Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 40540-40560 [E9-18842]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40540-40560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18842]



[[Page 40540]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0057] [90100 16641FLA-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 
by higher priority listing actions, 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 
20 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2008 Notice of 
Review. 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.
    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 information on these resubmitted petition 
findings at any time.

ADDRESSES: This notice is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov, and https://endangered.fws.gov/. Supporting 
information used in preparing this notice is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Branch 
of Listing, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203. 
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions 
concerning this notice to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Listing, Endangered 
Species Program, (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 703-358-2171; or by 
facsimile at 703-358-1735). Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

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) of the Act. We implement this mechanism 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. The second 
mechanism for considering species for listing is for the public to 
petition to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The species covered by this notice were 
assessed through the petition process.
    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 foreign species previously described in the 2008 Notice of 
Review (73 FR 44062; July 29, 2008) 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; May 12, 1981, and 56 FR 65207; December 16, 1991, respectively). 
On January 10, 1994, we received a petition to list 7 butterfly species 
as threatened or endangered (59 FR 24117; May 10, 1994).
    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 the following dates:

Date                                        FR Citation
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
May 21, 2004..............................  69 FR 29354
April 23, 2007............................  72 FR 20184
 

    Our most recent review of petition findings was published on July 
29, 2008 (73 FR 44062).

[[Page 40541]]

    Since our last review of petition findings in July 2008, we have 
taken four listing actions related to species previously included in 
this notice (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress section for 
additional listing actions that were not related to this notice). On 
December 8, 2008, we published two proposed rules to list species under 
the Act: One to list the medium tree finch (73 FR 74434), and the other 
to list the black-breasted puffleg (73 FR 74427). On December 24, 2008, 
we published a proposed rule to list the Andean flamingo, the Chilean 
woodstar, and the St. Lucia forest thrush (73 FR 79226). On July 7, 
2009, we published a proposed rule to list the blue-billed curassow, 
the brown-banded antpitta, the Cauca guan, the gorgeted wood-quail, and 
the Esmeraldas woodstar (74 FR 32307).

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions

    This notice describes our resubmitted petition findings for 20 
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 reviewed 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, we find that warranted-but-precluded 
findings remain appropriate for these 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.
    Table 1 (see end of this notice) provides a summary of all updated 
determinations of the 20 taxa in our review. All taxa in Table 1 of 
this notice are ones for which we find that listing is warranted but 
precluded and are referred to as ``candidates'' under the Act. The 
column labeled ``Priority'' indicates the LPN. 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 but Precluded

    We have found that, for the 20 taxa discussed below, publication of 
proposed listing rules will continue to be precluded over the next year 
due to the need to complete pending, higher priority listing actions. 
We will continue to monitor the status of these species as new 
information becomes available (see Monitoring, below). 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. In the following section, we describe the status of 
and threats to the individual species.

Birds

Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi unicornis)
    The southern helmeted curassow is one of the least frequently 
encountered South American bird species because of the inaccessibility 
of its preferred habitat and its apparent intolerance of human 
disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998). The southern helmeted curassow 
is known only from two distinct populations in central Bolivia and 
central Peru (BirdLife International 2009a).
    The Bolivian population of the nominate species (Pauxi unicornis 
unicornis) remained unknown to science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). 
Subsequently, it has been observed in the adjacent Ambor[oacute] and 
Carrasco National Parks (Brooks 2006; Herzog and Kessler 1998), and has 
recently been found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National 
Park (TIPNIS), along the western edge of the Mosetenes Mountains, 
Cochabamba, Bolivia. Recent surveys have located few southern helmeted 
curassows across the northern boundary of Carrasco National Park, where 
it was historically found (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009a). In Ambor[oacute] National Park, the southern 
helmeted curassow is regularly sighted on the upper Rio Saguayo (Wege 
and Long 1995). Extensive surveys over the last several years have 
failed to locate the species in Madidi National Park, La Paz (Hennessey 
2004a as cited in BirdLife International 2009a8; Maccormack in litt. 
2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2008; MacLeod in litt. 2003 as 
cited in BirdLife International 2009a), on the eastern edge of the 
Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba, and in the Rio Tambopata area near 
the Bolivia/Peru border.
    In Peru, a subpopulation (Pauxi unicornis koepckeae) is known only 
from the Sira Mountains in Huanuco (Tobias and del Hoyo 2006). In 2005, 
a team from the Armonia Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) saw one and 
heard three southern helmeted curassow in the Sira's: the first 
sighting of the distinctive endemic Peruvian race since 1969 (BirdLife 
International 2008). Limited reports suggest that the southern helmeted 
curassow is rare here (MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2008; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009a; Mee et al. 2002), and evidence suggests the 
population is declining (Gasta[ntilde]aga and Hennessey 2005 as cited 
in BirdLife International 2009a). The southern helmeted curassow occurs 
at densities up to 20 individuals/square kilometer (km\2\); however, in 
recent surveys only 1 or 2 individuals have been observed (Macleod 2007 
as cited in BirdLife International 2008).
    According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources (IUCN) /Species Survival Commission (SSC) Cracid 
Specialist Group the southern helmeted curassow is critically 
endangered and should be given immediate conservation attention (Brooks 
and Strahl 2000).
    The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane 
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450 to 1,200 meters (m) 
(Cordier 1971; Herzog and Kessler 1998). It prefers eating nuts of the 
almendrillo tree (Byrsonima wadsworthii (Cordier 1971)), but also 
consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and insects 
(BirdLife International 2008). Clutch size of the southern helmeted 
curassow is probably two, as in other Cracidae. However, the only nest 
found contained only one egg (Banks 1998; Cox et al. 1997; Renjifo and 
Renjifo 1997 as cited in BirdLife International 2008).
    The southern helmeted curassow was previously classified as 
``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red List. In 2005, it was uplisted to its 
current status as ``Endangered'' (BirdLife International 2009a; 
BirdLife International 2004). Southern helmeted curassow populations 
are estimated to be declining very rapidly due to

[[Page 40542]]

uncontrolled hunting and habitat destruction; this species has a small 
range and is known only from a few locations, which continue to be 
subject to habitat loss and hunting pressures. The total population of 
mature southern helmeted curassow is estimated to be between 1,000 and 
4,999 individuals (BirdLife International 2009a). The subspecies in 
Peru is estimated to have fewer than 400 individuals (Gasta[ntilde]aga 
in litt. 2007 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a). Estimated 
decline in the overall population over 10 years or 3 generations past 
is 50 to 79 percent. However, the quality of this estimate is poor 
(BirdLife International 2009b). The Rio Leche area in Peru experienced 
a 100 percent population decline in less than 5 years because of 
hunting pressures. Similar human pressures are ongoing throughout the 
species' range. The observed decline likely infers that a 50-percent 
population loss occurred between 1995 and 2005. Unless threats are 
mitigated this trend will probably continue for the next several years 
(Macleod in litt. 2005). Hunting is probably the biggest threat to 
southern helmeted curassow in all parts of its range (Gasta[ntilde]aga 
2006 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a). The species is often 
hunted for meat and its casque, or horn (Collar et al. 1992), which the 
local people use to fashion cigarette-lighters (Cordier 1971). In the 
Ambor[oacute] region of Bolivia, the bird's head is purportedly used in 
folk dances (Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar 1992).
    In Bolivia, forests within the range of the southern helmeted 
curassow are being cleared for crop cultivation by colonists from the 
altiplano (Maillard 2006 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a). 
Rural development, including road building, inhibits its dispersal 
(Fjeldsa in litt. 1999 as cited in BirdLife International 2008; Herzog 
and Kessler 1998). In Peru, in addition to hunting, southern helmeted 
curassow habitat is threatened by subsistence agriculture (MacLeod in 
litt. 2000 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a), forest clearing 
by colonists, illegal logging, mining, and oil exploration (BirdLife 
International 2009a). The southern helmeted curassow is dependent upon 
pristine habitat. Therefore, its presence is critical for determining 
priorities for conservation (Brooks 2006).
    In Bolivia, large parts of southern helmeted curassow habitat are 
ostensibly protected by inclusion in the Amboro and Carrasco National 
Parks and in the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park. 
However, pressures on the species' populations continue (BirdLife 
International 2009a; BirdLife International 2000). In recent years, 
extensive field surveys of southern helmeted curassow habitat have 
resulted in little success in locating the species (Hennessey 2004a; 
MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a; 
Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a; 
MacLeod in litt 2003 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a; Mee et 
al. 2002). The Association Armonia has been attempting to estimate 
southern helmeted curassow population numbers to identify its most 
important populations, and is evaluating human impact on the species' 
natural habitat. In addition, Armonia is carrying out an environmental 
awareness project to inform local people about the threat to southern 
helmeted curassow (BirdLife International 2009a) and is conducting 
training workshops with park guards to help improve chances for its 
survival (Llampa 2007 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a).
    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 ongoing and, 
therefore, imminent. Thus, we have assigned this species a priority 
rank of 8.
Bogota rail (Rallus semiplumbeus)
    The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the 
Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyac[aacute]. 
In Cundinamarca, the Bogota rail has been observed in at least 21 
locations. It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m 
(occasionally as low as 2,100 m) in savanna and p[aacute]ramo marshes 
(BirdLife International 2008; BirdLife International 2007). Bogota rail 
frequent wetland habitats with vegetation-rich shallows that are 
surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles in litt. 1999 as 
cited in BirdLife International 2009). It inhabits the water's edge, in 
flooded pasture and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Salaman in 
litt.1999 as cited in BirdLife International 2009; Fjeldsa 1990 as 
cited in BirdLife International 2009; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990 as cited 
in BirdLife International 2009; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009). Nests have been recorded adjoining shallow water 
in beds of Scirpus and Typha spp. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited in 
BirdLife International 2009). The Bogota rail is omnivorous, consuming 
a diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, insect larvae, worms, 
mollusks, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant material (BirdLife 
International 2009; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009; BirdLife International 2006).
    The Bogota rail is listed as endangered by IUCN primarily because 
its range is very small and is contracting because of widespread 
habitat loss and degradation. Furthermore, available habitat has become 
widely fragmented (BirdLife International 2007). Wetland drainage, 
pollution, and siltation on the Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] plateau have 
resulted in major habitat loss and few suitably vegetated marshes 
remain. All major savanna wetlands are threatened, predominately 
because of draining, but also by agricultural runoff, erosion, dyking, 
eutrophication caused by untreated sewage effluent, insecticides, 
tourism, hunting, burning, reed harvesting, fluctuating water levels, 
and increasing water demand. Additionally, road construction may result 
in colonization and human interference, including introduction of 
exotic species in previously stable wetland environments (Cortes in 
litt. 2007 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). The current 
population is estimated to range between 1,000-2,499 individuals, 
though numbers are expected to decline over the next 10 years or 3 
generations by 10 to 19 percent (BirdLife International 2009). Although 
the Bogota rail population is declining, it is still uncommon to fairly 
common, with a few notable populations, including nearly 400 birds at 
Laguna de Tota, approximately 50 bird territories at Laguna de la 
Herrera, approximately 110 birds at Parque La Florida, and populations 
at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BirdLife International 
2009). Some Bogota rails occur in protected areas such as Chingaza 
National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most savanna 
wetlands are virtually unprotected (BirdLife International 2009).
    The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It is subject 
to threats that are moderate in magnitude and ongoing and, therefore, 
imminent. We have assigned a priority rank of 8 to this species.
Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, previously known as P. mantelli)
    The Takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the 
world's largest extant member of the rail family (del Hoyo et al. 
1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, has been split into P. mantelli 
(extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). BirdLife 
International (2000) incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the 
extant form, while the name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to 
the extinct form.

[[Page 40543]]

Fossils indicate that this bird was once widespread throughout the 
North and South Islands. The Takahe was thought to be extinct by the 
1930s until its rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison Mountains, 
Fjordland (South Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New Zealand 
Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its rediscovery, 
a Takahe Special Area of 193 square miles (mi\2\) (500 km\2\) was set 
aside in Fiordland National Park for the conservation of Takahe 
(Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2009c). Today, the species is present in the 
Murchison and Stuart Mountains and has been introduced to four island 
reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Mantangi, and Maud) (Collar et al. 
1994). The population in the Murchison Mountains is important because 
it is the only mainland population that has the potential for 
sustaining a large, viable population (NZDOC 1997).
    Originally, the species occurred throughout forest and grass 
ecosystems. Today, Takahe occupy alpine grasslands (BirdLife 
International 2007). They feed on tussock grasses during much of the 
year, with snow tussocks (Chionochloa pallens, C. flavescens, and C. 
crassiuscula) being their preferred food (Crouchley 1994). By June, the 
snow cover usually prevents feeding above tree line, and birds move 
into forested valleys in the winter and feed mainly on the rhizome of a 
fern (Hypolepis millefolium). Research by Mills et al. (1980) suggested 
that Takahe require the high-carbohydrate concentrations in the 
rhizomes of the fern to meet the metabolic requirement of 
thermoregulation in the mid-winter, subfreezing temperatures. The 
island populations eat introduced grasses (BirdLife International 
2007). Takahe form pair bonds that persist throughout life and 
generally occupy the same territory throughout life (Reid 1967). Their 
territories are large, and Takahe defend them aggressively against 
other Takahe, which means that they will not form dense colonies even 
in very good habitat. They are long-lived birds, probably between 14 
and 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997) and have a low reproductive 
rate, with clutches consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. Only a few pairs manage 
to consistently rear chicks each year. Although under normal conditions 
this is generally sufficient to maintain the population, populations 
recover slowly from catastrophic events (Crouchley 1994).
    The Takahe is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List because 
it has an extremely small population (BirdLife International 2006). 
When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the population was 
about 260 pairs (del Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson 1997). By the 
1970s, Takahe populations had declined dramatically, and it appeared 
that the species was at risk of extinction. In 1981, the population 
reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. Since then, the population has 
fluctuated between 100 and 180 birds (Crouchley 1994). At first, 
translocated populations increased only slowly, probably due to young 
pair-bonds and the quality of the founding population (Bunin et al. 
1997). In recent years, the total Takahe population has had significant 
growth; in 2004, there was a 13.6 percent increase in the number of 
adult birds, with the number of breeding pairs up 7.9 percent (BirdLife 
International 2005). As of August 2007, birds in the Takahe Special 
Area had increased to 168, and the current national population was 297. 
However, this mainland population was thought to be at carrying 
capacity (Greaves 2007), and Island reserves also appeared to be at 
carrying capacity (NZDOC 2007). Thus, a high priority of the recovery 
program is to establish a second viable mainland population to further 
increase the total population size (Greaves 2007). Overall, population 
numbers are slowly increasing due to intensive management of the island 
reserve populations, but fluctuations in the remnant mainland 
population continue to occur (BirdLife International 2000).
    The main cause of the species' historical decline was competition 
for tussock grasses by grazing red deer (Cervus elaphus), which were 
introduced after the 1940s (Mills and Mark 1977). The red deer 
overgrazed the Takahe's habitat, eliminating nutritious plants and 
preventing some grasses from seeding (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The NZDOC 
has controlled red deer through an intensive hunting program in the 
Murchison Mountains since the 1960s, and now the tussock grasses are 
close to their original condition (BirdLife International 2005).
    Predation by introduced stoats (Mustela erminea) is believed to be 
a current risk to the species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995; Bunin and 
Jamieson 1996; Crouchley 1994). The NZDOC is running a trial stoat 
control program in a portion of the Takahe Special Area to measure the 
effect on Takahe survival and productivity. Initial assessment 
indicates a positive influence (NZDOC 2007). Other potential 
competitors or predators include the introduced brush-tailed possum 
(Trichosurus vulpecula) and the threatened weka (Gallirallus 
australis), a flightless woodhen endemic to New Zealand (BirdLife 
International 2008). In addition, severe weather is a natural limiting 
factor to this species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995). Weather patterns in 
the Murchison Mountains vary from year to year. High chick and adult 
mortality may occur during extraordinarily severe winters, and poor 
breeding may result from severe stormy weather during spring breeding 
season (Crouchley 1994). Research confirms that severity of winter 
conditions adversely affects survivorship of Takahe in the wild, 
particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
    Since 1983, the NZDOC has been involved in managing a captive-
breeding and release program to boost Takahe recovery. Excess eggs from 
wild nests are managed to produce birds suitable for releasing back 
into the wild population in the Murchison Mountains. Some of these 
captive-reared birds have also been used to establish four predator-
free offshore island reserves. Since 1984, these birds have increased 
the total population on islands to about 60 birds (NZDOC 2009a). 
Captive-breeding efforts have increased the rate of survival of chicks 
reaching 1 year of age from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997). However, 
Takahe that have been translocated to the islands have higher rates of 
egg infertility and low hatching success when they breed, contributing 
to the slow increase in the islands' populations. Researchers 
postulated that the difference in vegetation between the native 
mainland grassland tussocks and that found on the islands might be 
affecting reproductive success. After testing nutrients from all 
available food sources, they concluded that there was no effect, and 
advised that a supplementary feeding program for the birds was not 
necessary or recommended (Jamieson 2003). Further research on Takahe 
established on Tiritiri Matangi Island estimated that the island can 
support up to 8 breeding pairs, but suggested that the ability of the 
island to support Takahe is likely to decrease as the grass/shrub 
ecosystem reverts to forest. The researchers concluded that, although 
the four island populations fulfilled their role as an insurance 
against extinction on the mainland at the time of the study, given 
impending habitat changes on the islands, it is unclear whether these 
island populations will continue to be viable in the future without an 
active management plan (Baber and Craig 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). 
Maxwell and Jamieson (1997) studied survival and recruitment of 
captive-reared and wild-reared Takahe on Fiordland. They concluded that 
captive rearing of

[[Page 40544]]

Takahe for release into the wild increases recruitment of juveniles 
into the population.
    There is growing evidence that inbreeding can negatively affect 
small, isolated populations. Jamieson et al. (2006) suggested that 
limiting the potential effects of inbreeding and loss of genetic 
variation should be integral to any management plan for a small, 
isolated, highly inbred island species, such as the Takahe. Failure to 
address these concerns may result in reduced fitness potential and much 
higher susceptibility to biotic and abiotic disturbances in the short 
term and an inability to adapt to environmental change in the long 
term.
    The Takahe does not represent a monotypic genus. The current wild 
population is small, and the species' distribution is extremely 
limited. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude because the 
NZDOC has taken measures to aid the recovery of the species. The NZDOC 
has implemented a successful deer control program and implemented a 
captive-breeding and release program to augment the mainland population 
and establish four offshore island reserves. Predation by introduced 
species and reduced survivorship resulting from severe winters, 
combined with the Takahe's small population size and naturally low 
reproductive rate are threats to this species that are imminent and 
ongoing. Therefore, we have assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis)
    Chatham oystercatcher is the rarest oystercatcher species in the 
world (DOC 2001). It is endemic to the Chatham Island group (Marchant 
and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), which lies 534 mi (860 
km) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group comprises 
two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and numerous smaller 
islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira and Mangere) are nature 
reserves, which provide important habitat for the Chatham 
oystercatcher. The Chatham Island group has a biota quite different 
from the mainland. The remote marine setting, distinct climate, and 
physical makeup have led to a high degree of endemism (Aikman et al. 
2001). The southern part of the Chatham oystercatcher range is 
dominated by rocky habitats with extensive rocky platforms. The 
northern part of the range is a mix of sandy beach and rock platforms 
(Aikman et al. 2001).
    Pairs of Chatham oystercatchers occupy their territory all year, 
while juveniles and subadults form small flocks or occur alone on a 
vacant section of the coast. The nest is a scrape usually on a sandy 
beach just above spring-tide and storm surge level or among rocks above 
the shoreline and are often under the cover of small bushes or rock 
overhangs (Heather and Robertson 1997).
    Chatham oystercatcher is classified as `Endangered' on the IUCN Red 
List because it has an extremely small population (BirdLife 
International 2009). It is listed as `critically-endangered' by the New 
Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC 2008a), making it a high 
priority for conservation management (DOC 2007). In the early 1970s the 
Chatham oystercatcher population was approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 
1996). In 1988, based on past productivity information, it was feared 
that the species was at risk of extinction within 50 to 70 years (Davis 
1988 as cited in Schmechel and Paterson 2005). However, the population 
increased by 30 percent overall between 1987 and 1999, except trends 
varied in different areas of the Chatham Islands (Moore et al. 2001). 
Surveys taken over a 6-year period recorded an increase in Chatham 
oystercatchers from approximately 100 individuals in 1998 (Marchant and 
Higgins 1993) to 320 individuals (including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 
(Moore 2005a). Although the overall population has significantly 
increased over the last 20 years, the population on South East Island 
(Rangatira), an island free of mammalian predators, has gradually 
declined since the 1970s. The reason for the decline is unknown 
(Schmechel and O'Connor 1999).
    Predation, nest disturbance, invasive plants, and spring tides and 
storm surges are factors threatening the Chatham oystercatcher 
population (DOC 2001, Moore 2005). Feral cats (Felis catus) have become 
established on two of the Chatham Islands after being introduced as 
pets. Severe reduction in Chatham oystercatcher numbers is attributed 
in part by heavy cat predation. Another predator, the weka (Gallirallus 
australis), an endemic New Zealand rail, introduced to the Chatham 
Islands in the early 1900s, is not considered as much a threat to the 
Chatham oystercatcher as feral cats because they only prey on eggs when 
adult oystercatchers are not present. Other potential predators include 
the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), the ship rat (R. rattus), 
Australian brush-tailed possum (Trichsurus vulpeculs), and hedgehog 
(Erinaceus europaeus). However, these species are not considered a 
serious threat because of the large size of the oystercatcher eggs. 
Native predators include the red-billed gull (Larus scopulinus), and 
southern black-backed gull (L. dominicanus) (Moore 2005b). Nest 
destruction and disturbance is caused by people fishing, walking, or 
driving, and by livestock. When a nesting area is disturbed, adult 
Chatham oystercatchers often abandon their eggs for up to an hour or 
more, leaving the eggs vulnerable to opportunistic predators. Eggs are 
also trampled by livestock (Moore 2005a).
    Another obstacle to Chatham oystercatcher populations is marram 
grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced to New Zealand from Europe to 
protect farmland from sand encroachment. It has spread to the Chatham 
Islands where it binds beach sands forming tall dunes with steep 
fronts. In many marram-infested areas, the strip between the high tide 
mark and the foredunes narrows as the marram advances seaward. 
Consequently, the Chatham oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to 
shore where nests are vulnerable to tides and storm surges. The dense 
marram grass is unsuitable for nesting (Moore and Davis 2005). In a 
study done by Moore and Williams (2005), the authors found that, along 
the narrow shoreline, many eggs were washed away and the adults would 
not successfully breed without human intervention. Oystercatcher eggs 
could easily be moved away from the shoreline by fieldworkers and 
placed in hand-dug scrapes surrounded by tidal debris and kelp. Video 
cameras placed to observe nests indicated that feral cats are a major 
nest predator. After three summers of video recording, 13 of the 19 
nests recorded were predated by cats. When a cat was present eggs 
usually lasted only one or two days. Of the remaining six nest 
failures, weka were responsible for three; red-billed gull, one; sheep-
trampling, one; and sea wash, one (Moore 2005b).
    The birds of the Chatham Island group are protected. The NZDOC 
focused conservation efforts in the early 1990s on predator trapping 
and fencing to limit domestic stock access to nesting areas. In 2001, 
the NZDOC published the Chatham Island oystercatcher recovery plan 
2001-2011 (DOC 2001), which outlines actions such as translocation of 
nests away from the high tide mark and nest manipulation to further the 
conservation of this species. These actions may have helped to increase 
hatching success (DOC 2008b). Artificial incubation has been tried but 
did not increase productivity. Additionally, livestock have been

[[Page 40545]]

fenced and signs erected to reduce human and dog disturbance. Marram 
grass control has been successful in some areas. Intensive predator 
control combined with nest manipulation has resulted in a high number 
of fledglings (BirdLife International 2009).
    The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
current population has 311 individuals, and the species only occurs on 
the small Chatham Island group. It faces threats that are moderate in 
magnitude because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the recovery of 
the species. Threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. We have 
assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Orange-fronted parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi)
    The orange-fronted parakeet, also known as Malherbe's parakeet, was 
treated as an individual species until it was proposed to be a color 
morph of the yellow-crowned parakeet, C. auriceps, in 1974 (Holyoak 
1974). Further taxonomic analysis suggested that it should once again 
be considered a distinct species (Kearvell et al. 2003; ITIS 2008).
    At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout 
most of New Zealand, although the two records from the North Island are 
thought to be dubious (Harrison 1970). This species has never been 
common (Mills and Williams 1979). During the nineteenth century, the 
species' distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a few 
other offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a). Currently, there 
are four known remaining populations, all located within an 18.6-mi 
(30-km) radius in beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys 
within Arthur's Pass National Park and Lake Sumner Forest Park in 
Canterbury, South Island (NZDOC 2009a), and two populations established 
on Chalky and Maud Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007). This species 
inhabits southern beech forests, with a preference for locales 
bordering stands of mountain beech (N. solandri) (del Hoyo 1997; Snyder 
et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). It is reliant on old mature beech trees 
with natural cavities or hollows for nesting. Breeding is linked with 
the irregular seed production by Nothofagus; in mast years with a high 
abundance of seeds, parakeet numbers can increase substantially. In 
addition to eating seeds, the orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits, 
leaves, flowers, buds, and invertebrates (BirdLife International 2009).
    The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small population and 
limited range. The species is listed as ``Critically Endangered'' on 
the IUCN Red List, ``because it underwent a population crash following 
rat invasions in 1990-2000, and it now has a very small and severely 
fragmented population that has declined during the past ten years'' 
(BirdLife International 2009). It is listed in Appendix II of the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as part 
of a general listing for all parrots (CITES 2008). The NZDOC (2009b) 
considers the orange-fronted parakeet, or kakariki, to be the rarest 
parakeet in New Zealand. Because it is classified as ``Nationally 
Critical'' with a high risk of extinction, the NZDOC has been working 
intensively with the species to ensure its survival. The population is 
estimated at 100 to 200 individuals in the wild and declining (NZDOC 
2009a).
    There are several reasons for the species' continuing decline; one 
of the most prominent risks to the species is believed to be predation 
by introduced species, such as stoats (Mustela erminea) and rats 
(Rattus spp.) (BirdLife International 2009). Large numbers of stoats 
and rats in beech forests cause large losses of parakeets. Stoats and 
rats are excellent hunters on the ground and in trees. When they 
exploit parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes, they particularly 
impact females, chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2009c). The NZDOC introduced 
``Operation ARK,'' an initiative to respond to predator problems in 
beech forests to prevent species' extinctions, including orange-fronted 
parakeets. Predators are methodically controlled with traps, toxins in 
bait stations, bait bags, and aerial spraying, when necessary (NZDOC 
2009d). Despite these controls, predation by introduced species is 
still a threat because they have not been eradicated from this species' 
range.
    Habitat loss and degradation are also considered threats to the 
orange-fronted parakeet (BirdLife International 2007b). Large areas of 
native forest have been felled or burnt, decreasing the habitat 
available for parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Silviculture of beech forests 
aims to harvest trees at an age when few will become mature enough to 
develop suitable cavities for orange-fronted parakeets (Kearvell 2002). 
The habitat is also degraded by brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus 
vulpecula), cattle, and deer browsing on plants, which changes the 
forest structure (NZDOC 2009c). This is a problem for the orange-
fronted parakeet, which uses the ground and low-growing shrubs while 
feeding (Kearvell et al. 2002).
    Snyder et al. (2000) reported that hybridization with yellow-
crowned parakeets had been observed at Lake Sumner. Other risks include 
increased competition between the orange-fronted parakeet and the 
yellow-crowned parakeet for nest sites and food in a habitat 
substantially modified by humans, competition with introduced finch 
species, and competition with introduced wasps (Vespula vulgaris and V. 
germanica) for invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 
2002).
    The NZDOC closely monitors all known populations of the orange-
fronted parakeet. Nest searches are conducted, nest holes are 
inspected, and surveys are carried out in other areas to look for 
evidence of other populations. In fact, the surveys successfully 
located another orange-fronted parakeet population in May 2003 (NZDOC 
2009d). A new population was established in 2006 on the predator-free 
Chalky Island. Eggs were removed from nests in the wild, and foster 
parakeet parents incubated the eggs and cared for the hatchlings until 
they fledged and were transferred to the island. Monitoring later in 
the year (2006) indicated that the birds had successfully nested and 
reared chicks. Additional birds will be added to the Chalky Island 
population, in an effort to increase the genetic diversity of the 
population (NZDOC 2009d). A second self-sustaining population has been 
established on Maud Island (NZDOC 2008).
    The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The current wild population ranges between 100 and 200 individuals, and 
the species' distribution is extremely limited. It faces threats that 
are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC has taken important 
measures to aid in the recovery of the species. The NZDOC implemented a 
successful captive-breeding program for the orange-fronted parakeet. 
Using captive-bred birds from the program, NZDOC established two self-
sustaining populations of the orange-fronted parakeet on predator-free 
islands. The NZDOC monitors wild nest sites and is constantly looking 
for new nests and new populations, as evidenced by the 2003 discovery 
of a new population. Finally, the NZDOC determined that the species' 
largest threat is predation and initiated a successful program to 
remove predators. The threats of competition for food and highly 
altered habitat are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. Thus, we have 
assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis)
    The Uvea parakeet, previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus, is 
currently

[[Page 40546]]

treated as two species: E. cornutus and E. uvaeensis (Boon et al. 2008; 
BirdLife International 2007). The Uvea parakeet is found only on the 
small island of Uvea in the Loyalty Archipelago, New Caledonia 
(Territory of France). The island is only 42 mi\2\ (110 km\2\) (Juniper 
and Parr 1998). The Uvea parakeet is found primarily in old-growth 
forests, notably, those dominated by the pine tree Agathis australis 
(del Hoyo et al. 1997). Most birds occur in about 7.7 mi\2\ (20 km\2\) 
of forest in the north, although some individuals are found in strips 
of forest on the northwest isthmus and in the southern part of the 
island, with a total area of potential habitat of approximately 25.5 
mi\2\ (66 km\2\) (BirdLife International 2009, CITES 2000b). Uvea 
parakeets feed on the berries of vines and the flowers and seeds of 
native trees and shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997). They also feed on 
limited crops in adjacent cultivated land. The greatest number of birds 
occurs close to gardens with papayas (BirdLife International 2009). 
Uvea parakeet nest in cavities of native trees, and have a clutch size 
of 2 to 3 eggs with some double clutches (Robinet and Salas 1999).
    Early population estimates of Uvea parakeet were alarmingly low--70 
to 90 individuals (Hahn 1993). Surveys in 1993 by Robinet et al. (1996) 
yielded estimates of approximately 600 individuals. In 1999, it was 
believed that 742 individuals lived in northern Uvea, and 82 in the 
south (Primot 1999 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). Six 
surveys conducted between 1993 and 2007 indicated a steady increase in 
population numbers in both areas (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in 
BirdLife International 2009). Even though populations are currently 
increasing, any reduction in conservation efforts or introduction of 
invasive species (particularly the ship rat, Rattus rattus and the 
Norway rat, R. norvegicus) could lead to rapid declines (Robinet et al. 
1998, BirdLife International 2009). Although the Uvea parakeet has a 
number of predators, the absence of the ship rat and Norwegian rat on 
Uvea is a major factor contributing to its survival. Norway rats are 
prolific invaders of islands and can rapidly establish large 
populations (Russell 2007). Additionally, impacts of the rat appear to 
be more severe on smaller islands (Martin et al. 2000). In one study, 
it was determined that the low rate of predation on nest sites of Uvea 
parakeet was related to the absence of ship rat and Norwegian rat. 
However, these rat species are present on the other Loyalty Islands and 
on Grande Terre (Robinet and Salas 1996). Experimental egg predation 
rates were four times higher on Lifu where R. rattus occurs (Robinet et 
al. 1998).
    Preventive measures have been taken at the port and airport to 
prevent introduction of invasive rats and should continue to be 
reinforced (Robinet and Salas 1996), but there is concern that these 
rats may be introduced in the future (CITES 2000b). However, as of 
2007, the island remained rat free (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in 
BirdLife International 2009). Introductions of Uvea parakeets to the 
adjacent island of Lifou (to establish a second population) in 1925 and 
1963 failed (Robinet et al. 1995 as cited in BirdLife International 
2009), possibly because of the presence of ship rats and Norwegian rats 
(Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). Robinet et al. 
(1998) studied the impact of rats in Uvea and Lifou on the Uvea 
parakeet and concluded that Lifou is not a suitable place for 
translocating Uvea parakeet unless active habitat management is carried 
out to protect it from invasive rats. They also suggested it would be 
valuable to apply low-intensity rat control of the Polynesian rat (R. 
exulans) in Uvea immediately before the parakeet breeding season.
    Uvea parakeet is threatened by habitat loss, capture of juveniles 
for the pet trade, and predation (BirdLife International 2009). The 
forest habitat of the Uvea parakeet is threatened by clearance for 
agriculture and logging. In 30 years, approximately 30 to 50 percent of 
primary forest has been removed (Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a 
young and increasing human population of almost 4,000 inhabitants. The 
increase in population will most probably lead to more destruction of 
forest for housing, cultivated fields, and plantations, especially 
coconut palms, the island's main source of income (CITES 2000a). The 
species is also threatened by the illegal pet trade, mainly for the 
domestic market (BirdLife International 2007). Nesting holes are cut 
open to extract nestlings, which renders the holes unsuitable for 
future nesting. The lack of nesting sites is believed to be a limiting 
factor for the species (BirdLife International 2009). Also, Robinet et 
al. (1996) suggested that the impact of capture of juveniles on the 
viability of populations is not obvious with long-lived species that 
are capable of re-nesting, such as Uvea parakeet. The current capture 
of 30 to 50 young Uvea parakeets each year for the pet trade may be 
unsustainable. In a study of the reproductive biology of Uvea parakeet, 
Robinet and Salas (1999) found that the main causes of chick death were 
starvation of the third chick within the first week after hatching, 
raptor (presumably the native brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus) 
predation of fledglings, and human harvest for the pet trade.
    Additionally, the invasion of bees into Uvea in 1996 has resulted 
in competition with Uvea parakeet over nesting sites. This has resulted 
in a reduction of known Uvea parakeet nesting sites by 10 percent 
between 2000 and 2002 (Barr[eacute] in litt. 2003 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009). Studies by Robinet et al. (2003) indicate the 
density of breeding Uvea parakeet is positively related to the 
distribution of suitable trees. Consequently, the number of suitable 
trees may limit the number of breeding pairs. In two cases, Robinet et 
al. (2003) observed successful nesting after human restoration of 
former nest sites that had been destroyed by illegal collectors. This 
further indicates the deleterious effect of nest-site limitation. 
Additionally, forest fragmentation as a result of increased numbers of 
coconut plantations acts as a barrier to dispersal. This could possibly 
explain the lack of recolonization in southern Uvea (Robinet et al. 
2003). Uvea parakeet was uplisted from Appendix II to Appendix I of 
CITES in July 2000 because of its small population size, restricted 
area of distribution, loss of suitable habitat, and the illegal pet 
trade (CITES 2000b).
    A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet was prepared for the period 
1997-2002, which included strong local participation in population and 
habitat monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 
2000). The species has recently increased in popularity and is 
celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997, Primot in litt. 
1999 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). Conservation actions, 
including in situ management (habitat protection and restoration), 
recovery efforts (providing nest boxes and food), and public education 
on the protection of Uvea parakeet and its habitat are ongoing (Robinet 
et al. 1996). Increased awareness of the plight of the Uvea parakeet 
and improvements in law enforcement capability are helping to address 
illegal trade of the species. A captive-breeding program has been 
discussed but not begun (BirdLife International 2009). A translocation 
program to restock this species into the southern portion of Uvea was 
cancelled under a new recovery plan (2003) because the population is 
considered viable and is expected to increase naturally (Barr[eacute] 
in litt. 2003, Anon 2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). 
Measures are now being taken to control

[[Page 40547]]

predators and prevent further colonization by rats (BirdLife 
International 2009). Current Uvea parakeet numbers are increasing, but 
any relaxation of conservation efforts or introduction of nonnative 
rats or other predators could lead to a rapid decline (BirdLife 
International 2009). The Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Cal[eacute]donienne 
d'Ornithologie (SCO) received funding to test artificial nests, and 
BirdLife Suisse (ASPO) is continuing to destroy invasive bees nests and 
is placing hives in forested areas to attract bees for removal 
(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BirdLife International 2009).
    The Uvea parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. The Uvea 
parakeet faces threats that are moderate because important management 
efforts have been put in place to aid in the recovery of the species. 
However, all of these efforts must continue to function, because this 
species is an island endemic with restricted habitat in one location. 
Threats to the species are imminent because illegal trade still occurs 
and the removal of 30 to 50 percent of the old-growth forest, which the 
birds depend on for nesting holes, negatively impacts the reproductive 
requirements of the species. We have assigned this species a priority 
rank of 8.
Blue-throated macaw (Ara glaucogularis)
    The blue-throated macaw is endemic to forest islands in the 
seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de Mojos) of Central Bolivia 
(Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997). It inhabits a 
mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm groves, forest islands, 
and humid lowlands. This species is found in areas where palm-fruit 
food is available, especially motacu palm (Attalea phalerata) (Jordan 
and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997), and it depends on motacu 
palms for nesting (Birdlife International 2008d). It inhabits 
elevations between 656 and 984 ft (200 and 300 m) (BirdLife 
International 2008c; Brace et al. 1995; Yamashita and de Barros 1997). 
These macaws are not found to congregate in large flocks, but are seen 
most commonly traveling in pairs, and on rare occasions may be found in 
small flocks (Collar et al. 1992). The blue-throated macaw nests 
between November and March in large tree cavities where one to two 
young are raised (BirdLife International 2000).
    The taxonomic status of this species was long disputed, primarily 
because the species was unknown in the wild to biologists until 1992. 
Previously it was considered an aberrant form of the blue-and-yellow 
macaw (A. ararauna), but the two species are now known to occur 
sympatrically without interbreeding (del Hoyo et al. 1997). BirdLife 
International (2008b) estimated the total wild population to be between 
250 and 300 and noted the population has some fragmentation. Surveys 
indicate the population may now be slowly increasing following dramatic 
declines in the 1970s and 1980s. Biologists surveying for this species 
in 2004 found more birds than in previous surveys by searching specific 
habitat types - palm groves and forested islands - and predicted more 
birds would be found by concentrating searches in these areas (Herrera 
et al. 2007). Through a population viability analysis (PVA) of this 
species, Strem (2008) found that, while there was a low probability of 
extinction over the next 50 years, the small population size, as well 
as low population growth rates, makes this species very vulnerable to 
any threat. The low probability of extinction is not unexpected given 
that the blue-throated macaw is a long-lived species and the 50-year 
simulation timeframe is relatively short for such species. However, 
Strem (2008) found that impacts such as habitat destruction and 
harvesting had significant negative effects on the probabilities of 
extinction (increasing the probability of extinction), which 
reemphasizes the importance of addressing these threats for this 
species.
    The blue-throated macaw was historically at risk from trapping for 
the national and international cage-bird trade, and some illegal trade 
may still be occurring. Between the early 1980s and early 1990s, an 
estimated 1,200 or more wild-caught individuals were exported from 
Bolivia, and many are now in captivity in the European Union and in 
North America (BirdLife International 2008b, World Parrot Trust 2003). 
In 1984, Bolivia outlawed the export of live parrots (Brace et al. 
1995). However, in 1993 (Jordan and Munn 1993) investigators reported 
that an Argentinean bird dealer was offering illegal Bolivian dealers a 
high price for blue-throated macaws. Armonia Association (BirdLife in 
Bolivia) monitored the wild birds that passed through a pet market in 
Santa Cruz from August 2004 to July 2005. Although nearly 7,300 parrots 
were recorded in trade, the blue-throated macaw was absent in the 
market during the monitoring period, which may point to the 
effectiveness of the ongoing conservation programs in Bolivia (BirdLife 
International 2007). There are a number of blue-throated macaws in 
captivity, with over 1,000 registered in the North American studbook. 
Because these birds are not too difficult to breed, the supply of 
captive-bred birds has increased (Waugh 2007), helping to alleviate 
pressure on illegal collecting of wild birds, but not completely 
eliminating illegal collection.
    The blue-throated macaw is also at risk from habitat loss and 
possible competition from other birds, such as other macaws, toucans, 
and large woodpeckers (BirdLife International 2008b; World Parrot Trust 
2008). Until recently, all known sites of the blue-throated macaw were 
on private cattle ranches, where local ranchers typically burn the 
pasture annually (del Hoyo 1997). This results in almost no recruitment 
of palm trees, which are central to the ecological needs of the blue-
throated macaw (Yamashita and de Barros (1977)). In addition, in Beni 
many palms are cut down by the local people for firewood (Brace et al. 
1995). Thus, although the palm groves are more than 500 years old, 
Yamashita and de Barros (1977) concluded that the palm population 
structure suggests long-term decline.
    Despite some recent surveys that indicate the population may be 
slowly increasing, this species remains categorized as ``Critically 
Endangered'' on the 2009 IUCN Red List, ``because its population is 
extremely small and each isolated subpopulation is probably tiny and 
declining as a result of illegal trade'' (BirdLife International 2009). 
It is listed in Appendix I of CITES (CITES 2006) and is legally 
protected in Bolivia (Juniper and Parr 1998). The Eco Bolivia 
Foundation patrols existing macaw habitat by foot and motorbike, and 
the Armonia Association is searching the Beni lowlands for more 
populations (Snyder et al. 2000). Additionally, the Armonia Association 
is building an awareness campaign aimed at the cattlemen's association 
to ensure that the protection and conservation of these birds is at a 
local level (e.g., protection of macaws from trappers and the sensible 
management of key habitats, such as palm groves and forest islands, on 
their property) (BirdLife International 2008a; Llampa 2007; Snyder et 
al. 2000). In October 2008, Armonia Association announced it had 
purchased a large 8,785-acre (3,555-hectare) ranch for the purpose of 
establishing a protected area for the blue-throated macaw (BirdLife 
International 2008d). The new Barba Azul Nature Reserve protects 
excellent savanna habitat and 20 blue-throated macaws are known to nest 
here. The organization has also been experimenting with artificial nest 
boxes;

[[Page 40548]]

the macaws have been using these, and this promises to be a way to 
boost breeding success while habitat restoration is under way in the 
new reserve.
    The blue-throated macaw does not represent a monotypic genus. It 
faces threats that are moderate in magnitude because wild birds are no 
longer taken for the legal wild-bird trade as a result of the species' 
CITES listing, and it is also legally protected in Bolivia. Wildlife 
managers in Bolivia are actively protecting the species and searching 
for additional populations, and the species is now protected in one 
nature reserve. Threats to the species are ongoing and, therefore, 
imminent because hunters still trap the birds for the illegal bird 
trade and annual burning on private ranches continues. Therefore, we 
have assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus)
    The helmeted woodpecker is endemic to the southern Atlantic forest 
region of southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern 
Argentina (BirdLife International 2009). It is found in tall lowland 
Atlantic and primary and mature montane forest and has been recorded in 
degraded and small forest patches. However, it is usually found near 
large forest tracts (Chebez 1995b as cited in BirdLife International 
2009; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). 
Helmeted woodpecker forage primarily in the middle story of the forest 
interior (Brooks et al. 1993 cited in BirdLife International 2009; Clay 
in litt. 2000 as cited in BirdLife International 2009).
    Recent field work on the helmeted woodpecker revealed that the 
species is less rare than once thought (BirdLife International 2009), 
although its range is highly restricted (Mattsson et al. 2008). It is 
listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 2008). The current population is 
estimated at between 10,000 and 19,999 individuals and decreasing. 
Because the helmeted woodpecker is difficult to locate except when 
vocalizing and is silent most of the year, its numbers are probably 
underestimated. The overall status of the helmeted woodpecker is 
unclear. However, it is not common anywhere it is known to exist 
(BirdLife International 2009), and in one of the few remaining large 
fragments of Atlantic forest in Paraguay it is considered to be near 
threatened (Alberto et al. 2007). The greatest threat to the helmeted 
woodpecker is widespread deforestation (BirdLife International 2009; 
Cockle 2008 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). Numerous 
sightings since the mid-1980s include one pair in the Brazilian State 
of Santa Catarina in 1998, where the species had not been seen since 
1946 (del Hoyo et al. 2002). The helmeted woodpecker is protected by 
Brazilian law, and populations occur in numerous protected areas 
throughout its range (Chebez et al. 1998 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009; Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009; Wege and Long 1995 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009). Further studies are needed to clarify species 
distribution and status (del Hoyo et al. 2002).
    The helmeted woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
magnitude of threat to the species is moderate because the population 
is much larger than previously thought and imminent because the forest 
habitat upon which the species is dependent is constantly being altered 
by humans. We, therefore, have assigned this species a priority rank of 
8.
Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii, previously known as 
Sapheopipo noguchii)
    The Okinawa woodpecker lives in the northern hills of Okinawa 
Island, Japan. Okinawa is the largest island of the Ryukyus Islands, a 
small island chain located between Jap