40540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0057]

[90100 16641FLA-B6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings 

on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign 

Species; Annual Description of 

Progress on Listing Actions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of review. 

SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we 

announce our annual petition findings 

for foreign species, as required under 

section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, 

in response to a petition, we find that 

listing a species is warranted but 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions, we must complete a new status 

review each year until we publish a 

proposed rule or make a determination 

that listing is not warranted. These 

subsequent status reviews and the 

accompanying 12–month findings are 

referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition 

findings. 

Information contained in this notice 

describes our status review of 20 foreign 

taxa that were the subjects of previous 

warranted-but-precluded findings, most 

recently summarized in our 2008 Notice 

of Review. Based on our current review, 

we find that 20 species (see Table 1) 

continue to warrant listing, but that 

their listing remains precluded by 

higher priority listing actions. 

With this annual notice of review 

(ANOR), we are requesting additional 

status information for the 20 taxa that 

remain warranted but precluded by 

higher priority listing actions. We will 

consider this information in preparing 

listing documents and future 

resubmitted petition findings for these 

20 taxa. This information will also help 

us to monitor the status of the taxa and 

in conserving them. 

DATES: We will accept information on 

these resubmitted petition findings at 

any time. 

ADDRESSES: This notice is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and http:// 

endangered.fws.gov/. Supporting 

information used in preparing this 

notice is available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Branch of Listing, 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, 

Virginia 22203. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this notice to the 

above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chief, Branch of Listing, Endangered 

Species Program, (see ADDRESSES); by 

telephone at 703-358-2171; or by 

facsimile at 703-358-1735). Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), provides two mechanisms for 

considering species for listing. First, we 

can identify and propose for listing 

those species that are endangered or 

threatened based on the factors 

contained in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

We implement this mechanism through 

the candidate program. Candidate taxa 

are those taxa for which we have 

sufficient information on file relating to 

biological vulnerability and threats to 

support a proposal to list the taxa as 

endangered or threatened, but for which 

preparation and publication of a 

proposed rule is precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. The second 

mechanism for considering species for 

listing is for the public to petition to add 

species to the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). 

The species covered by this notice were 

assessed through the petition process. 

Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 

when we receive a listing petition, we 

must determine within 90 days, to the 

maximum extent practicable, whether 

the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted (90–day finding). If 

we make a positive 90–day finding, we 

are required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species, 

whereby, in accordance with section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act we must make one 

of three findings within 12 months of 

the receipt of the petition (12–month 

finding). The first possible 12–month 

finding is that listing is not warranted, 

in which case we need not take any 

further action on the petition. The 

second possibility is that we may find 

that listing is warranted, in which case 

we must promptly publish a proposed 

rule to list the species. Once we publish 

a proposed rule for a species, sections 

4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further 

procedures, regardless of whether or not 

we issued the proposal in response to 

the petition. The third possibility is that 

we may find that listing is warranted 

but precluded. A warranted-butprecluded finding on a petition to list 

means that listing is warranted, but that 

the immediate proposal and timely 

promulgation of a final regulation is 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions. In making a warranted-but 

precluded finding under the Act, the 

Service must demonstrate that 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add and remove species from the lists of 

endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants. 

Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the 

Act, when, in response to a petition, we 

find that listing a species is warranted 

but precluded, we must make a new 12– 

month finding annually until we 

publish a proposed rule or make a 

determination that listing is not 

warranted. These subsequent 12–month 

findings are referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition findings. This notice contains 

our resubmitted petition findings for 

foreign species previously described in 

the 2008 Notice of Review (73 FR 44062; 

July 29, 2008) and that are currently the 

subject of outstanding petitions. 

Previous Notices 

The species discussed in this notice 

were the result of three separate 

petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) to list a 

number of foreign bird and butterfly 

species as threatened or endangered 

under the Act. We received petitions to 

list foreign bird species on November 

24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 26464; 

May 12, 1981, and 56 FR 65207; 

December 16, 1991, respectively). On 

January 10, 1994, we received a petition 

to list 7 butterfly species as threatened 

or endangered (59 FR 24117; May 10, 

1994). 

We took several actions on these 

petitions. To notify the public on these 

actions, we published petition findings, 

listing rules, status reviews, and petition 

finding reviews that included foreign 

species in the Federal Register on the 

following dates: 

Date FR Citation 

May 12, 1981 ............ 46 FR 26464 

January 20, 1984 ...... 49 FR 2485 

May 10, 1985 ............ 50 FR 19761 

January 9, 1986 ........ 51 FR 996 

July 7, 1988 .............. 53 FR 25511 

December 29, 1988 .. 53 FR 52746 

April 25, 1990 ............ 55 FR 17475 

September 28, 1990 55 FR 39858 

November 21, 1991 .. 56 FR 58664 

December 16, 1991 .. 56 FR 65207 

March 28, 1994 ......... 59 FR 14496 

May 10, 1994 ............ 59 FR 24117 

January 12, 1995 ...... 60 FR 2899 

May 21, 2004 ............ 69 FR 29354 

April 23, 2007 ............ 72 FR 20184 

Our most recent review of petition 

findings was published on July 29, 2008 

(73 FR 44062). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40541 

Since our last review of petition 

findings in July 2008, we have taken 

four listing actions related to species 

previously included in this notice (see 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

section for additional listing actions that 

were not related to this notice). On 

December 8, 2008, we published two 

proposed rules to list species under the 

Act: One to list the medium tree finch 

(73 FR 74434), and the other to list the 

black-breasted puffleg (73 FR 74427). 

On December 24, 2008, we published a 

proposed rule to list the Andean 

flamingo, the Chilean woodstar, and the 

St. Lucia forest thrush (73 FR 79226). 

On July 7, 2009, we published a 

proposed rule to list the blue-billed 

curassow, the brown-banded antpitta, 

the Cauca guan, the gorgeted woodquail, and the Esmeraldas woodstar (74 

FR 32307). 

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions 

This notice describes our resubmitted 

petition findings for 20 foreign species 

for which we had previously found 

proposed listing to be warranted but 

precluded. We have considered all of 

the new information that we have 

obtained since the previous findings, 

and we have reviewed the listing 

priority number (LPN) of each taxon for 

which proposed listing continues to be 

warranted but precluded, in accordance 

with our Listing Priority Guidance 

published September 21, 1983 (48 FR 

43098). Such a priority ranking 

guidance system is required under 

section 4(h)(3) of the Act. Using this 

guidance, we assign each taxon an LPN 

of 1 to 12, whereby we first categorize 

based on the magnitude of the threat(s) 

(high versus moderate-to-low), then by 

the immediacy of the threat(s) 

(imminent versus nonimminent), and 

finally by taxonomic status; the lower 

the listing priority number, the higher 

the listing priority (i.e., a species with 

an LPN of 1 would have the highest 

listing priority). 

As a result of our review, we find that 

warranted-but-precluded findings 

remain appropriate for these 20 species. 

We emphasize that we are not proposing 

these species for listing by this notice, 

but we do anticipate developing and 

publishing proposed listing rules for 

these species in the future, with an 

objective of making expeditious 

progress in addressing all 20 of these 

foreign species within a reasonable 

timeframe. 

Table 1 (see end of this notice) 

provides a summary of all updated 

determinations of the 20 taxa in our 

review. All taxa in Table 1 of this notice 

are ones for which we find that listing 

is warranted but precluded and are 

referred to as ‘‘candidates’’ under the 

Act. The column labeled ‘‘Priority’’ 

indicates the LPN. Following the 

scientific name of each taxon (third 

column) is the family designation 

(fourth column) and the common name, 

if one exists (fifth column). The sixth 

column provides the known historic 

range for the taxon. The avian species in 

Table 1 are listed taxonomically. 

Findings on Species for Which Listing 

Is Warranted but Precluded 

We have found that, for the 20 taxa 

discussed below, publication of 

proposed listing rules will continue to 

be precluded over the next year due to 

the need to complete pending, higher 

priority listing actions. We will 

continue to monitor the status of these 

species as new information becomes 

available (see Monitoring, below). Our 

review of new information will 

determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to 

emergency list any species or change the 

LPN of any of the species. In the 

following section, we describe the status 

of and threats to the individual species. 

Birds 

Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi 

unicornis) 

The southern helmeted curassow is 

one of the least frequently encountered 

South American bird species because of 

the inaccessibility of its preferred 

habitat and its apparent intolerance of 

human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 

1998). The southern helmeted curassow 

is known only from two distinct 

populations in central Bolivia and 

central Peru (BirdLife International 

2009a). 

The Bolivian population of the 

nominate species (Pauxi unicornis 

unicornis) remained unknown to 

science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). 

Subsequently, it has been observed in 

the adjacent Amboro ́ and Carrasco 

National Parks (Brooks 2006; Herzog 

and Kessler 1998), and has recently 

been found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous 

Territory and National Park (TIPNIS), 

along the western edge of the Mosetenes 

Mountains, Cochabamba, Bolivia. 

Recent surveys have located few 

southern helmeted curassows across the 

northern boundary of Carrasco National 

Park, where it was historically found 

(MacLeod 2007 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009a). In Amboro ́

National Park, the southern helmeted 

curassow is regularly sighted on the 

upper Rio Saguayo (Wege and Long 

1995). Extensive surveys over the last 

several years have failed to locate the 

species in Madidi National Park, La Paz 

(Hennessey 2004a as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009a8; Maccormack in 

litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2008; MacLeod in litt. 

2003 as cited in BirdLife International 

2009a), on the eastern edge of the 

Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba, 

and in the Rio Tambopata area near the 

Bolivia/Peru border. 

In Peru, a subpopulation (Pauxi 

unicornis koepckeae) is known only 

from the Sira Mountains in Huanuco 

(Tobias and del Hoyo 2006). In 2005, a 

team from the Armonia Association 

(BirdLife in Bolivia) saw one and heard 

three southern helmeted curassow in 

the Sira’s: the first sighting of the 

distinctive endemic Peruvian race since 

1969 (BirdLife International 2008). 

Limited reports suggest that the 

southern helmeted curassow is rare here 

(MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2008; 

Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009a; Mee et al. 

2002), and evidence suggests the 

population is declining (Gastan ̃ aga and 

Hennessey 2005 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009a). The southern 

helmeted curassow occurs at densities 

up to 20 individuals/square kilometer 

(km2); however, in recent surveys only 

1 or 2 individuals have been observed 

(Macleod 2007 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2008). 

According to the International Union 

for Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) /Species Survival 

Commission (SSC) Cracid Specialist 

Group the southern helmeted curassow 

is critically endangered and should be 

given immediate conservation attention 

(Brooks and Strahl 2000). 

The southern helmeted curassow 

inhabits dense, humid, lower montane 

forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 

450 to 1,200 meters (m) (Cordier 1971; 

Herzog and Kessler 1998). It prefers 

eating nuts of the almendrillo tree 

(Byrsonima wadsworthii (Cordier 

1971)), but also consumes other nuts, 

seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and 

insects (BirdLife International 2008). 

Clutch size of the southern helmeted 

curassow is probably two, as in other 

Cracidae. However, the only nest found 

contained only one egg (Banks 1998; 

Cox et al. 1997; Renjifo and Renjifo 

1997 as cited in BirdLife International 

2008). 

The southern helmeted curassow was 

previously classified as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ on 

the IUCN Red List. In 2005, it was 

uplisted to its current status as 

‘‘Endangered’’ (BirdLife International 

2009a; BirdLife International 2004). 

Southern helmeted curassow 

populations are estimated to be 

declining very rapidly due to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

uncontrolled hunting and habitat 

destruction; this species has a small 

range and is known only from a few 

locations, which continue to be subject 

to habitat loss and hunting pressures. 

The total population of mature southern 

helmeted curassow is estimated to be 

between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals 

(BirdLife International 2009a). The 

subspecies in Peru is estimated to have 

fewer than 400 individuals (Gastan ̃ aga 

in litt. 2007 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009a). Estimated decline 

in the overall population over 10 years 

or 3 generations past is 50 to 79 percent. 

However, the quality of this estimate is 

poor (BirdLife International 2009b). The 

Rio Leche area in Peru experienced a 

100 percent population decline in less 

than 5 years because of hunting 

pressures. Similar human pressures are 

ongoing throughout the species’ range. 

The observed decline likely infers that 

a 50-percent population loss occurred 

between 1995 and 2005. Unless threats 

are mitigated this trend will probably 

continue for the next several years 

(Macleod in litt. 2005). Hunting is 

probably the biggest threat to southern 

helmeted curassow in all parts of its 

range (Gastan ̃ aga 2006 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009a). The 

species is often hunted for meat and its 

casque, or horn (Collar et al. 1992), 

which the local people use to fashion 

cigarette-lighters (Cordier 1971). In the 

Amboro ́ region of Bolivia, the bird’s 

head is purportedly used in folk dances 

(Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar 1992). 

In Bolivia, forests within the range of 

the southern helmeted curassow are 

being cleared for crop cultivation by 

colonists from the altiplano (Maillard 

2006 as cited in BirdLife International 

2009a). Rural development, including 

road building, inhibits its dispersal 

(Fjeldsa ̊ in litt. 1999 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2008; Herzog and Kessler 

1998). In Peru, in addition to hunting, 

southern helmeted curassow habitat is 

threatened by subsistence agriculture 

(MacLeod in litt. 2000 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009a), forest 

clearing by colonists, illegal logging, 

mining, and oil exploration (BirdLife 

International 2009a). The southern 

helmeted curassow is dependent upon 

pristine habitat. Therefore, its presence 

is critical for determining priorities for 

conservation (Brooks 2006). 

In Bolivia, large parts of southern 

helmeted curassow habitat are 

ostensibly protected by inclusion in the 

Amboro and Carrasco National Parks 

and in the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous 

Territory and National Park. However, 

pressures on the species’ populations 

continue (BirdLife International 2009a; 

BirdLife International 2000). In recent 

years, extensive field surveys of 

southern helmeted curassow habitat 

have resulted in little success in 

locating the species (Hennessey 2004a; 

MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009a; 

Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009a; MacLeod 

in litt 2003 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009a; Mee et al. 2002). 

The Association Armonia has been 

attempting to estimate southern 

helmeted curassow population numbers 

to identify its most important 

populations, and is evaluating human 

impact on the species’ natural habitat. 

In addition, Armonia is carrying out an 

environmental awareness project to 

inform local people about the threat to 

southern helmeted curassow (BirdLife 

International 2009a) and is conducting 

training workshops with park guards to 

help improve chances for its survival 

(Llampa 2007 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009a). 

The southern helmeted curassow does 

not represent a monotypic genus. It 

faces threats that are moderate in 

magnitude as the population is fairly 

large; however, the population trend has 

been declining rapidly. The threats to 

the species are ongoing and, therefore, 

imminent. Thus, we have assigned this 

species a priority rank of 8. 

Bogota rail (Rallus semiplumbeus) 

The Bogota rail is found in the East 

Andes of Colombia on the Ubate ́–Bogota ́

Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyaca ́. In 

Cundinamarca, the Bogota rail has been 

observed in at least 21 locations. It 

occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500– 

4,000 m (occasionally as low as 2,100 

m) in savanna and pa ́ramo marshes 

(BirdLife International 2008; BirdLife 

International 2007). Bogota rail frequent 

wetland habitats with vegetation-rich 

shallows that are surrounded by tall, 

dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles in litt. 

1999 as cited in BirdLife International 

2009). It inhabits the water’s edge, in 

flooded pasture and along small 

overgrown dykes and ponds (Salaman 

in litt.1999 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009; Fjeldsa ̊ 1990 as cited 

in BirdLife International 2009; Fjeldsa ̊

and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009; Varty et al. 1986 as 

cited in BirdLife International 2009). 

Nests have been recorded adjoining 

shallow water in beds of Scirpus and 

Typha spp. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited 

in BirdLife International 2009). The 

Bogota rail is omnivorous, consuming a 

diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, 

insect larvae, worms, mollusks, dead 

fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant material 

(BirdLife International 2009; Varty et al. 

1986 as cited in BirdLife International 

2009; BirdLife International 2006). 

The Bogota rail is listed as 

endangered by IUCN primarily because 

its range is very small and is contracting 

because of widespread habitat loss and 

degradation. Furthermore, available 

habitat has become widely fragmented 

(BirdLife International 2007). Wetland 

drainage, pollution, and siltation on the 

Ubate ́-Bogota ́ plateau have resulted in 

major habitat loss and few suitably 

vegetated marshes remain. All major 

savanna wetlands are threatened, 

predominately because of draining, but 

also by agricultural runoff, erosion, 

dyking, eutrophication caused by 

untreated sewage effluent, insecticides, 

tourism, hunting, burning, reed 

harvesting, fluctuating water levels, and 

increasing water demand. Additionally, 

road construction may result in 

colonization and human interference, 

including introduction of exotic species 

in previously stable wetland 

environments (Cortes in litt. 2007 as 

cited in BirdLife International 2009). 

The current population is estimated to 

range between 1,000–2,499 individuals, 

though numbers are expected to decline 

over the next 10 years or 3 generations 

by 10 to 19 percent (BirdLife 

International 2009). Although the 

Bogota rail population is declining, it is 

still uncommon to fairly common, with 

a few notable populations, including 

nearly 400 birds at Laguna de Tota, 

approximately 50 bird territories at 

Laguna de la Herrera, approximately 

110 birds at Parque La Florida, and 

populations at La Conejera marsh and 

Laguna de Fuquene (BirdLife 

International 2009). Some Bogota rails 

occur in protected areas such as 

Chingaza National Park and Carpanta 

Biological Reserve. However, most 

savanna wetlands are virtually 

unprotected (BirdLife International 

2009). 

The Bogota rail does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It is subject to threats 

that are moderate in magnitude and 

ongoing and, therefore, imminent. We 

have assigned a priority rank of 8 to this 

species. 

Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, 

previously known as P. mantelli) 

The Takahe, a flightless rail endemic 

to New Zealand, is the world’s largest 

extant member of the rail family (del 

Hoyo et al. 1996). The species, 

Porphyrio mantelli, has been split into 

P. mantelli (extinct) and P. hochstetteri 

(extant) (Trewick 1996). BirdLife 

International (2000) incorrectly assigned 

the name P. mantelli to the extant form, 

while the name P. hochstetteri was 

incorrectly assigned to the extinct form. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40543 

Fossils indicate that this bird was once 

widespread throughout the North and 

South Islands. The Takahe was thought 

to be extinct by the 1930s until its 

rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison 

Mountains, Fjordland (South Island) 

(Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New 

Zealand Department of Conservation 

(NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its 

rediscovery, a Takahe Special Area of 

193 square miles (mi2) (500 km2) was set 

aside in Fiordland National Park for the 

conservation of Takahe (Crouchley 

1994; NZDOC 2009c). Today, the 

species is present in the Murchison and 

Stuart Mountains and has been 

introduced to four island reserves 

(Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Mantangi, and 

Maud) (Collar et al. 1994). The 

population in the Murchison Mountains 

is important because it is the only 

mainland population that has the 

potential for sustaining a large, viable 

population (NZDOC 1997). 

Originally, the species occurred 

throughout forest and grass ecosystems. 

Today, Takahe occupy alpine grasslands 

(BirdLife International 2007). They feed 

on tussock grasses during much of the 

year, with snow tussocks (Chionochloa 

pallens, C. flavescens, and C. 

crassiuscula) being their preferred food 

(Crouchley 1994). By June, the snow 

cover usually prevents feeding above 

tree line, and birds move into forested 

valleys in the winter and feed mainly on 

the rhizome of a fern (Hypolepis 

millefolium). Research by Mills et al. 

(1980) suggested that Takahe require the 

high-carbohydrate concentrations in the 

rhizomes of the fern to meet the 

metabolic requirement of 

thermoregulation in the mid-winter, 

subfreezing temperatures. The island 

populations eat introduced grasses 

(BirdLife International 2007). Takahe 

form pair bonds that persist throughout 

life and generally occupy the same 

territory throughout life (Reid 1967). 

Their territories are large, and Takahe 

defend them aggressively against other 

Takahe, which means that they will not 

form dense colonies even in very good 

habitat. They are long-lived birds, 

probably between 14 and 20 years 

(Heather and Robertson 1997) and have 

a low reproductive rate, with clutches 

consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. Only a few 

pairs manage to consistently rear chicks 

each year. Although under normal 

conditions this is generally sufficient to 

maintain the population, populations 

recover slowly from catastrophic events 

(Crouchley 1994). 

The Takahe is listed as ‘‘Endangered’’ 

on the IUCN Red List because it has an 

extremely small population (BirdLife 

International 2006). When rediscovered 

in 1948, it was estimated that the 

population was about 260 pairs (del 

Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson 

1997). By the 1970s, Takahe populations 

had declined dramatically, and it 

appeared that the species was at risk of 

extinction. In 1981, the population 

reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. 

Since then, the population has 

fluctuated between 100 and 180 birds 

(Crouchley 1994). At first, translocated 

populations increased only slowly, 

probably due to young pair-bonds and 

the quality of the founding population 

(Bunin et al. 1997). In recent years, the 

total Takahe population has had 

significant growth; in 2004, there was a 

13.6 percent increase in the number of 

adult birds, with the number of breeding 

pairs up 7.9 percent (BirdLife 

International 2005). As of August 2007, 

birds in the Takahe Special Area had 

increased to 168, and the current 

national population was 297. However, 

this mainland population was thought 

to be at carrying capacity (Greaves 

2007), and Island reserves also appeared 

to be at carrying capacity (NZDOC 

2007). Thus, a high priority of the 

recovery program is to establish a 

second viable mainland population to 

further increase the total population size 

(Greaves 2007). Overall, population 

numbers are slowly increasing due to 

intensive management of the island 

reserve populations, but fluctuations in 

the remnant mainland population 

continue to occur (BirdLife International 

2000). 

The main cause of the species’ 

historical decline was competition for 

tussock grasses by grazing red deer 

(Cervus elaphus), which were 

introduced after the 1940s (Mills and 

Mark 1977). The red deer overgrazed the 

Takahe’s habitat, eliminating nutritious 

plants and preventing some grasses from 

seeding (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The 

NZDOC has controlled red deer through 

an intensive hunting program in the 

Murchison Mountains since the 1960s, 

and now the tussock grasses are close to 

their original condition (BirdLife 

International 2005). 

Predation by introduced stoats 

(Mustela erminea) is believed to be a 

current risk to the species (Bunin and 

Jamieson 1995; Bunin and Jamieson 

1996; Crouchley 1994). The NZDOC is 

running a trial stoat control program in 

a portion of the Takahe Special Area to 

measure the effect on Takahe survival 

and productivity. Initial assessment 

indicates a positive influence (NZDOC 

2007). Other potential competitors or 

predators include the introduced brushtailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) 

and the threatened weka (Gallirallus 

australis), a flightless woodhen endemic 

to New Zealand (BirdLife International 

2008). In addition, severe weather is a 

natural limiting factor to this species 

(Bunin and Jamieson 1995). Weather 

patterns in the Murchison Mountains 

vary from year to year. High chick and 

adult mortality may occur during 

extraordinarily severe winters, and poor 

breeding may result from severe stormy 

weather during spring breeding season 

(Crouchley 1994). Research confirms 

that severity of winter conditions 

adversely affects survivorship of Takahe 

in the wild, particularly of young birds 

(Maxwell and Jamieson 1997). 

Since 1983, the NZDOC has been 

involved in managing a captivebreeding 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 captivereared birds have also been used to 

establish four predator-free offshore 

island reserves. Since 1984, these birds 

have increased the total population on 

islands to about 60 birds (NZDOC 

2009a). Captive-breeding efforts have 

increased the rate of survival of chicks 

reaching 1 year of age from 50 to 90 

percent (NZDOC 1997). However, 

Takahe that have been translocated to 

the islands have higher rates of egg 

infertility and low hatching success 

when they breed, contributing to the 

slow increase in the islands’ 

populations. Researchers postulated that 

the difference in vegetation between the 

native mainland grassland tussocks and 

that found on the islands might be 

affecting reproductive success. After 

testing nutrients from all available food 

sources, they concluded that there was 

no effect, and advised that a 

supplementary feeding program for the 

birds was not necessary or 

recommended (Jamieson 2003). Further 

research on Takahe established on 

Tiritiri Matangi Island estimated that 

the island can support up to 8 breeding 

pairs, but suggested that the ability of 

the island to support Takahe is likely to 

decrease as the grass/shrub ecosystem 

reverts to forest. The researchers 

concluded that, although the four island 

populations fulfilled their role as an 

insurance against extinction on the 

mainland at the time of the study, given 

impending habitat changes on the 

islands, it is unclear whether these 

island populations will continue to be 

viable in the future without an active 

management plan (Baber and Craig 

2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). Maxwell 

and Jamieson (1997) studied survival 

and recruitment of captive-reared and 

wild-reared Takahe on Fiordland. They 

concluded that captive rearing of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 captivebreeding and release program to 

augment the mainland population and 

establish four offshore island reserves. 

Predation by introduced species and 

reduced survivorship resulting from 

severe winters, combined with the 

Takahe’s small population size and 

naturally low reproductive rate are 

threats to this species that are imminent 

and ongoing. Therefore, we have 

assigned this species a priority rank of 

8. 

Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus 

chathamensis) 

Chatham oystercatcher is the rarest 

oystercatcher species in the world (DOC 

2001). It is endemic to the Chatham 

Island group (Marchant and Higgins 

1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), 

which lies 534 mi (860 km) east of 

mainland New Zealand. The Chatham 

Island group comprises two large, 

inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) 

and numerous smaller islands. Two of 

the smaller islands (Rangatira and 

Mangere) are nature reserves, which 

provide important habitat for the 

Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham 

Island group has a biota quite different 

from the mainland. The remote marine 

setting, distinct climate, and physical 

makeup have led to a high degree of 

endemism (Aikman et al. 2001). The 

southern part of the Chatham 

oystercatcher range is dominated by 

rocky habitats with extensive rocky 

platforms. The northern part of the 

range is a mix of sandy beach and rock 

platforms (Aikman et al. 2001). 

Pairs of Chatham oystercatchers 

occupy their territory all year, while 

juveniles and subadults form small 

flocks or occur alone on a vacant section 

of the coast. The nest is a scrape usually 

on a sandy beach just above spring-tide 

and storm surge level or among rocks 

above the shoreline and are often under 

the cover of small bushes or rock 

overhangs (Heather and Robertson 

1997). 

Chatham oystercatcher is classified as 

‘Endangered’ on the IUCN Red List 

because it has an extremely small 

population (BirdLife International 

2009). It is listed as ‘criticallyendangered’ by the New Zealand 

Department of Conservation (DOC 

2008a), making it a high priority for 

conservation management (DOC 2007). 

In the early 1970s the Chatham 

oystercatcher population was 

approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 1996). 

In 1988, based on past productivity 

information, it was feared that the 

species was at risk of extinction within 

50 to 70 years (Davis 1988 as cited in 

Schmechel and Paterson 2005). 

However, the population increased by 

30 percent overall between 1987 and 

1999, except trends varied in different 

areas of the Chatham Islands (Moore et 

al. 2001). Surveys taken over a 6–year 

period recorded an increase in Chatham 

oystercatchers from approximately 100 

individuals in 1998 (Marchant and 

Higgins 1993) to 320 individuals 

(including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 

(Moore 2005a). Although the overall 

population has significantly increased 

over the last 20 years, the population on 

South East Island (Rangatira), an island 

free of mammalian predators, has 

gradually declined since the 1970s. The 

reason for the decline is unknown 

(Schmechel and O’Connor 1999). 

Predation, nest disturbance, invasive 

plants, and spring tides and storm 

surges are factors threatening the 

Chatham oystercatcher population (DOC 

2001, Moore 2005). Feral cats (Felis 

catus) have become established on two 

of the Chatham Islands after being 

introduced as pets. Severe reduction in 

Chatham oystercatcher numbers is 

attributed in part by heavy cat 

predation. Another predator, the weka 

(Gallirallus australis), an endemic New 

Zealand rail, introduced to the Chatham 

Islands in the early 1900s, is not 

considered as much a threat to the 

Chatham oystercatcher as feral cats 

because they only prey on eggs when 

adult oystercatchers are not present. 

Other potential predators include the 

Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), the ship 

rat (R. rattus), Australian brush-tailed 

possum (Trichsurus vulpeculs), and 

hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). 

However, these species are not 

considered a serious threat because of 

the large size of the oystercatcher eggs. 

Native predators include the red-billed 

gull (Larus scopulinus), and southern 

black-backed gull (L. dominicanus) 

(Moore 2005b). Nest destruction and 

disturbance is caused by people fishing, 

walking, or driving, and by livestock. 

When a nesting area is disturbed, adult 

Chatham oystercatchers often abandon 

their eggs for up to an hour or more, 

leaving the eggs vulnerable to 

opportunistic predators. Eggs are also 

trampled by livestock (Moore 2005a). 

Another obstacle to Chatham 

oystercatcher populations is marram 

grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced 

to New Zealand from Europe to protect 

farmland from sand encroachment. It 

has spread to the Chatham Islands 

where it binds beach sands forming tall 

dunes with steep fronts. In many 

marram-infested areas, the strip between 

the high tide mark and the foredunes 

narrows as the marram advances 

seaward. Consequently, the Chatham 

oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to 

shore where nests are vulnerable to 

tides and storm surges. The dense 

marram grass is unsuitable for nesting 

(Moore and Davis 2005). In a study done 

by Moore and Williams (2005), the 

authors found that, along the narrow 

shoreline, many eggs were washed away 

and the adults would not successfully 

breed without human intervention. 

Oystercatcher eggs could easily be 

moved away from the shoreline by 

fieldworkers and placed in hand-dug 

scrapes surrounded by tidal debris and 

kelp. Video cameras placed to observe 

nests indicated that feral cats are a 

major nest predator. After three 

summers of video recording, 13 of the 

19 nests recorded were predated by cats. 

When a cat was present eggs usually 

lasted only one or two days. Of the 

remaining six nest failures, weka were 

responsible for three; red-billed gull, 

one; sheep-trampling, one; and sea 

wash, one (Moore 2005b). 

The birds of the Chatham Island 

group are protected. The NZDOC 

focused conservation efforts in the early 

1990s on predator trapping and fencing 

to limit domestic stock access to nesting 

areas. In 2001, the NZDOC published 

the Chatham Island oystercatcher 

recovery plan 2001–2011 (DOC 2001), 

which outlines actions such as 

translocation of nests away from the 

high tide mark and nest manipulation to 

further the conservation of this species. 

These actions may have helped to 

increase hatching success (DOC 2008b). 

Artificial incubation has been tried but 

did not increase productivity. 

Additionally, livestock have been 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40545 

fenced and signs erected to reduce 

human and dog disturbance. Marram 

grass control has been successful in 

some areas. Intensive predator control 

combined with nest manipulation has 

resulted in a high number of fledglings 

(BirdLife International 2009). 

The Chatham oystercatcher does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

current population has 311 individuals, 

and the species only occurs on the small 

Chatham Island group. It faces threats 

that are moderate in magnitude because 

the NZDOC has taken measures to aid 

the recovery of the species. Threats are 

ongoing and, therefore, imminent. We 

have assigned this species a priority 

rank of 8. 

Orange-fronted parakeet 

(Cyanoramphus malherbi) 

The orange-fronted parakeet, also 

known as Malherbe’s parakeet, was 

treated as an individual species until it 

was proposed to be a color morph of the 

yellow-crowned parakeet, C. auriceps, 

in 1974 (Holyoak 1974). Further 

taxonomic analysis suggested that it 

should once again be considered a 

distinct species (Kearvell et al. 2003; 

ITIS 2008). 

At one time, the orange-fronted 

parakeet was scattered throughout most 

of New Zealand, although the two 

records from the North Island are 

thought to be dubious (Harrison 1970). 

This species has never been common 

(Mills and Williams 1979). During the 

nineteenth century, the species’ 

distribution included South Island, 

Stewart Island, and a few other offshore 

islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a). 

Currently, there are four known 

remaining populations, all located 

within an 18.6-mi (30-km) radius in 

beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of 

upland valleys within Arthur’s Pass 

National Park and Lake Sumner Forest 

Park in Canterbury, South Island 

(NZDOC 2009a), and two populations 

established on Chalky and Maud Islands 

(Elliott and Suggate 2007). This species 

inhabits southern beech forests, with a 

preference for locales bordering stands 

of mountain beech (N. solandri) (del 

Hoyo 1997; Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 

2002). It is reliant on old mature beech 

trees with natural cavities or hollows for 

nesting. Breeding is linked with the 

irregular seed production by 

Nothofagus; in mast years with a high 

abundance of seeds, parakeet numbers 

can increase substantially. In addition to 

eating seeds, the orange-fronted 

parakeet feeds on fruits, leaves, flowers, 

buds, and invertebrates (BirdLife 

International 2009). 

The orange-fronted parakeet has an 

extremely small population and limited 

range. The species is listed as ‘‘Critically 

Endangered’’ on the IUCN Red List, 

‘‘because it underwent a population 

crash following rat invasions in 1990– 

2000, and it now has a very small and 

severely fragmented population that has 

declined during the past ten years’’ 

(BirdLife International 2009). It is listed 

in Appendix II of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species (CITES) as part of a general 

listing for all parrots (CITES 2008). The 

NZDOC (2009b) considers the orangefronted parakeet, or ka ̈ka ̈riki, to be the 

rarest parakeet in New Zealand. Because 

it is classified as ‘‘Nationally Critical’’ 

with a high risk of extinction, the 

NZDOC has been working intensively 

with the species to ensure its survival. 

The population is estimated at 100 to 

200 individuals in the wild and 

declining (NZDOC 2009a). 

There are several reasons for the 

species’ continuing decline; one of the 

most prominent risks to the species is 

believed to be predation by introduced 

species, such as stoats (Mustela 

erminea) and rats (Rattus spp.) (BirdLife 

International 2009). Large numbers of 

stoats and rats in beech forests cause 

large losses of parakeets. Stoats and rats 

are excellent hunters on the ground and 

in trees. When they exploit parakeet 

nests and roosts in tree holes, they 

particularly impact females, chicks, and 

eggs (NZDOC 2009c). The NZDOC 

introduced ‘‘Operation ARK,’’ an 

initiative to respond to predator 

problems in beech forests to prevent 

species’ extinctions, including orangefronted parakeets. Predators are 

methodically controlled with traps, 

toxins in bait stations, bait bags, and 

aerial spraying, when necessary 

(NZDOC 2009d). Despite these controls, 

predation by introduced species is still 

a threat because they have not been 

eradicated from this species’ range. 

Habitat loss and degradation are also 

considered threats to the orange-fronted 

parakeet (BirdLife International 2007b). 

Large areas of native forest have been 

felled or burnt, decreasing the habitat 

available for parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). 

Silviculture of beech forests aims to 

harvest trees at an age when few will 

become mature enough to develop 

suitable cavities for orange-fronted 

parakeets (Kearvell 2002). The habitat is 

also degraded by brush-tailed possum 

(Trichosurus vulpecula), cattle, and deer 

browsing on plants, which changes the 

forest structure (NZDOC 2009c). This is 

a problem for the orange-fronted 

parakeet, which uses the ground and 

low-growing shrubs while feeding 

(Kearvell et al. 2002). 

Snyder et al. (2000) reported that 

hybridization with yellow-crowned 

parakeets had been observed at Lake 

Sumner. Other risks include increased 

competition between the orange-fronted 

parakeet and the yellow-crowned 

parakeet for nest sites and food in a 

habitat substantially modified by 

humans, competition with introduced 

finch species, and competition with 

introduced wasps (Vespula vulgaris and 

V. germanica) for invertebrates as a 

dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002). 

The NZDOC closely monitors all 

known populations of the orangefronted parakeet. Nest searches are 

conducted, nest holes are inspected, and 

surveys are carried out in other areas to 

look for evidence of other populations. 

In fact, the surveys successfully located 

another orange-fronted parakeet 

population in May 2003 (NZDOC 

2009d). A new population was 

established in 2006 on the predator-free 

Chalky Island. Eggs were removed from 

nests in the wild, and foster parakeet 

parents incubated the eggs and cared for 

the hatchlings until they fledged and 

were transferred to the island. 

Monitoring later in the year (2006) 

indicated that the birds had successfully 

nested and reared chicks. Additional 

birds will be added to the Chalky Island 

population, in an effort to increase the 

genetic diversity of the population 

(NZDOC 2009d). A second selfsustaining population has been 

established on Maud Island (NZDOC 

2008). 

The orange-fronted parakeet does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

current wild population ranges between 

100 and 200 individuals, and the 

species’ distribution is extremely 

limited. It faces threats that are 

moderate in magnitude because the 

NZDOC has taken important measures 

to aid in the recovery of the species. The 

NZDOC implemented a successful 

captive-breeding program for the 

orange-fronted parakeet. Using captivebred birds from the program, NZDOC 

established two self-sustaining 

populations of the orange-fronted 

parakeet on predator-free islands. The 

NZDOC monitors wild nest sites and is 

constantly looking for new nests and 

new populations, as evidenced by the 

2003 discovery of a new population. 

Finally, the NZDOC determined that the 

species’ largest threat is predation and 

initiated a successful program to remove 

predators. The threats of competition for 

food and highly altered habitat are 

ongoing and, therefore, imminent. Thus, 

we have assigned this species a priority 

rank of 8. 

Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis) 

The Uvea parakeet, previously known 

as Eunymphicus cornutus, is currently 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40546 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

treated as two species: E. cornutus and 

E. uvaeensis (Boon et al. 2008; BirdLife 

International 2007). The Uvea parakeet 

is found only on the small island of 

Uvea in the Loyalty Archipelago, New 

Caledonia (Territory of France). The 

island is only 42 mi2 (110 km2) (Juniper 

and Parr 1998). The Uvea parakeet is 

found primarily in old-growth forests, 

notably, those dominated by the pine 

tree Agathis australis (del Hoyo et al. 

1997). Most birds occur in about 7.7 mi2

(20 km2) 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 mi2 (66 km2) 

(BirdLife International 2009, CITES 

2000b). Uvea parakeets feed on the 

berries of vines and the flowers and 

seeds of native trees and shrubs (del 

Hoyo et al. 1997). They also feed on 

limited crops in adjacent cultivated 

land. The greatest number of birds 

occurs close to gardens with papayas 

(BirdLife International 2009). Uvea 

parakeet nest in cavities of native trees, 

and have a clutch size of 2 to 3 eggs 

with some double clutches (Robinet and 

Salas 1999). 

Early population estimates of Uvea 

parakeet were alarmingly low—70 to 90 

individuals (Hahn 1993). Surveys in 

1993 by Robinet et al. (1996) yielded 

estimates of approximately 600 

individuals. In 1999, it was believed 

that 742 individuals lived in northern 

Uvea, and 82 in the south (Primot 1999 

as cited in BirdLife International 2009). 

Six surveys conducted between 1993 

and 2007 indicated a steady increase in 

population numbers in both areas 

(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009). Even 

though populations are currently 

increasing, any reduction in 

conservation efforts or introduction of 

invasive species (particularly the ship 

rat, Rattus rattus and the Norway rat, R. 

norvegicus) could lead to rapid declines 

(Robinet et al. 1998, BirdLife 

International 2009). Although the Uvea 

parakeet has a number of predators, the 

absence of the ship rat and Norwegian 

rat on Uvea is a major factor 

contributing to its survival. Norway rats 

are prolific invaders of islands and can 

rapidly establish large populations 

(Russell 2007). Additionally, impacts of 

the rat appear to be more severe on 

smaller islands (Martin et al. 2000). In 

one study, it was determined that the 

low rate of predation on nest sites of 

Uvea parakeet was related to the 

absence of ship rat and Norwegian rat. 

However, these rat species are present 

on the other Loyalty Islands and on 

Grande Terre (Robinet and Salas 1996). 

Experimental egg predation rates were 

four times higher on Lifu where R. 

rattus occurs (Robinet et al. 1998). 

Preventive measures have been taken 

at the port and airport to prevent 

introduction of invasive rats and should 

continue to be reinforced (Robinet and 

Salas 1996), but there is concern that 

these rats may be introduced in the 

future (CITES 2000b). However, as of 

2007, the island remained rat free 

(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009). 

Introductions of Uvea parakeets to the 

adjacent island of Lifou (to establish a 

second population) in 1925 and 1963 

failed (Robinet et al. 1995 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009), possibly 

because of the presence of ship rats and 

Norwegian rats (Robinet in litt. 1997 as 

cited in Snyder et al. 2000). Robinet et 

al. (1998) studied the impact of rats in 

Uvea and Lifou on the Uvea parakeet 

and concluded that Lifou is not a 

suitable place for translocating Uvea 

parakeet unless active habitat 

management is carried out to protect it 

from invasive rats. They also suggested 

it would be valuable to apply lowintensity rat control of the Polynesian 

rat (R. exulans) in Uvea immediately 

before the parakeet breeding season. 

Uvea parakeet is threatened by habitat 

loss, capture of juveniles for the pet 

trade, and predation (BirdLife 

International 2009). The forest habitat of 

the Uvea parakeet is threatened by 

clearance for agriculture and logging. In 

30 years, approximately 30 to 50 percent 

of primary forest has been removed 

(Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a 

young and increasing human population 

of almost 4,000 inhabitants. The 

increase in population will most 

probably lead to more destruction of 

forest for housing, cultivated fields, and 

plantations, especially coconut palms, 

the island’s main source of income 

(CITES 2000a). The species is also 

threatened by the illegal pet trade, 

mainly for the domestic market 

(BirdLife International 2007). Nesting 

holes are cut open to extract nestlings, 

which renders the holes unsuitable for 

future nesting. The lack of nesting sites 

is believed to be a limiting factor for the 

species (BirdLife International 2009). 

Also, Robinet et al. (1996) suggested 

that the impact of capture of juveniles 

on the viability of populations is not 

obvious with long-lived species that are 

capable of re-nesting, such as Uvea 

parakeet. The current capture of 30 to 50 

young Uvea parakeets each year for the 

pet trade may be unsustainable. In a 

study of the reproductive biology of 

Uvea parakeet, Robinet and Salas (1999) 

found that the main causes of chick 

death were starvation of the third chick 

within the first week after hatching, 

raptor (presumably the native brown 

goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus) predation 

of fledglings, and human harvest for the 

pet trade. 

Additionally, the invasion of bees into 

Uvea in 1996 has resulted in 

competition with Uvea parakeet over 

nesting sites. This has resulted in a 

reduction of known Uvea parakeet 

nesting sites by 10 percent between 

2000 and 2002 (Barre ́ in litt. 2003 as 

cited in BirdLife International 2009). 

Studies by Robinet et al. (2003) indicate 

the density of breeding Uvea parakeet is 

positively related to the distribution of 

suitable trees. Consequently, the 

number of suitable trees may limit the 

number of breeding pairs. In two cases, 

Robinet et al. (2003) observed successful 

nesting after human restoration of 

former nest sites that had been 

destroyed by illegal collectors. This 

further indicates the deleterious effect of 

nest-site limitation. Additionally, forest 

fragmentation as a result of increased 

numbers of coconut plantations acts as 

a barrier to dispersal. This could 

possibly explain the lack of 

recolonization in southern Uvea 

(Robinet et al. 2003). Uvea parakeet was 

uplisted from Appendix II to Appendix 

I of CITES in July 2000 because of its 

small population size, restricted area of 

distribution, loss of suitable habitat, and 

the illegal pet trade (CITES 2000b). 

A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet 

was prepared for the period 1997–2002, 

which included strong local 

participation in population and habitat 

monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited 

in Snyder et al. 2000). The species has 

recently increased in popularity and is 

celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet 

and Salas 1997, Primot in litt. 1999 as 

cited in BirdLife International 2009). 

Conservation actions, including in situ 

management (habitat protection and 

restoration), recovery efforts (providing 

nest boxes and food), and public 

education on the protection of Uvea 

parakeet and its habitat are ongoing 

(Robinet et al. 1996). Increased 

awareness of the plight of the Uvea 

parakeet and improvements in law 

enforcement capability are helping to 

address illegal trade of the species. A 

captive-breeding program has been 

discussed but not begun (BirdLife 

International 2009). A translocation 

program to restock this species into the 

southern portion of Uvea was cancelled 

under a new recovery plan (2003) 

because the population is considered 

viable and is expected to increase 

naturally (Barre ́ in litt. 2003, Anon 2004 

as cited in BirdLife International 2009). 

Measures are now being taken to control 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40547 

predators and prevent further 

colonization by rats (BirdLife 

International 2009). Current Uvea 

parakeet numbers are increasing, but 

any relaxation of conservation efforts or 

introduction of nonnative rats or other 

predators could lead to a rapid decline 

(BirdLife International 2009). The 

Socie ́te ́ Cale ́donienne d’Ornithologie 

(SCO) received funding to test artificial 

nests, and BirdLife Suisse (ASPO) is 

continuing to destroy invasive bees 

nests and is placing hives in forested 

areas to attract bees for removal 

(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in 

BirdLife International 2009). 

The Uvea parakeet does not represent 

a monotypic genus. The Uvea parakeet 

faces threats that are moderate because 

important management efforts have 

been put in place to aid in the recovery 

of the species. However, all of these 

efforts must continue to function, 

because this species is an island 

endemic with restricted habitat in one 

location. Threats to the species are 

imminent because illegal trade still 

occurs and the removal of 30 to 50 

percent of the old-growth forest, which 

the birds depend on for nesting holes, 

negatively impacts the reproductive 

requirements of the species. We have 

assigned this species a priority rank of 

8. 

Blue-throated macaw (Ara 

glaucogularis) 

The blue-throated macaw is endemic 

to forest islands in the seasonally 

flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de 

Mojos) of Central Bolivia (Jordan and 

Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 

1997). It inhabits a mosaic of seasonally 

inundated savanna, palm groves, forest 

islands, and humid lowlands. This 

species is found in areas where palmfruit food is available, especially motacu 

palm (Attalea phalerata) (Jordan and 

Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 

1997), and it depends on motacu palms 

for nesting (Birdlife International 

2008d). It inhabits elevations between 

656 and 984 ft (200 and 300 m) (BirdLife 

International 2008c; Brace et al. 1995; 

Yamashita and de Barros 1997). These 

macaws are not found to congregate in 

large flocks, but are seen most 

commonly traveling in pairs, and on 

rare occasions may be found in small 

flocks (Collar et al. 1992). The bluethroated 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 blueand-yellow macaw (A. ararauna), but 

the two species are now known to occur 

sympatrically without interbreeding (del 

Hoyo et al. 1997). BirdLife International 

(2008b) estimated the total wild 

population to be between 250 and 300 

and noted the population has some 

fragmentation. Surveys indicate the 

population may now be slowly 

increasing following dramatic declines 

in the 1970s and 1980s. Biologists 

surveying for this species in 2004 found 

more birds than in previous surveys by 

searching specific habitat types – palm 

groves and forested islands – and 

predicted more birds would be found by 

concentrating searches in these areas 

(Herrera et al. 2007). Through a 

population viability analysis (PVA) of 

this species, Strem (2008) found that, 

while there was a low probability of 

extinction over the next 50 years, the 

small population size, as well as low 

population growth rates, makes this 

species very vulnerable to any threat. 

The low probability of extinction is not 

unexpected given that the blue-throated 

macaw is a long-lived species and the 

50–year simulation timeframe is 

relatively short for such species. 

However, Strem (2008) found that 

impacts such as habitat destruction and 

harvesting had significant negative 

effects on the probabilities of extinction 

(increasing the probability of 

extinction), which reemphasizes the 

importance of addressing these threats 

for this species. 

The blue-throated macaw was 

historically at risk from trapping for the 

national and international cage-bird 

trade, and some illegal trade may still be 

occurring. Between the early 1980s and 

early 1990s, an estimated 1,200 or more 

wild-caught individuals were exported 

from Bolivia, and many are now in 

captivity in the European Union and in 

North America (BirdLife International 

2008b, World Parrot Trust 2003). In 

1984, Bolivia outlawed the export of 

live parrots (Brace et al. 1995). 

However, in 1993 (Jordan and Munn 

1993) investigators reported that an 

Argentinean bird dealer was offering 

illegal Bolivian dealers a high price for 

blue-throated macaws. Armonia 

Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) 

monitored the wild birds that passed 

through a pet market in Santa Cruz from 

August 2004 to July 2005. Although 

nearly 7,300 parrots were recorded in 

trade, the blue-throated macaw was 

absent in the market during the 

monitoring period, which may point to 

the effectiveness of the ongoing 

conservation programs in Bolivia 

(BirdLife International 2007). There are 

a number of blue-throated macaws in 

captivity, with over 1,000 registered in 

the North American studbook. Because 

these birds are not too difficult to breed, 

the supply of captive-bred birds has 

increased (Waugh 2007), helping to 

alleviate pressure on illegal collecting of 

wild birds, but not completely 

eliminating illegal collection. 

The blue-throated macaw is also at 

risk from habitat loss and possible 

competition from other birds, such as 

other macaws, toucans, and large 

woodpeckers (BirdLife International 

2008b; World Parrot Trust 2008). Until 

recently, all known sites of the bluethroated macaw were on private cattle 

ranches, where local ranchers typically 

burn the pasture annually (del Hoyo 

1997). This results in almost no 

recruitment of palm trees, which are 

central to the ecological needs of the 

blue-throated macaw (Yamashita and de 

Barros (1977)). In addition, in Beni 

many palms are cut down by the local 

people for firewood (Brace et al. 1995). 

Thus, although the palm groves are 

more than 500 years old, Yamashita and 

de Barros (1977) concluded that the 

palm population structure suggests 

long-term decline. 

Despite some recent surveys that 

indicate the population may be slowly 

increasing, this species remains 

categorized as ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ 

on the 2009 IUCN Red List, ‘‘because its 

population is extremely small and each 

isolated subpopulation is probably tiny 

and declining as a result of illegal trade’’ 

(BirdLife International 2009). It is listed 

in Appendix I of CITES (CITES 2006) 

and is legally protected in Bolivia 

(Juniper and Parr 1998). The Eco Bolivia 

Foundation patrols existing macaw 

habitat by foot and motorbike, and the 

Armonia Association is searching the 

Beni lowlands for more populations 

(Snyder et al. 2000). Additionally, the 

Armonia Association is building an 

awareness campaign aimed at the 

cattlemen’s association to ensure that 

the protection and conservation of these 

birds is at a local level (e.g., protection 

of macaws from trappers and the 

sensible management of key habitats, 

such as palm groves and forest islands, 

on their property) (BirdLife 

International 2008a; Llampa 2007; 

Snyder et al. 2000). In October 2008, 

Armonia Association announced it had 

purchased a large 8,785-acre (3,555- 

hectare) ranch for the purpose of 

establishing a protected area for the 

blue-throated macaw (BirdLife 

International 2008d). The new Barba 

Azul Nature Reserve protects excellent 

savanna habitat and 20 blue-throated 

macaws are known to nest here. The 

organization has also been 

experimenting with artificial nest boxes; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40548 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the macaws have been using these, and 

this promises to be a way to boost 

breeding success while habitat 

restoration is under way in the new 

reserve. 

The blue-throated macaw does not 

represent a monotypic genus. It faces 

threats that are moderate in magnitude 

because wild birds are no longer taken 

for the legal wild-bird trade as a result 

of the species’ CITES listing, and it is 

also legally protected in Bolivia. 

Wildlife managers in Bolivia are 

actively protecting the species and 

searching for additional populations, 

and the species is now protected in one 

nature reserve. Threats to the species are 

ongoing and, therefore, imminent 

because hunters still trap the birds for 

the illegal bird trade and annual burning 

on private ranches continues. Therefore, 

we have assigned this species a priority 

rank of 8. 

Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus 

galeatus) 

The helmeted woodpecker is endemic 

to the southern Atlantic forest region of 

southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, 

and northeastern Argentina (BirdLife 

International 2009). It is found in tall 

lowland Atlantic and primary and 

mature montane forest and has been 

recorded in degraded and small forest 

patches. However, it is usually found 

near large forest tracts (Chebez 1995b as 

cited in BirdLife International 2009; 

Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009). Helmeted 

woodpecker forage primarily in the 

middle story of the forest interior 

(Brooks et al. 1993 cited in BirdLife 

International 2009; Clay in litt. 2000 as 

cited in BirdLife International 2009). 

Recent field work on the helmeted 

woodpecker revealed that the species is 

less rare than once thought (BirdLife 

International 2009), although its range is 

highly restricted (Mattsson et al. 2008). 

It is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN 

(IUCN 2008). The current population is 

estimated at between 10,000 and 19,999 

individuals and decreasing. Because the 

helmeted woodpecker is difficult to 

locate except when vocalizing and is 

silent most of the year, its numbers are 

probably underestimated. The overall 

status of the helmeted woodpecker is 

unclear. However, it is not common 

anywhere it is known to exist (BirdLife 

International 2009), and in one of the 

few remaining large fragments of 

Atlantic forest in Paraguay it is 

considered to be near threatened 

(Alberto et al. 2007). The greatest threat 

to the helmeted woodpecker is 

widespread deforestation (BirdLife 

International 2009; Cockle 2008 as cited 

in BirdLife International 2009). 

Numerous sightings since the mid-1980s 

include one pair in the Brazilian State 

of Santa Catarina in 1998, where the 

species had not been seen since 1946 

(del Hoyo et al. 2002). The helmeted 

woodpecker is protected by Brazilian 

law, and populations occur in numerous 

protected areas throughout its range 

(Chebez et al. 1998 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009; Lowen et al. 1996 as 

cited in BirdLife International 2009; 

Wege and Long 1995 as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009). Further studies are 

needed to clarify species distribution 

and status (del Hoyo et al. 2002). 

The helmeted woodpecker does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to the species is 

moderate because the population is 

much larger than previously thought 

and imminent because the forest habitat 

upon which the species is dependent is 

constantly being altered by humans. We, 

therefore, have assigned this species a 

priority rank of 8. 

Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos 

noguchii, previously known as 

Sapheopipo noguchii) 

The Okinawa woodpecker lives in the 

northern hills of Okinawa Island, Japan. 

Okinawa is the largest island of the 

Ryukyus Islands, a small island chain 

located between 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 immature 

for use by woodpeckers to excavate nest 

cavities, 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 

cuspidate and Machilus thunbergii trees 

(del Hoyo 2002; Ogasawara and Ikehara 

1977; 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, scientists no longer consider 

the Okinawa woodpecker 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 comprises 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 2008). 

Feral dogs and cats and the introduced 

Javan mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) 

and weasel (Mustela itatsi) are possible 

predators of the woodpecker. 

Additionally, feral pigs damage 

potential ground-foraging sites (BirdLife 

International 2003). 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 proposed to be designated as a 

national park in 1996, and conservation 

organizations have purchased sites 

where the woodpecker occurs to 

establish private wildlife preserves 

(BirdLife International 2008; del Hoyo et 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40549 

al. 2002). However, information from 

the Japanese Ministry of Environment 

shows that the national park has not 

been established (Japanese Ministry of 

Environment 2009), and 

conservationists recommend that a 

major protected area be created to 

protect all the area’s remaining natural 

forest (BirdLife International 2003). 

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. Therefore, we have 

assigned this species a priority rank of 

8. 

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 2009; del Hoyo et 

al. 2002; Wege and Long 1995). Its 

estimated range is only 174 mi2 (450 

km2) (BirdLife International 2009). 

There have been recent reports of 

yellow-browed toucanet from 

Leymebambe (T. Mark in litt. 2003, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2009). It 

inhabits a narrow altitudinal range 

between 6,970 and 8,232 ft (2,125 and 

2,510 m), preferring the canopy of 

humid, epiphyte-laden montane cloud 

forests, particularly areas that support 

Clusia trees (del Hoyo et al. 2002; 

Fjeldsa ̊ and Krabbe 1990; Schulenberg 

and Parker 1997). This narrow 

distributional band may be related to 

the occurrence of the larger greybreasted 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 restricted range of 

yellow-browed toucanet remains 

unexplained, and recent information 

indicates that both of the suggested 

competitors have wider altitudinal 

ranges that completely encompass that 

of 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 2009). The yellow-browed 

toucanet does not appear to occupy all 

potentially suitable forest available 

within its range (Schulenberg and 

Parker 1997). 

Deforestation has been widespread in 

this region, but has largely occurred at 

lower elevations than habitat occupied 

by the yellow-browed toucanet (BirdLife 

International 2009; Barnes et al. 1995). 

However, coca growers have taken over 

forests within its altitudinal range, 

probably resulting in some reductions in 

this species’ range and population 

(BirdLife International 2009; Plenge in 

litt. 1993, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009). Nevertheless, much 

forest remains, though forest at all 

elevations has likely been affected 

(Plenge in litt. 1993, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2009). Most of the area is 

only lightly settled by humans 

(Schulenberg and Parker 1997). 

However, the human population 

surrounding the Rio Abiseo Park was 

steadily increasing during the 15 years 

prior to 2002, primarily because of the 

advent of mining operations in the area 

(Obenson 2002). 

The yellow-browed toucanet 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 2009). 

The current population size is 

unknown, but the population trend is 

believed to be decreasing (BirdLife 

International 2009). 

The yellow-browed toucanet does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to the species is 

moderate and nonimminent given that 

the majority of deforestation has not yet 

occurred at the elevations occupied by 

this species. Therefore, we have 

assigned this species a priority rank of 

11. 

Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus 

novacapitalis) 

The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird 

found in swampy gallery forest, 

disturbed areas of thick streamside 

vegetation, and dense secondary growth 

of the bracken fern (Pteridium 

aquilinum), from Goia ́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 2008). The 

Brasilia Tapaculo will occasionally 

colonize disturbed areas near streams 

(BirdLife International 2003). This 

species has only been recorded locally 

within Formas in Goia ́s, around Brası ́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 Sa ̃o 

Francisco, both in Minas Gerais; and 

Serra do Cipo ́ and Carac ̧a in the hills 

and tablelands of central Brazil (Collar 

et al. 1992). 

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). 

Silviera (1998) found this species to be 

very common in and around Serra da 

Canastra National Park in Minas Gerais. 

The population is estimated at more 

than 10,000 birds, with a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2008). The IUCN categorizes Brasilia 

tapaculo as ‘‘Near Threatened’’ (BirdLife 

International 2008). The species 

occupies a very limited range and is 

presumably losing habitat around 

Brasilia. 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 that 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, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2008; Wege and Long 

1995). However, 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 

2008). 

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, 

we have assigned this species 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 acres (ac) (1,396 

hectares (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 

Bowdleria punctata, each restricted to a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40550 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

single island and its outlying islands. 

The North and South Islands’ 

subspecies are widespread and locally 

common. The Stewart Island and the 

Snares’ subspecies are moderately 

abundant (Heather and Robertson 1997). 

In 1966, the status of the Codfish Island 

subspecies (B. punctata wilsoni) was 

considered relatively safe (Blackburn 

1967), but estimates dating from 1975 

indicated a gradually declining 

population numbering approximately 

100 individuals (Bell 1975 as cited in 

IUCN 1979). McClelland (2007) wrote 

that in the past the Codfish Island 

fernbird 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 absence of the 

fernbird 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 

Australian brush-tailed possum 

(Trichosurus vulpecula). Codfish Island 

fernbird populations have also been 

reduced due to predation by weka 

(Gallirallus australis scotti) and 

Polynesian rats (Merton 1974, personal 

communication, 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 has been 

rebounding strongly with the removal of 

invasive predator species. Additionally, 

it has successfully colonized the forest 

habitat, which greatly expanded its 

range. Although there is no accurate 

estimate on the current size of the 

Codfish Island fernbird population 

(estimates are based on incidental 

encounter rates in the various habitat 

types on the island), the current 

population is believed to be several 

hundred. Thus, McClelland (2007) 

concluded that is it likely that the 

population has peaked and is now 

stable. 

To safeguard the Codfish Island 

fernbird, the New Zealand DOC 

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 that it is 

believed to be stable. While there are no 

accurate data on the population size or 

trends on Putauhinu, the numbers are 

estimated to be 200 to 300 birds spread 

over the island (McClelland 2007). Even 

with a second population, the fernbird 

remains vulnerable to naturally 

occurring storm events because of its 

restricted range and small population 

size. 

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 nonimminent 

because the conservation measures to 

prevent the invasion of predatory 

invasive species have proven to be very 

successful. We have, therefore, assigned 

this subspecies a priority rank of 12. 

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 2008). 

Birds are locally common in the 

remaining tall or old-growth forest, 

which is very fragmented and comprises 

less than 0.39 mi2 (1 km2). 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 2008), and it is 

not known whether these two habitats 

can support sustainable breeding 

populations (Buckingham et al. 1995, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2008). 

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 2008). The population 

estimate for this species is 250 to 999 

birds. Biologists recommended that 

systematic surveys be conducted for this 

species to verify its conservation status 

(Sherley 2001). While there are no data 

on population trends, the species is 

suspected to be declining due to habitat 

degradation (BirdLife International 

2008). 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 2008). 

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 oldgrowth 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 have assigned 

this 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 Paulo, Parana, Santa 

Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and 

Espirito Santo (Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 

2000, as cited in BirdLife International 

2008). It is largely restricted to coastal 

sand-plain forest and littoral scrub, or 

restinga, and has also been located in 

secondary forests (BirdLife International 

2008). The black-backed tanager is 

generally not considered rare within 

suitable habitat (BirdLife International 

2008). It has a complex distribution 

with periodic local fluctuations in 

numbers owing to seasonal movements 

in response to the ripening of areoira 

Schinus fruit, at least in Rio de Janeiro 

and Sao Paulo (BirdLife International 

2008). This species is more common in 

Sao Paulo during the winter and records 

from Espirito Santo are only from the 

winter season. Clarification of the 

species’ seasonal movements will 

provide an improved understanding of 

the species’ population status and 

distribution, but currently populations 

appear small and fragmented and are 

probably declining rapidly in response 

to extensive habitat loss (BirdLife 

International 2008). Population 

estimates range from 2,500 to 10,000 

individuals (BirdLife International 

2008), and it is considered ‘‘Vulnerable’’ 

by the IUCN (BirdLife International 

2008). 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 2008). Only small portions 

of the tanager’s range occur in six 

protected areas, none of which have 

effective protection (BirdLife 

International 2008). 

The black-backed tanager does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The threat 

to the species is low to moderate in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40551 

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 have assigned this species 

a priority rank of 8. 

Lord Howe pied currawong (Strepera 

graculina crissalis) 

The Lord Howe pied currawong is a 

separate subspecies from the five 

mainland pied currawongs (Strepera 

graculina spp.). It is endemic to the 

Lord Howe Island, New South Wales, 

Australia. The Lord Howe pied 

currawong can be found anywhere on 

the 7.7-mi2 (20-km2) 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. Its territories include sections 

of streams or gullies that are lined by 

tall timber (Garnett and Crowley 2000). 

The highest densities of Lord Howe pied 

currawong nests 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 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). It also feeds on dead rats 

and has been observed catching live rats 

to eat (Hutton 1991). A Department of 

Environmental Conservation (DEC) 

scientist observed that food brought to 

Lord Howe pied currawong nestlings 

was, in 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 LIHB, 

made provisions for the LHIB to care, 

control, and manage the island, and 

established 75 percent of the land area 

as a Permanent Park Preserve (DEC 

2007). 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 Lord Howe pied currawong 

population was estimated at 

approximately 80 mature individuals. In 

2006, initial results from a color band 

survey suggested that the population 

size was 180 to 200 in number (LHIB 

2006). Complete results reported by the 

Foundation for National Parks & 

Wildlife (2007) estimated the breeding 

population of the Lord Howe pied 

currawong was 80 to 100 pairs, with a 

nesting territory in the tall forest areas 

of about 12 acres (ac) (5 hectares (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 Biodiversity 

Management Plan was finalized in 2007, 

and is the formal National and NSW 

Recovery Plan for threatened species 

and communities of the Lord Howe 

Island Group (DEC 2007a). The main 

threat identified for the Lord Howe pied 

currawong is habitat clearing and 

modification (DEC 2007b). 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 2007a). 

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 2007a). A lesser threat to 

the Lord Howe pied currawong is 

human interaction with the species. 

Prior to the 1970s, locals would shoot 

this currawong because it preys on 

nestling birds (Hutton 1991). The Lord 

Howe pied currawong remains 

unpopular with some residents. It is 

unknown what effect this localized 

killing has on the overall population 

size and distribution of the species 

(Garnett and Crowley 2000). Also, the 

Lord Howe pied currawong often preys 

on ship (black) rats (Rattus rattus) and 

may be subject to nontarget poisoning 

during rat-baiting programs (DEC 

2007b). Close monitoring of the 

population is needed because this small, 

endemic population is susceptible to 

catastrophic events, such as disease or 

introduction of a new predator (Garnett 

and Crowley 2000). 

The Lord Howe pied currawong is a 

subspecies facing threats that are low in 

magnitude and nonimminent because of 

the conservation efforts taken for the 

island as a whole. Therefore, we have 

assigned this subspecies 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; 

December 7, 2004). 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; 

December 7, 2004) and in the 2007 

Notice of Review (72 FR 20184; April 

23, 2007). 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 Sa ̃o Joa ̃o and Macae ́, 

and the other in Poc ̧o das Antas 

Biological Reserve, further inland. The 

Barra de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o colony is the beststudied. 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40552 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

of the colony in Poc ̧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 Macae ́, where 

the subspecies was netted in Jurubatiba 

National Park in the year 2000, after 

having not been seen in the area for 16 

years (Monteiro et al. 2004). The 

Brazilian Institute of the Environment 

and Natural Resources (Instituto 

Brasileiro do a Meio Ambiente de do 

Recursos Naturais Renova ́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 reevaluated 

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 Sa ̃o Joa ̃o, 

industrialization in Macae ́ (Jurubatiba 

National Park), and previous fires in the 

Poc ̧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; Ho ̈fling 2007; Hughes et 

al. 2006; The Nature Conservancy 2009; 

Peixoto and Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; 

World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007). 

Both Barra de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o and the Poc ̧o 

das Antas Biological Reserve, two of the 

known Harris’ mimic swallowtail 

localities, lie within the Sa ̃o Joa ̃o River 

Basin. The current conditions at Barra 

de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o appear to be suitable for 

long-term survival of this subspecies. 

The Barra de Sa ̃o Joa ̃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 environment 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 Sa ̃o Joa ̃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 Sa ̃o Joa ̃o River Basin is clearly 

within the flying distance of this 

subspecies. The colony at Barra de Sa ̃o 

Joa ̃o has maintained a stable population 

for 20 years, indicating that the 

conditions available there remain 

suitable. 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail ranges 

within two protected areas: Poc ̧o das 

Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba 

National Park. These protected areas are 

described in detail for the fluminense 

swallowtail below. The Poc ̧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 Poc ̧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 is a 

subspecies and does not represent a 

monotypic genus. 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 two 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 nonimminent because 

such destruction within those protected 

areas is not ongoing at this time. 

Therefore, we have assigned the 

subspecies a priority rank of 12. 

Jamaican kite swallowtail (Eurytides 

marcellinus) 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail is 

endemic to Jamaica, preferring wooded, 

undisturbed habitat containing the only 

known larval hostplant West Indian 

lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata); adult 

preferences have not been reported 

(Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 1985). 

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; Mo ̈hn 2002; Smith et al. 1994; 

WRC 2001). 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), 

although it is possible that other sites 

exist given the widely dispersed nature 

of the larval food plant (R. Robbins, in 

litt. 2004). Rozelle may also be referred 

to in the literature as Roselle (e.g., 

Anderson et al. 2007). The Jamaican kite 

swallowtail maintains a low population 

level. It occasionally becomes locally 

abundant in Rozelle during the breeding 

season in early summer and again in 

early fall (Bailey 1994; Brown and 

Heineman 1972; Collins and Morris 

1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al. 

1994), and experiences episodic 

population explosions, as described in 

the 12–month finding (69 FR 70580; 

December 7, 2004) and in the 2007 

ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). 

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). Since 1985, the Jamaican kite 

swallowtail was categorized on the 

IUCN Red List as ‘Vulnerable’ it has not 

been reevaluated using the 1997 criteria 

(IUCN 2008; Gimenez Dixon 1996). 

Habitat destruction has been 

considered a primary threat to the 

Jamaican kite swallowtail. In Rozelle, 

there has been extensive habitat 

modification for agricultural and 

industrial purposes, such as mining 

(Gimenez Dixon 1996; WWF 2001). The 

Jamaican kite’s larval food plant, West 

Indian lancewood, is threatened by 

clearing for cultivation and by felling for 

the commercial timber industry (Collins 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40553 

and Morris 1985; Windsor Plywood 

2004). Monophagous butterflies tend to 

be more threatened than polyphagous 

species, in part due to their specific 

habitat requirements (Kotiaho et al. 

2005), and harvest and clearing reduces 

the availability of the only known larval 

food plant. Habitat modification poses 

an additional threat because the 

swallowtail does not thrive in disturbed 

habitats (Collins and Morris 1985). 

Rozelle is also subject to naturally 

occurring, high-impact stochastic 

events, such as regularly-occurring 

hurricanes, as elaborated in the 2007 

ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). 

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 two decades along the coastal zone 

of Rozelle has resulted in the erosion 

and virtual disappearance of the onceextensive recreational beach. Most 

recently, Hurricane Ivan, a Category 5 

hurricane that hit the island in 2004, 

caused severe local damage to Rozelle 

Beach, including road collapse caused 

by the erosion of the cliff face and 

shoreline. The estimated restoration cost 

from Hurricane Ivan damage was $23 

million U.S. Dollars (US$) ($1.6 million 

Jamaican Dollars (J$) (ECLAC et al. 

2004). Thus, while we do not consider 

stochastic events to be a primary threat 

factor for this species, we believe that 

the damage caused by hurricanes is 

contributing to habitat loss. 

Habitat destruction in western 

Parishes also threatens adult Jamaican 

kite swallowtails. Cockpit Country, 

encompassing 30,000 ha (74,131 ac) of 

rugged forest-karst (a specialized 

limestone habitat) terrain, spans four 

Western Parishes, including Trelawny 

and St. Elizabeth, where adult Jamaican 

kite swallowtails have been observed 

(Gordon and Cambell 2006). Eighty-one 

percent of this region remains forested, 

although fragmentation is occurring as a 

result of human-induced activities (Tole 

2006). 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 threats to the 

hydrology system from in-filling, 

siltation, accumulation of solid waste, 

and invasion by nonnative, invasive 

species (Cockpit Country Stakeholders 

Group and JEAN (Jamaica 

Environmental Advocacy Network 2007; 

Gordon and Cambell 2006; Tole 2006)). 

Currently, the Blue and John Crow 

Mountains National Park, located on the 

inland portions of St. Thomas and St. 

Andrew and the southeast portion of St. 

Mary Parishes, is the only protected area 

in which adult Jamaican Kite 

swallowtails have been observed (Bailey 

1994; Jamaica Conservation and 

Development Trust (JCDT) 2006). 

Created in 1993, this Park encompasses 

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) 

and is considered one of the bestmanaged protected areas in Jamaica 

(JCDT 2006). Deforestation is currently a 

threat in the Blue Mountains (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). 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail has 

been collected for commercial trade 

(Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; 

Schu ̈tz 2000) and has been protected 

under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection 

Act since 1998. This Act carries a 

maximum penalty of US$1439 

(J$100,000) or 12 months imprisonment 

for violating provisions of the Act, 

which 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 (EurLex 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 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). Therefore, we believe that 

overutilization is not currently a 

contributory threat factor for the 

Jamaican kite swallowtail. 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail does 

not represent a monotypic genus. The 

current threat to the species is moderate 

in magnitude because habitat 

destruction is occurring at the species’ 

only known breeding site, but Jamaica 

has taken regulatory steps to preserve 

their native swallowtail species and 

their habitat. The threat is imminent 

because habitat destruction is ongoing 

and stochastic events are unpredictable. 

Therefore, we have assigned this species 

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 April 23, 

2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184). 

The historical range of this species 

has probably always been limited to 

coastal Rio de Janeiro State (Gelhaus et 

al. 2004), but it 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 Sa ̃o Joa ̃o and Macae ́

(in the Restinga de Jurubatiba National 

Park), along the coast; and, Poc ̧o das 

Antas Biological Reserve, further inland 

(Keith S. Brown, Jr., Livre-Docent, 

Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 

Brazil, in litt. 2004; Soler 2005). UeharaPrado and Fonseca (2007) recently 

reported a verified occurrence within 

A ́ rea de Tombamento do Mangue do rio 

Paraı ́ba 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; UeharaPrado and Fonseca 2007). However, the 

species can be seasonally common, with 

sightings of up to 50 individuals in one 

morning in the Barra de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o 

location. The population estimate in 

Barra de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o ranges from 20 to 100 

individuals (Otero and Brown 1984). 

The colony within Poc ̧o 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, 

Washington, D.C., in litt. 2004). There 

are no population estimates for the other 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40554 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

colonies. However, individuals from the 

viable population in Barra de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o 

migrate widely in some years, which is 

likely to enhance interpopulation 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 2008 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 

reevaluated 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; 

Ueraha-Prado and Fonseca). Moreover, 

fluminense swallowtails require large 

areas to maintain viable populations (K. 

Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Otero and 

Brown 1986; Ueraha-Prado and 

Fonseca). The Atlantic Forest habitat, 

which once covered 540,543 mi2 (1.4 

million km2), has been reduced 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; Ho ̈fling 

2007; The Nature Conservancy 2009; 

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007). The 

restinga habitat upon which this species 

depends has been reduced by 6.56 mi2

(17 km2) 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 the conservation status of 

the fluminense swallowtail (UeharaPrado 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 Poc ̧o das 

Antas Biological Reserve. The 

researchers concluded that the existing 

protected area system may be 

inadequate for the conservation of this 

species. 

The Poc ̧o 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 Poc ̧o 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 Rı ́o Sa ̃o Joa ̃o. 

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 Poc ̧o das Antas 

Biological Reserve and Barra de Sa ̃o 

Joa ̃o (Critical Ecosystem Partnership 

Fund (CEPF) 2007a). Corridors are being 

created between existing protected areas 

and 13 privately protected forests, by 

planting and restoring habitat 

previously cleared for agriculture or by 

fires (De Roy 2002). 

The Jurubatiba National Park (14,860 

ha; 36,720 mi2), located in Macae ́ and 

established in 1998 (Decree of April 29 

1998), is one of the largest contiguous 

restingas (specialized sandy, coastal 

habitats) under protection in Brazil 

(CEPF 2007b; Rocha et al. 2007). The 

Macae ́ River Basin forms the outer edge 

of the Jurubatiba National Park (Park) 

(International Finance Corporation (IFC) 

2002) and 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. 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; Schu ̈tz 

2000). The species is easy to capture, 

and species with restricted distributions 

or localized populations, such as the 

fluminense swallowtail, tend to be more 

vulnerable to overcollection than those 

with a wider distribution (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 nondetriment 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 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). 

This is the first report of parasitoid 

association with fluminense 

swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006). To 

date, there is no information as to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40555 

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 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 nonimminent 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, we have assigned the 

fluminense swallowtail a priority rank 

of 5. 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail 

(Parides hahneli) 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is 

endemic to Brazil and is found only on 

sandy beaches where the habitat is 

overgrown with dense scrub vegetation 

(Collins and Morris 1985; New and 

Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 1994). 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is 

likely to be monophagous. Information 

on larval and adult hostplant 

preferences was provided in the Federal 

Register 12–month finding (69 FR 

70580; December 7, 2004) and in the 

2007 ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 

2007). 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is 

known in three localities along the 

tributaries of the middle and lower 

Amazon River basin in the states of 

Amazonas and Para ́ (Collins and Morris 

1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 

1994; Brown 1996). Two of these 

colonies were rediscovered in the 1970s 

(Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996). 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is 

highly localized, reflecting the 

distribution of its highly specialized 

preferred habitat (Brown in litt. 2004). 

The population size of Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail is not known. 

However, within the area of its range, 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail 

populations are small (Brown in litt. 

2004). Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail 

is not nationally protected (MMA 2003; 

Portaria No. 1522 1989), although Para ́

has listed it as endangered on its newly 

created list of threatened species 

(Resoluc ̧a ̃o 054 2007; Decreto No. 802 

2008; Secco and Santos 2008). Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail continues to be 

listed as ‘Data Deficient’ by the IUCN 

Red List (Gimenez Dixon 1996). 

Competition is a potential threat to 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail. 

Researchers have posited that it might 

suffer from host-plant competition with 

any of three other butterfly species that 

occupy a similar range (Collins and 

Morris 1985, Wells 1983, Brown 1996, 

ANOR 2007, 72 FR 20184; April 23, 

2007). However, there is insufficient 

information to conclude that 

competition is a factor affecting this 

species. 

Habitat alteration (e.g., for dam 

construction and waterway crop 

transport) and destruction (e.g., clearing 

for agriculture and cattle grazing) are 

ongoing in Para ́ and Amazonas, where 

this species is found (Fearnside 2006; 

Hurwitz 2007). Current research on 

population declines is lacking. 

However, researchers believe that, 

because Hahnel’s Amazonian 

swallowtail has extremely limited 

habitat preferences, any sort of river 

modification would have an immediate 

and highly negative impact on the 

species (Wells et al. 1983; New and 

Collins 1991). 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail has 

been collected for commercial trade 

(Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; 

Schu ̈tz 2000). Although not strictly 

protected from collection throughout 

Brazil, the state of Para ́ recently 

declared the capture of Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail for purposes 

other than research to be forbidden 

(Decreto No. 802 2008). There continues 

to be limited trade in the species over 

the internet. However, it has not been 

ascertained whether this trade 

represents new collections or older, 

established ones (DSA 2008). Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail is listed on 

Annex B of Regulation 338/97 (Eur-Lex 

2008), and there has been no legal trade 

in this species into the European Union 

since its listing on Annex B in 1997 

(Grimm in litt. 2008). Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail has not been 

formally considered for listing in the 

Appendices of CITES (http:// 

www.cites.org). Additionally, recent 

seizures or smuggling of Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail into or out of 

the United States have not been 

reported (Office of Law Enforcement, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arlington, Virginia in litt. 2008). Species 

with restricted distributions or localized 

populations, like Hahnel’s Amazonian 

swallowtail, are more vulnerable to 

overcollection than those with a wider 

distribution (Brown in litt. 2004; 

Robbins in litt. 2004). 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail does 

not represent a monotypic genus. The 

primary threat of habitat destruction is 

moderate because of the species’ 

specialized habitat requirements. 

However, the threat is imminent 

because habitat alteration is ongoing. 

Illegal collection and trade have not 

been reported. Therefore, we have 

assigned this species a priority rank of 

8. 

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-IHind 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40556 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

IUCN Red List as a species of ‘‘Lower 

Risk/near threatened’’; it has not been 

reevaluated 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; 

Schu ̈tz 2000). In China, where the 

species is protected by the Animals and 

Plants (Protection of Endangered 

Species) Ordinance (1989), which 

restricts import, export, and possession 

of the species, species purportedly 

derived from Sichuan were being 

advertised for sale on the internet for 60 

U.S. Dollars (USD). In India, the KaiserI-Hind swallowtail is listed on Schedule 

II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act 

of 1972, which prohibits hunting 

without a license (Collins and Morris 

1985; Indian Wildlife Protection Act 

2006). However, between 1990 and 

1997, illegally collected specimens were 

selling for 500 Rupees (12 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 Wild Animal 

Reservation and Protection Act 

(WARPA) of 1992 (B.E. 2535 1992), 

which makes it illegal to collect wildlife 

(whether alive or dead) or to have the 

species in one’s possession (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 (2009), being marketed as 

derived from a captive breeding 

program in Thailand, although 

specimens were recently noted as being 

‘‘out of stock’’ (Lepidoptera Breeders 

Association 2009). 

In Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtails are reported to be among 

the most valuable of all butterflies 

(World Bank 2005). In 2006, the species 

was listed on Schedule IIB of Decree No. 

32 on ‘‘Management of endangered, 

precious and rare forest plants and 

animals.’’ A Schedule IIB-listing 

restricts the exploitation or commercial 

use of species with small populations or 

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 KaiserI-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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40557 

swallowtail specimens were traded 

internationally under CITES permits 

(UNEP WCMC 2006), and between 2000 

and 2008, 157 specimens were traded 

(UNEP WCMC 2009). The most recent 

CITES trade data are available for the 

year 2008. Reports that the Kaiser-IHind 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 illegal 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, we have assigned 

this species a priority rank of 8. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

This section describes the actions that 

continue to preclude the immediate 

proposal of listing rules for the 20 

species described above. In addition, we 

summarize the expeditious progress we 

are making, as required by section 

4(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, to add 

qualified species to the lists of 

endangered or threatened species and to 

remove from these lists species for 

which protections of the Act are no 

longer necessary. 

Section 4(b) of the Act states that the 

Service may make warranted-butprecluded findings only if it can 

demonstrate that (1) An immediate 

proposed rule is precluded by other 

pending proposals and that (2) 

expeditious progress is being made on 

other listing actions. Preclusion is a 

function of the listing priority of a 

species in relation to the resources that 

are available and competing demands 

for those resources. Thus, in any given 

fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate 

whether it will be possible to undertake 

work on a proposed listing regulation or 

whether promulgation of such a 

proposal is warranted but precluded by 

higher priority listing actions.In FY 

2009, we have begun to transfer the 

listing of foreign species under the Act 

from the Division of Scientific 

Authority, within the Service’s 

International Affairs program, to the 

domestic Endangered Species Program. 

In addition to the responsibility for 

development of listing proposals and 

promulgation of final rules for domestic 

species, whether internally driven or as 

the result of a petition, the Listing 

Branch within the Washington Office of 

the Endangered Species program will 

have responsibly for listing 

determinations for foreign species as 

well. During this transition period (the 

remainder of FY 2009) the DSA and WO 

Endangered Species Program are sharing 

the work on listing actions for foreign 

species. The work on foreign species is 

being funded from a separate account 

than the work on domestic species. 

Starting in FY 2010, the Service 

anticipates that the WO Endangered 

Species program will have full 

responsibility for foreign species ESA 

listing actions. In FY 2009, we have 

limited funds to work on foreign species 

listing determinations. All funds 

available are being used to complete the 

pending listing actions listed below. 

These actions are either the subject of a 

court-approved settlement agreement or 

subject to an absolute statutory deadline 

and, thus, are higher priority than work 

on proposed listing determinations for 

the 20 species described above. 

Therefore, in the upcoming year, 

publication of proposed rules for the 20 

species described above is precluded. 

ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2009 BUT NOT

YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/ 

Settlement Agreement 

3 species of 

Procellarids 

Final listing determination 

3 other species of 

Procellarids 

Final listing determination 

7 bird species from 

Brazil 

Proposed listing determination 

Salmon crested 

cockatoo 

Proposed listing determination 

6 bird species from 

Peru 

Proposed listing determination 

6 bird species from 

Asia & Eurasia 

Proposed listing determination 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

14 species of parrots 12–month petition 

finding 

Morelet’s crocodile 12–month petition 

finding and Proposed delisting 

determination 

Despite the priorities that preclude 

publishing proposed listing rules for 

these 20 species described in this 

notice, 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 2008 Notice of Review, July 29, 

2008, to the current date includes 

preparing and publishing the following: 

ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS PUBLISHED IN FY 2009 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

8/19/2008 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Snakehead Fish (Channa argus) Notice 90–day petition finding; not substantial 73 FR 48359-48362 

12/8/2008 Listing the Medium Tree Finch (Camarhynchus 

pauper) as Endangered Throughout Its 

Range 

Proposed Listing, Endangered 73 FR 74434-74445 

12/8/2008 Proposed Rule To List Black-Breasted Puffleg 

as Endangered Throughout Its Range 

Proposed Listing, Endangered 73 FR 74427-74434 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS PUBLISHED IN FY 2009—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

12/18/2008 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes 

chrysocome), northern rockhopper penguin 

(Eudyptes moseleyi), macaroni penguin 

(Eudyptes chrysolophus), and emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) and Proposed 

Rule To List southern rockhopper penguin as 

Threatened in the Campbell Plateau Portion 

of Its Range 

Notice 12–month petition finding, Not warranted; Proposed Listing, Threatened 73 FR 77264-77302 

12/18/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition and Proposed 

Rule To List the yellow-eyed penguin 

(Megadyptes antipodes), white-flippered penguin (Eudyptula minor albosignata), 

Fiordland crested penguin (Eudyptes 

pachyrhynchus), Humboldt penguin 

(Spheniscus humboldti), and erect-crested 

penguin (Eudyptes sclateri) as Threatened 

Throughout Their Range 

Notice 12–month petition finding, Warranted; 

Proposed Listing, Threatened 

73 FR 77303-77332 

12/18/2008 12-Month Finding on a Petition and Proposed 

Rule To List the African Penguin 

(Spheniscus demersus) as Endangered 

Throughout Its Range 

Notice 12–month petition finding, Warranted; 

Proposed Listing, Threatened 

73 FR 77332-77341 

12/24/2008 Listing Three Foreign Bird Species From Latin 

America and the Caribbean as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range 

Proposed Listing, Endangered 73 FR 79226-79254 

2/03/2009 Notice of 90–day petition finding and initiation 

of status review of the wood bison to determine if reclassification of this subspecies is 

warranted under the Act 

Notice 90–day petition finding; substantial 73 FR 5908-5910 

7/ 07/2009 Proposed Rule to List Five Foreign Bird Species in Colombia and Ecuador, South America, under the Endangered Species Act Proposed Listing, Endangered 74 FR 32307 32349 

7/14/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 14 Parrot 

Species as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice 90–day petition finding; substantial 74 FR 33957 33960 

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. 

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 described 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 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40559 

especially seek information: (1) 

indicating that we should remove a 

taxon from consideration for listing; (2) 

documenting threats to any of the 

included taxa; (3) describing the 

immediacy or magnitude of threats 

facing these taxa; (4) identifying 

taxonomic or nomenclatural changes for 

any of the taxa; or (5) noting any 

mistakes, such as errors in the indicated 

historic ranges. 

References Cited 

A list of the references used to 

develop this notice is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

This Notice of Review was authored 

by the staff of the Endangered Species 

Program, 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.). 

Date: July 29, 2009. 

James J. Slack 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

TABLE 1. – ANNUAL NOTICE OF REVIEW

(C = listing warranted but precluded) 

Status 

Scientific name Family Common name Historic range 

Category Priority 

BIRDS 

C ............... 8 .............. Pauxi unicornis ........................... Craciidae .............. southern helmeted 

curassow ........................ Bolivia, Peru 

C ............... 8 .............. Rallus semiplumbeus .................. Rallidae ................. Bogota rail .......................... Colombia 

C 8 .............. Porphyrio hochstetteri ................. Rallidae ................. Takahe ............................... New Zealand 

C 8 .............. Haematopus chathamensis ........ Haematopodidae .. Chatham oystercatcher ...... Chatham Islands, New 

Zealand 

C ............... 8 .............. Cyanoramphus malherbi ............. Psittacidae ............ orange-fronted parakeet .... New Zealand 

C ............... 8 .............. Eunymphicus uvaeensis ............. Psittacidae ............ Uvea parakeet ................... Uvea, New Caledonia 

C ............... 8 .............. Ara glaucogularis ........................ Psittacidae ............ blue-throated macaw ......... Bolivia 

C ............... 8 .............. Dryocopus galeatus .................... Picidae .................. helmeted woodpecker ........ Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay 

C ............... 8 .............. Dendrocopus noguchii ................ Picidae .................. Okinawa woodpecker ........ Okinawa Island, Japan 

C ............... 11 ............ Aulacorhynchus huallagae .......... Ramphastidae ...... yellow-browed toucanet ..... Peru 

C ............... 8 .............. Scytalopus novacapitalis ............ Conopophagidae .. Brasilia tapaculo ................ Brazil 

C ............... 12 ............ Bowdleria punctata wilsoni ......... Sylviidae ............... Codfish Island fernbird ....... Codfish Island, New Zealand 

C ............... 8 .............. Zosterops luteirostris .................. Zosteropidae ......... Ghizo white-eye ................. Solomon Islands 

C ............... 8 .............. Tangara peruviana ...................... Thraupidae ........... black-backed tanager ........ Brazil 

C ............... 12 ............ Strepera graculina crissalis ........ Cracticidae ............ Lord Howe pied currawong Lord Howe Islands, New 

South Wales 

INVERTEBRATES 

C ............... 12 ............ Eurytides (= Graphium or 

Mimoides)lysithous harrisianus Paplionidae ........... Harris’ mimic swallowtail .... Brazil, Paraguay 

C ............... 8 .............. Eurytides (= Graphium or 

Neographium or 

Protographium or Protesilaus) 

marcellinus .............................. Paplionidae ........... Jamaican kite swallowtail .. Jamaica 

C ............... 5 .............. Parides ascanius ........................ Paplionidae ........... Fluminense swallowtail ...... Brazil 

C ............... 8 .............. Parides hahneli ........................... Paplionidae ........... Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail ............................. Brazil 

C ............... 8 .............. Teinopalpus imperialis ................ Paplionidae ........... Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail .... Bhutan, China, India, Laos, 

Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
40560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. E9–18842 Filed 8–7– 09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 218 

[Docket No. 0906101030–91038–01] 

RIN 0648–AX88 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Navy Training Activities 

Conducted within the Northwest 

Training Range Complex 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed rule; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On July 13, 2009, the NMFS 

published its proposed regulations to 

govern the take marine mammals 

incidental to training activities 

conducted within the U.S. Navy’s 

Northwest Training Range Complex 

(NWTRC) for the period of February 

2010 through February 2015. The 

Federal Register notice indicated 

written comments were due by August 

12, 2009, allowing 30 days for public 

input. In response to a request from a 

public interest organization, NMFS is 

extending the public comment period 

by 7 days, to August 19, 2009. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

this action has been extended from 

August 12 to August 19, 2009. Written 

comments and information must be 

received no later than August 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AX88, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov 

• Hand delivery or mailing of paper, 

disk, or CD-ROM comments should be 

addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie 

Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 301–713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

3, 2009, NMFS received a request from 

Friends of the Earth, a non-profit 

environmental advocacy organization, 

requesting a 30–day extension of the 

comment period on the NWTRC 

proposed rule. NMFS has considered 

this request along with the critical 

military readiness training needs of the 

Navy and the need for timely MMPA 

compliance and will provide an 

additional seven days for public 

comment. Further postponement of the 

MMPA authorization process and the 

establishment of the necessary 

protective measures would risk a delay 

in the Navy’s critical military readiness 

training. 

Moreover, the public has had 

numerous opportunities to comment on 

the Navy’s proposed action and 

potential environmental consequences 

through the National Environmental 

Policy Act process [Northwest Training 

Range Complex Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

December 2008 (DEIS)]. The activities 

and potential environmental effects 

described in NMFS’ NWTRC proposed 

rule are similar to, if not identical to, 

those considered in the Navy’s DEIS. In 

particular, the public comment period 

for the DEIS was extended twice, 

providing a total of 105 days for public 

review, and several public meetings 

were added. 

Background information concerning 

the proposed regulations can be found 

in the July 13, 2009 Federal Register 

notice (74 FR 33828), and is not 

repeated here. For additional 

information regarding the proposed 

regulations and the Navy’s associated 

Environmental Impact Statement, please 

visit NMFS’ website at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#applications 

Dated: August 6, 2009. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Division of Permits, Conservation, and 

Education, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–19334 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS