Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 44062-44099 [E8-17215]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44062-44099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17215]



[[Page 44061]]

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

Part III





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. 73, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 29, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 44062]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[96000-1671-0000-B6]


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: Notice of review.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice of 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 notice describes our status review of 
50 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2007 Notice of 
Review (72 FR 20184). Based on our current review, we find that 20 
species (see Table 1) continue to warrant listing, but that their 
listing remains precluded by higher-priority listing actions. For 30 
species previously found to be warranted but precluded, the petitioned 
action is now warranted. We will promptly publish listing proposals for 
those 30 species (see Table 1).
    With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting 
additional status information for the 20 taxa that remain warranted but 
precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will consider this 
information in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted 
petition findings for these 20 taxa. 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 110, 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: Mary M. Cogliano, PhD, at the above 
address or by telephone 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail, 
ScientificAuthority@fws.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 notice 
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) of the Act, when we receive a listing 
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, whereby, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act 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, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(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 on a 
petition to list means that listing is warranted, but that the 
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is 
precluded by higher priority listing actions. In making a warranted-but 
precluded finding under the Act, the Service must demonstrate that 
expeditious progress is being made to add and remove species from the 
lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
    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 previously described in the 2007 
Notice of Review (72 FR 20184) and that are currently the subject of 
outstanding petitions.

Previous Notices

    The species discussed in this notice were the result of three 
separate petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(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 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 26464 
and 56 FR 65207, 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. To notify the public on 
these actions, we published petition findings, listing rules, 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 52746); April 25, 
1990 (55 FR 17475); September 28, 1990 (55 FR 39858); November 21, 1991 
(56 FR 58664); December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65207); March 28, 1994 (59 FR 
14496); May 10, 1994 (59 FR 24117); January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899); and 
May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). Our most recent review of petition findings 
was published on April 23, 2007 (72 FR 20184).
    Since our last review of petition findings, we have taken two 
listing actions related to this notice (see Preclusion and Expeditious 
Progress section for additional listing actions that were not related 
to this notice). On

[[Page 44063]]

December 17, 2007, we published a proposed rule to list 6 species of 
foreign Procellariids under the Act (72 FR 71298). We also published a 
final rule on January 16, 2008, to list 6 foreign bird species as 
endangered under the Act (73 FR 3146).

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions

    This notice describes our resubmitted petition findings for 50 
foreign species for which we had previously found proposed listing to 
be warranted but precluded. We have considered all of the new 
information that we have obtained since the previous findings, and we 
have updated the listing priority number (LPN) of each taxon for which 
proposed listing continues to be warranted but precluded, in accordance 
with our Listing Priority Guidance published September 21, 1983 (48 FR 
43098). Such a priority ranking guidance system is required under 
section 4(h)(3) of the Act. Using this guidance, we assign each taxon 
an LPN of 1 to 12, whereby we first categorize based on the magnitude 
of the threat(s) (high versus moderate-to-low), then by the immediacy 
of the threat(s) (imminent versus nonimminent), and finally by 
taxonomic status; the lower the listing priority number, the higher the 
listing priority (i.e., a species with an LPN of 1 would have the 
highest listing priority).
    As a result of our review of 50 foreign species, we find that 
warranted-but-precluded findings remain appropriate for 20 species. We 
emphasize that we are not proposing these species for listing by this 
notice, but we do anticipate developing and publishing proposed listing 
rules for these species in the future, with an objective of making 
expeditious progress in addressing all 20 of these foreign species 
within a reasonable timeframe.
    Also as a result of this review, we find that proposing 30 taxa for 
listing under the Act is warranted. We will promptly publish proposals 
to list these 30 taxa, listed below in taxonomic order: Jun[iacute]n 
flightless grebe (Podiceps taczanowskii), greater adjutant stork 
(Leptoptilos dubius), Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus), 
Brazilian merganser (Mergus octosetaceus), Caucau Guan (Crax alberti), 
blue-billed curassow (Penelope perspicax), Cantabrian capercaillie 
(Tetrao urogallus cantabricus), gorgeted wood-quail (Odontophorus 
strophium), Jun[iacute]n rail (Laterallus tuerosi), Jerdon's Courser 
(Rhinoptilus bitorquatus), slender billed curlew (Numenius 
tenuirostris), Marquesan imperial pigeon (Ducula galeata), salmon-
crested cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis), southeastern rufous-vented 
ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis), Margaretta's hermit 
(Phaethornis malaris margarettae), black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis 
nigrivestis), Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), Esmeraldas woodstar 
(Chaetocerus berlepschi), royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae), white-
browed tit-spinetail (Leptasthenura xenothorax), black-hooded antwren 
(Formicivora erythronotos), fringe-backed fire-eye (Pyriglena atra), 
brown-banded antpitta (Grallaria milleri), Kaempfer's tody-tyrant 
(Hemitriccus kaempferi), ash-breasted tit-tyrant (Anairetes alpinus), 
Peruvian plantcutter (Phytotoma raimondii), St. Lucia forest thrush 
(Cichlherminia herminieri sanctaeluciae), Eiao Polynesian warbler 
(Acrocephalus cafier aquilonis), medium tree-finch (Camarhynchus 
pauper), and cherry-throated tanager (Nemosia rourei).
    Our warranted finding is based on a species' LPN, as well as a 
recent court order. We have found all taxa with LPNs of 2 or 3, as 
reported in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184), to be warranted 
for proposed listing under the Act, because these species face threats 
that are both imminent and high in magnitude. In addition to the LPN 
directing our findings, on January 23, 2008, the United States District 
Court ordered the Service to propose listing rules for five foreign 
bird species, actions which had been previously determined to be 
warranted but precluded: the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), 
Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus), medium tree-finch 
(Camarhynchus pauper), black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis), 
and the St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlherminia herminieri 
sanctaeluciae). Of these five species, only one, the medium tree-finch 
(Camarhynchus pauper), did not have an LPN number of 2 or 3. To comply 
with the court-order, however, we are declaring the medium tree-finch 
to be warranted for proposed listing at this time, in addition to the 
29 species that were reported with LPNs of 2 or 3 in our 2007 Notice of 
Review, for which we have already begun to prepare proposed listing 
rules.
    Based on our review of 50 species, we did not find any taxa to be 
no longer warranted for listing. Table 1 provides a summary of all 
updated determinations of the 50 taxa in our review. Any changes in LPN 
are explained in the species summaries in the text of this notice. Taxa 
in Table 1 of this notice are assigned to two status categories, noted 
in the ``Category'' column at the left side of the table. We identify 
the taxa for which we find that listing is warranted but precluded by a 
``C'' in the category column, referring to these taxa as ``candidates'' 
under the Act. The other category is for those species for which we 
find that proposed listing is warranted, and we designate these taxa 
with a ``P,'' indicating that proposed rules to list these taxa under 
the Act will be published promptly. The column labeled ``Priority'' 
indicates the LPN for all taxa for which proposed listing is warranted 
but precluded. 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 
historic range for the taxon. The avian species in Table 1 are listed 
taxonomically.

Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted

    Below are our 12-month resubmitted petition findings on the 30 taxa 
found by this notice to be warranted for proposed listing under the 
Act.

Birds

Jun[iacute]n Flightless Grebe (Podiceps taczanowskii)
    The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe is endemic to Lake Junon, a large 
lake that covers 35,385 acres (ac) (14,320 hectares (ha)) in the 
central Andes of Peru at 13,386 feet (ft) (4,080 meters (m)) above sea 
level (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Fjelds[aring] 2004; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 
1990; INRENA 1996). Historically, the species was likely distributed 
throughout the lake, but it is now absent from the northwest portion of 
the lake due to contamination from mining wastes (Fjelds[aring] 1981).
    The lake is bordered by extensive reed marshes and reaches a depth 
of 32.8 ft (10 m) at the center. The reed marshes are continuous in 
some areas of the lake shore, but they form a mosaic with stretches of 
open water in other areas. Considerable stretches of the lake are 
shallow, supporting dense growth of stonewort (Chara spp.) (del Hoyo et 
al. 1992). The Jun[iacute]n flightless 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 stands of tall Scirpus 
californicus tatora or bays and channels along the outer edge of the 
reed marshes surrounding the lake (O'Donnel and Fjeds[aring] 1997). The 
Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe feeds predominantly on fish (Orestias 
spp.), which constitute approximately 90 percent of its diet (del Hoyo 
et al. 1992).
    The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe has experienced dramatic 
population

[[Page 44064]]

declines since the early 1960s when there were at least 1,000 
individuals (F. Gill and R.W. Storer, as cited in Fjelds[aring] 2004). 
Prior to the 1960s, the Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe had been 
described as ``extremely abundant on the lake'' (Morrison 1939). 
However, by 1979, the population was estimated to be 250 to 300 birds, 
indicating a rapid and extensive decline (Harris 1981, as cited in 
O'Donnell and Fjelds[aring] 1997). From 1979 through 2004, population 
estimates fluctuated between 50 to 375 birds (J. Fjelds[aring] 2005, as 
cited in Butchart et al. 2006; O'Donnel and Fjelds[aring] 1997). In 
2004, the population estimate was 100 to 300 birds (BirdLife 
International 2007); however, in dry years (e.g., 1983-1987, 1991, 
1994-1997), the population was reduced to 100 birds or fewer (Elton 
2000; Fjelds[aring] 2004). Short-term population increases ranging from 
200 to 300 birds have occurred in years with high rainfall levels 
related to the El Ni[ntilde]o Southern-Oscillation (ENSO) (1997-1998 
and 2001-2002) (T. Valqui and PROFONANPE 2002, as cited in 
Fjelds[aring] 2004). In 2007, the population once more declined due to 
a high-mortality weather event (Hirschfeld 2007).
    The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe is considered ``Critically 
Endangered'' by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of 
Nature) Red List because of the species' rapid decline, highly 
restricted range, and increasing exposure to contaminants produced by 
the mining industry (Birdlife International 2006). Variations in lake 
water levels of up to 23 ft (7 m) at a time are linked to electrical 
power generation by a local hydroelectric power station. These water-
level fluctuations have reduced prey populations, resulting in 
increased food competition with white-tufted grebes (Rollandia 
rolland). Frequent manipulation and drawdowns of the lake's water level 
also prevent foraging, nest building, and breeding in drought years 
(BirdLife International 2007). In addition, contamination from mining 
wastes (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Martin and McNee 1999) has reduced the 
amount of available habitat in the northern section of the lake by 
diminishing or eliminating stands of submerged aquatic vegetation 
(Fjelds[aring] 2004; ParksWatch 2006). Greater concentration of 
contaminants in the lake as a result of droughts (T. Valqui and J. 
Barrio in litt. 1992, as cited in Collar et al. 1992) has coincided 
with mortality of Jun[iacute]n flightless grebes (T. Valqui and J. 
Barrio in litt. 1992, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and is believed 
either to have directly caused the mortalities or to have resulted in 
mortality of the grebes by reducing their prey (Fjelds[aring] 2004). 
Threats to this species and its habitat continue, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Greater Adjutant Stork (Leptoptilos dubius)
    The current range of the greater adjutant stork consists of two 
breeding populations, one in India and the other in Cambodia. Recent 
sighting records of this species from the neighboring countries of 
Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand are presumed to be wandering 
birds from one of the two populations in India or Cambodia (Birdlife 
International 2007).
    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. In India, much of the native habitat has been lost. The 
greater adjutant stork often occurs close to urban areas, feeding in 
and around wetlands in the breeding season, and disperses to feed on 
carcasses and to scavenge at trash dumps, burial grounds, and slaughter 
houses at other times of the year. The natural diet of the greater 
adjutant stork consists primarily of fish, frogs, reptiles, small 
mammals and birds, crustaceans, and carrion (BirdLife International 
2007; Singha and Rahman 2006).
    This species breeds in colonies during the dry season (winter) in 
stands of tall trees near water sources. In India, the breeding sites 
are commonly associated with bamboo forests which provide protection 
from wind (Singha et al. 2002). The greater adjutant stork constructs 
platform nests made of sticks in the upper lateral limbs of large trees 
(Singha et al. 2002). In Cambodia, the greater adjutant stork breeds in 
freshwater flooded forest and disperses to seasonally inundated forest, 
tall wet grasslands, mangroves, and intertidal flats to forage. At the 
Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, it is known to nest only in evergreen 
forests (Clements et al. 2007b). At two breeding sites near the city of 
Guwahati in the State of Assam, the most recent survey data show that 
the number of breeding birds has declined from 247 birds in 2005 to 118 
birds in 2007 (Hindu 2007).
    During the nineteenth 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.'' 
However, during the twentieth century the species experienced a rapid 
decline, and currently the population estimate is 800 to 1,000 birds in 
two very small and highly disjunct breeding populations (BirdLife 
International 2007). The greater adjutant stork is classified as 
``Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International 2007).
    Identified risks to this species include habitat destruction, 
particularly lowland deforestation and the felling of nest trees (Hindu 
2007; Singha et al. 2002; Singha et al. 2006; WCS 2007); habitat 
modification from flooding and hydrological changes brought about by 
Mekong River dam development (Clements et al. 2007b; WCS 2007); direct 
exploitation, such as hunting and egg collection from nesting colonies 
(Clements et al. 2007a); and drainage, agricultural conversion, 
pollution, and over-exploitation of wetlands (BirdLife International 
2007; Clements et al. 2007; Singha et al. 2003). The Assam population 
is also negatively impacted 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 2007). 
Threats to this species and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Andean Flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus)
    The Andean flamingo is the rarest of six flamingo species worldwide 
and one of three endemic to the high Andes of South America (Arengo in 
litt. 2007; Caziani et al. 2007; del Hoyo et al. 1992; Johnson et al. 
1958; Johnson 1967; Line 2004). The Andean flamingo is found in lakes 
in the Andean altiplano (high plains) from southern Peru and 
southwestern Bolivia to northern Chile and northwest Argentina. A small 
section of the population winters in the lowlands of central Argentina, 
mainly at Mar Chiquita Lake (Blake 1977; Bucher 1992; Boyle et al. 
2004; Caziani et al. 2006; Caziani et al. 2007; Fjelds[aring] and 
Krabbe 1990; Hurlbert and Keith 1979; Kahl 1975). There have been 
several documented occurrences of Andean flamingos in Brazil, but it is 
unclear whether the species is accidental or a more frequent visitor 
(Bornschein and Reinert 1996; Sick 1993).
    Andean flamingo habitat consists of plankton-rich, high-elevation, 
shallow lakes and salt flats (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990). The range 
of the species becomes more restricted in the winter as low 
temperatures and aridity seasonally inhibit the suitability of some 
wetlands (Caziani et al. 2007; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002). The 
Andean flamingo feeds in large flocks on diatoms of the genus Surirella 
from the benthic interface in water less than 3 ft (1 m) deep (Hurlbert 
and Chang 1983; Mascitti and Casta[ntilde]era 2006; Mascitti and 
Kravetz 2002).

[[Page 44065]]

    Population assessments for this species vary greatly. In 1967, 
Charles Cordier estimated the number of Andean flamingos to be 250,000 
to 300,000 birds (Johnson 1967). Kahl (1975) reviewed previous 
estimates and noted that Cordier's 1965 and 1968 population estimates 
varied by an order of magnitude (from 50,000 to 500,000) during that 
same time period. By 1986, R. Schlatter estimated the population to be 
fewer than 50,000 individuals, with a declining population trend 
(Johnson 2000). However, the accuracy of these early estimates has 
never been confirmed, making it difficult to establish trends.
    Using a comprehensive sampling design and conducting simultaneous 
surveys at over 200 wetlands in Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, 
Caziani et al. (2007) counted 33,918 Andean flamingos in January 1997; 
27,913 in January 1998; 14,722 in June 1998; and 24,442 in July 2000. 
In the summer of 2005, Caziani et al. (2006) reported 31,617 Andean 
flamingos distributed throughout 25 wetlands, with 50 percent of the 
population located in five wetlands in Chile and Bolivia.
    Long-lived species with slow rates of reproduction, such as the 
Andean flamingo, may appear to have robust populations, but can rapidly 
decline if reproduction does not keep pace with mortality. Andean 
flamingo recruitment was very low from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, 
averaging only 800 chicks per year from 1988 through 1997. Recruitment 
appears to have improved in recent years, with a total of 13,201 Andean 
flamingo chicks hatched from 1997 through 2001 (Caziani et al. 2007), 
and an average of 3,000 chicks per year has fledged since 2000 (Amado 
et al. 2007 as cited in Arengo in litt. 2007). However, in some years 
breeding success is extremely limited; in 1997, only 200 chicks were 
observed to have hatched (Caziani et al. 2007). The reasons for such 
variation appear to be related to annual climatic conditions (Caziani 
et al. 2007). When climatic conditions are favorable, breeding takes 
place, whereas, when climatic conditions are unfavorable breeding is 
abandoned, very limited, or takes place at alternative breeding 
grounds, which tend to be less productive (Bucher et al. 2000).
    The IUCN categorizes the Andean flamingo as ``Vulnerable'' because 
it has undergone a rapid population decline, it is exposed to ongoing 
exploitation and declines in habitat quality, and finally, although 
previous exploitation has decreased, the longevity and slow breeding of 
flamingos suggest that the legacy of past threats may persist through 
future generations (BirdLife International 2007).
    Experts consider the greatest threats to the Andean flamingo to be 
habitat degradation caused by mining, agricultural, and residential/
urban development, and tourism (Arengo in litt. 2007). Mining takes 
place in or near many of the wetlands occupied by the Andean flamingo, 
including successful breeding sites (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional 
Forestal 1996a; Soto 1996; Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000). 
Loss of habitat due to excavations in the lakebed and extraction of 
water are attributed to mining, which also causes extensive degradation 
of water quality. Chemical pollution produced by the mining and 
metallurgical industries and recent petroleum spills are also 
responsible for the degradation of water resources (OAS/UNEP and ALT 
1999, as cited in Rocha 2002). Pollution from mining wastes has been 
reported as a risk factor to flamingos in Argentina (Laredo 1990 as 
cited in Administraci[oacute]n de Parques Nacionales 1994), although it 
was not reported whether the risk was due to direct mortality of 
flamingos or due to a reduction in their food supply. In Chile, where 
Andean flamingo breeding colonies are concentrated and where mineral 
and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation have increased in the last 
two decades, both the number of successful breeding colonies and the 
total production of chicks of Andean Flamingos have declined since the 
1980s (Parada 1992, Rodr[iacute]guez and Contreras 1998, as cited in 
Caziani et al. 2007).
    Water consumption for agriculture and domestic use can cause 
serious declines in water levels at important breeding sites (Messerli 
et al. 1997), and increased tourism is likely to further stress already 
tenuous water budgets as hotels and restaurants are established (RIDES 
2005). Other potential risks to the species include overutilization of 
individuals (Valqui et al. 2000) and eggs (Caziani et al. 2007) as a 
food resource and collection of feathers (Valqui et al. 2000). Threats 
to the Andean flamingo and its habitat continue, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Brazilian Merganser (Mergus octosetaceus)
    The Brazilian merganser is a diving duck that occurred historically 
in riverine habitats throughout southern Brazil, northeastern 
Argentina, and eastern Paraguay (Hughes et al. 2006). The species is 
considered extinct in Mato Grosso do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, 
and Santa Catarina (BirdLife International 2007). 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 2007).
    Currently the species is found in extremely low numbers at six 
highly disjunct localities, of which five are in southeastern Brazil, 
and one is in northeastern Argentina and, possibly, extreme eastern 
Paraguay (BirdLife International 2007; Hughes et al. 2006). The species 
inhabits shallow clear-water streams and rapid rivers, preferably 
surrounded by dense tropical forests, and it is believed to be a highly 
sedentary, monogamous species, presumably maintaining its territory all 
year (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Bruno et al. 2006; Ducks Unlimited 2007; 
Hughes et al. 2006). The Brazilian merganser is a good swimmer and 
diver, and feeds primarily on fish, and occasionally 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, as several highly disjunct populations were 
located in 2002 (BirdLife International 2007; Hughes et al. 2006). 
However, the IUCN categorizes the species as ``Critically Endangered'' 
(BirdLife International 2007). Additionally, the population is 
estimated at between 50 to 249 individuals, and the trend is decreasing 
(BirdLife International 2007).
    Identified risks to the species include habitat loss and 
degradation, fragmentation, and hydrological changes with perturbation 
and pollution of rivers, which are predominately the result of 
deforestation, agriculture, and diamond mining in the Serra da Canastra 
area (Bianchi et al. 2005; Bartmann 1994 and 1996, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2007; Bruno et al. 2006; Collar et al. 1994; Ducks 
Unlimited 2007; Hughes et al. 2006; Lamas and Santos 2004). Each 
breeding pair of Brazilian mergansers requires relatively long segments 
of river--up to ca. 7.5 miles (mi) (12 kilometers (km))--and the 
species is sensitive to human disturbance, including activities 
associated with expanded human presence such as tourism and scientific 
research programs (Braz et al. 2003; Bruno et al. 2006). Dam 
construction has destroyed suitable habitat, especially in Brazil and 
Paraguay (BirdLife International 2007). The species is highly adapted 
to shallow, rapid-flowing riverine conditions and, therefore, cannot 
tolerate the lacustrine (i.e., lake-like) conditions of reservoirs

[[Page 44066]]

that result from dam-building activities within their occupied range 
(Hughes et al. 2006).
    The Brazilian merganser is legally protected in Brazil, and four of 
Brazil's protected areas represent the major sites where the species 
occurs (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Hughes et al. 2006). These sites are 
critical for protecting some of the key remaining subpopulations of the 
Brazilian merganser (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Braz et al. 2003; Bianchi et 
al. 2005; Bruno et al. 2006; BirdLife International 2007). The 
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais 
Renov[aacute]veis (IBAMA) in Brazil has established eight committees to 
develop and monitor conservation strategies for the country's 
``endangered'' species, including the Brazilian merganser (Marinia and 
Garcia 2004). These committees developed an Action Plan for 
Conservation of the Brazilian Merganser, which has recently been 
published by the government of Brazil (Hughes et al. 2006). Despite 
these protections, threats to the Brazilian merganser continue. 
Therefore, we find that proposing this species for listing under the 
Act is warranted.
Cauca Guan (Penelope perspicax)
    The Cauca guan is a medium-sized cracid with a bright red dewlap. 
It is dull brownish-gray, with mainly chestnut rear parts. It has 
whitish-scaled feather edges from head to mantle and breast (BirdLife 
International 2008). The Cauca guan is endemic to the slopes of the 
west and central Andes (Risaralda, Quindio, Valle del Cauca, and Cauca) 
in Colombia (Collar et al. 1992). The historic range is estimated to 
have been approximately 9,614 mi\2\ (24,900 km\2\) (Renjifo 2002). In 
the early part of the twentieth century, the Cauca guan inhabited the 
dry forests of the Cauca, Dagua, and Pat[iacute]a Valleys (Renjifo 
2002). Today, most of the dry forests have been eliminated or highly 
fragmented, such that continuous forest exists only above 6,562 ft 
(2,000 m) (Renjifo 2002). At the beginning of the twentieth century 
through the 1950s, the species was considered common (Renjifo 2002; 
BirdLife International 2007). Between the 1970s and 1980s, there was 
extensive deforestation in the Cauca Valley, and the species went 
unobserved during this time, leading researchers to suspect that the 
Cauca guan was either extinct or on the verge of extinction (Brooks and 
Strahl 2000; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Hilty 1985; Hilty and Brown 1986). 
The species was rediscovered in 1987 (Renjifo 2002). In the late 1990s, 
Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park was considered the stronghold of the 
species (BirdLife International 2007). However, the species has not 
been observed again in that location since 1995 (Wege and Long 1995).
    Cauca guan populations are characterized as small, containing only 
tens of individuals or, in rare instances, hundreds (Renjifo 2002). 
BirdLife International (2007) reported that the largest subpopulation 
contained an estimated 50 to 249 individuals; however, they did not 
specify to which population this refers, and these figures are not 
found in any other literature regarding population surveys of the Cauca 
guan. Kattan et al. (2006) conducted the only two population surveys in 
2000 and 2001 (Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006). They estimated population 
densities at two locations--Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna 
Sanctuary (Risaralda) and Reserva Forestal de Yotoco (Valle de Cauca)--
to be between 144 and 264 individuals and 35 to 61 individuals, 
respectively (Kattan et al. 2006). Kattan et al. (2006) examined 10 
additional localities, based on locality data reported by Renjifo 
(2002). Visual confirmations were made at only 2 of the 10 localities, 
and auditory confirmations were made at 5 of the 10 localities (Kattan 
et al. 2006). In 2006, Kattan (in litt., as cited in Mu[ntilde]oz et 
al. 2006) estimated the global population to be between 196 and 342 
individuals. The IUCN categorizes the species as ``Endangered'' due to 
its small, contracted range, composed of widely fragmented patches of 
habitat (BirdLife International 2007) and considers the overall 
population to be in decline (BirdLife International 2007; Kattan 2004; 
Renjifo 2002). The Cauca guan is listed as ``Endangered'' under 
Colombian law, which prohibits commercial and sport hunting of the 
species (ECOLEX 2007). The level of enforcement is uncertain, however, 
despite this protection. Poaching continues to be a problem for the 
Cauca guan and may play a role in the possible local extirpation of the 
species from at least two protected areas (Collar et al. 1992; del Hoyo 
et al. 1994; Strahl et al. 1995).
    Extensive habitat destruction and fragmentation since the 1950s 
have resulted in an estimated 95 percent range reduction of this 
species (Chapman 1917; Collar et al. 1992; Kattan et al. 2006; Renjifo 
2002; Rios et al. 2006). As a result, although it prefers mature, 
tropical, humid forests, the Cauca guan exists primarily in fragmented 
and isolated secondary forest remnants, forest edges, and in 
plantations of the nonnative Chinese ash trees (Fraxinus chinensis) 
that are located within 0.62 mi (1 km) of primary forest (Renjifo 2002; 
Kattan et al. 2006; Rios et al. 2006). Its current range is estimated 
to be less than 290 mi\2\ (750 km\2\), of which only 216 mi\2\ (560 
km\2\) is considered suitable habitat (BirdLife International 2007; 
Kattan et al. 2006; Rios et al. 2006). It is estimated that more than 
30 percent of this loss of habitat has occurred within the species' 
last 3 generations (30 years) (Renjifo 2002), and recent studies 
indicate that the rate of habitat destruction is accelerating (Butler 
2006; FAO 2003).
    Cauca guans, the largest birds in their area of distribution, are 
considered among those species most rapidly depleted by hunting 
(Redford 1992; Renjifo 2002). It serves as a major source of 
subsistence protein for indigenous people (Brooks and Strahl 2000), 
although hunting by local residents is illegal (del Hoyo et al. 1994; 
Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006; Renjifo 2002; Rios et al. 2006). Threats to 
the Cauca guan and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing 
this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Blue-Billed Curassow (Crax alberti)
    The blue-billed curassow is a large, mainly black, terrestrial 
cracid. The species historically occurred in northern Colombia, from 
the base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, west to the Sin[uacute] 
valley, through the R[iacute]o Magdalena (BirdLife International 2007; 
Cuervo and Salaman 1999; del Hoyo et al. 1994). The species' historic 
range encompassed an approximate area of 41,197 mi\2\ (106,700 km\2\) 
(Cuervo 2002). There were no confirmed observations of blue-billed 
curassows between 1978 and 1997 (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001), and 
surveys conducted in 1998 failed to locate any males (BirdLife 
International 2007), prompting researchers to believe the species to be 
extinct in the wild (del Hoyo et al. 1994). However, a series of 
observations reported in 1993 were later confirmed (Cuervo 2002).
    The current range of the blue-billed curassow is estimated to be 
807 mi\2\ (2,090 km\2\) (BirdLife International 2007) of fragmented, 
disjunct, and isolated tropical, moist, and humid lowlands and 
premontane forested foothills in the Rio Magdalena and lower Cauca 
Valleys of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Mountains, where it feeds 
on fruit, shoots, invertebrates, and possibly carrion. The species is 
more commonly found below 1,968 ft (600 m) (del Hoyo et al. 1994), but 
can be found at elevations up to 3,937 ft (1,200 m) (Collar et al. 
1992; Cuervo and Salaman 1999; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Donegan and 
Huertas 2005; Salaman et al. 2001).

[[Page 44067]]

    In 1993, sightings were reported in the northern Departments of 
C[oacute]rdoba (at La Terretera, near Alto Sin[uacute]) and 
Bol[iacute]var (in the Serran[iacute]a de San Jacinto) (Williams in 
litt., as cited in BirdLife International 2007). Additional 
observations were made in the northernmost Department of La Guajira in 
2003 (in the Valle de San Salvador Valley) (Strewe and Navarro 2003). 
More recently, individuals have been observed in the tropical forests 
of the more central Departments of Antioqu[iacute]a, and Santander and 
Boyac[aacute] Departments, and in the southeastern Department of Cauca 
(BirdLife International 2007; Cuervo 2002; Donegan and Huertas 2005; 
Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006). Experts 
consider the most important refugia for this species to be: (1) 
Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas (Antioqu[iacute]a); (2) Paramillo National 
Park (Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba Departments); (3) Bajo Cauca-
Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve (Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba 
Departments); and (4) Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas Bird Reserve 
(Santander and Boyac[aacute] Departments) (BirdLife International 2007; 
Cuervo 2002).
    The blue-billed curassow is categorized as ``Critically 
Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International 2007) and is 
considered a ``Critically Endangered'' species under Colombian law, 
pursuant to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of the Law 99 of 1993, as 
outlined in Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (ECOLEX 2007b). The blue-billed 
curassow is identified as an immediate conservation priority by the 
Cracid Specialist Group (Brooks and Strahl 2000). There is little 
information on population numbers for the various reported localities. 
In 2003, the population at Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas 
(Boyac[aacute] Department) was estimated to be between 250 and 1,000 
birds. The only other information on the subpopulation level is a 
report from Strewe and Navarro (2003), based on field studies conducted 
between 2000 and 2001, that hunting had nearly extirpated the blue-
billed curassow from a site in San Salvador. In 1994, the IUCN 
estimated the blue-billed curassow population at between 1,000 and 
2,499 individuals (BirdLife International 2007). In 2001, Brooks and 
Gonzalez-Garcia (2001) estimated the total population to be much less 
than 2,000 individuals. In 2002, it was estimated that the species had 
lost 88 percent of its habitat and half of its population within the 
species' previous 3 generations (30 years) (Cuervo 2002).
    Rapid deforestation and habitat loss throughout the lowland forests 
across northern Colombia over the past 100 years has extirpated the 
blue-billed curassow from a large portion of its previous range and 
continues to impact remaining populations (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 
2001; Collar et al. 1992; Cuervo and Salaman 1999). Additionally, oil 
extraction, gold mining, government defoliation of illegal drug crops, 
and increased human encroachment put the blue-billed curassow at risk 
(BirdLife International 2007). Blue-billed curassows are hunted by 
indigenous people and local residents for sustenance, sport, trade, and 
entertainment (Brooks 2006; Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001; Brooks and 
Strahl 2000; Cuervo and Salaman 1999), involving the species at all 
life stages, with eggs and chicks collected in some areas for sale at 
local markets or for domestic use (Brooks 2006; Cuervo 2002). Threats 
to the blue-billed curassow and its habitat are ongoing, and we find 
that proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Cantabrian Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus)
    The Cantabrian capercaillie is a subspecies of the western 
capercaillie (T. ugogallus). Currently it is restricted to the 
Cantabrian Mountains in northwest Spain. This grouse's range is 
separated by the Pyrenees Mountains from its nearest neighboring 
capercaillie subspecies (T. u. aquitanus) by a distance of more than 
186 mi (300 km) (Quevedo et al. 2006).
    The Cantabrian capercaillie occurs in mature beech forests (Fagus 
sylvatica) and mixed beech and oak forests (Quercus robur, Q. petraea, 
and Q. pyrenaica) at elevations ranging from 2,625 to 5,900 ft (800 to 
1,800 m). The Cantabrian capercaillie also inhabits other microhabitat 
types such as broom (Genista spp.), meadow, and heath (Erica spp.) 
selectively throughout the year (Quevedo et al. 2006). Bilberry 
(Vaccinium myrtillus) is an important component of its diet, and it 
also feeds on beech buds, catkins of birch (Betrula alba), and holly 
leaves (Ilex aquifolium) (Rodriguez and Obeso 2000, as cited in Pollo 
et al. 2005).
    In 2004, at the species level, the western capercaillie (Tetrao 
urogallus) was assessed by the IUCN as a species of ``Least Concern'' 
(BirdLife International 2004a). However, the IUCN Species Survival 
Commission's Grouse Specialist Group has noted that the subspecies 
qualifies to be listed as ``Endangered'' according to the IUCN Red List 
criteria (Storch 2000). In the year 1998-1999, it was estimated there 
were 1,900 to 2,000 pairs and that the subspecies was in decline 
(BirdLife International 2004b). This subspecies is currently classified 
as ``Vulnerable'' in Spain, which affords it protection from hunting. 
Although hunting the capercaillie is prohibited in Spain, poaching 
still occurs. It is unknown what the incidence of poaching is or what 
impact it has on the subspecies (Storch 2000, 2007).
    Habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation influence the 
population dynamics of the Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its range 
(Storch 2000, 2007). This subspecies' historic range has declined by 
more than 50 percent (Quevedo et al. 2006). The current range is 
severely fragmented, with 22 percent in low forest habitat, and most of 
the remaining suitable habitat is in small patches of less than 25 ac 
(10 ha) (Garcia et al. 2005). Research conducted on other subspecies of 
capercaillie indicates that the size of forest patches is correlated to 
the number of males that gather in leks (courtship grounds) to display 
and that below a certain forest patch size, leks are abandoned (Quevedo 
et al. 2006).
    Patches of good quality habitat are scarce and discontinuous, 
particularly in the central portions of the species' range (Quevedo et 
al. 2006), and leks in the smaller forest patches have been abandoned 
during the last few decades. The leks that remain are now located 
farther from forest edges than those that were occupied in the 1980s 
(Quevedo et al. 2006). Recent studies indicate that habitat 
fragmentation may have a greater effect on this subspecies than 
previously recognized (Quevedo et al 2005; Vandermeer and Carvajal 
2001), and if further habitat fragmentation occurs, the Cantabrian 
capercaillie population could end up in a few isolated subpopulations 
too small to ensure the subspecies' long-term survival (Grimm and 
Storch 2000).
    Forest silviculture practices affect both the quantity, as well as 
the quality, of suitable habitat for the Cantabrian capercaillie. 
Forest structure plays an important role in determining habitat 
suitability and occupancy for the subspecies. Quevedo et al. (2006) 
found that open forest structure with well-distributed bilberry shrubs, 
an important component of the species' diet (Rodriguez and Obeso 2000, 
as reported in Pollo et al. 2005), was the preferred habitat type of 
Cantabrian capercaillie.
    Management of forest resources for timber production causes 
significant changes in forest structure, such as species composition, 
tree density and height, forest patch size, and understory vegetation 
(Pollo et al. 2005). Such silviculture practices continue to negatively 
affect the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable habitat

[[Page 44068]]

available for this subspecies, particularly by reducing the 
availability of bilberry food resources and potentially reducing the 
availability of suitably sized breeding grounds.
    Recurring fires have also been implicated as a factor in the 
decline of the subspecies (Lloyd 2007). Threats to the Cantabrian 
capercaillie and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing 
this subspecies for listing under the Act is warranted.
Gorgeted Wood-Quail (Odontophorus strophium)
    The gorgeted wood-quail is endemic to the west slope of the East 
Andes, in the Magdalena Valley (Donegan and Huertas 2005). It is 
currently known only in the central Colombian Department of Santander, 
with less than 10 sightings (del Hoyo et al. 1994; Fjelds and Krabbe 
1990; Hilty and Brown 1986).
    The gorgeted wood-quail prefers montane temperate and humid 
subtropical forests dominated by roble (Tabebuia rosea), and secondary 
growth forests in proximity to mature forests (Sarria and 
[Aacute]lvarez 2002), especially those dominated by oak (Quercus 
humboldtii). The species is most often found at elevations between 
5,741 and 6,726 ft (1,750 and 2,050 m) (BirdLife International 2007; 
Donegan et al. 2003; Donegan and Huertas 2005; Sarria and 
[Aacute]lvarez 2002; Turner 2006; Wege and Long 1995). The gorgeted 
wood-quail is primarily terrestrial (Fuller et al. 2000), living on the 
forest floor and feeding on fruit, seeds, and arthropods (Collar et al. 
1992; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Fuller et al. 2000). It 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 2007).
    The species is classified as ``Critically Endangered'' by the IUCN 
Red List due to its small and highly fragmented range, with recent 
population records from only two areas. Logging and hunting are 
believed to be causing some declines in range and population size 
(BirdLife International 2004). The population is estimated at between 
250 and 999 individuals (BirdLife International 2007).
    Since the seventeenth century, the west slope of the East Andes has 
been extensively logged and converted to agriculture (Stiles et al. 
1999). Forest habitat loss below 8,200 ft (2,500 m) has been almost 
complete (Stattersfield et al. 1998), with habitat reduced in many 
areas to highly fragmented relict patches on steep slopes and along 
streams (Stiles et al. 1999). In the early part of the twentieth 
century, the gorgeted wood-quail was known only in the oak forests in 
the Department of Cundinamarca. However, extensive deforestation and 
habitat conversion for agricultural use nearly denuded all the oak 
forests in Cundinamarca below 8,202 ft (2,500 m) (BirdLife 
International 2007; Hilty and Brown 1986). Subsequent surveys have not 
located the species in this area since 1954 (Collar et al. 1992; Fuller 
et al. 2000; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002), and researchers consider 
the gorgeted wood-quail to be locally extirpated from Cundinamarca 
(BirdLife International 2007; Fuller et al. 2000; Sarria and 
[Aacute]lvarez 2002; Wege and Long 1995). The species has recently been 
confirmed to exist in three locations, and its current range is between 
4 mi \2\ (10 km \2\) (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002) and 10.42 mi \2\ 
(27 km \2\) (BirdLife International 2007). These localities are in two 
disjunct areas within the Department of Santander. Serranoa de los 
Yarguoes is in northern Santander and the other two localities are 
adjacent to each other in southern Santander (Donegan and Huertas 
2005). The species has lost 92 percent of its former habitat (Sarria 
and [Aacute]lvarez 2002), and habitat loss through logging and land 
conversion to agricultural purposes continues throughout its range 
(BirdLife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1994; 
Donegan et al. 2003; Hilty and Brown 1986; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 
2002; Stattersfield et al. 1998). Threats to the gorgeted wood-quail 
and its habitat continue, and we find that proposing this species for 
listing under the Act is warranted.
Jun[iacute]n Rail (Laterallus tuerosi)
    The Jun[iacute]n rail is endemic to Lake Jun[iacute]n. The lake is 
large, covering 35,385 ac (14,320 ha) in the central Andes of Peru at 
13,386 ft (4,080 m) above sea level (BirdLife International 2000; 
Fjelds[aring] 1983). The Jun[iacute]n rail is known from only two sites 
on the southwest lakeshore, near Ondores and Pari, but it may occur in 
other portions of the 37,066 ac (15,000 ha) of marshlands surrounding 
Lake Jun[iacute]n (Fjelds[aring] 1983).
    The species' habitat preferences are not fully understood, but it 
is known to inhabit marshy vegetation located around the margins of 
Lake Jun[iacute]n. The Jun[iacute]n rail has been observed in the 
interior of large stands of Juncus spp. on the southeast shoreline of 
the lake and in mosaics of open marshes, in association with Juncus 
spp., mosses, and low herbs (Fjelds[aring] 1983).
    Rigorous population estimates for the Jun[iacute]n rail have not 
been made. In 1983, however, the species was believed to be common 
based on anecdotal reports of two local fishermen (Fjelds[aring] 1983). 
Based on these accounts, BirdLife International (2000, 2007) estimated 
that the population might range between 1,000 and 2,500 individuals. 
BirdLife International, however, acknowledged that the data quality is 
poor and that the actual population size might be much smaller 
(BirdLife International 2000).
    The Jun[iacute]n rail is categorized as ``Endangered'' by the IUCN 
because its range is limited to the shores of a single lake where 
habitat quality is declining, and the population is very small and 
believed to be declining (BirdLife International 2007). The 
Jun[iacute]n rail is considered an ``Endangered'' species by the 
Peruvian government under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG, which 
prohibits hunting, taking, transport, or trade of this species, except 
as permitted by regulation.
    One of the key factors contributing to the species' decline is 
adverse habitat modification. Dam operations cause seasonal lake-level 
fluctuations of up to 6 ft (2 m) (Martin and McNee 1999). Because few 
reed-beds are now permanently inundated, tall reeds (Scirpus tatora) 
have virtually disappeared from the lake's shoreline (O'Donnel and 
Fjelds[aring] 1997). Long-term drawdowns of water levels lead to 
desiccation of the Juncus spp. marshes, and it has been suggested that 
the Jun[iacute]n rail may be particularly susceptible to such effects 
because they tend to occupy dry or shallow-water lakeshore sites 
(Eddleman et al. 1988).
    Marsh desiccation also provides easy access to the shore for large 
livestock herds (primarily sheep, but also cattle, and to a lesser 
extent llamas and alpacas) to move into the wetlands surrounding the 
lake, resulting in overgrazing and soil compaction (INRENA 2000, as 
cited in ParksWatch 2006). Given the large number of livestock that are 
currently located around the lake (approximately 60,000 to 70,000), 
habitat destruction and trampling of nests and fledglings negatively 
impact this species (BirdLife International 2000; BirdLife 
International 2007; Collar et al. 1992).
    Another threat to the Jun[iacute]n rail's habitat is the 
contamination of Lake Jun[iacute]n from mining wastes. There are a 
number of mining operations (lead, copper, and zinc) to the north of 
Lake Jun[iacute]n, and wastewater from these mines runs untreated into 
the lake via the Rio San Juan (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Martin and McNee 
1999). The Rio San Juan (the primary input of water into the Lake) 
exhibits elevated levels of several trace metals in comparison to local 
background values (Martin and McNee 1999). In addition, concentrations 
of

[[Page 44069]]

fertilizer by-products such as ammonium and nitrate have been found to 
be elevated (Martin and McNee 1999), and agricultural insecticides, 
which wash into the lake from the surrounding fields and through 
drainage systems from villages around the lake, have been detected 
(ParksWatch 2006). The contaminant load increases substantially during 
the wet season when agricultural run-off is greater (Martin and McNee 
1999).
    Cattail (Typha spp.) harvesting and burning also destroy the 
Jun[iacute]n rail's habitat (ParksWatch 2006), resulting in long-term 
impacts to the species' habitat (Eddleman et al. 1988). Cattails are 
harvested for handicrafts and livestock forage and are periodically 
burned to encourage shoot renewal (ParksWatch 2006). Threats to the 
Jun[iacute]n rail and its habitat continue, and we find that proposing 
this species under the Act is warranted.
Jerdon's Courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus)
    The Jerdon's courser is endemic to the Eastern Ghats of the states 
of Andhra Pradesh and extreme southern Madhya Pradesh in India. The 
species was thought to be extinct for approximately 86 years until 
1986, when it was rediscovered in Lankamalai. It has since been located 
at six additional sites in the vicinity of the Velikonda and Palakonda 
hills, in the southern State of Andhra Pradesh (Birdlife International 
2006). It prefers sparse, thorny areas dominated by Acacia spp., 
Zizyphus spp., and Carissa spp. (BirdLife International 2006). The 
Jerdon's courser may also inhabit scrub forest consisting of Cassia 
spp., Hardwickia spp., Dalbergia spp., Butea spp., and Anogeissus spp., 
interspersed with patches of bare ground, in gently undulating rocky 
foothills (BirdLife International 2006).
    This species' population is estimated at 50 to 249 birds (Birdlife 
International 2006). Very few individuals have been recorded thus far, 
mainly due to the species' nocturnal and secretive habits (BirdLife 
International 2006). Negative impacts to the species include 
exploitation of the scrub-forest, livestock grazing, disturbance by 
humans and livestock (BirdLife International 2006), and construction of 
canals (Jegananthen et al. 2005). Jeganathan et al. (2004) found that 
Jerdon's courser occurrence is strongly correlated with the density of 
bushes and trees, which is, in turn, negatively affected by mismanaged 
livestock grazing, woodcutting, and land clearing for agricultural 
production. The State of Andhra Pradesh has experienced intensive 
agricultural growth in recent years (Senapathi et al. 2006). From 1991 
through 2000, a net loss of 14.6 percent of scrub habitat in the 
Cuddapah District and parts of the Nellore District in Andhra Pradesh 
took place, while the amount of land occupied by agricultural fields 
more than doubled during the same time period (Senapathi et al. 2006). 
The main cause for the loss of scrub habitat was conversion to 
agriculture, while gains in scrub habitat came largely at the expense 
of native deciduous forest due to mechanical clearing and fire 
(Jeganathan et al. 2004b). Researchers believe that suitable habitat 
conditions for the Jerdon's courser could be created through the use of 
a combination of well-managed animal grazing and woodcutting to 
maintain optimal height, density, and species composition of shrubs for 
the species. However, over-utilization of scrub habitat could also 
result in local courser extirpations (Jeganathan et al. 2004a; 
Senapathi et al. 2006). If not well-managed, increased levels of 
woodcutting and livestock grazing, as well as mechanical clearing of 
scrub habitat to create pasture, orchards, and agricultural fields, are 
all land uses likely to create habitat that is low in quality, highly-
fragmented, and unsuitable for use by the Jerdon's courser. From 1991 
through 2000, the patch size of scrub habitat declined significantly 
(Senapathi et al. 2006). Continuing encroachment of human settlement 
into areas currently occupied by the courser is likely to result in 
increased livestock grazing pressure and additional land conversion for 
agricultural purposes.
    The Jerdon's courser is categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' on 
the IUCN Red List because of its small, declining population and 
habitat that is being reduced by livestock overgrazing and disturbance 
(BirdLife International 2004). The species is also listed under 
Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Hunting of 
Schedule I-listed species is strictly prohibited. The Indian Wildlife 
Protection Act provides for the designation and management of 
Sanctuaries and National Parks for the purposes of protecting, 
propagating, or developing wildlife or its environment. Two areas have 
been established to protect the habitat of the Jerdon's courser. 
Suitable habitat, however, outside of these Protected Areas continues 
to be lost through its conversion for development and agriculture. 
Threats to Jerdon's courser and its habitat continue, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Slender-Billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)
    The slender-billed curlew migrates along a west-southwest route 
from Siberia through central and eastern Europe (predominantly Russia, 
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungrary, Romania, and Yugoslavia) to 
southern Europe (Greece, Italy, and Turkey) and North Africa (Algeria, 
Morocco, and Tunisia). The species has only been confirmed breeding 
near Tara, Siberia, Russia, between 1909 and 1925, and the only known 
nests were found on the northern limit of the forest-steppe habitat 
(Birdlife International 2006). During seasonal migrations and the 
winter months, the slender-billed curlew utilizes a wide variety of 
habitats, including coastal marshes, steppe grassland, fish ponds, 
saltpans, brackish lagoons, tidal mudflats, semi-desert, brackish 
wetlands, and sandy farmlands in close proximity to lagoons (Hirschfeld 
2007).
    From the second half of the nineteenth century until 1920, the 
slender-billed curlew was considered an abundant bird (Chandrinos 
2000). Flocks of more than 100 slender-billed curlews were recorded in 
Morocco as late as 1970. However, population declines have been 
observed since 1980 (BirdLife International 2006). BirdLife 
International (2008) reports that in 1994 the population estimate was 
50-270 individuals, but the lack of recent confirmed sightings, despite 
extensive survey efforts, indicates that the population may now include 
less than 50 birds. Surveys were conducted between 1987 and 2000 in 
various sections of the species' historic range and covered hundreds of 
miles (and the corresponding number of kilometers) of habitat. Not a 
single slender-billed curlew, however, was located during these efforts 
(CMS 2004; Gretton et al. 2002).
    The slender-billed curlew is classified as ``Critically 
Endangered'' by the IUCN, because the species has an extremely small 
population size, and the number of birds recorded annually continues to 
fall, likely representing a continuing population decline (BirdLife 
International 2004). The species is listed under Appendix I of CITES; 
commercial trade of this species is strictly prohibited (UNEP-WCMC 
2008).
    The slender-billed curlew is also listed under Appendices I and II 
of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) (BirdLife International 
2004). In an effort to safeguard the slender-billed curlew, a 
Memorandum of

[[Page 44070]]

Understanding (MOU) was developed under CMS auspices and became 
effective on September 10, 1994. The MOU area covers 30 Range States in 
Southern and Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. As of 
December 31, 2000, the MOU had been signed by 18 Range States and three 
co-operating organizations. An International Action Plan for the 
Conservation of the slender-billed Curlew has been prepared by BirdLife 
International (Council of Europe, 1996), and approved by the European 
Commission and endorsed by the Fifth Meeting of the CMS. Conservation 
priorities include effective legal protection for the slender-billed 
curlew and its look-alikes, locating its breeding grounds as well as 
key wintering and passage sites, applying appropriate protection and 
management of its habitat, and increasing the awareness of politicians 
in the affected countries. The CMS website includes an update on the 
progress being made under the slender-billed curlew MOU. It states that 
conservation activities have already been undertaken or are underway in 
Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Russian Federation, Ukraine 
and Iran. However, no details of these activities are provided.
    The slender-billed curlew is listed on Annex I of the European 
Union Wild Bird Directive (BirdLife International 2004), which provides 
a framework for the conservation and management of wild birds in 
Europe. Although this Directive sets objectives for activities intended 
to protect wild birds, the legal implementation and achievement of 
these objectives are at the discretion of each Member State (DEFRA 
2008). This species is also listed on Appendix II of the Bern 
Convention (COE 1979), ``a binding international legal instrument in 
the field of nature conservation, which covers the whole of the natural 
heritage of the European continent and extends to some States of 
Africa'' (COE n.d.). This agreement, however, would not afford 
protections to the species' breeding habitats in the forest-steppe of 
Russia.
    Historically, hunting levels have been high along the species' 
entire migratory flyway, especially Russia, and are believed to be the 
primary factor for the species' previous decline (BirdLife 
International 2006). Threats to the species on its current breeding 
grounds are largely unknown due to the lack of information on its 
nesting localities. However, modification of the forest-steppe habitat 
within the species' breeding range suggests that the species may be at 
risk due to loss of its breeding habitat. The forest-steppe has been 
partially cultivated, and much of the steppe has been developed for 
intensive agricultural purposes (Gretton 1996).
    Progress is underway in some range nations to conserve habitat, 
prevent hunter misidentification of the species, and increase awareness 
about the species' precarious status; however, range nations have had 
differing levels of success in the implementation of needed 
protections. Threats to the slender-billed curlew and its habitat are