we have not identified sea temperature data on an appropriate oceanographic scale to evaluate either historical trends or to make predictions on future trends and whether they will affect southern rockhoppers across the New Zealand/Australia region. For example, Gille (2002, p. 1,276) presented a figure of historical Southern Ocean deep-water temperatures to illustrate an overall warming trend. However, while the scale of measurement is too large to draw any conclusions at a local-scale, in the region of the New Zealand/Australia portion of the species' range, the figure provided appears to show that ocean temperatures have decreased on average from the 1950s to the 1990s.

Looking at the situation from the perspective of physical oceanography, attempts to describe the relationship between southern rockhopper penguin population trends and trends in ocean temperatures, based on large-scale oceanographic observations of temperature trends in the Southern Ocean, and to arrive at historical or predictive models of the impact of temperature trends on penguins are equally difficult. Such analyses are hampered by: (1) The fact that measurements of temperature and temperature trends are provided at an ocean-wide scale; (2) the measurement and averaging of temperatures over large water bodies or depths, which do not allow analysis of impacts at any one site or region or allow explanation of divergent trends between colonies in the same region; (3) lack of real-time data on temperature and trends at biologically meaningful geographical scales in the vicinity of breeding or foraging habitat for penguins; and (4) absence of consistent monitoring of southern rockhopper penguin abundance and demographic and biological parameters to relate to such oceanographic measurements. We have insufficient information to draw conclusions on whether directional changes in ocean temperatures are affecting southern rockhopper penguins throughout all of their range.

We have examined areas of the range of the southern rockhopper penguin where numbers have declined, such as at Campbell Island and the Falkland Islands. At the same time, numbers in the majority of the range of the southern rockhopper penguin have remained stable or increased. For example, in the region of the southern tip of South America, numbers have increased and now represent 72 percent of southern rockhopper abundance in the larger south Atlantic and southeast Pacific regions. At the Prince Edward Islands, declines at Marion Island have been accompanied by stability at nearby Prince Edward Island. At Kerguelen and Crozet Islands, numbers are increasing or stable.

Within the New Zealand/Australia portion of the species' range, the New Zealand islands have experienced severe declines; however, trend information for the Australian Macquarie Island colonies is much less certain, given the poor quality of the baseline estimate at Macquarie. Based on our review of the best available information (see above), we conclude that changes to the marine environment, which influence the southern rockhopper penguin, have affected the Campbell Plateau, but their effects on the Macquarie Ridge region are unknown. In the absence of identification of other significant threat factors and in light of the best available scientific information indicating that prey availability, productivity, or sea temperatures are affecting southern rockhopper penguins within the Campbell Plateau, we find that changes to the marine environment is a threat to the Campbell Plateau colonies of southern rockhopper penguins at Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes Islands.

While rockhopper penguin numbers in certain areas of the species' range have been affected by changes to the marine environment, numbers in the majority of the range are stable or increasing. This indicates that the severity and pervasiveness of stressors in the marine environment are not uniform throughout the species' range, and we have not identified sea-temperature data on an appropriate oceanographic scale to be able to identify broad-scale trends or to make predictions on future trends about whether changes to the marine environment will affect southern rockhoppers penguins either across its range or within the New Zealand/Australia region.

On this basis, we find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of both its terrestrial and marine habitats is not a threat to the southern rockhopper penguin throughout all of its range now or in the future.

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

Despite the overall increase in southern rockhopper penguin numbers in southern Chile, the Isla Recalada colony—a historical breeding site—declined from 10,000 pairs in 1989 to none in 2005 (Oehler
et al.
2007, p. 505). In attempting to explain this local decline, Oehler
et al.
(2007, p. 505) cited the collection of adult penguins for export to zoological parks from 1984-1992 as a disturbance that may have caused adult penguins to move to other areas, but this has not been verified. The authors also reported that between 1992 and 1997, in times of shortage of fish

bait, local fishermen harvested adult southern rockhopper penguins at the Isla Recalada colony for bait for crab pots (Oehler
et al.
2007, p. 505), but we have no information on the effect of this stressor in terms of numbers of individuals lost from the colony.

Collection for zoological parks is now prohibited, and the species is not found in trade (Ellis
et al.
1998, p. 54). There is no information that suggests this ban will be lifted in the future.

Tourism and other human disturbance impacts are reported to have little effect on southern rockhopper penguins (BirdLife International 2007, p. 3).

In summary, although there is some evidence of historical and even relatively recent take of southern rockhopper penguins from the wild for human use, collection for zoological parks is no longer occurring, and other harvest that may be occurring for fish bait is not on a large enough scale to be a threat to this species. We have no reason to believe the levels of utilization will increase in the future. Therefore, we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to the species in any portion of its range now or in the future.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

Investigations have ruled out disease as a significant factor in major population declines at Campbell Island in the 1940s and 1950s or in the sharp declines in the mid-1980s at the Falkland Islands. At Campbell Island, de Lisle
et al.
(1990, pp. 283-285) isolated avian cholera (
Pasteurella multocida
) from the lungs of dead chicks and adults sampled during the year of decline 1985-86 and the subsequent year 1986-87. They were unable to determine whether this was a natural infection in southern rockhopper penguins or one that had been introduced through the vectors of rats, domestic poultry, cats (
Felis catus
), dogs (
Canis familiaris
), or livestock that have been prevalent on the island in the past. While the disease was isolated in four separate colonies along the coast of Campbell Island, and there was evidence of very limited mortality from the disease, the authors concluded there was no evidence that mortality from this pathogen on its own may have caused the decline in numbers at Campbell Island (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34). Assays for a variety of other infectious avian diseases found no antibody responses in southern rockhopper penguins at Campbell Island (de Lisle
et al.
1990, pp. 284-285).

Following the precipitous decline of southern rockhopper penguins at the Falkland Islands in the 1985-86 breeding season, examinations and full necropsies were carried out for a large number of individuals. Mortality was primarily attributed to starvation. A large number of predisposing factors were ruled out, such as anthropogenic factors (oiling, fish net mortality, ingestion of plastic, trauma, or trapping at sea or on breeding grounds) or natural causes (heavy predation on or near breeding grounds, botulism at the breeding grounds, or dinoflagellate poisoning caused by red tides). Infectious diseases were considered in depth, but no specific disease was identified (Keyme
et al.
2001, p. 166). A secondary factor, “puffinosis,” caused ulcers on the feet of some young penguins, but no mortality was associated with these lesions (Keyme
et al.
2001, p. 167). Examination for potential toxic agents found high tissue concentrations for only cadmium; however, cadmium levels did not differ between the year of high mortality and the subsequent year when no unusual mortality occurred (Keyme
et al.
2001, pp. 163-165).

Bester
et al.
(2003, pp. 549-554) reported on the recolonization of sub-Antarctic fur seals (
Arctocephalus tropicalis
) and Antarctic fur seals (
Arctocephalus gazelle
) at Prince Edward Island. Rapid fur seal recolonization is taking place at this island. There are now an estimated minimum 72,000 sub-Antarctic fur seals (Bester
et al.
2003, p. 553); the population has grown 9.5 percent annually since 1997-98. Similarly, at Marion Island, sub-Antarctic fur seal populations increased exponentially between 1975 and 1995. Adult populations were 49,253 animals in 1994-95. Crawford and Cooper (2003, p. 418) expressed concern that the burgeoning presence of seals at Prince Edward and Marion Islands may be increasingly affecting southern rockhopper penguins through physical displacement from nesting sites, prevention of access to breeding sites, direct predation, and increasing competition between southern rockhopper penguins and seals for prey; however, these potential effects of fur seals on southern rockhopper penguins have not been investigated.

At Campbell Island in New Zealand, de Lisle
et al.
(1990, p. 283) ruled out Norway rats (
Rattus norvegicus
), which were present on the island at the time of precipitous declines, as a factor in those declines. Feral cats are present on Auckland Island, but have not been observed preying on chicks there (Taylor 2000, p. 55). Although it was suggested that introduced predators may affect breeding on Macquarie and Kerguelen Islands (Ellis
et al.
1998, p. 49), no information was provided to support this idea.

In summary, based on our review of the best available information we find that neither disease nor predation is a threat to the southern rockhopper penguin in any portion of its range, and no information is available that suggests this will change in the future.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The majority of sub-Antarctic islands are under protected status. For example, all New Zealand sub-Antarctic islands are nationally protected and inscribed as the New Zealand Subantarctic Islands World Heritage sites; human visitation of the islands is tightly restricted at all sites where penguins occur (Taylor 2000, p. 54; BirdLife International 2007, p. 4; UNEP WCMC (United Nations Environmental Program, World Conservation Monitoring Center) 2008a, p. 5). The Australian islands of Macquarie, Heard, and McDonald are also World Heritage sites with limited or no visitation and with management plans in place (UNEP WCMC 2008b, p. 6; UNEP WCMC 2008c, p. 6). In 1995, the Prince Edward Islands Special Nature Preserve was declared and accompanied by the adoption of a formal management plan (Crawford and Cooper 2003, p. 420). Based on our review of the existing regulatory mechanisms in place for each of these areas and our analysis of other threat factors, we find that the only inadequacy in existing regulatory mechanisms regarding the conservation of the southern rockhopper penguin (BirdLife International 2007, p. 4; Ellis
et al.
1998, pp. 49, 53) to be the inability to ameliorate the effects of changes to the marine environment on the species in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range.

In Chile, collection for zoological display, which used to be permitted, is now prohibited, and the species is not found in trade (Ellis
et al.
1998, p. 54). Fisheries activities in the Falkland Islands, which have increased dramatically since the 1970s, are now closely regulated. A series of conservation zones has been established, and the number of vessels fishing within these zones is regulated to prevent fish and squid stocks from becoming depleted. The Falkland Island Seabird Monitoring Program has been established to collect baseline data essential to identifying and detecting potential threats to seabirds (Putz
et al.

2001, p. 794). As discussed under Factor E, current licensing arrangements limit squid harvest to between the beginning of February and the end of May and the beginning of August and the end of October, which minimizes overlap with the southern rockhopper penguin breeding season, when feeding demands are high (October to February) (Putz
et al.
2001, p. 803).

In summary, aside from the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to ameliorate the threat of changes in the marine environment in the Campbell Plateau portion of the species' range, we find that the existing national regulatory mechanisms are adequate regarding the conservation of southern rockhopper penguins in all other parts of the species' range. There is no information available to suggest these regulatory mechanisms will change in the future.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species

Fisheries

While competition for prey with commercial fisheries has been listed as a potential factor affecting southern rockhopper penguins in various portions of their range (Ellis
et al.
1998, pp. 49, 53), we have found that it is only in the Falkland Islands where this potential competition between commercial fisheries and southern rockhopper penguins has emerged and been addressed. Bingham suggests that rapid southern rockhopper penguin declines at the Falkland Islands in the 1980's were a result of uncontrolled commercial fishing (but see analysis of El Nin

o under Factor A), but reports that following the establishment of a regulatory body in 1988, the effects of over-fishing at the Falkland Islands have been greatly mitigated (Bingham 2002, p. 815), and southern rockhopper penguin populations have stopped declining. At the Falkland Islands, the inshore area adjacent to colonies is not subject to fishing activities (Putz
et al.
2002, p. 282). The diet of southern rockhopper penguins, in general, is dominated by crustaceans, with fish and squid varying in importance. At the Falkland Islands, squid, in particular Patagonian squid (
Loligo gahi
), is of greater importance in the diet than in other rockhopper penguins (Putz
et al.
2001, p. 802). The Patagonian squid is also an important commercial species fished around the Falkland Islands. Current licensing arrangements limit squid harvest to between the beginning of February and the end of May and the beginning of August and the end of October, which minimizes overlap with the southern rockhopper penguin breeding season, when feeding demands are high (October to February). Nevertheless, reports of decreasing catch per unit of effort for squid indicate a declining squid stock over the 1990s (Putz
et al.
2001, p. 803). Coincidentally, Patagonian squid has declined in southern rockhopper penguin diets. However, southern rockhopper penguin diets have shifted to notothenid fish, a prey that has higher nutritional value than squid and that has become more common. It is not certain whether squid abundance or fish abundance is driving the switch. Bingham (1998, p. 6) reported that there is no direct evidence that food availability has been affected by commercial fishing, but both he and Putz
et al.
(2003b, p. 143) drew attention to the need for careful monitoring of southern rockhopper penguin prey availability in the face of commercial fisheries development.

The winter foraging range of southern rockhopper penguins breeding at the Falkland Islands takes them into the area of longline fishing at Burdwood Bank and onto the northern Patagonian shelf. Birds are not in direct competition for fish prey species there. The risk of bycatch from longline fishing is not a threat to penguins, as it is to other seabird species, and on the northern Patagonian shelf where jigging is the primary fishing method, bycatch is not a significant threat (Putz
et al.
2002, p. 282).

In our review of fisheries activities, we found no other reports of documented fisheries interaction or possible competition for prey between southern rockhopper penguins and commercial fisheries or of documented fisheries bycatch in any other areas of the range of the southern rockhopper penguin.

In summary, while fisheries activities have the potential to compete for the prey of southern rockhopper penguins, we find that there are adequate monitoring regimes and fisheries controls in place to manage fisheries interactions with southern rockhopper penguins throughout all of its range, and we have not reason to believe this will change in the future.

Oil Spills

Oil development is a present and future activity in the range of southern rockhopper penguins breeding at the Falkland Islands. A favorite winter foraging area of southern rockhopper penguins is the Puerto Deseado area along the coast of Argentina, which lies just to the south of Commodoro Rivadavia, a major refinery and oil shipment port. Oil pollution and ballast tank cleaning have been a significant threat to Magellanic penguins (
Spheniscus magellanicus
) north of this zone (Ellis
et al.
1998, pp. 111-112). In 1986, 800 southern rockhopper penguins were found dead near Puerto Deseado, to the south of Commodoro Rivadavia, but consistent with trends for that year elsewhere in the range, the birds appeared to have starved and there were no signs of oiling (Ellis
et al.
1998, p. 54). At the Falkland Islands, hydrocarbon development is planned for areas north and southwest of the Falkland Islands. As of 2002, oil-related activities in the Falkland Islands were suspended, but exploration and production may start again in the near future (Putz
et al.
2002, p. 281). We have no information on petroleum development in other areas of the southern rockhopper penguin's range.

We recognize that an oil spill near a breeding colony could have local effects on southern rockhopper penguin colonies now and in the future. However, on the basis of the species' widespread distribution and its robust population numbers, we believe the species can withstand the potential impacts from oil spills. Therefore, we do not believe that oiling or impacts from oil-related activities are factors affecting the southern rockhopper penguin throughout all of its range now or in the future.

On the basis of analysis of potential fisheries impacts and possible impacts of petroleum development, we find that other natural or manmade factors are not threats to the southern rockhopper penguin in any portion of its range now or in the future.

Foreseeable Future

In considering the foreseeable future as it relates to the status of the southern rockhopper penguin, we considered the stressors and threats acting on the species. We considered the historical data to identify any relevant existing trends that might allow for reliable prediction of the future (in the form of extrapolating the trends). We also considered whether we could reliably predict any future events (not yet acting on the species and therefore not yet manifested in a trend) that might affect the status of the species.

With respect to the southern rockhopper penguin, the available data do not support a conclusion that there is a current overall trend in population numbers, and the overall population numbers are high. As discussed above in the five-factor analysis, we were also unable to identify any significant trends affecting the species as a whole, with

respect to the stressors and threats we identified. There is no evidence that any of the stressors or threats are growing in magnitude. Thus, the foreseeable future includes consideration of the ongoing effects of current stressors and threats at comparable levels.

There remains the question of whether we can reliably predict future events (as opposed to ongoing trends) that will likely cause the species to become endangered. As we discuss in the finding below, we can reliably predict that changes to the marine environment will continue to affect some southern rockhopper penguins in some areas, but we have no reason to believe they will have overall population-level impacts. Thus, the foreseeable future includes consideration of the effects of such factors on the viability of the species.

Southern Rockhopper Penguin Finding Throughout Its Range

We identified a number of likely stressors to this species, including: (1) Changes in the marine environment, (2) human use and disturbance, (3) disease, (4) competition with fisheries, and (5) oil spills. To determine whether these stressors individually or collectively rise to a “threat” level such that the southern rockhopper penguin is in danger of extinction throughout its range, or likely to become so within the foreseeable future, we first considered whether the stressors to the species were causing a long-term, population-scale declines in penguin numbers, or were likely to do so in the future.

Based on a tally of estimated numbers of southern rockhopper penguins in each region of the species' range, there are approximately 1.4 million breeding pairs in the overall species' population. While there have been major declines in penguin numbers in some areas, particularly at the Falkland Islands and at Campbell Island and other New Zealand islands, colonies in the major portion of the species' range have experienced lesser declines, remained stable, or appear to have increased. Therefore, based on the best available data, we do not find an overall declining trend in the species' population. In other words, the combined effects of the likely stressors are not causing an overall long-term decline in the southern rockhopper penguin numbers. Because there appears to be no ongoing long-term decline, the species is neither endangered nor threatened due to factors causing ongoing population declines, and the overall population of about 1.4 million pairs or more appears robust.

We also considered whether any of the stressors began recently enough that their effects are not yet manifested in a long-term decline in species' population numbers, but are likely to have that effect in the future. Given that the effects of stressors have either been ameliorated (
e.g.
, human use, competition with fisheries), or because their effects appear to be restricted to a small portion of the species' range, we do not believe their effects would be manifested in overall population declines in the future. Therefore, the southern rockhopper penguin is not threatened or endangered due to threats that began recently enough that their effects are not yet manifested in a long-term decline.

Next, we considered whether any of the stressors were likely to increase within the foreseeable future, such that the species is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. As discussed above, we concluded that none of the stressors was likely to increase significantly.

Having determined that a current or future declining trend does not justify listing the southern rockhopper penguin, we next considered whether the species met the definition of an endangered species or threatened species on account of its present or likely future absolute numbers. The total population of about 1.4 million pairs appears robust. It is not so low that, despite our conclusion that there is no ongoing decline, the species is at such risk from stochastic events that it is currently in danger of extinction.

Finally, we considered whether, even if the size of the current population makes the species viable, it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future because stochastic events might reduce its current numbers to the point where its viability would be in question. Because of the wide distribution of this species, combined with its high population numbers, even if a stochastic event were to occur within the foreseeable future, negatively affecting this species, the population would still be unlikely to be reduced to such a low level that it would then be in danger of extinction.

Despite regional declines in numbers of southern rockhopper penguins, the species has thus far maintained what appears to be high population levels, while being subject to most if not all of the current stressors. The best available information suggests that the overall southern rockhopper penguin population is not declining, despite regional changes in population numbers. Therefore, we conclude that the southern rockhopper penguin is neither an endangered species nor likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Distinct Population Segment

Section 2(16) of the Act defines “species” to include “any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” To interpret and implement the DPS provisions of the Act and Congressional guidance, the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service published a Policy regarding the recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments in the
Federal Register
(DPS Policy) on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS policy, three factors are considered in a decision concerning the establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These are applied similarly to endangered and threatened species. The first two factors—discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon and the significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs—bear on whether the population segment is a valid DPS. If a population meets both tests, it is a DPS, and then the third factor is applied—the population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (
i.e.
, is the population segment endangered or threatened).

Discreteness Analysis

Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either 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 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.

Southern Rockhopper penguins are widely dispersed throughout the sub-Antarctic in colonies located on isolated island groups. With respect to discreteness criterion 1, many of these areas are clearly separated from others. Differences in physical appearance or plumage patterns have been described between the nominate
chrysocome
type, which breeds in the Falkland Islands and off the southern tip of South

America, and the eastern
filholi
type, which breeds in the Indian Ocean and southwest Pacific south of Australia and New Zealand, but we are unaware of further differences in physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors among any groups within the overall range (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 191). Among the prominent breeding areas of the southern rockhopper penguin, we have identified two areas that may be markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon or face significant differences in conservation status from other southern rockhopper populations: (1) The Falkland Islands, and (2) the islands to the south of Australia and New Zealand, including Macquarie, Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes Islands, where southern rockhopper penguins breed.

Falkland Islands:
The southern rockhopper penguin breeds at about 52 locations around the Falkland Islands in aggregations numbering from a few hundred to more than 95,000 nests or breeding pairs. The most recent population estimates are of approximately 210,000 breeding pairs (Kirkwood
et al.
2007, p. 266). The Falkland Islands breeding sites are separated from the nearest major southern rockhopper penguin breeding concentrations at Staten Island, Argentina, by about 264 mi (425 km). At Staten Island, there are reported to be 180,000 breeding pairs (Schiavini 2000, p. 288). It is not known to what extent interbreeding or movement of breeding pairs occurs between the Falkland Islands and the extensive breeding colonies in southern Argentina and Chile, although the possibility of movement of breeding birds from the Falkland Islands to Staten Island has been suggested (Schiavini 2000, p. 290).

Winter foraging studies show that the relatively short distance between these colonies allows for interchange between the southern rockhopper penguins at the Falkland Islands and those at the southern tip of South America (Putz
et al.
2006, p. 741). This overlap is by no means complete; at least half of the breeding rockhopper penguins from both the Falkland Islands and Staten Island forage in distinct winter foraging areas that are not used by birds from the other region (Putz
et al.
2006, p. 741). However, in other areas there is extensive mixing on the winter foraging grounds. For example, about 17 percent of the birds from Staten Island foraged in the region of Burdwood Bank, an isolated extension of the Patagonian continental shelf, due east of Staten Island and due south of the Falkland Islands. About 25 percent of the birds from the southern colonies on the Falkland Islands also foraged in the Burdwood Bank region. Thus, Burdwood Bank is a foraging area for some 90,000 breeding southern rockhopper penguins over the winter period; about 31,000 originating from the Falklands and 60,000 from Staten Island. There is also mixing, although made up of a smaller percentage of Falkland Islands birds (6 percent), in the winter foraging areas along the northeastern coast of Tierra del Fuego.

While Falkland Islands colonies have historically been considered a significant stronghold of the southern rockhopper penguin in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean and declines there have been of significant concern, recent research has identified major previously undocumented colonies in the same region that are as significant, or more significant, in abundance, and occupy portions of the same ecological region. These include colonies at nearby Staten Island in Argentina and at Ildefonso and Diego Ramirez Archipelagos in Chile, which are about 149 miles (240 km) further west. The overall southern rockhopper penguin numbers in this region, including the Falkland Islands, total about 765,000 breeding pairs (Kirkwood
et al.
2007, p. 266), with Falkland Islands colonies constituting 27 percent of this total. As discussed above, extensive ecological overlap in foraging range between Falkland Islands birds and the Staten Island colonies has been documented, with overlap in use of the Burdwood Bank and some shared foraging range on the Patagonian shelf. In turn, the foraging ranges of Staten Island birds are likely to overlap with those of the Chilean colonies to the west (Putz
et al.
2006, p. 740). We find that the literature increasingly refers to the biology and conservation of the suite of colonies around the southern tip of South America and the Falkland Islands as a significant larger regional concentration, downplaying emphasis on the discreteness of the Falkland Islands colonies (Kirkwood
et al.
2007, p. 266; Putz
et al.
2006, pp. 743-744; Schiavini
et al.
2000, p. 289). We concur with this conclusion; therefore, we find that the Falkland Islands colonies of the southern rockhopper penguin do not meet the criterion of discreteness for determination of a DPS. On this basis, we do not consider the Falkland Islands colonies of the southern rockhopper penguin to be a DPS.

New Zealand/Australia:
With respect to the discreteness criterion 1, the southern rockhopper breeding islands south of New Zealand and Australia are geographically isolated from southern rockhopper breeding areas in the Indian Ocean and near the southern tip of South America, with the closest colonies being roughly 7,300 km (4536 miles) at the Heard and McDonald Islands.

Based on the large geographic distance between the populations south of New Zealand and Australia from other populations, we conclude that this segment of the population of the southern rockhopper penguin passes the discreteness conditions for determination of a DPS.

Significance Analysis

If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and ecological significance is to be considered in light of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In carrying out this examination, we consider available scientific evidence of the population segment's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Its persistence in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that its loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that it is the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or (4) evidence that the DPS differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these criteria to be considered significant. Furthermore, the list of criteria is not exhaustive; other criteria may be used, as appropriate. Below, we consider the biological and ecological significance to the New Zealand/Australia DPS.

Historical numbers of southern rockhopper penguins in this region may have been as high as 960,000 breeding pairs, with declines recorded from the New Zealand islands. Currently there are approximately 89,600-101,500 breeding pairs in the region, which represents 6 to 7 percent of the current estimated population of 1.4 million southern rockhopper breeding pairs rangewide.

This group of breeding colonies inhabits a unique ecological and geographical position in the range of the southern rockhopper penguin. The underwater topography and oceanography of this area is unique and has been described in detail in the Macquarie Island Management Plan (Parks and Wildlife Service (Australia)

2006a, pp. 20-22). The islands sit in areas of relatively shallow water, generally less than 3,280 ft (1,000 m) deep. Macquarie Island is on the shallow Macquarie Ridge, which is associated with a deep trench to the east, and connects to the north with the broader Campbell Plateau, an extensive area of shallow water that is part of the continental shelf extending southeast from New Zealand. The New Zealand islands (Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes), with breeding colonies of southern rockhopper penguins, sit on the Campbell Plateau. This region and all these islands sit just north of the Antarctic Polar Front Zone (APFZ), a distinct hydrographic boundary with cold nutrient-rich surface waters to the south and warmer, less rich, water to the north. In addition, the Macquarie Ridge and Campbell Plateau form a major obstruction to the ACC, which runs easterly at about 50° S latitude. This further increases the high degree of turbulence and current variability in the area and is likely to directly or indirectly encourage biological productivity (Parks and Wildlife Service (Australia) 2006a, pp. 20-22).

We conclude that loss of the colonies in the region would create a significant gap in the range of the taxon and remove southern rockhopper penguins from the unique ecological setting of the Macquarie Ridge and Campbell Plateau that lies in a unique position relative to the APFZ and the ACC. Therefore, because we find the New Zealand/Australia population segment to be discrete and because it meets the significance criterion, with respect to (1) Its persistence in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; and (2) evidence that its loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon, it qualifies as a DPS under the Act.

New Zealand/Australia DPS Finding

Historical numbers of southern rockhopper penguins for this New Zealand/Australia DPS may have been as high as 960,000 breeding pairs; they are currently estimated at 89,600-101,500 breeding pairs. Significant historical declines have been reported, in particular, at Campbell Island, where a decline of 94 percent was recorded between the early 1940s and 1985; at Antipodes Islands, where a decline of 94 percent was recorded; and at Auckland Islands, where the numbers halved between 1983 and 1990. Current quantitative data is not available to indicate whether, and to what extent, numbers throughout all of this DPS continue to decline, but qualitative evidence indicates that numbers at Campbell Island continue to decline. At Macquarie Island, which represents 32 to 48 percent of this DPS, southern rockhopper penguin numbers were recently estimated to be lower than previous categorical estimates, but it is not clear whether this reflects a decline versus more precise surveys.

As described in our five-factor analysis, changes to the marine environment are cited as factors that have led to historic or recent large declines at some, but not all, of the breeding locations within the New Zealand/Australia DPS. While the oceanographic factors contributing to such declines have not been clearly explained, they appear to relate to changes in sea surface temperatures or to changes in marine productivity at scales affecting individual colonies or regions, leading to periodic or long-term reductions in food availability. There is little or no current information, however, on the effects of these changes on the breeding and foraging success of southern rockhopper penguins in areas of previous decline. Although changes in the marine environment appear to be affecting some southern rockhopper breeding areas within this DPS, information is not at a meaningful scale to evaluate current changes to the marine habitat in the overall New Zealand/Australia DPS or to make predictions on future trends about whether changes to the marine environment will affect southern rockhoppers penguins across the New Zealand/Australia DPS.

Although the data indicate that changes to the marine habitat may be a threat to New Zealand colonies on the Campbell Plateau, we do not find that historical declines there are currently rising to the level of having a significant effect on the entire DPS. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of this species' marine habitat or range is not a threat to the southern rockhopper penguin throughout the range of New Zealand/Australia DPS, now or in the future. Below, we will further consider whether the New Zealand colonies are a significant portion of the range (SPR) of the DPS.

We have not documented any significant changes to the terrestrial habitat of the southern rockhopper penguin. Also, on the basis of our five-factor analysis, we did not find any of the other factors to be threats to the southern rockhopper penguin's continued existence in any portion of the species' range in the New Zealand/Australia DPS now or in the future.

On the basis of our analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the southern rockhopper penguin is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range in the New Zealand/Australia DPS or likely to become so in the foreseeable future as a consequence of the threats evaluated under the five factors in the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

Having determined that the southern rockhopper penguin is not now in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or in the New Zealand/Australia DPS or likely to become so in the foreseeable future as a consequence of the stressors evaluated under the five threat factors in the Act, we also considered whether there were any significant portions of its range where the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

The Act defines an endangered species as one “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species as one “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term “significant portion of its range” is not defined by statute. For purposes of this finding, a significant portion of a species' range is an area that is important to the conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species.

The first step in determining whether a species is endangered in a SPR is to identify any portions of the range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and endangered. To identify those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (i) the portions may be significant and (ii) the species may be in danger of extinction there. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the range that are unimportant to the conservation of the

species, such portions will not warrant further consideration.

If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we then determine whether, in fact, the species is threatened or endangered in any significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient for the Service to address the significance question first, or the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine whether the species is threatened or endangered there. If the Service determines that the species is not threatened or endangered in a portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is significant. If the Service determines that both a portion of the range of a species is significant and the species is threatened or endangered there, the Service will specify that portion of the range as threatened or endangered pursuant to section 4(c)(1) of the Act.

The terms “resiliency,” “redundancy,” and “representation” are intended to be indicators of the conservation value of portions of the range. Resiliency of a species allows the species to recover from periodic disturbance. A species will likely be more resilient if large populations exist in high-quality habitat that is distributed throughout the range of the species in such a way as to capture the environmental variability found within the range of the species. In addition, the portion may contribute to resiliency for other reasons—for instance, it may contain an important concentration of certain types of habitat that are necessary for the species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering. Redundancy of populations may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. This does not mean that any portion that provides redundancy is a significant portion of the range of a species. The idea is to conserve enough areas of the range such that random perturbations in the system act on only a few populations. Therefore, each area must be examined based on whether that area provides an increment of redundancy important to the conservation of the species. Adequate representation ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved. Specifically, the portion should be evaluated to see how it contributes to the genetic diversity of the species. The loss of genetically based diversity may substantially reduce the ability of the species to respond and adapt to future environmental changes. A peripheral population may contribute meaningfully to representation if there is evidence that it provides genetic diversity due to its location on the margin of the species' habitat requirements.

To determine whether any portions of the range of the southern rockhopper penguin warrant further consideration as possible threatened or endangered significant portions of the range, we reviewed the entire supporting record for the status review of this species with respect to the geographic concentration of threats and the significance of portions of the range to the conservation of the species. As previously mentioned, we evaluated whether substantial information indicated that (i) the portions may be significant and (ii) the species in that portion may be currently in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We have found that population declines are uneven across the range, indicating the possible occurrence of differential stressors or threats across the range of the southern rockhopper penguin. On this basis we determined that some portions of the southern rockhopper's range might warrant further consideration as possible threatened or endangered significant portions of the range.

The southern rockhopper penguin is widely distributed throughout the Southern Ocean. In our five-factor analysis we did not identify any factor that was found to be a threat to the species throughout all of its range or throughout all of the New Zealand/Australia DPS. In our status review, we identified the Falkland Islands, Marion Island, and finally, the Campbell Island Plateau region within the New Zealand/Australia DPS as areas where declines have occurred, indicating the possibility that the species may be threatened or endangered there.

Falkland Islands SPR Analysis

For the Falkland Islands, we first considered whether there is substantial information to indicate that this portion of the range may be in danger of extinction. The southern rockhopper penguin breeds at about 52 locations around the Falkland Islands in aggregations numbering from a few hundred to more than 95,000 nests or breeding pairs. In the period from 1932-33 to 1995-96, the Falkland Islands numbers declined from an estimated 1.5 million breeding pairs to 263,000 breeding pairs, or about 2.75 percent per year. However, since that time numbers have been largely stable, fluctuating from 263,000 pairs in 1995-96 to a high of 272,000 breeding pairs in 2000-01 to approximately 210,000 breeding pairs in 2005-06 (Kirkwood
et al.
2007, p. 266). It is unclear from available information whether numbers are fluctuating or moving into another period of decline.

In summary, even though numbers of southern rockhopper penguins at the Falkland Islands have shown an overall decline over time, numbers have not declined at a consistent rate, but rather, there have been periodic decreases in numbers, as well as at least one period of increase. Therefore, we cannot assume a consistent rate of decline into the future. Furthermore, it is unclear to what extent the fluctuations in numbers are attributed to potential relocations to nearby Staten Island, where numbers are stable to increasing. Numbers at the Falkland Islands appear to be relatively high, at approximately 210,000 breeding pairs, and in our five-factor analysis, we were unable to identify ongoing threats to southern rockhopper penguin colonies at the Falkland Islands.

Therefore, we have determined that the Falkland Islands portion of the range does not satisfy one of the two initial tests, because there is not substantial information to suggest that southern rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands portion of the range may be currently in danger of extinction, and since we cannot establish a continuing declining trend in numbers or a continuing trend in threat factors, we have no reason to believe that the species is likely to become endangered there within the foreseeable future. Because we find that the southern rockhopper penguin is not threatened or endangered in this portion of the range, we need not address whether this portion of its range is significant.

Marion Island SPR Analysis

For the Marion Island portion of the southern rockhopper penguin's range, we first considered whether there is substantial information to indicate that this portion of the range is significant. In terms of abundance, Marion Island represents less than 5 percent of the overall southern rockhopper penguin population, which is estimated at more that 1.4 million breeding pairs, with colonies widely distributed around the Southern Ocean. Even not considering the breeding pairs at Marion Island, the distribution of the species includes other large, stable or increasing populations in high-quality habitat representing the environmental variability found within the range of the species. Therefore, even without the colonies at Marion Island, the species would have sufficient resiliency to recover from periodic disturbances.

Furthermore, given the wide distribution of the species, even without the colonies at Marion Island, the species would have sufficient redundancy of other populations, such that random perturbations in the system would only affect a few of the remaining populations. Finally, not considering colonies at Marion Island, we find that the species has adequate representation of its adaptive capabilities to enable the species to adapt to future environmental changes. For example, the number of southern rockhopper penguins at nearby Prince Edward Island appears to have been stable since the 1980s with 35,000-45,000 pairs present. Given Marion Island's position within the species' range (
i.e.
, far from the periphery of its range), and its proximity to other southern rockhopper breeding areas, we do not believe the penguins at Marion Island represent unique adaptive capabilities that would be lost if their breeding colonies were lost from the population. Therefore, we have determined that the Marion Island portion of the species' range does not satisfy the significance test of being a significant portion of the species' range, and we need not address whether this portion of its range is threatened or endangered.

Campbell Plateau SPR Analysis

In our analysis of the New Zealand/Australia DPS of southern rockhopper penguins, we identified major declines in numbers of southern rockhopper penguins at the New Zealand breeding locations at Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes Islands, while numbers at Macquarie Island are reported to be stable. As reflected in our five-factor analysis, declines in penguin numbers at the locations identified above are attributed to changes in the marine environment, which may have affected overall marine productivity or the distribution and abundance of southern rockhopper prey species at these sites. We view the New Zealand Campbell Plateau colonies as an integral part of the geographic area encompassed by the New Zealand/Australia DPS, and not as discrete in and of itself. On this basis and on the basis of the severe declines in this area, we will analyze the Campbell Plateau portion of the range as a possible SPR.

With approximately 60,000 breeding pairs in the New Zealand range of the southern rockhopper penguin, the three Campbell Plateau breeding areas (Campbell, Auckland, and Antipodes Islands) make up over 60 percent of the New Zealand/Australia DPS and represent three out of its four breeding concentrations. The presence of four breeding areas in this DPS provides a measure of resiliency against periodic disturbance. The loss of the Campbell Plateau breeding colonies would greatly reduce the overall geographic range of this DPS to one location. The species would no longer inhabit the ecologically distinct Campbell Plateau, an area of historically high-quality habitat (as evidenced by previous high numbers at Campbell Island). Loss of some or all of these three breeding concentrations, two of which number less than 3,600 breeding pairs, would significantly reduce the redundancy of populations in this DPS and increase the impact of random or catastrophic perturbations on remaining population numbers in the New Zealand/Australia DPS. Therefore, we conclude that this Campbell Plateau portion of the range passes the significance criterion for evaluating a SPR.

We next evaluate the Campbell Plateau portion of the range relative to the geographical concentration of threats in this region. Among colonies of southern rockhopper penguins throughout the species' range, the three island groups within the Campbell Plateau portion of the range have experienced the most severe declines. While trends are unclear at Macquarie Island, overall numbers at Campbell Island are recorded to have been as high as 800,000 breeding pairs in the early 1940s, and the last 1985 census numbers indicated a 94-percent reduction to 51,500 pairs. Current qualitative information indicates that colonies are still in decline, although the rate of that decline is undocumented. In our analysis of the New Zealand/Australia DPS, we concluded that changes to the marine environment that influence the southern rockhopper penguin have affected the Campbell Plateau more than the Macquarie Ridge region; therefore, the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is a risk factor that threatens the southern rockhopper penguin in the Campbell Plateau of the New Zealand/Australia DPS. On this basis, we conclude that there is substantial information indicating that listing of the Campbell Plateau portion of the range of the southern rockhopper penguin as threatened or endangered may be warranted.

Having determined that the Campbell Plateau populations of the New Zealand/Australia DPS of the southern rockhopper penguin are significant and that there is substantial information indicating that listing of this portion of the range as threatened or endangered may be warranted, we will now summarize our analysis on whether listing of the Campbell Plateau SPR is warranted.

Finding of Campbell Plateau SPR

Within the Campbell Plateau portion of the range of the southern rockhopper penguin, significant historical declines have been reported, in particular for Campbell Island where a decline of 94 percent was recorded between the early 1940s and 1985. Continued unquantified declines were reported to the present day. The most recent survey data available from Campbell Island is from 1985, when there were 51,500 breeding pairs (Cunningham and Moors 1994, p. 34). At Antipodes Islands, a decline of 94 percent was recorded between 1978 and 1995, and current estimates are of 3,400 breeding pairs. At the Auckland Islands, the number of penguins halved between 1983 and 1990 to 3,600 breeding pairs. There are no current quantitative data to indicate whether, and to what extent, declines have continued at any of these three island groups. Historical numbers of southern rockhopper penguins in the Campbell Plateau portion of the species' range may have been as high as 860,000 breeding pairs in the early 1940s; an overall decline of 94 percent or more has brought this number down to less than 60,000 breeding pairs today. Given the low numbers at Antipodes and Auckland Islands, Campbell Island is the primary stronghold for the Campbell Plateau portion of the species' range.

In our five-factor analysis (see above), we did not find documentation of any significant changes to the terrestrial habitat of the southern rockhopper penguin. Changes to the marine environment, however, are cited as factors that have led to historical or recent large declines within the Campbell Plateau portion of the range. While the oceanographic factors contributing to such declines have not been clearly explained, they appear to relate to periodic or long-term changes in sea surface temperatures within the summer or winter foraging ranges of southern rockhopper penguins, or to changes in marine productivity at scales affecting individual colonies or regions. These oceanographic changes have apparently led to reductions in food availability that may have occurred in short periods or extended over periods of years. The available regulatory mechanisms have not ameliorated the effects of these changes in the marine environment, and we have no reason to believe these changes in the marine environment will be ameliorated in the future; therefore, we find it reasonably likely that the effects on the species in

this portion of its range will continue at current levels or potentially increase. On the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information and evidence of precipitous decreases of penguin numbers in this area, we find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its marine habitat or range is a threat to the southern rockhopper penguin in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range now and in the future.

On the basis of our five-factor analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information (see above), we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease; and predation are not threats to the southern rockhopper penguin in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range. On the basis of information on fisheries and oil development, we find that other natural or manmade factors are not a threat to the southern rockhopper penguin in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range.

We find that precipitous population declines have depleted the Campbell Plateau SPR to 6 percent of its prior abundance, and based on our review of the best available information, we find it is reasonably likely that these severe declines resulted from effects of changes in the marine environment. We have no reason to believe that these changes in the marine environment will not continue to affect southern rockhopper penguins in the Campbell Plateau SPR at current (and potentially greater) levels, further reducing population numbers.

Lower population numbers, a reasonably likely result in the foreseeable future, would make this species even more vulnerable to the threats from changes in the marine habitat, and would make the species vulnerable to potential impacts from oil spills and other random catastrophic events. Therefore, on the basis of our analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the southern rockhopper penguin in the Campbell Plateau SPR of the New Zealand/Australia DPS is likely to become endangered with extinction in the foreseeable future.

Proposed Determination for the Southern Rockhopper Penguin in the Campbell Plateau Portion of its Range

On the basis of analysis of the five factors and the best available scientific and commercial information, find that listing the southern rockhopper penguin as a threatened species in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range under the Act is warranted. We, therefore, propose to list the southern rockhopper penguin as a threatened species in the Campbell Plateau portion of its range under the Act.

Final Determination for the Southern Rockhopper Penguin in All Other Portions of its Range (
i.e.
, not including the Campbell Plateau)

On the basis of analysis of the five factors and the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the southern rockhopper penguin as threatened or endangered under the Act throughout all or in any other portion of its range is not warranted.

Northern Rockhopper Penguin

Distribution

The northern rockhopper penguin (
Eudyptes moseleyi
) is restricted to islands of the Tristan da Cunha region and Gough Island (St. Helena, United Kingdom) in the South Atlantic and St. Paul and Amsterdam Islands (French Southern Territories) in the Indian Ocean.

Two chicks banded at Amsterdam Island in 1992 were recovered off the coast of eastern and southern Australia 7 and 9 months later, indicating that immature Indian Ocean birds may winter off southern Australia (Guinard
et al.
1998, p. 224).

Population

The overall breeding population of northern rockhopper penguins is estimated to be approximately 315,000-334,000 pairs on these island groups in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans and is thought to be declining (Jouventin
et al.
2006, p. 3,417; Guinard
et al.
1998, p. 224; Woehler 1993, p. 58); however, based on the current information available on population trends throughout the species' range, as discussed below, the overall population trend of the northern rockhopper penguin appears uncertain. Documentation of current trend information is at this time only available for areas of Gough Island, as discussed below, which is only part of the species' overall range.

South Atlantic Ocean

Gough Island

Early records indicate that numbers were historically in the millions on both Gough Island and Tristan da Cunha. The most recent population estimates indicate that over the past 45 years, numbers have declined by about 96 percent on Gough Island, where there are currently estimated to be 32,000-65,000 breeding pairs (Cuthbert in litt., as cited in BirdLife International 2008a, pp. 2-3). Numbers on this island are reported to have experienced large declines prior to the 1980s (BirdLife International 2008a, p. 2), but were stable between 1982 and 2000 (Cuthbert and Sommer 2004, p. 101). Recent unpublished reports are said to indicate recent substantial declines (Jouventin
et al.
2006, p. 3,422); however, we have no further information on the regional extent of decline, and so we cannot evaluate the effect of these declines on the overall population status of the northern rockhopper penguin.

Tristan da Cunha

Tristan da Cunha consists of a main island and several smaller islands. It is reported that the main island experienced a decline of about 98 percent 130 years ago until about 30 years ago, but over the past few decades numbers have been stable, with numbers currently estimated at 3,200-4,500 breeding pairs (Cuthbert in litt., as cited in BirdLife International 2008a, pp. 2-3.)

At Inaccessible Island, numbers may have declined “modestly” and are currently estimated at 18,000-27,000 breeding pairs. Trends at Nightingale and Middle Islands are poorly known, but recent observations suggest local declines in the main colony on Nightingale Island. The latest estimate of numbers of northern rockhopper penguins on these two islands was in the 1970's and was reported to be 125,000 pairs (Cuthbert in litt., as cited in BirdLife International 2008a, p. 3). No information is available on numbers or trends at Stoltenhof Island. In summary, given the numbers reported above, there appear to be from 146,200-156,500 breeding pairs of northern rockhopper penguins in the Tristan da Cunha Island group, not including those on Stoltenhoff Island. Although numbers appear stable at Tristan, the main island, trends are unknown throughout the remainder of this region.

Indian Ocean

Amsterdam Island

Northern rockhopper penguins at Amsterdam Island decreased in numbers from 58,000 breeding pairs in 1971 to 24,890 in 1993, for an overall decrease of 57 percent. The declines were most rapid, at 5.3 percent per year, between 1988 and 1993, but this was also a period when there was the widest fluctuation in numbers, from a low of 17,400 to a high of 39,871 breeding pairs (Guinard
et al.
1998, pp. 226-227). After a lengthy period of gradual decline, the most recent available data indicate a period of population fluctuation with

both increases (up to 39,871 breeding pairs from 17,400 pairs) and decreases in numbers. With the final reported figure of 24,890, which is above previous lows, best available data do not allow us to evaluate if the colonies at Amsterdam Island continue to fluctuate, or are stable, increasing, or declining.

St. Paul Island

At St. Paul Island, 50 mi (80 km) south of Amsterdam Island, the numbers of northern rockhopper penguins increased by 56 percent over the period of 1971-1993, with a current estimate of 9,000 breeding pairs (Guinard
et al.
1998, p. 227). This increase is considered to have begun after the cessation of the use of rockhopper penguins as bait in a crayfish industry, which operated in the 1930s, although all the interrelationships acting on this gradual, upward trend are not understood (Guinard
et al.
1998, p. 227).

Other Status Classifications

The IUCN Red List classifies the northern rockhopper penguin as ‘Endangered,’ due to “very rapid population decreases over the last three generations (30 years) throughout its range.”

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

Terrestrial Habitat

We have found no current reports of threats to the terrestrial breeding habitat of northern rockhopper penguins, and we have no reason to believe threats to the terrestrial habitat will emerge in the future.

Climate-Related Changes in the Marine Environment

With respect to the marine environment, Guinard
et al.
(1998, p. 224) reported that sea surface temperatures declined significantly, approximately 1.4 °F (0.8 °C), around Amsterdam and St. Paul Islands between 1982 and 1993. The annual mean decrease correlated with declines in numbers of northern rockhopper penguins at Amsterdam Island in the same period. Summer (February) sea surface temperatures were also correlated with the numbers of northern rockhopper penguins at Amsterdam Island the following spring. However, there was no relationship between spring temperatures and the numbers of penguins at Amsterdam Island, and there were no significant correlations between sea surface temperatures and numbers at adjacent St. Paul Island, where penguin numbers increased 56 percent during this same period. The authors hypothesized that with cooling water temperatures, prey may have shifted towards more northern waters, which are less accessible for breeding penguins (Guinard
et al.
1998, p. 227). Guinard
et al.
(1998, p. 226) did not find major differences in breeding success between the Amsterdam Island colony and study colonies in other areas. The absence of conclusive correlations and the opposing trends occurring at the two adjacent islands make it difficult to draw conclusions relative to the impact of sea surface temperature changes on northern rockhopper penguin marine habitat in these areas.

We have identified no reports of apparent marine habitat changes for northern rockhopper penguins at Gough Island and Tristan da Cunha, or reports of declines in the prey base in these areas.

Conclusion

Although it is possible that climate change will result in changes to the marine habitat of the northern rockhopper penguin, data on the relationship between sea surface temperature and other oceanic conditions are ambiguous and not sufficient to draw conclusions as to the contribution of changes in these conditions to the local declines at Amsterdam Island. This precludes us from being able to identify current relationships or to predict possible future trends.

Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of this species' terrestrial and marine habitats or range is not a threat to the northern rockhopper penguin in any portion of its range now and we do not foresee that it will become so in the future.

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

Use as Bait

Northern rockhopper penguins at the small colonies at St. Paul Island in the Indian Ocean were exploited heavily for bait to support a crayfish fishery in the 1930s, but this practice has been discontinued since the 1940s (Guinard 1998, p. 227), and we have no reason to believe it will recommence in the future.

In the Tristan da Cunha region, driftnet fishing and penguin use for bait is reported to have caused significant mortality in the past. Such activities are now prohibited and regarded as unlikely to return (BirdLife International 2007, p. 3).

Harvest of Eggs

In the South Atlantic, the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) reported that harvesting of many seabirds, including northern rockhopper penguins, was intensive in the past, but is now greatly reduced, and restricted to egg collection for traditional domestic use of the 269 residents of Tristan da Cunha. Under the 2006 Conservation Ordinance, egg collection is restricted to Nightingale (25,000 breeding pairs), Stoltenhof and Middle Islands (100,000 breeding pairs) in the Tristan da Cunha group (DEFRA 2007, p. 2; Tristan da Cunha Website 2008, p. 1). Rockhopper penguins lay two eggs, the first of which often fails during incubation. If the chick from the first egg hatches, this chick usually dies or is discarded as the parents raise the larger chick from the second egg. If the second egg fails to hatch or is lost, the chick from the first egg may survive (Marchant and Higgins 1990, p. 190); therefore, this information suggests that limited harvest of eggs for traditional domestic use can be conducted without influencing breeding success of the large colonies where collection occurs. However, we cannot evaluate whether this is true because: (1) Empirical data are not available to verify whether breeding success is affected by this practice; (2) population trends, which would be a partial indicator of population status, on these islands are unknown; and (3) since the restrictions on egg harvest were only recently adopted in 2006, there may not have been sufficient time to for the adopted restrictions on egg collection to have exhibited their affects on population growth. Nevertheless, given that northern rockhopper penguin numbers in the Tristan da Cunha region are estimated at 146,200-156,500 breeding pairs, we do not find over-harvest of eggs to be a threat to the species. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the level of egg harvest will increase in the future.

Collection of Penguins From the Wild

The United Kingdom permitted a one-time harvest of 146 live northern rockhopper penguins from Tristan da Cunha for exports to zoos in the autumn of 2003 (DEFRA 2007, p. 2). Under the 2006 Conservation Ordinance, no take, capture, removal, or collection of any native organism is allowed without a permit (Tristan da Cunha Website 2008,

p. 1). Any take of live penguins from the wild would reduce numbers, potentially acting as stressor to local colonies. However, given the large numbers of breeding pairs (146,200-156,500) in this region and the new (2006) regulations restricting take from the wild, we do not consider the current level of limited take of individuals from the wild to be a threat to this species. We have no reason to believe that the level of collection of individuals from the wild will increase in the future.

Scientific Research

Scientists studying northern rockhopper penguins at Amsterdam Islands applied flipper bands to all incubating birds in a study colony of from 100-300 breeding pairs. They reported that the mean adult survival rate of 72 percent was significantly lower in the first year after banding than in subsequent years (mean adult survival of 84 percent) suggesting that there was an effect of banding on the birds. There was a similar effect for banded chicks (Guinard
et al.
1998, p. 223-224). Based on this information, we believe that bird banding acts as a stressor on northern rockhopper penguins in this region; however, given the small size of the study colony and the relatively small decrease in survival of a small number of birds, we conclude that the bird banding practice as described in the literature is not a threat to the northern rockhopper penguins at the Amsterdam Islands or elsewhere in the species' range. There is no information that suggests banding activities will increase in magnitude in any portion of the species' range in the future.

Conclusion

We conclude that the primary utilization of northern rockhopper penguins at this time in the Tristan da Cunha region is the regulated collection of eggs for traditional domestic consumption by the small number of residents, as well as regulated collection of individuals from the wild. Although there may have been insufficient time since regulations were put in place, to determine whether the current levels of egg and animal collection are acting as stressors on the species in this area, we believe that with the recent regulations in place, the effects of these activities on the species in this area have likely been reduced since 2006, and we expect that any as of yet unobserved effects of the regulations would result in positive effects on the conservation of the species. We have no reason to believe these collection and harvest activities will increase over the curr

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AE8-29673. Public record. Not legal advice.