Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 20184-20210 [E7-7443]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 77 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20184-20210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7443]



[[Page 20183]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of 
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual 
Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 20184]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of 
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual 
Description of Progress on Listing Actions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Review of findings on petitions.

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

SUMMARY: In this review, we announce our annual petition findings for 
foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to a 
petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, we 
must complete a new status review each year until we publish a proposed 
rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. These 
subsequent status reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings are 
referred to as ``resubmitted'' petition findings.
    Information contained in this review describes our status review of 
56 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings. Based on our review, we find that 50 species 
continue to warrant listing, but that their listing remains precluded 
by higher-priority listing actions (see Table 1). For six species 
previously found to be warranted but precluded, listing is now 
warranted. We will promptly publish a listing proposal for those six 
species.
    With this review, we are requesting additional status information 
for the 50 species that remain warranted-but-precluded by higher 
priority listing actions. We will consider this information in 
preparing listing documents and future resubmitted petition findings. 
This information will also help us to monitor the status of the taxa 
and in conserving them.

DATES: We will accept comments on these resubmitted petition findings 
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, information, and questions by mail to 
the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203; by 
fax to 703-358-2276; or by e-mail to ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. 
Comments and supporting information will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 
at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie T. Maltese at the above address, 
or by telephone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail, 
ScientificAuthority@fws.gov; or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
at www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. First, we can identify and propose for listing those species 
that are endangered or threatened based on the factors contained in 
section 4(a)(1). We implement this through the candidate program. 
Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have sufficient information 
on file relating to biological vulnerability and threats to support a 
proposal to list the taxa as endangered or threatened, but for which 
preparation and publication of a proposed rule is precluded by higher-
priority listing actions. None of the species covered by this review 
were assessed through the candidate program; they were the result of 
public petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), which is the other mechanism 
for considering species for listing. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we 
receive such a petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the 
maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted (90-day finding). If we make a positive 90-day 
finding, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of 
the species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that we must make 
one of three findings within 12 months of the receipt of the petition 
(12-month finding).
    The first possible 12-month finding is that listing is not 
warranted, in which case we need not take any further action on the 
petition. The second possibility is that we may find that listing is 
warranted, in which case we must promptly publish a proposed rule to 
list the species. Once we publish a proposed rule for a species, 
section 4(b)(5) and (6) govern further procedures, regardless of 
whether or not we issued the proposal in response to the petition. The 
third possibility is that we may find that listing is warranted but 
precluded. A warranted-but-precluded finding means that immediate 
publication of a proposed rule to list a species is precluded by 
higher-priority listing proposals, and expeditious progress is being 
made to add and remove species from the Lists, as appropriate.
    Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in response to 
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, 
we must make a new 12-month finding annually until we publish a 
proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. 
These subsequent 12-month findings are referred to as ``resubmitted'' 
petition findings. This notice contains our resubmitted petition 
findings for all foreign species that are currently the subject of 
outstanding petitions.

Previous Notices

    The species discussed in this review were the result of three 
separate petitions submitted to the Service to list a number of foreign 
bird and butterfly species as threatened or endangered under the Act. 
We received petitions to list foreign bird species on November 28, 
1980, and April 30, 1991 (46 FR 26464 and 56 FR 58664 respectively). On 
January 10, 1994, we received a petition to list 7 butterfly species as 
threatened or endangered (59 FR 24117).
    We took several actions on these petitions, and to notify the 
public, we published earlier petition findings, status reviews, and 
petition finding reviews that included foreign species in the Federal 
Register on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464); January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485); 
May 10, 1985 (50 FR 19761); January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996); July 7, 1988 
(53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52747); January 6, 1989 (54 FR 
554); November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664); March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14496); 
May 10, 1994 (59 FR 24117), and January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899). Our most 
recent review of petition findings was published on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 
29354).
    Since our last review of petition findings we have taken two 
listing actions related to this notice. On December 7, 2004, we 
published our 12-month finding on a petition to list seven foreign 
species of Swallowtail butterflies as threatened or endangered (69 FR 
70580). We also published a proposed rule on November 22, 2006, to list 
six foreign bird species as endangered (71 FR 67530).

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions

    This review describes our resubmitted petition findings for 56 
foreign species for which we had previously found listing to be 
warranted but precluded. We have considered all of the new

[[Page 20185]]

information we have obtained since the previous findings. As a result 
of our review, we find that warranted-but-precluded findings remain 
appropriate for 50 species. We emphasize that we are not proposing 
these species for listing by this review, but we do anticipate 
developing and publishing proposed listing rules for these species in 
the future, with an objective of progressively and conclusively 
addressing all 50 foreign species within a reasonable time-frame.
    Also as a result of this review, we find that for six species, 
listing is warranted. We will promptly publish proposals to list six 
species in the Family Procellariidae (tube-nosed seabirds). These 
species include: the Fiji petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi), the 
Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), Cook's petrel (Pterodroma 
cookii), the Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia), the magenta 
petrel (Pterodroma magentae), and Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus 
heinrothi).
    We selected these six species from the list of warranted-but-
precluded species for two reasons. First, this group has more Priority 
2 species than any other taxonomic family in our list of warranted-but-
precluded-species. The Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, Galapagos petrel, 
and magenta petrel are all classified as Priority 2 species. The two 
other species are classified as Priority 8 (Cook's petrel) and Priority 
11 (Heinroth's shearwater). Although these two species are not of the 
highest priority under our listing priority ranking system, all six 
species face similar threats. With a minimum amount of additional 
effort and additional resources, we can proceed with developing the 
proposed listing for these two species concurrent with developing the 
proposed listing rule for the other four members of this family. As 
noted in our 1983 Listing Priority Guidance (48 FR 43098), the listing 
priority system provides such flexibility. We will be able to consult 
the same experts for species information, and perhaps have them act in 
a peer review capacity, because the scientists are likely to be 
knowledgeable about multiple taxa within the Procellariidae. This 
efficient use of resources also will allow us to make more expeditious 
progress in taking action on the species whose listing has been found 
to be warranted but precluded.
    The other reason we selected the Procellarids for our next listing 
proposal over the other Priority 2 species is because of the 
significance of the threats to the species. Procellarids are pelagic 
species and spend much of their lives on the wing at sea. The only time 
they spend any significant amount of time on land is to breed and rear 
young, and these species require specific islands for reproduction and 
rearing fledglings. Procellarids are long-lived species with low 
reproductive rates and juvenile mortality is often high due to 
predation by introduced mammalian species. As is common for all island 
nesting avian species, they are vulnerable to stochastic events, such 
as typhoons, which could result in rapid population declines or 
unforeseen species extinctions (Birdlife International 2006).
    Based on information gathered and assessed since May 21, 2004 and 
December 7, 2004, we have updated our determinations of whether listing 
of these taxa continues to be warranted or warranted but precluded, or 
whether listing is no longer warranted. See Table 1 for a summary of 
these current determinations. Taxa in Table 1 of this notice are 
assigned to two status categories, noted in the ``categories'' column 
at the left side of the table. We identify the taxa for which we 
continue to find that listing is warranted but precluded by a ``C'' in 
the category column. The other category is for those species for which 
we find that listing is warranted and designate these taxa with an 
``L.'' For this notice, we have not determined that listing is no 
longer warranted for any species whose listing was previously found to 
be warranted but precluded. The column labeled ``Priority'' indicates 
the listing priority number (LPN) for all warranted or warranted-but-
precluded taxa. We assign the LPN based on the immediacy and magnitude 
of threats, as well as taxonomic status. A complete description of our 
listing priority system was published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 
43098). Following the scientific name of each taxon (third column) is 
the family designation (fourth column) and the common name, if one 
exists (fifth column). The sixth column provides the known historical 
range for the taxon. The avian species in Table 1 are listed 
taxonomically.

Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted

Birds

    We will promptly prepare listing proposals for the Fiji petrel 
(Pterodroma macgillivrayi), the Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), 
Cook's petrel (Pterodroma cookii), the Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma 
phaeopygia), the magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae), and Heinroth's 
shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi). These species are birds in the Family 
Procellariidae.
Fiji petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi)
    The Fiji petrel is a marine species and presumably pelagic (del 
Hoyo et al. 1992). It was originally known from just one specimen 
collected in 1855 on Gau Island and more recently from eight records of 
sightings on the island since 1983 (BirdLife International 2000). The 
only other record is a reported sighting at sea over 200 km north of 
Gau (Watling 2000, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). The Fiji 
petrel's breeding grounds have not been discovered, but may be located 
in areas of undisturbed mature forest, on rocky, mountainous ground, or 
in the cloud forest highlands of Gau Island (del Hoyo et al. 1992, Rare 
2006). The species is classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN 
because it is inferred, given the paucity of recent records, that there 
is only a tiny population confined to an extremely small breeding area 
(IUCN 2006). The population is estimated at fewer than 50 individuals 
and is assumed to be declining because of predation by feral cats which 
are believed to prey upon nestling and fledgling petrels. The reduction 
in juvenile survival rates and declines in recruitment are believed to 
threaten the species' long-term survival (BirdLife International 2000). 
Very little is known about the species and its life history. It is 
protected under Fijian law, and priorities for the species include 
conducting surveys on Gau and other islands with suitable habitat and 
reinforcing existing community awareness (BirdLife International 2000). 
With the goal of strengthening community awareness in mind, from 2002-
2004, a local conservationist on Gau Island, Milika Rati, conducted the 
Pride campaign (Rare 2006). Ms. Rati chose the Fiji petrel as the 
flagship mascot for the Pride campaign and used a series of high-
profile activities to raise awareness of the plight of the endangered 
Fiji petrel. During the late stages of the campaign there was finally a 
confirmed sighting of a Fiji petrel (Rare 2006). A survey conducted at 
the close of the campaign found that 99 percent of participants thought 
natural resource protection was important and 94 percent knew that the 
Fiji petrel is threatened with extinction. The chiefs of all 16 
villages on the island signed a formal agreement supporting the 
creation of a bird sanctuary on the island for the species (Rare 2006). 
The Australian Regional National Heritage Programme continues to fund 
the Pride campaign on Gau Island. The Wildlife Conservation Society, 
BirdLife International, and the National Trust of Fiji Islands are 
collaborating to follow

[[Page 20186]]

recommendations made by Ms. Rati at the end of the initial Pride 
campaign (Rare 2006).
    The importance of raising public awareness of the species' threats 
and the recognition of the value of natural resource protection are 
intrinsic measures that are invaluable for species such as the Fiji 
petrel. Although resource economists frequently struggle to assign such 
intangible measures a monetary value, we recognize their importance and 
value in furthering the protection and conservation of threatened and 
endangered species. Creation of the bird sanctuary is an important 
initial step to preserve essential habitat for the Fiji petrel and the 
awareness of the value of natural resource protection should help to 
alleviate any future man-made threats. Public awareness alone cannot 
address population declines, the genetic effects of small populations, 
or stochastic events that can destroy an entire population during a 
single incident. However, the Fijian Pride campaign has united the 
island's efforts to preserve the Fiji petrel and its habitat; 
therefore, it is anticipated that current and potential measures will 
help to reduce the threats to the species as the campaign continues to 
broaden in scope.
    The Fiji petrel does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude 
of threat to the species is high due to the species' small population 
size which has continued to decrease since our previous notice, and the 
immediacy of threat is imminent due to continued predation by feral 
cats. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 2.
Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris; Previously Referred to as 
Pterodroma hypoleuca axillaris)
    The Chatham petrel is found only on South East Island (Rangatira) 
in the Chatham Islands of New Zealand (BirdLife International 2006). It 
is marine and presumably pelagic, and breeds on coastal lowlands and 
slopes in areas with low forest, bracken, or rank grass (del Hoyo et 
al. 1992). It nests in burrows amongst low vegetation and roots on flat 
to moderately sloping ground (Marchant and Higgins 1990). This species 
is classified as Critically Endangered by IUCN because it is restricted 
to South East Island and inferred to be continuing to decline due to 
competition from other native burrowing seabirds (IUCN 2006). The 
population estimate for this species is 800-1,000 birds with a 
decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2000). There is 
intense competition for burrows on South East Island with the abundant 
broad-billed prion (Pachyptila vittata), which may be the cause of low 
breeding success and the high rate of pair bond disruption (BirdLife 
International 2000). As a conservation measure, artificial nest sites 
have been provided, and burrows have been blocked to prevent occupation 
by P. vittata (BirdLife International 2000). Although these actions 
have greatly improved breeding success, only a small proportion of 
breeding burrows have been located (Taylor 2000).
    This species does not represent a monotypic genus. It has a 
restricted range and its population is declining. The threat to the 
species is high and imminent because the threats are currently ongoing. 
Therefore, this species receives a priority rank of 2.
Cook's petrel (Pterodroma cookii)
    Cook's petrel is endemic to New Zealand. It is marine and highly 
pelagic in temperate and subtropical waters, and rarely approaches land 
except for nesting (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Cook's petrel breeds on 
three islands: Little Barrier, Great Barrier, and Codfish Islands (del 
Hoyo et al. 1992), and occupies thickly forested high ridges and 
slopes, up to 700 m above sea level (BirdLife International 2000). This 
species is classified as Endangered by IUCN because it has a very small 
breeding range, and population numbers are decreasing (IUCN 2006). 
Furthermore, there is a danger that the Great Barrier Island population 
may soon be extirpated because only four nest burrows have been located 
in recent years and it is estimated that fewer than 20 pairs inhabit 
the island for breeding purposes (BirdLife International 2006). The 
population estimate for this species is 150,000-200,000 birds (BirdLife 
International 2006). Threats to the species are predominantly from 
invasive predator species such as feral cats, black rats (Rattus 
rattus), Pacific rats (R. exulans), and the weka (Gallirallus 
australis), which are major predators of adults and chicks (Heather and 
Robertson 1997; Taylor 2000). By 1980, feral cats were eradicated from 
Little Barrier Island, and wekas were eradicated from Codfish Island 
between 1980 and 1985 (Taylor 2000). Pacific rats were successfully 
eradicated from Codfish Island in August 1998, and an eradication 
program on Little Barrier Island has been proposed (Conservation News 
2002).
    This species does not represent a monotypic genus, and has a fairly 
large population size; however, the population is decreasing. Primary 
threats to the species are a limited breeding range and predation by 
introduced species. Loss of the Great Barrier Island population would 
lessen the overall species' range and distribution by one-third. The 
unique contributions of the Great Barrier Island population's gene pool 
would no longer be available to the species.
    Although the threat of predation by introduced species has been 
reduced by targeted eradication programs, these programs are not 
completely successful and must be adequately funded to continue as a 
protective measure for the petrels. Finally, as is common for all 
island species, is concern for their vulnerability to stochastic 
events, such as typhoons, which could result in rapid population 
declines or extinction of the species.
    Therefore, although the threat to the species is moderate due to 
the current large population estimate, it is imminent because the 
population is decreasing, an important segment of the population is 
likely to become extinct in the near future, and the threat from 
predation remains. We assigned this species a priority ranking of 8.
Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia; previously referred to as 
Pterodroma phaeopygia phaeopygia)
    The Galapagos petrel is a pelagic marine bird endemic to the 
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (BirdLife International 2006). It breeds on 
Santa Cruz, Floreana, Santiago, San Cristobal, Isabela, and possibly 
other islands in the Galapagos archipelago (Cruz and Cruz 1987; H. 
Vargas and F. Cruz in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife International 
2006). This species is classified as Critically Endangered by IUCN 
because of its continuing history of declines (IUCN 2002). In the early 
1980s, Galapagos petrel populations underwent extremely rapid declines; 
estimates of population declines are as high as 81 percent in 4 years, 
and it is likely to have declined by more than 80 percent in the last 
60 years (three generations) (IUCN 2002). The total population estimate 
for this species is 20,000-60,000 birds with a decreasing population 
trend (BirdLife International 2000). Threats to survival include 
introduced dogs, feral cats, and pigs, which take eggs, young, and 
adults; black rats and brown rats (R. norvegicus), which take eggs and 
chicks; nest-site destruction by goats, donkeys, cattle, and horses; 
and predation by Galapagos hawks (Buteo galapagoensis) (Cruz and Cruz 
1987; Cruz and Cruz 1996). Predator control and petrel monitoring 
programs are currently in place on Floreana, Santa Cruz, and Santiago 
Islands (H. Vargus and F. Cruz in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife

[[Page 20187]]

International 2006). The breeding areas on Santa Cruz, Floreana, and 
San Cristobal have been severely reduced due to vegetation clearance 
for agricultural land development and intensive grazing by cattle (Cruz 
and Cruz 1987; Cruz and Cruz 1996). Nearly half the species' breeding 
range on Santa Cruz Island is under cultivation (Baker 1980, as cited 
in BirdLife International 2000). The Galapagos Islands are a national 
park and were declared a World Heritage Site (WHS) in 1979 (BirdLife 
International 2006). The WHS designation encourages Ecuador to work 
carefully to enact suitable conservation laws and implement existing 
laws to protect the unique fauna and flora of the Galapagos Islands 
(UNESCO 2007).
    This species does not represent a monotypic genus, but it is 
declining and has persistent threats that are high in magnitude, such 
as nest predation by feral animals. This and other threats are imminent 
because they are ongoing; for instance, loss of breeding habitat that 
has been cleared for agricultural purposes is a threat that is nearly 
impossible to resolve. Therefore, this species receives a priority rank 
of 2.
Magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae)
    The magenta petrel is known from Chatham Island, New Zealand. It 
breeds in a fragmented colony under dense forest, is a marine bird 
species, and presumably pelagic (BirdLife International 2000, del Hoyo 
et al. 1992). The magenta petrel was rediscovered in 1978 after 10 
years of intensive searching (Crockett 1994, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2006). This species is listed as Critically Endangered by 
IUCN because it has undergone an historic decline that is assumed to be 
greater than 80 percent in 60 years, it has a very small population, 
and it is restricted to one extremely small location (IUCN 2002). The 
population is estimated to number 100-150 individuals. It is possible 
that the species' long-term decline may have begun to stabilize, but it 
is premature to assume that there is not a continuing decline until 
this information is verified (BirdLife International 2000). The species 
is predominantly threatened by introduced species that prey upon eggs, 
chicks, and adults for food; compete for burrows, or destroy nesting 
sites (BirdLife International 2000).
    The magenta petrel does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
magnitude of threat to the species is high due to its historic rapid 
decline, the current estimate of a very small population, and a single, 
small breeding location. These threats render the species highly 
vulnerable to extirpation during a single stochastic event. The 
magnitude is imminent because the threats are ongoing, and there is 
very little information available about the species' current population 
dynamics. It therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi)
    The Heinroth's shearwater is known from the Bismarck Archipelago, 
around Bougainville in Papua New Guinea, and Kolombangara in the 
Solomon Islands (Buckingham et.al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2000). It is a marine bird species, and presumably 
pelagic (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The Heinroth's shearwater is believed 
to breed on high, inaccessible mountains. Introduced rats, feral cats 
and dogs are considered potential threats to the species. BirdLife 
International has identified a number of target conservation actions 
for the species including: demographic surveys and an assessment of the 
presence of introduced mammals on potential breeding grounds (BirdLife 
International 2000). The Heinroth's shearwater is categorized as 
Vulnerable by the IUCN because it is believed to have a very small 
population and breeding range (IUCN 2002). The population estimate for 
this species is 250-999 birds with an unknown population trend 
(BirdLife International 2000). There is no substantial evidence of a 
decline (IUCN 2002).
    Heinroth's shearwater does not represent a monotypic genus. There 
is no substantial evidence of a population decline; however, because of 
its small population size it faces threats that are moderate and non-
imminent. This species was designated a priority rank of 11.

Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted but Precluded

    We have found that, for the following 50 bird species, issuance of 
proposed listing rules, even for species with the highest listing 
priority numbers, will continue to be precluded over the next year due 
to the need to complete pending proposals to determine if other species 
are threatened or endangered. We will continue to monitor the status of 
these species as new information becomes available. Our review of new 
information will determine if a change in status is warranted, 
including the need to emergency list any species or change the LPN of 
any of the species.
    As explained in the previous section, one of our highest priorities 
in the coming year is to prepare proposed listing rules for the six 
species of Procellarids. Over the next year the issuance of additional 
proposed listing rules will also be precluded due to the need to work 
on the following listing actions. We will be working on a final listing 
determination for the six foreign bird species that we proposed for 
listing on November 23, 2006. Reaching a final decision on this 
proposed rule is consistent with the statutory deadlines under section 
4(b)(5) and is a high priority that takes precedence over proposed 
listings for additional warranted-but-precluded species.
    A foreign government has petitioned us to delist a species that is 
under its jurisdiction and is listed under the Act. Mexico submitted a 
petition to delist the Morelet's crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii). The 
Morelet's crocodile petition was submitted by the Mexican government 
through the National Commission for the Understanding and Use of 
Biodiversity (CONABIO), and was received by the Service on May 26, 
2005. A 90-day finding was published on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36743) 
finding that the petitioned action may be warranted. The 12-month 
review is currently in progress and we must complete work on this 
petition consistent with our responsibilities under section 4(b)(3) of 
the Act.
    We are also in the process of making a final determination on 
whether to delist the Mexican bobcat (Lynx rufus escuinapae). The 
United States, with support from Mexico and other countries, proposed 
to transfer the Mexican bobcat from Appendix I to Appendix II of the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES), based on the bobcat's widespread and stable status 
in Mexico and the questionable taxonomy of the subspecies. The U.S. 
proposal was accepted and the change went into effect on November 6, 
1992. On July 8, 1996, we received a petition from the National 
Trappers Association, Inc. to delist the Mexican bobcat. Our 12-month 
finding and proposed rule were published on May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28895). 
Under section 4(b)(6) of the Act, we have a statutory responsibility to 
complete this rule-making process.
    We are also making a final determination on whether to delist the 
scarlet-chested parakeet (Neophema splendida) and the turquoise 
parakeet (Neophema pulchella). On September 22, 2000, we announced a 
review of all endangered and threatened foreign species in the Order 
Psittaciformes as part of a 5-year review under section 4(c)(2) of the 
Act (65 FR 57363). One commenter suggested we consider these two 
species for delisting. The individual

[[Page 20188]]

provided substantial scientific information, including information and 
correspondence with the government of Australia (the range country of 
these species) regarding the status of both species. Under section 
4(b)(6) of the Act, we have a statutory responsibility to complete this 
rule-making process.
    On January 4, 2005, we received a petition from 14 county officials 
representing 13 western States to list the Northern snakehead fish 
(Channa argus) as threatened or endangered under the Act, and further, 
to designate the Chesapeake Bay region as critical habitat. On March 5, 
2005, we received a petition from a private individual to de-list the 
tiger (Panthera tigris). We have a statutory responsibility under 
section 4(b)(3) of the Act to process these petitions.
    On November 29, 2006, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity (CBD) to list 12 species of penguins as threatened 
or endangered under the Act. The petitioned species include the emperor 
penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) as threatened; Southern rockhopper 
penguin (Eudyptes chrysocome) as threatened; Northern rockhopper 
penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi) as endangered; Fiordland crested penguin 
(Eudyptes pachyrhynchus) as endangered; snares crested penguin 
(Eudyptes robustus) as threatened; erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes 
sclateri) as endangered; macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus) as 
threatened, or, if not listed as threatened, CBD requested that we 
consider the South Georgia and Marion populations as Distinct 
Population Segments, or as a ``significant portion'' of the species 
range; royal penguin (Eudyptes schlegeli) as threatened; white-
flippered penguin (Eudyptula albosignata) as endangered; yellow-eyed 
penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) as endangered; African penguin 
(Spheniscus demersus) as endangered; and Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus 
humboldti) as endangered. We have a statutory responsibility under 
section 4(b)(3) of the Act to process this petition and are preparing 
our 90-day petition finding.
    In addition to these listing actions, we are also currently 
preparing a 5-year notice of review of all foreign-listed wildlife 
species as required under section 4(c)(2) of the Act. During the coming 
year, we will also be working on the 2008 ANOR, which sets priorities 
for the next set of listing actions. Using our best efforts to meet our 
statutory responsibilities under the Act is a high priority.
    Our ability to complete determinations on whether any species is 
endangered or threatened is also a function of available resources. The 
number of species' proposals pending, and the rate at which we can 
process proposals and add more proposals, depends on the staff 
resources available. Listing of foreign species under the Act is 
carried out by a different Service program than the domestic Endangered 
Species program. The Division of Scientific Authority (DSA), within the 
Service's International Affairs program, is solely responsible for the 
development of all listing proposals for foreign species and 
promulgation of final rules, whether internally-driven or as the result 
of a citizen petition. Unlike the Service's domestic Endangered Species 
program, DSA does not have specific branch or field offices for 
endangered species functions. The DSA program consists of a Division 
Chief, a Branch Chief, two botanists, and three zoologists, when fully 
staffed. As of September 2005, DSA had one zoologist position vacant, 
and the Branch Chief position was vacant for most of 2006. Both 
positions were finally filled in August, 2006. We dedicate over 50 
percent of our existing staff resources to foreign endangered species 
listing activities, including processing petitions, preparation of the 
ANOR, and listing species which have been designated as warranted.
    In determining the resources available for listing actions under 
the Act, we must also balance these needs with the resources needed for 
completing the other non-discretionary activities that are the 
responsibility of DSA staff and that are funded under the International 
Wildlife Trade budget component of the International Affairs program. 
This budget is used for not only the ESA foreign listing activities, 
but also issuing permits under the Act, mandatory activities for U.S. 
implementation of CITES, implementing the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 
1992, certain permitting provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act, and parts of the Pelly Amendment (Section 8 of the Fisherman's 
Protective Act).
    The United States is a party to CITES; and has the responsibility 
under the Treaty to implement and enforce its provisions (see Article 
VIII, paragraph 1). CITES regulates and monitors listed species in 
trade through a system of permits. Species are listed based on the 
level of threat to the species and that species' need for conservation 
in international trade. Section 8A of the Act designates the Service, 
through its Scientific Authority and Management Authority, to carry out 
the United States' CITES responsibilities. As required under Articles 
III and IV of CITES, the DSA staff is responsible for reviewing and 
making non-detriment findings for permits for the export of species 
listed in Appendix-I and Appendix-II of CITES , and the import of 
Appendix-I species. In 2004, DSA either provided written non-detriment 
findings or written non-detriment advice for approximately 3,192 
permits that were issued by the Service's Division of Management 
Authority (DMA). In 2005, that number had increased to approximately 
5,854 issued permits. These figures do not include the number of non-
detriment findings made for permit applications that were denied, 
abandoned, or withdrawn. DSA's other CITES responsibilities include 
proposing species for listing or delisting at the biennial meeting of 
the Conference of the Parties (CoP) (see Article XI), and participating 
in the CITES Plants and Animals Committee meetings, between each CoP, 
for the dissemination of biological information and other Treaty 
business.
    The Division of Management Authority (DMA), which also operates 
under the International Wildlife Trade budget, is responsible for 
issuing permits under the Act, other ESA activities such as conducting 
section 7 consultations, certain permitting provisions of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, issuing Injurious Wildlife permits under the 
Lacey Act, and implementing parts of the Pelly Amendment (section 8 of 
the Fisherman's Protective Act). DMA also manages CITES implementation 
obligations. DMA and DSA share responsibilities for implementation of 
the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. Therefore, the resources 
available for ESA listing actions for foreign species is limited by 
these competing non-discretionary activities funded from the 
International Wildlife Trade budget. If additional resources become 
available, it will be our highest priority in the coming year to 
prepare proposed listing rules for additional priority 2 warranted-but-
precluded species.

Birds

Junin flightless grebe (Podiceps taczanowskii)
    The Junin flightless grebe is found only at Lake Junin, which is 
located 4,080 m above sea level in central Peru (Fjelds[aring] 1981, as 
cited in O'Donnell and Fjeds[aring] 1997). The lake covers 
approximately 14,320 hectares bordered by extensive reed marshes and 
reaches a depth of 10 m at the center. The reed marshes are continuous 
in some areas of the lake shore, but they also form a mosaic with 
stretches of open water in

[[Page 20189]]

other areas. Considerable stretches of the lake are shallow, supporting 
dense growth of stonewort (Chara spp.) (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The 
Junin grebe prefers open lake habitat and remains in the center of the 
lake when it is not breeding. During the breeding season, however, it 
nests in areas of tall Scirpus californicus tatora or bays and channels 
along the outer edge of the 2-5 km-wide reed marshes surrounding the 
lake (O'Donnel and Fjeds[aring] 1997). The Junin grebe feeds 
predominantly on fish (Orestias spp.), which constitute approximately 
90% of its diet (del Hoyo et al. 1992).
    The Junin grebe experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th 
Century. The species was considered abundant in 1938, and common in 
1961, with population estimates of several thousand birds (del Hoyo et 
al. 1992). Current population estimates for the Junin grebe range 
between 50 and 249 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife 
International 2006). As a result of the species' decline, and because 
it is endemic to a single Andean lake, the Junin grebe qualifies as 
Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006). Current 
population numbers have been known to fluctuate considerably from year 
to year. Population fluctuations are believed to be tied to relatively 
unstable climatic conditions recently linked to El Ni[ntilde]o/Southern 
Oscillation (ENSO) events, with population numbers lowest during dry 
years. Although the species appears able to recover in good years, it 
remains unclear whether this process can be sustained, particularly in 
the face of other, continuing threats (IUCN 2006). The original decline 
of this species was brought about by declines in water quality of Lake 
Junin due to local mining activities and variations in water levels of 
up to 7 m, which are linked to electrical power generation by a local 
hydroelectric power station. The water level draw-downs reduced nesting 
and foraging areas (BirdLife International 2000), and in 1969, the 
vegetation of Lake Junin appeared to be dyed yellow with breakdown 
products of sulphuric acids and toxic fumes from a copper mine (del 
Hoyo et al. 1992). Of less significance, perhaps, was the introduction 
of non-native trout species in the 1930s, which have replaced native 
fish species. Since 1975, several conservation measures have been 
implemented; Lake Junin was declared a protected reserve, and the 
Peruvian Government nationalized the mines of Cerro del Pasco in an 
attempt to prevent pollution by the mine (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Since 
that time, however, there has been rapid expansion of the mine, and no 
available information to indicate that pollution controls have been put 
in place (Mbendi 2007).
    The Junin flightless grebe does not represent a monotypic genus. It 
faces threats that are high in magnitude, such as oscillations in ENSO 
conditions which can cause environmental conditions that are harmful to 
the species; and imminent because the declines in water quality are 
ongoing, and possibly increasing, as the result of increased production 
at the Cerro del Pasco mine. It therefore receives a priority rank of 
2.
Greater adjutant stork (Leptoptilos dubius)
    The greater adjutant stork was previously widespread and common, 
and found in much of South and Southeast Asia, from Pakistan through 
northern India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, to Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Viet 
Nam, and Cambodia (BirdLife International 2006). However, during the 
20th Century the species experienced a rapid decline, and currently the 
population estimate is 800-1,000 birds (BirdLife International 2006). 
Only two very small and highly disjunct breeding populations remain: 
one in Assam, India (Saikia and Bhattacharjee 1989, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2006), the other in Cambodia (Mundkur et al. 
1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). During the 19th 
century, there were vast colonies of millions of greater adjutant 
storks in Burma, and del Hoyo et al. (1992) noted that in Calcutta 
there was ``almost one [stork] on every roof.'' The greater adjutant 
stork frequents marshes, lakes, paddy fields, and open forest, and may 
also be found in dry areas, such as grasslands and fields. It is 
commonly found feeding at carcasses and rubbish dumps at the edges of 
towns (BirdLife International 2006).
    The greater adjutant stork is classified as Endangered by the IUCN 
(IUCN 2006). Major threats to the species include direct exploitation, 
such as hunting and egg collection from nesting colonies; habitat 
destruction, particularly lowland deforestation and the felling of nest 
trees; and drainage, agricultural conversion, pollution, and over-
exploitation of wetlands. The Assam population is considered threatened 
by the loss of a readily available food source, due to the reduced 
number of open rubbish dumps for the disposal of carcasses and 
foodstuffs (BirdLife International 2006).
    The greater adjutant stork does not represent a monotypic genus, 
but it faces threats that are high in magnitude and imminent because 
they are ongoing and likely to remain so. Conversion of the species' 
habitat for agricultural purposes is not likely to cease; nor will the 
land, once cleared, be allowed to revert back to the wild habitat which 
is optimal for the storks. The loss of nesting trees lessens the number 
of available sites for nesting, mating, and recruitment of young to the 
population. Drainage of wetlands to be used for cultivation further 
impacts the stork's habitat needs, forcing the birds into inferior 
habitat which increases the threats to the species survival. It 
therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Andean flamingo (Phoenicopterus andinus)
    The Andean flamingo is restricted to high-altitude salt lakes in 
the Andes, mainly between 3,500 and 4,500 m, from southern Peru through 
Bolivia to northern Chile and northwestern Argentina (del Hoyo et al. 
1992). Population assessments for this species vary greatly, but it is 
believed that 50,000-100,000 individuals existed until the mid-1980s 
(Rocha and Quiroga 1997, as cited in BirdlLife International 2006). 
Commercial egg collection for food was intensive during the mid-20th 
Century and again in the early 1980s, with estimates of thousands of 
eggs being taken annually. Unfavorable water levels resulting from 
weather and human manipulation, mining activities, erosion of nest 
sites, and human disturbance are other factors that are affecting 
productivity. In 1997, the entire population was estimated at 34,000 
individuals, indicating that the species had experienced a rapid 
population decline in less than 20 years (BirdlLife International 
2006). Very low breeding success has been reported for this species 
(Flamingo Action Plan Questionnaire 1998, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2006), and population declines may continue unabated for 
many years without an accurate understanding of the extent of decline 
because of the extensive longevity of the species (del Hoyo 1992, as 
cited in BirdLife International 2006). It is also difficult to quantify 
the number of juvenile birds that survive to adulthood and successfully 
produce viable offspring. Due to the species' reproductive history, 
recruitment uncertainty, and the abiotic threats to the species, an 
assessment of the population decline and the need for conservation 
measures to protect the species are challenging.
    The Andean flamingo is categorized as Vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 
2006) and is also listed in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2006). Threats 
include ongoing exploitation of the species as a

[[Page 20190]]

result of egg collection and declining habitat quality (IUCN 2006). 
Local conservation actions are currently underway, such as habitat 
management, prevention of egg collecting, and raising public awareness 
about the species' decline and need for additional conservation 
measures (BirdLife International 2006). At this time, it is difficult 
to assess the effectiveness of these actions in alleviating the threats 
to the Andean flamingo, as they have only recently been put into place. 
Future assessments of the species will be more likely to include such 
information, after the conservation actions have had sufficient time to 
produce tangible results.
    The Andean flamingo does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
threats to the species are high in magnitude, such as weather-related 
water levels at nesting sites. The threats are imminent because they 
continue to occur. Exploitation, egg collection, mining activities, 
human disturbance, and reductions in the quality of the species' 
habitat are all threats that could be addressed at the local level to 
protect the species, yet are ongoing. This species therefore receives a 
priority rank of 2.
Brazilian merganser (Mergus octosetaceus)
    The Brazilian merganser is found in extremely low numbers at a few, 
highly disjunct localities in south-central Brazil, eastern Paraguay, 
and northeastern Argentina (BirdLife International 2006). The species 
inhabits shallow clear-water streams and rapid rivers, preferably 
surrounded by dense tropical forests. It is believed to be a highly-
sedentary species and presumably maintains its territory all year (del 
Hoyo et al. 1992). The Brazilian merganser is a good swimmer and diver, 
and feeds primarily on fish, and occasionally on aquatic insects and 
snails (Collar et al. 1992).
    Recent records from Brazil, and a newly discovered northern range 
extension, indicate that the status of this species is better than 
previously considered because several additional, highly disjunct 
populations were located in 2002 (BirdLife International 2006). 
However, the Brazilian merganser remains close to extinction and the 
IUCN categorizes the species as Critically Endangered (IUCN 2006). The 
population is estimated at 50-249 individuals and the trend is 
decreasing (BirdLife International 2006). Threats to the species 
include the perturbation and pollution of rivers, which are 
predominately the result of deforestation, agriculture, and diamond 
mining in the Serra da Canastra area (Bartmann 1994 and 1996, as cited 
in BirdLife International 2006). Dam construction has destroyed 
suitable habitat, especially in Brazil and Paraguay. In Argentina, 
hunting and collecting specimens for exhibition are considered 
contributory factors to the species' decline (BirdLife International 
2006). The Brazilian merganser is considered extirpated in Mato Grosso 
do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, and Santa Catarina (BirdLife 
International 2006). There is only one recent record of the species 
from Misiones, Argentina (Benstead 1994; Hearn 1994, as cited in Collar 
et al. 1994), and it was last recorded in Paraguay in 1984 (BirdLife 
International 2006). The species is legally protected in Brazil and it 
occurs in three Brazilian national parks (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The 
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursons Naturais 
Renov[aacute]veis (IBAMA) in Brazil has established eight committees to 
develop and monitor conservation strategies for specific endangered 
species, including the Brazilian merganser (Marinia and Garcia 2004).
    This species does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats 
that are high in magnitude because the small populations are disjunct 
and geographically isolated, resulting in populations which are unable 
to exchange genetic material and, are therefore faced with the 
inbreeding depression common to small, endangered populations. 
Additionally, species with few remaining individuals are particularly 
vulnerable to stochastic events, such as large-scale storms that could 
eliminate the entire species at one time. The threats remain imminent 
because all of the factors contributing to the destruction of the 
merganser's habitat are ongoing and likely to be permanent. It 
therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Cauca guan (Penelope perspicax)
    The Cauca guan is endemic to the west slopes of the West and 
Central Andes (Risaralda, Quindio, Valle del Cauca, and Cauca), in 
Colombia (Collar et al. 1992). The stronghold for the species is the 
Ucumari Regional Park, Risaralda (BirdLife International 2006). The 
Cauca guan inhabits large, humid primary forests at 1,600-2,150 m 
(P.G.W. Salaman in litt. 1999 and 2000, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2006). Individuals have also been located at lower 
elevations of 900-1,600 m on exotic broadleaf tree plantations, 
secondary forest, and forest edge (Silva Arias 1996, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2006). The Cauca guan was considered fairly 
common at the beginning of the 20th Century, but severe habitat loss 
has had a major deleterious impact on the species (del Hoyo et al. 
1994). Population estimates for the species have fallen from 1,000-
2,499 individuals in 2000 (BirdLife International 2000), to a current 
estimate of 250-999 individuals, with a decreasing trend (BirdLife 
International 2006). The bird is hunted for food even in protected 
areas, except Ucumari (BirdLife International 2006). IUCN categorizes 
the species as Endangered because it has a small contracted range 
composed of widely fragmented patches of habitat, which are declining 
(IUCN 2006).
    This species does not represent a monotypic genus. Habitat loss is 
the greatest threat to the guan, and this threat is high in magnitude 
and imminent because the guan now appears to be utilizing sub-optimal 
habitat as the result of continuing habitat destruction. The species is 
also hunted for food everywhere except Ucumari Regional Park. This 
species therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi unicornis)
    The southern helmeted curassow is known from central Bolivia and 
central and eastern Peru, where it inhabits dense, humid, lower montane 
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450-1,200 m (BirdLife 
International 2006). This species prefers nuts of the almendrillo tree 
(Byrsonima wadsworthii) as its major source of food. It also consumes 
other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and insects (BirdLife 
International 2006). The southern helmeted curassow was previously 
classified as Vulnerable by IUCN; however, after further assessment, it 
was uplisted in 2005 to Endangered (IUCN 2006). The species is 
estimated to be declining very rapidly due to uncontrolled hunting and 
habitat destruction. It has a small range and is known from few 
locations in a narrow elevational band, which continues to be subject 
to habitat loss (IUCN 2006). The population is estimated at 10,000-
19,999 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife 
International 2006). Field surveys in portions of its range indicate 
gaps in species' distribution (BirdLife International 2006). The 
species is often hunted for meat and its casque, or horn (BirdLife 
International 2006), which is used to fashion native handicrafts 
(Cordier 1971, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). Other threats to the 
species include forest clearing for staple and export crops, road 
building, and rural

[[Page 20191]]

development. In Peru, oil exploration threatens the species' habitat 
and is opening the foothills to colonization and additional hunting 
(BirdLife International 2006). Large parts of the southern helmeted 
curassow's range are protected by inclusion in the Amboro and Carrasco 
National Parks which protects the species from hunting and declining 
habitat due to development and road building (BirdLife International 
2006).
    The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic 
genus. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude as the 
population is fairly large; however, the population trend has been 
declining rapidly. The threats to the species are imminent and ongoing. 
Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Blue-billed curassow (Crax alberti)
    The blue-billed curassow historically occurred in northern 
Colombia, from the base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta west to the 
Sinu Valley and south in Magdalena Valley to north Tolima (BirdLife 
International 2006). It inhabits humid forest up to 1,200 m, but is 
more common below 600 m (del Hoyo et al. 1994), where it feeds on 
fruit, shoots, invertebrates, and possibly carrion (BirdLife 
International 2006).
    The blue-billed curassow is categorized as Critically Endangered by 
IUCN (IUCN 2006) and is listed in Appendix III of CITES by Colombia 
(CITES 2006). The species was uncommon in the Santa Marta region at the 
beginning of the 20th Century; it was perhaps most numerous in the 
humid lowlands of the north coast of Colombia (Todd and Carriker 1922, 
as cited in Collar et al. 1992). The blue-billed curassow was becoming 
increasingly rare during the 20th Century (Haffner 1975, as cited in 
Collar et al. 1992), and by the 1980s, the species had disappeared from 
a large portion of its previous range (Estudillo Lopez 1986, as cited 
in Collar et al. 1992). In 1994, the population was estimated at 1,000-
2,500 birds and local reports have indicated recent and rapid declines 
(BirdLife International 2006). The population trend for the species 
continues to be decreasing due to the substantial threats it faces 
(BirdLife International 2006). Earlier reports indicated that outside 
of a few forest patches bordering national parks, the species was 
nearly extinct (L.M. Renjifo, Z. Calle, D. Rodriguez personal 
communications, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 2000). However, 
additional sites which are believed to harbor the species have been 
identified in work supported by the World Pheasant Association 
International (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 
2000).
    There is very little suitable foraging and nesting habitat 
remaining for use by the species after the rapid deforestation and 
logging that has occurred throughout its range. Additionally, oil 
extraction, gold mining, government defoliation of illegal drug crops, 
increased human encroachment, egg collecting, and hunting present 
serious threats to the survival of the blue-billed curassow, indicating 
it could undergo an extremely rapid population reduction over a very 
short time period (BirdLife International 2006). The blue-billed 
curassow is perhaps one of the most endangered species identified as an 
immediate conservation priority by the Cracid Specialist Group (Brooks 
and Strahl 2000). International trade in this bird may be an additional 
threat to survival of the species (J.V. Rodriguez personal 
communication, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 2000).
    The blue-billed curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
species faces significant threats that are high in magnitude. The 
curassow's habitat continues to be seriously degraded by processes and 
pollution associated with oil extraction, gold mining, and government 
defoliation of illegal drug crops. Increased human encroachment is 
resulting in the destruction of habitat as land is cleared for 
agricultural purposes. The species is further threatened by egg 
collecting and hunting, which continue unabated. The threats to the 
species are imminent and ongoing; extremely limited foraging and 
nesting habitat remains after the rapid deforestation of the area. 
Therefore it receives a priority rank of 2.
Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus)
    The Cantabrian capercaillie inhabits the Cantabrian Mountains of 
northern Spain (Storch 2000). It occupies forest and woodland habitats 
that consist largely of coniferous species, particularly Pinus 
sylvestris, conifers from the Piscea and Abies genera, and isolated 
broad-leaved deciduous tree species (BirdLife International 2006). It 
prefers extensive areas of old-growth shady forest that include damp 
soil and interspersed bogs, areas of peat or glades, and a dense 
undergrowth of ericaceous plants (Garcia et al. 2004). The IUCN 
currently designates the species as Endangered (IUCN 2006). The 
population has been estimated at 250-300 adult males, equivalent to a 
total population size of fewer than 1,000, but it is more likely that 
only 600-750 birds currently exist (A. Lucio, personal communication, 
as cited by Storch 2000). The Cantabrian Capercaillie Specialist Group 
estimates that population numbers have declined by 25-50 percent over 
the past 10-15 years (Storch 2000). Habitat loss, fragmentation, and 
degradation related to forestry and tourism, illegal hunting, and 
disturbance by human outdoor activities have been identified as the 
major causes of species' and habitat decline (J. Castroviejo, personal 
communication, as cited by Storch 2000). Recent studies indicate that 
habitat fragmentation may have a greater effect on the species than 
previously recognized (Su[aacute]rez-Seoane and Garc[iacute]a-
Rov[eacute]s 2004, Garcia et al. 2005, Quevedo et al. 2005a, and 
Quevedo et al. 2005b). There are concerns that the population, as 
compared to other grouse populations, exhibits very low values of 
allelic richness and heterozygosity which are commonly observed in 
endangered species. Combining such genetic factors with a high level of 
habitat fragmentation and consistent indications of low average 
fledging success suggests some degree of inbreeding depression may be 
affecting the population (Quevedo et al. 2005a).
    This is a subspecies that faces threats that are high in magnitude 
due to the low number of individual animals, extensive habitat 
fragmentation, and very low allelic richness and heterozygosity values 
which are all negative survival factors for an already declining 
subspecies. The threats are imminent because habitat fragmentation, 
which this species is particularly vulnerable to, continues, and other 
man-made factors such as hunting, outdoor activities, and tourism are 
not likely to end in the near future. It receives a priority rank of 3.
Gorgeted wood-quail (Odontophorus strophium)
    The gorgeted wood-quail occurs on the west slope of the east Andes 
of Colombia in Santander and Cundinamarca (Collar et al. 1992). It is 
found on the forest floor of temperate and subtropical forests at 
1,500-2,050 m, especially those dominated by Quercus humboldtii (del 
Hoyo et al. 1994). The gorgeted wood-quail is probably dependent on 
primary-growth forest for at least part of its life cycle, although it 
has also been found in degraded habitats and secondary-growth forest 
(BirdLife International 2006). Since the 17th Century, the west slope 
of the East Andes has been extensively logged and converted to 
agriculture (Stiles et al. 1999). Forest habitat loss below 2,500 m has 
been almost complete (Stattersfield et al. 1998), with

[[Page 20192]]

habitat reduced in many areas to highly fragmented relict patches on 
steep slopes and along streams (Stiles et al. 1999). The species is 
classified as Critically Endangered by IUCN because it has an extremely 
small and highly-fragmented range, with existing population records 
from only two locations. Hunting and logging are likely to be causing 
continued declines in population and range (IUCN 2006). Current 
population estimates range from 250 to 999 individuals and the 
remaining population trend is declining (BirdLife International 2006). 
Additionally, until 1923, the species was known only from Cundinamarca, 
but there have been no reports of the species from that area since 1954 
(Wege and Long 1995, in BirdLife International 2006). It has been 
discovered in suitable habitat in several areas since 1970, and appears 
to be restricted to the larger oak forest remnants in the eastern 
Cordillera. Both remnants have decreased considerably in size during 
the previous two decades (J. Velasquez and N. Silva in litt. 2004, as 
cited in BirdLife International 2006). It is possible that less 
disturbed forests that have not been recently censused in west Boyaca 
and Santander may retain populations of the species (BirdLife 
International 2006). In November 1993, 100 km2 of forest at 
Virolin was gazetted as a reserve, the Guanenta-Alto Rio Fonce Flora 
and Fauna Sanctuary (Andrade and Repizzo 1994), which affords the 
species some protection from indiscriminate hunting (BirdLife 
International 2006).
    This species does not represent a monotypic genus. The threat to 
the species is high in magnitude because few individuals are 
interspersed over a very highly-fragmented range. The threats are 
imminent because hunting and forest clearing, which have serious 
impacts on the species, has been ongoing since the 17th Century and 
continues. It receives a priority rank of 2.
Junin rail (Laterallus tuerosi)
    The Junin rail is endemic to the Andean Highlands of central Peru 
along the shores of Lago de Junin (BirdLife International 2006). It is 
known from two sites on the southwest shore of the lake, but may occur 
in other portions of the approximately 150 km2 of marsh 
surrounding the lake. The Junin rail inhabits rush marsh vegetation 
bordering the lake. Details regarding habitat preference are not fully 
known (Fjelds[aring] 1983, as cited in Collar et al. 1992); however, 
the rail has been observed in mosaics of Juncus andecolus, mosses, and 
low herbs in open marsh landscapes (Fjelds[aring] 1983, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2006). This species is classified as Endangered 
by the IUCN because it has a very small range of marshland around a 
single lake where habitat quality is declining (IUCN 2006). The 
population trend is decreasing and the current population estimate for 
this species is 1,000-2,499 birds (BirdLife International 2006). Since 
1955, Lago de Junin has been affected by pollution and human-induced 
water level changes, which may be adversely affecting the fringe 
vegetation (J. Fjelds[aring] 1987 personal communication, as cited in 
Collar et al. 1992). Reed marsh habitat has been destroyed due to 
frequent periods of desiccation resulting from drought conditions which 
may be linked to the ENSO, unsustainable water management by Electro 
Peru, and occasional flooding with highly acidic water from the Cerro 
de Pasco mines (J. Fjelds[aring] in litt. to Taylor and van Perlo 1998, 
as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Although the lake is a 
national reserve, mining and dam-building activities persist along the 
lake shore, further altering the Junin rail's habitat.
    The Junin rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces 
threats that are high in magnitude because the species lives along the 
shores of one lake, and is dependent on the declining quality of the 
lake's habitat. The threats are imminent because water level changes 
and managem