Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 25150-25176 [2011-10286]
Download as PDF
25150
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2010–0053; MO
92210–0–0010 B6]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings
on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign
Species; Annual Description of
Progress on Listing Actions
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review.
AGENCY:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Background
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 review the status of the
species 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 subject of previous
warranted-but-precluded findings, most
recently summarized in our 2009 Notice
of Review published on August 12, 2009
(74 FR 40540). Based on our current
review, we find that 20 species continue
to warrant listing, but their listing
remains precluded by higher priority
listing actions.
With this annual notice of review
(ANOR), we are requesting additional
information for the 20 taxa whose
listings 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 conserve 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 Foreign Species,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420,
Arlington, Virginia 22203. Please submit
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this
notice to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief, Branch of Foreign Species,
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:
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 when the public petitions us
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. Using
the information from the status review,
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) of the Act govern
further procedures, regardless of
whether or not we issued the proposal
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 2009 Notice of Review
(August 12, 2009, 74 FR 40540).
We maintain this list of candidates for
a variety of reasons: To notify the public
that these species are facing threats to
their survival; to provide advance
knowledge of potential listings; to
provide information that may stimulate
and guide conservation efforts that will
remove or reduce threats to these
species and possibly make listing
unnecessary; to request input from
interested parties to help us identify
those candidate species that may not
require protection under the Act or
additional species that may require the
Act’s protections; and to request
necessary information for setting
priorities for preparing listing proposals.
On September 21, 1983, we published
guidance for assigning a listing priority
number (LPN) for each candidate
species (48 FR 43098). Using this
guidance, we assign each candidate an
LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the
magnitude of threats, immediacy of
threats, and taxonomic status; the lower
the LPN, the higher the listing priority
(that is, a species with an LPN of 1
would have the highest listing priority).
Guidelines for such a priority-ranking
guidance system are required under
section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
1533(h)(3)). As explained below, in
using this system we first categorize
based on the magnitude of the threat(s),
then by the immediacy of the threat(s),
and finally by taxonomic status.
Under this priority-ranking system,
magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’
or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion
helps ensure that the species facing the
greatest threats to their continued
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
existence receive the highest listing
priority. It is important to recognize that
all candidate species face threats to their
continued existence, so the magnitude
of threats is in relative terms. When
evaluating the magnitude of the threat(s)
facing the species, we consider
information such as: the number of
populations and/or extent of range of
the species affected by the threat(s); the
biological significance of the affected
population(s), the life-history
characteristics of the species and its
current abundance and distribution; and
whether the threats affect the species in
only a portion of its range. We also
consider the likelihood of persistence of
the species in the unaffected portions
and whether the effects are likely to be
permanent.
As used in our priority ranking
system, immediacy of threat is
categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or
‘‘nonimminent.’’ It is not a measure of
how quickly the species is likely to
become extinct if the threats are not
addressed; rather, immediacy is based
on when the threats will begin. If a
threat is currently occurring or likely to
occur in the very near future, we
classify the threat as imminent.
Determining the immediacy of threats
helps ensure that species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority for
listing proposals over those for which
threats are only potential or species that
are intrinsically vulnerable to certain
types of threats, but are not known to be
presently facing such threats.
Our priority ranking system has three
categories for taxonomic status: species
that are the sole members of a genus;
full species (in genera that have more
than one species); and subspecies and
distinct population segments of
vertebrate species (DPS).
The result of the ranking system
entails assigning each candidate a
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For
example, if the threat(s) is/are of high
magnitude, with immediacy classified
as imminent, the listable entity is
assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on
its taxonomic status (i.e., a species that
is the only member of its genus would
be assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full
species would be assigned to LPN 2, and
a subspecies, DPS, or a species that is
endangered or threatened in only a
significant portion of its range would be
assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the
LPN ranking system provides a basis for
making decisions about the relative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
priority for preparing a proposed rule to
list a given species. Each species
included in this notice is one for which
we have sufficient information to
prepare a proposed rule to list, because
it is in danger of extinction or likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
For more information on the process
and standards used in assigning LPNs,
a copy of the guidance is available on
our Web site at: https://www.fws.gov/
endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr4309843105.pdf. For more information on the
LPN assigned to a particular species, the
species assessment for each candidate
contains the LPN and a rationale for the
determination of the magnitude and
imminence of threat(s) and assignment
of the LPN; that information is
presented in this ANOR.
Previous Notices
This revised notice supersedes all
previous annual notices of review for
foreign species. 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 endangered or
threatened 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 seven butterfly
species as endangered or threatened
(59 FR 24117; May 10, 1994).
We took several actions on these
petitions. Our most recent review of
petition findings was published on
August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540).
Previously published petition findings,
listing rules, status reviews, and petition
finding reviews that included foreign
species are also listed in the 2009
ANOR.
Summary of This ANOR
Since publication of the previous
ANOR on August 12, 2009 (74 FR
40540), we reviewed the available
information on candidate species to
ensure that listing is warranted for each
species, and reevaluated the relative
LPN assigned to each species. We also
evaluated the need to emergency list
any of these species, particularly species
with high listing priority numbers (i.e.,
species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25151
review ensures that we focus
conservation efforts on those species at
greatest risk first. In addition to
reviewing foreign candidate species
since publication of the last ANOR, we
have worked on numerous findings in
response to petitions to list species and
on proposed and final determinations
for rules to list species under the Act.
Some of these findings and
determinations have been completed
and published in the Federal Register,
while work on others is still under way
(see Preclusion and Expeditious
Progress, below, for details).
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, with this ANOR, we have
changed the LPN for several candidates.
The review of these 20 species is
summarized in Table 1.
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 finding, and
we have reviewed in accordance with
our Listing Priority Guidance the listing
priority number (LPN) of each taxon for
which proposed listing continues to be
warranted but precluded.
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 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.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
25152
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—ANNUAL NOTICE OF REVIEW
[C = listing warranted-but-precluded]
Status
Scientific name
Category
Family
Common name
Historic range
Priority
Birds
C ...........
2
Pauxi unicornis ...................
Craciidae ............................
C ...........
C ...........
C ...........
2
8
8
Rallus semiplumbeus .........
Porphyrio hochstetteri ........
Haematopus chathamensis
Rallidae ..............................
Rallidae ..............................
Haematopodidae ................
southern helmeted
curassow.
Bogota rail ..........................
takahe .................................
Chatham oystercatcher ......
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
8
2
2
8
2
2
8
12
Cyanoramphus malherbi ....
Eunymphicus uvaeensis ....
Ara glaucogularis ...............
Dryocopus galeatus ...........
Dendrocopus noguchii .......
Aulacorhynchus huallagae
Scytalopus novacapitalis ....
Bowdleria punctata wilsoni
Psittacidae ..........................
Psittacidae ..........................
Psittacidae ..........................
Picidae ................................
Picidae ................................
Ramphastidae ....................
Conopophagidae ................
Sylviidae .............................
orange-fronted parakeet .....
Uvea parakeet ....................
blue-throated macaw ..........
helmeted woodpecker ........
Okinawa woodpecker .........
yellow-browed toucanet ......
Brasilia tapaculo .................
Codfish Island fernbird .......
C ...........
C ...........
C ...........
2
8
6
Zosterops luteirostris ..........
Tangara peruviana .............
Strepera graculina crissalis
Zosteropidae ......................
Thraupidae .........................
Cracticidae .........................
Ghizo white-eye .................
black-backed tanager .........
Lord Howe pied currawong
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Bolivia, Peru.
Colombia.
New Zealand.
Chatham Islands, New Zealand.
New Zealand.
Uvea, New Caledonia.
Bolivia.
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay.
Okinawa Island, Japan.
Peru.
Brazil.
Codfish Island, New Zealand.
Solomon Islands.
Brazil.
Lord Howe Islands, New
South Wales.
Invertebrates
C ...........
6
5
2
Eurytides (= Graphium or
Mimoides) lysithous
harrisianus.
Eurytides (= Graphium or
Neographium or
Protographium or
Protesilaus) marcellinus.
Parides ascanius ................
Parides hahneli ..................
C ...........
2
C ...........
C ...........
C ...........
8
Teinopalpus imperialis .......
Paplionidae .........................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 continues to be
warranted but precluded 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
A. Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi
unicornis), LPN = 2
The southern helmeted curassow, also
known as the horned curassow, is one
of the least frequently encountered
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Paplionidae .........................
Harris’ mimic swallowtail ....
Brazil.
Paplionidae .........................
Jamaican kite swallowtail ...
Jamaica.
Paplionidae .........................
Paplionidae .........................
Fluminense swallowtail ......
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail.
Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail ....
Brazil.
Brazil.
South American bird species. This may
be due to the inaccessibility of its
preferred habitat and its apparent
intolerance of human disturbance
(Herzog and Kessler 1998; Macleod et
al. 2009, p. 15). The southern helmeted
curassow is only known to occur in
central Bolivia and central Peru
(BirdLife International (BLI) 2010a). The
Bolivian population of the nominate (a
subspecies with the same name as the
species) species (Pauxi unicornis
unicornis) remained unknown to
science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). The
Peruvian population is known as Pauxi
unicornis koepckeae.
What is now recognized as the
southern helmeted curassow may in fact
comprise two separate species that are
currently recognized as two subspecies
(Pauxi unicornis unicornis, and Pauxi
unicornis koepckeae). It has been
proposed that these populations of
Pauxi unicornis that are currently
treated as subspecies may represent two
different species because they are
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Bhutan, China, India, Laos,
Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam.
separated by more than 1,000 km (621
mi), and have a multitude of distinct
˜
characteristics (Gastanaga in prep. in
BLI 2010a). Currently, both BLI and the
International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) recognize the southern
helmeted curassow as Pauxi unicornis
and do not specifically address either
subspecies. The Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS) recognizes
Pauxi unicornis as a full species as well
as both subspecies (ITIS 2010, accessed
July 16, 2010). For the purpose of this
ANOR, we are reviewing the petitioned
entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes
all subspecies.
In many cases, taxonomy of species
can be unclear. There is substantial
discussion in scientific literature that
debates the classification of species and
whether various entities deserve species
status rather than subspecies status
(Phillimore 2010, pp. 42–53; James
2010, pp. 1–5; Pratt 2010, pp. 79–89).
This is sometimes significant with
respect to conservation measures,
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
particularly when considering the
criteria used by organizations such as
the IUCN. These two subspecies may in
fact be species, but for the purpose of
this review, these two subspecies
essentially face the same threats, are
generally in the same region of South
America, and they both have quite small
populations. Absent peer-reviewed
information to the contrary and based
on the best available information, we
recognize both subspecies as being
valid. For the purpose of this review, we
are reviewing the petitioned entity,
Pauxi unicornis, which includes all
subspecies. We welcome comments on
the classification of the southern
helmeted curassow.
The southern helmeted curassow
inhabits dense, humid, lower montane
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at
450 to 1,200 meters (m) (1,476 to 3,937
feet) (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 (BLI 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 BLI 2010a). The
southern helmeted curassow typically
occurs at densities up to 20 individuals
per square kilometer (km2) (Macleod
2007 as cited in BLI 2008).
´
In Amboro National Park (Yungas
´
Inferiores de Amboro), the southern
helmeted curassow was regularly
sighted on the upper Saguayo river
´
(Saguayo Rıo; Wege and Long 1995).
Subsequently, it has been observed in
´
the adjacent Amboro and Carrasco
National Parks (Herzog and Kessler
1998; Brooks 2006). It was also found in
Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and
National Park (TIPNIS), and along the
western edge of the Cordillera
Mosetenes (Mosetenes Mountains),
Cochabamba, Bolivia. A recent survey
located a few southern helmeted
curassows across the northern boundary
of Carrasco National Park (Yungas
Inferiores de Carrasco), where it was
historically found (MacLeod 2007 as
cited in BLI 2009a). Surveys conducted
between 2004 and 2005 found no
evidence of the species anywhere north
or east of Amboro, Carrasco, and
Isiboro-Secure National Parks in central
Bolivia (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). It
was found only in five locations during
the survey period. Extensive surveys
over the last several years have failed to
locate the species in Madidi National
Park, La Paz, on the eastern edge of the
Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
´
or in the Rıo Tambopata area near the
Bolivia-Peru border (MacLeod in litt.
2003 as cited in BLI 2010a; Hennessey
2004a as cited in BLI 2009a;
Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI
2008).
In Peru, Pauxi unicornis koepckeae is
known only from the Sira Mountains
(known as the Reserva Comunal El Sira),
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 Mountains: The
first sighting of the distinctive endemic
Peruvian subspecies since 1969 (BLI
2008). Limited reports suggest that the
southern helmeted curassow is rare here
(Mee et al. 2002; MacLeod in litt. 2004
as cited in BLI 2008; Maccormack in litt.
˜
2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Gastanaga
and Hennessey 2005 as cited in BLI
2009a).
The total population of southern
helmeted curassow is estimated to be
between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals
(BLI 2010a). The population in Peru is
estimated to have fewer than 400
˜
individuals (Gastanaga in litt. 2007, as
cited in BLI 2010a). The estimated
decline in the overall population over
10 years has been 50 to 79 percent (BLI
2009b).
Southern helmeted curassow
populations are estimated to be
declining very rapidly due to
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 pressure.
Hunting was indicated to be the biggest
threat to southern helmeted curassow in
˜
all parts of its range (Gastanaga 2006).
The species was often hunted for meat
due to its large size and for its unique
blue casque, or horn, which the local
people used to make cigarette lighters
(Cordier 1971; Collar et al. 1992). In the
´
Amboro region of Bolivia, the bird’s
head was purportedly used in folk
dances (Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar
1992). It is unclear whether this practice
still occurs.
´
The Rıo Leche area in Peru
experienced a 100 percent population
decline in less than 5 years likely due
to hunting or other pressures (Macleod
et al. 2009, p. 16). In Carrasco National
Park, the species had been abundant
during surveys in 2001 but in 2004 there
were no visual or auditory sightings
(Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). This may
be due to illegal human encroachment.
Similar human pressures are ongoing
throughout the species’ range. The
observed decline infers that a 50-percent
population loss likely occurred between
1995 and 2005. Unless threats are
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25153
mitigated, this trend will probably
continue for the next several years
(Macleod in litt. 2005).
In Bolivia, forests within the range of
the southern helmeted curassow are
being cleared for crop cultivation by
colonists from the altiplano (Maillard
2006, pp. 95–98). Rural development,
including road building, inhibits its
dispersal (Herzog and Kessler 1998;
˚
Fjeldsa in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI
2010). In Peru, southern helmeted
curassow habitat is threatened by
subsistence agriculture (MacLeod in litt.
2000 as cited in BLI 2010a), forest
clearing by colonists, illegal logging,
mining, and oil exploration (BLI 2010a).
Conservation Status. According to
IUCN’s 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 was previously
classified as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ on the IUCN
Red List. In 2005, it was uplisted to its
current status as ‘‘Endangered’’ (BLI
2009a). It is not listed in any appendices
of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES;
www.cites.org), which regulates
international trade in animals and
plants of conservation concern.
The southern helmeted curassow is
dependent upon pristine habitat. 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 (BLI
2010a). In recent years, extensive field
surveys of southern helmeted curassow
habitat have resulted in little success in
locating the species (Mee et al. 2002;
Hennessey 2004a; MacLeod in litt. 2004
as cited in BLI 2009a; Maccormack in
litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2010a;
MacLeod in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI
2010a). The Armonia Association 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 threats to
southern helmeted curassow
´
´
(Asociacion Armonıa 2010) and is
conducting training workshops with
park guards to help improve chances for
its survival.
In our 2009 ANOR, the southern
helmeted curassow received an LPN of
8. After reevaluating the threats to the
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
25154
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
species, we have determined that a
change in the listing priority number
representing the magnitude of threats to
the species is warranted. The southern
helmeted curassow does not represent a
monotypic genus. It faces threats that
are high in magnitude based on its
small, limited range; and these few
locations where it is believed to exist
continue to be subject to habitat
destruction and loss from agricultural
development, road building, and
hunting. Although the population is
estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999
individuals, the population trend is
believed to be rapidly declining. In the
past ten years, the species’ population is
believed to have declined between 50
and 79 percent (BLI 2009b). The best
scientific information available suggests
that these significant declines will
continue in the future. The threats to the
species are occurring now and are
ongoing, and are therefore imminent.
Because the species is experiencing
such a significant population decline,
we have changed the LPN from an 8 to
a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
B. Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus),
LPN = 2
The Bogota rail is found in the East
´
´
Andes of Colombia on the Ubate-Bogota
´
Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyaca. It
occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500–
4,000 m (occasionally as low as 2,100
´
m) (6,890 ft) in savanna and paramo
marshes (BLI 2010b). Bogota rail inhabit
wetland habitats with vegetation-rich
shallows that are surrounded by tall,
dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles in litt.
1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). It inhabits
the water’s edge, in flooded pasture and
along small overgrown dykes and ponds
(Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 2010b;
˚
Fjeldsa 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b;
˚
Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BLI
2010b; Salaman in litt. 1999 as cited in
BLI 2010b). Nests have been recorded
adjoining shallow water in beds of
Scirpus (bulrush or sedge) and Typha
(cat tail) species. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as
cited in BLI 2010b). The Bogota rail is
omnivorous, consuming a diet that
includes aquatic invertebrates, insect
larvae, worms, mollusks, dead fish,
frogs, tadpoles, and plant material (BLI
2010b; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI
2010b).
The current population is estimated to
range between 1,000 and 2,499
individuals, although numbers are
expected to decline over the next 10
years by 10 to 19 percent (BLI 2009).
Although the Bogota rail has been
observed in at least 21 locations in
Cundinamarca, the Bogota rail
population is thought to be declining. It
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
100 birds at Parque La Florida, and
populations at La Conejera marsh and
Laguna de Fuquene (BLI 2010b).
Its suitable habitat has become widely
fragmented (BLI 2010b). Wetland
drainage, pollution, and siltation on the
´
´
Ubate-Bogota plateau have resulted in
major habitat loss and few suitably
vegetated marshes remain. All major
savanna wetlands are threatened,
predominately due to draining, but also
due to 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 BLI 2010b).
Conservation Status. The Bogota rail
is listed as ‘‘Endangered’’ by IUCN
primarily because its range is very small
and is contracting due to widespread
habitat loss and degradation. It is not
listed in any appendices of CITES. Some
Bogota rails occur in protected areas
such as Chingaza National Park and
Carpanta Biological Reserve. However,
most savanna wetlands are virtually
unprotected (BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Bogota rail
received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating
the threats to this species, we have
determined that a change in the listing
priority number for the species is
appropriate. The Bogota rail does not
represent a monotypic genus. It faces
threats that are high in magnitude due
to the pressures on the population’s
habitat. Its range is very small and is
rapidly contracting because of
widespread habitat loss and degradation
(agricultural encroachment, erosion,
dyking, and eutrophication). The
population is believed to be between
1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the
population trend is believed to be
rapidly declining. Based on new
information regarding threats to this
species, we find that the threats to the
species are occurring now, are ongoing,
and are therefore imminent. Thus, we
have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2
to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri,
Previously Known as P. mantelli), LPN
=8
The takahe, a flightless rail endemic
to New Zealand, is the world’s largest
extant (living) member of the rail family
(del Hoyo et al. 1996). The species,
Porphyrio mantelli, was split into P.
mantelli (extinct) and P. hochstetteri
(extant) (Trewick 1996). BLI (2000)
incorrectly assigned the name P.
mantelli to the extant form, while the
name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly
assigned to the extinct form. Fossils
indicate that this species was once
widespread throughout New Zealand’s
North and South Islands. The takahe
was thought to be extinct by the 1930s
until its rediscovery in 1948 in the
Murchison Mountains, Fiordland (South
Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New
Zealand Department of Conservation
(NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its
rediscovery, a takahe Special Area of
500 km2 (193 mi2) was set aside in the
Murchison Mountains of Fiordland
National Park for the conservation of the
takahe (Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2009c).
Today, the species is present in the
Murchison and Stuart Mountains and
was introduced to five island reserves
(Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri, Mantangi, Maud)
and one privately owned island (Collar
et al. 1994; NZDOC 2009d, p. 10). The
population in the Murchison Mountains
is important because it is the only
mainland population and has the
potential for sustaining a large, viable
population (NZDOC 1997).
When rediscovered in 1948, it was
estimated that the takahe 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 160 birds (Crouchley 1994; Maxwell
2001). At first, translocated populations
increased only slowly, possibly in part
due to young pair-bonds and the quality
of the founding population (Bunin et al.
1997). In recent years, the total takahe
population has experienced 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 (BLI 2005). As of June
2008, the estimated population of
takahe was approximately 93 in the
Core Census Area; 91 on islands and at
Maungatautari (the mainland
sanctuary); 36 at the Burwood Breeding
Center; and 5 birds on public display at
Wildlife Centers. The Core Census Area
consists of suitable habitat east of the
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Esk Burn and Woodrow Burn streams in
the Murchison Mountains (NZDOC
2009d, pp. 9–10).
This species experienced a loss of
fitness as a result of recent inbreeding.
Relative to other species, it has low
genetic diversity (Grueber et al. 2010,
pp. 7–9). Research reported in 2010 that
the true level of inbreeding may be
underestimated for this species (Grueber
et al. 2010, pp. 7–9). Failure to address
these concerns could 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. 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,
inbred island species such as the takahe.
As of 2009, the current total
population estimate is 227 adults
(NZDOC 2009d, p. 11; NZDOC 2009e).
Birds under 1 year of age were not
counted in these totals. As of 2007, the
mainland population, as well as island
reserves, were thought to be at carrying
capacity (Greaves 2007, p. 17), (NZDOC
2009, p. 29), however a Recovery Plan
is underway to address conservation
priorities and needs for this species
(NZDOC 2009d, entire). 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 (NZDOC
2009d; BLI 2010c).
Takahe territories historically have
been large; they have been known to be
between several hectares (ha) to more
than 100 ha (247 acres (ac)) depending
on the availability of their preferred
food sources (Lee and Jamieson 2001, p.
57). 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 living between 14 and
20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997)
and have a low reproductive rate, with
clutches consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. They
form life-long pair bonds and generally
occupy the same territory throughout
life (Reid 1967). Generally pairs in the
wild only rear one chick. Only a few
pairs manage to consistently rear more
than one chick each year. Although
under normal conditions this is
generally sufficient to maintain the
population, populations recover slowly
from catastrophic events (Crouchley
1994); and this is a concern because this
species has such a small population
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
size. To increase the population,
NZDOC has been removing some eggs
from the wild, captive rearing them, and
reintroducing them back into the wild
(NZDOC 2009, p. 26).
Originally, the species occurred
throughout forest and grass ecosystems.
Now takahe occupy alpine grasslands
(BLI 2010c). They feed on tussock
grasses during much of the year; snow
tussocks (Chionochloa pallens,
Chionochloa conspicua, Chionochloa
flavescens, and Chionochloa
crassiuscula) are their preferred food
(Mills and Mark 1977, p. 951; Mills et
al., 1980, Crouchley 1994, NZDOC 2009,
pp. 39–40). These grasses are high in
nutritional content. C. flavescens is high
in phosphorus; C. pallens is high in
starch; and C. crassiuscula is high in
sulphur, starch, and sodium (Mills and
Mark 1977, pp. 951, 953). takahe also
forage on Carex coriacea, which is also
high in nutrients. During some seasons,
takahe prefer plants with high
phosphorus content; for example,
during spring and autumn, they prefer
C. crassiuscula. From October to
December, when they lay eggs, they
prefer mountain daisy (Celmisia petriei),
which has high levels of calcium and
sugar (Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 952–
953). 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) which
has a high carbohydrate content (Mills
et al. 1980, p. 136).
Research by Mills et al. (1980)
suggested that takahe require the highcarbohydrate concentrations in the
rhizomes of the fern to meet the
metabolic requirement of
thermoregulation in the mid-winter
subfreezing temperatures. Chionochloa
conspicua (bush snow-grass) is the
takahe’s preferred winter food in the
Murchison Mountains, although new
information indicates that it is currently
uncommon due to overgrazing by deer
(NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39–40). C.
conspicua has higher levels of
phosphorus, potassium and magnesium
(Mills et al. 1980, p. 136) than
Hypolepis spp., which is currently the
primary plant in the winter takahe diet.
Although Hypolepis rhizomes may
not be sufficient for a balanced winter
diet, they are a valuable source of
starch, nitrogen and phosphorus (Mills
et al. 1980, p. 136). Because foraging on
Hypolepis is a learned behavior, it is
being taught at the Burwood Captive
Rearing Center to chicks by adult birds
(NZDOC 2009d, p. 27).
Rareness of C. conspicua may be a
contributing factor to the lack of
viability of the takahe population
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25155
(NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39–40). There are
no known diseases that pose threats to
the takahe. C. conspicua is less common
in the forest understory in the takahe
Special Area than it previously was, in
part due to overgrazing by deer. NZDOC
is conducting research and trying to
reintroduce and increase the prevalence
of this plant species in the Murchison
Mountains Reserve (NZDOC 2009d, pp.
39–40). The island populations now
primarily consume introduced grasses
(BLI 2010c). Some researchers have
theorized that consumption of these
nonnative species may contribute to
inadequate nutrition and subsequently
nest failure (Jamieson 2003, p. 708);
however this has not been confirmed.
Several factors have led to the decline
in the species’ population. 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; NZDOC 2009, p.
39). The NZDOC has controlled red deer
through an intensive hunting program
in the Murchison Mountains since the
1960s. Predation by introduced stoats
(Mustela erminea) is still a threat to the
species (Crouchley 1994; Bunin and
Jamieson 1995; Bunin and Jamieson
1996; NZDOC 2009, pp. 34–36). 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 that the control
program has had a positive influence
(NZDOC 2009, pp. 35–36).
Other potential threats include a
competitor, the introduced brush-tailed
possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and the
predator, the threatened weka
(Gallirallus australis), a flightless
woodhen endemic to New Zealand (BLI
2010c). Severe weather may also be a
limiting factor to this species (Bunin
and Jamieson 1995; BLI 2010c). 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 has
confirmed that severity of winter
conditions adversely affects
survivorship of takahe in the wild,
particularly of young birds (Maxwell
and Jamieson 1997).
Lead exposure may affect this species
on some of the islands (Youl 2009, pp.
79–83). Lead levels in the island
populations were found to be higher
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
25156
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
than those on the mainland. Older
buildings on some of the island contain
lead paint. One or more takahe breeding
pairs were located near buildings
containing lead-based paint. A family
group on one island that was close to a
building containing lead paint was
found to have significantly higher lead
levels than a family group located away
from buildings (Youl 2009, p. 80). Lead
has been found to affect the learning
capacity of avian species (Youl 2009,
pp. 11–13). This exposure to lead may
lead to decreased fitness of takahe.
Conservation Status. The takahe is
listed as ‘‘Endangered’’ on the IUCN Red
List because it has an extremely small
population (BLI 2010c). It is not listed
in any appendices of CITES. New
Zealand considers the takahe to be an
endangered species and it is classified
as ‘‘Nationally Critical’’ under the New
Zealand Threat Classification System.
The NZDOC, through its 2007–2012
takahe Recovery Plan, is managing the
populations of the species through
various conservation efforts such as
captive breeding, population
management, eradication of predators,
and management of grasslands.
Since 1983, the NZDOC has been
involved in managing a captivebreeding and release program to boost
takahe recovery (NZDOC 2009, p. 29).
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 were used to
establish five predator-free, offshore
island reserves. These captive-breeding
efforts have increased the rate of
survival of chicks reaching one year of
age from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997;
NZDOC 2009d). Takahe that have been
translocated to the islands have higher
rates of egg infertility and low hatching
success when they breed (Jamieson &
Ryan 2000). Researchers postulated that
the difference in vegetation between the
native mainland grassland tussocks and
the grasses found on the islands might
affect reproductive success. After testing
nutrients from available food sources, it
remains unclear whether the islands
contain adequate nutrients in the
available food sources (James et al.
2004, pp. 342–344). Research on takahe
that are established on Tiritiri Matangi
Island estimated that the island can
currently support up to 8 breeding pairs,
but suggested that the ability of the
island to support takahe is likely to
decrease as the grass and shrub
ecosystem reverts to forest. The
researchers concluded that, although the
four island populations fulfilled their
role as insurance against extinction on
the mainland at the time of the study,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 takahe
for release into the wild increases
recruitment of juveniles into the
population.
In our 2009 ANOR, the takahe
received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating
the threats to the takahe, we have
determined that no change in the
classification of the magnitude and
imminence of threats to the species is
warranted at this time. The takahe does
not represent a monotypic genus. The
current population is small (between
150–220 individuals), and the species’
distribution is extremely limited. It
faces threats that are moderate in
magnitude (extremely small population,
limited suitable habitat, inbreeding
depression, and to some extent
predation) because the NZDOC has
taken measures to aid the recovery of
the species (NZDOC 2009d, 58 pp.;
NZDOC 2009e, 3 pp.) and is active in
the species conservation and recovery.
The NZDOC has implemented a
successful deer control program,
implemented a captive-breeding and
release program to augment the
mainland population, and established
four offshore island reserves. However,
we find that the threats are on-going and
therefore, imminent. 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 moderate in magnitude.
Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect
imminent threats of moderate
magnitude.
D. Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus
chathamensis), LPN = 8
The Chatham oystercatcher is the
most rare oystercatcher species in the
world (NZDOC 2001). It is endemic to
the Chatham Island group (Marchant
and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and
Paterson 2005), which lies 860 km (534
mi) east of mainland New Zealand. The
Chatham Island group consists of two
large, inhabited islands (Chatham and
Pitt) and numerous smaller islands. Two
of the smaller islands (Rangatira and
Mangere) are nature reserves, which
provide vitally needed habitat for the
Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham
Island group has a biota quite different
from the mainland. The remote marine
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 vacant sections
of the coast. Their scrape nests (shallowrimmed depressions in soil or
vegetation) are usually on sandy
beaches 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).
In the early 1970s, the Chatham
oystercatcher population was
approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 1996).
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 to 320 individuals
(including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005
(Moore 2005a; Moore 2009b, p. 32).
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) but is likely due to large
waves during sea storms which destroy
the nests (Moore 2009a, p. 9).
Predation, nest disturbance, invasive
plants, and spring tides and storm
surges are factors threatening the
Chatham oystercatcher population
(NZDOC 2001, Moore 2005; Moore
2009a, pp. 8–9). 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 to heavy cat predation. 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 1 or 2
days.
Another predator, the weka
(Gallirallus australis), an endemic New
Zealand rail was introduced to the
Chatham Islands in the early 1900s.
Weka was observed preying upon this
species three times through camera
trapping between 1999 and 2001 (Moore
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2009a, p. 8). It is not considered as
severe a threat to the Chatham
oystercatcher as feral cats because weka
only prey on eggs when adult
oystercatchers are not present.
Other potential predators include the
Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), ship rat
(R. rattus), Australian brush-tailed
possum (Trichsurus vulpeculs), and
hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).
However, these predators are not
considered serious threats 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 on or near nests.
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). In
one case, a sheep was observed to lie on
a nest (Moore 2009b, p. 21).
Another obstacle to Chatham
oystercatcher populations is marram
grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced
to New Zealand from Europe to protect
farmland from sand encroachment.
Marram grass 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 fore
dunes 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. After three summers of video
recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded
were predated by cats, but of the
remaining six nest failures, weka were
responsible for three; red-billed gull,
one; sheep-trampling, one; and sea
wash, one (Moore 2005b).
Conservation Status. Chatham
oystercatcher is listed as critically
endangered by the NZDOC (2010d),
making it a high priority for
conservation management (NZDOC
2007). It is classified as ‘‘Endangered’’ on
the IUCN Red List because it has an
extremely small population (BLI 2010d).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
It is not listed in any appendices of
CITES.
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 (NZDOC
2001, 24 pp.), 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 (NZDOC 2008b).
Artificial incubation has been attempted
but has not increased productivity.
Additionally, livestock have been
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
(BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Chatham
oystercatcher received an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the threats to this
species, we have determined that no
change in the classification of the
magnitude and imminence of threats to
the species is warranted at this time.
The Chatham oystercatcher does not
represent a monotypic genus. The
current population estimate is very
small—between 50 and 300
individuals—and the species only
occurs in a small area. Although it faces
threats that are moderate in magnitude
(predation, low population numbers,
and potential loss due to storm surges);
the NZDOC has taken measures to aid
the recovery of the species that appear
to be effective (the species’ population
is increasing), However, we find that the
threats are still on-going and therefore,
imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to
reflect imminent threats of moderate
magnitude.
E. Orange-Fronted Parakeet
(Cyanoramphus malherbi), LPN = 8
The orange-fronted parakeet, also
known as Malherbe’s parakeet is
endemic to New Zealand. It 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 recognizes Cyanoramphus
malherbi as a full species (ITIS 2010,
accessed July 16, 2010). Absent peerreviewed information to the contrary,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25157
we consider the orange-fronted parakeet
to be a valid species.
At one time, the orange-fronted
parakeet was scattered throughout most
of New Zealand (Harrison 1970). This
species has been described as never
being common (Mills and Williams
1979). During the 19th century, the
species’ distribution included South
Island, Stewart Island, and a few other
offshore islands of New Zealand
(NZDOC 2009a). Currently, there are
three known remaining populations.
The South Island populations are
managed and located within a 30-km
(18.6-mi) radius in beech (Nothofagus
spp.) forests of upland valleys (Hawdon
and Poulter valleys). These valleys are
within Arthur’s Pass National Park and
the Hurunui South Branch in Lake
Sumner Forest Park in Canterbury,
South Island (NZDOC 2009a). Two
populations of this species have also
been established on Chalky and Maud
Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007; OrtizCatedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385).
Between 2007 and 2009, 62 birds were
introduced to Maud Island.
This species inhabits southern beech
forests, with a preference for locales
bordering stands of N. solandri
(mountain beech) (del Hoyo 1997;
Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). The
species 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 (years
yielding a high abundance of seeds),
parakeet numbers can increase
substantially. On South Island,
Nothofagus species were observed to be
a major component of its diet (Kearvall
et al. 2002, pp. 140–145). On Maud
Island, a primary component of its diet
was Melicytus ramiflorus (mahoe)
(Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p.
385). In addition to eating seeds, the
orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits,
leaves, flowers, buds, and small
invertebrates (BLI 2009).
The orange-fronted parakeet has an
extremely small, fragmented population
and limited range, and its population
has declined during the past 10 years
(BLI 2010e). Currently, BLI estimates its
population in the wild to be between 50
and 249 individuals (BLI 2010e, p. 1).
NZDOC’s population estimate is
between 100 to 200 individuals in the
wild and they also believe the
population is 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.) (BLI
2009). Large numbers of stoats and rats
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
25158
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
in beech forests cause large losses of
parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Stoats and
rats are excellent hunters on the ground
and in trees. They are able to exploit
parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes,
which impacts primarily females,
chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2009c).
In 2007, habitat loss and degradation
were considered threats to the orangefronted parakeet (BLI 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, which browse on plants, changing
the forest structure (NZDOC 2009c).
This is problematic for the orangefronted parakeet, which utilizes the
ground and low-growing shrubs while
feeding (Kearvell et al. 2002).
Other risks to this species’ viability
exist. Some of these other potential
threats 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) which compete with
parakeets for invertebrates as a dietary
source (Kearvell et al. 2002).
Hybridization is also a concern. The
orange-fronted parakeet may hybridize
with other species. Snyder et al.
reported that hybridization with yellowcrowned parakeets (C. auriceps) had
been observed at Lake Sumner (2000). In
some cases, we are not able to
distinguish between hybridized birds
and full species due to similarities in
color (Chan 2006, p. 5).
Conservation Status. 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 on the species
to ensure its survival. The species is
listed as ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ on the
IUCN Red List, ‘‘because it underwent a
population crash following rat invasions
between 1990–2000.’’ It is listed in
Appendix II of CITES as part of a
general listing for all parrots (CITES
2010).
The NZDOC closely monitors all
known populations of the orangefronted parakeet. Nest searches are
conducted, nest holes are inspected, and
surveys are carried out in other areas to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
look for evidence of other populations.
For example, 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 selfsustaining population has been
established on Maud Island (NZDOC
2008).
Because the NZDOC determined that
the species’ largest threat is predation,
they initiated a program to remove
predators in some parts of the species’
range. ‘‘Operation ARK’’ is their
initiative to respond to predator
problems in beech forests to prevent
species’ extinctions, including orangefronted parakeets. Predators are
methodically controlled with traps,
toxins in bait stations, bait bags, and
aerial spraying, when necessary
(NZDOC 2009d). The NZDOC also
implemented a captive-breeding
program for the orange-fronted parakeet.
Using captive-bred birds from the
program, NZDOC established two selfsustaining populations of the orangefronted parakeet on predator-free
islands. The NZDOC monitors wild nest
sites and is actively managing the
conservation of the species, as
evidenced by the 2003 discovery of a
new population. Despite these controls,
predation by introduced species is still
a threat because predators have not been
eradicated from this species’ range.
In our 2009 ANOR, the orange-fronted
parakeet received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the threats to the orangefronted parakeet, we have determined
that no change in the classification of
the magnitude of threats to the species
is warranted because NZDOC is actively
managing the species. The orangefronted parakeet does not represent a
monotypic genus. Although the species’
available suitable nesting habitat in
beech forests is extremely restricted,
translocations have taken place and
seem to be successful (BLI 2010e, p. 2).
Although the current population is
small and declining (between 50 and
249 individuals), and the species’
distribution is extremely limited, threats
are being mitigated. It has a very small
and severely fragmented population that
has declined over the past 10 years (BLI
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2010e) but it is being closely monitored
and may slowly be increasing (van Hal
in litt, in BLI 2010e). The species faces
threats that are moderate in magnitude
(competition for food and suitable
nesting habitat within highly altered
habitat, predation, and habitat
degradation) because the NZDOC has
taken measures to aid the recovery of
the species. However, because the
threats are on-going, we find that the
threats to this species are still imminent.
Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect
imminent threats of moderate
magnitude.
F. Uvea Parakeet (Eunymphicus
uvaeensis), LPN = 2
The Uvea parakeet, previously known
as Eunymphicus cornutus, is currently
known as both E. uvaeensis and E. c.
cornutus (Boon et al. 2008, p 251; BLI
2010f). BLI recognizes the Uvea parakeet
as E. uvaeensis. ITIS considers the Uvea
parakeet to be a subspecies,
Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis (ITIS
2010, accessed July 16, 2010). Research
presented in 2008 indicates that the
Uvea parakeet, based on genetic,
ecological, behavioral, and
biogeographical evidence, is so
markedly distinct that it warrants status
as its own species (Boon 2008 et al., p.
259). Thus, in this ANOR, based on the
best scientific and commercial data
available, we consider the Uvea
parakeet to be the species E. uvaeensis.
We are evaluating the threats to the
Uvea parakeet at the taxonomic level of
a species.
The Uvea parakeet is found only on
the small island of Uvea (also known as
´
both Ouvea Island and Wallis Island) in
the Loyalty Archipelago, New Caledonia
(a territory of France) in the South
Pacific Ocean. The island is
approximately 1,500 km (932 mi) east of
Australia. Uvea Island is 110 km2 (42
mi2) in size (Juniper and Parr 1998). The
Uvea parakeet is found primarily in oldgrowth forests, specifically those
dominated by the pine tree Agathis
australis (del Hoyo et al. 1997). The
island is predominantly limestone and
lacks deep soil layers (Boon et al. 2008,
p. 257). Most birds occur in about 20
km2 (7.7 mi2) 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 66 km2 (25.5 mi2) (BLI
2010f).
Uvea parakeets feed on fruit, the
berries of vines, and the flowers and
seeds of native trees and shrubs (del
Hoyo et al. 1997; Robinet and Salas
2003, p. 71). They also feed on a few
types of crops in cultivated land
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
adjacent to their habitat. The greatest
number of birds occurs close to gardens
with papayas (BLI 2010f). A significant
characteristic is that Uvea parakeet nest
in cavities of native trees; the absence of
suitable trees and nesting cavities may
be a limiting factor (Robinet and Salas
2003, p. 71). Their clutch size is
generally 2 to 3 eggs; and they are
known to have another clutch if the first
set of eggs is destroyed (termed ‘‘doubleclutch’’) (BLI 2010f).
One survey of Uvea parakeet in the
early 1990s estimated that the
population was between 70 and 90
individuals (Hahn 1993). However,
another survey in 1993 (Robinet et al.
1996) yielded an estimate of between
270 and 617 individuals. In 1999, it was
believed that 742 individuals lived in
northern Uvea, and 82 in the south
(Primot 1999 as cited in BLI 2010f). Six
surveys conducted between 1993 and
2007 indicated a steady increase in
population numbers in both areas
(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI
2010f). The current population estimate
is 750 individuals (BLI 2010f).
Various threats to this species exist.
The Uvea parakeet is primarily
threatened by lack of nesting sites due
to competition from bees and historic
habitat loss, and to lesser extents
predation and possibly capture of
juveniles for the pet trade (Robinet et al.
2003, pp. 73, 78; BLI 2010f, p. 2).
Although the forest habitat of the Uvea
parakeet has been threatened by
clearance for agriculture and logging in
the past, the primary threats now appear
to be competition by bees for nests and
predation by goshawk (Accipiter
fasciatus) (Robinet et al. 2003, p. 73).
The invasion of bees into Uvea in 1996
resulted in competition with Uvea
parakeet over nesting sites. This
decreased known Uvea parakeet nesting
sites by 10 percent between 2000 and
´
2002 (Barre in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI
2010f). Studies by Robinet et al. (2003)
indicate the density of breeding Uvea
parakeet is positively related to the
distribution of suitable trees.
Consequently, the limited number of
suitable trees limits the number of
breeding pairs. In two other 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. Another limiting
factor is forest fragmentation as a result
of increased numbers of coconut
plantations which acts as a barrier to
dispersal. This could possibly explain
the lack of recolonization in southern
Uvea (Robinet et al. 2003).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
It is unknown if capture of young
Uvea parakeets for the pet trade is still
occurring, and if so, to what extent.
Capture of juvenile parakeets involves
cutting open nesting cavities to extract
nestlings, which renders the holes
unsuitable for future nesting. Robinet et
al. (1996) suggested that the impact of
capture of juveniles on the viability of
populations is not obvious in long-lived
species that are capable of re-nesting,
such as Uvea parakeet.
In 1999, a study of the reproductive
biology of Uvea parakeet found that the
main cause of chick death was
starvation of the third chick within the
first week after hatching (Robinet and
Salas). However, the reason underlying
the starvation is unknown.
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 the ship rat
and Norway rat. However, these rat
species are present on the other nearby
Loyalty Islands and on Grande Terre
(Robinet and Salas 1996); precautions
need to be taken to ensure that rats do
not reach Uvea Island. Egg predation
rates were four times higher on Lifou
(also known as Lifu Island) where R.
rattus occurs (Robinet et al. 1998).
In 30 years, approximately 30 to 50
percent of primary forest was removed
(Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a
young and increasing human
population. A 2000 population estimate
was 4,000 inhabitants; and the 2008
population census for Wallis (Uvea) was
9,731 (www.insee.gov.fr, accessed March
19, 2011). The increase in human
population may lead to more
destruction of forest for housing,
cultivated fields, and plantations. As of
2000, coconut palms plantations were
the island’s main source of income
(CITES 2000a). As indicated earlier, the
lack of nesting sites is believed to be the
most significant limiting factor for the
species (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78;
BLI 2010, p. 2).
Conservation Status. Various
conservation measures are in place for
this species. This species is listed as
‘‘Endangered’’ on the 2010 IUCN Red
List (BLI 2010f). It was uplisted from
Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES in
July 2000, due to 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25159
and habitat monitoring (Robinet in litt.
1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). A
second recovery plan was initiated in
2003. The species increased in
popularity and is celebrated as an island
emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; Primot
in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 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 have occurred
(Robinet et al. 1996), however the
success of current conservation efforts is
unknown. Increased awareness of the
plight of the Uvea parakeet and
improvements in law enforcement
capability are helping to address illegal
trade of the species.
Preventive measures have been taken
at the port and airport to prevent
introduction of invasive rats and should
continue to be reinforced, but there is
concern that these rats may be
introduced in the future (BLI 2010, p. 3).
As of 2007, the island remained rat-free
(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI
2010). 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 BLI 2009), possibly because of
the presence of ship rats and Norway
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. As a preventative measure in case
rats reach the island, they also suggested
it would be valuable to implement lowintensity rat control of the Polynesian
rat (R. exulans) in Uvea immediately
before the parakeet breeding season.
Lifou may also lack suitable nesting
sites (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78).
A captive-breeding program has been
discussed but not begun (BLI 2010f). A
translocation program to restock this
species into the southern portion of
Uvea was cancelled under the new
recovery plan (2003) because the
population was considered viable and
was expected to increase naturally
´
(Barre in litt. 2003; Anon 2004 as cited
in BLI 2010f). Measures are being taken
to control predators and prevent
colonization by rats (BLI 2010f). Current
Uvea parakeet numbers appear to be
slowly increasing, but any relaxation of
conservation efforts or introduction of
nonnative rats or other predators could
lead to a rapid decline (BLI 2010f). The
´ ´
´
Societe Caledonienne d’Ornithologie
(SCO) received funding to test artificial
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
25160
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 BLI
2010f).
Even though populations appear to be
currently increasing, any reduction in
conservation efforts or introduction of
invasive species (particularly cavitynesting bees, the ship rat, and the
Norway rat) could lead to rapid declines
(Robinet et al. 1998; BLI 2010f).
Although the Uvea parakeet is affected
by other threats, the absence of the ship
rat and Norway rat on Uvea is a major
factor contributing to its survival.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Uvea parakeet
received an LPN of 8. We reevaluated
the threats to the Uvea parakeet and
determined that a change in the LPN for
the species is warranted. The Uvea
parakeet does not represent a monotypic
genus. Its population is estimated to be
approximately 750 individuals, and it is
an island endemic in limited locations
with restricted and declining habitat.
The Uvea parakeet faces threats that are
high in magnitude primarily due to nest
competition by bees, predation by
goshawk, and the lack of the old-growth
forest, on which the birds depend for
nesting holes. The birds only occur in
an area about 20 km2 (7.7 mi2) of forest
with a total area of potential habitat of
approximately 66 km2 (25.5 mi2) (BLI
2010f). Because the human population
on the island is increasing, there is
likely an increase occurring in the
magnitude of threats to this species.
Management efforts have been put in
place to aid in the recovery of the
species, however, the threats to the
species identified here continue. Based
on new information, we find that the
threats to this species are occurring
now, ongoing, and are imminent. Thus,
we have changed the LPN from an 8 to
a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
G. Blue-Throated Macaw (Ara
glaucogularis), LPN = 2
The blue-throated macaw is endemic
to forest islands in the seasonally
flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de
Mojos, also known as Lanos de Moxos)
of central Bolivia (Jordan and Munn
1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997;
BLI 2010g). The taxonomic status of this
species was long disputed, primarily
because the species was unknown in the
wild to biologists until fairly recently.
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
The species inhabits a mosaic of
seasonally inundated savanna, palm
groves, forest islands, and humid
lowlands. This macaw species is found
in areas where palm-fruit food and
suitable nesting cavities are available
(Herrera et al. 2007, pp. 18–24). They
particularly like fruit mesocarp of palm
trees (Jordan and Munn 1993;
Yamashita and de Barros 1997; Bueno
2000; Herrera 2007, p. 20) such as
Attalea phalerata (motacu palm),
Mauritia flexuosa (common names:
aguaje, it palm, buriti palm, moriche
palm), and Acrocomia aculeata
(common names include: coyoli palm,
gru-gru palm, macaw palm, Paraguay
palm, acrocome, gru-gru, noix de Coyol,
Coyolipalme, amankayo, corojo, corozo,
coyol, baboso, tucuma, and totai)
(https://www.ars-grin.gov, https://
www.pacsoa.org.au).
The blue-throated macaw also
depends on motacu palms for nesting
(BLI 2008d). In 2005, this species was
found nesting in an area dominated by
the Curupau tree (Anadenanthera
colubrina) (also known as Vilca, Huilco,
Wilco, Cebil, or Angico) (Kyle 2005, p.
7). The species inhabits elevations
between 200 and 300 m (656 and 984 ft)
(Brace et al. 1995; Yamashita and de
Barros 1997; BLI 2008c). These macaws
are seen most commonly traveling in
pairs, and have been seen in flocks of 7
to 9 birds, and on rare occasions may be
found in small flocks (Macleod et al.
2009, p. 15). One flock of 70 birds was
´
found in 2007 near the Rio Mamore by
the Armonia Association (Waugh 2007a,
p. 53). The blue-throated macaw nests
between November and March in large
tree cavities where one to three young
are raised (BLI 2010g).
BLI (2010g) estimates the total wild
population to be between 50 and 300
birds and noted the population has
some fragmentation. Surveys indicate
the population may have slowly
increased following dramatic declines
in the 1970s and 1980s, but now the
population is believed to be decreasing
(BLI 2010g). Biologists surveying for this
species in 2004 found more birds than
in previous surveys by searching
specific habitat types (palm groves and
forested islands) (Herrera et al. 2007). A
population viability analysis (PVA) of
this species found that it had a low
probability of extinction over the next
50 years (Strem 2008). However, its
small population size and its low
population growth rate makes this
species very vulnerable to any threat.
The low probability of extinction may
be reasonable given that the bluethroated macaw is a long-lived species,
and the 50-year simulation timeframe is
relatively short for such species.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
However, Strem found that impacts
such as habitat destruction and
harvesting had significantly increased
the probability of extinction, which
reemphasizes the importance of
addressing these threats for this species
(2008).
The blue-throated macaw was
historically at risk from trapping for the
national and international 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 (World Parrot Trust
2003; BLI 2008b). Although Bolivia
outlawed the export of live parrots in
1984 (Brace et al. 1995), illegal trade did
occur after that. In 1993, investigators
reported that an Argentinean bird dealer
was offering illegal Bolivian dealers a
‘‘high price’’ for blue-throated macaws
(Jordan and Munn 1993, p. 695).
Armonia Association (a nonprofit
organization in Bolivia) monitored the
wild birds that passed through a pet
market in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 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 (BLI
2007), or it may be indicative of the
scarcity of blue-throated macaws in the
wild. There are a number of bluethroated macaws in captivity, with over
1,000 registered in the North American
studbook (Waugh 2007c). Because these
birds are not difficult to breed, the
supply of captive-bred birds has
increased (Waugh 2007a), helping to
alleviate pressure on, but not
completely eliminating illegal collection
of wild birds. However, United Nations
Environment Programme—World
Conservation Monitoring Center
(UNEP–WCMC) trade data indicates that
no birds of wild origin of this species
have been exported from Bolivia since
1993 (UNEP–WCMC, accessed
September 3, 2010). A current internet
search indicated that captive-bred
specimens of this species sell for
between $1,500 and $3,000 in the
United States (www.hoobly.com,
accessed September 13, 2010). One
search advertised that this is a ‘‘very rare
species and there are only 300 left in the
wild.’’ The high value of this species
could lead to continued illegal trade.
Other threats to the blue-throated
macaw include habitat loss, botfly
parasites, and competition from other
birds, such as other macaws, toucans,
and large woodpeckers (Kyle 2005, pp.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
6–10; World Parrot Trust 2008; BLI
2010g). An early researcher noted that
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
type of burning resulted in almost no
recruitment of native palm trees, which
are vital to the ecological needs of the
blue-throated macaw (Yamashita and de
Barros 1977). The blue-throated macaw
requires suitable nesting cavities for
raising their young. The loss of suitable
trees has resulted in increased
competition from other species for these
nesting cavities as well. In fact, recent
research found that some parrot species
have been using termite mounds as
nesting cavities (Sanchez-Martinez and
Renton 2009). In Beni, many palms are
cut down by the local people for
firewood (Brace et al. 1995). Although
palm groves are more than 500 years
old, Yamashita and de Barros (1977)
concluded that the palm population
structure suggests long-term decline. In
2004–2005, of 13 potential blue-throated
macaw nests, researchers observed
several of the threats identified above
over the course of the survey. At the end
of the survey, only two chicks had
fledged (Kyle 2005, p. 9).
Conservation Status. This species is
listed in Appendix I of CITES (CITES
2010) and is legally protected in Bolivia
(Juniper and Parr 1998). Although
conservation of this species is occurring,
this species remains categorized as
‘‘Critically Endangered’’ on the 2010
IUCN Red List (BLI 2010g). The Eco
Bolivia Foundation patrols existing
macaw habitat by foot and motorbike,
and the Armonia Association monitors
the Beni lowlands for additional
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)
(Snyder et al. 2000; Llampa 2007; BLI
2008a).
In October 2008, Armonia Association
announced it had purchased a large,
3,555-ha (8,785-ac) reserve for the
purpose of establishing a protected area
for the blue-throated macaw (BLI 2008d;
Worldland Trust 2010, accessed July 16,
2010). The Barba Azul Nature Reserve
protects savanna habitat, and 20 bluethroated macaws have been observed to
nest here. The organization has also
been experimenting with artificial nest
boxes; the macaws have been using
these, and this promises to be a way to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
boost breeding success while habitat
restoration is under way in the new
reserve. Despite these efforts, only
between 50 and 300 remain in the wild.
In our 2009 ANOR, the blue-throated
macaw received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the available information,
we find that a change in the LPN is
warranted for this species. The bluethroated macaw does not represent a
monotypic genus. It faces threats that
are high in magnitude such as limited
and decreasing habitat suitability
(nesting cavities), competition for
nesting cavities from other species
(toucans in particular and other more
aggressive macaws), and parasitism by
botflies. Wildlife managers in Bolivia
are actively protecting the species and
searching for additional populations,
and the species is now protected in one
nature reserve. Although wild birds may
no longer be imported for commercial
purposes as a result of the species’
CITES listing, and it is legally protected
in Bolivia, there are only between 50
and 300 of these birds left in the wild,
and the population is decreasing
rapidly, despite conservation efforts.
The threats to the species identified are
of high magnitude, ongoing, and
imminent. Based on the rapidly
declining population, we have changed
the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect
imminent threats of high magnitude.
H. Helmeted Woodpecker (Dryocopus
galeatus), LPN = 8
The helmeted woodpecker is endemic
to the southern Atlantic forest region of
southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay,
and northeastern Argentina (BLI 2010h).
Its estimated range spans 24,000 km2
(9,266 mi2). 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
BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in
BLI 2010h). Helmeted woodpeckers
forage primarily in the middle story of
the forest interior (Brooks et al. 1993
cited in BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as
cited in BLI 2010h).
Field work on the helmeted
woodpecker indicated that the species is
less rare than once thought (BLI 2010h),
although its range is restricted (Mattsson
et al. 2008) by its habitat requirements.
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 most recent population estimate
is between 10,000 and 19,999
individuals and decreasing (BLI 2010h);
however it is unclear when the last
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25161
census of this species was conducted.
Because the helmeted woodpecker is
difficult to locate except when
vocalizing and it is silent most of the
year, its numbers may be
underestimated. Between 1997 and
2006, it was observed in the San Rafael
National Park, Paraguay, although
infrequently (Esquivel et al. 2007, p.
310). The overall conservation status of
the helmeted woodpecker’s population
is unclear; however, it is not common
anywhere it is known to exist (BLI
2010h).
The greatest threat to the helmeted
woodpecker is widespread deforestation
(Cockle 2008 as cited in BLI 2009; BLI
2010h). Other threats may be
competition from other species,
particularly more competitive
woodpeckers, which may use
fragmented and ‘‘edge’’ habitat more
effectively (BLI 2010h).
The Atlantic Forest, habitat in which
the helmeted woodpecker resides,
extends along the Atlantic coast of
Brazil from Rio Grande do Norte in the
north to Rio Grande do Sul in the south,
and inland as far as Paraguay and
Misiones Province of northeastern
Argentina (Morellato and Haddad 2000,
pp. 786–787; Conservation International
¨
2007a, p. 1; Hofling 2007, p. 1). The
Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 km
(373 mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. It
consists of tropical and subtropical
moist forests, tropical dry forests, and
mangrove forests at mostly low-tomedium elevations less than 1,000 m
(3,281 ft); however, altitude can reach as
high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea
level. It is likely that only between 7
and 10 percent of this habitat remains
intact (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p.
786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p.
794). Between 92 to 95 percent of the
area historically covered by tropical
forests within the Atlantic Forest biome
has been converted or severely degraded
as a result of various human activities
(Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786;
Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) 2007, p. 1; World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007, pp. 2–41).
In addition to the overall loss and
degradation of native habitats within
this biome, the remaining tracts of
habitat are severely fragmented. The
current rate of habitat decline is
unknown.
A significant portion of Atlantic
Forest habitat has been, and continues
to be, lost and degraded by various
ongoing human activities, including
logging, establishment and expansion of
plantations and livestock pastures,
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
25162
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
urban and industrial developments
(including many new hydroelectric
dams), slash-and-burn clearing, and
intentional and accidental ignition of
fires (Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund (CEPF) 2001, pp. 9–15). Even with
the passage of a national forest policy
and in light of many other legal
protections in Brazil, the rate of habitat
loss throughout the Atlantic Forest
biome has increased since the mid1990s (Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF
2001, p. 10; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270).
Native habitats at many of the remaining
sites where the helmeted woodpecker
currently exists may be lost over the
next several years (Rocha et al. 2005, p.
263). Furthermore, the helmeted
woodpecker’s population is already
highly fragmented, and its population
believed to be declining (BLI 2010h).
Any further loss or degradation of its
remaining suitable habitat represents a
significant threat to the species. Further
studies are needed to clarify this
species’ distribution and status.
In Paraguay, some viable, although
fragmented habitat for this species
remains in San Rafael National Park
(Esquivel et al. 2007, pp. 301–302). The
park has undergone logging and
clearance, and is extremely isolated
from other mature forested areas that
might be suitable for the helmeted
woodpecker (Esquivel et al. 2007, p.
302).
Conservation Status. The helmeted
woodpecker is listed as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ by
the IUCN (IUCN 2010). It is not listed
in any appendices of CITES (CITES
2010). In one of the few remaining large
fragments of Atlantic Forest in
Paraguay, it is considered to be near
threatened (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 301).
It is protected by Brazilian law, and
populations occur in numerous
protected areas throughout its range
(Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BLI 2009;
Chebez et al. 1998 as cited in BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the helmeted
woodpecker received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the available information,
we find that a change in the LPN for the
helmeted woodpecker is not warranted.
The helmeted woodpecker does not
represent a monotypic genus. The
magnitude of threat to the species is
moderate because the species’ range
(24,000 km2 (9,266 mi2)) and population
(between 10,000 and 19,999
individuals) is believed to be much
larger than previously thought. The
threats are imminent because the forest
habitat upon which the species depends
is constantly being altered and
destroyed by humans. We will continue
to monitor the status of this species,
however, a priority rank of 8 remains
valid for this species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
I. Okinawa Woodpecker (Dendrocopos
noguchii), LPN = 2
The Okinawa woodpecker (also
known as Pryer’s woodpecker)
(Dendrocopos noguchii, synonym
Sapheopipo noguchii) is endemic to
Okinawa Island, Japan. ITIS recognizes
the Okinawa woodpecker as belonging
to the monotypic genus Sapheopipo
(ITIS 2010i, accessed September 7,
2010). Winkler et al. (2005, pp. 103–
109) analyzed partial nucleotide
sequences of mitochondrial genes and
concluded that this woodpecker belongs
in the genus Dendrocopos. IUCN and
BLI both recognize this species as
Dendrocopos noguchii. Japan references
it as Sapheopipo noguchii (https://
www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/
reddata.html, accessed September 30,
2010). For the purpose of this finding
and absent peer-reviewed information to
the contrary, we recognize it as
Dendrocopos noguchii. We welcome
comments on the classification of this
species.
Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyu
Islands, a small island chain located
between Japan and Taiwan (Brazil 1991;
Stattersfield et al. 1998; Winkler et al.
2005). Okinawa is approximately 646
km (401 mi) from Taiwan and 1,539 km
(956 mi) from Tokyo, Japan. The island
is 108 km (67 miles) in length and its
width varies between 3 and 27 km (2 to
17 mi). Okinawa’s highest point is Mt.
Yonaha at 455 m (1,494 ft). The
Okinawa woodpecker is confined to
forested areas in the northern part of the
island, generally in the Yambaru (also
known as Yanbaru) area, particularly in
the Yonaha-dake Prefecture Protection
Area. Yambaru refers to the
mountainous areas of Kunigami County
in northern Okinawa.
This species of woodpecker prefers
undisturbed, mature, subtropical
evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall
trees greater than 20 cm (7.9 in) in
diameter (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002).
Trees of this size are generally more
than 30 years old and as of 1991 were
confined to hilltops (Brazil 1991). The
species’ main breeding areas are located
along the mountain ridges between Mt.
Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-take, although
it has been observed nesting in wellforested coastal areas (Research Center,
Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as
cited in BLI 2001). The majority of the
broadleaf trees in the Yanbaru area are
oak and chinquapin (Distylium
racemosum and Schefflera octophylla)
(Ito et al. 2000, p. 305). Areas with
conifers (Coniferae, cone-bearing trees
such as pines and firs) appear to be
avoided (Short 1973; Winkler et al.
1995). The Okinawa woodpecker was
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
also observed just south of the Mt. Tanodake in an area of entirely secondary
forest that was too immature for use by
woodpeckers to excavate nest cavities,
but these may have involved birds
displaced by the clearing of mature
forests (Brazil 1991).
The Okinawa woodpecker feeds on
large arthropods, notably beetle larvae,
spiders, moths, and centipedes, fruit,
berries, seeds, acorns, and other nuts
(Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002; Winkler et
al. 2005). They forage in old-growth
forests with large, often moribund trees,
accumulated fallen trees, rotting
stumps, debris, and undergrowth (Short
1973; Brazil 1991). This species has
been observed to nest in holes excavated
in large, old growth trees such as
Castanopsis cuspidate (Japanese
chinquapin) and Machilus thunbergii
(Tabu-no-ki tree) (Ogasawara and
Ikehara 1977; Short 1982; del Hoyo
2002). Both of these tree species grow to
approximately 20 meters (66 ft) in
height. It is thought that Castanopsis is
the preferred tree species for nesting
because it tends to be hollow with hard
wood, so that the nesting cavities are
more secure (Kiyosu 1965 in BLI 2001,
p. 1880). The number of fledglings per
season range between one and three
birds (BLI 2001, p. 1880).
This species is considered one of the
world’s most rare extant woodpecker
species (Winkler et al. 2005). During the
1930s, the Okinawa woodpecker was
considered nearly extinct. In the early
1970s, it was observed to be scattered
among small colonies and isolated pairs
(Short 1973). By the early 1990s, the
breeding population was estimated to be
about 75 birds (BLI 2008a). In 2008, its
projected 10-year decline was between
30 to 49 percent (BLI 2008b). The
current population estimate ranges
between 146 and 584 individuals (BLI
2010i).
Deforestation and the fragmented
nature of its habitat due to logging, dam
construction, road-building, agricultural
development, and golf course
construction are cited to be the main
causes of its small population size (BLI
2010i). Between 1979 and 1991, 2,443
ha (6,037 ac) of forest were destroyed in
the Yanbaru area (Department of
Agriculture, Okinawa Prefectural
Government 1992, in Ito et al. 2000, p.
311). As of 2001, there was only 40 km2
(15 mi2) of suitable habitat available for
this species (BLI 2001, p. 1882).
The limited range and tiny population
make this species vulnerable to
extinction from disease and natural
disasters such as typhoons (BLI 2008).
Feral dogs and cats, the introduced
Javan mongoose (Herpestes javanicus),
and weasel (Mustela itatsi) are possible
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
predators of the woodpecker.
Additionally, feral pigs damage
potential ground-foraging sites (BLI
2003).
Conservation Status. Various
protections and conservation measures
are in place for this species. The species
is categorized on the IUCN Red List as
‘‘Critically Endangered’’ because it
consists of a small, declining population
estimated to be between 150 and 584
individuals (BLI 2010i). The species is
legally protected in Japan and it occurs
in small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and
Mt. Nishime (BLI 2008a). The Yambaru,
a forested area in the Okinawa
Prefecture, was designated as a national
park in 1996 (BLI 2010i). Additionally,
conservation organizations have
purchased sites where the woodpecker
occurred in order to establish private
wildlife preserves (del Hoyo et al. 2002;
BLI 2008). It is not listed in any
appendices of CITES.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Okinawa
woodpecker received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the available information,
we find that a change in the LPN for the
Okinawa woodpecker is warranted. The
Okinawa woodpecker does not
represent a monotypic genus. It is
considered one of the world’s most rare
extant woodpecker species and faces
threats that are high in magnitude even
though the species is legally protected
in Japan. The best available information
does not indicate that this species is
being actively managed. The threats to
the species are of high magnitude due
to the scarcity of old-growth habitat
(only 40 km2 (15 mi2)) upon which the
species is dependent. Its very small
population is believed to be continually
declining; and species with fragmented
habitat in combination with small
population sizes may be at greater risk
of extinction due to synergistic effects
(Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265–271).
Although it exists in areas with
protected status, the best available
information indicates that the threats to
the species are ongoing and imminent.
Because its projected 10-year decline
was between 30 to 49 percent in 2008,
(BLI 2008b), and because the current
population estimate ranges between 146
and 584 individuals, we have changed
the LPN for this species from an 8 to a
2 to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
J. Yellow-Browed Toucanet
(Aulacorhynchus huallagae), LPN = 2
There is very little information
available regarding the yellow-browed
toucanet. This species is endemic to
Peru and is known from only two
localities in north-central Peru—La
Libertad, where it is uncommon, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Rio Abiseo National Park, San Martin,
where it is thought to be very rare (Wege
and Long 1995; del Hoyo et al. 2002; BLI
2009). There was also a report of yellowbrowed toucanets seen in the
Leymebamba area (Mark in litt. 2003, as
cited in BLI 2010j) of Peru, although
there are no available photos of this
species. The current population size is
believed to be between 1,000 and 2,499
with a decreasing population trend (BLI
2010j).
The yellow-browed toucanet’s
estimated range is 450 km2 (174 mi2)
(BLI 2010j). The species inhabits a
narrow altitudinal range between 2,125
and 2,510 m (6,970 and 8,232 ft). It
prefers the canopy of humid, epiphyteladen montane cloud forests,
particularly areas that support Clusia
trees (sometimes known as autograph
˚
trees) (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990;
Schulenberg and Parker 1997, pp. 717–
718; del Hoyo et al. 2002). Within the
Clusia genus, there are about 20 species.
The yellow-browed toucanet does not
appear to occupy all potentially suitable
forest available within its range
(Schulenberg and Parker 1997). Its
restricted range remains unexplained.
The narrow distributional band in
which yellow-browed toucanets are
found may be related to the occurrence
of other avian species that may outcompete the yellow-browed toucanet.
Recent information indicates that both
of the suggested competitors have wider
altitudinal ranges that completely
encompass that of the yellow-browed
toucanet (Collar et al. 1992; Hornbuckle
in litt. 1999, as cited in BLI 2009;
Clements and Shany 2001, as cited in
BLI 2008; del Hoyo et al. 2002). The
larger grey-breasted mountain toucan
(Andigena hypoglauca) occurs above
2,300 m (7,544 ft), and the emerald
toucanet (Aulacorhynchus prasinus)
occurs below 2,100 m (6,888 ft)
(Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The
yellow-browed toucanet may occur to
the north and south of its known range,
but the area between the Cordillera de
´
Colan, Amazonas, and the Carpish
´
region, Huanuco, is inaccessible, and its
existence in other areas has not been
confirmed.
Distinguishing features of the yellowbrowed toucanet include a bright yellow
vent or cloaca, a blackish bill, and a
generally green face, (Schulenberg and
Parker 1997, p. 719). Its call has been
described as a series of 20 to 30 frog-like
‘‘krik’’ notes, delivered at a rate of
slightly more than one note per second
(recordings housed in Cornell
Laboratory of Ornithology, Schulenberg
and Parker 1997, p. 717).
Human-related threats to the species
include deforestation, mining, and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25163
secondary impacts associated with those
activities. Deforestation has been
widespread in this region, but has
largely occurred at lower elevations
than habitat occupied by the yellowbrowed toucanet (Barnes et al. 1995; BLI
2009). However, coca growers have
taken over forests within its altitudinal
range, probably resulting in some
reductions in this species’ range and
population (BLI 2009; Plenge in litt.
1993, as cited in BLI 2009). Most of the
area in 1997 was described as being
only lightly settled by humans
(Schulenberg and Parker 1997).
However, the human population
surrounding the Rio Abiseo Park was
steadily increasing during the 15 years
prior to 2002, primarily because of the
advent of mining operations in the area
(Obenson 2002). Pressures in and
around the park exist due to mining and
those secondary impacts associated with
¨
¨
mining (Vehkamaki and Backman, 2006,
pp. 1–2).
Conservation Status. Protections for
this species are minimal. The yellowbrowed toucanet is listed as
‘‘Endangered’’ on the IUCN Red List due
to its very small range and population
records from only two locations (BLI
2010j). It occurs in at least one protected
area, the Rio Abiseo National Park, a
World Heritage Site which was
established to protect fauna (UNEP–
WCMC 2008, p. 1). It is not listed in any
appendices of CITES (CITES 2010).
In our 2009 ANOR, the yellowbrowed toucanet received an LPN of 11.
After reevaluating the available
information, we find that a change in
the LPN for the yellow-browed toucanet
is warranted. The yellow-browed
toucanet does not represent a monotypic
genus. Although the species is believed
to exist in the protected Rio Abiseo
National Park, there have been no
documented sightings since 2003. As of
2010, BLI reported that coca-growers
have taken over forest within its
altitudinal range (BLI 2010j). The
magnitude of threats to the species is
high given that the species has a small
range and rapidly declining population;
and may be in competition for habitat
with more competitive avian species.
Further, pressures in and around the
park exist due to mining and secondary
impacts associated with mining.
Additionally, the only records of this
species are from two small locations and
they have not been verified in several
years. Based on these factors, we find
that the threats are imminent and of
high magnitude. Thus, we have
reassessed and changed the LPN for this
species from an 11 to a 2 to reflect
imminent threats of high magnitude.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
25164
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
K. Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus
novacapitalis), LPN = 8
The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird
endemic to Brazil, specifically in the
central to southern-central region of the
country. It is found in swampy gallery
forests, which are forests that grow
along streams and rivers in regions
otherwise devoid of trees, within
disturbed areas of thick streamside
vegetation and dense secondary growth
of Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern).
The Brasilia tapaculo is also strongly
associated with two other plant species:
Blechnum ferns and Euterpe palms (del
Hoyo et al. 2003, in BLI 2010k).
The species has been documented in
´
Goias and Serra da Canastra National
Park, Minas Gerais (Negret and
Cavalcanti 1985, as cited in Collar et al.
1992; Collar et al. 1992; BLI 2008). In
´
Serra do Cipo and Caraca, which are in
¸
the hills and plateaus of central Brazil,
this species was located at low densities
(Collar et al. 1992). In and around the
Serra da Canastra National Park, this
species was reported to be very common
(Silveira 1998, p. 3). Again in the Minas
Gerais area, the species was located at
low densities at Serra Negra (on the
upper Dourados River) and the
˜
headwaters of the Sao Francisco river,
in the early 1990s (Collar et al. 1992).
Although the species was once
considered rare (Sick and Texeira 1979,
as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it has been
found in reasonable numbers in areas of
Brasilia noted above (D. M. Teixeira in
litt. 1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992).
There is no current population estimate
other than that the population is
decreasing (BLI 2010j). However, in
2008 the population was estimated at
approximately 10,000 birds, with a
decreasing population trend (BLI 2008).
The species occupies a limited area
within a range of 109,000 km2 (42,085
mi2) and is likely losing habitat (BLI
2010j). Its distribution now appears
larger than initially estimated, and the
swampy gallery forests where it is found
are not conducive to forest clearing,
leaving the species’ habitat less
vulnerable to this threat than previously
thought. The majority of locations
where this species is found are within
established protected nature reserves.
Both fire risk and drainage impacts are
reduced in these areas (Antas 2007).
However, dam building for irrigation on
rivers that normally flood gallery forests
was identified as an emerging threat
(Teixeira in litt. 1987, as cited in Collar
et al. 1992; Antas 2007). Further, annual
burning of adjacent grasslands limits the
extent and availability of suitable
habitat, as does wetland drainage and
the sequestration of water for irrigation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
(Machado et al. 1998, as cited in BLI
2008).
Conservation Status. The IUCN
categorizes the Brasilia tapaculo as
‘‘Near Threatened’’ (BLI 2010j). It is not
listed in any appendices of CITES
(CITES 2010). The Brasilia tapaculo is
protected by Brazilian law (Bernardes et
al. 1990, as cited in Collar et al. 1992),
and some of the areas where this species
occurs are protected. Three Important
Bird Areas (IBAs) have been identified
for this species: Parque Nacional de
´
´
Brasılia, Cerrados ao Sul de Brasılia,
and the Serra da Canastra National Park.
A site is recognized as an IBA when it
meets criteria ‘‘ * * * based on the
occurrence of key bird species that are
vulnerable to global extinction or whose
populations are otherwise
irreplaceable.’’ These key sites for
conservation are small enough to be
conserved in their entirety, but large
enough to support self-sustaining
populations of the key bird species.
IBAs are a way to identify conservation
priorities (BLI 2010).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Brasilia
tapaculo received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the available information,
we find that a change in the LPN for the
Brasilia tapaculo is not warranted. The
Brasilia tapaculo does not represent a
monotypic genus. The magnitude of
threat to the species is moderate because
in 2008, their population was estimated
at approximately 10,000 birds; at least
two of the populations are in protected
habitat; and their preferred habitat is
swampy and difficult to clear. Threats
are imminent, because habitat is still
being drained or dammed for
agricultural irrigation, and grassland
burning limits the extent of suitable
habitat. Therefore, a priority rank of 8
remains valid for this species.
L. Codfish Island Fernbird (Bowdleria
punctata wilsoni), LPN = 12
The Codfish Island fernbird is found
only on Codfish Island, New Zealand.
Codfish Island is a nature reserve of
1,396 ha (3,448 ac) located 3 km (1.8 mi)
off the northwest coast of Stewart Island
(IUCN 1979; McClelland 2007). There
are five subspecies of Bowdleria
punctata, each restricted to a single
island and its outlying islets. The North
and South Islands’ subspecies are
widespread and locally common. The
Stewart Island and the Snares’
subspecies are moderately abundant
(Heather and Robertson 1997). In 1966,
the status of the Codfish Island
subspecies (B. punctata wilsoni) was
considered relatively safe (Blackburn
1967), but estimates dating from 1975
indicated a gradually declining
population to approximately 100
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
individuals (Bell 1975 as cited in IUCN
1979). McClelland (2007) indicated that
in the past, the Codfish Island fernbird
was restricted to low shrubland in the
higher areas of Codfish Island. Few
individuals were seen around the
coastal shrubland; and a significant
predator was the Polynesian rat (Rattus
exulans) (McClelland 2007). In 1979,
the IUCN (1979) concluded that the
absence of the fernbird from formerly
occupied areas of Codfish Island
evidenced a decline.
Although there is no accurate estimate
of the current size of the Codfish Island
fernbird population (estimates are based
on incidental encounter rates in the
various habitat types on the island), the
population as of 2007 was believed to be
several hundred. McClelland (2007)
concluded that is it likely that the
population peaked and is stable.
Fernbirds are sedentary and are not
strong fliers. They are secretive and
reluctant to leave cover. They feed in
low vegetation or on the ground, eating
mainly caterpillars, spiders, grubs,
beetles, flies, and moths (Heather and
Robertson 1997). Codfish Island’s native
vegetation has been modified by the
introduced Australian brush-tailed
possum (Trichosurus vulpecula).
Codfish Island fernbird populations
have also been reduced due to predation
by weka (Gallirallus australis scotti) and
Polynesian rats (Merton 1974, pers.
comm., as cited in IUCN 1979;
McClelland 2002, pp. 1–9).
IUCN and BLI only recognize the
species Bowdleria punctata; it is not
addressed at subspecies levels. Neither
the species nor the subspecies is
addressed by ITIS (www.itis.gov/,
accessed September 9, 2010). The New
Zealand Department of Conservation
(NZDOC) recognizes the Codfish Island
fernbird as a valid subspecies, however.
Because New Zealand recognizes the
subspecies, and absent peer-reviewed
information to the contrary, we
currently consider Bowdleria punctata
wilsoni to be a valid subspecies within
a multi-species genus.
Conservation Status. Varying levels of
conservation status and protections are
in place for this species. IUCN
categorizes Bowdleria punctata as ‘‘Least
concern’’ (BLI 2010k). The 2008 New
Zealand Threat Classification System
manual indicates that the two ‘‘at risk’’
categories, ‘‘range restricted’’ and
‘‘sparse,’’ have been replaced by a single
category called ‘‘naturally uncommon’’
(p. 10). The NZDOC categorizes this
subspecies as ‘‘naturally uncommon.’’ It
is not listed in any appendices of CITES
(CITES 2010).
Several specific conservation
measures have been undertaken by the
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
NZ DOC with respect to Bowdleria
punctata wilsoni as well as Bowdleria
punctata; however the current
population size of the subspecies is
unclear. The weka and possum were
eradicated from Codfish Island in 1984
and 1987, respectively (McClelland
2007). The Polynesian rat was believed
to have been eradicated in 1997
(Conservation News 2002; McClelland
2007). The Codfish Island fernbird
population was reported to have
rebounded strongly with the removal of
invasive predator species. Additionally,
it successfully colonized the forest
habitat, which greatly expanded its
range. However, because there is always
the chance that rats could reestablish a
population on the island, the island is
being monitored for rats.
To safeguard the Codfish Island
fernbird, the NZ DOC established a
second population on Putauhinu Island,
a small 144-ha (356-ac), privately owned
island located approximately 40 km
(25 mi) south of Codfish Island. The
Putauhinu population established
rapidly, and McClelland (2007) reported
that it is also believed to be stable.
While there are no accurate data on the
population size or trends on Putauhinu,
as of 2007, the numbers were estimated
to be 200 to 300 birds spread over the
island (McClelland 2007). Even with a
second population, the Codfish Island
fernbird still remains vulnerable to
naturally occurring storm events due to
its restricted range and small population
size.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Codfish Island
fernbird received an LPN of 12. After
reevaluating the available information,
we find that a change in the LPN for this
subspecies is not warranted. The
information available indicates that the
subspecies faces threats that are low to
moderate in magnitude because: (1) It
exists on an island that is a nature
reserve and (2) the removal of invasive
predator species and the establishment
of a second population have allowed for
a rebound in the subspecies’ population.
Although the actual population
numbers for this subspecies are
unknown (possibly around 500
individuals), threats are nonimminent
because the conservation measures to
prevent the invasion of predatory
invasive species indicate that they have
been successful; the subspecies is being
actively managed. Therefore, a priority
rank of 12 remains valid for this
subspecies. However, we will continue
to monitor the status of this subspecies.
M. Ghizo White-Eye (Zosterops
luteirostris), LPN = 2
The Ghizo white-eye (also known as
the splendid white-eye) is endemic to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
the island of Ghizo. Ghizo is a very
densely populated island in the
Solomon Islands in the South Pacific
ocean, east of Papua New Guinea (BLI
2010m). The Ghizo white-eye is
described as a ‘‘warbler-like’’ bird. The
island of Ghizo is 11 km long and 5 km
wide (7 by 3 mi), and the human
population is estimated to be
approximately 6,670 as of 2005 (https://
www.adb.org, accessed September 9,
2010.)
This species was characterized as
being locally common in the 1990s in
the remaining tall or old-growth forest,
which is very fragmented and is now
less than 1 km2 (0.39 mi2). It has been
reported to be less common in scrub
close to large trees and in plantations
(Buckingham et al. 1995 and Gibbs
1996, as cited in BLI 2008). It is unclear
whether these remaining habitats can
support sustainable breeding
populations (Buckingham et al. 1995, as
cited in BLI 2008).
The most recent population estimate
for this species is 250 to 999 birds (BLI
2010m). Biologists have recommended
that systematic surveys be conducted for
this species to verify its conservation
status (Sherley 2001). While there are no
data on population trends, the species is
very likely declining due to habitat loss
and degradation (BLI 2010m).
The very tall old-growth forest on
Ghizo is still under threat from
clearance for local use as timber,
firewood, and gardens, as are the areas
of other secondary growth, which are
suboptimal habitats for this species. The
species is also under considerable threat
from deforestation for agricultural land
(BLI 2008).
Conservation Status. Few, if any,
protections are in place for this species.
The IUCN Red List classifies this
species as ‘‘Endangered,’’ because of its
very small population that is considered
to be declining due to habitat loss
(BLI 2010m). It is not listed in any
appendices of CITES (CITES 2010).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Ghizo whiteeye received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the available information,
we find that a change in the LPN for this
species is warranted. The Ghizo whiteeye does not represent a monotypic
genus. It faces threats that are high in
magnitude due to declining suitable
habitat; its range is estimated to be less
than 35 km2 (13.5 mi2); of which less
than 1 km2 (0.39 mi2) is old growth
forest. The best available information
indicates that forest clearing is
proceeding at a pace that is rapidly
denuding the habitat; secondary growth
is being converted for agricultural
purposes. Further, the human
population on the small island is
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25165
increasing, which is likely contributing
to the reduction in old-growth forest for
local uses such as gardens and timber.
Additionally, the last estimate of the
Ghizo white-eye population was
believed to be between 250 and 999
individuals, but its population trend is
believed to be declining. These threats
to the species are ongoing, of high
magnitude, and imminent. Thus, based
on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we have
changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2.
N. Black-Backed Tanager (Tangara
peruviana), LPN = 8
The black-backed tanager is endemic
to the coastal Atlantic forest region of
southeastern Brazil. The species has
been documented in Rio de Janeiro, Sao
Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio
Grande do Sul, and Espirito Santo
(Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 2000, as cited
in BLI 2008; BLI 2010n). The species is
generally restricted to coastal sand-plain
forest and restinga, but has also been
located in secondary forests (BLI 2008).
Restinga is a Brazilian term that
describes white sand forest habitat
consisting of a patchwork of vegetation
types, such as beach vegetation; open
shrubby vegetation; herbaceous,
shrubby coastal sand dune habitat; and
dry and swamp forests distributed over
coastal plains from northeastern to
southeastern Brazil (Rocha et al. 2005,
p. 263; McGinley 2007, pp. 1–2).
The Atlantic Forest, on which this
species depends, extends up to 600 km
(373 mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. It
consists of tropical and subtropical
moist forests, tropical dry forests, and
mangrove forests at mostly low-tomedium elevations less than 1,000 m
(3,281 ft); however, altitude can reach as
high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea
level. Between 7 and 10 percent of this
habitat remains intact (Morellato and
Haddad 2000, p. 786; Oliveira-Filho and
Fontes 2000, p. 794). Based on a number
of other estimates, 92 to 95 percent of
the area historically covered by tropical
forests within the Atlantic Forest biome
has been converted or severely degraded
as a result of various human activities
(Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786;
Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; TNC 2007, p. 1;
WWF 2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the
overall loss and degradation of habitat,
the remaining tracts of habitat are
severely fragmented.
This species’ physical characteristics
include an underbody color of blueturquoise and a pale red-brown vent or
cloaca. The male has a chestnut colored
head and black back. The female is
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
25166
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
duller and greener. It has a complex
distribution with seasonal fluctuations
in response to the ripening of areoira
Schinus fruit, at least in Rio de Janeiro
and Sao Paulo (BLI 2010n). It has been
observed visiting gardens and orchards
of houses close to forested areas. Its diet
consists primarily of fruit, and to a
smaller extent, insects (Moraes and Krul
1997).
The black-backed tanager is generally
not considered rare within suitable
habitat (BLI 2010n). This species is
more common in Sao Paulo during the
winter, and records from Espirito Santo
are only from the winter season.
Clarification of the species’ seasonal
movements would provide an improved
understanding of the species’
population status and distribution, but
currently populations appear small and
fragmented and are declining rapidly;
likely in response to extensive habitat
loss (BLI 2010n). Population estimates
range from 2,500 to 10,000 individuals
(BLI 2010n).
The primary threat impacting this
species is the rapid and widespread loss
of habitat for beachfront development. A
minor threat may be that it occasionally
appears in the illegal bird trade (BLI
2010n). The remaining tracts of suitable
˜
habitat in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo
are threatened by ongoing development
of coastal areas, primarily for tourism
enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes,
beachside housing) and associated
infrastructure support (del Hoyo 2003,
p. 616; WWF 2007, pp. 7 and 36–37).
These activities have drastically
reduced the species’ abundance and
extent of its occupied range. These
activities are currently a risk to the
species’ continued existence because
populations are being limited to highly
fragmented patches of habitat (BLI
2010n). Although this species seems to
tolerate some environmental
degradation if there are well preserved
stretches in its territory in which the
birds can seek shelter, we expect the
degree of these threats will continue and
likely increase within the foreseeable
future.
Because this species inhabits coastal
areas, sea level rise may also affect this
species (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377–
379). In Santos Bay on the coast, sea
level rise scenarios were conducted
based on predictions of increases
between 0.5 and 1.5 m (1.6 and 4.9 ft)
by the year 2100 (Alfredini et al. 2008,
pp. 378). Even small increases in sea
level could cause flooding, cause
erosion, and change salt marsh zones
(Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377–379)
within this species’ habitat. As sea level
rises, habitat will be less available for
this species, compounded by an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
increased demand by humans to utilize
land for housing. The black-backed
tanager may attempt to move inland in
search of new suitable habitat as its
current habitat disappears, however,
there may not be suitable habitat
remaining for the species. Although
Brazil has several laws requiring
resource protection for species such as
the black-backed tanager, its habitat is
under pressure from the intense
development that occurs in coastal
areas, particularly south of Rio de
Janeiro. Threats to the black-backed
tanager’s remaining habitat are ongoing
due to the challenges that Brazil faces to
balance its competing development and
environmental priorities.
Conservation Status. The species is
considered ‘‘Vulnerable’’ by the IUCN
(BLI 2010n). The black-backed tanager is
not listed in any appendices of CITES
(CITES 2010). Portions of the tanager’s
range are in six protected areas,
although the protections are not always
effective (BLI 2010n).
In our 2009 ANOR, the black-backed
tanager received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the available information,
we find that a change in the LPN for this
species is not warranted at this time.
The black-backed tanager does not
represent a monotypic genus. Threats
(primarily habitat loss) to the species are
moderate in magnitude due to the
species’ fairly large range, population
size, and apparent flexibility in diet and
habitat suitability. Threats are however,
imminent because the species is at risk
by ongoing and widespread loss of
habitat due to beachfront and related
development. Therefore, a priority rank
of 8 remains valid for this species.
O. Lord Howe Pied Currawong (Strepera
graculina crissalis), LPN = 6
The Lord Howe pied currawong is a
subspecies separate from the five
mainland pied currawongs (Strepera
graculina spp.). In 2004, it was
suggested that its taxonomy be reviewed
to determine if it warrants recognition
as a distinct species (McAllan et al.
2004). ITIS recognizes the species as S.
graculina (ITIS 2010, accessed
September 13, 2010). Because Australia
recognizes the subspecies, and absent
peer-reviewed information to the
contrary, we consider S. graculina
crissalis to be a valid subspecies within
a multi-species genus.
This subspecies is endemic to Lord
Howe Island, New South Wales,
Australia. Lord Howe Island is 600 km
(373 mi) northeast of Sydney, Australia.
This is also the distance to the
subspecies’ closest relative, the
mainland Pied Currawong (S.
graculina). The Lord Howe pied
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
currawong is limited to a 12-km2 (4.6
mi2) area on the 20-km2 (7.7-mi2) island
(Hutton 1991; Garnett and Crowley
2000). It has been recorded to a limited
extent on small nearby islets of the
Admiralty group (Garnett and Crowley
2000; New South Wales Department of
Environment & Climate Change (NSW
DECC) 2010). Lord Howe Island is
unique among inhabited Pacific Islands
in that less than 10 percent of the island
has been cleared (WWF 2001) and less
than 24 percent has been disturbed
(NSW Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC) 2007a). In 1982, the
island was added to the World Heritage
List (NSW Department of the
Environment and Water Resources
2007).
The Lord Howe pied currawong
breeds in rainforests and palm forests,
particularly along streams. Its territories
include sections of streams or gullies
that are lined by tall timber (Garnett and
Crowley 2000). The highest densities of
Lord Howe pied currawong nests have
been located on the slopes of Mount
Gower and in the Erskine Valley, with
smaller numbers on the lower land to
the north (Knight 1987, as cited in
Garnett and Crowley 2000). The nests
are typically situated high in trees and
are made in a cup shape with sticks and
lined with grass and palm thatch (NSW
DECC 2005). As of 2001, most of Lord
Howe Island was still forested, and the
removal of feral animals resulted in the
recovery of the forest understory
(WWF 2001).
The Lord Howe pied currawong is
omnivorous and eats a wide variety of
food, including native fruits and seeds
(Hutton 1991). It is the only remaining
native island vertebrate predator (NSW
DECC 2010). It has been recorded eating
seabird chicks, poultry, and chicks of
the Lord Howe woodhen (Tricholimnas
sylvestris) and white tern (Gygis alba). It
also feeds on both live and dead rats
(Hutton 1991). Food brought to Lord
Howe pied currawong nestlings was
observed to be, in decreasing order:
Invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, and
nestlings of other bird species (Lord
Howe Island Board (LHIB) 2006).
In the 2000 Action Plan for Australian
Birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000), the
Lord Howe pied currawong population
was estimated at approximately 80
mature individuals. In 2007, the
Foundation for National Parks &
Wildlife (FNPW 2007) estimated the
breeding population of the Lord Howe
pied currawong was 80 to 100 pairs,
with a nesting territory in the tall forest
areas of about 5 ha (12 ac) per pair. The
population size is limited by the amount
of available habitat and the lack of food
during the winter (FNPW 2007). The
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
most recent population estimate is 100
to 200 individuals (from surveys in
2005–2006) (NSW DECC 2010, p. 3).
The main threat identified for the
Lord Howe pied currawong is habitat
clearing and modification. Other threats
include non-target poisoning, and
effects associated with extremely small
population sizes (NSW DECC 2010). A
lesser threat to the Lord Howe pied
currawong is human interaction with
the species. Prior to the 1970s, locals
would shoot this currawong because it
preys on nestling birds (Hutton 1991).
The Lord Howe pied currawong remains
unpopular with some residents, likely
because of its predatory nature on
nestlings. It is unclear what effect this
localized killing has on the overall
population size and distribution of the
species (Garnett and Crowley 2000).
Also, because the Lord Howe pied
currawong often preys on ship (black)
rats, it may be subject to nontarget
poisoning during rat-baiting programs
(DEC 2007b). Close monitoring of the
population is needed because this small,
endemic population is highly
susceptible to catastrophic events, such
as disease or introduction of a new
predator (Garnett and Crowley 2000).
Conservation Status. Various levels of
conservation and protections exist for
this species. The Lord Howe Island
Biodiversity Management Plan was
finalized in 2007, and is the formal
National and NSW Recovery Plan for
threatened species and communities of
the Lord Howe Island Group (DEC
2007a). The NSW Threatened Species
Conservation Act of 1995 lists the Lord
Howe pied currawong as ‘‘Vulnerable’’
because it has a limited range, only
occurring on Lord Howe Island (NSW
DECC 2010). It also is listed as
vulnerable under the Australian
Commonwealth Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act of
1999. These laws provide a legislative
framework to protect and encourage the
recovery of vulnerable species (NSW
DEC 2006a). The Lord Howe Island Act
of 1953, as amended, established the
Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB), made
provisions for the LHIB to care, control,
and manage the island; and established
75 percent of the land area as a
permanent park preserve (NSW DEC
2007). Although the subspecies is not
specifically addressed by BLI or IUCN,
the species is considered ‘‘Least
Concern’’ by the IUCN (BLI 2010o). It is
not listed in any appendices of CITES.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Lord Howe
pied currawong received an LPN of 12.
After re-evaluating the threats to the
Lord Howe pied currawong, we have
determined that a change in the LPN
representing the magnitude and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
imminence of threats to the subspecies
is warranted. The Lord Howe pied
currawong does not represent a
monotypic genus. It faces threats that
are high in magnitude due to its
extremely small population size, nontarget poisoning, and habitat clearing
and modification. Despite conservation
efforts, the population of the Lord Howe
pied currawong has remained around
100 to 200 individuals. Species with
small, declining population sizes such
as these may be at greater risk of
extinction due to synergistic effects
(Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265–271).
Because conservation efforts for the
species have been implemented, we find
that the threats are non-imminent. Thus,
based on the best available information,
the LPN has been changed from 12 to 6
to reflect non-imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Invertebrates
P. Harris’ Mimic Swallowtail (Mimoides
(syn. Eurytides) lysithous harrisianus),
LPN = 6
Harris’ mimic swallowtail butterfly is
a subspecies endemic to Brazil (Collins
and Morris 1985). Although the species’
range includes Paraguay, the subspecies
has not been confirmed in Paraguay
(Collins and Morris 1985; Finnish
University and Research Network 2004).
Occupying the lowland swamps and
sandy flats above the tidal margins of
the coastal Atlantic Forest, the
subspecies prefers alternating patches of
strong sun and deep shade (Collins and
Morris 1985; Brown 1996). This
subspecies is polyphagous, meaning
that its larvae feed on more than one
plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005).
Information on its preferred host plants
and adult nectar-sources was published
in the status review (also known as a
12-month finding) on December 7, 2004
(69 FR 70580). The Harris’ mimic
swallowtail butterfly mimics at least
three butterfly species in the Parides
genus, including the fluminense
swallowtail (described below). This
mimicry system may cause problems in
distinguishing this subspecies from the
species that it mimics (Brown in litt.
2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
The Harris’ mimic swallowtail was
previously known in Espirito Santo,
however, there are no recent
confirmations of its occurrence there
(Collins and Morris 1985; New and
Collins 1991). In Rio de Janeiro, Harris’
mimic swallowtail has been confirmed
in three localities. Two colonies were
identified on the east coast of Rio de
´
˜
˜
Janeiro, at Barra de Sao Joao and Macae,
and the other in Poco das Antas
¸
Biological Reserve, farther inland. The
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25167
˜
˜
Barra de Sao Joao colony is the beststudied. Between 1984 and 2004, it
maintained a stable size, varying
between 50 to 250 individuals (Brown
1996; Collins and Morris 1985; Brown
in litt. 2004), and was reported to be
viable, vigorous, and stable in 2004
(Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004). There are no
estimates of the size of the colony in
Poco das Antas Biological Reserve
¸
where it had not been seen for 30 years
prior to its rediscovery there in 1997
(Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004). Population
estimates are lacking for the colony at
´
Macae, where the subspecies was netted
in Jurubatiba National Park in the year
2000, after having not been seen in the
area for 16 years (Monteiro et al. 2004).
˜
˜
Both Barra de Sao Joao and the Poco
¸
das Antas Biological Reserve lie within
˜
˜
the Sao Joao River Basin. Conditions at
˜
˜
Barra de Sao Joao appear to be suitable
for long-term survival of this subspecies.
˜
˜
The Barra de Sao Joao River Basin
encompasses a 216,605-ha (535,240-ac)
area, 150,700 ha (372,286 ac) of which
is managed as protected area. The
Harris’ mimic swallowtail’s preferred
environment of open and shady areas
continues to be present in the region,
with approximately 541 forest patches
averaging 127 ha (314 ac) in size,
covering nearly 68,873 ha (170,188 ac),
and a minimum distance between forest
patches of 276 meters (m) (0.17 mi)
(Teixeira 2007). In studies between 1984
and 1991, Brown (1996) determined that
Harris’ mimic swallowtails in Barra de
˜
˜
Sao Joao flew a maximum distance of
1000 m (0.62 mi). It follows that the
average flying distance would be less
than this figure. Thus, the average
276 m (0.17 mi) distance between forest
˜
˜
patches in the Barra de Sao Joao River
Basin is clearly within the flying
distance of this subspecies. Because the
˜
˜
colony at Barra de Sao Joao has
maintained a stable population for
20 years, it is probable that the
conditions available there remain
suitable.
Habitat destruction has been the main
threat to this subspecies (Collins and
Morris 1985; Brown 1996), especially
˜
˜
urbanization in Barra de Sao Joao,
´
industrialization in Macae (Jurubatiba
National Park), and previous fires that
occurred in the Poco das Antas
¸
Biological Reserve. As described in
detail for the fluminense swallowtail
(below), Atlantic Forest habitat has been
reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original
cover. More than 70 percent of the
Brazilian population lives in the
Atlantic forest, and coastal development
is ongoing throughout the Atlantic
Forest region (Hughes et al. 2006; Butler
2007; Conservation International 2007;
¨
CEPF 2007a; Hofling 2007; Peixoto and
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
25168
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; World Food
Prize 2007; WWF 2007; TNC 2009).
Another factor affecting many
butterfly species is illegal collection.
The wildlife trade is extremely lucrative
and as wildlife becomes rarer; it is
worth more. Although there are laws on
illegal wildlife trade, in some countries,
many times laws are rarely enforced due
to inadequate resources; and only a
fraction of smuggled wildlife is caught
(https://www.traffic.org). For example, in
1998, in the United States 100 Golden
Birdwing (Troides aeacus, CITES
Appendix II) butterflies were seized; no
permit had been issued for the
specimens which had been falsely
labeled before being exported from
Thailand (TRAFFIC 2010, p. 28). In
2001, two Russian insect collectors were
arrested in India and were found to have
approximately 2000 butterflies in their
possession (p. 52). In 2007, a Japanese
individual was convicted for illegal sale
of $38,831 U.S. dollars (USD) worth of
protected butterfly species. This
individual is apparently known as the
world’s top smuggler of protected
butterflies. One of the smuggled
butterfly species was Homerus
Swallowtail (Papilio homerus, CITES
Appendix I). During this investigation,
43 butterflies were sold to undercover
agents, including 2 Alexandra’s
birdwings (Ornithoptera alexandrae,
CITES Appendix I), 2 Luzon Peacock
swallowtails (Papilio chikae, CITES
Appendix I), and 6 Corsican
swallowtails (Papilio hospiton, CITES
Appendix I) (p. 122). In 2009, in Japan
an individual was sentenced to one year
and six months’ imprisonment and
fined one million yen ($10,750 USD)
due to illegally importing and selling
rare butterfly species. He was found to
have illegally imported 145 butterflies
from France. Among the specimens
were 3 Queen Alexandra’s Birdwings
(Ornithoptera alexandrae, CITES
Appendix I) and 1 Apollo Butterfly
(Parnassius apollo, CITES Appendix II)
(p. 179). Although we do not know the
full extent of illegal trade, according to
the 2010 TRAFFIC report, this
represents only a small fraction of the
illegal collection of butterfly species
that occurs.
Conservation Status. The Brazilian
Institute of the Environment and
Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro
do a Meio Ambiente de do Recursos
´
Naturais Renovaveis; IBAMA) considers
this subspecies to be critically imperiled
(Portaria No. 1,522 1989; Ministerio de
Meio Ambiente 2003). As of 1996,
collection and trade of the subspecies
was prohibited (Brown 1996). In 1998,
Brazil enacted a more effective law, Lei
de Crimes Ambientais ou Lei da
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Natureza—Law no 9.605/98, which
addresses environmental crimes and
sets forth penal and administrative
penalties resulting from activities that
are harmful to the environment (IBAMA
2011). This law addresses the integrity
of air, water bodies, forests and
biodiversity; and assesses civil,
administrative, and criminal penalties
to private individuals, corporations, and
business. Harris’ mimic swallowtail was
categorized on the IUCN Red List as
‘‘Endangered’’ in the 1988, 1990, and
1994 IUCN Red Lists (IUCN 1996).
However, it currently is not included in
the current IUCN Redlist (IUCN 2010;
Xerces Society 2010a). This species is
not listed on any appendices of CITES.
Harris’ mimic swallowtail ranges
within two protected areas: Poco das
¸
Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba
National Park. These protected areas are
described in detail for the fluminense
swallowtail below. The Poco das Antas
¸
Biological Reserve (Reserve) was
established to protect the golden lion
tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia) (Decree
No. 73,791, 1974), but the Harris’ mimic
swallowtail, which occupies the same
range, likely benefits as a result of
efforts to conserve golden-lion-tamarin
habitat (De Roy 2002; WWF 2003;
Teixeira 2007). Habitat destruction
caused by fires in Poco das Antas
¸
Biological Reserve appears to have
abated. The revised management plan
indicates that the Reserve will be used
for research and conservation, with
limited public access (IBAMA 2005;
CEPF 2007a). The Jurubatiba National
Park (Park) is located in a region that is
undergoing continuing development
pressures from urbanization and
industrialization (Otero and Brown
1984; Brown 1996; IFC 2002; CEPF
2007b; Khalip 2007; Savarese 2008), and
there is no management plan in place
for the Park (CEPF 2007b). However, as
discussed for the fluminense
swallowtail, the Park, as of 2007, was
considered to be in a very good state of
conservation (Rocha et al. 2007).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Harris’ mimic
swallowtail received an LPN of 12. After
reevaluating the threats to this species,
we have determined that a change in the
listing prioritization number is
warranted. Harris’ mimic swallowtail is
a subspecies and is not within a
monotypic genus. Although the beststudied colony has maintained a stable
and viable size for nearly two decades,
there is limited suitable habitat
remaining for this subspecies. Habitat
destruction remains a threat. These
threats are high in magnitude due to its
small endemic population and potential
catastrophic events such as severe
tropical storms or introduction of a new
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
disease or predator. The only known
populations are within close proximity
to a major, expanding city in Brazil—
Rio de Janiero, the second largest city in
Brazil. As this species becomes rarer, it
becomes even more desirable to
collectors (Traffic 2010, pp. 52, 122,
179). Although the species exists in a
protected area, collectors will take risks
to obtain these rare and desirable
species. Because the population is very
small and limited to only two small
areas, we find the threats are of high
magnitude. However, we do not find
that these threats are imminent because
the subspecies is protected by Brazilian
law; and the two colonies are located
within protected areas. Based on the
best available information, we have
changed the LPN from a 12 to a 6 to
reflect non-imminent threats of high
magnitude.
Q. Jamaican Kite Swallowtail
(Protographium marcellinus, syn.
Eurytides), LPN = 2
The Jamaican kite swallowtail is
endemic to Jamaica, preferring wooded,
undisturbed habitat containing its only
known larval host plant West Indian
lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata). The
food preferences of adults have not been
reported (Collins and Morris 1985;
Bailey 1994). Since the 1990s, adult
Jamaican kite swallowtails have been
observed in the parishes of St. Thomas
and St. Andrew in the east; westward in
St. Ann, Trelawny, and St. Elizabeth;
and in the extreme western coast Parish
of Westmoreland (Bailey 1994; Smith et
¨
al. 1994; WRC 2001; Harris 2002; Mohn
2002).
The Jamaican kite swallowtail
maintains a low population level. It
occasionally becomes locally abundant
in Rozelle during the breeding season in
early summer and again in early fall
(Brown and Heineman 1972; Collins
and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993;
Bailey 1994; Smith et al. 1994), and
experiences episodic population
explosions, as described in the
December 7, 2004, 12-month finding (69
FR 70580) and in the 2007 ANOR (72 FR
20184; April 23, 2007). There is only
one known breeding site in the eastern
coast town of Rozelle (also known as
Roselle), St. Thomas Parish, although it
is possible that other sites exist given
the widely dispersed nature of the larval
food plant (Collins and Morris 1985;
Garraway et al. 1993; Bailey 1994;
Smith et al. 1994; Robbins in litt. 2004).
Habitat destruction has been
considered a primary threat to the
Jamaican kite swallowtail.
Monophagous butterflies (meaning that
their larvae feed only on a single plant
species) such as the Jamaican kite
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
swallowtail tend to be more threatened
than polyphagous species. This is in
part due to their specific habitat
requirements (Kotiaho et al. 2005).
Harvest and clearing reduces the
availability of the only known larval
food plant. Habitat modification poses
an additional threat because the
swallowtail does not thrive in disturbed
habitats (Collins and Morris 1985). In
Rozelle, extensive habitat modification
for agricultural and industrial purposes
such as mining has occurred (Gimenez
Dixon 1996; WWF 2001). West Indian
lancewood, the Jamaican kite
swallowtail’s larval food plant, is
threatened by clearing for cultivation
and by felling for the commercial timber
industry (Collins and Morris 1985;
Windsor Plywood 2004).
Rozelle is also subject to naturally
occurring, high-impact stochastic
events, such as regularly-occurring
hurricanes, as described in the 2007
ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007).
Hurricane-related weather damage in
the last two decades along the coastal
zone of Rozelle has resulted in the
erosion and virtual disappearance of the
once-extensive recreational beach
(Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), and the Planning
Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) (2004)).
Hurricane Ivan, a category 5 hurricane,
caused severe local damage to Rozelle
Beach in 2004, including road collapse
caused by the erosion of the cliff face
and shoreline. The estimated restoration
cost from Hurricane Ivan damage was
$23 million USD ($1.6 million Jamaican
dollars (J$) (ECLAC et al. 2004),
indicating the severity of the damage
inflicted by these hurricanes. While we
do not consider stochastic events to be
a primary threat factor for this species,
we believe that the damage caused by
hurricanes is contributing to habitat
loss.
In western parishes, habitat
destruction also threatens adult
Jamaican kite swallowtails. Cockpit
Country, encompassing 30,000 ha
(74,131 ac) of rugged forest-karst (a
specialized limestone habitat) terrain,
spans four western parishes, including
Trelawny and St. Elizabeth, where adult
Jamaican kite swallowtails have been
observed (Gordon and Cambell 2006).
As of 2006, 81 percent of this region
remained forested, although
fragmentation was occurring as a result
of human-induced activities (Tole
2006). Threats to Cockpit Country
include bauxite mining, unregulated
plant collecting, extensive logging,
conversion of forest to agriculture,
illegal drug cultivation, and expansion
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
of human settlements. These activities
contribute to threats to the hydrology
system from in-filling, siltation,
accumulation of solid waste, and
invasion by nonnative, invasive species
(Cockpit Country Stakeholders Group
and JEAN (Gordon and Cambell 2006;
Tole 2006; Jamaica Environmental
Advocacy Network 2007)).
The Blue and John Crow Mountains
National Park, located on the inland
portions of St. Thomas and St. Andrew
and the southeast portion of St. Mary
Parishes, is the only protected area in
which adult Jamaican Kite swallowtails
have been observed (Bailey 1994;
Jamaica Conservation and Development
Trust (JCDT) 2006). Established in 1990,
this Park encompasses 49,520 ha
(122,367 ac) of mountainous, forested
terrain that ranges in elevation from 150
to 2,256 m (492 to 7,402 ft) and is
considered one of the best-managed
protected areas in Jamaica (JCDT 2006).
However, deforestation consisting of
slash-and-burn agriculture and illegal
timber harvesting continues to be a
threat in the Blue Mountains (Tole 2006;
TNC 2010).
The Jamaican kite swallowtail has
been collected for commercial trade in
the past (Collins and Morris 1985;
¨
Melisch 2000; Schutz 2000). The
Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act of
1998 carries a maximum penalty of U.S.
$1,439 (J $100,000) or 12 months of
imprisonment for violating its
provisions. This deterrent appears to be
effectively protecting this species from
illegal trade (NEPA 2005). As of 2008,
we were unaware of any recent seizures
or smuggling in this species into or out
of the United States (Office of Law
Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt.).
Conservation Status. Various levels of
conservation exist for the species. In
addition to being protected under
Jamaica’s Wildlife Protection Act of
1998, it is also included in Jamaica’s
National Strategy and Action Plan on
Biological Diversity. This strategy
established specific goals and priorities
for the conservation of Jamaica’s
biological resources (Schedules of The
Wildlife Protection Act 1998). Since
1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has
been categorized on the IUCN Red List
as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ (IUCN 2010). This
species is not listed in any of the
appendices of CITES.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Jamaican kite
swallowtail received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the threats to the Jamaican
kite swallowtail, we have determined
that a change in the listing priority
number is warranted. The Jamaican kite
swallowtail does not represent a
monotypic genus. The current threats to
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25169
the species are high in magnitude
particularly since it only has one known
larval host plant. Slash-and-burn
agriculture and illegal timber harvesting
continues to occur within this species’
habitat (TNC 2010). These threats are
occurring at the species’ only known
breeding site and they are exacerbated
by the species’ restricted distribution of
its larval food plant and range. In
addition, stochastic events such as
hurricanes, tropical storms, and
introduction of a new disease are
unpredictable. Illegal collection of
butterfly species (refer to discussion
under Harris’ mimic swallowtail)
continues to occur which further adds
to the pressures affecting this species.
Although Jamaica has taken regulatory
steps to preserve native swallowtail
habitat, the threats affecting this species
are imminent; its habitat is decreasing;
and this loss of habitat is ongoing. Based
on a reevaluation of the threats to this
species, we have changed the LPN from
an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats
of high magnitude.
R. Fluminense Swallowtail (Parides
ascanius), LPN = 5
The fluminense swallowtail is
endemic to Brazil’s restinga habitat
within the Atlantic Forest region in the
tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf
forests of coastal Brazil (Thomas 2003).
Its habitat is characterized by mediumsized trees and shrubs that are adapted
to coastal conditions (Kelecom 2002).
During the caterpillar stage of its
lifecycle, it feeds on a species in the
Dutchman’s pipe genus (Aristolochia
macroura) and is believed to be
monophagous (Otero and Brown 1984).
The fluminense swallowtail is
sparsely distributed throughout its
range, reflecting the patchy distribution
of its preferred habitat (Otero and
Brown 1984; Tyler et al. 1994; UeharaPrado and Fonseca 2007). The species
can be seasonally common, with
sightings of up to 50 individuals seen in
˜
˜
one morning in the Barra de Sao Joao
area. It was historically seen in Rio de
Janeiro, Espirito Santo, and Sao Paulo
(Gelhaus et al. 2004). However, there are
no recent confirmations of this species
in either Espirito Santo or Sao Paulo. In
Rio de Janeiro, the species has been
documented in five localities including:
´
˜
˜
Barra de Sao Joao and Macae (in the
Restinga de Jurubatiba National Park)
along the coast; and Poco das Antas
¸
Biological Reserve, farther inland
(Brown in litt. 2004; Soler 2005).
Another verified occurrence was in the
´
Area de Tombamento do Mangue do Rio
´
Paraıba do Sul (Uehara-Prado and
Fonseca 2007). Additionally, the
fluminense swallowtail has been
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
25170
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
documented in Parque Natural
Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto
Iguacu 2008).
A population estimate reported in
˜
˜
1984 in Barra de Sao Joao was between
20 and 100 individuals (Otero and
Brown 1984). The colony within the
Poco das Antas Biological Reserve was
¸
rediscovered in 1997, after a nearly 30year absence from this locality (Brown,
Jr. in litt. 2004). Researchers noted only
that ‘‘large numbers’’ of swallowtails
were observed (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004;
Robbins in litt. 2004). There are no
population estimates for the other
colonies. However, individuals from the
˜
˜
viable population in Barra de Sao Joao
migrate widely in some years, and this
is likely to enhance interpopulation
gene flow among existing colonies
(Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004).
Habitat destruction has been the main
threat to this species (Collins and Morris
1985; Brown 1996; Gimenez Dixon
1996). Monophagous butterflies tend to
be more threatened than polyphagous
species (Kotiaho et al. 2005), and the
restinga habitat preferred by fluminense
swallowtails is a highly specialized
environment that is restricted in
distribution (Otero and Brown 1986;
Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Ueraha-Prado
and Fonseca 2007). Moreover,
fluminense swallowtails require large
areas to maintain viable populations
(Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Otero and
Brown 1986; Ueraha-Prado and
Fonseca). The Atlantic Forest habitat,
which once covered 1.4 million km2
(540,543 mi2), has been reduced to 5 to
10 percent of its original cover. It
harbors more than 70 percent of the
Brazilian human population (Butler
2007; Conservation International 2007;
¨
CEPF 2007a; Hofling 2007; WWF 2007;
TNC 2009). The restinga habitat upon
which this species depends has been
reduced by 17 km2 (6.56 mi2) each year
between 1984 and 2001, equivalent to a
loss of 40 percent of restinga vegetation
over the 17-year period (Temer 2006).
The major ongoing human activities that
have resulted in habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation include:
Conversion to agriculture, plantations,
livestock pastures, human settlements,
hydropower reservoirs, commercial
logging, subsistence activities, and
coastal development (Hughes et al.
2006; Butler 2007; Pivello 2007; TNC
2007; Peixoto and Silva 2007; World
Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007).
One estimate concluded that Rio de
Janeiro contains 1,675,457 ha (4,140,127
ac) of suitable habitat (Uehara-Prado
and Fonseca 2007). While the presence
of suitable habitat should not be used to
infer the presence of a species (UeharaPrado and Fonseca 2007), it should
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
facilitate more focused efforts to identify
and confirm additional localities and
the conservation status of the
fluminense swallowtail. Evaluating the
correlation between the distribution of
fluminense swallowtail and the existing
protected areas within Rio de Janeiro
revealed that only two known
occurrences of the fluminense
swallowtail correlated with protected
areas, including the Poco das Antas
¸
Biological Reserve (Uehara-Prado and
Fonseca 2007). The Poco das Antas
¸
Biological Reserve and the Jurubatiba
National Park are the only two protected
areas considered large enough to
support viable populations of the
fluminense swallowtail (Otero and
Brown 1984; Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004;
Robbins in litt. 2004). The Poco das
¸
Antas Biological Reserve, established in
1974, encompasses 13,096 ac (5,300 ha)
of inland Atlantic Forest habitat (CEPF
2007a; Decree No. 73,791, 1974).
According to the 2005 revised
management plan (IBAMA 2005), the
Reserve is used solely for protection,
research, and environmental education.
Public access is restricted, and there is
an emphasis on habitat conservation,
´
˜
˜
including protection of the Rıo Sao Joao.
This river runs through the Reserve and
is integral to creating the restinga
conditions preferred by the fluminense
swallowtail. The Reserve was plagued
by fires in the late 1980s through the
early 2000s, but fire is not currently
thought to be a threat. Between 2001
and 2006, there was an increase in the
number of private protected areas near
or adjacent to the Poco das Antas
¸
˜
Biological Reserve and Barra de Sao
˜
Joao (Critical Ecosystem Partnership
Fund (CEPF) 2007a). Corridors are being
created between existing protected areas
and 13 privately protected forests, by
planting and restoring habitat
previously cleared for agriculture or by
fires (De Roy 2002).
The Jurubatiba National Park (14,860
´
ha; 36,720 mi2), located in Macae and
established in 1998 (Decree of April 29
1998), is one of the largest contiguous
restingas (specialized sandy, coastal
habitats) under protection in Brazil
(CEPF 2007b; Rocha et al. 2007). The
´
Macae River Basin forms the outer edge
of the Jurubatiba National Park (Park)
(International Finance Corporation (IFC)
2002) and consists of the habitat
preferred by the fluminense swallowtail
(Brown 1996; Otero and Brown 1984).
Rocha et al. (2007) described the habitat
as being in a very good state of
conservation, but lacking a formal
´
management plan. Threats to the Macae
region include industrialization for oil
reserve and power development (IFC
2002) and intense population pressures
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(including migration and infrastructural
development) (Brown 1996; CEPF
2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; Otero
and Brown 1984; Savarese 2008). The
researchers concluded that the existing
protected area system may be
inadequate for the conservation of this
species.
Commercial exploitation has been
identified as a potential threat to the
fluminense swallowtail (Collins and
¨
Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schutz
2000). The species is easy to capture,
and species with restricted distributions
or localized populations, such as the
fluminense swallowtail, tend to be more
vulnerable to overcollection than those
with a wider distribution (Brown, Jr. in
litt. 2004; Robbins in litt. 2004).
However, based on the conservation
measures in place, we believe that
overutilization is not currently a threat
to the fluminense swallowtail.
Parasitism has been indicated to be a
factor affecting the fluminense
swallowtail. Recently, Tavares et al.
(2006) discovered four species of
parasitic chalcid wasps (Brachymeria
and Conura species; Hymenoptera
family) associated with fluminense
swallowtails. Parasitoids are species
whose immature stages develop on or
within an insect host of another species,
ultimately killing the host (Weeden et
al. 1976). This is the first report of
parasitoid association with fluminense
swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006). To
date, there is no information regarding
the magnitude of effect these parasites
are having on the fluminense
swallowtail. At this time, we do not find
that it affects the species to the extent
that it is a threat to the species.
Although Harris’ mimic swallowtail
and the fluminense swallowtail face
similar threats, there are several
dissimilarities that influence the
magnitude of these threats. Fluminense
swallowtails are monophagous (Otero
and Brown 1984; Kotiaho et al. 2005). In
contrast, Harris’ mimic swallowtail is
polyphagous (Collins and Morse 1985;
Brown 1996); its larvae feed on more
than one species of plant (Kotiaho et al.
2005). In addition, although their ranges
overlap, Harris’ mimic swallowtails
tolerate a wider range of habitat than the
highly specialized restinga habitat
preferred by fluminense swallowtail.
Also unlike the Harris’ mimic
swallowtail, fluminense swallowtails
require a large area to maintain a viable
population (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004;
Monteiro et al. 2004); in part because
they are known to only feed on one food
source.
Conservation Status. Brazil
categorizes the fluminense swallowtail
to be ‘‘Imperiled’’ (Portaria No. 1,522
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
1989; MMA 2003). It is strictly protected
from commerce (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004).
According to the 2010 IUCN Red List,
the fluminense swallowtail has been
classified as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ since 1983,
based on its small distribution and a
decline in the number of populations
caused by habitat fragmentation and
loss. However, this species has not been
reevaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red
List categorization criteria. This species
has not been formally considered for
listing in the Appendices of CITES
(www.cites.org). However, the European
Commission listed fluminense
swallowtail on Annex B of Regulation
338/97 in 1997 (Grimm in litt. 2008),
and the species continues to be listed on
this Annex (Eur-Lex 2008). This listing
requires that imports from a nonEuropean Union country be
accompanied by a permit that is only
issued if the CITES Scientific Authority
has made a finding that trade in the
species will not be detrimental to the
survival of the species in the wild
(Grimm in litt. 2008). There would be
no requirement that the non-European
Union exporting country make such a
finding or issue a document if the
species is not CITES-listed. There has
been no legal trade in this species into
the European Union since its listing on
Annex B (Grimm in litt. 2008), and we
are not aware of any recent reports of
seizures or smuggling in this species
into or out of the United States (Office
of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia in
litt. 2008).
In our 2009 ANOR, the fluminense
swallowtail received an LPN of 5. After
reevaluating the threats to the
fluminense swallowtail, we have
determined that a change in the listing
priority number is not warranted. The
fluminense swallowtail does not
represent a monotypic genus. The
species is currently at risk from habitat
destruction; however, we have
determined that overutilization and
parasitism are not currently occurring
such that they are threats to the
fluminense swallowtail. The current
threat of habitat destruction is of high
magnitude because the species:
(1) Occupies highly specialized habitat;
(2) requires large areas to maintain a
viable colony; and (3) is only found
within two protected areas considered
to be large enough to support viable
colonies. However, additional
populations have been reported,
increasing previously known population
numbers and distribution. The threat of
habitat destruction is nonimminent
because most habitat modification is the
result of historical destruction that has
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
resulted in fragmentation of the current
landscape; however, the potential for
continued habitat modification exists,
and we will continue to monitor the
situation. On the basis of this
information, the fluminense swallowtail
retains a priority rank of 5.
S. Hahnel’s Amazonian Swallowtail
(Parides hahneli), LPN = 2
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is
endemic to Brazil and is found only on
sandy beaches where the habitat is
overgrown with dense scrub vegetation
(Collins and Morris 1985; New and
Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 1994).
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is
likely to be monophagous. The
swallowtail depends upon highly
specialized habitat—stranded beaches of
river drainage areas. Wells et al. (1983)
describes the habitat as ancient sandy
beaches covered by scrubby or dense
vegetation that is not floristically
diverse. The larval host-plant is
believed to be a species in the
Dutchman’s pipe genus, either
Aristolochia lanceolato-lorato or A.
acutifolia (69 FR 70580; December 7,
2004).
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is
known in three localities along the
tributaries of the middle and lower
Amazon River basin in the states of
´
Amazonas and Para (Collins and Morris
1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al.
1994; Brown 1996). Two of these
colonies were rediscovered in the 1970s
(Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996).
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is
highly localized, reflecting the
distribution of its highly specialized
preferred habitat (Brown in litt. 2004).
The population size of Hahnel’s
Amazonian swallowtail is not known.
However, within the area of its range,
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail
populations are small (Brown in litt.
2004).
Habitat alteration (e.g., for dam
construction and waterway crop
transport) and destruction (e.g., clearing
for agriculture and cattle grazing) are
´
ongoing in Para and Amazonas, where
this species is found (Fearnside 2006;
Hurwitz 2007). Current research on
population trends is lacking. However,
researchers believe that, because
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail has
extremely limited habitat preferences,
any sort of river modification such as
impoundment, channelization, or levee
construction would have an immediate
and highly negative impact on the
species (Wells et al. 1983; New and
Collins 1991).
This species of swallowtail has been
collected for commercial trade (Collins
¨
and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schutz
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25171
2000). Species with restricted
distributions or localized populations,
such as the Hahnel’s Amazonian
swallowtail, are more vulnerable to
overcollection than those with a wider
distribution (Brown in litt. 2004;
Robbins in litt. 2004). Although not
strictly protected from collection
´
throughout Brazil, the state of Para
recently declared the capture of
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail for
purposes other than research to be
forbidden (Decreto No. 802, 2008). It is
not listed in any appendices of CITES.
As of 2008, seizures of Hahnel’s
Amazonian swallowtail into or out of
the United States had not been reported
(Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arlington,
Virginia in litt. 2008). The best available
information does not indicate that
overutilization is a threat to the species.
Competition for host plants has been
identified as a potential threat to
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail.
Researchers in the past believed that
this species might suffer from host plant
competition with other butterfly species
in the region (Wells 1983; Collins and
Morris 1985; Brown 1996); however,
this competition has not been
confirmed. It occupies the same range
with another swallowtail butterfly,
Parides chabrias ygdrasilla, and mimics
at least two other genera that occupy the
same area, Methona and Thyrides
(Brown 1996). At this time, there is
insufficient information to conclude
that competition is a threat affecting this
species.
Conservation Status. Hahnel’s
Amazonian swallowtail is not nationally
protected (Portaria No. 1522 1989; MMA
´
2003), although the state of Para listed
it as endangered on its list of threatened
species (Resolucao 054 2007; Decreto
¸˜
No. 802 2008; Secco and Santos 2008).
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail
continues to be listed as ‘‘Data Deficient’’
by the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010).
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail has
not been formally considered for listing
in the Appendices of CITES (CITES
2009). Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail
is listed on Annex B of Regulation 338/
97 (Eur-Lex 2008), and there has been
no legal trade in this species into the
European Union since its listing on
Annex B in 1997 (Grimm in litt. 2008).
After reevaluating the threats to the
Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail, we
have determined that a change in listing
priority number is warranted. Hahnel’s
Amazonian swallowtail does not
represent a monotypic genus. It faces
threats that are high in magnitude and
imminent due to its small endemic
population, and limited and decreasing
availability of its highly specialized
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
25172
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
habitat (stranded beaches of river
drainage area) and food sources. The
primary threats of dam construction,
waterway crop transport, clearing for
agriculture and cattle grazing are
´
ongoing in Para and Amazonas. These
threats are imminent due to the species’
highly localized and specialized habitat
requirements. Secondary concerns are
possible illegal collection, competition
with other species, and potential
catastrophic events such as severe
tropical storms or introduction of a new
disease or predator. Based on a
reevaluation of the threats, we have
changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to
reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
T. Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail
(Teinopalpus imperialis), LPN = 8
The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is
native to the Himalayan regions of
Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar,
Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam (Shrestha
1997; FRAP 1999; Osada et al. 1999;
Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson
1999; Masui and Uehara 2000; Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2001;
Igarashi 2001; Baral et al. 2005;
TRAFFIC 2007). This species prefers
undisturbed (primary), heterogeneous,
broad-leaved-evergreen forests or
montane deciduous forests, and flies at
altitudes of 1,500 to 3,050 m (4,921 to
10,000 ft) (Collins and Morris 1985;
Tordoff et al. 1999; Igarashi 2001). This
species is polyphagous. Larval hostplants may differ across the species’
range, and include: Magnolia campbellii
in China (Igarashi and Fukuda 2000;
Sung and Yan 2005; Yen and Yang
2001); Magnolia spp. in Vietnam (Funet
2004); Daphne spp. in India, Nepal, and
Myanmar (Funet 2004); and Daphne
nipalensis also in India (Robinson et al.
2004). It has been reported that the adult
Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails do not feed
(Collins and Morris 1985).
Habitat destruction is the greatest
threat to this species, which prefers
undisturbed high-altitude habitat
(Collins and Morris 1985; Tordoff et al.
1999; Igarashi 2001). In China and India,
the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail
populations are at risk from habitat
modification and destruction due to
commercial and illegal logging (Yen and
Yang 2001; Maheshwari 2003). In Nepal,
the species is at risk from habitat
disturbance and destruction resulting
from mining, fuel wood collection,
agriculture, and grazing animals (Collins
and Morris 1985; Shrestha 1997; Baral et
al. 2005). Nepal’s Forest Ministry
considered habitat destruction to be a
critical threat to all biodiversity,
including the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail,
in the development of their biodiversity
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
strategy (HMGN 2002). Habitat
degradation and loss caused by
deforestation and land conversion for
agricultural purposes is a primary threat
to the species in Thailand (Hongthong
1998; FAO 2001). The species is
afforded some protection from habitat
destruction in Vietnam, where it has
been confirmed in three nature reserves
that have low levels of disturbance
(Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and
Richardson 1999).
Conservation Status
Since 1996, the Kaiser-I-Hind
swallowtail has been categorized on the
IUCN Red List as a species of ‘‘Lower
Risk/near threatened’’; it has not been
reevaluated using the 1997 criteria
(Gimenez Dixon 1996; IUCN 2010). The
species was considered ‘‘Rare’’ by
Collins and Morris (1985). Despite its
widespread distribution, local
populations are not abundant (Collins
and Morris 1985). The known localities
and conservation status of the species
within each range country follows:
Bhutan: The species was reported to
be extant in Bhutan (Gimenez Dixon
1996; FRAP 1999), although details on
localities or status information were not
provided.
China: The species has been reported
in Fuji, Guangxi, Hubei, Jiangsu,
Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces (Collins
and Morris 1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996;
UNEP–WCMC 1999; Igarashi and
Fukuda 2000; Sung and Yan 2005). The
species is classified by the 2005 China
Species Red List as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ (China
Red List 2006).
India: Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Sikkim, and West Bengal (Bahuguna
1998; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez
Dixon 1996; Ministry of Environment
and Forests 2005). There is no recent
status information on this species
(Bombay Natural History Society in litt.
2007).
Laos: The species has been reported
(Osada et al. 1999), but no further
information is available (Vonxaiya in
litt. 2007).
Myanmar: The species has been
reported in Shan, Kayah (Karen) and
Thaninanthayi (Tenasserim) states
(Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez
Dixon 1996). There is no status
information.
Nepal: The species has been reported
in Nepal (Collins and Morris 1985;
Gimenez Dixon 1996), in the Central
Administrative Region at two localities:
Phulchoki Mountain Forest (Baral et al.
2005; Collins and Morris 1985) and
Shivapuri National Park (Nepali Times
2002; Shrestha 1997). There is no status
information.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Thailand: The species has been
reported in the northern province of
Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The
CITES Scientific Authority of Thailand
recently confirmed that the species has
limited distribution in the high
mountains (>1,500 m (4,921 ft)) of
northern Thailand and is found within
three national parks. However, no
biological or status information was
available (Choldumrongkul in litt.
2007).
Vietnam: The species has been
confirmed in three Nature Reserves
(Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and
Richardson 1999), and the species is
listed as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ in the 2007
Vietnam Red Data Book, due to
declining population sizes and area of
occupancy (Canh in litt. 2007).
The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is
highly valued and has been collected for
commercial trade, despite range country
regulations prohibiting or restricting
such activities (Collins and Morris 1985;
¨
Schutz 2000). In China, where the
species is protected by the Animals and
Plants (Protection of Endangered
Species) Ordinance (1989), which
restricts import, export, and possession
of the species, species purportedly
derived from Sichuan were being
advertised for sale on the Internet for 60
U.S. Dollars (US$). In India, the KaiserI-Hind swallowtail is listed on Schedule
II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act
of 1972, which prohibits hunting
without a license (Collins and Morris
1985; Indian Wildlife Protection Act
2006). However, between 1990 and
1997, illegally collected specimens were
selling for 500 Rupees (12 US$) per
female and 30 Rupees (0.73 US$) per
male (Bahuguna 1998). In Nepal, the
Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is protected
by the National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1973 (His Majesty’s
Government of Nepal (HMGN) 2002).
However, the Nepal Forestry Ministry
determined in 2002 that the high
commercial value of its ‘‘Endangered’’
species on the local and international
market may result in local extinctions of
species such as the Kaiser-I-Hind
(HMGN 2002).
In Thailand, the Kaiser-I-Hind
swallowtail and 13 other invertebrates
are listed under Thailand’s Wild Animal
Reservation and Protection Act
(WARPA) of 1992 (B.E. 2535 1992),
which makes it illegal to collect wildlife
(whether alive or dead) or to have the
species in one’s possession (Hongthong
1998; Pornpitagpan 1999; FAO 2001;
Choldumrongkul in litt. 2007). In
addition to prohibiting possession,
WARPA prohibits hunting, breeding,
and trading. Import and export are only
allowed for conservation purposes
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(Jaisielthum in litt. 2007). According to
the Thai Scientific Authority, there are
no captive breeding programs for this
species; however, the species is offered
for sale by the Lepidoptera Breeders
Association (2009). It was marketed as
derived from a captive breeding
program in Thailand, although
specimens were recently noted as being
‘‘out of stock’’ (Lepidoptera Breeders
Association 2009).
In Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind
swallowtails are reported to be among
the most valuable of all butterflies
(World Bank 2005). In 2006, the species
was listed on Schedule IIB of Decree No.
32 on ‘‘Management of endangered,
precious and rare forest plants and
animals.’’ A Schedule IIB-listing restricts
the exploitation or commercial use of
species with small populations or that
are considered by the country to be in
danger of extinction (Canh in litt. 2007).
In a recent survey conducted by
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 2000
residents in Ha Noi, Vietnam, the
Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail was among 37
Schedule IIB-species that were actively
being collected (p. 36). The majority of
the survey respondents were unaware of
legislation prohibiting collection of
Schedule IIB-species (p. 7). This is a
highly desirable species, and there is a
culture within Vietnam of consuming
rare and expensive wild animal dishes,
particularly in Ha Noi among the elite
(TRAFFIC 2007, p. 9). This practice
does not seem to be decreasing; rather
it appears to be increasing. Thus, we
find that overutilization for illegal
domestic use is a threat to this species.
Although Vietnam has implemented
several action plans to strengthen
control of trade in wild fauna and flora
(TRAFFIC 2007, p. 9), within-country
protections are inadequate to protect the
species from illegal collection
throughout its range.
The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has
been listed in CITES Appendix II since
1987 (UNEP–WCMC 2008a). Between
1991 and 2005, 160 Kaiser-I-Hind
swallowtail specimens were traded
internationally under CITES permits
(UNEP WCMC 2006), and between 2000
and 2008, 157 specimens were traded
(UNEP WCMC 2009). Reports that the
Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is being
captive-bred in Taiwan (Yen and Yang
2001) remain unconfirmed. Since 1993,
there have been no reported seizures or
smuggling of this species into or out of
the United States (Office of Law
Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt.
2008). Therefore, on the basis of global
trade data, we do not consider legal
international trade to be a threat to this
species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
After reevaluating the threats to this
species, we have determined that a
change in listing priority number is not
warranted. The Kaiser-I-Hind
swallowtail does not represent a
monotypic genus. The current threats of
habitat destruction and illegal collection
are moderate in magnitude due to the
species’ wide distribution and to the
protections in place. We find that the
threats are imminent due to ongoing
habitat destruction, high market value
for specimens, and inadequate domestic
protections for the species or its habitat.
Based on our reassessment of the
threats, we have retained an LPN of 8
to reflect imminent threats of moderate
magnitude.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
This section describes the actions that
continue to preclude the immediate
proposal of listing rules for the 20
species described above. In addition, we
summarize the expeditious progress we
are making, as required by section
4(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, to add
qualified species to the lists of
endangered or threatened species and to
remove from these lists species for
which protections of the Act are no
longer necessary.
Section 4(b) of the Act states that the
Service may make warranted-butprecluded findings only if it can
demonstrate that (1) An immediate
proposed rule is precluded by other
pending proposals and that (2)
expeditious progress is being made on
other listing actions. Preclusion is a
function of the listing priority of a
species in relation to the resources that
are available and competing demands
for those resources. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate
whether it will be possible to undertake
work on a proposed listing regulation or
whether promulgation of such a
proposal is warranted-but-precluded by
higher priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing
actions are determined through the
annual Congressional appropriations
process. The appropriation for the
Listing Program is available to support
work involving the following listing
actions: Proposed and final listing rules;
90-day and 12-month findings on
petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists) or to change the status
of a species from threatened to
endangered; annual determinations on
prior ‘‘warranted-but-precluded’’
petition findings as required under
section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical
habitat petition findings; proposed and
final rules designating critical habitat;
and litigation-related, administrative,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25173
and program-management functions
(including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional
and public inquiries, and conducting
public outreach regarding listing and
critical habitat).
The work involved in preparing
various listing documents can be
extensive and may include, but is not
limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used
as the basis for our decisions; writing
and publishing documents; and
obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating
public comments and peer review
comments on proposed rules and
incorporating relevant information into
final rules. The number of listing
actions that we can undertake in a given
year also is influenced by the
complexity of those listing actions; that
is, more complex actions generally are
more costly. The median cost for
preparing and publishing a 90-day
finding is $39,276; for a 12-month
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule
with critical habitat, $345,000; and for
a final listing rule with critical habitat,
the median cost is $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is
appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency
Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In
addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal
year since then, Congress has placed a
statutory cap on funds which may be
expended for the Listing Program, equal
to the amount expressly appropriated
for that purpose in that fiscal year. This
cap was designed to prevent funds
appropriated for other functions under
the Act (for example, recovery funds for
removing species from the Lists), or for
other Service programs, from being used
for Listing Program actions (see House
Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget
has included a critical habitat subcap to
ensure that some funds are available for
other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The
critical habitat designation subcap will
ensure that some funding is available to
address other listing activities’’ (House
Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st
Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2010, we
are using some of the critical habitat
subcap funds to fund actions with
statutory deadlines.
Thus, through the listing cap, the
critical habitat subcap, and the amount
of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations,
Congress and the courts have in effect
determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities.
Therefore, the funds in the listing cap,
other than those needed to address
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
25174
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
court-mandated critical habitat for
already listed species, set the limits on
our determinations of preclusion and
expeditious progress.
In FY 2010, expeditious progress is
that amount of work that can be
achieved with $10,471,000, which is the
amount of money that Congress
appropriated for the Listing Program
(that is, the portion of the Listing
Program funding not related to critical
habitat designations for species that are
already listed). However, these funds
were not enough to fully fund all our
court-ordered and statutory listing
actions in FY 2010, so we used
$1,114,417 of our critical habitat subcap
funds in order to work on all of our
required petition findings and listing
determinations. This brings the total
amount of funds we had for listing
actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our
process is to make our determinations of
preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of
listing will be addressed first and also
because we allocate our listing budget
on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417
is being used to fund work in the
following categories: Compliance with
court orders and court-approved
settlement agreements requiring that
petition findings or listing
determinations be completed by a
specific date; section 4 (of the Act)
listing actions with absolute statutory
deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our
candidate species. In 2009, the
responsibility for listing foreign species
under the Act was transferred from the
Division of Scientific Authority (DSA),
International Affairs Program, to the
Endangered Species Program. Starting
in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is
being used to work on the actions
described above as they apply to listing
actions for foreign species.
For FY 2011, on September 29, 2010,
Congress passed a continuing resolution
which provides funding at the FY 2010
enacted level. Until Congress
appropriates funds for FY 2011, we will
fund listing work based on the FY 2010
amount.
In addition, available staff resources
are also a factor in determining highpriority species provided with funding.
Finally, proposed rules for
reclassification of threatened species to
endangered are lower priority, because
as listed species, they are already
afforded the protection of the Act and
implementing regulations.
Starting in FY 2010, the Washington
Office (WO) Endangered Species
Program has full responsibility for
foreign species’ listing actions under the
Act. The Branch of Foreign Species
(BFS) was established in June 2010 to
specifically work on petitions and other
actions under Section 4 of the Act for
foreign species.
Our expeditious progress also
includes work on listing actions that we
funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but
have not yet been completed to date.
These actions are listed below. Actions
in the top section of the table are being
conducted under a deadline set by a
court. Actions in the bottom section of
the table are being conducted to meet
statutory timelines, that is, timelines
required under the Act. The funding for
domestic and foreign species was not
appropriated separately in FY 2010. In
addition to the actions demonstrating
expeditious progress mentioned above,
we list the progress in adding qualified
species to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Species for
domestic species in the 2010 Candidate
Notice of Review (75 FR 69822,
published November 10, 2010).
BFS may, based on available staff
resources, work on species described
within this ANOR with an LPN of 2 or
3, and when appropriate, species with a
lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority.
Including these species together in the
same proposed rule results in
considerable savings in time and
funding, when compared to preparing
separate proposed rules for each of them
in the future. Because the actions below
are either the subject of a courtapproved settlement agreement or
subject to an absolute statutory deadline
and, thus, are higher priority than work
on proposed listing determinations for
the 20 species described above,
publication of proposed rules for these
20 species is precluded. For expeditious
progress on domestic actions, see the
Candidate Notice of Review, published
November 10, 2010.
ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED
Species
Action
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
12 parrots 1 ..........................................................................................................................................
12-month status determination.
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
5 Bird species in Colombia and Ecuador ............................................................................................
6 Bird species in Europe and Asia 1 ....................................................................................................
6 Bird species in Peru and Bolivia 1 ....................................................................................................
7 Bird species in Brazil ........................................................................................................................
Peary and Dolphin-Union caribou .......................................................................................................
Queen charlotte goshawk ....................................................................................................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1 Partially
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
Final listing determination.
90-day petition finding.
Final listing determination.
funded with FY 2010 funds; also will be funded with FY 2011 funds.
Despite the priorities that preclude
publishing proposed listing rules for
these 20 species described in this
notice, we are making expeditious
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
progress in adding to and removing
species from the Federal lists of
threatened and endangered species. Our
expeditious progress for foreign species
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
since publication of the 2009 Notice of
Review, August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540)
to the current date includes preparing
and publishing the following:
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
25175
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS PUBLISHED IN FY 2010
Publication date
Title
Action
11/03/2009 ....................
Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened
Throughout its Range with Special Rule.
Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered Throughout Their Range.
Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their
Range.
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel .............
Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth’s
Shearwater as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges.
90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran Emerald
Hummingbird as Endangered.
Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted Puffleg as Endangered Throughout its Range; Final Rule.
Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch (Camarhynchus
pauper) as Endangered Throughout its Range.
Determination of Threatened Status for Five Penguin Species.
Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin America and
the Caribbean as Endangered Throughout Their Range.
Determination of Endangered Status for the African Penguin.
Determination of Threatened Status for Southern
rockhopper penguin—Campbell Plateau population.
Proposed Listing Threatened
74 FR 56770–56791
Proposed Listing Endangered
75 FR 605–649
Proposed Listing Endangered
75 FR 286–310
Proposed rule, withdrawal ....
Final Listing Threatened .......
75 FR 310–316
75 FR 235–250
Notice of 90-day Petition
Finding, Substantial.
Final Listing Endangered ......
75 FR 35746–35751
75 FR 43844–43853
Final Listing Endangered ......
75 FR 43853–43864
Final Listing Threatened .......
75 FR 45497–45527
Final Listing Endangered ......
75 FR 50813–50842
Final Listing Endangered ......
75 FR 59645–59656
Final Listing Endangered ......
76 FR 9681–9692
1/05/2010 ......................
1/05/2010 ......................
1/05/2010 ......................
1/05/2010 ......................
6/23/2010 ......................
7/27/2010 ......................
7/27/2010 ......................
8/3/2010 ........................
8/17/2010 ......................
9/28/2010 ......................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
02/22/2011 ....................
As explained above, a determination
that listing is warranted-but-precluded
must also demonstrate that expeditious
progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species to and from the Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. (Although we do not discuss
it in detail here, we are also making
expeditious progress in removing
species from the Lists under the
Recovery program, which is funded by
a separate line item in the budget of the
Endangered Species Program. As with
our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, expeditious
progress in adding qualified species to
the Lists is a function of the resources
available and the competing demands
for those funds. Given that limitation,
we find that we are making progress in
FY 2010 in the Listing Program.
We have endeavored to make our
listing actions as efficient and timely as
possible, given the requirements of the
relevant law and regulations, and
constraints relating to workload and
personnel. We are continually
considering ways to streamline
processes or achieve economies of scale,
such as by batching related actions
together. Given our limited budget for
implementing section 4 of the Act, these
actions described above collectively
constitute expeditious progress.
Our expeditious progress also
includes work on pending listing
actions described above in our
‘‘precluded finding,’’ but for which
decisions had not been completed at the
time of this publication.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
Monitoring
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act
requires us to ‘‘implement a system to
monitor effectively the status of all
species’’ for which we have made a
warranted-but-precluded 12-month
finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the
[emergency listing] authority [under
section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant
risk to the well being of any such
species.’’ For foreign species, the
Service’s ability to gather information to
monitor species is limited. The Service
welcomes all information relevant to the
status of these species, because we have
no ability to gather data in foreign
countries directly and cannot compel
another country to provide information.
Thus, this ANOR plays a critical role in
our monitoring efforts for foreign
species. With each ANOR, we request
information on the status of the species
included in the notice. Information and
comments on the annual findings can be
submitted at any time. We review all
new information received through this
process as well as any other new
information we obtain using a variety of
methods. We collect information
directly from range countries by
correspondence, from peer-reviewed
scientific literature, unpublished
literature, scientific meeting
proceedings, and CITES documents
(including species proposals and reports
from scientific committees). We also
obtain information through the permit
application processes under CITES, the
Act, and the Wild Bird Conservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.). We also consult
with the IUCN species specialist groups
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
FR pages
and staff members of the U.S. CITES
Scientific and Management Authorities,
and the Division of International
Conservation; and we attend scientific
meetings to obtain current status
information for relevant species. As
previously stated, if we identify any
species for which emergency listing is
appropriate, we will make prompt use
of the emergency listing authority under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
Request for Information
We request the submission of any
further information on the species in
this notice as soon as possible, or
whenever it becomes available. We
especially seek information: (1)
Indicating that we should remove a
taxon from consideration for listing;
(2) documenting threats to any of the
included taxa; (3) describing the
immediacy or magnitude of threats
facing these taxa; (4) identifying
taxonomic or nomenclatural changes for
any of the taxa; or (5) noting any
mistakes, such as errors in the indicated
historic ranges.
References Cited
A list of the references used to
develop this notice is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
This Notice of Review was authored
by the staff of the Branch of Foreign
Species, Endangered Species Program,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
ADDRESSES section).
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
25176
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Authority
This Notice of Review is published
under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 15, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–10286 Filed 5–2–11; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 May 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM
03MYP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25150-25176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10286]
[[Page 25149]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 85
May 3, 2011
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. 76 , No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 25150]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0053; MO 92210-0-0010 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 review the status of the
species 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 subject of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2009 Notice of
Review published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540). Based on our current
review, we find that 20 species continue to warrant listing, but their
listing remains precluded by higher priority listing actions.
With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting
additional information for the 20 taxa whose listings 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 conserve 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 Foreign Species, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington,
Virginia 22203. Please submit any new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this notice to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Foreign Species,
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 when the public
petitions us 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. Using the information from the status review, 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) of the Act 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.
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 2009 Notice of
Review (August 12, 2009, 74 FR 40540).
We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: To
notify the public that these species are facing threats to their
survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings; to
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make
listing unnecessary; to request input from interested parties to help
us identify those candidate species that may not require protection
under the Act or additional species that may require the Act's
protections; and to request necessary information for setting
priorities for preparing listing proposals.
On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a
listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098).
Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12,
depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and
taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority
(that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing
priority). Guidelines for such a priority-ranking guidance system are
required under section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)). As
explained below, in using this system we first categorize based on the
magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and
finally by taxonomic status.
Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued
[[Page 25151]]
existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to
recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued
existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. When
evaluating the magnitude of the threat(s) facing the species, we
consider information such as: the number of populations and/or extent
of range of the species affected by the threat(s); the biological
significance of the affected population(s), the life-history
characteristics of the species and its current abundance and
distribution; and whether the threats affect the species in only a
portion of its range. We also consider the likelihood of persistence of
the species in the unaffected portions and whether the effects are
likely to be permanent.
As used in our priority ranking system, immediacy of threat is
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent.'' It is not a
measure of how quickly the species is likely to become extinct if the
threats are not addressed; rather, immediacy is based on when the
threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to
occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent.
Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing
actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals
over those for which threats are only potential or species that are
intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats, but are not known
to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic
status: species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct
population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
The result of the ranking system entails assigning each candidate a
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threat(s) is/
are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the
listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic
status (i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be
assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species would be assigned to LPN
2, and a subspecies, DPS, or a species that is endangered or threatened
in only a significant portion of its range would be assigned to LPN 3).
In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making
decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to
list a given species. Each species included in this notice is one for
which we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule to
list, because it is in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
For more information on the process and standards used in assigning
LPNs, a copy of the guidance is available on our Web site at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. For more
information on the LPN assigned to a particular species, the species
assessment for each candidate contains the LPN and a rationale for the
determination of the magnitude and imminence of threat(s) and
assignment of the LPN; that information is presented in this ANOR.
Previous Notices
This revised notice supersedes all previous annual notices of
review for foreign species. 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 endangered or threatened 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 seven butterfly species as endangered or threatened (59 FR 24117;
May 10, 1994).
We took several actions on these petitions. Our most recent review
of petition findings was published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540).
Previously published petition findings, listing rules, status reviews,
and petition finding reviews that included foreign species are also
listed in the 2009 ANOR.
Summary of This ANOR
Since publication of the previous ANOR on August 12, 2009 (74 FR
40540), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to
ensure that listing is warranted for each species, and reevaluated the
relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to
emergency list any of these species, particularly species with high
listing priority numbers (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This
review ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at
greatest risk first. In addition to reviewing foreign candidate species
since publication of the last ANOR, we have worked on numerous findings
in response to petitions to list species and on proposed and final
determinations for rules to list species under the Act. Some of these
findings and determinations have been completed and published in the
Federal Register, while work on others is still under way (see
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details).
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, with this ANOR, we have changed the LPN for several
candidates. The review of these 20 species is summarized in Table 1.
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 finding, and we
have reviewed in accordance with our Listing Priority Guidance the
listing priority number (LPN) of each taxon for which proposed listing
continues to be warranted but precluded.
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 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.
[[Page 25152]]
Table 1--Annual Notice of Review
[C = listing warranted-but-precluded]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
----------------------------- Scientific name Family Common name Historic range
Category Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.............. 2 Pauxi unicornis.... Craciidae.......... southern helmeted Bolivia, Peru.
curassow.
C.............. 2 Rallus semiplumbeus Rallidae........... Bogota rail........ Colombia.
C.............. 8 Porphyrio Rallidae........... takahe............. New Zealand.
hochstetteri.
C.............. 8 Haematopus Haematopodidae..... Chatham Chatham Islands,
chathamensis. oystercatcher. New Zealand.
C.............. 8 Cyanoramphus Psittacidae........ orange-fronted New Zealand.
malherbi. parakeet.
C.............. 2 Eunymphicus Psittacidae........ Uvea parakeet...... Uvea, New
uvaeensis. Caledonia.
C.............. 2 Ara glaucogularis.. Psittacidae........ blue-throated macaw Bolivia.
C.............. 8 Dryocopus galeatus. Picidae............ helmeted woodpecker Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay.
C.............. 2 Dendrocopus Picidae............ Okinawa woodpecker. Okinawa Island,
noguchii. Japan.
C.............. 2 Aulacorhynchus Ramphastidae....... yellow-browed Peru.
huallagae. toucanet.
C.............. 8 Scytalopus Conopophagidae..... Brasilia tapaculo.. Brazil.
novacapitalis.
C.............. 12 Bowdleria punctata Sylviidae.......... Codfish Island Codfish Island, New
wilsoni. fernbird. Zealand.
C.............. 2 Zosterops Zosteropidae....... Ghizo white-eye.... Solomon Islands.
luteirostris.
C.............. 8 Tangara peruviana.. Thraupidae......... black-backed Brazil.
tanager.
C.............. 6 Strepera graculina Cracticidae........ Lord Howe pied Lord Howe Islands,
crissalis. currawong. New South Wales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invertebrates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.............. 6 Eurytides (= Paplionidae........ Harris' mimic Brazil.
Graphium or swallowtail.
Mimoides)
lysithous
harrisianus.
C.............. 2 Eurytides (= Paplionidae........ Jamaican kite Jamaica.
Graphium or swallowtail.
Neographium or
Protographium or
Protesilaus)
marcellinus.
C.............. 5 Parides ascanius... Paplionidae........ Fluminense Brazil.
swallowtail.
C.............. 2 Parides hahneli.... Paplionidae........ Hahnel's Amazonian Brazil.
swallowtail.
C.............. 8 Teinopalpus Paplionidae........ Kaiser-I-Hind Bhutan, China,
imperialis. swallowtail. India, Laos,
Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand, Vietnam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 continues to be warranted but precluded 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
A. Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi unicornis), LPN = 2
The southern helmeted curassow, also known as the horned curassow,
is one of the least frequently encountered South American bird species.
This may be due to the inaccessibility of its preferred habitat and its
apparent intolerance of human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998;
Macleod et al. 2009, p. 15). The southern helmeted curassow is only
known to occur in central Bolivia and central Peru (BirdLife
International (BLI) 2010a). The Bolivian population of the nominate (a
subspecies with the same name as the species) species (Pauxi unicornis
unicornis) remained unknown to science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). The
Peruvian population is known as Pauxi unicornis koepckeae.
What is now recognized as the southern helmeted curassow may in
fact comprise two separate species that are currently recognized as two
subspecies (Pauxi unicornis unicornis, and Pauxi unicornis koepckeae).
It has been proposed that these populations of Pauxi unicornis that are
currently treated as subspecies may represent two different species
because they are separated by more than 1,000 km (621 mi), and have a
multitude of distinct characteristics (Gasta[ntilde]aga in prep. in BLI
2010a). Currently, both BLI and the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognize the southern helmeted curassow
as Pauxi unicornis and do not specifically address either subspecies.
The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) recognizes Pauxi
unicornis as a full species as well as both subspecies (ITIS 2010,
accessed July 16, 2010). For the purpose of this ANOR, we are reviewing
the petitioned entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all subspecies.
In many cases, taxonomy of species can be unclear. There is
substantial discussion in scientific literature that debates the
classification of species and whether various entities deserve species
status rather than subspecies status (Phillimore 2010, pp. 42-53; James
2010, pp. 1-5; Pratt 2010, pp. 79-89). This is sometimes significant
with respect to conservation measures,
[[Page 25153]]
particularly when considering the criteria used by organizations such
as the IUCN. These two subspecies may in fact be species, but for the
purpose of this review, these two subspecies essentially face the same
threats, are generally in the same region of South America, and they
both have quite small populations. Absent peer-reviewed information to
the contrary and based on the best available information, we recognize
both subspecies as being valid. For the purpose of this review, we are
reviewing the petitioned entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all
subspecies. We welcome comments on the classification of the southern
helmeted curassow.
The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450 to 1,200 meters (m) (1,476
to 3,937 feet) (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 (BLI 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 BLI 2010a). The southern helmeted curassow
typically occurs at densities up to 20 individuals per square kilometer
(km\2\) (Macleod 2007 as cited in BLI 2008).
In Ambor[oacute] National Park (Yungas Inferiores de
Ambor[oacute]), the southern helmeted curassow was regularly sighted on
the upper Saguayo river (Saguayo R[iacute]o; Wege and Long 1995).
Subsequently, it has been observed in the adjacent Ambor[oacute] and
Carrasco National Parks (Herzog and Kessler 1998; Brooks 2006). It was
also found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park
(TIPNIS), and along the western edge of the Cordillera Mosetenes
(Mosetenes Mountains), Cochabamba, Bolivia. A recent survey located a
few southern helmeted curassows across the northern boundary of
Carrasco National Park (Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco), where it was
historically found (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BLI 2009a). Surveys
conducted between 2004 and 2005 found no evidence of the species
anywhere north or east of Amboro, Carrasco, and Isiboro-Secure National
Parks in central Bolivia (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). It was found
only in five locations during the survey period. Extensive surveys over
the last several years have failed to locate the species in Madidi
National Park, La Paz, on the eastern edge of the Mosetenes Mountains
in Cochabamba, or in the R[iacute]o Tambopata area near the Bolivia-
Peru border (MacLeod in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2010a; Hennessey
2004a as cited in BLI 2009a; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI
2008).
In Peru, Pauxi unicornis koepckeae is known only from the Sira
Mountains (known as the Reserva Comunal El Sira), 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 Mountains: The first sighting of the distinctive
endemic Peruvian subspecies since 1969 (BLI 2008). Limited reports
suggest that the southern helmeted curassow is rare here (Mee et al.
2002; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2008; Maccormack in litt.
2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Gasta[ntilde]aga and Hennessey 2005 as
cited in BLI 2009a).
The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to
be between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals (BLI 2010a). The population in
Peru is estimated to have fewer than 400 individuals (Gasta[ntilde]aga
in litt. 2007, as cited in BLI 2010a). The estimated decline in the
overall population over 10 years has been 50 to 79 percent (BLI 2009b).
Southern helmeted curassow populations are estimated to be
declining very rapidly due to 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
pressure. Hunting was indicated to be the biggest threat to southern
helmeted curassow in all parts of its range (Gasta[ntilde]aga 2006).
The species was often hunted for meat due to its large size and for its
unique blue casque, or horn, which the local people used to make
cigarette lighters (Cordier 1971; Collar et al. 1992). In the
Ambor[oacute] region of Bolivia, the bird's head was purportedly used
in folk dances (Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar 1992). It is unclear
whether this practice still occurs.
The R[iacute]o Leche area in Peru experienced a 100 percent
population decline in less than 5 years likely due to hunting or other
pressures (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). In Carrasco National Park, the
species had been abundant during surveys in 2001 but in 2004 there were
no visual or auditory sightings (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). This may
be due to illegal human encroachment. Similar human pressures are
ongoing throughout the species' range. The observed decline infers that
a 50-percent population loss likely occurred between 1995 and 2005.
Unless threats are mitigated, this trend will probably continue for the
next several years (Macleod in litt. 2005).
In Bolivia, forests within the range of the southern helmeted
curassow are being cleared for crop cultivation by colonists from the
altiplano (Maillard 2006, pp. 95-98). Rural development, including road
building, inhibits its dispersal (Herzog and Kessler 1998;
Fjelds[aring] in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010). In Peru, southern
helmeted curassow habitat is threatened by subsistence agriculture
(MacLeod in litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010a), forest clearing by
colonists, illegal logging, mining, and oil exploration (BLI 2010a).
Conservation Status. According to IUCN's 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 was previously classified as ``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red
List. In 2005, it was uplisted to its current status as ``Endangered''
(BLI 2009a). It is not listed in any appendices of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES; www.cites.org), which regulates international trade in animals
and plants of conservation concern.
The southern helmeted curassow is dependent upon pristine habitat.
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 (BLI 2010a). In
recent years, extensive field surveys of southern helmeted curassow
habitat have resulted in little success in locating the species (Mee et
al. 2002; Hennessey 2004a; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a;
Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2010a; MacLeod in litt. 2003
as cited in BLI 2010a). The Armonia Association 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
threats to southern helmeted curassow (Asociaci[oacute]n Armon[iacute]a
2010) and is conducting training workshops with park guards to help
improve chances for its survival.
In our 2009 ANOR, the southern helmeted curassow received an LPN of
8. After reevaluating the threats to the
[[Page 25154]]
species, we have determined that a change in the listing priority
number representing the magnitude of threats to the species is
warranted. The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a
monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on
its small, limited range; and these few locations where it is believed
to exist continue to be subject to habitat destruction and loss from
agricultural development, road building, and hunting. Although the
population is estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals, the
population trend is believed to be rapidly declining. In the past ten
years, the species' population is believed to have declined between 50
and 79 percent (BLI 2009b). The best scientific information available
suggests that these significant declines will continue in the future.
The threats to the species are occurring now and are ongoing, and are
therefore imminent. Because the species is experiencing such a
significant population decline, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a
2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
B. Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus), LPN = 2
The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the
Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyac[aacute].
It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (occasionally as low
as 2,100 m) (6,890 ft) in savanna and p[aacute]ramo marshes (BLI
2010b). Bogota rail inhabit wetland habitats with vegetation-rich
shallows that are surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles
in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). It inhabits the water's edge, in
flooded pasture and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Varty et al.
1986 as cited in BLI 2010b; Fjelds[aring] 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b;
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; Salaman in litt.
1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). Nests have been recorded adjoining shallow
water in beds of Scirpus (bulrush or sedge) and Typha (cat tail)
species. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). The Bogota rail
is omnivorous, consuming a diet that includes aquatic invertebrates,
insect larvae, worms, mollusks, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant
material (BLI 2010b; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 2010b).
The current population is estimated to range between 1,000 and
2,499 individuals, although numbers are expected to decline over the
next 10 years by 10 to 19 percent (BLI 2009). Although the Bogota rail
has been observed in at least 21 locations in Cundinamarca, the Bogota
rail population is thought to be 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 100 birds at Parque La Florida, and
populations at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BLI 2010b).
Its suitable habitat has become widely fragmented (BLI 2010b).
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 due to draining, but also due to 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 BLI 2010b).
Conservation Status. The Bogota rail is listed as ``Endangered'' by
IUCN primarily because its range is very small and is contracting due
to widespread habitat loss and degradation. It is not listed in any
appendices of CITES. Some Bogota rails occur in protected areas such as
Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most
savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected (BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Bogota rail received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that a
change in the listing priority number for the species is appropriate.
The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats
that are high in magnitude due to the pressures on the population's
habitat. Its range is very small and is rapidly contracting because of
widespread habitat loss and degradation (agricultural encroachment,
erosion, dyking, and eutrophication). The population is believed to be
between 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the population trend is
believed to be rapidly declining. Based on new information regarding
threats to this species, we find that the threats to the species are
occurring now, are ongoing, and are therefore imminent. Thus, we have
changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
C. Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, Previously Known as P. mantelli),
LPN = 8
The takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the
world's largest extant (living) member of the rail family (del Hoyo et
al. 1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, was split into P. mantelli
(extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). BLI (2000)
incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the extant form, while the
name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to the extinct form.
Fossils indicate that this species was once widespread throughout New
Zealand's North and South Islands. The takahe was thought to be extinct
by the 1930s until its rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison Mountains,
Fiordland (South Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New Zealand
Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its rediscovery,
a takahe Special Area of 500 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) was set aside in the
Murchison Mountains of Fiordland National Park for the conservation of
the takahe (Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2009c). Today, the species is present
in the Murchison and Stuart Mountains and was introduced to five island
reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri, Mantangi, Maud) and one privately
owned island (Collar et al. 1994; NZDOC 2009d, p. 10). The population
in the Murchison Mountains is important because it is the only mainland
population and has the potential for sustaining a large, viable
population (NZDOC 1997).
When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the takahe
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 160 birds (Crouchley 1994;
Maxwell 2001). At first, translocated populations increased only
slowly, possibly in part due to young pair-bonds and the quality of the
founding population (Bunin et al. 1997). In recent years, the total
takahe population has experienced 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 (BLI 2005). As of June 2008,
the estimated population of takahe was approximately 93 in the Core
Census Area; 91 on islands and at Maungatautari (the mainland
sanctuary); 36 at the Burwood Breeding Center; and 5 birds on public
display at Wildlife Centers. The Core Census Area consists of suitable
habitat east of the
[[Page 25155]]
Esk Burn and Woodrow Burn streams in the Murchison Mountains (NZDOC
2009d, pp. 9-10).
This species experienced a loss of fitness as a result of recent
inbreeding. Relative to other species, it has low genetic diversity
(Grueber et al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Research reported in 2010 that the true
level of inbreeding may be underestimated for this species (Grueber et
al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Failure to address these concerns could 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. 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, inbred island species such as
the takahe.
As of 2009, the current total population estimate is 227 adults
(NZDOC 2009d, p. 11; NZDOC 2009e). Birds under 1 year of age were not
counted in these totals. As of 2007, the mainland population, as well
as island reserves, were thought to be at carrying capacity (Greaves
2007, p. 17), (NZDOC 2009, p. 29), however a Recovery Plan is underway
to address conservation priorities and needs for this species (NZDOC
2009d, entire). 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
(NZDOC 2009d; BLI 2010c).
Takahe territories historically have been large; they have been
known to be between several hectares (ha) to more than 100 ha (247
acres (ac)) depending on the availability of their preferred food
sources (Lee and Jamieson 2001, p. 57). 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
living between 14 and 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997) and have a
low reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. They
form life-long pair bonds and generally occupy the same territory
throughout life (Reid 1967). Generally pairs in the wild only rear one
chick. Only a few pairs manage to consistently rear more than one chick
each year. Although under normal conditions this is generally
sufficient to maintain the population, populations recover slowly from
catastrophic events (Crouchley 1994); and this is a concern because
this species has such a small population size. To increase the
population, NZDOC has been removing some eggs from the wild, captive
rearing them, and reintroducing them back into the wild (NZDOC 2009, p.
26).
Originally, the species occurred throughout forest and grass
ecosystems. Now takahe occupy alpine grasslands (BLI 2010c). They feed
on tussock grasses during much of the year; snow tussocks (Chionochloa
pallens, Chionochloa conspicua, Chionochloa flavescens, and Chionochloa
crassiuscula) are their preferred food (Mills and Mark 1977, p. 951;
Mills et al., 1980, Crouchley 1994, NZDOC 2009, pp. 39-40). These
grasses are high in nutritional content. C. flavescens is high in
phosphorus; C. pallens is high in starch; and C. crassiuscula is high
in sulphur, starch, and sodium (Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 951, 953).
takahe also forage on Carex coriacea, which is also high in nutrients.
During some seasons, takahe prefer plants with high phosphorus content;
for example, during spring and autumn, they prefer C. crassiuscula.
From October to December, when they lay eggs, they prefer mountain
daisy (Celmisia petriei), which has high levels of calcium and sugar
(Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 952-953). 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) which has a high carbohydrate content (Mills et al. 1980,
p. 136).
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. Chionochloa conspicua (bush snow-grass) is
the takahe's preferred winter food in the Murchison Mountains, although
new information indicates that it is currently uncommon due to
overgrazing by deer (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). C. conspicua has higher
levels of phosphorus, potassium and magnesium (Mills et al. 1980, p.
136) than Hypolepis spp., which is currently the primary plant in the
winter takahe diet.
Although Hypolepis rhizomes may not be sufficient for a balanced
winter diet, they are a valuable source of starch, nitrogen and
phosphorus (Mills et al. 1980, p. 136). Because foraging on Hypolepis
is a learned behavior, it is being taught at the Burwood Captive
Rearing Center to chicks by adult birds (NZDOC 2009d, p. 27).
Rareness of C. conspicua may be a contributing factor to the lack
of viability of the takahe population (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). There
are no known diseases that pose threats to the takahe. C. conspicua is
less common in the forest understory in the takahe Special Area than it
previously was, in part due to overgrazing by deer. NZDOC is conducting
research and trying to reintroduce and increase the prevalence of this
plant species in the Murchison Mountains Reserve (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-
40). The island populations now primarily consume introduced grasses
(BLI 2010c). Some researchers have theorized that consumption of these
nonnative species may contribute to inadequate nutrition and
subsequently nest failure (Jamieson 2003, p. 708); however this has not
been confirmed.
Several factors have led to the decline in the species' population.
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; NZDOC 2009,
p. 39). The NZDOC has controlled red deer through an intensive hunting
program in the Murchison Mountains since the 1960s. Predation by
introduced stoats (Mustela erminea) is still a threat to the species
(Crouchley 1994; Bunin and Jamieson 1995; Bunin and Jamieson 1996;
NZDOC 2009, pp. 34-36). 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 that
the control program has had a positive influence (NZDOC 2009, pp. 35-
36).
Other potential threats include a competitor, the introduced brush-
tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and the predator, the threatened
weka (Gallirallus australis), a flightless woodhen endemic to New
Zealand (BLI 2010c). Severe weather may also be a limiting factor to
this species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995; BLI 2010c). 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 has confirmed that severity of winter
conditions adversely affects survivorship of takahe in the wild,
particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
Lead exposure may affect this species on some of the islands (Youl
2009, pp. 79-83). Lead levels in the island populations were found to
be higher
[[Page 25156]]
than those on the mainland. Older buildings on some of the island
contain lead paint. One or more takahe breeding pairs were located near
buildings containing lead-based paint. A family group on one island
that was close to a building containing lead paint was found to have
significantly higher lead levels than a family group located away from
buildings (Youl 2009, p. 80). Lead has been found to affect the
learning capacity of avian species (Youl 2009, pp. 11-13). This
exposure to lead may lead to decreased fitness of takahe.
Conservation Status. The takahe is listed as ``Endangered'' on the
IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small population (BLI 2010c).
It is not listed in any appendices of CITES. New Zealand considers the
takahe to be an endangered species and it is classified as ``Nationally
Critical'' under the New Zealand Threat Classification System. The
NZDOC, through its 2007-2012 takahe Recovery Plan, is managing the
populations of the species through various conservation efforts such as
captive breeding, population management, eradication of predators, and
management of grasslands.
Since 1983, the NZDOC has been involved in managing a captive-
breeding and release program to boost takahe recovery (NZDOC 2009, p.
29). 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 were used to establish five
predator-free, offshore island reserves. These captive-breeding efforts
have increased the rate of survival of chicks reaching one year of age
from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997; NZDOC 2009d). Takahe that have been
translocated to the islands have higher rates of egg infertility and
low hatching success when they breed (Jamieson & Ryan 2000).
Researchers postulated that the difference in vegetation between the
native mainland grassland tussocks and the grasses found on the islands
might affect reproductive success. After testing nutrients from
available food sources, it remains unclear whether the islands contain
adequate nutrients in the available food sources (James et al. 2004,
pp. 342-344). Research on takahe that are established on Tiritiri
Matangi Island estimated that the island can currently support up to 8
breeding pairs, but suggested that the ability of the island to support
takahe is likely to decrease as the grass and shrub ecosystem reverts
to forest. The researchers concluded that, although the four island
populations fulfilled their role as 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
takahe for release into the wild increases recruitment of juveniles
into the population.
In our 2009 ANOR, the takahe received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the threats to the takahe, we have determined that no
change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats
to the species is warranted at this time. The takahe does not represent
a monotypic genus. The current population is small (between 150-220
individuals), and the species' distribution is extremely limited. It
faces threats that are moderate in magnitude (extremely small
population, limited suitable habitat, inbreeding depression, and to
some extent predation) because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the
recovery of the species (NZDOC 2009d, 58 pp.; NZDOC 2009e, 3 pp.) and
is active in the species conservation and recovery. The NZDOC has
implemented a successful deer control program, implemented a captive-
breeding and release program to augment the mainland population, and
established four offshore island reserves. However, we find that the
threats are on-going and therefore, imminent. 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 moderate in
magnitude. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of
moderate magnitude.
D. Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis), LPN = 8
The Chatham oystercatcher is the most rare oystercatcher species in
the world (NZDOC 2001). It is endemic to the Chatham Island group
(Marchant and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), which lies
860 km (534 mi) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group
consists of two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and
numerous smaller islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira and
Mangere) are nature reserves, which provide vitally needed 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
vacant sections of the coast. Their scrape nests (shallow-rimmed
depressions in soil or vegetation) are usually on sandy beaches 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).
In the early 1970s, the Chatham oystercatcher population was
approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 1996). 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 to 320
individuals (including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 (Moore 2005a; Moore
2009b, p. 32). 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) but is likely due to large waves during
sea storms which destroy the nests (Moore 2009a, p. 9).
Predation, nest disturbance, invasive plants, and spring tides and
storm surges are factors threatening the Chatham oystercatcher
population (NZDOC 2001, Moore 2005; Moore 2009a, pp. 8-9). 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 to heavy cat predation.
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 1 or 2 days.
Another predator, the weka (Gallirallus australis), an endemic New
Zealand rail was introduced to the Chatham Islands in the early 1900s.
Weka was observed preying upon this species three times through camera
trapping between 1999 and 2001 (Moore
[[Page 25157]]
2009a, p. 8). It is not considered as severe a threat to the Chatham
oystercatcher as feral cats because weka only prey on eggs when adult
oystercatchers are not present.
Other potential predators include the Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), ship rat (R. rattus), Australian brush-tailed possum
(Trichsurus vulpeculs), and hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). However,
these predators are not considered serious threats 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 on or near nests. 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). In one case, a sheep was observed to lie on a nest (Moore
2009b, p. 21).
Another obstacle to Chatham oystercatcher populations is marram
grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced to New Zealand from Europe to
protect farmland from sand encroachment. Marram grass 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 fore dunes 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. After
three summers of video recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded were
predated by cats, but of the remaining six nest failures, weka were
responsible for three; red-billed gull, one; sheep-trampling, one; and
sea wash, one (Moore 2005b).
Conservation Status. Chatham oystercatcher is listed as critically
endangered by the NZDOC (2010d), making it a high priority for
conservation management (NZDOC 2007). It is classified as
``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small
population (BLI 2010d). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
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 (NZDOC 2001, 24 pp.), 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 (NZDOC 2008b). Artificial
incubation has been attempted but has not increased productivity.
Additionally, livestock have been 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 (BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Chatham oystercatcher received an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that
no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of
threats to the species is warranted at this time. The Chatham
oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The current
population estimate is very small--between 50 and 300 individuals--and
the species only occurs in a small area. Although it faces threats that
are moderate in magnitude (predation, low population numbers, and
potential loss due to storm surges); the NZDOC has taken measures to
aid the recovery of the species that appear to be effective (the
species' population is increasing), However, we find that the threats
are still on-going and therefore, imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to
reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
E. Orange-Fronted Parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi), LPN = 8
The orange-fronted parakeet, also known as Malherbe's parakeet is
endemic to New Zealand. It 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 recognizes Cyanoramphus malherbi as a full species
(ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). Absent peer-reviewed information
to the contrary, we consider the orange-fronted parakeet to be a valid
species.
At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout
most of New Zealand (Harrison 1970). This species has been described as
never being common (Mills and Williams 1979). During the 19th century,
the species' distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a
few other offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a). Currently,
there are three known remaining populations. The South Island
populations are managed and located within a 30-km (18.6-mi) radius in
beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys (Hawdon and Poulter
valleys). These valleys are within Arthur's Pass National Park and the
Hurunui South Branch in Lake Sumner Forest Park in Canterbury, South
Island (NZDOC 2009a). Two populations of this species have also been
established on Chalky and Maud Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007;
Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). Between 2007 and 2009, 62
birds were introduced to Maud Island.
This species inhabits southern beech forests, with a preference for
locales bordering stands of N. solandri (mountain beech) (del Hoyo
1997; Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). The species 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 (years yielding a high abundance of seeds), parakeet numbers
can increase substantially. On South Island, Nothofagus species were
observed to be a major component of its diet (Kearvall et al. 2002, pp.
140-145). On Maud Island, a primary component of its diet was Melicytus
ramiflorus (mahoe) (Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). In
addition to eating seeds, the orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits,
leaves, flowers, buds, and small invertebrates (BLI 2009).
The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small, fragmented
population and limited range, and its population has declined during
the past 10 years (BLI 2010e). Currently, BLI estimates its population
in the wild to be between 50 and 249 individuals (BLI 2010e, p. 1).
NZDOC's population estimate is between 100 to 200 individuals in the
wild and they also believe the population is 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.) (BLI 2009). Large numbers of stoats and rats
[[Page 25158]]
in beech forests cause large losses of parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Stoats
and rats are excellent hunters on the ground and in trees. They are
able to exploit parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes, which impacts
primarily females, chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2009c).
In 2007, habitat loss and degradation were considered threats to
the orange-fronted parakeet (BLI 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, which browse on plants, changing the forest structure (NZDOC
2009c). This is problematic for the orange-fronted parakeet, which
utilizes the ground and low-growing shrubs while feeding (Kearvell et
al. 2002).
Other risks to this species' viability exist. Some of these other
potential threats 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) which compete with parakeets for
invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002). Hybridization
is also a concern. The orange-fronted parakeet may hybridize with other
species. Snyder et al. reported that hybridization with yellow-crowned
parakeets (C. auriceps) had been observed at Lake Sumner (2000). In
some cases, we are not able to distinguish between hybridized birds and
full species due to similarities in color (Chan 2006, p. 5).
Conservation Status. The NZDOC (2009b) considers the orange-fronted
parakeet, or k[auml]k[auml]riki, 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 on the
species to ensure its survival. The species is listed as ``Critically
Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List, ``because it underwent a population
crash following rat invasions between 1990-2000.'' It is listed in
Appendix II of CITES as part of a general listing for all parrots
(CITES 2010).
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. For example, 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).
Because the NZDOC determined that the species' largest threat is
predation, they initiated a program to remove predators in some parts
of the species' range. ``Operation ARK'' is their 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 ne