[Federal Register: July 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 146)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44061-44099]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29jy08-20]
[[Page 44061]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual
Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule
[[Page 44062]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[96000-1671-0000-B6]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual
Description of Progress on Listing Actions
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we announce our annual petition
findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded,
we must complete a new status review each year until we publish a
proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted.
These subsequent status reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings
are referred to as ``resubmitted'' petition findings.
Information contained in this notice describes our status review of
50 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2007 Notice of
Review (72 FR 20184). Based on our current review, we find that 20
species (see Table 1) continue to warrant listing, but that their
listing remains precluded by higher-priority listing actions. For 30
species previously found to be warranted but precluded, the petitioned
action is now warranted. We will promptly publish listing proposals for
those 30 species (see Table 1).
With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting
additional status information for the 20 taxa that remain warranted but
precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will consider this
information in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted
petition findings for these 20 taxa. This information will also help us
to monitor the status of the taxa and in conserving them.
DATES: We will accept comments on these resubmitted petition findings
at any time.
ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, information, and questions by mail to
the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, Virginia 22203; by
fax to 703-358-2276; or by e-mail to ScientificAuthority@fws.gov.
Comments and supporting information will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary M. Cogliano, PhD, at the above
address or by telephone 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail,
ScientificAuthority@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for considering species for
listing. First, we can identify and propose for listing those species
that are endangered or threatened based on the factors contained in
section 4(a)(1). We implement this through the candidate program.
Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have sufficient information
on file relating to biological vulnerability and threats to support a
proposal to list the taxa as endangered or threatened, but for which
preparation and publication of a proposed rule is precluded by higher-
priority listing actions. None of the species covered by this notice
were assessed through the candidate program; they were the result of
public petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), which is the other mechanism
for considering species for listing.
Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a listing
petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent
practicable, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted (90-day finding). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species, whereby, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act we
must make one of three findings within 12 months of the receipt of the
petition (12-month finding). The first possible 12-month finding is
that listing is not warranted, in which case we need not take any
further action on the petition. The second possibility is that we may
find that listing is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish
a proposed rule to list the species. Once we publish a proposed rule
for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further procedures,
regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to the
petition. The third possibility is that we may find that listing is
warranted but precluded. A warranted-but-precluded finding on a
petition to list means that listing is warranted, but that the
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is
precluded by higher priority listing actions. In making a warranted-but
precluded finding under the Act, the Service must demonstrate that
expeditious progress is being made to add and remove species from the
lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in response to
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded,
we must make a new 12-month finding annually until we publish a
proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted.
These subsequent 12-month findings are referred to as ``resubmitted''
petition findings. This notice contains our resubmitted petition
findings for all foreign species previously described in the 2007
Notice of Review (72 FR 20184) and that are currently the subject of
outstanding petitions.
Previous Notices
The species discussed in this notice were the result of three
separate petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) to list a number of foreign bird and butterfly species as
threatened or endangered under the Act. We received petitions to list
foreign bird species on November 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 26464
and 56 FR 65207, respectively). On January 10, 1994, we received a
petition to list 7 butterfly species as threatened or endangered (59 FR
24117).
We took several actions on these petitions. To notify the public on
these actions, we published petition findings, listing rules, status
reviews, and petition finding reviews that included foreign species in
the Federal Register on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464); January 20, 1984
(49 FR 2485); May 10, 1985 (50 FR 19761); January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996);
July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746); April 25,
1990 (55 FR 17475); September 28, 1990 (55 FR 39858); November 21, 1991
(56 FR 58664); December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65207); March 28, 1994 (59 FR
14496); May 10, 1994 (59 FR 24117); January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899); and
May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). Our most recent review of petition findings
was published on April 23, 2007 (72 FR 20184).
Since our last review of petition findings, we have taken two
listing actions related to this notice (see Preclusion and Expeditious
Progress section for additional listing actions that were not related
to this notice). On
[[Page 44063]]
December 17, 2007, we published a proposed rule to list 6 species of
foreign Procellariids under the Act (72 FR 71298). We also published a
final rule on January 16, 2008, to list 6 foreign bird species as
endangered under the Act (73 FR 3146).
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions
This notice describes our resubmitted petition findings for 50
foreign species for which we had previously found proposed listing to
be warranted but precluded. We have considered all of the new
information that we have obtained since the previous findings, and we
have updated the listing priority number (LPN) of each taxon for which
proposed listing continues to be warranted but precluded, in accordance
with our Listing Priority Guidance published September 21, 1983 (48 FR
43098). Such a priority ranking guidance system is required under
section 4(h)(3) of the Act. Using this guidance, we assign each taxon
an LPN of 1 to 12, whereby we first categorize based on the magnitude
of the threat(s) (high versus moderate-to-low), then by the immediacy
of the threat(s) (imminent versus nonimminent), and finally by
taxonomic status; the lower the listing priority number, the higher the
listing priority (i.e., a species with an LPN of 1 would have the
highest listing priority).
As a result of our review of 50 foreign species, we find that
warranted-but-precluded findings remain appropriate for 20 species. We
emphasize that we are not proposing these species for listing by this
notice, but we do anticipate developing and publishing proposed listing
rules for these species in the future, with an objective of making
expeditious progress in addressing all 20 of these foreign species
within a reasonable timeframe.
Also as a result of this review, we find that proposing 30 taxa for
listing under the Act is warranted. We will promptly publish proposals
to list these 30 taxa, listed below in taxonomic order: Jun[iacute]n
flightless grebe (Podiceps taczanowskii), greater adjutant stork
(Leptoptilos dubius), Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus),
Brazilian merganser (Mergus octosetaceus), Caucau Guan (Crax alberti),
blue-billed curassow (Penelope perspicax), Cantabrian capercaillie
(Tetrao urogallus cantabricus), gorgeted wood-quail (Odontophorus
strophium), Jun[iacute]n rail (Laterallus tuerosi), Jerdon's Courser
(Rhinoptilus bitorquatus), slender billed curlew (Numenius
tenuirostris), Marquesan imperial pigeon (Ducula galeata), salmon-
crested cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis), southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis), Margaretta's hermit
(Phaethornis malaris margarettae), black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis
nigrivestis), Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), Esmeraldas woodstar
(Chaetocerus berlepschi), royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae), white-
browed tit-spinetail (Leptasthenura xenothorax), black-hooded antwren
(Formicivora erythronotos), fringe-backed fire-eye (Pyriglena atra),
brown-banded antpitta (Grallaria milleri), Kaempfer's tody-tyrant
(Hemitriccus kaempferi), ash-breasted tit-tyrant (Anairetes alpinus),
Peruvian plantcutter (Phytotoma raimondii), St. Lucia forest thrush
(Cichlherminia herminieri sanctaeluciae), Eiao Polynesian warbler
(Acrocephalus cafier aquilonis), medium tree-finch (Camarhynchus
pauper), and cherry-throated tanager (Nemosia rourei).
Our warranted finding is based on a species' LPN, as well as a
recent court order. We have found all taxa with LPNs of 2 or 3, as
reported in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184), to be warranted
for proposed listing under the Act, because these species face threats
that are both imminent and high in magnitude. In addition to the LPN
directing our findings, on January 23, 2008, the United States District
Court ordered the Service to propose listing rules for five foreign
bird species, actions which had been previously determined to be
warranted but precluded: the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii),
Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus), medium tree-finch
(Camarhynchus pauper), black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis),
and the St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlherminia herminieri
sanctaeluciae). Of these five species, only one, the medium tree-finch
(Camarhynchus pauper), did not have an LPN number of 2 or 3. To comply
with the court-order, however, we are declaring the medium tree-finch
to be warranted for proposed listing at this time, in addition to the
29 species that were reported with LPNs of 2 or 3 in our 2007 Notice of
Review, for which we have already begun to prepare proposed listing
rules.
Based on our review of 50 species, we did not find any taxa to be
no longer warranted for listing. Table 1 provides a summary of all
updated determinations of the 50 taxa in our review. Any changes in LPN
are explained in the species summaries in the text of this notice. Taxa
in Table 1 of this notice are assigned to two status categories, noted
in the ``Category'' column at the left side of the table. We identify
the taxa for which we find that listing is warranted but precluded by a
``C'' in the category column, referring to these taxa as ``candidates''
under the Act. The other category is for those species for which we
find that proposed listing is warranted, and we designate these taxa
with a ``P,'' indicating that proposed rules to list these taxa under
the Act will be published promptly. The column labeled ``Priority''
indicates the LPN for all taxa for which proposed listing is warranted
but precluded. Following the scientific name of each taxon (third
column) is the family designation (fourth column) and the common name,
if one exists (fifth column). The sixth column provides the known
historic range for the taxon. The avian species in Table 1 are listed
taxonomically.
Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted
Below are our 12-month resubmitted petition findings on the 30 taxa
found by this notice to be warranted for proposed listing under the
Act.
Birds
Jun[iacute]n Flightless Grebe (Podiceps taczanowskii)
The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe is endemic to Lake Junon, a large
lake that covers 35,385 acres (ac) (14,320 hectares (ha)) in the
central Andes of Peru at 13,386 feet (ft) (4,080 meters (m)) above sea
level (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Fjelds[aring] 2004; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe
1990; INRENA 1996). Historically, the species was likely distributed
throughout the lake, but it is now absent from the northwest portion of
the lake due to contamination from mining wastes (Fjelds[aring] 1981).
The lake is bordered by extensive reed marshes and reaches a depth
of 32.8 ft (10 m) at the center. The reed marshes are continuous in
some areas of the lake shore, but they form a mosaic with stretches of
open water in other areas. Considerable stretches of the lake are
shallow, supporting dense growth of stonewort (Chara spp.) (del Hoyo et
al. 1992). The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe prefers open lake habitat
and remains in the center of the lake when it is not breeding. During
the breeding season, however, it nests in stands of tall Scirpus
californicus tatora or bays and channels along the outer edge of the
reed marshes surrounding the lake (O'Donnel and Fjeds[aring] 1997). The
Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe feeds predominantly on fish (Orestias
spp.), which constitute approximately 90 percent of its diet (del Hoyo
et al. 1992).
The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe has experienced dramatic
population
[[Page 44064]]
declines since the early 1960s when there were at least 1,000
individuals (F. Gill and R.W. Storer, as cited in Fjelds[aring] 2004).
Prior to the 1960s, the Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe had been
described as ``extremely abundant on the lake'' (Morrison 1939).
However, by 1979, the population was estimated to be 250 to 300 birds,
indicating a rapid and extensive decline (Harris 1981, as cited in
O'Donnell and Fjelds[aring] 1997). From 1979 through 2004, population
estimates fluctuated between 50 to 375 birds (J. Fjelds[aring] 2005, as
cited in Butchart et al. 2006; O'Donnel and Fjelds[aring] 1997). In
2004, the population estimate was 100 to 300 birds (BirdLife
International 2007); however, in dry years (e.g., 1983-1987, 1991,
1994-1997), the population was reduced to 100 birds or fewer (Elton
2000; Fjelds[aring] 2004). Short-term population increases ranging from
200 to 300 birds have occurred in years with high rainfall levels
related to the El Ni[ntilde]o Southern-Oscillation (ENSO) (1997-1998
and 2001-2002) (T. Valqui and PROFONANPE 2002, as cited in
Fjelds[aring] 2004). In 2007, the population once more declined due to
a high-mortality weather event (Hirschfeld 2007).
The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe is considered ``Critically
Endangered'' by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of
Nature) Red List because of the species' rapid decline, highly
restricted range, and increasing exposure to contaminants produced by
the mining industry (Birdlife International 2006). Variations in lake
water levels of up to 23 ft (7 m) at a time are linked to electrical
power generation by a local hydroelectric power station. These water-
level fluctuations have reduced prey populations, resulting in
increased food competition with white-tufted grebes (Rollandia
rolland). Frequent manipulation and drawdowns of the lake's water level
also prevent foraging, nest building, and breeding in drought years
(BirdLife International 2007). In addition, contamination from mining
wastes (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Martin and McNee 1999) has reduced the
amount of available habitat in the northern section of the lake by
diminishing or eliminating stands of submerged aquatic vegetation
(Fjelds[aring] 2004; ParksWatch 2006). Greater concentration of
contaminants in the lake as a result of droughts (T. Valqui and J.
Barrio in litt. 1992, as cited in Collar et al. 1992) has coincided
with mortality of Jun[iacute]n flightless grebes (T. Valqui and J.
Barrio in litt. 1992, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and is believed
either to have directly caused the mortalities or to have resulted in
mortality of the grebes by reducing their prey (Fjelds[aring] 2004).
Threats to this species and its habitat continue, and we find that
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Greater Adjutant Stork (Leptoptilos dubius)
The current range of the greater adjutant stork consists of two
breeding populations, one in India and the other in Cambodia. Recent
sighting records of this species from the neighboring countries of
Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand are presumed to be wandering
birds from one of the two populations in India or Cambodia (Birdlife
International 2007).
The greater adjutant stork frequents marshes, lakes, paddy fields,
and open forest, and may also be found in dry areas, such as grasslands
and fields. In India, much of the native habitat has been lost. The
greater adjutant stork often occurs close to urban areas, feeding in
and around wetlands in the breeding season, and disperses to feed on
carcasses and to scavenge at trash dumps, burial grounds, and slaughter
houses at other times of the year. The natural diet of the greater
adjutant stork consists primarily of fish, frogs, reptiles, small
mammals and birds, crustaceans, and carrion (BirdLife International
2007; Singha and Rahman 2006).
This species breeds in colonies during the dry season (winter) in
stands of tall trees near water sources. In India, the breeding sites
are commonly associated with bamboo forests which provide protection
from wind (Singha et al. 2002). The greater adjutant stork constructs
platform nests made of sticks in the upper lateral limbs of large trees
(Singha et al. 2002). In Cambodia, the greater adjutant stork breeds in
freshwater flooded forest and disperses to seasonally inundated forest,
tall wet grasslands, mangroves, and intertidal flats to forage. At the
Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, it is known to nest only in evergreen
forests (Clements et al. 2007b). At two breeding sites near the city of
Guwahati in the State of Assam, the most recent survey data show that
the number of breeding birds has declined from 247 birds in 2005 to 118
birds in 2007 (Hindu 2007).
During the nineteenth century, there were vast colonies of millions
of greater adjutant storks in Burma, and del Hoyo et al. (1992) noted
that in Calcutta there was ``almost one [stork] on every roof.''
However, during the twentieth century the species experienced a rapid
decline, and currently the population estimate is 800 to 1,000 birds in
two very small and highly disjunct breeding populations (BirdLife
International 2007). The greater adjutant stork is classified as
``Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International 2007).
Identified risks to this species include habitat destruction,
particularly lowland deforestation and the felling of nest trees (Hindu
2007; Singha et al. 2002; Singha et al. 2006; WCS 2007); habitat
modification from flooding and hydrological changes brought about by
Mekong River dam development (Clements et al. 2007b; WCS 2007); direct
exploitation, such as hunting and egg collection from nesting colonies
(Clements et al. 2007a); and drainage, agricultural conversion,
pollution, and over-exploitation of wetlands (BirdLife International
2007; Clements et al. 2007; Singha et al. 2003). The Assam population
is also negatively impacted by the loss of a readily available food
source, due to the reduced number of open rubbish dumps for the
disposal of carcasses and foodstuffs (BirdLife International 2007).
Threats to this species and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Andean Flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus)
The Andean flamingo is the rarest of six flamingo species worldwide
and one of three endemic to the high Andes of South America (Arengo in
litt. 2007; Caziani et al. 2007; del Hoyo et al. 1992; Johnson et al.
1958; Johnson 1967; Line 2004). The Andean flamingo is found in lakes
in the Andean altiplano (high plains) from southern Peru and
southwestern Bolivia to northern Chile and northwest Argentina. A small
section of the population winters in the lowlands of central Argentina,
mainly at Mar Chiquita Lake (Blake 1977; Bucher 1992; Boyle et al.
2004; Caziani et al. 2006; Caziani et al. 2007; Fjelds[aring] and
Krabbe 1990; Hurlbert and Keith 1979; Kahl 1975). There have been
several documented occurrences of Andean flamingos in Brazil, but it is
unclear whether the species is accidental or a more frequent visitor
(Bornschein and Reinert 1996; Sick 1993).
Andean flamingo habitat consists of plankton-rich, high-elevation,
shallow lakes and salt flats (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990). The range
of the species becomes more restricted in the winter as low
temperatures and aridity seasonally inhibit the suitability of some
wetlands (Caziani et al. 2007; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002). The
Andean flamingo feeds in large flocks on diatoms of the genus Surirella
from the benthic interface in water less than 3 ft (1 m) deep (Hurlbert
and Chang 1983; Mascitti and Casta[ntilde]era 2006; Mascitti and
Kravetz 2002).
[[Page 44065]]
Population assessments for this species vary greatly. In 1967,
Charles Cordier estimated the number of Andean flamingos to be 250,000
to 300,000 birds (Johnson 1967). Kahl (1975) reviewed previous
estimates and noted that Cordier's 1965 and 1968 population estimates
varied by an order of magnitude (from 50,000 to 500,000) during that
same time period. By 1986, R. Schlatter estimated the population to be
fewer than 50,000 individuals, with a declining population trend
(Johnson 2000). However, the accuracy of these early estimates has
never been confirmed, making it difficult to establish trends.
Using a comprehensive sampling design and conducting simultaneous
surveys at over 200 wetlands in Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina,
Caziani et al. (2007) counted 33,918 Andean flamingos in January 1997;
27,913 in January 1998; 14,722 in June 1998; and 24,442 in July 2000.
In the summer of 2005, Caziani et al. (2006) reported 31,617 Andean
flamingos distributed throughout 25 wetlands, with 50 percent of the
population located in five wetlands in Chile and Bolivia.
Long-lived species with slow rates of reproduction, such as the
Andean flamingo, may appear to have robust populations, but can rapidly
decline if reproduction does not keep pace with mortality. Andean
flamingo recruitment was very low from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s,
averaging only 800 chicks per year from 1988 through 1997. Recruitment
appears to have improved in recent years, with a total of 13,201 Andean
flamingo chicks hatched from 1997 through 2001 (Caziani et al. 2007),
and an average of 3,000 chicks per year has fledged since 2000 (Amado
et al. 2007 as cited in Arengo in litt. 2007). However, in some years
breeding success is extremely limited; in 1997, only 200 chicks were
observed to have hatched (Caziani et al. 2007). The reasons for such
variation appear to be related to annual climatic conditions (Caziani
et al. 2007). When climatic conditions are favorable, breeding takes
place, whereas, when climatic conditions are unfavorable breeding is
abandoned, very limited, or takes place at alternative breeding
grounds, which tend to be less productive (Bucher et al. 2000).
The IUCN categorizes the Andean flamingo as ``Vulnerable'' because
it has undergone a rapid population decline, it is exposed to ongoing
exploitation and declines in habitat quality, and finally, although
previous exploitation has decreased, the longevity and slow breeding of
flamingos suggest that the legacy of past threats may persist through
future generations (BirdLife International 2007).
Experts consider the greatest threats to the Andean flamingo to be
habitat degradation caused by mining, agricultural, and residential/
urban development, and tourism (Arengo in litt. 2007). Mining takes
place in or near many of the wetlands occupied by the Andean flamingo,
including successful breeding sites (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional
Forestal 1996a; Soto 1996; Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000).
Loss of habitat due to excavations in the lakebed and extraction of
water are attributed to mining, which also causes extensive degradation
of water quality. Chemical pollution produced by the mining and
metallurgical industries and recent petroleum spills are also
responsible for the degradation of water resources (OAS/UNEP and ALT
1999, as cited in Rocha 2002). Pollution from mining wastes has been
reported as a risk factor to flamingos in Argentina (Laredo 1990 as
cited in Administraci[oacute]n de Parques Nacionales 1994), although it
was not reported whether the risk was due to direct mortality of
flamingos or due to a reduction in their food supply. In Chile, where
Andean flamingo breeding colonies are concentrated and where mineral
and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation have increased in the last
two decades, both the number of successful breeding colonies and the
total production of chicks of Andean Flamingos have declined since the
1980s (Parada 1992, Rodr[iacute]guez and Contreras 1998, as cited in
Caziani et al. 2007).
Water consumption for agriculture and domestic use can cause
serious declines in water levels at important breeding sites (Messerli
et al. 1997), and increased tourism is likely to further stress already
tenuous water budgets as hotels and restaurants are established (RIDES
2005). Other potential risks to the species include overutilization of
individuals (Valqui et al. 2000) and eggs (Caziani et al. 2007) as a
food resource and collection of feathers (Valqui et al. 2000). Threats
to the Andean flamingo and its habitat continue, and we find that
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Brazilian Merganser (Mergus octosetaceus)
The Brazilian merganser is a diving duck that occurred historically
in riverine habitats throughout southern Brazil, northeastern
Argentina, and eastern Paraguay (Hughes et al. 2006). The species is
considered extinct in Mato Grosso do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo,
and Santa Catarina (BirdLife International 2007). There is only one
recent record of the species from Misiones, Argentina (Benstead 1994;
Hearn 1994, as cited in Collar et al. 1994), and it was last recorded
in Paraguay in 1984 (BirdLife International 2007).
Currently the species is found in extremely low numbers at six
highly disjunct localities, of which five are in southeastern Brazil,
and one is in northeastern Argentina and, possibly, extreme eastern
Paraguay (BirdLife International 2007; Hughes et al. 2006). The species
inhabits shallow clear-water streams and rapid rivers, preferably
surrounded by dense tropical forests, and it is believed to be a highly
sedentary, monogamous species, presumably maintaining its territory all
year (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Bruno et al. 2006; Ducks Unlimited 2007;
Hughes et al. 2006). The Brazilian merganser is a good swimmer and
diver, and feeds primarily on fish, and occasionally aquatic insects
and snails (Collar et al. 1992).
Recent records from Brazil and a newly discovered northern range
extension indicate that the status of this species is better than
previously considered, as several highly disjunct populations were
located in 2002 (BirdLife International 2007; Hughes et al. 2006).
However, the IUCN categorizes the species as ``Critically Endangered''
(BirdLife International 2007). Additionally, the population is
estimated at between 50 to 249 individuals, and the trend is decreasing
(BirdLife International 2007).
Identified risks to the species include habitat loss and
degradation, fragmentation, and hydrological changes with perturbation
and pollution of rivers, which are predominately the result of
deforestation, agriculture, and diamond mining in the Serra da Canastra
area (Bianchi et al. 2005; Bartmann 1994 and 1996, as cited in BirdLife
International 2007; Bruno et al. 2006; Collar et al. 1994; Ducks
Unlimited 2007; Hughes et al. 2006; Lamas and Santos 2004). Each
breeding pair of Brazilian mergansers requires relatively long segments
of river--up to ca. 7.5 miles (mi) (12 kilometers (km))--and the
species is sensitive to human disturbance, including activities
associated with expanded human presence such as tourism and scientific
research programs (Braz et al. 2003; Bruno et al. 2006). Dam
construction has destroyed suitable habitat, especially in Brazil and
Paraguay (BirdLife International 2007). The species is highly adapted
to shallow, rapid-flowing riverine conditions and, therefore, cannot
tolerate the lacustrine (i.e., lake-like) conditions of reservoirs
[[Page 44066]]
that result from dam-building activities within their occupied range
(Hughes et al. 2006).
The Brazilian merganser is legally protected in Brazil, and four of
Brazil's protected areas represent the major sites where the species
occurs (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Hughes et al. 2006). These sites are
critical for protecting some of the key remaining subpopulations of the
Brazilian merganser (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Braz et al. 2003; Bianchi et
al. 2005; Bruno et al. 2006; BirdLife International 2007). The
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais
Renov[aacute]veis (IBAMA) in Brazil has established eight committees to
develop and monitor conservation strategies for the country's
``endangered'' species, including the Brazilian merganser (Marinia and
Garcia 2004). These committees developed an Action Plan for
Conservation of the Brazilian Merganser, which has recently been
published by the government of Brazil (Hughes et al. 2006). Despite
these protections, threats to the Brazilian merganser continue.
Therefore, we find that proposing this species for listing under the
Act is warranted.
Cauca Guan (Penelope perspicax)
The Cauca guan is a medium-sized cracid with a bright red dewlap.
It is dull brownish-gray, with mainly chestnut rear parts. It has
whitish-scaled feather edges from head to mantle and breast (BirdLife
International 2008). The Cauca guan is endemic to the slopes of the
west and central Andes (Risaralda, Quindio, Valle del Cauca, and Cauca)
in Colombia (Collar et al. 1992). The historic range is estimated to
have been approximately 9,614 mi\2\ (24,900 km\2\) (Renjifo 2002). In
the early part of the twentieth century, the Cauca guan inhabited the
dry forests of the Cauca, Dagua, and Pat[iacute]a Valleys (Renjifo
2002). Today, most of the dry forests have been eliminated or highly
fragmented, such that continuous forest exists only above 6,562 ft
(2,000 m) (Renjifo 2002). At the beginning of the twentieth century
through the 1950s, the species was considered common (Renjifo 2002;
BirdLife International 2007). Between the 1970s and 1980s, there was
extensive deforestation in the Cauca Valley, and the species went
unobserved during this time, leading researchers to suspect that the
Cauca guan was either extinct or on the verge of extinction (Brooks and
Strahl 2000; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Hilty 1985; Hilty and Brown 1986).
The species was rediscovered in 1987 (Renjifo 2002). In the late 1990s,
Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park was considered the stronghold of the
species (BirdLife International 2007). However, the species has not
been observed again in that location since 1995 (Wege and Long 1995).
Cauca guan populations are characterized as small, containing only
tens of individuals or, in rare instances, hundreds (Renjifo 2002).
BirdLife International (2007) reported that the largest subpopulation
contained an estimated 50 to 249 individuals; however, they did not
specify to which population this refers, and these figures are not
found in any other literature regarding population surveys of the Cauca
guan. Kattan et al. (2006) conducted the only two population surveys in
2000 and 2001 (Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006). They estimated population
densities at two locations--Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna
Sanctuary (Risaralda) and Reserva Forestal de Yotoco (Valle de Cauca)--
to be between 144 and 264 individuals and 35 to 61 individuals,
respectively (Kattan et al. 2006). Kattan et al. (2006) examined 10
additional localities, based on locality data reported by Renjifo
(2002). Visual confirmations were made at only 2 of the 10 localities,
and auditory confirmations were made at 5 of the 10 localities (Kattan
et al. 2006). In 2006, Kattan (in litt., as cited in Mu[ntilde]oz et
al. 2006) estimated the global population to be between 196 and 342
individuals. The IUCN categorizes the species as ``Endangered'' due to
its small, contracted range, composed of widely fragmented patches of
habitat (BirdLife International 2007) and considers the overall
population to be in decline (BirdLife International 2007; Kattan 2004;
Renjifo 2002). The Cauca guan is listed as ``Endangered'' under
Colombian law, which prohibits commercial and sport hunting of the
species (ECOLEX 2007). The level of enforcement is uncertain, however,
despite this protection. Poaching continues to be a problem for the
Cauca guan and may play a role in the possible local extirpation of the
species from at least two protected areas (Collar et al. 1992; del Hoyo
et al. 1994; Strahl et al. 1995).
Extensive habitat destruction and fragmentation since the 1950s
have resulted in an estimated 95 percent range reduction of this
species (Chapman 1917; Collar et al. 1992; Kattan et al. 2006; Renjifo
2002; Rios et al. 2006). As a result, although it prefers mature,
tropical, humid forests, the Cauca guan exists primarily in fragmented
and isolated secondary forest remnants, forest edges, and in
plantations of the nonnative Chinese ash trees (Fraxinus chinensis)
that are located within 0.62 mi (1 km) of primary forest (Renjifo 2002;
Kattan et al. 2006; Rios et al. 2006). Its current range is estimated
to be less than 290 mi\2\ (750 km\2\), of which only 216 mi\2\ (560
km\2\) is considered suitable habitat (BirdLife International 2007;
Kattan et al. 2006; Rios et al. 2006). It is estimated that more than
30 percent of this loss of habitat has occurred within the species'
last 3 generations (30 years) (Renjifo 2002), and recent studies
indicate that the rate of habitat destruction is accelerating (Butler
2006; FAO 2003).
Cauca guans, the largest birds in their area of distribution, are
considered among those species most rapidly depleted by hunting
(Redford 1992; Renjifo 2002). It serves as a major source of
subsistence protein for indigenous people (Brooks and Strahl 2000),
although hunting by local residents is illegal (del Hoyo et al. 1994;
Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006; Renjifo 2002; Rios et al. 2006). Threats to
the Cauca guan and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing
this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Blue-Billed Curassow (Crax alberti)
The blue-billed curassow is a large, mainly black, terrestrial
cracid. The species historically occurred in northern Colombia, from
the base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, west to the Sin[uacute]
valley, through the R[iacute]o Magdalena (BirdLife International 2007;
Cuervo and Salaman 1999; del Hoyo et al. 1994). The species' historic
range encompassed an approximate area of 41,197 mi\2\ (106,700 km\2\)
(Cuervo 2002). There were no confirmed observations of blue-billed
curassows between 1978 and 1997 (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001), and
surveys conducted in 1998 failed to locate any males (BirdLife
International 2007), prompting researchers to believe the species to be
extinct in the wild (del Hoyo et al. 1994). However, a series of
observations reported in 1993 were later confirmed (Cuervo 2002).
The current range of the blue-billed curassow is estimated to be
807 mi\2\ (2,090 km\2\) (BirdLife International 2007) of fragmented,
disjunct, and isolated tropical, moist, and humid lowlands and
premontane forested foothills in the Rio Magdalena and lower Cauca
Valleys of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Mountains, where it feeds
on fruit, shoots, invertebrates, and possibly carrion. The species is
more commonly found below 1,968 ft (600 m) (del Hoyo et al. 1994), but
can be found at elevations up to 3,937 ft (1,200 m) (Collar et al.
1992; Cuervo and Salaman 1999; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Donegan and
Huertas 2005; Salaman et al. 2001).
[[Page 44067]]
In 1993, sightings were reported in the northern Departments of
C[oacute]rdoba (at La Terretera, near Alto Sin[uacute]) and
Bol[iacute]var (in the Serran[iacute]a de San Jacinto) (Williams in
litt., as cited in BirdLife International 2007). Additional
observations were made in the northernmost Department of La Guajira in
2003 (in the Valle de San Salvador Valley) (Strewe and Navarro 2003).
More recently, individuals have been observed in the tropical forests
of the more central Departments of Antioqu[iacute]a, and Santander and
Boyac[aacute] Departments, and in the southeastern Department of Cauca
(BirdLife International 2007; Cuervo 2002; Donegan and Huertas 2005;
Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006). Experts
consider the most important refugia for this species to be: (1)
Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas (Antioqu[iacute]a); (2) Paramillo National
Park (Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba Departments); (3) Bajo Cauca-
Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve (Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba
Departments); and (4) Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas Bird Reserve
(Santander and Boyac[aacute] Departments) (BirdLife International 2007;
Cuervo 2002).
The blue-billed curassow is categorized as ``Critically
Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International 2007) and is
considered a ``Critically Endangered'' species under Colombian law,
pursuant to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of the Law 99 of 1993, as
outlined in Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (ECOLEX 2007b). The blue-billed
curassow is identified as an immediate conservation priority by the
Cracid Specialist Group (Brooks and Strahl 2000). There is little
information on population numbers for the various reported localities.
In 2003, the population at Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas
(Boyac[aacute] Department) was estimated to be between 250 and 1,000
birds. The only other information on the subpopulation level is a
report from Strewe and Navarro (2003), based on field studies conducted
between 2000 and 2001, that hunting had nearly extirpated the blue-
billed curassow from a site in San Salvador. In 1994, the IUCN
estimated the blue-billed curassow population at between 1,000 and
2,499 individuals (BirdLife International 2007). In 2001, Brooks and
Gonzalez-Garcia (2001) estimated the total population to be much less
than 2,000 individuals. In 2002, it was estimated that the species had
lost 88 percent of its habitat and half of its population within the
species' previous 3 generations (30 years) (Cuervo 2002).
Rapid deforestation and habitat loss throughout the lowland forests
across northern Colombia over the past 100 years has extirpated the
blue-billed curassow from a large portion of its previous range and
continues to impact remaining populations (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia
2001; Collar et al. 1992; Cuervo and Salaman 1999). Additionally, oil
extraction, gold mining, government defoliation of illegal drug crops,
and increased human encroachment put the blue-billed curassow at risk
(BirdLife International 2007). Blue-billed curassows are hunted by
indigenous people and local residents for sustenance, sport, trade, and
entertainment (Brooks 2006; Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001; Brooks and
Strahl 2000; Cuervo and Salaman 1999), involving the species at all
life stages, with eggs and chicks collected in some areas for sale at
local markets or for domestic use (Brooks 2006; Cuervo 2002). Threats
to the blue-billed curassow and its habitat are ongoing, and we find
that proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Cantabrian Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus)
The Cantabrian capercaillie is a subspecies of the western
capercaillie (T. ugogallus). Currently it is restricted to the
Cantabrian Mountains in northwest Spain. This grouse's range is
separated by the Pyrenees Mountains from its nearest neighboring
capercaillie subspecies (T. u. aquitanus) by a distance of more than
186 mi (300 km) (Quevedo et al. 2006).
The Cantabrian capercaillie occurs in mature beech forests (Fagus
sylvatica) and mixed beech and oak forests (Quercus robur, Q. petraea,
and Q. pyrenaica) at elevations ranging from 2,625 to 5,900 ft (800 to
1,800 m). The Cantabrian capercaillie also inhabits other microhabitat
types such as broom (Genista spp.), meadow, and heath (Erica spp.)
selectively throughout the year (Quevedo et al. 2006). Bilberry
(Vaccinium myrtillus) is an important component of its diet, and it
also feeds on beech buds, catkins of birch (Betrula alba), and holly
leaves (Ilex aquifolium) (Rodriguez and Obeso 2000, as cited in Pollo
et al. 2005).
In 2004, at the species level, the western capercaillie (Tetrao
urogallus) was assessed by the IUCN as a species of ``Least Concern''
(BirdLife International 2004a). However, the IUCN Species Survival
Commission's Grouse Specialist Group has noted that the subspecies
qualifies to be listed as ``Endangered'' according to the IUCN Red List
criteria (Storch 2000). In the year 1998-1999, it was estimated there
were 1,900 to 2,000 pairs and that the subspecies was in decline
(BirdLife International 2004b). This subspecies is currently classified
as ``Vulnerable'' in Spain, which affords it protection from hunting.
Although hunting the capercaillie is prohibited in Spain, poaching
still occurs. It is unknown what the incidence of poaching is or what
impact it has on the subspecies (Storch 2000, 2007).
Habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation influence the
population dynamics of the Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its range
(Storch 2000, 2007). This subspecies' historic range has declined by
more than 50 percent (Quevedo et al. 2006). The current range is
severely fragmented, with 22 percent in low forest habitat, and most of
the remaining suitable habitat is in small patches of less than 25 ac
(10 ha) (Garcia et al. 2005). Research conducted on other subspecies of
capercaillie indicates that the size of forest patches is correlated to
the number of males that gather in leks (courtship grounds) to display
and that below a certain forest patch size, leks are abandoned (Quevedo
et al. 2006).
Patches of good quality habitat are scarce and discontinuous,
particularly in the central portions of the species' range (Quevedo et
al. 2006), and leks in the smaller forest patches have been abandoned
during the last few decades. The leks that remain are now located
farther from forest edges than those that were occupied in the 1980s
(Quevedo et al. 2006). Recent studies indicate that habitat
fragmentation may have a greater effect on this subspecies than
previously recognized (Quevedo et al 2005; Vandermeer and Carvajal
2001), and if further habitat fragmentation occurs, the Cantabrian
capercaillie population could end up in a few isolated subpopulations
too small to ensure the subspecies' long-term survival (Grimm and
Storch 2000).
Forest silviculture practices affect both the quantity, as well as
the quality, of suitable habitat for the Cantabrian capercaillie.
Forest structure plays an important role in determining habitat
suitability and occupancy for the subspecies. Quevedo et al. (2006)
found that open forest structure with well-distributed bilberry shrubs,
an important component of the species' diet (Rodriguez and Obeso 2000,
as reported in Pollo et al. 2005), was the preferred habitat type of
Cantabrian capercaillie.
Management of forest resources for timber production causes
significant changes in forest structure, such as species composition,
tree density and height, forest patch size, and understory vegetation
(Pollo et al. 2005). Such silviculture practices continue to negatively
affect the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable habitat
[[Page 44068]]
available for this subspecies, particularly by reducing the
availability of bilberry food resources and potentially reducing the
availability of suitably sized breeding grounds.
Recurring fires have also been implicated as a factor in the
decline of the subspecies (Lloyd 2007). Threats to the Cantabrian
capercaillie and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing
this subspecies for listing under the Act is warranted.
Gorgeted Wood-Quail (Odontophorus strophium)
The gorgeted wood-quail is endemic to the west slope of the East
Andes, in the Magdalena Valley (Donegan and Huertas 2005). It is
currently known only in the central Colombian Department of Santander,
with less than 10 sightings (del Hoyo et al. 1994; Fjelds and Krabbe
1990; Hilty and Brown 1986).
The gorgeted wood-quail prefers montane temperate and humid
subtropical forests dominated by roble (Tabebuia rosea), and secondary
growth forests in proximity to mature forests (Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002), especially those dominated by oak (Quercus
humboldtii). The species is most often found at elevations between
5,741 and 6,726 ft (1,750 and 2,050 m) (BirdLife International 2007;
Donegan et al. 2003; Donegan and Huertas 2005; Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002; Turner 2006; Wege and Long 1995). The gorgeted
wood-quail is primarily terrestrial (Fuller et al. 2000), living on the
forest floor and feeding on fruit, seeds, and arthropods (Collar et al.
1992; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Fuller et al. 2000). It is probably
dependent on primary-growth forest for at least part of its life cycle,
although it has also been found in degraded habitats and secondary-
growth forest (BirdLife International 2007).
The species is classified as ``Critically Endangered'' by the IUCN
Red List due to its small and highly fragmented range, with recent
population records from only two areas. Logging and hunting are
believed to be causing some declines in range and population size
(BirdLife International 2004). The population is estimated at between
250 and 999 individuals (BirdLife International 2007).
Since the seventeenth century, the west slope of the East Andes has
been extensively logged and converted to agriculture (Stiles et al.
1999). Forest habitat loss below 8,200 ft (2,500 m) has been almost
complete (Stattersfield et al. 1998), with habitat reduced in many
areas to highly fragmented relict patches on steep slopes and along
streams (Stiles et al. 1999). In the early part of the twentieth
century, the gorgeted wood-quail was known only in the oak forests in
the Department of Cundinamarca. However, extensive deforestation and
habitat conversion for agricultural use nearly denuded all the oak
forests in Cundinamarca below 8,202 ft (2,500 m) (BirdLife
International 2007; Hilty and Brown 1986). Subsequent surveys have not
located the species in this area since 1954 (Collar et al. 1992; Fuller
et al. 2000; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002), and researchers consider
the gorgeted wood-quail to be locally extirpated from Cundinamarca
(BirdLife International 2007; Fuller et al. 2000; Sarria and
[Aacute]lvarez 2002; Wege and Long 1995). The species has recently been
confirmed to exist in three locations, and its current range is between
4 mi \2\ (10 km \2\) (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002) and 10.42 mi \2\
(27 km \2\) (BirdLife International 2007). These localities are in two
disjunct areas within the Department of Santander. Serranoa de los
Yarguoes is in northern Santander and the other two localities are
adjacent to each other in southern Santander (Donegan and Huertas
2005). The species has lost 92 percent of its former habitat (Sarria
and [Aacute]lvarez 2002), and habitat loss through logging and land
conversion to agricultural purposes continues throughout its range
(BirdLife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1994;
Donegan et al. 2003; Hilty and Brown 1986; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez
2002; Stattersfield et al. 1998). Threats to the gorgeted wood-quail
and its habitat continue, and we find that proposing this species for
listing under the Act is warranted.
Jun[iacute]n Rail (Laterallus tuerosi)
The Jun[iacute]n rail is endemic to Lake Jun[iacute]n. The lake is
large, covering 35,385 ac (14,320 ha) in the central Andes of Peru at
13,386 ft (4,080 m) above sea level (BirdLife International 2000;
Fjelds[aring] 1983). The Jun[iacute]n rail is known from only two sites
on the southwest lakeshore, near Ondores and Pari, but it may occur in
other portions of the 37,066 ac (15,000 ha) of marshlands surrounding
Lake Jun[iacute]n (Fjelds[aring] 1983).
The species' habitat preferences are not fully understood, but it
is known to inhabit marshy vegetation located around the margins of
Lake Jun[iacute]n. The Jun[iacute]n rail has been observed in the
interior of large stands of Juncus spp. on the southeast shoreline of
the lake and in mosaics of open marshes, in association with Juncus
spp., mosses, and low herbs (Fjelds[aring] 1983).
Rigorous population estimates for the Jun[iacute]n rail have not
been made. In 1983, however, the species was believed to be common
based on anecdotal reports of two local fishermen (Fjelds[aring] 1983).
Based on these accounts, BirdLife International (2000, 2007) estimated
that the population might range between 1,000 and 2,500 individuals.
BirdLife International, however, acknowledged that the data quality is
poor and that the actual population size might be much smaller
(BirdLife International 2000).
The Jun[iacute]n rail is categorized as ``Endangered'' by the IUCN
because its range is limited to the shores of a single lake where
habitat quality is declining, and the population is very small and
believed to be declining (BirdLife International 2007). The
Jun[iacute]n rail is considered an ``Endangered'' species by the
Peruvian government under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG, which
prohibits hunting, taking, transport, or trade of this species, except
as permitted by regulation.
One of the key factors contributing to the species' decline is
adverse habitat modification. Dam operations cause seasonal lake-level
fluctuations of up to 6 ft (2 m) (Martin and McNee 1999). Because few
reed-beds are now permanently inundated, tall reeds (Scirpus tatora)
have virtually disappeared from the lake's shoreline (O'Donnel and
Fjelds[aring] 1997). Long-term drawdowns of water levels lead to
desiccation of the Juncus spp. marshes, and it has been suggested that
the Jun[iacute]n rail may be particularly susceptible to such effects
because they tend to occupy dry or shallow-water lakeshore sites
(Eddleman et al. 1988).
Marsh desiccation also provides easy access to the shore for large
livestock herds (primarily sheep, but also cattle, and to a lesser
extent llamas and alpacas) to move into the wetlands surrounding the
lake, resulting in overgrazing and soil compaction (INRENA 2000, as
cited in ParksWatch 2006). Given the large number of livestock that are
currently located around the lake (approximately 60,000 to 70,000),
habitat destruction and trampling of nests and fledglings negatively
impact this species (BirdLife International 2000; BirdLife
International 2007; Collar et al. 1992).
Another threat to the Jun[iacute]n rail's habitat is the
contamination of Lake Jun[iacute]n from mining wastes. There are a
number of mining operations (lead, copper, and zinc) to the north of
Lake Jun[iacute]n, and wastewater from these mines runs untreated into
the lake via the Rio San Juan (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Martin and McNee
1999). The Rio San Juan (the primary input of water into the Lake)
exhibits elevated levels of several trace metals in comparison to local
background values (Martin and McNee 1999). In addition, concentrations
of
[[Page 44069]]
fertilizer by-products such as ammonium and nitrate have been found to
be elevated (Martin and McNee 1999), and agricultural insecticides,
which wash into the lake from the surrounding fields and through
drainage systems from villages around the lake, have been detected
(ParksWatch 2006). The contaminant load increases substantially during
the wet season when agricultural run-off is greater (Martin and McNee
1999).
Cattail (Typha spp.) harvesting and burning also destroy the
Jun[iacute]n rail's habitat (ParksWatch 2006), resulting in long-term
impacts to the species' habitat (Eddleman et al. 1988). Cattails are
harvested for handicrafts and livestock forage and are periodically
burned to encourage shoot renewal (ParksWatch 2006). Threats to the
Jun[iacute]n rail and its habitat continue, and we find that proposing
this species under the Act is warranted.
Jerdon's Courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus)
The Jerdon's courser is endemic to the Eastern Ghats of the states
of Andhra Pradesh and extreme southern Madhya Pradesh in India. The
species was thought to be extinct for approximately 86 years until
1986, when it was rediscovered in Lankamalai. It has since been located
at six additional sites in the vicinity of the Velikonda and Palakonda
hills, in the southern State of Andhra Pradesh (Birdlife International
2006). It prefers sparse, thorny areas dominated by Acacia spp.,
Zizyphus spp., and Carissa spp. (BirdLife International 2006). The
Jerdon's courser may also inhabit scrub forest consisting of Cassia
spp., Hardwickia spp., Dalbergia spp., Butea spp., and Anogeissus spp.,
interspersed with patches of bare ground, in gently undulating rocky
foothills (BirdLife International 2006).
This species' population is estimated at 50 to 249 birds (Birdlife
International 2006). Very few individuals have been recorded thus far,
mainly due to the species' nocturnal and secretive habits (BirdLife
International 2006). Negative impacts to the species include
exploitation of the scrub-forest, livestock grazing, disturbance by
humans and livestock (BirdLife International 2006), and construction of
canals (Jegananthen et al. 2005). Jeganathan et al. (2004) found that
Jerdon's courser occurrence is strongly correlated with the density of
bushes and trees, which is, in turn, negatively affected by mismanaged
livestock grazing, woodcutting, and land clearing for agricultural
production. The State of Andhra Pradesh has experienced intensive
agricultural growth in recent years (Senapathi et al. 2006). From 1991
through 2000, a net loss of 14.6 percent of scrub habitat in the
Cuddapah District and parts of the Nellore District in Andhra Pradesh
took place, while the amount of land occupied by agricultural fields
more than doubled during the same time period (Senapathi et al. 2006).
The main cause for the loss of scrub habitat was conversion to
agriculture, while gains in scrub habitat came largely at the expense
of native deciduous forest due to mechanical clearing and fire
(Jeganathan et al. 2004b). Researchers believe that suitable habitat
conditions for the Jerdon's courser could be created through the use of
a combination of well-managed animal grazing and woodcutting to
maintain optimal height, density, and species composition of shrubs for
the species. However, over-utilization of scrub habitat could also
result in local courser extirpations (Jeganathan et al. 2004a;
Senapathi et al. 2006). If not well-managed, increased levels of
woodcutting and livestock grazing, as well as mechanical clearing of
scrub habitat to create pasture, orchards, and agricultural fields, are
all land uses likely to create habitat that is low in quality, highly-
fragmented, and unsuitable for use by the Jerdon's courser. From 1991
through 2000, the patch size of scrub habitat declined significantly
(Senapathi et al. 2006). Continuing encroachment of human settlement
into areas currently occupied by the courser is likely to result in
increased livestock grazing pressure and additional land conversion for
agricultural purposes.
The Jerdon's courser is categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' on
the IUCN Red List because of its small, declining population and
habitat that is being reduced by livestock overgrazing and disturbance
(BirdLife International 2004). The species is also listed under
Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Hunting of
Schedule I-listed species is strictly prohibited. The Indian Wildlife
Protection Act provides for the designation and management of
Sanctuaries and National Parks for the purposes of protecting,
propagating, or developing wildlife or its environment. Two areas have
been established to protect the habitat of the Jerdon's courser.
Suitable habitat, however, outside of these Protected Areas continues
to be lost through its conversion for development and agriculture.
Threats to Jerdon's courser and its habitat continue, and we find that
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Slender-Billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)
The slender-billed curlew migrates along a west-southwest route
from Siberia through central and eastern Europe (predominantly Russia,
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungrary, Romania, and Yugoslavia) to
southern Europe (Greece, Italy, and Turkey) and North Africa (Algeria,
Morocco, and Tunisia). The species has only been confirmed breeding
near Tara, Siberia, Russia, between 1909 and 1925, and the only known
nests were found on the northern limit of the forest-steppe habitat
(Birdlife International 2006). During seasonal migrations and the
winter months, the slender-billed curlew utilizes a wide variety of
habitats, including coastal marshes, steppe grassland, fish ponds,
saltpans, brackish lagoons, tidal mudflats, semi-desert, brackish
wetlands, and sandy farmlands in close proximity to lagoons (Hirschfeld
2007).
From the second half of the nineteenth century until 1920, the
slender-billed curlew was considered an abundant bird (Chandrinos
2000). Flocks of more than 100 slender-billed curlews were recorded in
Morocco as late as 1970. However, population declines have been
observed since 1980 (BirdLife International 2006). BirdLife
International (2008) reports that in 1994 the population estimate was
50-270 individuals, but the lack of recent confirmed sightings, despite
extensive survey efforts, indicates that the population may now include
less than 50 birds. Surveys were conducted between 1987 and 2000 in
various sections of the species' historic range and covered hundreds of
miles (and the corresponding number of kilometers) of habitat. Not a
single slender-billed curlew, however, was located during these efforts
(CMS 2004; Gretton et al. 2002).
The slender-billed curlew is classified as ``Critically
Endangered'' by the IUCN, because the species has an extremely small
population size, and the number of birds recorded annually continues to
fall, likely representing a continuing population decline (BirdLife
International 2004). The species is listed under Appendix I of CITES;
commercial trade of this species is strictly prohibited (UNEP-WCMC
2008).
The slender-billed curlew is also listed under Appendices I and II
of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) (BirdLife International
2004). In an effort to safeguard the slender-billed curlew, a
Memorandum of
[[Page 44070]]
Understanding (MOU) was developed under CMS auspices and became
effective on September 10, 1994. The MOU area covers 30 Range States in
Southern and Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. As of
December 31, 2000, the MOU had been signed by 18 Range States and three
co-operating organizations. An International Action Plan for the
Conservation of the slender-billed Curlew has been prepared by BirdLife
International (Council of Europe, 1996), and approved by the European
Commission and endorsed by the Fifth Meeting of the CMS. Conservation
priorities include effective legal protection for the slender-billed
curlew and its look-alikes, locating its breeding grounds as well as
key wintering and passage sites, applying appropriate protection and
management of its habitat, and increasing the awareness of politicians
in the affected countries. The CMS website includes an update on the
progress being made under the slender-billed curlew MOU. It states that
conservation activities have already been undertaken or are underway in
Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Russian Federation, Ukraine
and Iran. However, no details of these activities are provided.
The slender-billed curlew is listed on Annex I of the European
Union Wild Bird Directive (BirdLife International 2004), which provides
a framework for the conservation and management of wild birds in
Europe. Although this Directive sets objectives for activities intended
to protect wild birds, the legal implementation and achievement of
these objectives are at the discretion of each Member State (DEFRA
2008). This species is also listed on Appendix II of the Bern
Convention (COE 1979), ``a binding international legal instrument in
the field of nature conservation, which covers the whole of the natural
heritage of the European continent and extends to some States of
Africa'' (COE n.d.). This agreement, however, would not afford
protections to the species' breeding habitats in the forest-steppe of
Russia.
Historically, hunting levels have been high along the species'
entire migratory flyway, especially Russia, and are believed to be the
primary factor for the species' previous decline (BirdLife
International 2006). Threats to the species on its current breeding
grounds are largely unknown due to the lack of information on its
nesting localities. However, modification of the forest-steppe habitat
within the species' breeding range suggests that the species may be at
risk due to loss of its breeding habitat. The forest-steppe has been
partially cultivated, and much of the steppe has been developed for
intensive agricultural purposes (Gretton 1996).
Progress is underway in some range nations to conserve habitat,
prevent hunter misidentification of the species, and increase awareness
about the species' precarious status; however, range nations have had
differing levels of success in the implementation of needed
protections. Threats to the slender-billed curlew and its habitat are
ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under the
Act is warranted.
Marquesan Imperial-Pigeon (Ducula galeata)
The Marquesan imperial-pigeon, a very large, broad-winged pigeon,
is endemic to Nuku Hiva, the largest of the Marquesas Islands in French
Polynesia (BirdLife International 2007). Nuku Hiva is a volcanic island
130 mi\2\ (337 km\2\) in area; most of the island was originally
forested except for the drier north-western plain, where shrub savanna
is now predominant. Following conservation recommendations, small
numbers of Marquesan imperial-pigeons were translocated beginning in
2000, to the Vaiviki Valley of a second island, Ua Huka, which has been
classified as a protected area since 1997. This island contains
suitable habitat for this species and is free of mammalian predators
(BirdLife International 2007; Blanvillian et al. 2007). The remaining
Marquesan imperial-pigeon populations are small, with an estimated 80
to 150 birds on Nuku Hiva (Villard et al. 2003) and 32 birds on Ua Huka
(Blanvillian et al. 2007).
The Marquesan imperial-pigeon prefers remote wooded valleys from
820 to 4,265 ft (250 to 1,300 m) in elevation in the west and north of
Nuku Hiva. It also inhabits secondary forest and edge habitat near
banana and orange plantations (BirdLife International 2007; Blanvillian
and Thorsen 2003). The species appears to have strong site-fidelity for
its feeding and night roosting sites (Villard et al. 2003).
The Marquesan imperial-pigeon has been categorized as ``Critically
Endangered'' by the IUCN since 1994, because it has a very small
population size with a decreasing trend and only inhabits one tiny
island (aside from the population that is being established at Ua Huka
through release efforts). The species appears to owe its survival to
the existence of habitat in several areas which are difficult for
hunters and introduced species to access (BirdLife International 2007).
The pigeon is protected under the French Environmental Code, which
means that the destruction or poaching of eggs or nests or the
mutilation, destruction, capture, poaching, intentional disturbance,
taxidermy, transport, peddling, use, possession, offer for sale, or
purchase of individuals is prohibited by law. Currently, there is no
evidence that collection for trade of this species is occurring.
Loss of habitat is believed to have had a large impact on the
reduced distribution of the Marquesan imperial-pigeon. Continued
grazing by feral goats prevents regeneration of trees, furthering the
impacts to previously modified habitat (Thorsen et al. 2002) The
introduced black rat (Rattus rattus) contributes to habitat degradation
on Nuku Hiva by consuming flowers and fruit, thereby inhibiting habitat
regeneration (Powlesland et al. 1997).
Transmittal of diseases from domestic pigeons or poultry, or from
other introduced avian species imported to Nuku Hiva, has been
suggested as a potential risk to this species (Blanvillian et al.
2007). The introduced black rat, although not believed to be a
significant predator on adult pigeons (Villard et al. 2003), preys on
eggs and young pigeons, potentially putting the species at risk. Rats
are also believed to compete for food resources that would otherwise be
available to the pigeons (Powlesland et al. 1997). Feral cats have also
been introduced on the islands and are suspected to be a predator of
adult and juvenile pigeons when they are feeding on low shrubs such as
guava (Psidium guajava) (Rare Bird Yearbook 2008; Thorsen et al. 2002).
Hunting is believed to be one of the primary contributors to this
species' decline and to local extirpations on neighboring islands
(Villard et al. 2003). Despite the ban on hunting in French Polynesia
since 1967, and the fully protected status of the Marquesan imperial-
pigeon species, illegal hunting of the species still occurs. There are
no estimates of the current extent of illegal hunting; but long-lived
species such as the Marquesan imperial-pigeon with low fecundity rates
are generally more affected by the loss of breeding adults than species
with shorter life-spans and higher fecundity rates (Clout et al. 1995).
Threats to this species and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that
proposing the Marquesan imperial-pigeon for listing under the Act is
warranted.
Salmon-Crested Cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis)
This cockatoo is endemic to the islands of Ambon, Haruku, Seram,
and Saparua in South Maluku, Indonesia. It was formerly a common
species of the
[[Page 44071]]
lowlands within its range (del Hoyo et al. 1997). Although the species
was regarded as locally common in 1970, the following decade saw a
dramatic decline (Juniper and Parr 1998). Currently, the species is
believed to survive in one area on Ambon; however, almost the entire
population is restricted to Seram, where, during the 1990s, it suffered
declines of 20 to 40 percent in one region. The species is still
locally common in Manusela National Park and probably in east Seram.
There are no recent records of the species on Haruku and Saparua
(BirdLife International 2000).
The salmon-crested cockatoo is largely a resident in lowland
rainforest below 3,280 ft (1,000 m) in elevation. The highest densities
of cockatoos were encountered in unlogged forest below 590 ft (180 m),
illustrating the importance of primary lowland forest (BirdLife
International 2007). In a study of the density and distribution of the
salmon-crested cockatoo, Kinnaird et al. (2003) confirmed that the
highest densities of cockatoos occurred in primary forest sites with
good forest structure and found that the lowest density was a logged
site with low stature forest. Marsden (1998) found that density
estimates of salmon-crested cockatoos in unlogged forest below 984 ft
(300 m) were more than double those in logged forests. Habitat rich in
strangler fig trees (Ficus spp.) and Octomeles sumatranus, the tree
species the cockatoos prefer for nesting, was also likely to produce
the highest densities of cockatoos (Kinnaird et al. 2003). The diet of
salmon-crested cockatoos consists of seeds, nuts, young coconuts (Cocos
nucifera) (the birds chew through the outer layers of green coconuts to
get at the soft pulp), berries, and insects and their larvae (Forshaw
1989; Juniper and Parr 1998).
The species is listed as ``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red List
because it has suffered a rapid population decline as a result of
trapping for the pet bird trade and because of deforestation in its
small range (BirdLife International 2004). Current populations are
estimated at 62,400 individuals, with a decreasing population trend;
the decline for the past 10 years or 3 generations is estimated at 30
to 49 percent (BirdLife International 2007b).
By the 1980s, salmon-crested cockatoo populations were declining
rapidly due to uncontrolled trapping for the pet bird trade (BirdLife
International 2007a). Concerns about unrestricted trade of parrots,
including the salmon-crested cockatoo, led to a CITES Appendix-II
listing of all Psittaciformes spp. in 1981 (CITES 2008). After the
CITES listing, some 74,509 individual salmon-crested cockatoos were
exported from Indonesia from 1981 to 1990 (BirdLife International
2000). The level of imports from Indonesia from 1983 to 1987, as
reported to CITES, averaged 8,500 to 9,500 birds per year (CITES
1989b); trade reported in 1985 and 1987 exceeded the quota set by
Indonesia by over 1,300 and 3,661 birds, respectively (CITES 1989a). In
October 1989, the salmon-crested cockatoo was transferred to CITES
Appendix I, which precludes commercial international trade. However,
trappers reportedly remained active, and wild-caught birds were being
openly sold in the domestic market (Metz and Nursahid 2004). Interviews
in villages suggest that perhaps as many as 4,000 birds are still being
captured each year (BirdLife International 2001).
Currently, logging impedes salmon-crested cockatoo conservation.
Nearly 50 percent of Seram is held within logging concessions, with
more than 75 percent held within lowland habitat, prime salmon-crested
cockatoo habitat. Only 14 percent of the forests are in protected
areas, and logging concessions overlap more than 30 percent of these
protected areas, with conflicts over the boundaries of parks and
logging concessions. Small-scale illegal logging also occurs within
these protected areas. Unsustainable logging practices, which destroy
the forest canopy, dramatically reduce habitat available for cockatoos,
especially if large nest trees are harvested (Kinnaird et al. 2003).
In addition, the salmon-crested cockatoo's habitat is being
degraded and threatened by agriculture, human settlement, and
hydroelectric power projects (BirdLife International 2007a). The
species has been considered a pest to coconut palms, and consequently
has been persecuted, at least historically (BirdLife International
2000).
In 2000, a program was launched to promote ecotourism which was
linked to a local project to raise awareness about the plight of the
salmon-crested cockatoo. Current conservation measures suggest
continuing and expanding the awareness program and using the salmon-
crested cockatoo as the island's flagship species to reduce trapping
pressure and encourage local support for the survival of the species
(BirdLife International 2007a). At the present time, however, the
threats to the salmon-crested cockatoo and its habitat continue, and we
find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is
warranted.
Southeastern Rufous-Vented Ground Cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis)
The southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo is one of seven
subspecies of the rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi).
The species as a whole ranges from Nicaragua to central South America,
occurring at several disjunct localities (del Hoyo et al. 1997; Howard
and Moore 1980; Payne 2005; Sibley and Monroe 1990). There is currently
little concern for the conservation status of the whole species, but
the N. g. dulcis subspecies, the southeastern rufous-vented ground
cuckoo, has experienced serious declines (BirdLife International 2007).
Historically, the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo subspecies
had a widespread distribution in southeastern Brazil from Espirito
Santo to Rio de Janeiro (del Hoyo et al. 1997), where it has likely
always been locally rare (IUCN 1981). This subspecies may now, however,
be extinct throughout its entire range; the last confirmed sighting was
in 1977 in the Sooretama Biological Reserve north of the Doce River in
Esprito Santo (Payne 2005; Scott and Brooke 1985). A recent
photographic record (ca. 2004) of a single bird indicates that the
subspecies may still occur at Doce River State Park in Minas Gerais
(Scoss et al. 2006), but there are no population figures beyond this
information.
The southeastern rufous-vented ground cuckoo inhabits tropical
lowland evergreen forests, where it feeds on large insects, scorpions,
centipedes, spiders, small frogs, lizards, and occasionally seeds and
fruit (del Hoyo et al. 1997). It is a solitary subspecies that is
dependent upon large blocks of undisturbed tropical lowland forest
within the Atlantic Forest biome (del Hoyo et al. 1997; IUCN 1981;
Payne 2005; Sick 1993). These birds can run and can flutter to an
elevated perch to lookout and to roost, but they are not capable of
sustained flight (Payne 2005). Therefore, major rivers and other
extensive areas of non-habitat are thought to impede their movements.
Since 1981, the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo, has been
categorized as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 1981). It is
formally recognized as ``Endangered'' in Brazil, and is directly
protected by legislation promulgated by the Brazilian government
(ECOLEX 2007; IUCN 1981). These protections prohibit the following
activities with regard to this species: export and international trade,
collection, research, and captive propagation. They also provide
measures which help to protect
[[Page 44072]]
remaining suitable habitat, such as prohibition of exploitation of the
remaining primary forests within the Atlantic forest biome and
management of various practices in primary and secondary forests, such
as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, recreation, and water
resources (ECOLEX 2007). The existing regulatory mechanisms that apply
to the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo would appear to be
largely adequate if fully enforced; however, there is currently a lack
of enforcement of them (BirdLife International 2003a; Conservation
International 2007c; Costa 2007; Neotropical News 1997b; Peixoto and
Silva 2007; Scott and Brooke 1985; The Nature Conservancy 2007;
Venturini et al. 2005). As a result, significant threats to the
subspecies' remaining habitats are ongoing.
Based on a number of recent 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 (H[ouml]fling 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2007). In
addition to the overall loss and degradation of native habitat within
this biome, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely fragmented.
Most of the tropical forest habitats believed to have been used
historically by the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo have been
converted or severely degraded by human activities (del Hoyo et al.
1997; IUCN 1981; Payne 2005; Scott and Brooke 1985; Sick 1993).
Terrestrial insectivorous birds, such as the southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo, are especially vulnerable to habitat modifications which
increase the variability of insect food supplies (Goerck 1997), and the
subspecies cannot occupy these extensively altered habitats. The
subspecies is dependent upon large blocks of undisturbed forest habitat
for its life-cycle requirements, and habitat destruction within the
ground-cuckoo's range results in a patchy landscape, reducing the
availability of the type of forest habitat necessary for the
subspecies. Threats to the southeastern rufous-vented ground cuckoo and
its habitat continue, and we find that proposing this subspecies for
listing under the Act is warranted.
Margaretta's Hermit (Phaethornis malaris margarettae, previously known
as Phaethornis margarettae)
Margaretta's hermit was first described as a new species in 1972 by
A. Ruschi (Sibley and Monroe 1990). Current taxonomic studies place
Margaretta's hermit as a subspecies of the great-billed hermit
(Phaethornis malaris) (Sick 1993).
Margaretta's hermit is found in coastal east Brazil and inhabits
the understory of inundated lowland forest, secondary growth, bamboo
thickets, and shrubbery. This subspecies is currently limited to forest
remnants; consequently, further habitat destruction could be
detrimental to this subspecies (del Hoyo et al. 1999). The Margaretta's
hermit is listed in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2006).
The last confirmed occurrence of the Margaretta's hermit is from a
relatively old (ca. 1978) sighting of the subspecies on a privately-
owned remnant forest called Klabin Farm, which at the time was
approximately 15.4 mi2 (40 km2) in Espiritu
Santo, and the subspecies likely occurred at the Sooretama Biological
Reserve in Espiritu Santo until around 1977 (IUCN 1981).
Most of the tropical forest habitats believed to have been used
historically by the Margaretta's hermit have been converted or are
severely degraded due to human activities related to land clearing and
urban and agricultural development in coastal east Brazil, and the
subspecies cannot occupy these extensively altered areas (del Hoyo et
al. 1999; H[ouml]fling 2007; IUCN 1981; Sick 1993; The Nature
Conservancy 2007). While the Margaretta's hermit is not strictly tied
to primary forest habitats and can make use of secondary-growth
forests, this does not lessen the risk to the subspecies from the
effects of deforestation and habitat degradation. This is because
Atlantic Forest birds that are tolerant of secondary-growth forests,
yet that are also rare or have restricted ranges (i.e., less than
21,000 square km (8,100 square mi)), are threatened by these impacts
equally as primary forest-obligate species (Harris and Pimm 2004). The
last site known to be occupied by the Margaretta's hermit totaled only
about 40 square km (15 square mi) (IUCN 1981). The susceptibility of
rare, limited-range species that are tolerant of secondary-growth
forests occurs for a variety of reasons. For example, many hummingbird
species are susceptible to excessive sun and readily abandon their
nests at altered forested sites with too much exposure (Sick 1993), as
can occur with various human activities that result in partial clearing
(e.g., selective logging). In addition, management of plantations often
involves intensive control of the site's understory cover (Rolim and
Chiarello 2004; Saatchi et al. 2001). Even if the forest canopy
structure remains largely intact, such management practices eventually
result in loss of native understory plant species and severely alter
understory structure and dynamics, which can be especially detrimental
to pollinator species such as the Margaretta's hermit. Furthermore,
even when forested lands are formally protected, the remaining
fragments of habitat where the subspecies may still occur will likely
continue to undergo degradation due to their altered dynamics and
isolation (Tabanez and Viana 2000). Finally, secondary impacts that are
associated with the above activities include severe fragmentation of
the remaining tracts of forested habitat potentially used by the
subspecies, and the potential introduction of disease vectors or exotic
predators within the subspecies' historic range. As a result of the
above influences, there is often a time lag between the initial
conversion or degradation of suitable habitats and the extinction of
endemic bird populations (Brooks et al. 1999a; Brooks et al. 1999b).
Therefore, even without further habitat loss or degradation, the
Margaretta's hermit remains at risk from past impacts to its suitable
forested habitats.
Loss of this species' habitat is likely to continue due to the high
pressure for coastal development. Threats to the Margaretta's hermit
and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing this subspecies
for listing under the Act is warranted.
Black-Breasted Puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis)
The black-breasted puffleg, endemic to Ecuador, is a member of the
hummingbird family (Trochilidae). It is confined to the northern ridge
crests of Volc[aacute]n Pichincha near Quito, Ecuador (Fjelds[aring]
and Krabbe 1990; Ridgely and Greenfield 1986a; Ridgely and Greenfield
1986b). Volc[aacute]n Pichincha reaches peaks at 15,699 ft (4,785 m)
(Phillips 1998). The species has not been confirmed in the only other
known sighting locality, the Volc[aacute]n Atacazo, since 1902 (Collar
et al. 1992; BirdLife International 2007).
This species prefers temperate elfin forests (comprised primarily
of Polyepsis spp. trees) between 9,350 and 11,483 ft (2,850 and 3,500
m) (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990; Ridgely and Greenfield 1986a;
Ridgely and Greenfield 1986b). It is an altitudinal migrant, spending
the breeding season (November to February) in the humid elfin forest
and the rest of the year at lower elevations, as determined by
flowering of certain plants (Bleiweiss and Olalla 1983; Collar et al.
1992; del Hoyo et al. 1999).
Habitat loss, specifically the felling of Polylepis spp. wood for
conversion to
[[Page 44073]]
charcoal, was the primary cause of historical black-breasted puffleg
declines (Phillips 1998). Following more than 13 years without any
observation of the species, the black-breasted puffleg was rediscovered
on Volc[aacute]n Pichincha in 1993 (Phillips 1998). The number of
specimens in museum collections taken in the nineteenth century up
until 1950 is over 100, suggesting the species was once more common
(Collar et al. 1992).
The black-breasted puffleg is classified as ``Critically
Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small
range, and the population is restricted to one location (BirdLife
International 2007). Its single population is estimated at 50 to 250
adult individuals, with a declining trend (BirdLife International 2007;
del Hoyo et al. 1999). The population is believed to have declined by
50 to 79 percent in the past 10 years, or 3 generations, with more than
20 percent of this loss having occurred within the past 5 years. This
rate of decline is predicted to continue (BirdLife International 2007).
The species is also classified as ``Critically Endangered'' under
Ecuadorian law (ECOLEX 2007).
Within the current range of the black-breasted puffleg (33 mi\2\
(88 km\2\)), approximately 93 percent of its habitat has been lost
(BirdLife International 2007; Hirchfeld 2007). The ridge-crests within
the range of the black-breasted puffleg are relatively level, and local
settlers have cleared the majority of forested habitat within the
species' range and converted it to potato cultivation and grazing
(Bleiweiss and Olalla 1983; del Hoyo 1999). Some ridges are almost
completely devoid of natural vegetation, and even if black-breasted
pufflegs still occur in these areas, their numbers are most likely
quite low (BirdLife International 2007).
In 2001, the area around the Volc[aacute]ns Pichincha and Atacazo
was established as the Yanacocha Reserve, and charcoal production
within the reserve, which was considered the primary cause for the
species' historical decline, was restricted (Bird Conservation 2005;
Phillips 1998). The Yanacocha Reserve totals approximately 3,100 ac
(1,250 ha) and contains approximately 2,372 ac (960 ha) of Polylepis
forest (Hirchfeld 2007; World Land Trust 2007).
In 2001, the Ecuadorian government agreed to construct a pipeline
to transport heavy oil from the Amazon basin to Esmaraldas on the
Pacific Coast (Mindo Working Group 2001). The environmental impact
study revealed that the proposed route went through black-breasted
puffleg habitat (Mindo Working Group 2001). Satellite mapping showed
that much of the area in puffleg habitat was already destroyed, with
little remaining habitat above 9,186 ft (2,800 m). The black-breasted
puffleg had previously been found at 10,171 ft (3,100 m) in an upper
extension from the likely unsuitable forested zone lower down. The
pipeline was proposed to pass through pasture slightly above this
patch, risking further habitat destruction with the building of a road
(Mindo Working Group 2001). The pipeline was recently constructed,
transecting every major ecosystem on the Volc[aacute]n Pichinche,
including black-breasted puffleg habitat. The pipeline also deforested
pristine habitat, making these areas more accessible and opening them
up to further human infiltration (BirdLife International 2007). Threats
to the black-breasted puffleg and its habitat are ongoing, and we find
that proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Chilean Woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii)
The Chilean woodstar is endemic to several river valleys from
Tacna, Peru, to northern Antofagasta, Chile, close to the Pacific
Coast. This area lies at the northern edge of the Atacama Desert, one
of the driest places on Earth (Collar et al. 1992). Breeding
populations are only known to occur in the Vitor and Azapa Valleys in
extreme northern Chile (BirdLife International 2000; Estades et al.
2007). In the past, there were a few observations of the species in
Tacna, Peru, close to the border of Chile, but the observations were
infrequent, and there have been no confirmed observations in the last 2
decades (Collar et al. 1992; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990).
The Chilean woodstar was described as a species of extremely
limited range and very small total population size over 40 years ago
(Johnson 1967). In September 2003, while using fixed-radius point
counts to sample an area larger than the species' presumed range,
Estades et al. (2007) found that the Chilean woodstar was restricted to
the Azapa and Vitor Valleys of northern Chile, and that it was the
rarest hummingbird in the Azapa Valley (Estades et al. 2007). Despite
repeated searches, the species was not located in the Lluta Valley,
where a breeding colony had been previously reported (Fjelds[aring] and
Krabbe 1990). The population was estimated to be about 1,539
individuals. In April 2004, the population was estimated at 758
individuals. The authors warned against interpreting their results as a
population crash from 2003 to 2004, because the surveys in 2004 were
conducted in April when food resources and woodstar populations are
generally more widely dispersed than they are in September (Estades et
al. 2007).
The Chilean woodstar inhabits riparian thickets, secondary growth,
desert river valleys, arid scrub, agricultural lands, and gardens
(Stattersfield et al. 1998). It relies on nectar-producing flowers for
food, but also relies on insects for a source of protein (del Hoyo et
al. 1999; Estades et al. 2007). The Chilean woodstar drinks nectar from
the flowers of a variety of native and ornamental plants, as well as
crops--including alfalfa, garlic, onion, and tomatoes (Estades et al.
2007).
The IUCN Red List categorizes the Chilean woodstar as
``Endangered'' because it inhabits a very small range, with all viable
populations apparently confined to remnant patches in two desert river
valleys. These valleys are heavily cultivated, and the extent, area,
and quality of suitable habitat are likely declining (BirdLife
International 2007). The Chilean woodstar is listed as an ``Endangered
and Rare'' species in Chile and was also designated as a ``National
Monument'' under Diario Oficial No. 38.501, which prohibits all hunting
and capture of the species. These regulations do not, however, address
the current and ongoing destruction and degradation of this species'
habitat. The Chilean woodstar is listed in Appendix II of CITES (UNEP-
WCMC 2008).
The historic range of the Chilean woodstar has been severely
altered by extensive planting of olive and citrus groves in the valleys
of northern Chile and southern Peru. The indigenous food plants of the
species may have been seriously reduced when habitat for the species
was converted to agriculture, but the woodstar apparently adapted to
survive on introduced garden flowers (del Hoyo et al. 1999; Estades et
al. 2007). However, loss of some native plant species may be a limiting
factor for the survival of the species. Estades et al. (2007) reported
that one of the reasons the Chilean woodstar disappeared from the Lluta
Valley is likely due to the destruction of almost all of the
cha[ntilde]ares (Geoffrea dicorticans), which is considered one of the
most important food resources for the species, but is unpopular with
farmers who consider it undesirable and an attractant to mice. In
addition, the use of insecticides to control the Mediterranean fruit
fly (Ceratitis capitata) in the 1960s and early 1970s correlates with
declines in Chilean woodstar abundance (Estades et al. 2007). The use
of such pesticides has been reduced since the 1970s; however, Estades
et al. (2007) reported that other insecticides that may harm the
woodstar
[[Page 44074]]
are still being used for some applications.
Chilean woodstars appear to rely primarily on introduced olive
trees for nesting. Although olive trees are not exposed to as many
pesticides as other fruit trees in the region, the use of high-pressure
water spraying to control mold threatens nests, eggs, and chicks
(Estades et al. 2007).
Future land-cover projections from the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment indicate that by 2050, 18 to 24 percent of the Chilean
woodstar's range is likely to be unsuitable for the species (Jetz et
al. 2007).
Estades et al. (2007) hypothesized that rapid population increases
of the Peruvian sheartail hummingbird (Thaumastura cora), which shares
the range of the Chilean woodstar, is a strong competitor for food or
space (Estades et al. 2007). The sheartail is more aggressive than the
Chilean woodstar; therefore, it is believed to displace the woodstar
within its range. In Azapa, Peruvian sheartails occupy the lower parts
of the valley where there is an ample supply of flowers in residential
areas year-round. Chilean woodstars, on the other hand, are generally
located in mid-valley agricultural areas, where there is a much higher
risk of pesticide exposure. Threats to the Chilean woodstar and its
habitat continue, and we find that proposing this species for listing
under the Act is warranted.
Esmeraldas Woodstar (Chaetocercus berlepschi, previously known as
Acestrura berlepschi)
The Esmeraldas woodstar was first taxonomically described by Simon
in 1889, who placed the species in the Trochilidae family, under the
name Chaetocercus berlepschi (BirdLife International 2007). The species
is also known by the synonym Acestrura berlepschi. CITES, BirdLife
International (BirdLife International 2007), and the Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2008) recognize the species as
Chaetocercus berlepschi. We accept the species as Chaetocercus
berlepschi, and change our reference to this species from our 2007
Notice of Review.
The Esmeraldas woodstar is restricted to a small area on the
Pacific slope of the Andes of western Ecuador (Esmeraldas, Manabi, and
Guayas), where only very rare and localized populations are found
(BirdLife International 2007).
It ranges along the slopes of the coastal cordillera up to 1,640 ft
(500 m) (del Hoyo et al. 1999; Ridgely and Greenfield 1986b; Williams
and Tobias 1991). The current extent of the species' range is
approximately 446 mi\2\ (1,155 km\2\) in 3 disjunct and isolated areas
(BirdLife International 2007; Dodson and Gentry 1991).
The Esmeraldas woodstar generally prefers lowland, moist forest
habitat (del Hoyo et al. 1999). It has also been recorded in the canopy
of semi-humid secondary growth at 164 to 492 ft (50 to 150 m) in
December through March, when it is believed to breed (Becker et al.
2000). The species has not been recorded in this habitat type at other
times of year, and there is no evidence concerning its long-term
ability to survive in this type of forest habitat (BirdLife
International 2007).
The Esmeraldas woodstar is considered a rare, range-restricted
species with highly localized populations in three general areas
(BirdLife International 2007; del Hoyo et al. 1999). There have been no
population surveys of this species. BirdLife International estimated
that the population includes between 186 and 373 individuals, based on
density estimates using similar species of hummingbirds (BirdLife
International 2007).
This species is classified as ``Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List
on the basis of occupying a small and severely fragmented range with
ongoing and very rapid declines in range and, presumably, population
(BirdLife International 2007). The species is listed in Appendix II of
CITES (UNEP-WCMC 2008b). It is identified as an ``Endangered'' species
under Ecuadorian law (ECOLEX 2007f). As such, hunting for sport or
commercial purposes is prohibited (ECOLEX 2007g; ECOLEX 2007h).
However, we do not consider hunting to be a risk to the Esmeraldas
woodstar, so this law does not reduce any threats to the species.
The Esmeraldas woodstar inhabits one of the most threatened forest
habitats within the Neotropics (del Hoyo et al. 1999). All forest types
within the species' range have diminished rapidly due to logging and
clearing for agriculture (Dodson and Gentry 1991). The woodstar
inhabits a very small and severely fragmented range, which is
decreasing rapidly in size. Ongoing declines in the bird's population
are linked to persistent habitat destruction which destroys nesting,
breeding, and feeding habitat (BirdLife International 2007). Persistent
grazing by goats and cattle damages the understory and prevents
regeneration of the forest that the woodstar utilizes (Dodson and
Gentry 1991). Dodson and Gentry (1991) indicated that rapid habitat
loss is continuing, at least in unprotected areas, and extant forests
will soon be eliminated. In Manabi Province, the Esmeraldas woodstar
may occur in Machalilla National Park (Collar et al. 1992), but it does
not receive adequate protection because its habitat is threatened by
illegal settlement, deforestation, livestock-grazing, and habitat
clearance by people with land rights (BirdLife International 2007).
Threats to the Esmeraldas woodstar and its habitat are ongoing, and we
find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is
warranted.
Royal Cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae)
The royal cinclodes occurs in the Andes of southeastern Peru
(Cuzco, Apurimac, and Puno) and adjacent Bolivia (La Paz) (BirdLife
International 2007). The species appears to be restricted to mature,
humid Polylepis spp. woodlands that can sustain mossy ground-cover
(Collar et al. 1992). Its diet consists primarily of invertebrates,
small vertebrates (small frogs), and occasionally seeds (del Hoyo et
al. 2003). It seeks food by probing through moss and debris on the
forest floor (Collar et al. 1992; Fjelds[aring] 2002b; del Hoyo et al.
2003), and likely requires territories as large as 5 to 7 ac (2 to 3
ha) due to its feeding strategy (Engblom et al. 2002).
The total royal cinclodes population was estimated to range between
100 and 150 individuals in 1990 (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990).
BirdLife International (2007) estimates the population size to be
between 50 and 249 individuals. Detailed surveys of suitable habitat in
Peru revealed only 189 individuals that were restricted to 1,554 ac
(629 ha) (Chutas 2007). In Bolivia, the population is estimated at 30
individuals that are located on 1,236 ac (500 ha) of fragmented habitat
(Purcell and Brelsford 2004). However, the royal cinclodes does not
always respond to the tape-playback method that was used to census the
population; therefore, the population estimate may not be indicative of
the actual population size (Gomez in litt. 2007).
The IUCN Red List categorizes the royal cinclodes as ``Critically
Endangered'' due to its extremely small population, which consists of
tiny subpopulations that are severely fragmented and dependent upon a
rapidly declining habitat (BirdLife International 2007). The royal
cinclodes is completely dependent upon high-elevation humid Polylepis
forests for its survival, and the ongoing loss of this habitat poses
the greatest risk to this species. Based on comprehensive surveys and
analyses of maps and satellite images, Fjelds[aring] and Kessler
[[Page 44075]]
(1996, as cited in Fjelds[aring] 2002a) estimated that Polylepis
forests now cover less than 247,105 ac (100,000 ha) in Peru and
1,235,527 ac (500,000 ha) in Bolivia, and the majority of the forest is
very dispersed with extensive bushy growth. Less than 1 percent of the
Polylepis forest remains in the humid highlands, where Polylepis
forests are able to grow tall and dense (Fjelds[aring] 2002a). The
royal cinclodes is particularly sensitive to reduced forest density,
because decreased canopy cover permits desiccation of the mosses
growing within humid Polylepis forests, which reduces foraging
microhabitats for the species (Engblom et al. 2002).
Fire and livestock grazing are the important factors affecting the
distribution of Polylepis forests. The vegetation is restricted to
stream ravines, loose rocks, rock ledges, and sandy ridges--all places
where fires cannot spread and livestock does not normally roam
(Fjelds[aring] 2002a; Fjelds[aring] 2002b). Burning land between
patches of Polylepis forests to stimulate the growth of grasses
(chaqueo) for grazing prevents regeneration of native forests and is
considered the key factor limiting the distribution of Polylepis
forests (Fjelds[aring] 2002b). Trampling and grazing by sheep and
cattle further limit forest regeneration (Fjelds[aring] 2002a) and can
contribute to the degradation of remaining forest patches. Sheep and
cattle have solid, sharp hooves that churn up the earth, damaging
vegetation and triggering erosion (Purcell et al. 2004). The loss of
nutrient-rich soils can also cause degradation and ultimate destruction
of Polylepis forests (Fjelds[aring] 2002b; Purcell et al. 2004).
As human populations increase in the high-Andes of Bolivia, many
farmers burn patches of Polylepis forests to make agricultural fields
for crops. The scarcity of arable land has even caused some farmers to
burn Polylepis on steep hillsides that would not normally be considered
suitable for cultivation (Hensen 2002). These farming practices
continue to result in the rapid loss of Polylepis forests and amplified
soil erosion. Firewood harvest is another significant threat to
remaining patches of Polylepis forests. Road building and mining
projects for the expanding human population around Bolivia's largest
city, La Paz, have increased accessibility to remaining Polylepis
forest fragments, further threatening the continued existence of the
forests upon which the royal cinclodes depends (Purcell et al. 2004;
Purcell and Brelsford 2004). Threats to the royal cinclodes and its
habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for
listing under the Act is warranted.
White-Browed Tit-Spinetail (Leptasthenura xenothorax)
The white-browed tit-spinetail is restricted to high-elevation--
12,139 to 14,928 ft (3,700 to 4,550 m) above sea level--semi-humid
Polylepis and Polylepis-Gynoxys woodlands (Collar et al. 1992). This
species forages in pairs or small family groups, often in mixed species
flocks, gleaning insects from bark crevices and moss and lichens on
twigs, branches, and trunks (BirdLife International 2007; Engblom et
al. 2002; Parker and O'Neill 1980).
Historically, the white-browed tit-spinetail may have occupied the
once large and contiguous expanses of Polylepis forests of the high-
Andes of Peru and Bolivia (Fjelds[aring] 2002a), but it is now limited
to remnant Polylepis forests in the Andes mountains of southeast Peru
around Cuzco (Birdlife International 2007; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe
1990; InfoNatura 2007).
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe (1990) described the white-browed tit-
spinetail as common in suitable habitat and numbering ``probably some
hundreds,'' yet quite vulnerable to loss of its already restricted
habitat. Other estimates of the species' total population size range
from 250 to 1,000 (Fjelds[aring] 2002b) to 500 to 1,500 (BirdLife
International 2007; Engblom et al. 2002). Recently, only 305
individuals were reported, based on detailed surveys of suitable
Polylepis forest habitat (Chutas 2007).
The IUCN categorizes the white-browed tit-spinetail as
``Endangered'' due to its very small and severely fragmented range and
population, which continue to decline with habitat loss and lack of
habitat regeneration (BirdLife International 2007). The white-browed
tit-spinetail is listed as an ``Endangered'' species by the Peruvian
government under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG, which prohibits
hunting, taking, transport, or trade of this species, except as
permitted by regulation. However, the species' habitat is not protected
by this law.
The principal factor affecting the distribution of Polylepis
forests, the species' habitat, is the intensity of burning and grazing,
which restricts vegetation growth to locations where fires cannot
spread and cattle and sheep do not normally roam, such as ravines,
boulders, rock ledges, and sandy ridges (Fjelds[aring] 2002a and b).
Many farmers, however, destroy Polylepis spp. by planting crops on
steep hillsides unsuitable for cultivation (Hensen 2002). Harvesting of
firewood from Polylepis forests is also a significant threat to the
white-browed tit-spinetail's habitat (Aucca and Ramsay 2005; Engblom in
litt. 2000). Trampling and grazing by sheep and cattle limit forest
regeneration and can contribute to degradation of remaining forest
patches (Fjelds[aring] 2002a; Purcell et al. 2004). Remaining forest
fragments are becoming more accessible to the expanding population
around Bolivia's largest city through road building and mining
projects, further threatening the survival of Polylepis forests upon
which the white-browed tit-spinetail depends (Purcell et al. 2004).
Ongoing loss of the Polylepis habitat is considered the primary
threat to this species' continued existence. Based on comprehensive
surveys and analyses of maps and satellite images, Fjelds[aring] and
Kessler (1996, as cited in Fjelds[aring] 2002a) estimated that
Polylepis forests now cover less than 247,105 ac (100,000 ha) in Peru.
In Bolivia, 1,235,527 ac (500,000 ha) of Polylepis forest remain, but
most of it is very dispersed and bushy. However, less than 1 percent
persists in the humid highland habitat for the white-browed tit-
spinetail, where Polylepis forests can grow to be tall and dense
(Fjelds[aring] 2002a). According to Chutas (2007), the species is now
confined to about 1,532 ac (620 ha) of habitat. From 1956 to 2005, the
rate of forest patch habitat decline to the north of Cuzco, Peru, was
only about 1 percent; however, the remaining habitat patches in this
area are very small (mean patch size of 6.2 ac (2.5 ha)). During this
same time-period, 10 percent of existing forest patches showed a
decline in density, indicating that degradation might be a more serious
threat than outright destruction in this area (Jameson and Ramsay
2007). Threats to the white-browed tit-spinetail and its habitat are
ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under the
Act is warranted.
Black-Hooded Antwren (Formicivora erythronotos, previously known as
Myrmotherula erythronotos)
The black-hooded antwren inhabits early successional secondary
growth habitats and the understory of remnant old-growth secondary
forests in coastal southeastern Brazil (BirdLife International 2007;
Harris and Pimm 2004). This antwren species was previously known only
from 20 skins that were collected during the nineteenth century (E.
Mendon[ccedil]a and L.P. Gonzaga in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife
International 2007; Buzzetti 1998), and was believed to be extinct
until it was rediscovered in 1987 (Harris and Pimm 2004). There have
been recent reports that the species has been seen with increased
frequency at a coastal reserve near Rio de Janeiro, the
[[Page 44076]]
Reserva Ecol[oacute]gica de Jacarepi[aacute] (Worldtwitch 2007).
The IUCN Red List classifies the species as ``Endangered,'' because
it has a very small and highly fragmented range. The black-hooded
antwren appears to be declining rapidly in response to continuing
habitat loss. Currently, it is known to inhabit 7 sites, and the
population is estimated at 1,000 to 2,499 birds with a decreasing
population trend (BirdLife International 2007). The IUCN Red List
notes, however, that data quality is poor for these estimates and that
there is a serious need for new population demographic information on
the species' current population size (BirdLife International 2007).
This species is also formally recognized as ``Endangered'' under
Brazilian law (Order No. 1.522) (ECOLEX 2007).
The black-hooded antwren resides in one of the most densely
populated regions of Brazil, where deforestation has been occurring for
more than 400 years (BirdLife International 2003). The species' habitat
is currently threatened by ongoing urbanization, industrialization, and
agricultural expansion. The antwren's habitat has been reduced to less
than 10 percent of its original extent (Brown and Brown 1992, as cited
in BirdLife International 2003; H[ouml]fling 2007; The Nature
Conservancy 2007). Remaining tracts of suitable habitat near Rio de
Janeiro and Sao Paulo are threatened by ongoing development of coastal
areas, primarily for tourism enterprises (e.g., hotel complexes,
beachside housing) and associated infrastructure, as well as widespread
clearing for expansion of livestock pastures and plantations (Birdlife
International 2007). Threats to the black-hooded antwen and its habitat
are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under
the Act is warranted.
Fringe-Backed Fire-Eye (Pyriglena atra)
The fringe-backed fire-eye is known from the narrow coastal belt of
Atlantic forest in the vicinity of Salvador, coastal Bahia (west of the
town of Santo Amaro), forest patches along the Linha Verde highway, and
north to southern Sergipe (in the vicinity of Crasto and Santa Luzia de
Itanhia), Brazil (Pacheco and Whitney 1995, J. Minns in litt. 1998,
B.M. Whitney in litt. 1999, and J. Mazar Barnett in litt. 2000; all as
cited in BirdLife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; del Hoyo et
al. 2003). Recent fieldwork indicates that the species' distribution is
not as disjunct as previously considered because it has been found in
remnant forest and secondary-growth patches along the northern coast of
Bahia at Conde and Janda[iacute]ra (Souza 2002, as cited in BirdLife
International 2007). Although populations may have been vastly reduced
over time, the species' preference for early successional secondary-
growth habitat means its range is likely to have been underestimated
(BirdLife International 2007). The fringe-backed fire-eye also favors
the tangled, dense undergrowth of lowland forests as well as other
semi-open habitats where horizontal perches are located close to the
ground (BirdLife International 2007).
Currently, the population is estimated at 1,000 to 2,499
individuals (BirdLife International 2007), an increase from the
population estimate in 2000, which indicated that between 250 and 999
individuals remained in the wild (BirdLife International 2000). The
increase in the population estimate results from extension of the
species' known range (del Hoyo et al. 2003), as well as indications
that the distribution was not as disjunct as previously thought (Souza
2002, as cited in BirdLife International 2007). From 2000 to 2004, the
fringe-backed fire-eye was categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' by
the IUCN Red List, because of its extremely small range and declining
habitat and because it was known from a few, highly-fragmented
localities (IUCN 2002). While the fringe-backed fire-eye is now
classified as ``Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List because the species'
range is more extensive than previously known (BirdLife International
2007), it does still have a very small, fragmented range, within which
the extent and quality of its habitat are continuing to decline and
where it is only known from a few localities (BirdLife International
2007). The entire range of the fringe-backed fire-eye encompasses only
about 1,924 mi\2\ (4,990 km\2\), with only 20 percent of this area
considered occupied (BirdLife International 2007). Furthermore, the
fringe-backed fire-eye has not been located at several sites from where
it was previously known in Bahia (del Hoyo et al. 2003). The fringe-
backed fire-eye is formally recognized as ``Endangered'' in Brazil and
is directly protected by legislation (Collar et al. 1992; BirdLife
International 2007; ECOLEX 2007), which prohibits or regulates
international trade, hunting, collection, research, captive
propagation, and general harm to the species. However, the greatest
threat to the species continues to be habitat loss (BirdLife
International 2007). Threats to the fringe-backed fire-eye and its
habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for
listing under the Act is warranted.
Brown-Banded Antpitta (Grallaria milleri)
The brown-banded antpitta is endemic to the Volcan Ru[iacute]z-
Tolima massif of the central Andes (Caldas, Risaralda, Quind[iacute]o,
and Tolima), Colombia (BirdLife International 2007). The species
inhabits humid understory and forest floors of mid-montane and cloud
forests between 5,905 and 8,530 ft (1,800 and 2,600 m) in areas with a
high density of herbs and shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 2003; Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1999). The species' current range is estimated to be 116
mi\2\ (300 km\2\) (BirdLife International 2007g). The species is known
today in three areas in the upper R[iacute]o Magdalena Valley: (1) The
humid forests in the Central Andes of Colombia's Ucumar[iacute]
Regional Park (Risaralda Department); the site is approximately 17
mi\2\ (44 km\2\) in the Ot[uacute]n River watershed (Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1999); (2) the south-east slope of Volc[aacute]n Tolima
in the R[iacute]o Toche Valley on private land (Tolima Department);
this location is 0.02 mi\2\ (0.05 km\2\) in size at elevations ranging
from 9,022 to 9,514 ft (2,750 to 2,900 m) (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan
2002); and (3) the R[iacute]o Blanco river basin (Caldas Department);
the site is a strip of land less than 124 linear mi (200 linear km) on
the Central Cordilla, between 7,546 and 10,171 ft (2,300 and 3,100 m)
in elevation (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002).
Between the years 1911 and 1942, only 10 specimens were collected
at elevations of 9,004 to 10,299 ft (2,745 to 3,140 m) in Caldas and
Quind[iacute]o (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997). The species was not
seen for more than 50 years, until it was rediscovered in May 1994, in
Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park, Risaralda (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n
1997). Surveys conducted between 1994 and 1997 estimated that 106
individuals were present in a 0.24 mi\2\ (0.63 km\2\) area (Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1997, 1999). Further observations of the species were
made during 1998-2000 on the southeast slope of Volc[aacute]n Tolima in
the R[iacute]o Toche Valley, where it is considered uncommon and local
(L[oacute]pez-Lan[uacute]s et al. 2000, L[oacute]pez-Lan[uacute]s in
litt. 2000, and P.G.W. Salaman in litt. 1999, 2000, as cited in
BirdLife International 2007; Renjifo et al. 2002). A census of the
population in the R[iacute]o Blanco river basin was undertaken in June
2000. Researchers estimated the presence of at least 30 individuals,
based on vocalizations they elicited in response to recordings of the
species' alarm call (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002).
The population of brown-banded antpitta is estimated by the IUCN to
be
[[Page 44077]]
between 250 and 999 birds (BirdLife International 2007). It is
estimated that the species has lost up to 9 percent of its population
in the last 10 years, or 3 generations, and that this rate of decline
will continue over the next 10 years (BirdLife International 2007).
The IUCN has classified the brown-banded antpitta as ``Endangered''
since 1994, because it is known from very few locations, occupies a
very small range, and habitat loss and degradation are continuing
(BirdLife International 2007). It is identified as an ``Endangered''
species under Colombian law pursuant to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of
the Law 99 of 1993 as outlined in Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (ECOLEX
2007).
Deforestation has greatly affected the current population size and
distributional range of the brown-banded antpitta. Nearly all the other
forested habitat below 10,827 ft (3,300 m) in the Central Andes, where
the brown-banded antpitta occurred historically, has been deforested
and cleared for agricultural land use (BirdLife International 2007).
The remaining forests providing suitable habitat for the brown-banded
antpitta have become fragmented and isolated and are either surrounded
by, or being converted to, pasture and agricultural crops (e.g. ,
coffee plantations, potatoes, beans) (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002;
BirdLife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; Kattan and
Beltr[aacute]n 1997; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002). By 1998,
approximately 85 percent of forested habitat at altitudes between 6,234
ft (1,900 m) and 10,499 ft (3,200 m), where the species is most likely
to be found, had been converted to other land uses (BirdLife
International 2007; Cuervo 2002; Stattersfield et al. 1998), and forest
conversion has continued. Cuervo (2002) estimated that the available
suitable habitat for this species totals no more than 310 mi\2\ (500
km\2\), although the species is estimated to only occupy an area 116
mi\2\ (300 km\2\) in size (BirdLife International 2007). Threats to the
brown-banded antpitta and its habitat continue, and we find that
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Kaempfer's Tody-Tyrant (Hemitriccus kaempferi, previously known as
Idioptilon kaempferi)
The Kaempfer's tody-tyrant is very rare and has a very small,
extremely fragmented range in Brazil which is estimated to be about 7.3
mi\2\ (19 km\2\) (BirdLife International 2007). The species is only
known from three localities in Santa Catarina, Brazil (with recent
records from just two): one record at Salto do Pira[iacute] near Villa
Nova in 1929, one specimen that was collected at Brusque in 1950, and
another in Reserva Particular do Patrim[ocirc]nio Natural de Volta
Velha, near Itapo[aacute] in 1998 (Barnett et al. 2000; L.N. Naka in
litt. 1999; as cited in BirdLife International 2007). It inhabits humid
lowland Atlantic forest. At one of these localities, Salto do
Pira[iacute], the species has typically been found in habitats which
include forest edge, well-shaded secondary growth, and sections of low,
epiphyte-laden open woodland near watercourses (Barnett et al. 2000).
It feeds predominantly in the midstory of medium-sized trees, and mated
pairs appear to remain within small, well-defined areas (Barnett et al.
2000).
In 2004, the IUCN changed the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant's decade-long
classification on the Red List from ``Endangered'' to ``Critically
Endangered,'' because the species has an extremely small and fragmented
range, with recent records from only two locations, and ongoing
deforestation is occurring in the vicinity of these sites (Birdlife
International 2007). The population estimate is 1,000 to 2,499
individuals and declining (BirdLife International 2007). The Atlantic
forest has been extensively deforested, and the lowland forest
continues to be cleared in the vicinity of the two remaining sites
(BirdLife International 2007; H[ouml]fling 2007; The Nature Conservancy
2007). The Kaempfer's tody-tyrant is protected by Brazilian law. These
protections prohibit the following activities with regard to this
species: export and international trade, collection and research,
captive propagation, and also provide measures which help to protect
remaining suitable habitat, such as prohibition of exploitation of the
remaining primary forests within the Atlantic forest biome and
management of various practices in primary and secondary forests, such
as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, recreation, and water
resources (ECOLEX 2007). The species is restricted to one 15 km\2\ (6
mi\2\) protected area and in adjacent forest (Barnett et al. 2000;
BirdLife International 2007). This habitat area is insufficient for the
long-term survival of the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, particularly since,
for various reasons (e.g., lack of funding, personnel, or local
management commitment), Brazil's current capacity to achieve its stated
natural resource objectives in protected areas is limited (ADEJA 2007;
Bruner et al. 2001; Costa 2007; IUCN 1999; Neotropical News 1996;
Neotropical News 1999). Therefore, even with the expansion or further
designation of protected areas, it is likely that not all of the
identified resource concerns for the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (e.g.,
residential and agricultural encroachment, resource extraction,
unregulated tourism, grazing) would be sufficiently addressed at these
sites.
Threats to the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant and its habitat are ongoing,
and we find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is
warranted.
Ash-Breasted Tit-Tyrant (Anairetes alpinus)
The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is a small New World flycatcher (family
Tyrannidae) (del Hoyo et al. 2004), confined to humid Polylepis forests
in the Andes Mountains of Peru and Bolivia (BirdLife International
2007; Collar et al. 1992; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990; InfoNatura
2007). A. alpinus consists of two subspecies, the nominate subspecies,
A. alpinus alpinus, which occurs on the west Andean slope in northern
Peru (Ancash, La Libertad), and A. alpinus bolivianus, which occurs in
southeast Peru (Cuzco, Apurimac) and northwest Bolivia (La Paz)
(BirdLife International 2007; del Hoyo et al. 2004).
Historically, the ash-breasted tit-tyrant may have been well-
distributed in the previously large, contiguous expanses of Polylepis
forest of the high-Andes of Peru and Bolivia (Fjelds[aring] 2002a);
however, it is now restricted to remnant patches of these forests in
Peru (Cuzco, Apurimac, and Corredor Conchucos) and Bolivia (La Paz)
(Birdlife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; Fjelds[aring] and
Krabbe 1990; InfoNatura 2007).
The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is restricted to high-elevations--
12,139 to 15,092 ft above sea level (3,700 to 4,600 m) (del Hoyo et al.
2004). Individuals forage alone, in pairs, groups of three, and
occasionally in mixed-species flocks, making short trips to hover-glean
or perch-glean near the tops and outer edges of Polylepis spp. shrubs
and trees (del Hoyo et al. 2004; Engblom et al. 2002). We are unaware
of any information that is available on the breeding behavior of the
species. Juveniles have been observed in March and July around Cuzco,
Peru (del Hoyo et al. 2004).
The ash-breasted tit-tyrant has been described as generally quite
rare and local, with one to two pairs per occupied woodland
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990). BirdLife International (2007) and
Fjelds[aring] (2002b) placed the population somewhere between 250 to
1,000 individuals. Gomez (2005, in litt. 2007) conducted intensive
searches using song
[[Page 44078]]
playback within 80 percent of the suitable habitat in Bolivia and found
180 individuals distributed within 14 forest patches. Chutas (2007)
reported only 461 individuals, based on detailed surveys of suitable
habitat, which contained the highest concentration of Polylepis forest
in southeastern Peru.
The IUCN categorizes the ash-breasted tit-tyrant as ``Endangered''
because of its very small population, which is confined to a severely
fragmented habitat undergoing a continuing decline in extent, area, and
quality (BirdLife International 2007). The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is
considered an ``Endangered'' species by the Peruvian government under
Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG which prohibits hunting, taking,
transport, or trade of this species, except as permitted by regulation.
However, the species' habitat is not protected by this law. We are not
aware of any regulations in Bolivia that are effective at protecting
the habitat of the ash-breasted tit-tyrant.
The principal factor affecting the distribution of Polylepis
forests, the species' habitat, is the intensity of burning and grazing,
which restrict vegetation growth to locations where fires cannot
spread, and cattle and sheep do not normally roam, such as ravines,
boulders, rock ledges, and sandy ridges (Fjelds[aring] 2002a and b).
Many farmers, however, destroy Polylepis forests to plant crops, even
on steep hillsides unsuitable for cultivation (Hensen 2002). Harvesting
of firewood from Polylepis forests is also a significant threat to the
ash-breasted tit-tyrant's habitat (Aucca and Ramsay 2005; Engblom in
litt. 2000). Trampling and grazing by sheep and cattle limit forest
regeneration and can contribute to degradation of remaining forest
patches (Fjelds[aring] 2002a). Remaining forest fragments are becoming
more accessible to the expanding population around Bolivia's largest
city through road building and mining projects, further threatening the
survival of Polylepis forests upon which the ash-breasted tit-tyrant
depends (Purcell et al. 2004; Purcell and Brelsford 2004).
The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is completely dependent upon high-
elevation humid Polylepis forest for survival, and the ongoing loss of
this habitat is believed to be the primary threat to this species. Less
than 1 percent of this forest habitat remains in the humid highlands,
where Polylepis forests can grow to be tall and dense (Fjelds[aring]
2002a), providing habitat for the ash-breasted tit-tyrant. Only about
1,554 ac (629 ha) of habitat remain for the ash-breasted tit-tyrant in
Cuzco and Apurimac, Peru (Chutas 2007), and 1,245 ac (504 ha) of
Polylepis forest remains in La Paz, Bolivia (Purcell and Brelsford
2004). Habitat estimates for Corredor Conchucos (Peru), the area
occupied by the northern ash-breasted tit-tyrant subspecies (A. alpinus
alpinus), are not available, but Chutas (2007) reported only 30
individuals from this area. In Bolivia, approximately 507 ac (205 ha)
of habitat have been destroyed by clear-cutting since the early 1990s;
if the current rate of deforestation continues, projections indicate
that all of the Polylepis forest in Bolivia will be destroyed within
the next 3 decades (Purcell and Brelsford 2004). The rate of habitat
decline is lower north of Cuzco, Peru (Cordillera de Vilcanota), with
the loss of only 1 percent of forest patches from 1956 to 2005;
however, the remaining habitat patches in this area were already quite
small (mean patch size is 6.2 ac (2.5 ha)), and 10 percent of forest
patches showed a decline in forest density over this time period,
indicating that habitat degradation might be more problematic to the
species than total destruction of forests in this area (Jameson and
Ramsay 2007). Threats to the ash-breasted tit-tyrant and its habitat
are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under
the Act is warranted.
Peruvian Plantcutter (Phytotoma raimondii)
The Peruvian plantcutter is endemic to the coastal desert of
northwestern Peru, from sea level to 1,640 ft (500 m) (del Hoyo et al.
2004). The species is restricted to Peru's Talara region, which
contains 60 to 80 percent of the population and highly fragmented
forest patches around the Chiclayo area of Lambayeque (del Hoyo et al.
2004). BirdLife International (2007) estimates the total population to
range between 500 and 1,000 individuals.
Peruvian plantcutters inhabit sparse desert scrub and coastal dunes
scattered with large shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 2004). They also occupy
riparian thickets and woodlands dominated by Prosopis spp. and Acacia
spp. (del Hoyo et al. 2004). This species appears to prefer a high
diversity of plant species, including specific shrubs and trees with
low-hanging branches (Elton 2004; Williams 2005). Plantcutters are the
only passerines with a predominantly leaf-eating diet (Bucher et al.
2003).
The Peruvian plantcutter is categorized as ``Endangered'' by the
IUCN Red List due to ongoing habitat destruction and continuing
degradation of its small and severely fragmented range (BirdLife
International 2000; BirdLife International 2007). The Peruvian
plantcutter is listed as ``Endangered'' by the Peruvian government
under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG which prohibits hunting, taking,
transport, or trade of endangered species, except as permitted by
regulation. However, the species' habitat is not protected by this law.
The major threat to the Peruvian plantcutter is believed to be loss
of habitat due to agriculture, burning, grazing, timber cutting, and
human use. Extirpation of the species from many sites occurred as
conversion of heavily wooded coastal river valleys to irrigated
agriculture took place (Lanyon 1975; Collar et al. 1992). Extensive
stands of small- to medium-size trees, such as mesquite (Prosopis
spp.), acacia (Acacia spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and Capparis spp.,
previously occupied the river valleys, but wooded areas are now
confined to land where the lack of irrigation discourages cultivation
(del Hoyo et al. 2004; Williams 2005). The remaining forest fragments
are threatened by burning, grazing, timber cutting, firewood and
charcoal production, and ongoing conversion for cultivation, primarily
sugarcane. These factors are believed to have contributed to the
destruction of previously occupied plantcutter habitat, which reduced
or eliminated forage and nesting sites necessary for the species to
thrive (BirdLife International 2000; del Hoyo et al. 2004).
Talara, owned by PetroPeru, the State-owned petroleum company,
retains the largest contiguous area of intact habitat currently
occupied by the Peruvian plantcutter. PetroPeru strictly bans
trespassing; therefore, the population in this area has not been
exposed to the same risk factors that it is subject to in the other
forested areas. Estimates of the amount of habitat suitable for the
plantcutter at Talara vary widely, from 123,553 ac (50,000 ha) (del
Hoyo et al. 2004) to 4,942 ac (2,000 ha) (Williams 2005). Talara
supports approximately 400 to 600 individuals or 60 to 80 percent of
the global population of Peruvian plantcutters (del Hoyo et al. 2004;
Williams 2005). Although PetroPeru historically held the land rights to
the whole province of Talara, the land is now reverting to the Peruvian
government, which is selling it to buyers who are likely to develop the
beachfront property (Elton 2004). Attempts to create a protected
reserve for the plantcutter on approximately 12,000 ac (4,860 ha)
around Talara are reportedly not progressing as originally proposed
(Elton 2004; Williams 2005). Future land-cover projections from the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment indicate that by 2050, 11 to 16 percent
of the Peruvian plantcutter's range is
[[Page 44079]]
likely to be unsuitable for the species (Jetz et al. 2007). Threats to
the Peruvian plantcutter and its habitat continue, and we find that
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
St. Lucia Forest Thrush (Cichlhermina lherminieri sanctaeluciae)
The St. Lucia forest thrush is endemic to the island of St. Lucia
in the West Indies (Raffaele et al. 1998). This subspecies occupies
mid- and high-altitude primary and secondary moist forest habitat in
the coastal areas of the island. The St. Lucia forest thrush feeds on
insects and berries that are found from ground level all the way up
into the forest canopy (Raffaele 1998). The island of St. Lucia
encompasses 151,905 ac (61,500 ha). Of this area, 31,048 ac (12,570 ha)
are natural forest, 56 percent of which is located in Forest Reserves
and the remaining 43 percent of forest is situated on private lands
(Delegation of the European Commission 2004). Commercial harvest of
timber is allowed on private land, but it is strictly prohibited within
the Forest Reserves (Forestry Department Proceedings 2000).
Although the St. Lucia forest thrush's population was considered
numerous in the late-1800s (Keith 1997), the subspecies' current
population status is unknown. Recent sightings are rare, with only six
confirmed sightings during the last few years (Dornelly 2007). The
entire species of forest thrush (Cichlhermina lherminieri) is
classified as ``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN Red List due to human-induced
deforestation and introduced predators (IUCN 2006). The St. Lucia
forest thrush is a fully protected species under St. Lucia's Wildlife
Protection Act (WPA) of 1980 (Schedule 1), which has prohibited hunting
of the subspecies since 1980. In addition, the WPA prohibits taking,
damaging or destroying nests, eggs, or offspring of a fully protected
species.
Identified risks to this species include habitat loss, competition
with the bare-eyed robin (Turdus nudigenis), brood parasitism by the
invasive shiny cowbird (Molothrus bonarientsis), hunting by humans for
food, and predation by mongoose and other introduced predators
(Raffaele et al. 1998). The demand for agricultural land on St. Lucia
has resulted in deforestation; approximately 33.7 percent of the island
is under agricultural production (GOSL 2000). Another contributing
factor to habitat loss is soil erosion. Approximately 80 percent of the
island is composed of steep terrain, and poor agricultural practices
have resulted in excessive soil erosion and loss of soil productivity,
two factors which contribute to destruction of forest habitat in some
areas and degradation of forest habitat in other locations (Bond 1990).
Traditionally, forest resources have been used for many household
products in daily use on St. Lucia. Currently, heating and cooking in
the homes of island residents utilize forest resources; charcoal and
firewood use combined account for 83 percent of St. Lucia's fuel supply
(Forestry Department Proceedings, 2000).
Tropical storms and hurricanes frequently occur in the Caribbean
Sea, and can have severe, widespread impacts on the terrestrial
ecosystems of small islands. High winds are a primary threat to forest
habitats due to the damage caused to the trees. They are often blown
over or sustain severe damage to trunks and limbs, which can result in
critical habitat loss to the St. Lucia forest thrush. During the last
three decades, there has been an increase in the number of hurricanes
and severe tropical storms experienced by St Lucia. After hurricane
Allen in 1980, at least 55 percent of all dominant tree species had
broken branches and many trees lost large portions of their crowns
(Whitman 1980, as reported in GOSL 1993). Threats to the St. Lucia
forest thrush are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for
listing under the Act is warranted.
Eiao Polynesian Warbler (Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis, previously
known as Acrocephalus mendanae aquilonis and Acrocephalus caffer
aquilonis)
The reed warblers of Polynesia have been divided into two species,
the Tahiti reed-warbler (Acrocephalus caffer) and the Marquesas-reed
warbler (Acrocephalus mendanae) (Birdlife International 2007a and b).
However, new genetic research using mitochondrial DNA markers to
develop a phylogeny of the eastern Polynesian taxa of reed-warblers of
the Marquesas Archipelago has led to further proposed taxonomic changes
for the reed-warblers on these islands. This proposed change separates
the reed-warblers on the four northernmost islands in the Marquesas
Archipelago into a separate species (Acrocephalus percernis) from those
on the southern islands (Acrocephalus mendanae). The proposed taxonomic
change maintains the subspecies delineations between the islands; the
reed-warblers on Eiao Island remain a subspecies, now renamed
Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis (Cibois et al. 2007).
The Eiao Polynesian warbler is endemic to a single island (Eiao) in
the Marquesas Archipelago of French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean. The
Marquesas Archipelago is one of the most remote island chains in the
world, lying between 404 and 600 mi (650 and 965 km) south of the
equator and approximately 994 mi (1,600 km) northeast of Tahiti. Eiao
Island is one of the northernmost islands in the Archipelago,
encompassing 17 mi\2\ (43.8 km\2\) in area, and ranging in altitude
from sea level to 1,890 ft (576 m) (Wikipedia 2007). The Eiao
Polynesian warbler's preferred habitat is dry forest (Raust 2007).
Population densities of the Eiao Polynesian warbler are thought to
be high within remaining suitable habitat, based on a recent study
which found individual singing birds approximately every 130 to 165 ft
(40 to 50 m). Total numbers are estimated to be greater than 2,000
birds (Dr. P. Raust, pers. comm. to Amedee Brickey, USFWS 2007). This
estimate is much higher than the 100 to 200 individuals estimated in
1987 by Thibault (as previously cited in USFWS 2007). It is not clear
if the subspecies' population actually increased from 1987 to 2007, or
if the different population estimates can be attributed to the use of
different survey methodologies. We have no reliable information on the
population trend of this subspecies. The Eiao Polynesian warbler is a
protected subspecies in French Polynesia. The conservation status of
this newly designated subspecies has not been categorized on the IUCN
Red List.
Although currently uninhabited by humans, Eiao Island's natural
vegetation has been heavily impacted by introduced domestic livestock
(sheep and swine); part of the island has even been denuded of all
vegetation. As a result, only 10 to 20 percent of the island contains
the Eiao Polynesian warbler's preferred dry forest habitat (Raust
2007). Suitable subspecies' habitat is limited to steep slopes that are
inaccessible to domestic livestock. While Eiao Island was declared a
Nature Reserve by French Polynesia in 1992, we are not aware of any
plans to protect the habitat of the Eiao Polynesian warbler.
Introduced mammals and birds have been implicated in loss of
endemic birds in the Marquesas and may impact the Eiao Polynesian
warbler. Two species of nonnative rats, the Polynesian rat (Rattus
excluans) and the black rat, were introduced to Eiao Island during the
late nineteenth century (Thibault and Myers 2000, as reported in
Thibault et al. 2002) and are thought to have contributed to the
decline of the Eiao Polynesian warbler. However, recent research
indicates that reed-warblers in the Marquesas Archipelago nest
sufficiently
[[Page 44080]]
high in trees to avoid significant predation from rats (Thibault et al.
2002). The most destructive introduced avian predator in the Marquesas,
the common myna (Acridotheres tristis), has not been found on Eiao
Island. If the myna expands its range and colonizes Eiao Island, there
is a chance it could impact the Eiao Polynesian warbler (Thibault et
al. 2002).
Another potential risk to the Eiao Polynesian warbler is
destruction of habitat by tsunamis and cyclones. French Polynesia, and
in particular the Marquesas Archipelago, are frequently affected by
tsunamis; the waves observed in the Marquesas are generally 2 to 10
times higher than waves recorded in Tahiti (Hebert et al. 2001). The
Eiao Polynesian warbler is also exposed to high winds during tropical
cyclones, which often displace individuals. Indirect effects occur
during the aftermath of a storm when subspecies are impacted by the
loss of food supplies, foraging substrates, and roost sites, increasing
their vulnerability to predators and disease. Large-scale climate
models predict increased intensity of tropical cyclones impacting
island chains in the Pacific, including the Marquesas Archipelago
(Meehl et al. 2007). Threats to this subspecies and its habitat are
ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under the
Act is warranted.
Medium Tree-Finch (Camarhynchus pauper)
The medium tree-finch is endemic to Floreana in the Galapagos
Islands, Ecuador (BirdLife International 2007). Its habitat is montane
evergreen and tropical deciduous forest (Stotz et al. 1996), primarily
above 328 ft (100 m). Population numbers of this species are poorly
known, with indirect estimations at 1,000 to 2,499 birds (BirdLife
International 2007). However, Stotz et al. (1996) consider the relative
abundance of the species to be ``common.'' Population trends are
unknown.
This poorly known species is considered ``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN
because it has a very small range and is restricted to a single island
where introduced species are a potential threat (BirdLife International
2004) due to herbivore degradation and loss of habitat and possibly
predator-caused mortality (BirdLife International 2007; Jackson 1985).
In addition, agricultural activities (Cruz and Cruz 1996) and free-
ranging domestic livestock continue to destroy and degrade the habitat
of the medium tree-finch (BirdLife International 2007). The recent
discovery of an introduced parasitic fly (Philornis downsi) on Floreana
Island (Kleindorfer et al. MS, as cited in Grant et al. 2005) has
raised concerns about the impact this parasite might be having on the
medium tree-finch (Fessl et al. 2006). In an experimental study
conducted on nearby Santa Cruz Island, Fessl et al. (2006) found that
high mortality of nestlings was directly attributable to parasitism by
P. downsi, as evidenced by a near threefold increase in fledgling
success in a parasite-reduced group versus a parasite-infested control
group. Further, because species with small broods have been found to
suffer higher parasite loads and therefore higher nestling mortality
(Fessl and Tebbich 2002), infestation of P. downsi on species with
naturally low clutch sizes, such as the medium tree-finch, is of
particular concern (Fessl et al. 2006).
In 1959, Ecuador designated 97 percent of the Galapagos land area
as a National Park, leaving 3 percent of the remaining land area
distributed between Santa Cruz, San Crist[oacute]bal, Isabela, and
Floreana Islands. National Park protection, however, does not mean the
area is to be maintained in a pristine condition. The park land area is
divided into various zones signifying the level of human use (Parque
Nacional Galapagos Ecuador n.d.). Although Floreana Island includes a
large ``conservation and restoration'' zone, it does include a
significant sized ``farming'' zone (Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador
n.d.), where agricultural and grazing activities may continue to impact
the habitat.
The Galapagos Islands were declared a World Heritage Site in 1979,
as they were recognized to be ``cultural and natural heritage of
outstanding universal value.'' The aim of establishment as a WHS is
conservation of the site for future generations (UNESCO World Heritage
Centre 2008). However, due to threats to this site posed by invasive
species, increasing tourism, and immigration, in June, 2007, the World
Heritage Committee placed the Galapagos on the ``List of World Heritage
in Danger,'' with the intent of increasing support for their
conservation (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2007). In March 2008,
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre/United Nations Foundation project for
invasive species management provided funding of 2.19 million U.S.
dollars (USD) to the Ecuadorian National Environmental Fund's
``Galapagos Invasive Species'' account to support invasive species
control and eradication on the islands. In addition, the Ecuador
government previously had contributed 1 million USD to this fund
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2008), demonstrating the government
of Ecuador's commitment to reducing the threat of invasive species to
the islands. At the present time, however, threats to the medium tree-
finch and its habitat caused by introduced species continue, and we
find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is
warranted.
Cherry-Throated Tanager (Nemosia rourei)
The cherry-throated tanager inhabits primary forest habitats in
Esp[iacute]rito Santo and, possibly, Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil (Bauer et al. 2000; BirdLife International 2007; Venturini et
al. 2005). Because the cherry-throated tanager was only known from a
single specimen collected in the 1800s and a reliable sighting of eight
individuals from 1941, the species was presumed to be extinct (Collar
et al. 1992; Ridgely and Tudor 1989; Scott and Brooke 1985). However,
the species was rediscovered in 1998 (Bauer et al. 2000; Venturini et
al. 2005). Since then, the cherry-throated tanager has been documented
at three sites of remnant primary forest in south-central
Esp[iacute]rito Santo (Bauer et al. 2000; Scott 1997; Venturini et al.
2005). Two of the currently occupied sites are in private ownership and
the third, which is believed to be used only sporadically by the
species, is within the Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve (Venturini et
al. 2005).
The cherry-throated tanager is endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome
and inhabits the upper canopies of trees within humid, montane, primary
forests (Bauer et al. 2000; BirdLife International 2007; Venturini et
al. 2005). It is a primary forest-obligate species that typically
forages for insects within the interior crowns of tall, epiphyte-laden
trees and occasionally lower down--ca. 6.6 ft (2 m)--at the forest edge
(Bauer et al. 2000; BirdLife International 2007; Venturini et al.
2005). Cherry-throated tanagers can be found in mixed-species flocks
and appear to require relatively large territories--ca. 1.544 mi\2\
(3.99 km\2\) (Venturini et al. 2005). Within its current distribution,
the species makes sporadic use of coffee (Coffea spp.), pine (Pinus
spp.), and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) plantations, presumably as
travel corridors between remaining patches of primary forest (Venturini
et al. 2005). Little is known about the breeding behavior of the
cherry-throated tanager (Venturini et al. 2002).
The IUCN categorizes the species as ``Critically Endangered''
because its extant population is estimated to be between 50 and 249
individuals. The population is extremely small and
[[Page 44081]]
highly fragmented, and presumed to be declining (BirdLife International
2007). There is even speculation that the IUCN population estimate is
too high, considering that the maximum number of individuals recorded
in the only 2 confirmed populations is 19 (Venturini et al. 2005).
Based on a number of recent 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 (The Nature Conservancy 2007; H[ouml]fling 2007). In
addition to the overall loss and degradation of native habitat within
this biome, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely fragmented.
Most of the tropical forest habitats believed to have been used
historically by the cherry-throated tanager have been converted or
severely degraded by human activities (Bauer et al. 2000; BirdLife
International 2007; Ridgely and Tudor 1989). Even when they are
formally protected, the remaining fragments of primary forest habitat
where the species may still occur will likely undergo further
degradation due to their altered dynamics and isolation between forest
fragments (Tabanez and Viana 2000).
The cherry-throated tanager is formally recognized as
``Endangered'' in Brazil and is directly protected by legislation
promulgated by the Brazilian government (BirdLife International 2007;
ECOLEX 2007). These protections prohibit the following activities with
regard to this species: Export and international trade, collection and
research, captive propagation, and also provide measures which help to
protect remaining suitable habitat, such as prohibition of exploitation
of the remaining primary forests within the Atlantic forest biome and
management of various practices in primary and secondary forests, such
as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, recreation, and water
resources (ECOLEX 2007). The owners of Fazenda Pindobas IV and Caetes,
two sighting areas, have cooperated in protecting cherry-throated
tanager habitat in these areas, and efforts are underway to solidify
protection of these privately owned areas (BirdLife International 2007;
Venturini et al. 2005). Elsewhere, for various reasons (e.g., lack of
funding, personnel, or local management commitment), Brazil's current
capacity to achieve its stated natural resource objectives in protected
areas is limited (ADEJA 2007; Bruner et al. 2001; Costa 2007; IUCN
1999; Neotropical News 1996; Neotropical News 1999). Therefore, even
with the further designation of protected areas, it is likely that not
all of the identified resource concerns for the cherry-throated tanager
(e.g., residential and agricultural encroachment, resource extraction,
unregulated tourism, grazing) would be sufficiently addressed.
Threats to the cherry-throated tanager and its habitat are ongoing,
and we find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is
warranted.
Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted but Precluded
We have found that, for the 20 taxa discussed below, publication of
proposed listing rules will continue to be precluded over the next year
due to the need to complete pending, higher-priority listing actions.
We will continue to monitor the status of these species as new
information becomes available (see Monitoring, below). Our review of
new information will determine if a change in status is warranted,
including the need to emergency list any species or change the LPN of
any of the species.
Birds
Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi unicornis)
The southern helmeted curassow is known from central Bolivia and
central and eastern Peru (Collar et al. 1992). In Bolivia, the
subspecies (P. unicornis unicornis) is known from the adjacent
Ambor[oacute] and Carrasco National Parks (Herzog and Kessler 1998).
The southern helmeted curassow is one of the least frequently
encountered bird species in South America because of the
inaccessibility of its preferred habitat and its apparent intolerance
of human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998). It has been reported
from only two Peruvian and three Bolivian localities, which are fairly
close together (Collar et al. 1992; Cox et al., as cited in Herzog and
Kessler 1998). In Bolivia, it remained unknown to science until 1937
(Cordier 1971). In Amboro National Park, the curassows are sighted
regularly on the upper Rio Saguayo (Wege and Long 1995). Field surveys
on the Peru-Bolivia border, including one in 2004, have failed to
locate any birds (BirdLife International 2007a; Herzog et al. 1999;
Herzog and Kessler 1998; Mee et al. 2000), and limited local reports
suggest that the bird is rare (Herzog et al. 1999; Herzog and Kessler
1998). In 2005, a team from Armonia Association (BirdLife in Bolivia)
saw one and heard three southern helmeted curassows (P. unicornis
koepckeae) in the Sira Mountains of central Peru--this is the first
sighting of the distinctive endemic Peruvian race since 1969 (BirdLife
International 2008).
The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 1,476 to 3,936 ft (450 to 1,200
m) (Cordier 1971; Herzog and Kessler 1998). This species prefers nuts
of the almendrillo tree (Byrsonima wadsworthii) as its major source of
food (Cordier 1971). It also consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft
plants, larvae, and insects (BirdLife International 2000).
The southern helmeted curassow was previously classified as
``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red List. After further assessment, it was
uplisted in 2005 to ``Endangered'' because the species is estimated to
be declining very rapidly due to uncontrolled hunting and habitat
destruction. It has a small range and is known from few locations in a
narrow elevational band, which continues to be subject to habitat loss
(BirdLife International 2004). The population is estimated at 10,000 to
19,999 birds, with a future projected decline over the next 10 years or
3 generations of 50 to 79 percent (BirdLife International 2007b).
Professional hunters have caused a decline in this species in Bolivia;
the species is often hunted for meat and its casque, or horn (Collar et
al. 1992), which the local people use to fashion cigarette-lighters
(Cordier 1971). Other risks to the species include forest clearing for
staple and export crops, road building, and rural development
(Dinerstein et al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a;
Fjelds[aring] in litt. 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a;
Herzog and Kessler 1998). In Peru, potential oil exploration threatens
the species' habitat (MacLeod in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife
International 2007a) and is opening the foothills to colonization and
additional hunting (BirdLife International 2007a).
Large parts of the southern helmeted curassow's range are
protected, at least on paper, by inclusion in the Amboro and Carrasco
National Parks (300,000 ha (750,000 ac) and 616,413 ha (1,175,000 ac),
respectively), which nominally protect the species from hunting and
declining habitat resulting from development and road-building,
although hunting of the curassow for meat is still reported throughout
its range (BirdLife International 2000). The Association Armonia has
being conducting field surveys to estimate the population and identify
the most important sites for this species, and are evaluating human
impact on the species' natural habitat (Llampa 2007). In addition,
Armonia is carrying out an environmental awareness project to inform
local people about this unique
[[Page 44082]]
bird (BirdLife Intenational 2008) and training workshops with the park
guards (Llampa 2007).
The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic
genus. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude as the
population is fairly large; however, the population trend has been
declining rapidly. The threats to the species are imminent and ongoing.
Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus)
The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the
Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyac[aacute].
It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (8,202-13,123 ft)
(occasionally as low as 2,100 m (6,890 ft)) in savanna and
p[aacute]ramo marshes (BirdLife International 2007). This rail
frequents wetland habitats with vegetation-rich shallows that are
surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes. It feeds along the
water's edge, in flooded pasture land, and along small overgrown dikes
and ponds (Varty et al. 1986; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990 as cited in
BirdLife International 2006). This species is omnivorous, consuming a
diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, insect larvae, worms,
molluscs, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant material (Varty et al.
1986; BirdLife International 2006).
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. Furthermore, available habitat has become
widely fragmented (BirdLife International 2007). The Ubat[eacute]-
Bogot[aacute] Plateau formerly held enormous marshes and swamps, but
few lakes with suitable habitat now remain. All major savanna wetlands
are seriously threatened, mainly by drainage, but also by agricultural
encroachment, erosion, diking, eutrophication, insecticides, tourism
and hunting activities, burning, trampling by cattle, harvesting of
reeds, fluctuating water levels, and increased water demand (BirdLife
International 2007). The current population is estimated to range
between 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the trend is decreasing
(BirdLife International 2007). Although the Bogota rail is declining,
it is still uncommon to fairly common, with some notable populations,
including nearly 400 birds at Laguna de Tota, some 50 territories at
Laguna de la Herrera, approximately 110 birds at Parque La Florida, and
other populations at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BirdLife
International 2007). Some of the birds occur in protected areas such as
Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most
savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected.
The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. Because there
are still a number of substantial subpopulations and the species has
been recorded at over 21 localities, we find it is subject to threats
that are moderate in magnitude. We find that the threats are imminent
due to the ongoing degradation of the species' wetland habitat.
Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, previously known as P. mantelli)
The Takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the
world's largest extant member of the rail family (del Hoyo et al.
1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, has been split into P. mantelli
(extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). BirdLife
International (2000) incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the
extant form, while the name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to
the extinct form. Fossils indicate that this bird was once widespread
throughout the North and South Islands. The Takahe was thought to be
extinct by the 1930s until its rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison
Mountains, Fjordland (South Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New
Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2008b). Soon after its
rediscovery, a Takahe Special Area of 193 mi\2\ (500 km\2\) was set
aside in Fiordland National Park for the conservation of Takahe
(Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2008c). Today, the species is present in the
Murchison and Stuart Mountains and has been introduced to four island
reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Mantangi, and Maud) (Collar et al.
1994). The population in the Murchison Mountains is important because
it is the only mainland population that has the potential for
sustaining a large, viable population (NZDOC 1997).
Originally, the species occurred throughout forest and grass
ecosystems. Today, Takahe occupy alpine grasslands (BirdLife
International 2007). They feed on tussock grasses during much of the
year, with snow tussocks (Chionochloa pallens, C. flavescens, and C.
crassiuscula) being their preferred food (Crouchley 1994). By June, the
snow cover usually prevents feeding above tree line, and birds move
into forested valleys in the winter and feed mainly on the rhizome of a
fern (Hypolepis millefolium). Research by Mills et al. (1980) suggested
that Takahe require the high carbohydrate concentrations in the
rhizomes of the fern to meet the metabolic requirement of
thermoregulation in the mid-winter, subfreezing temperatures. The
island populations eat introduced grasses (BirdLife International
2007). Takahe form pair bonds that persist throughout life and
generally occupy the same territory throughout life (Reid 1967). Their
territories are large, and Takahe defend them aggressively against
other Takahe, which means that they will not form dense colonies even
in very good habitat. They are long-lived birds, probably between 14
and 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997), which have a low
reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of 1-3 eggs. Only a few
pairs manage to consistently rear chicks each year. Although under
normal conditions this is generally sufficient to maintain the
population, populations recover slowly from catastrophic events
(Crouchley 1994).
The Takahe is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List,
because it has an extremely small population (BirdLife International
2006). When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the population
was about 260 pairs (del Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson 1997). By the
1970s, Takahe populations had declined dramatically and it appeared
that the species was at risk of extinction. In 1981, the population
reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. Since then, the population has
fluctuated between 100 and 180 birds (Crouchley 1994). At first,
translocated populations increased only slowly, probably due to young
pair-bonds and the quality of the founding population (Bunin et al.
1997). In recent years, the total Takahe population has had significant
growth; in 2004, there was a 13.6 percent increase in the number of
adult birds, with the number of breeding pairs up 7.9 percent (BirdLife
International 2005). As of August 2007, birds in the Takahe Special
Area had increased to 168, and the current national population was 297.
Island reserves appeared to be at carrying capacity (NZDOC 2007).
Overall, population numbers are slowly increasing due to intensive
management of the island reserve populations, but fluctuations in the
remnant mainland population continue to occur (BirdLife International
2000).
The main cause of the species' historical decline was competition
for tussock grasses by grazing red deer (Cervus elaphus), which were
introduced after the 1940s (Mills and Mark 1977). The red deer
overgrazed the Takahe's habitat, eliminating nutritious plants and
preventing some grasses from
[[Page 44083]]
seeding (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The NZDOC has controlled red deer
through an intensive hunting program in the Murchison Mountains since
the 1960s, and now the tussock grasses are close to their original
condition (BirdLife International 2005).
Predation by introduced stoats (Mustela erminea) is believed to be
a current risk to the species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995; Bunin and
Jamieson 1996; Crouchley 1994). The NZDOC is running a trial stoat
control program in a portion of the Takahe Special Area to measure the
effect on Takahe survival and productivity. Initial assessment
indicates a positive influence (NZDOC 2007). Other potential
competitors or predators include the introduced brush-tailed possum
(Trichosurus vulpecula) and the threatened weka (Gallirallus
australis), a flightless woodhen endemic to New Zealand (BirdLife
International 2007). In addition, severe weather is a natural limiting
factor to this species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995). Weather patterns in
the Murchison Mountains vary from year to year. High chick and adult
mortality may occur during extraordinarily severe winters, and poor
breeding may result from severe stormy weather during spring breeding
season (Crouchley 1994). Research confirms that severity of winter
conditions adversely affects survivorship of Takahe in the wild,
particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
Since 1983, the NZDOC has been involved in managing a captive-
breeding and release program to boost Takahe recovery. Excess eggs from
wild nests are managed to produce birds suitable for releasing back
into the wild population in the Murchison Mountains. Some of these
captive-reared birds have also been used to establish four predator-
free offshore island reserves. Since 1984, these birds have increased
the total population on islands to about 60 birds (NZDOC 2008a).
Captive-breeding efforts have increased the rate of survival of chicks
reaching 1 year of age from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997). However,
Takahe that have been translocated to the islands have higher rates of
egg infertility and low hatching success when they breed, contributing
to the slow increase in the islands' populations. Researchers
postulated that the difference in vegetation between the native
mainland grassland tussocks and that found on the islands might be
affecting reproductive success. After testing nutrients from all
available food sources, they concluded that there was no effect, and
advised that a supplementary feeding program for the birds was not
necessary or recommended (Jamieson 2003). Further research on Takahe
established on Tiritiri Matangi Island estimated that the island can
support up to 8 breeding pairs, but suggested that the ability of the
island to support Takahe is likely to decrease as the grass/shrub
ecosystem reverts to forest. The researchers concluded that although
the four island populations fulfilled their role as an insurance
against extinction on the mainland at the time of the study, given
impending habitat changes on the islands, it is unclear whether these
island populations will continue to be viable in the future without an
active management plan (Baber and Craig 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b).
Maxwell and Jamieson (1997) studied survival and recruitment of
captive-reared and wild-reared Takahe on Fiordland. They concluded that
captive rearing of Takahe for release into the wild increases
recruitment of juveniles into the population.
There is growing evidence that inbreeding can negatively affect
small, isolated populations. Jamieson et al. (2006) suggested that
limiting the potential effects of inbreeding and loss of genetic
variation should be integral to any management plan for a small,
isolated, highly-inbred island species, such as the Takahe. Failure to
address these concerns may result in reduced fitness potential and much
higher susceptibility to biotic and abiotic disturbances in the short
term and an inability to adapt to environmental change in the long
term.
The Takahe does not represent a monotypic genus. The current wild
population is small and the species' distribution is extremely limited.
It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC has
taken measures to aid the recovery of the species. The NZDOC has
implemented a successful deer control program and implemented a
captive-breeding and release program to augment the mainland population
and establish four offshore island reserves. Predation by introduced
species and reduced survivorship resulting from severe winters,
combined with the Takahe's small population size and naturally low
reproductive rate are threats to this species that are imminent and
ongoing. Therefore, this species is assigned a priority rank of 8.
Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis)
The Chatham oystercatcher is endemic to the Chatham Island group
(Marchant and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), which lies
534 mi (860 km) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group
comprises two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and numerous
smaller islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira (also referred
to as South East) and Mangere) are nature reserves, which provide
important habitat for the Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham Island
group has a biota (i.e., plants and animals in a particular area) quite
different from the mainland. The remote marine setting, distinct
climate, and physical makeup have led to a high degree of endemism
(i.e., the occurrence of species in a limited area) (Aikman et al.
2001). The southern part of the oystercatcher's 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 oystercatchers occupy their territory all year, while
juveniles and subadults form small flocks or occur alone on a vacant
section of the coast. The nest is a scrape usually on a sandy beach
just above spring-tide level or among rocks above the shoreline. On
offshore islands, nests are usually well away from the territories of
brown skua (Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi) and are often under the
cover of small bushes or rock overhangs (Heather and Robertson 1997).
This species is classified as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List,
because it has an extremely small population (BirdLife International
2006). It is listed as ``Critically Endangered'' by the NZDOC (2008a),
making it a high priority for conservation management (NZDOC 2007). In
the early 1970s the population was approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo
1996). In 1988, based on past productivity information, it was feared
that the species was at risk of extinction within 50-70 years (Davis
1988, as cited in Schmechel and Paterson 2005). However, the population
increased by 30 percent overall between 1987 and 1999, except trends
varied in different areas--increasing (northern Chatham Island, eastern
Pitt Island), stable (Mangere Island), or decreasing (south Chatham
Island, Rangatira) (Moore et al. 2001). A survey during the summer of
1987-88 recorded 100 to 110 birds (Marchant and Higgins 1993). A census
conducted in 1998 revealed 142 birds, with 34 to 41 breeding pairs
(Schmechel and O'Connor 1999). A survey undertaken in the breeding
season 1999-2000 counted 125 to 126 birds, with 50 pairs (at least 40
breeding pairs). By 2004, the oystercatcher population included 88
breeding pairs and 311 birds, more than double the number of birds
counted in 1998, when
[[Page 44084]]
the intensive management program began (NZDOC 2008c). Although the
population has significantly increased over the last 20 years, the
population on 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 population sizes can
fluctuate even on islands free from predators (BirdLife International
2006).
Predation, habitat modification, natural disasters, and disturbance
are factors that negatively impact the Chatham oystercatcher population
(NZDOC 2001). Domestic cats (Felis domesticus), weka (Gallirallus
australis), possum (Trichosurus vulpecuta), hedgehog (Erinaceus
eropaeus), pigs (Sus domestica), black-backed gulls (Larus
dominicanus), and harriers (Circus approximans) are potential predators
of the Chatham oystercatcher eggs and young chicks, with cats possibly
also preying on adults. Of these potential predators, cats and weka
have been recorded on film predating on the species (NZDOC 2001).
Rangatira and Mangere Islands are free of mammalian predators. Habitat
modification by coastal vegetation--marram (European beachgrass)
(Ammophila arenaria)--appears to have adversely affected oystercatcher
breeding in northern locations on Chatham Island. At sites where marram
has become established, the beach profile becomes steeper and the dune
face moves closer to the high-water mark. Since oystercatchers prefer
to nest in more open areas, the occurrence of marram appears to have
forced the oystercatchers to nest further down the beach, where the
spring tides or storm surges are more likely to destroy nests. The
vegetation also creates a relatively dense cover that can conceal
predators. During nesting, Chatham oystercatchers are sensitive to
disturbance by people, farm stock, and dogs. Also, vehicles run over
nests, and domestic sheep and cattle, which regularly use the beaches
in northern Chatham Island, trample nests (NZDOC 2001).
The birds of the Chatham Island group are protected due to human
intervention and management. The NZDOC focused conservation efforts in
the early 1990s on predator trapping and fencing to limit domestic
stock access to nesting areas. Some nests were moved away from the high
tide mark, and nest manipulation may have helped to increase hatching
success (NZDOC 2008b). In 2001, the NZDOC published a Chatham Island
oystercatcher recovery plan covering the period 2001 through 2011. Nest
manipulation, fencing, signage, intensive predator control, and a
research program aimed at assessing the effects of predators, flooding,
and management on breeding success have been underway for several years
(BirdLife International 2006).
The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The
current population has 311 individuals and the species only occurs on
the small Chatham Island group. It faces threats that are moderate in
magnitude because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the recovery of
the species. Threats are imminent and ongoing. Therefore, it receives a
priority rank of 8.
Orange-Fronted Parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi)
The orange-fronted parakeet, also known as Malherbe's parakeet, was
treated as an individual species until it was proposed to be a color
morph of the yellow-crowned parakeet, C. auriceps, in 1974 (Holyoak
1974). Further taxonomic analysis suggested that it should once again
be considered a distinct species (Kearvell et al. 2003; ITIS 2008).
At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout
most of New Zealand, although the two records from the North Island are
thought dubious (Harrison 1970). This species has never been common
(Mills and Williams 1979). During the nineteenth century, the species'
distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a few other
offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2008c). Currently, there are
four known remaining populations, all located within an 18.6-mi (30-km)
radius in beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys within
Arthur's Pass National Park and Lake Sumner Forest Park in Canterbury,
South Island (NZDOC 2008b) and two populations established on Chalky
and Maud Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007). This species inhabits
southern beech forests, with a preference for locales bordering stands
of mountain beech (N. solandri) (del Hoyo 1997; Snyder et al. 2000;
Kearvell 2002). It is reliant on old mature beech trees with natural
cavities or hollows for nesting. Breeding is linked with the irregular
seed production by Nothofagus; in mast years with a high abundance of
seeds, parakeet numbers can increase substantially. In addition to
eating seeds, the orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits, leaves,
flowers, buds, and invertebrates (BirdLife International 2000).
The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small population and
limited range. The species is listed as ``Critically Endangered'' on
the IUCN Red List, ``because it underwent a population crash following
rat invasions in 1990-2000, and it now has a tiny, severely fragmented,
and declining population'' (BirdLife International 2006). It is listed
in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2008). The NZDOC (2008c) considers the
orange-fronted parakeet, or kekeriki, to be the rarest parakeet in New
Zealand. Because it is classified as ``Nationally Critical'' with a
high risk of extinction, the NZDOC has been working intensively with
the species to ensure its survival. The population is estimated at 100
to 200 individuals in the wild and declining (NZDOC 2008c).
There are several reasons for the species' continuing decline; one
of the most prominent risks to the species is believed to be predation
by introduced species, such as stoats (Mustela erminea) and rats
(Rattus spp.) (BirdLife International 2007a). Large numbers of stoats
and rats in beech forests cause large losses of parakeets. Stoats and
rats are excellent hunters on the ground and in trees. When they
exploit parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes, they particularly
impact females, chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2008d). The NZDOC introduced
``Operation ARK,'' an initiative to respond to predator problems in
beech forests to prevent species' extinctions, including orange-fronted
parakeets. Predators are methodically controlled with traps, toxins in
bait stations, bait bags, and aerial spraying, when necessary (NZDOC
2008e). Despite these controls, predation by introduced species is
still a threat because they have not been eradicated from this species'
range.
Habitat loss and degradation are also considered threats to the
orange-fronted parakeet (BirdLife International 2007b). Large areas of
native forest have been felled or burnt, decreasing the habitat
available for parakeets (NZDOC 2008d). Silviculture of beech forests
aims to harvest trees at an age when few will become mature enough to
develop suitable cavities for orange-fronted parakeets (Kearvell 2002).
The habitat is also degraded by brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus
vulpecula), cattle, and deer browsing on plants and changing the forest
structure (NZDOC 2008d). This is a problem for the orange-fronted
parakeet which uses ground and low growing shrubs while feeding
(Kearvell et al. 2002).
Snyder et al. (2000) reported that hybridization with yellow-
crowned parakeets had been observed at Lake Sumner. Other risks include
increased competition between the orange-fronted parakeet and the
yellow-crowned parakeet in a habitat substantially modified by humans,
competition with introduced finch species, and
[[Page 44085]]
competition with introduced wasps (Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica)
for invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002).
The NZDOC closely monitors all known populations of the orange-
fronted parakeet. Nest searches are conducted, nest holes are
inspected, and surveys are carried out in other areas to look for
evidence of other populations. In fact, the surveys successfully
located another orange-fronted parakeet population in May 2003 (NZDOC
2008e). 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 2008e). A second self-sustaining population has been
established on Maud Island (NZDOC 2008a).
The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus.
The current wild population ranges between 100 and 200 individuals, and
the species' distribution is extremely limited. It faces threats that
are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC has taken important
measures to aid in the recovery of the species. The NZDOC implemented a
successful captive-breeding program for the orange-fronted parakeet.
Using captive-bred birds from the program, NZDOC established two self-
sustaining populations of the orange-fronted parakeet on predator-free
islands. The NZDOC monitors wild nest sites and is constantly looking
for new nests and new populations, as evidenced by the 2003 discovery
of a new population. Finally, the NZDOC determined that the species'
largest threat is predation and initiated a successful program to
remove predators. The threats of competition for food and highly
altered habitat are imminent and ongoing. Therefore, this species is
assigned a priority rank of 8 (Note: the priority rank was mistakenly
listed as 4 in the 2007 Notice of Review; a species that has imminent
threats of moderate to low magnitude is assigned a priority ranking of
8, as per the Service's 1983 Listing Priority Guidance (48 FR 43098)).
Uvea Parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis)
This species, previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus, is
currently treated as two species, E. cornutus and E. uvaeensis
(BirdLife International 2007a). The Uvea parakeet is found only on the
small island of Uvea in the Loyalty Archipelago, New Caledonia
(Territory of France); the island is only 42 mi\2\ (110 km\2\) (Juniper
and Parr 1998). The Uvea parakeet is found primarily in old-growth
forests, notably, those dominated by Agathis australis pines (del Hoyo
et al. 1997). Most birds occur in about 7.7 mi\2\ (20 km\2\) of forest
in the north, although some individuals are found in strips of forest
on the northwest isthmus and in the southern part of the island, with a
total area of potential habitat of approximately 25.5 mi\2\ (66 km\2\)
(BirdLife International 2007a; CITES 2000b). The Uvea parakeet feeds on
the berries of vines and the flowers and seeds of native trees and
shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997). It also feeds on crops in adjacent
cultivated land, and the greatest number of birds occurs close to
gardens with papayas, which they utilize as food (BirdLife
International 2007a). The species nests in cavities of native trees,
and has a clutch size of 2 to 3 eggs with some double clutches (Robinet
and Salas 1999).
Early population estimates were alarmingly low--70 to 90 birds and
declining (Hahn 1993). Surveys by Robinet et al. (1996) in 1993 yielded
estimates of approximately 600 birds. In 1999, it was believed that 742
individuals lived in northern Uvea, with 82 birds living in the south
(Primot 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a).
The species is listed as ``Endangered'' in the IUCN Red List,
because it occupies a very small, declining area of forest on one small
island (BirdLife International 2004). The species 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 unsustainable trade of the species (CITES 2000b).
Identified risks to the Uvea parakeet include habitat loss, capture
of juveniles for the pet trade, and predation (BirdLife International
2007b). The forest habitat of the Uvea parakeet is threatened by
clearance for agriculture and logging. In 30 years, approximately 30 to
50 percent of primary forest has been destroyed (Robinet et al. 1996).
The island has a young and increasing human population of almost 4,000
inhabitants. The increase in population will most probably lead to more
destruction of forest for housing, cultivated fields, and plantations,
especially coconut palms, the island's main source of income (CITES
2000a). The species is also put at risk by the illegal pet trade,
mainly for the domestic market (BirdLife International 2007a). Nesting
holes are cut open to extract nestlings, rendering the holes unsuitable
for future nesting. The increasing lack of nesting sites is believed to
be a limiting factor for the species (BirdLife International 2007a).
Also, Robinet et al. (1996) suggested that although the impact of
capture of juveniles on the viability of populations is not obvious
with long-lived species that are capable of re-nesting, such as the
Uvea parakeet, the current capture of 30 to 50 young Uvea parakeets
each year by humans for pets may be unsustainable. In a study of the
reproductive biology of the Uvea parakeet, Robinet and Salas (1999)
found that the main causes of chick death were starvation of the third
chick during the first week, raptor (presumably the native brown
goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus)) predation of fledglings, and human
harvest for the pet trade.
Although the Uvea parakeet has a number of predators, the absence
of the ship rat (Rattus rattus) and Norwegian rat (R. norvegicus) on
Uvea is a major factor contributing to its survival. There is concern
that these rats may be introduced in the future (CITES 2000b).
Introductions of Uvea parakeets to the adjacent island of Lifou (to
establish a second population) in 1925 and 1963 failed (BirdLife
International 2007a), possibly due to the presence of ship rats and
Norwegian rats (Robinet in litt. 1997, as cited in Snyder et al. 2000).
Robinet et al. (1998) studied the impact of rats in Uvea and Lifou on
the Uvea parakeet. They concluded that Lifou is not a suitable place
for translocating Uvea parakeets unless active habitat management is
carried out to protect it from ship rats. They also suggested that it
would be valuable to apply low intensity rat control of the Pacific rat
(R. exulans) in Uvea immediately before the parakeet breeding season.
A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet was prepared for the period
1997-2002, which included strong local participation in population and
habitat monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997, as cited in Snyder et al.
2000). The species has recently increased in popularity and is
celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; Primot in litt.
1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a). Conservation actions,
including in-situ management (habitat protection and restoration),
recovery efforts (providing nest boxes and food), and public education
on the protection of the parakeet and its habitat, are underway
(Robinet et al. 1996). Increased awareness of the plight of the species
and improvements in law
[[Page 44086]]
enforcement capability are helping to address illegal trade of the
species. In 1998, a captive-breeding program was initiated to restock
the southern portion of Uvea. Measures are now being taken to control
predators and prevent further colonization by rats (BirdLife
International 2007a). Current Uvea parakeet numbers are increasing, but
any relaxation of conservation efforts or introduction of nonnative
rats or other predators could lead to a rapid decline of the species
(BirdLife International 2007a).
The Uvea parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces
threats that are moderate in magnitude because important management
efforts have been put in place to aid in the recovery of the species.
However, all of these efforts must continue to function, because this
species is an island endemic with restricted habitat in one location.
Threats to the species are imminent because illegal trade still occurs
and the removal of 30 to 50 percent of the old-growth forest, which the
birds are dependent upon for nesting holes, negatively impacts the
reproductive requirements of the species. We assign this species a
priority rank of 8.
Blue-Throated Macaw (Ara glaucogularis)
The blue-throated macaw is endemic to forest islands in the
seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de Mojos) of Central Bolivia
(Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997). It inhabits a
mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm groves, forest islands,
and humid lowlands. This species is found in areas where palm-fruit
food is available, especially Attalea phalerata (Jordan and Munn 1993;
Yamashita and de Barros 1997). It inhabits elevations between 656 and
984 ft (200 and 300 m) (BirdLife International 2008c; Brace et al.
1995; Yamashita and de Barros 1997). These macaws are not found to
congregate in large flocks; but are seen most commonly traveling in
pairs, and on rare occasions may be found in small flocks (Collar et
al. 1992). The blue-throated macaw nests between November and March in
large tree cavities where one to two young are raised (BirdLife
International 2000).
The taxonomic status of this species was long disputed, primarily
because the species was unknown in the wild to biologists until 1992.
Previously it was considered an aberrant form of the blue-and-yellow
macaw (A. ararauna), but the two species are now known to occur
sympatrically without interbreeding (del Hoyo et al. 1997). BirdLife
International (2008c) estimated there are between 50 and 249 mature
individuals in the wild, and the population has some fragmentation and
is decreasing.
This species was historically at risk from trapping for the
national and international cage-bird trade, and some illegal trade may
still be occurring. Between the early 1980s and early 1990s,
approximately 400 to 1,200 birds were exported from Bolivia, and many
are now in captivity in the European Union and in North America (World
Parrot Trust 2003). In 1984, Bolivia outlawed the export of live
parrots (Brace et al. 1995). However, in 1993 (Jordan and Munn 1993) it
was reported that an Argentinian bird dealer was offering illegal
Bolivian dealers a high price for blue-throated macaws. Armonia
Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) monitored the wild birds that passed
through a pet market in Santa Cruz from August 2004 to July 2005.
Although nearly 7,300 parrots were recorded in trade, the blue-throated
macaw was absent in the market during the monitoring period, which may
point to the effectiveness of the ongoing conservation programs in
Bolivia (BirdLife International 2007). There are a number of blue-
throated macaws in captivity, with over 1,000 registered in the North
American studbook. Because these birds are not too difficult to breed,
the supply of captive-bred birds has increased (Waugh 2007), helping to
alleviate pressure on illegal collecting of wild birds, but not
completely eliminating illegal collection.
The blue-throated macaw is also at risk from habitat loss and
possible competition from other birds, such as other macaws, toucans,
and large woodpeckers (BirdLife International 2008b; World Parrot Trust
2008). All known sites of the blue-throated macaw are on private cattle
ranches, where local ranchers typically burn the pasture annually (del
Hoyo 1997). This results in almost no recruitment of palm trees, which
are central to the ecological needs of the blue-throated macaw
(Yamashita and de Barros (1977)). In addition, in Beni many palms are
cut down by the local people for firewood (Brace et al. 1995). Thus,
although the palm groves are more than 500 years old, Yamashita and de
Barros (1977) concluded that the palm population structure suggests
long-term decline.
This species is categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' on the
IUCN Red List, ``because its population is extremely small and each
isolated subpopulation is probably tiny and declining as a result of
illegal trade'' (BirdLife International 2004). It is listed in Appendix
I of CITES (CITES 2006) and is legally protected in Bolivia (Juniper
and Parr 1998). The Eco Bolivia Foundation patrols existing macaw
habitat by foot and motorbike, and the Armonia Association is searching
the Beni lowlands for more populations (Snyder et al. 2000).
Additionally, the Armonia Association is building an awareness campaign
aimed at the cattlemen's association to ensure that the protection and
conservation of these birds is at a local level (e.g., protection of
macaws from trappers and the sensible management of key habitats, such
as palm groves and forest islands, on their property) (BirdLife
International 2008a; Llampa 2007; Snyder et al. 2000).
The blue-throated macaw does not represent a monotypic genus. It
faces threats that are moderate in magnitude because wild birds are no
longer taken for the legal wild-bird trade as a result of the species'
CITES listing, and it is also legally protected in Bolivia. Wildlife
managers in Bolivia are actively protecting the species and searching
for additional populations. Threats to the species are imminent and
ongoing because hunters still trap the birds for the illegal bird trade
and annual burning on private ranches continues. Therefore, we assigned
this species a priority rank of 8.
Helmeted Woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus)
The helmeted woodpecker is endemic to the southern Atlantic forest
region of southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern
Argentina (BirdLife International 2007). It is found in tall lowland
and montane primary forest, in forest that has been selectively logged,
and generally near large tracts of intact forest (BirdLife
International 2007). This woodpecker feeds on beetle larvae which live
beneath tree bark. The species forages primarily in the middle canopy
of the forest interior (del Hoyo et al. 2002).
Recent field work on the helmeted woodpecker revealed that the
species is less rare than once thought (BirdLife International 2007).
It is listed as ``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN (BirdLife International
2007). The current population is estimated at between 10,000 and 19,999
individuals and decreasing (BirdLife International 2000). This estimate
has a wide range, because the species is almost certainly underreported
due to the difficulty of locating birds except when vocalizing, and
since they are silent for much of the year. Numerous sightings since
the mid-1980s include a pair in the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina
in 1998, where the species had not been seen since
[[Page 44087]]
1946 (del Hoyo et al. 2002). Research is needed to clarify the species'
current distribution and status (del Hoyo et al. 2002).
The greatest threat to the species is widespread deforestation, and
the species is not common at any known site (BirdLife International
2007; Cockle 2008). In the Atlantic forest, more than 90% of the forest
has been replaced by crops and pastures, and nearly all remaining
forest has been subject to selective logging of large trees, with
potentially severe consequences for cavity nesting birds such as
woodpeckers; selectively logged forest contains significantly fewer
nesting cavities than primary forest (Cockle 2008).
The helmeted woodpecker is protected by Brazilian law and
populations occur in numerous protected areas throughout its range
(BirdLife International 2007). These protections prohibit the following
activities with regard to this species: export and international trade,
collection and research, captive propagation, and also provide measures
which help to protect remaining suitable habitat, such as prohibition
of exploitation of the remaining primary forests within the Atlantic
forest biome and management of various practices in primary and
secondary forests, such as logging, charcoal production, reforestation,
recreation, and water resources (ECOLEX 2007). However, for various
reasons (e.g., lack of funding, personnel, or local management
commitment), Brazil's current capacity to achieve its stated natural
resource objectives in protected areas is limited (ADEJA 2007; Bruner
et al. 2001; Costa 2007; IUCN 1999; Neotropical News 1996; Neotropical
News 1999). Therefore, it is likely that not all of the habitat
protections for the helmeted woodpecker would be sufficiently addressed
at these sites. The helmeted woodpecker does not represent a monotypic
genus. The magnitude of threat to the species is moderate because the
population is much larger than previously thought; however, the threat
is imminent because the forest habitat, in particular, the availability
of nesting cavities upon which the species depends, is being reduced by
human activities. It therefore, receives a priority rank of 8.
Okinawa Woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii, previously known as
Sapheopipo noguchii)
The Okinawa woodpecker lives in the northern hills of Okinawa
Island, Japan. Okinawa is the largest island of the Ryukyus Islands, a
small island chain located between Japan and Taiwan (Brazil, 1991;
Stattersfield et al. 1998; Winkler et al. 2005). This species is
confined to Kunigami-gun, or Yambaru, with its main breeding areas
located along the mountain ridges between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-
take, although it also nests in well-forested coastal areas (Research
Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as cited in BirdLife
International 2001). It prefers undisturbed, mature, subtropical
evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall trees greater than 7.9 in (20
cm) in diameter (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982). Trees of this size are
generally more than 30 years old and are confined to hilltops (Brazil
1991). Places with conifers appear to be avoided (Short 1973; Winkler
et al. 1995). The Okinawa woodpecker has been sighted just south of
Tanodake in an area of entirely secondary forest that was too young for
nest building, but Brazil (1991) thought this may have involved birds
displaced by the clearing of mature forests. The Okinawa woodpecker
feeds on large arthropods, notably beetle larvae, spiders, moths, and
centipedes, fruit, berries, seeds, acorns, and other nuts (del Hoyo
2002; Short 1982; Winkler et al. 2005). They forage in old-growth
forests with large, often moribund trees, accumulated fallen trees,
rotting stumps, debris, and undergrowth (Brazil 1991; Short 1973). This
woodpecker nests in holes excavated in large old trees, often a hollow
in Castanopsis cuspidata trees (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982).
Until recently the Okinawa woodpecker was considered to belong to
the monotypic genus Sapheopipo. This view was based on similarities in
color patterns, external morphology, and foraging behavior. Winkler et
al. (2005) analyzed partial nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial genes
and concluded that this woodpecker belongs in the genus Dendrocopos.
Given the other species in this genus, the Okinawa woodpecker is no
longer considered to belong to a monotypic genus.
The Okinawa woodpecker is considered one of the world's rarest
extant woodpecker species (Winkler et al. 2005). The elimination of
forests by logging and the cutting and gathering of wood for firewood
are the main causes of its small and lessening numbers (Short 1982),
but the greatest danger to this woodpecker is the fragmentation of its
population into scattered tiny colonies and isolated pairs (Short
1973). The species is categorized on the IUCN Red List as ``Critically
Endangered,'' because it is comprised of a single diminutive, declining
population, which is put at risk by the continued loss of old-growth
and mature forest to logging, dam construction, agricultural clearing,
and golf course construction. Its limited range and tiny population
make it vulnerable to extinction from disease and natural disasters
such as typhoons (BirdLife International 2004). During the 1930s, the
Okinawa woodpecker was considered nearly extinct. By the early 1990s,
the breeding population was estimated to be about 75 birds (BirdLife
International 2008a). The current population estimate ranges between
146 and 584 individuals, with a projected future 10-year decline of 30
to 49 percent (BirdLife International 2008b). The species is legally
protected in Japan and occurs in small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and
Mt. Nishime (BirdLife International 2008a). The Yambaru, a forest area
in the Okinawa Prefecture, was designated as a national park in 1996,
and conservation organizations have purchased sites where the
woodpecker occurs to establish private wildlife preserves (del Hoyo et
al. 2002).
The Okinawa woodpecker faces threats that are moderate in magnitude
because the species is legally protected in Japan and its range occurs
in several protected areas. However, the threats to the species are
imminent because the old-growth habitat, upon which the species is
dependent, continues to be removed, and preferable habitat continues to
be altered for agriculture and golf courses. It therefore receives a
priority rank of 8 (Note: The priority number was changed from 7 to 8
because of the recent research showing that the Okinawa woodpecker
belongs to a different genus and is no longer considered a monotypic
species).
Yellow-Browed Toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae)
The yellow-browed toucanet is known from only two localities in
north-central Peru--La Libertad, where it is uncommon, and Rio Abiseo
National Park, San Martin, where it is very rare (BirdLife
International 2008; del Hoyo et al. 2002; Wege and Long 1995). Its
estimated range is only 174 mi2 (450 km2)
(BirdLife International 2008). There have been recent reports of the
species from Leymebambe (T. Mark in litt. 2003, as cited in BirdLife
International 2008). It inhabits a narrow altitudinal range between
6,970 and 8,232 ft (2,125 and 2,510 m), preferring the canopy of humid,
ephiphyte-laden montane cloud forests, particularly areas that support
Clusia trees (del Hoyo et al. 2002; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990;
Schulenberg and Parker 1997). This narrow distributional band may be
related to the occurrence of the larger
[[Page 44088]]
grey-breasted mountain toucan (Andigena hypoglauca) above 7,544 ft
(2,300 m) and to the occurrence of the emerald toucanet (Aulacorhynchus
prasinus) below 6,888 ft (2,100 m) (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The
species' restricted range remains unexplained, and recent information
indicates that both of the suggested competitors have wider altitudinal
ranges which completely encompass the range of the yellow-browed
toucanet (Clements and Shany 2001, as cited in BirdLife International
2008; Collar et al. 1992; del Hoyo et al. 2002; J. Hornbuckle in litt.
1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2008). The yellow-browed
toucanet does not appear to occupy all potentially suitable forest
available within its range (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). Although it
occurs within the large Rio Abiseo National Park, the population in the
reserve is thought to be small (BirdLife International 2004; del Hoyo
2002).
Deforestation has been widespread in this region, but has largely
occurred below the toucanet's altitudinal range (BirdLife International
2008; Barnes et al. 1995). However, coca growers have taken over
forests within its altitudinal range, probably resulting in some
reductions in the species' range and population (BirdLife International
2004; Plenge in litt. 1993, as cited in BirdLife International 2008).
Nevertheless, much forest remains within the range of the yellow-browed
toucanet, and most of the area is only lightly settled by humans; the
limited range of this species is not well explained relative to the
threats reported (BirdLife International 2008; Schulenberg and Parker
1997).
It is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List, because of its
very small range and extant population records from only two locations
(BirdLife International 2004). The current population size is unknown,
but the population trend is believed to be decreasing (BirdLife
International 2008).
The yellow-browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus.
The magnitude of threat to the species is moderate, since habitat loss
is largely recorded outside its range, and non-imminent due to the
uncertainty of ongoing habitat loss from cocoa growers. Therefore, it
receives a priority rank of 11.
Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis)
The Brasilia tapaculo is found in swampy gallery forest, disturbed
areas of thick streamside vegetation, and dense secondary growth of the
bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum, from Goi[aacute]s, the Federal
District, and Minas Gerais, Brazil (Negret and Cavalcanti 1985, as
cited in Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1992; BirdLife International
2007). The Brasilia Tapaculo will occasionally colonize disturbed areas
near streams (BirdLife International 2003). This species has only been
recorded locally within Formas in Goi[aacute]s, around Bras[iacute]lia.
Particular sites where the species has been located, at low densities,
include Serra Negra (on the upper Dourados River) and the headwaters of
the S[atilde]o Francisco, both in Minas Gerais; and Serra do
Cip[oacute] and Cara[ccedil]a in the hills and tablelands of central
Brazil (BirdLife International 2003).
Although the species was once considered rare (Sick and Texeira
1979, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it is now found in reasonable
numbers in certain areas of Brasilia (D. M. Teixeira, in litt. 1987, as
cited in Collar et al. 1992). The population is estimated at more than
10,000 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife
International 2007). The IUCN categorizes Scytalopus novacapitalis as
``Near Threatened'' (BirdLife International 2007). The species occupies
a very limited range and is presumably losing habitat around Brasilia.
However, its distribution now appears larger than initially believed,
and the swampy gallery forests where it is found are not conducive for
forest clearing, leaving the species' habitat less vulnerable to this
threat than previously thought. However, dam building for irrigation on
rivers which normally flood gallery forests is an emerging threat
(Antas 2007; D. M. Teixeira in litt. 1987, as cited in Collar et al.
1992). The majority of locations of this species lie within established
reserves, and both fire risk and drainage impacts are reduced in these
areas (Antas 2007). The Brasilia tapaculo is currently protected by
Brazilian law (Bernardes et al. 1990, as cited in Collar et al. 1992),
and it is found in six protected areas (Machado et al. 1998, Wege and
Long 1995; as cited in BirdLife International 2007). Annual burning of
adjacent grasslands limits the extent and availability of suitable
habitat, as does wetland drainage and the sequestration of water for
irrigation (Machado et al. 1998, as cited in BirdLife International
2007).
The Brasilia tapaculo does not represent a monotypic genus. The
magnitude of threat to the species is moderate because the population
is much larger than previously believed and preferred habitat is swampy
and difficult to clear. Threats are imminent, however, because habitat
is being drained or dammed for agricultural irrigation, and grassland
burning limits the extent of suitable habitat. Therefore, it receives a
priority rank of 8.
Codfish Island Fernbird (Bowdleria punctata wilsoni)
The Codfish Island fernbird is found only on Codfish Island--a
Nature Reserve of 3,448 ac (1,396 ha)--located 1.8 mi (3 km) off the
northwest coast of Stewart Island, New Zealand (IUCN 1979; McClelland
2007). There are five subspecies of fernbirds, each restricted to a
single island and its outlying islands. The North and South Islands'
subspecies are widespread and locally common. The Stewart Island and
Snares' subspecies are moderately abundant (Heather and Robertson,
1997). In 1966, the status of the Codfish Island subspecies was
considered relatively safe (Blackburn 1967), but estimates dating from
1975 indicated a gradually declining population numbering approximately
100 individuals (Bell 1975, as cited in IUCN 1979). McClelland (2007)
wrote that in the past the subspecies was restricted to low shrubland
on the top of Codfish Island with a few individuals around the coastal
shrubland; the birds are thought to have been eliminated from forest
habitat by the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) (McClelland 2007). The
IUCN (1979) concluded that the subspecies' absence from areas of
Codfish Island that it had formerly occupied in the mid-1970s evidenced
a decline.
Fernbirds are sedentary, and their flight is weak. 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 herbivore, the Australian brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus
vulpecula). 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). Several conservation
measures have been undertaken by the New Zealand DOC. The weka and
possum were eradicated from Codfish Island in 1984 and 1987,
respectively (McClelland 2007). The Polynesian rat was eradicated in
1997 (Conservation News 2002; McClelland 2007). The Codfish Island
fernbird population is rebounding strongly with the removal of invasive
predator species. The fernbird invaded the forest habitat, which
greatly expanded the species' available habitat. Although there is no
accurate estimate on the current size of the population (estimates
[[Page 44089]]
are based on incidental encounter rates in the various habitat types on
the island), the current population is believed to be several hundred.
Thus, McClelland (2007) concluded that it is likely that the population
has peaked and is now stable.
To safeguard the Codfish Island fernbird, the NZDOC established a
second population on Putauhinu Island--a small (356-ac (144-ha)),
privately owned island located approximately 25 mi (40 km) south of
Codfish Island. The Putauhinu population established rapidly, and
McClelland (2007) reported it is believed to be stable. While there are
no accurate data on the population size or trends, the population is
estimated to be 200 to 300 birds spread over the island (McClelland
2007).
The Codfish Island fernbird is a subspecies that is now facing
threats that are low to moderate in magnitude because the removal of
invasive predator species and the establishment of a second population
have allowed for a strong rebound in the subspecies' population.
Threats are non-imminent because conservation measures have eradicated
nonnative predatory species from Codfish Island. However, even though
efforts to remove nonnative predators have been successful, there is a
continued risk that predators will be re-introduced to the island by
boats transporting conservation and research staff to the islands.
Given continued low numbers, with two populations in the low hundreds,
we find that introduced predators remain a threat to this subspecies,
though non-imminent.
The subspecies, therefore, receives a priority rank of 12 (Note:
the priority rank was mistakenly listed as 9 in the 2007 Notice of
Review; a subspecies that has non-imminent threats of moderate to low
magnitude is assigned a priority ranking of 12, as per the Service's
1983 Listing Priority Guidance (48 FR 43098)).
Ghizo White-Eye (Zosterops luteirostris)
The Ghizo white-eye is endemic to Ghizo, a very densely populated
island in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific (BirdLife
International 2007a). Birds are locally common in the remaining tall or
old-growth forest, which is very fragmented and comprises less than
0.39 mi\2\ (1 km\2\). It is less common in scrub close to large trees
and in plantations (Buckingham et al. 1995 and Gibbs 1996, as cited in
BirdLife International 2007a), and it is not known whether these two
habitats can support sustainable breeding populations (Buckingham et
al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a). 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. It
further notes that the species would be classified as ``Critically
Endangered'' if the species' range was judged to be severely fragmented
(BirdLife International 2007c). The population estimate for this
species is 250 to 999 birds. While there are no data on population
trends, the species is suspected to be declining due to habitat
degradation (BirdLife International 2007b). The very tall old-growth
forest on Ghizo is still under some threat from clearance for local use
as timber, firewood, and gardens, and the areas of other secondary
growth, which are suboptimal habitats for this species, are under
considerable threat from clearance for agricultural land (BirdLife
International 2007a).
The Ghizo white-eye does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces
threats that are moderate in magnitude because forest clearing, while a
concern, does not appear to be proceeding at a pace to rapidly denude
the habitat. Threats are imminent because the old-growth forest which
the species is dependent upon is still being cleared for local use, and
secondary growth is being converted for agricultural purposes.
Therefore, we assign the species a priority rank of 8.
Black-Backed Tanager (Tangara peruviana)
The black-backed tanager is endemic to the coastal Atlantic forest
region of southeastern Brazil, with records from Rio de Janeiro, Sao
Paolo, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and Espirito Santo
(Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife International
2006). It is largely restricted to coastal sand-plain forest and
littoral scrub, or restinga, and has also been located in secondary
forests (BirdLife International 2007). The black-backed tanager is
generally not considered rare within suitable habitat (BirdLife
International 2007). It has a complex distribution with periodic local
fluctuations in numbers owing to seasonal movements, at least in Rio de
Janeiro and Sao Paolo (BirdLife International 2007). Clarification of
the species' seasonal movements will provide an improved understanding
of the species' population status and distribution (BirdLife
International 2007). Population estimates range from 2,500 to 10,000
individuals (BirdLife International 2007), and it is considered
``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN (BirdLife International 2007). The species
is negatively impacted by the rapid and widespread loss of habitat for
beachfront development and occasionally appears in the illegal cage-
bird trade (BirdLife International 2006).
The black-backed tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. The
threat to the species is low to moderate in magnitude due to the
species' fairly large population size and range. The threat is,
however, imminent because the species is put at risk by ongoing rapid
and widespread loss of habitat due to beachfront development.
Therefore, we give this species a priority rank of 8 (Note: the
priority rank was mistakenly listed as 9 in the 2007 Notice of Review;
a species that has imminent threats of moderate to low magnitude is
assigned a priority ranking of 8, as per the Service's 1983 Listing
Priority Guidance (48 FR 43098)).
Lord Howe Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis)
The Lord Howe pied currawong is a separate subspecies from the five
Australian mainland pied currawongs. It is endemic to the Lord Howe
Island, New South Wales, Australia. The highly mobile birds can be
found anywhere on the 7.7-mi\2\ (20-km\2\) island (Hutton 1991), as
well as on offshore islands such as the Admiralty group (Garnett and
Crowley 2000). The Lord Howe pied currawong breeds in rainforests and
palm forests, particularly along streams. Their territories include
sections of streams or gullies that are lined by tall timber (Garnett
and Crowley 2000). The highest densities of nests are located on the
slopes of Mt. 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 nest is placed high in a tree and is made of a cup
of sticks lined with grass and palm thatch (Department of Environment &
Climate Change (DECC) 2005). Most of the island is still forested, and
the removal of introduced feral animals has resulted in the recovery of
the forest understory (World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2001).
The Lord Howe pied currawong is omnivorous and eats a wide variety
of food, including native fruits and seeds (Hutton 1991), and is the
only remaining native island vertebrate predator (DECC 2005). It has
been recorded taking seabird chicks, poultry, and chicks of the Lord
Howe woodhen (Tricholimnas sylvestris) and white tern (Gygis alba).
Currawongs also feed on dead rats and have been observed to catch live
rats and eat them (Hutton 1991). A Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) scientist observed that food brought to nestlings
was, in
[[Page 44090]]
decreasing order, invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, and nestlings of
other bird species (Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB) 2006).
The Lord Howe pied currawong is listed as ``Vulnerable'' under the
New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995, because it
has a limited range, only occurring on Lord Howe Island (DECC 2004). It
also is listed as ``Vulnerable'' under the Commonwealth Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. These laws
provide a legislative framework to protect and encourage the recovery
of vulnerable species (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 for, control, and manage the island; and
established 75 percent of the land area as a Permanent Park Preserve
(DEC 2006a). In 1982, the island was inscribed on the World Heritage
List for its outstanding natural universal values (Department of the
Environment and Water Resources 2007).
In the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000 (Garnett and Crowley
2000), the population was estimated at approximately 80 mature
individuals. In 2006, initial results from a color band survey
suggested that the population size was about 180 to 200 individual
birds (LHIB 2006). Complete results reported by the Foundation for
National Parks & Wildlife (2007) estimated the breeding population to
be 80 to 100 pairs, with a nesting territory in the tall forest areas
of about 12 ac (5 ha) per pair. The population size is limited by the
amount of available habitat and the lack of food during the winter
(Foundation for National Parks & Wildlife 2007).
The Lord Howe Island draft Biodiversity Management Plan, which was
out for comment in 2006, will become the formal National and NSW
Recovery Plan (Plan) for threatened species and communities of the Lord
Howe Island Group (DEC 2006a). The main current threat identified for
the Lord Howe Island currawong is habitat clearing and modification
(DEC 2006b). 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 (DEC 2006a). Although
large-scale clearing of native vegetation no longer occurs on Lord Howe
Island, the impact of vegetation clearing on a small scale needs to be
assessed (DEC 2006a). A lesser current risk to the species, but one
which may account for its historical decline and continued low numbers,
is human interactions (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Prior to the 1970s,
locals would shoot currawongs due to the bird's habit of preying on
nestling birds (Hutton 1991), and the currawongs remain unpopular with
some residents. It is unknown what effect this localized killing has on
the overall population size and distribution of this species (Garnett
and Crowley 2000). Also, currawongs often prey on ship (black) rats and
consequently may suffer mortality from non-target poisoning during rat-
baiting programs (DEC 2006b). Close monitoring of the population is
needed because this small, endemic population is susceptible to the
introduction of avian disease or of new predators (Garnett and Crowley
2000). There is a long history of introduction of nonnative fauna
(e.g., 18 introduced land birds, and 3 mammals now resident), and the
introduction to Lord Howe Island of new exotic fauna and flora
(including disease), by air or ship, is considered a major ongoing
threat to endemic species, including the Lord Howe pied currawong (DEC
2006a).
The Lord Howe pied currawong is a subspecies facing threats that
are low in magnitude and non-imminent. Therefore, it receives a
priority rank of 12.
Invertebrates
Harris' Mimic Swallowtail (Eurytides (syn. Mimoides) lysithous
harrisianus)
Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies endemic to Brazil
(Collins and Morris 1985). Although the species' range includes
Paraguay, the subspecies has not been confirmed there (Collins and
Morris 1985; Finnish University and Research Network (Funet) 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 (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985).
This subspecies is polyphagous, meaning that its larvae feed on more
than one plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). Information on preferred
hostplants and adult nectar-sources was published in the 12-month
finding (69 FR 70580). This subspecies mimics at least three Parides
species, including the fluminense swallowtail; details on mimicry were
provided in the 12-month finding (69 FR 70580) and in the 2007 Notice
of Review (72 FR 20184). Researchers believe that this mimicry system
may cause problems in distinguishing this subspecies from the species
that it mimics (Brown, in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
Harris' mimic swallowtail was previously known in Espirito Santo
and Rio de Janeiro (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991).
However, there are no recent confirmations in Espirito Santo. In Rio de
Janeiro, Harris' mimic swallowtail has recently been confirmed in three
localities. Two colonies are located on the east coast of Rio de
Janeiro, at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and Maca[eacute], and the
other in Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve, further inland. The
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o colony is the best-studied colony.
Since 1984, it has maintained a stable size, varying between 50 to 250
individuals (Brown 1996; K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Collins and
Morris 1985), and was reported to be viable, vigorous, and stable in
2004 (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). There are no estimates of the size
of the colony in Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve, where it had
not been seen for 30 years prior to its rediscovery there in 1997 (K.
Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). Population estimates are lacking for the
colony at Maca[eacute], 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). The Brazilian Institute of the
Environment and Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro do a Meio
Ambiente de do Recursos Naturais Renov[aacute]veis; IBAMA) considers
this subspecies to be critically imperiled (MMA 2003; Portaria No.
1,522 1989) and ``strictly protected,'' such that collection and trade
of the subspecies are prohibited (Brown 1996). 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 has
not been re-evaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red List criteria, nor has it
been incorporated into the 2007 IUCN Red List database (IUCN 2007).
Habitat destruction is the main threat to this subspecies (Brown
1996; Collins and Morris 1985), especially urbanization in Barra de
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o, industrialization in Maca[eacute] (Jurubatiba
National Park), and previous fires in the Po[ccedil]o 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 (Butler 2007;
Conservation International 2007; Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF) 2007a; H[ouml]fling 2007; Hughes et al. 2006; The Nature
Conservancy 2007;
[[Page 44091]]
Peixoto and Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007).
Both Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and the Po[ccedil]o das Antas
Biological Reserve, two of the known Harris' mimic swallowtail
localities, lie within the S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin. The
current conditions at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o appear to be
suitable for long-term survival of this subspecies. The Barra de
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin encompasses a 535,240-ac (216,605-
ha) area, 372,286 ac (150,700 ha) of which is managed as protected
areas. The preferred landscape of open and shady areas (Brown 1996;
Collins and Morris 1985) continues to be present in the region, with
approximately 541 forest patches averaging 314 ac (127 ha) in size,
covering nearly 68,873 ha (170,188 ac), and a minimum distance between
forest patches of 0.17 mi ( 276 m) (Teixeira 2007). In studies between
1984 and 1991, Brown (1996) determined that Harris' mimic swallowtails
in Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o flew a maximum distance of 0.62 mi
(1000 m); it follows that the average flying distance would be less
than this figure. Thus, the average (0.17 mi (276 m)) distance between
forest patches in the Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin is
clearly within the flying distance of this subspecies. The colony at
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o has maintained a stable population size
for 20 years, indicating that the conditions available there remain
suitable.
Harris' mimic swallowtail ranges within two protected areas:
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba National Park.
These protected areas are described in detail for the fluminense
swallowtail. In summary, the Po[ccedil]o 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, may benefit
indirectly by efforts to conserve golden lion tamarin habitat (De Roy
2002; Teixeira 2007; WWF 2003). Habitat destruction caused by fires in
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve appears to have abated, and
the revised management plan indicates that the Reserve will be used for
research and conservation, with limited public access (CEPF 2007a;
IBAMA 2005). The Jurubatiba National Park (Park) is located in a region
that is undergoing continuing development pressures from urbanization
and industrialization (Brown 1996; CEPF 2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007;
Otero and Brown 1984; Savarese 2008), and there is no management plan
in place for the Park (CEPF 2007b). However, as discussed for the
fluminense swallowtail, the Park is considered to be in a very good
state of conservation (Rocha et al. 2007).
Harris' mimic swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus, but
it is a subspecies. Based on the above information, we have determined
that habitat destruction is a threat to the subspecies. The magnitude
of the threat is low because suitable habitat continues to exist for
this polyphagous subspecies; the best-studied colony has maintained a
stable and viable size for nearly 2 decades; an additional locality has
been confirmed; the subspecies is strictly protected by Brazilian law;
and two colonies are located within protected areas. While the
protected areas in which this subspecies is found continue to be
threatened with potential habitat destruction from urbanization and
industrialization, the threat of habitat destruction is non-imminent
because such destruction within those protected areas is not ongoing at
this time. Therefore, the subspecies is designated a priority rank of
12.
Jamaican Kite Swallowtail (Eurytides marcellinus)
The Jamaican kite swallowtail is endemic to Jamaica, preferring
wooded, undisturbed habitat containing the West Indian lancewood
(Oxandra lanceolata), the only known larval hostplant for this
monophagous species (Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 1985), meaning
that its larvae feed only on a single plant species (Kotiaho et al.
2005). Adult plant preferences have not been reported. 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; Harris 2002; M[ouml]hn 2002; Smith et al.
1994; WRC 2001). The species was most recently sighted in mid-2007 in
the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park (see description below),
where 4 individuals were observed (Jamaica Conservation and Development
Trust (JCDT) and Green Jamaica 2007a). There is only one known breeding
site in the eastern coast town of Rozelle (St. Thomas Parish) (Bailey
1994; Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al.
1994). Rozelle may also be referred to in the literature as Roselle
(e.g., Anderson et al. 2007). According to Dr. Robert Robbins (in litt.
2004), it is possible that other breeding sites exist given the widely
dispersed nature of the larval food plant. The Jamaican kite
swallowtail maintains a low population level and occasionally becomes
locally abundant in Rozelle during the breeding season in early summer
and occasionally again in early fall (Bailey 1994; Brown and Heineman
1972; Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al.
1994). It experiences episodic population explosions, as described in
the 12-month finding (69 FR 70580) and in the 2007 Notice of Review (72
FR 20184). The species is protected under Jamaica's Wildlife Protection
Act of 1998 and is included in Jamaica's National Strategy and Action
Plan on Biological Diversity, which has established specific goals and
priorities for the conservation of Jamaica's biological resources
(Schedules of The Wildlife Protection Act 1998). Beginning in 1985, the
Jamaican kite swallowtail was categorized on the IUCN Red List as
``Vulnerable;'' it has not been re-evaluated using the 1997 criteria
(Gimenez Dixon 1996).
Habitat modification is the primary threat to the Jamaican kite
swallowtail. Monophagous butterflies tend to be more threatened than
polyphagous species, in part due to their specific habitat requirements
(Kotiaho et al. 2005). West Indian lancewood, the Jamaican kite's only
known larval food plant, has been cleared for cultivation and felled
for the commercial timber industry (Collins and Morris 1985; Windsor
Plywood 2004). Although West Indian lancewood remains widely dispersed
throughout the island (R. Robbins, in litt. 2004), the harvest and
clearing of West Indian lancewood habitat reduces the availability of
the plant (Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 1985).
In Rozelle, the only known breeding site for this species (Bailey
1994; Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al.
1994), there has been extensive habitat modification for agricultural
and industrial purposes, such as mining (Gimenez Dixon 1996; WWF 2001).
The effect of historical habitat modification negatively impacts the
swallowtail today, because the Jamaican kite does not thrive in
disturbed habitats (Collins and Morris 1985). Rozelle is also subject
to naturally occurring, high impact stochastic events, such as
regularly-occurring hurricanes, as elaborated in the 2007 Notice of
Review (72 FR 20184). According to the Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), and Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) (2004), hurricane-
related weather damage in the last 2 decades along the coastal zone of
Rozelle has been more intense than in previous decades, resulting in
the erosion and virtual disappearance of this once-extensive
recreational beach. In 1988, it was estimated that Hurricane Gilbert
caused
[[Page 44092]]
a 75 percent reduction of Rozelle Beach due to erosion (UNEP-CEP 1989).
Most recently, Hurricane Ivan, a Category 5 hurricane that hit the
island in 2004, caused severe local damage to Rozelle Beach, including
erosion of the cliff face and shoreline (ECLAC et al. 2004). Thus,
while we do not consider stochastic events to be a primary threat
factor for this species, the damage caused by hurricanes that have been
increasing in severity and frequency within the past two decades is an
unpredictable contributor to habitat loss.
Habitat destruction occurs in western Parishes, where adult
Jamaican kite swallowtails have been observed. 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). Although
eighty-one percent of Cockpit Country remains forested (Tole 2006),
fragmentation is occurring as a result of human-induced activities.
Current threats to Cockpit Country include bauxite mining, unregulated
plant collecting, extensive logging, conversion of forest to
agriculture, illegal drug cultivation, and expansion of human
settlements. These activities contribute to degradation of 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; Jamaica
Environmental Advocacy Network 2007; Tole 2006). In 2003, the Jamaican
National Environment and Planning Agency identified Rozelle and Cockpit
Country (which spans at least four western Parishes, including Trelawny
and St. Elizabeth, where adult Jamaican kites have been observed) as
priority locations to receive protected area status within the next 5
to 7 years (NEPA 2003). The status of this proposal is not included in
the 2007 Environmental Action Plan Status Report (NEPA 2007).
Currently, the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park is the
only protected area in which adult Jamaican kite swallowtails have been
observed, including the most recent observation in mid-2007 (Bailey
1994; JCDT 2006; JCDT and Green Jamaica 2007a). Located on the inland
portions of St. Thomas and St. Andrew and the southeast portion of St.
Mary Parishes, the Park was created in 1993, encompassing 122,367 ac
(49,520 ha) of mountainous, forested terrain that ranges in elevation
from 492 to 7,402 ft (150 m to 2,256 m). The Park is considered one of
the best-managed protected areas in Jamaica (JCDT 2006). Since 2006,
regular patrols by Park Rangers have averaged 11 per month, resulting
in interdiction of illegal activities including hunting, logging, and
dumping (JCDT and Green Jamaica 2007b). Moreover, since December 2006,
the Park has instituted ``Kite butterfly patrols'' to locate the
Jamaican kite swallowtail, which resulted in the most recent
observation of 4 individuals in mid-2007 (JCDT and Green Jamaica
2007a). However, deforestation is currently a threat to the species'
habitat in the Blue Mountains (Tole 2006), and enforcement within the
Park is hampered by lack of vehicles, limited computer access, and a
lack of clearly defined Park boundaries.
The Jamaican kite swallowtail has been collected for commercial
trade (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schutz 2000) and has been
protected under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act since 1998. This
Act carries a maximum penalty of 1,439 USD (100,000 Jamaican dollars
(J$)) or 12 months imprisonment and appears to be effectively
protecting this species from illegal trade (NEPA 2005). This species is
not listed under CITES, nor is it listed on the European Commission's
Annex B (Eur-Lex 2008), both of which regulate international trade in
animals and plants of conservation concern. However, we are not aware
of any recent 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) and we are unaware of any
ongoing trade in this species. Therefore, we believe that
overutilization is not currently a contributory risk factor to the
Jamaican kite swallowtail.
The Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus.
Habitat modification is the primary threat to this species and we have
determined that overutilization is not currently a contributory risk
factor. The current threat from habitat modification includes: (1)
Historical habitat modification at the species' only known breeding
site, which has lasting impacts on this species given that the species
does not thrive in disturbed habitats; (2) ongoing habitat alteration
throughout its adult range (including the felling of this species'
larval plant food); and (3) the potential for stochastic events, such
as hurricanes, to contribute to habitat loss. However, this threat is
moderate in magnitude because Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to
preserve the species and its habitat, and adults are being regularly
observed within at least one protected area, indicating that the
species continues to be viable. The threat from habitat modification is
imminent because habitat destruction is ongoing. Therefore, it receives
a priority rank of 8.
Fluminense Swallowtail (Parides ascanius)
The fluminense swallowtail is endemic to Brazil's ``restinga''
habitat within the Atlantic Forest region (Thomas 2003). Restingas form
on sandy, acidic, and nutrient-poor soils in the tropical and
subtropical moist broadleaf forests of coastal Brazil. Restinga
habitat, also referred to as ``fluminense vegetation,'' is
characterized by medium-sized trees and shrubs that are adapted to
coastal conditions (Kelecom 2002). The species is monophagous (Otero
and Brown 1984), meaning that its larvae feed only on a single plant
species (Kotiaho et al. 2005); information on larval hostplant
preferences is provided in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184).
The species was historically reported in Rio de Janeiro, Espirito
Santo, and Sao Paulo. However, there are no recent confirmations in
Espirito Santo or Sao Paulo. In Rio de Janeiro, the species is reported
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, further inland (Keith S. Brown, Jr., Livre-
Docent, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil, in litt. 2004; Soler
2005). Uehara-Prado and Fonseca (2007) recently reported a verified
occurrence within Area de Tombamento do Mangue do rio Paraiba do Sul.
Fluminense swallowtail has also been reported in Parque Natural
Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto Iguacu 2008).
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; Uehara-Prado and Fonseca
2007). However, the species can be seasonally common, with sightings of
up to 50 individuals in one morning in the Barra de Sao Joao location.
The population estimate in Barra de Sao Joao ranges from 20 to 100
individuals (Otero and Brown 1984). The colony within Poco das Antas
Biological Reserve (Reserve) was rediscovered in 1997, after a nearly
30-year absence from this locality (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004).
Researchers noted only that ``large numbers'' of swallowtails were
observed (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Dr. Robert Robbins, Research
Entomologist, National Museum of Natural History, Department of
Entomology, Smithsonian Institution,
[[Page 44093]]
Washington, D.C., 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, which is likely to
enhance inter-population gene flow among existing colonies (K. Brown,
Jr., in litt. 2004).
Brazil considers the fluminense swallowtail to be ``Imperiled''
(MMA 2003; Portaria No. 1,522 1989). According to the 2007 IUCN Red
List (Gimenez Dixon 1996), the fluminense swallowtail has been
categorized 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 re-
evaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red List categorization criteria.
Habitat destruction has been the main threat to this species (Brown
1996; Collins and Morris 1985; 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 (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1986;
Uehara-Prado and Fonseca). Moreover, fluminense swallowtails require
large areas to maintain viable populations (K. Brown, Jr., in litt.
2004; Otero and Brown 1986; Uehara-Prado and Fonseca). The Atlantic
Forest habitat, which once covered 540,543 mi\2\(1.4 million km\2\),
has been reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original cover and harbors
more than 70 percent of the Brazilian population (Butler 2007;
Conservation International 2007; Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF) 2007a; Hfling 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2007; World Wildlife
Fund (WWF) 2007). The restinga habitat upon which this species depends,
has been reduced by 6.56 mi\2\ (17 km\2\2) 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 for agriculture, plantations, livestock pastures,
human settlements, hydropower reservoirs, commercial logging,
subsistence activities, and coastal development (Butler 2007; Hughes et
al. 2006; Pivello 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2007; Peixoto and Silva
2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007).
Uehara-Prado and Fonseca (2007) estimated that Rio de Janeiro
contains 4,140,127 ac (1,675,457 ha) 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, this research should
facilitate more focused efforts to identify and confirm additional
localities and conservation status of the fluminense swallowtail
(Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007). Analyzing the correlation between the
distribution of fluminense swallowtail and the existing protected areas
within Rio de Janeiro, Uehara-Prado and Fonseca (2007) found that only
two known occurrences of the fluminense swallowtail correlated with
protected areas, including the Poco das Antas Biological Reserve. The
researchers concluded that the existing protected area system may be
inadequate for the conservation of this species.
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 (K. Brown,
Jr., in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1984; R. Robbins, in litt. 2004).
The Poco das Antas Biological Reserve (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 Ro 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 there have been no recent reports of
fires. 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 mi), 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 creates the restinga
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
(Rocha et al. 2007). Threats to the Macae region include
industrialization for oil reserve and power development (IFC 2002) and
intense population pressures (including migration and infrastructural
development) (Brown 1996; CEPF 2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; Otero and
Brown 1984; Savarese 2008).
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 over-collection
than those with a wider distribution (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; R.
Robbins, in litt. 2004). This species has not been formally considered
for listing in the Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org). However,
the European Commission listed fluminense swallowtail on Annex B of
Regulation 338/97 in 1997. (Dr. Ute Grimm, German Scientific Authority
to CITES (Fauna), Bonn, Germany, in litt. 2008), and the species
continues to be listed on this Annex (Eur-Lex 2008). This listing
requires that imports from a non-European Union country be accompanied
by a permit that is only issued if the Scientific Authority has made a
positive non-detriment finding, a determination that trade in the
species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the
wild (U. Grimm, in litt. 2008). There has been no legal trade in this
species into the European Union since its listing on Annex B (U. 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). The fluminense remains strictly protected
from commerce in Brazil (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). For the reasons
outlined above, we believe that overutilization is not currently a
contributory threat factor for the fluminense swallowtail.
Parasitism could be a factor threatening 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).
[[Page 44094]]
This is the first report of parasitoid association with fluminense
swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006). To date, there is no information as
to the extent and effect that these parasites are having on the
fluminense swallowtail.
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), meaning that its larvae feed only on a single
plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). In contrast, Harris' mimic
swallowtail is polyphagous (Brown 1996; Collins and Morse 1985), such
that 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 (K. Brown, Jr., in litt.
2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
The fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus.
The species is currently at risk from habitat destruction and
potentially from parasitism; however, we have determined that
overutilization is not currently a contributory threat factor for 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 non-imminent because
most habitat modification is the result of historical destruction that
has 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 receives a priority rank of 5.
Hahnel's Amazonian Swallowtail (Parides hahneli)
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is endemic to Brazil, found only on
ancient sandy beaches, where the habitat is overgrown with dense scrub
vegetation (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al.
1994). The species is likely to be monophagous; information on larval
and adult hostplant preferences was provided in the 12-month finding
(69 FR 70580) and in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184).
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 (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985; New
and Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 1994). Two of these colonies were
rediscovered in the 1970s (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985). The
species is highly localized, reflecting the localized distribution of
its highly specialized preferred habitat (K. Brown, Jr., in litt.
2004). We are unaware of any population estimates for this species,
other than the fact that ``the area of its range is very lightly
populated'' (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). This species is not
nationally protected (MMA 2003; Portaria No. 1,522 1989), although Para
has included this species as ``Endangered'' on its newly created list
of threatened species (Decreto No. 802 2008; Resolucao 054 2007; Secco
and Santos 2008). This listing requires the Para government to monitor,
protect, conserve, and restore the species and its habitat within the
state, which will add to our understanding of the species' ecology
(Resolucao 054 2007). This species continues to be listed as ``Data
Deficient'' by the IUCN Red List (Gimenez Dixon 1996).
Habitat alteration (e.g., for dam construction and waterway crop
transport) and destruction (e.g., clearing for agriculture and cattle
grazing) are ongoing in the states of Para and Amazonas, where this
species is found (Fearnside 2006; Hurwitz 2007). Because of this
species' dependence on highly localized and extremely limited habitat,
habitat alteration could be deleterious to the species (New and Collins
1991; Wells et al. 1983). However, because this species' ecological
requirements continue to be poorly understood, we are unable to
determine whether this species is currently being threatened by habitat
alteration.
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is collected for commercial trade
(Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Sch[uuml]tz 2000), as described
in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184). In the United States, there
continues to be limited trade in the species over the internet,
although it is unclear whether the specimens were recently collected.
It is not illegal to trade this species in the United States, but
possession of wildlife must be declared upon crossing U.S. borders. We
are not aware of any recent 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). This species has
not been formally considered for listing in the Appendices of CITES
(www.cites.org), but has been listed on Annex B of the European Union's
(EU) Regulation 338/97 since 1997 (Eur-Lex 2008); Annex B listings are
described under the fluminense swallowtail, above. According to Dr. Ute
Grimm (German Scientific Authority to CITES (Fauna), Bonn, Germany, in
litt. 2008), there has been no legal trade in this species in the EU
since its listing. However, a French importer of exotic specimens is
selling Amazonian swallowtail on the internet; multiple specimens of
males, females and pairs are available for 18 Euros (28 USD); 20 Euros
(32 USD); and 35 Euros (55 USD), respectively. This species is not
nationally protected in Brazil (MMA 2003; Portaria No. 1,522 1989).
Although the state of Para recently prohibited capture of this species
for purposes other than research (Decreto No. 802 2008), insufficient
time has elapsed to determine how effectively this will prevent any
wild collection of the species. There have been no recent discoveries
of additional populations of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail (K.S.
Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004) and, of the three known localities, two
populations are in the State of Amazonas (Brown 1996; Collins and
Morris 1985). Thus, of the populations, two-thirds are not protected
from collection. According to experts, species with restricted
distributions or localized populations, such as the Hahnel's Amazonian
swallowtail, are more vulnerable to over-collection than those with a
wider distribution (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; R. Robbins, in litt.
2004). Therefore, we believe that overutilization for commercial
purposes, combined with insufficient regulatory mechanisms, constitute
a threat to the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail.
Competition has been identified as a potential threat to this
species. Researchers have posited that the Hahnel's Amazonian
swallowtail might suffer from host-plant competition with any of three
other butterfly species that occupy a similar range (Brown 1996;
Collins and Morris 1985; Wells 1983) (See 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR
20184)). Therefore, competition may be a contributory threat factor for
the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail.
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail does not represent a monotypic
genus. The main threat to this species is overcollection combined with
inadequate regulatory mechanisms to mitigate this threat. Habitat
destruction and host-plant competition may be
[[Page 44095]]
contributory threats. We are currently aware of only a small amount of
trade in this species, so we rank the threat of overutilization as low
to moderate and non-imminent. Thus, this species receives a priority
rank of 11.
Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis)
The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is native to the Himalayan regions of
Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam
(Baral et al. 2005; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2001; FRAP
1999; Igarashi 2001; Masui and Uehara 2000; Osada et al. 1999; Shrestha
1997; TRAFFIC 2007; Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999).
This species prefers undisturbed (primary), heterogeneous broad-leaved
evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests, and flies at altitudes
of 4,921 to 10,000 ft (1,500 to 3,050 m) (Collins and Morris 1985;
Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999). Information on this polyphagous
species' biology and food plant preferences is provided in the 2007
Notice of Review (72 FR 20184). It should be noted that Collins and
Morris (1985) reported that the adult Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails do not
feed. This is a correction to the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184),
which stated that the adult food plant preferences were unknown. Since
1996, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been categorized on the IUCN
Red List as a species of ``Least Concern''; it has not been re-
evaluated using the 1997 criteria (Gimenez Dixon 1996). The species is
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; Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; Sung and Yan 2005; United
Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Center
(UNEP-WCMC) 1999). 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 (N. Chaturvedi, Curator, Bombay Natural History Society,
Mumbai, India, in litt. 2007).
Laos: The species has been reported (Osada et al. 1999), but no
further information is available (Southiphong Vonxaiya, CITES
Coordinator, Vientiane, Lao, 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.
Thailand: The species has been reported in the northern province of
Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The 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 (S. Choldumrongkul, Forest Entomology and
Microbiology Group, Department of National Parks, Bangkok, Thailand, 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 (Dr. Le Xuan Canh,
Director of the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, CITES
Scientific Authority, Hanoi, Vietnam, in litt. 2007).
Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to this species, which
prefers undisturbed high altitude habitat (Collins and Morris 1985;
Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999). 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 (Baral et al. 2005;
Collins and Morris 1985; Shrestha 1997). 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 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).
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 USD. In India, the Kaiser-I-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 USD) per
female and 30 Rupees (0.73 USD) 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 Wildlife 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 (S.
Choldumrongkul, in litt. 2007; FAO 2001; Hongthong 1998; Pornpitagpan
1999). In addition to prohibiting possession, WARPA prohibits hunting,
breeding, and trading; import and export are only allowed for
conservation purposes (Jeerawat Jaisielthum, CITES Management
Authority, Bangkok, Thailand, 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 (2008), being marketed as derived from a captive
breeding
[[Page 44096]]
program in Thailand. In Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails are
reported to be among the most valuable of all butterflies (World Bank
2005). The species was recently listed on Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32
(2006) 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 considered by the
country to be in danger of extinction (L.X. Canh, in litt. 2007). In a
recent survey conducted by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 2000
residents in Hanoi, Vietnam, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail was among 37
Schedule IIB-species that were actively being collected, and the
majority of the survey respondents were unaware of legislation
prohibiting collection of Schedule IIB-species. Thus, overutilization
for illegal domestic and possibly international trade via the internet
is a threat to this species, and 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). The most recent CITES trade data are available for
the year 2006. The only recorded international trade in this year was
one shipment of two specimens, imported as personal effects into the
United States from Vietnam (UNEP WCMC 2008b). 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 contributory threat factor
to this species.
The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus.
The current threats of habitat destruction and collection are moderate
to low in magnitude due to the species' wide distribution, but imminent
due to ongoing habitat destruction, high market value for specimens,
and inadequate domestic protections for the species or its habitat.
Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Below we describe 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-
but-precluded 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 listing of foreign species under the Act is carried out by a
different Service program than the domestic Endangered Species Program.
The Division of Scientific Authority (DSA), within the Service's
International Affairs program, is solely responsible for the
development of all listing proposals for foreign species and
promulgation of final rules, whether internally driven or as the result
of a petition.
In the upcoming year, publication of proposed rules for the 20
species described above is precluded by the need to complete pending
listing actions as described below. Of the actions listed below,
preparation of a final listing rule for the six species of
Procellariids is DSA's highest priority.
DSA will be working on a final listing determination for six
species of foreign Procellariids that we proposed for listing on
December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298). Reaching a final decision on this
proposed rule is consistent with the statutory deadlines under sections
4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act and takes precedence over proposed
listings that are warranted but precluded by higher priorities.
On January 23, 2008, the United States District Court ordered the
Service to propose listing rules for five foreign bird species, actions
which we previously considered to be warranted but precluded. These
species are: the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), Andean flamingo
(Phoenicoparrus andinus), medium tree-finch (Camarhynchus pauper),
black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis), and the St. Lucia
forest thrush (Cichlherminia herminieri sanctaeluciae). We, therefore,
have a court-ordered responsibility to publish proposed listing rules
for these five species by December 31, 2008.
The government of Mexico, through the National Commission for the
Understanding and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), has petitioned us to
delist the Morelet's crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii), a species that
is under its jurisdiction and is listed under the Act. The petition was
received by the Service on May 26, 2005. A 90-day finding was published
on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36743), indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. The status review is currently in progress, and we
must complete work on the 12-month finding on this petition, consistent
with our responsibilities under section 4(b)(3) of the Act.
The government of Argentina has petitioned us to reclassify the
broad-snouted caiman (Caiman latirostris) in Argentina from endangered
to threatened under the Act. The petition was dated November 5, 2007. A
90-day finding was published on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 33968), indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted. The status review is
currently in progress, and we must complete work on the 12-month
finding on this petition, consistent with our responsibilities under
section 4(b)(3) of the Act.
We are also in the process of making a final determination on
whether to delist the Mexican bobcat (Lynx rufus escuinapae). The
United States, with support from Mexico and other countries, proposed
to transfer the Mexican bobcat from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II,
based on the Mexican bobcat's widespread and stable status in Mexico
and the questionable taxonomy of the subspecies. The U.S. proposal was
accepted and the change went into effect on November 6, 1992. On July
8, 1996, we received a petition from the National Trappers Association,
Inc. to delist the Mexican bobcat. Our 12-month finding and proposed
rule were published on May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28895). Under section
4(b)(6) of the Act, we have a statutory responsibility to make a final
determination.
We are also making a final determination on whether to delist the
scarlet-chested parakeet (Neophema splendida) and the turquoise
parakeet (Neophema pulchella). On September 22, 2000, we announced a
review of all endangered and threatened foreign species in the Order
Psittaciformes as part of a 5-year review under section 4(c)(2) of the
Act (65 FR 57363). One commenter suggested we consider these
[[Page 44097]]
two species for delisting. The individual provided substantial
scientific information, including information and correspondence with
the government of Australia (the range country of these species)
regarding the status of both species. Under section 4(b)(6) of the Act,
we have a statutory responsibility to complete this rulemaking process.
On January 4, 2005, we received a petition from 14 county officials
representing 13 western States to list the Northern snakehead fish
(Channa argus) as threatened or endangered under the Act, and further,
to designate the Chesapeake Bay region as critical habitat. On March 5,
2005, we received a petition from a private individual to delist the
tiger (Panthera tigris). On December 3, 2007, we received a petition
from Canada's wood bison recovery team to reclassify the wood bison
(Bison bison athabascae) under the Act. On January 31, 2008, we
received a petition from the Environmental Law Clinic at the University
of Denver on behalf of Friends of Animals to list 14 species of foreign
parrots as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petitioned
species include: Blue-throated macaw (Ara glaucogularis), blue-headed
macaw (Propyrrhura couloni), crimson shining parrot (Prosopeia
splendens), great green macaw (Ara ambiguous), grey-cheecked parakeet
(Brotogeris pyrrhoptera), hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus),
military macaw (Ara militaris), Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua
haematuropygia), red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis), scarlet
macaw (Ara macao), thick-billed parrot (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha),
white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria),
and yellow-crested cockatoo (Cacatua sulphurea). We have a statutory
responsibility under section 4(b)(3) of the Act to process these
petitions.
At the current time, we are also preparing proposed listing rules
for 25 additional species, petitioned actions that have been determined
to be warranted in this Notice of Review. Finally, during the upcoming
year, we will be preparing the 2009 Notice of Review, which will set
priorities for the next set of listing actions. Using our best efforts
to meet our statutory responsibilities under the Act is a high
priority.
Despite the priorities which preclude publishing proposed listing
rules, we are making expeditious progress in adding to and removing
species from the Federal lists of threatened and endangered species.
Our expeditious progress since publication of the 2007 Notice of
Review, April 23, 2007, to the current date includes preparing and
publishing the following: (1) Final rule listing the black stilt
(Himantopus novaezelandiae), caerulean paradise-flycatcher
(Eutrichomyias rowleyi), giant ibis (Pseudibis gigantea), Gurney's
pitta (Pitta gurneyi), long-legged thicketbird (Trichocichla rufa), and
Socorro mockingbird (Mimus graysoni) as endangered under the Act,
published January 16, 2008 (73 FR 3146); (2) Proposed rule to list the
Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), Fiji petrel (Pterodroma
macgillivrayi), and the magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae) as
endangered, and the Cook's petrel (Pterodroma cookii), Galapagos petrel
(Pterodroma phaeopygia), and the Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus
heinrothi) as threatened under the Act, published December 17, 2007 (72
FR 71298); (3) Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of
status review of the broad-snouted caiman to determine if
reclassification of the population in Argentina, as petitioned, is
warranted under the Act, published June 16, 2008 (73 FR 33968); and (4)
Notice of 90-day finding on a petition submitted by the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) to list 12 species of penguin as threatened
or endangered under the Act, published July 11, 2007 (72 FR 37695). The
12 penguin species in the CBD petition include: Emperor penguin
(Aptenodytes forsteri), southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes
chrysocome), northern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi), fiordland
crested penguin (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus), snares crested penguin
(Eudyptes robustus), erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri),
macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus), royal penguin (Eudyptes
schlegeli), white-flippered penguin (Eudyptula albosignata), yellow-
eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes), African penguin (Spheniscus
demersus), and Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti). In our 90-day
finding on this petition, we found that listing 10 of the 12 penguin
species may be warranted, and we initiated a status review of these 10
species. We found that the petition did not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing of either
the snares crested penguin or royal penguin may be warranted. The 12-
month petition finding addressing the other 10 species listed above is
pending Departmental review.
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,
including: (1) Final listing determination for six species of foreign
Procellariids; (2) proposed listing rules for five foreign bird species
that were court-ordered for publication; (3) proposed listing rules for
25 additional foreign bird species that were the subjects of listing
petitions determined to be warranted in this Notice of Review; (4) 90-
day finding on a petition to list the Northern snakehead fish as
threatened or endangered under the Act; and (5) 90-day finding on a
petition to list 14 species of foreign parrots as endangered or
threatened under the Act.
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations and the 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.
Despite higher listing priorities that preclude us from issuing listing
proposals for the 20 species mentioned in this Notice of Review, the
actions described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
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 the 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
[[Page 44098]]
application processes under CITES, the Act, and the Wild Bird
Conservation Act. We also consult with staff members of the Service's
Division of International Conservation and the IUCN species specialist
groups, 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 warranted status; (2) documenting threats to any of the
included taxa; (3) describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats
facing these taxa; (4) pointing out taxonomic or nomenclatural changes
for any of the taxa; (5) suggesting appropriate common names; or (6)
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 Division of
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES
section).
Authority
This Notice of Review is published under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Table 1.--Candidate Review
[C = listing warranted by precluded; P = to be proposed to be listed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
---------------------------------- Scientific name Family Common name Historic range
Birds Category Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P................... N/A Podiceps Podicipedidae..... Junin flightless Peru.
taczanowskii. grebe.
P................... N/A Leptoptilos dubius Ciconiidae........ greater adjutant South Asia.
stork.
P................... N/A Phoenicopterus Phoenicopteridae.. Andean flamingo... Argentina,
andinus. Bolivia, Chile,
Peru.
P................... N/A Mergus Anatidae.......... Brazilian Brazil.
octosetaceus. merganser.
P................... N/A Penelope perspicax Craciidae......... Cauca guan........ Colombia.
C................... 8 Pauxi unicornis... Craciidae......... southern helmeted Bolivia, Peru.
curassow.
P................... N/A Crax alberti...... Craciidae......... blue-billed Colombia.
curassow.
P................... N/A Tetrao urogallus Tetraonidae....... Cantabrian Spain.
cantabricus. capercaillie.
P................... N/A Odontophorus Odontophoridae.... gorgeted wood- Colombia.
strophium. quail.
P................... N/A Laterallus tuerosi Rallidae.......... Junin rail........ Peru.
C................... 8 Rallus Rallidae.......... Bogota rail....... Colombia.
semiplumbeus.
C................... 8 Porphyrio Rallidae.......... Takahe............ New Zealand.
hochstetteri.
C................... 8 Haematopus Haematopodidae.... Chatham Chatham Islands,
chathamensis. oystercatcher. New Zealand.
P................... N/A Rhinoptilus Glareolidae....... Jerdon's courser.. India.
bitorquatus.
P................... N/A Numenius Scolopacidae...... slender-billed Africa, Algeria,
tenuirostris. curlew. Bulgaria,
southern Europe,
Greece, Hungary,
Italy,
Kazakhstan,
Morocco,
Romania, Russia,
Tunisia, Turkey,
Ukraine, and
Yugoslavia.
P................... N/A Ducula galeata.... Columbidae........ Marquesan imperial- Marquesas
pigeon. Islands, French
Polynesia.
P................... N/A Cacatua Cacatuidae........ salmon-crested South Moluccas,
moluccensis. cockatoo. Indonesia.
C................... 8 Cyanoramphus Psittacidae....... orange-fronted New Zealand.
malherbi. parakeet.
C................... 8 Eunymphicus Psittacidae....... Uvea parakeet..... Uvea, New
uvaeensis. Caledonia.
C................... 8 Ara glaucogularis. Psittacidae....... blue-throated Bolivia.
macaw.
P................... N/A Neomorphus Cuculidae......... southeastern Brazil.
geoffroyi dulcis. rufous-vented
ground cuckoo.
P................... N/A Phaethornis Trochilidae....... Margaretta's Brazil.
malaris hermit.
margarettae.
P................... N/A Eriocnemis Trochilidae....... black-breasted Ecuador.
nigrivestis. puffleg.
P................... N/A Eulidia yarrellii. Trochilidae....... Chilean woodstar.. Chile, Peru.
P................... N/A Acestrura Trochilidae....... Esmeraldas Equador.
berlepschi. woodstar.
C................... 8 Dryocopus galeatus Picidae........... helmeted Argentina,
woodpecker. Brazil,
Paraguay.
C................... 8 Dendrocopus Picidae........... Okinawa woodpecker Okinawa Island,
noguchii. Japan.
C................... 11 Aulacorhynchus Ramphastidae...... yellow-browed Peru.
huallagae. toucanet.
P................... N/A Cinclodes aricomae Furnariidae....... royal cinclodes... Bolivia, Peru.
P................... N/A Leptasthenura Furnariidae....... white-browed tit- Peru.
xenothorax. spinetail.
P................... N/A Formicivora Thamnophilidae.... black-hooded Brazil.
erythronotos. antwren.
P................... N/A Pyriglena atra.... Thamnophilidae.... fringe-backed fire- Brazil.
eye.
P................... N/A Grallaria milleri. Formicariidae..... brown-banded Colombia.
antpitta.
[[Page 44099]]
C................... 8 Scytalopus Conopophagidae.... Brasilia tapaculo. Brazil.
novacapitalis.
P................... N/A Hemitriccus Tyrannidae........ Kaempfer's tody- Brazil.
kaempferi. tyrant.
P................... N/A Anairetes alpinus. Tyrannidae........ ash-breasted tit- Bolivia, Peru.
tyrant.
P................... N/A Phytotoma Phytotomidae...... Peruvian Peru.
raimondii. plantcutter.
P................... N/A Cichlherminia Turdidae.......... St. Lucia forest St. Lucia Island,
iherminieri thrush. West Indies.
sanctaeluciae.
P................... N/A Acrocephalus Sylviidae......... Eiao Polynesian Marquesas
caffer aquilonis. warbler. Islands, French
Polynesia.
C................... 12 Bowdleria punctata Sylviidae......... Codfish Island Codfish Island,
wilsoni. fernbird. New Zealand.
C................... 8 Zosterops Zosteropidae...... Ghizo white-eye... Solomon Islands.
luteirostris.
P................... N/A Camarhynchus Thraupidae........ medium tree-finch. Floreana Island,
pauper. Galapagos
Islands,
Ecuador.
P................... N/A Nemosia rourei.... Thraupidae........ cherry-throated Brazil.
tanager.
C................... 8 Tangara peruviana. Thraupidae........ black-backed Brazil.
tanager.
C................... 12 Strepera graculina Cracticidae....... Lord Howe pied Lord Howe
crissalis. currawong. Islands, New
South Wales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
----------------------------------
Invertebrates Scientific name Synonyms Common name Historic range
Category Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C................... 12 Eurytides Graphium lysithous Harris' mimic Brazil, Paraguay.
lysithous harrisianus; swallowtail.
harrisianus. Mimoides
lysithous
harrisianus.
C................... 8 Eurytides Graphium Jamaican kite Jamaica.
marcellinus. marcellinus; swallowtail.
Neographium
marcellinus;
Protographium
marcellinus (nom.
inv.);
Protesilaus
marcellinus.
C................... 5 Parides ascanius.. n/a............... Fluminense Brazil.
swallowtail.
C................... 11 Parides hahneli... n/a............... Hahnel's Amazonian Brazil.
swallowtail.
C................... 8 Teinopalpus n/a............... Kaiser-I-Hind Bhutan, China,
imperialis. swallowtail. India, Laos,
Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand,
Vietnam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: July 18, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-17215 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P