50052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R9–ES–2009–0084; MO 92210– 

1111F114 B6] 

RIN 1018–AW39 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing Six Foreign Birds 

as Endangered Throughout Their 

Range 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, determine endangered 

status for the following six foreign 

species found on islands in French 

Polynesia and in Europe, Southeast 

Asia, and Africa: Cantabrian capercaillie 

(Tetrao urogallus cantabricus); 

Marquesan imperial pigeon (Ducula 

galeata); the Eiao Marquesas reedwarbler (Acrocephalus percernis 

aquilonis), previously referred to as 

(Acrocephalus mendanae aquilonis); 

greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius); 

Jerdon’s courser (Rhinoptilus 

bitorquatus); and slender-billed curlew 

(Numenius tenuirostris), under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended. This final rule implements 

the Federal protections provided by the 

Act for these species. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

September 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and comments and 

materials received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this rule, will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 

Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– 

358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), 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.) is a law that was passed to prevent 

extinction of species by providing 

measures to help alleviate the loss of 

species and their habitats. Before a plant 

or animal species can receive the 

protection provided by the Act, it must 

first be added to the Federal Lists of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants; section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

424 set forth the procedures for adding 

species to these lists. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On January 5, 2010, the Service 

published in the Federal Register a rule 

proposing to list these six foreign bird 

species as endangered under the Act (75 

FR 286). Following publication of the 

proposed rule, we implemented the 

Service’s peer review process and 

opened a 60-day comment period to 

solicit scientific and commercial 

information on the species from all 

interested parties. For more detailed 

information on previous Federal 

actions, please refer to the January 2010 

proposed rule. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We base this finding on a review of 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available, including all 

information received during the public 

comment period. In the January 5, 2010, 

proposed rule, we requested that all 

interested parties submit information 

that might contribute to development of 

a final rule. We also contacted 

appropriate scientific experts and 

organizations and invited them to 

comment on the proposed listings. We 

received comments from 10 individuals; 

five of which were from peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the public and peer 

reviewers for substantive issues and 

new information regarding the proposed 

listing of these species, and we address 

those comments below. Overall, the 

commenters and peer reviewers 

supported the proposed listing. Nine 

comments included additional 

information for consideration; the 

remaining comment simply supported 

the proposed listing without providing 

scientific or commercial data. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from 21 individuals with scientific 

expertise that included familiarity with 

the species, the geographic region in 

which the species occurs, and 

conservation biology principles. We 

received responses from five of the peer 

reviewers from whom we requested 

comments. They generally agreed that 

the description of the biology and 

habitat for the species was accurate and 

based on all relevant literature. Some 

new information was provided for some 

of the species, as well as technical 

clarifications, as described below. 

Technical corrections suggested by the 

peer reviewers have been incorporated 

into this final rule. In some cases, it has 

been indicated in the citations by 

‘‘personal communication’’ (pers. 

comm.), which could indicate either an 

e-mail or telephone conversation; while 

in other cases, the research citation is 

provided. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

(1) Comment: Two peer reviewers 

provided comments and additional 

literature regarding the Cantabrian 

capercaillie’s diet, noting that the diet 

for the subspecies is unique compared 

to other capercaillie species. 

Our Response: We reviewed the 

additional literature provided and 

updated the information on the 

subspecies’ population estimate and 

diet, highlighting the use of different 

plants throughout the season. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that grouse, including 

capercaillie, do not have ‘‘crests,’’ but 

supraorbital combs and that the 

description of the bird given was not a 

good one. Another peer reviewer noted 

that the species description included 

only the male plumage and did not 

describe the female. 

Our Response: The ‘‘crests’’ in the 

species description given in the 

proposed rule refers to a scarlet crestshaped area above the eyes. We have 

replaced ‘‘crests’’ with ‘‘supraorbital 

combs.’’ We have also revised the 

species description to include more 

specific details of the species’ traits and 

included a description of the female. 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

provided additional literature on 

differences in habitat selection within 

the Cantabrian capercaillie subspecies. 

Our Response: We have reviewed the 

provided literature and have revised our 

discussion on the Cantabrian 

capercaillie habitat to reflect the slight 

differences in the preferred habitat of 

hens and cocks during the summer. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that there was not enough data 

available to support information on 

Cantabrian capercaillie population 

subdivision. 

Our Response: The peer reviewer is 

referring to a study, conducted by Pollo 

et al. (2005), which we included in our 

discussion of the population decline in 

Cantabrian capercaillie. The study 

counted singing males in leks located 

across the southern slope of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50053 

Cantabrian Mountains. The author 

considered a set of leks of a side-valley 

or a continuous forested habitat, 

generally separated by intervening 

ridges, to be a subpopulation. There is 

no information indicating that these 

groupings are true subpopulations. 

Based on this, we removed the language 

referring to subpopulations and reported 

the results of the study in total number 

of singing males across the southern 

slope. 

(5) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated there were updates on the 

phylogeography of the Cantabrian 

Capercaillie and its potential 

significance for future management, and 

provided additional literature. 

Our Response: We reviewed the 

provided literature and incorporated the 

results of a genetic study under the 

Conservation Status section for this 

species. 

(6) Comment: One peer reviewer 

provided clarification on the IUCN 

assessment process. 

Our Response: Our discussion under 

the Conservation Status section of the 

proposed rule suggested that the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) had decided not to list 

the Cantabrian subspecies. All bird 

species are regularly assessed by the 

IUCN; however, subspecies are often 

omitted because of capacity limitations, 

although IUCN Red List categories and 

criteria can be applied to subspecies. 

We have revised the discussion per the 

peer reviewer’s comment. 

(7) Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that the common name Eiao 

Polynesian warbler was misleading and 

suggested a more specific English 

common name, Eiao Marquesas reedwarbler. This peer reviewer also 

provided additional citations for the 

Eiao Polynesian warbler and Marquesan 

imperial pigeon. 

Our Response: The peer reviewer 

pointed out that species of the genus 

Acrocephalus are specifically reedwarblers and there are several species 

which inhabit the Polynesian region. 

We have changed our use of Eiao 

Polynesian warbler to Eiao Marquesas 

reed-warbler to more clearly refer to the 

reed-warbler that resides on Eiao Island 

in the Marquesas. We also reviewed the 

suggested citations and updated the 

information on clutch size for the Eiao 

Marquesas reed-warbler and population 

information for the Marquesan imperial 

pigeon. 

(8) Comment: One peer reviewer 

provided additional citations regarding 

the description of the Jerdon’s courser. 

This peer reviewer also provided 

information on hunting as a threat to the 

Jerdon’t courser. 

Our Response: We have reviewed the 

suggested citation and have corrected 

the species description for the Jerdon’s 

courser. Also, we have added 

information on hunting as a potential 

threat to this species, but also note that 

there is no quantitative information on 

which to analyze this threat. 

(9) Comment: One peer reviewer 

provided two additional citations for 

consideration regarding the slenderbilled curlew. 

Our Response: We reviewed the 

suggested citations and included 

additional information on nesting 

habitat and alterations to the nesting 

habitat described by Ushakov in 1924. 

Public Comments 

(10) Comment: One commenter 

suggested we also consider protecting 

the habitat of these six species. 

Our Response: The Service does not 

have the authority to purchase or 

similarly protect habitat in areas under 

the jurisdiction of other countries. 

However, recognition through listing 

results in public awareness, and 

encourages and results in conservation 

actions by Federal and State 

governments, private agencies and 

groups, and individuals; these actions 

may address the conservation of habitat 

needed by foreign-listed species. The 

Act also authorizes the provision of 

limited financial assistance for the 

development and management of 

programs that the Secretary of the 

Interior determines to be necessary or 

useful for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species in 

foreign countries; these programs may 

also be aimed at the conservation of 

habitat needed by listed species. 

(11) Comment: One comment 

provided a technical correction to the 

status of the Cantabrian capercaillie 

under Spain’s National Catalog of 

Endangered Species and provided the 

amendment changing its status to ‘‘in 

danger of extinction.’’ This commenter 

also provided additional literature 

regarding population estimates for the 

Cantabrian capercaillie and a recent 

decree approving a recovery plan for 

this subspecies. 

Our Response: Under the 

Conservation Status section of the 

Cantabrian capercaillie, we have revised 

our text to indicate that this subspecies 

is listed as ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ 

based on the 2005 amendment changing 

its status from ‘‘vulnerable.’’ We also 

reviewed the information on population 

estimates along with the additional 

citations provided by two peer 

reviewers (discussed above under Peer 

Reviewer Comments). We have updated 

the information on the subspecies’ 

population estimate. We added 

information under Factor D relating to 

the approved Recovery Plan and the 

protections and measures it provides. 

(12) Comment: One commenter 

provided two citations and stated that 

the Cantabrian capercaillie habitat 

consists of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) 

and disappearance of pine trees in the 

Cantabrian Mountains threatens the 

Cantabrian capercaillie. The commenter 

further states that future habitat 

alteration due to climate change will 

likely further threaten and impact the 

species. 

Our Response: After review of the two 

citations, we do not agree with the 

commenter’s conclusions. It is our 

opinion that the first citation given by 

the commenter (Science Daily 2008, 

unpaginated) misinterprets the study 

and conclusions of Rubiales et al. 

(2008). To begin, the Cantabrian 

capercaillie occurs in entirely 

deciduous forests, not pine forests. In 

fact, this habitat difference is part of the 

basis for the Cantabrian capercaillie 

being described as a separate 

subspecies. Furthermore, the Rubiales et 

al. (2008) article describes the historical 

biogeography of Scots pine in the 

Cantabrian range and only briefly 

compares the trends in distribution of 

Scots pine and the capercaillie species 

as a whole, not just the Cantabrian 

capercaillie subspecies (Rubiales et al. 

2008, pp. 6–7). The journal article does 

conclude that today’s Scots pine and 

capercaillie populations are now highly 

fragmented and their future, given the 

predictions of global climate change, is 

uncertain (Rubiales et al. 2008, p. 1); 

however, this conclusion is referring to 

the species as a whole. Given that the 

other subspecies of capercaillie occur in 

entirely coniferous or mixed-coniferous 

forests, this statement is more 

appropriate to those subspecies and not 

to the Cantabrian capercaillie. We did 

not find, or receive, any information on 

climate change in the region of the 

Cantabrian capercaillie or information 

on the impact on deciduous forests in 

this area. Therefore, we did not add any 

information on the impact of climate 

change to the Cantabrian capercaillie. 

(13) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the slender-billed curlew has been 

identified as a species threatened by 

climate change due to its small and 

declining population size and area of 

occupancy. The commenter also 

provided an additional citation to 

support this statement. 

Our Response: We have reviewed the 

suggested literature and have included 

under Factor E additional information 

on climate change predictions within 

the African-Eurasian Waterbird Flyway 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

and potential impacts to slender-billed 

curlew based on these predictions. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

We fully considered comments from 

the public and peer reviewers on the 

proposed rule to develop this final 

listing of these six foreign bird species. 

This final rule incorporates changes to 

our proposed listing based on the 

comments that we received that are 

discussed above and newly available 

scientific and commercial information. 

Reviewers generally commented that the 

proposed rule was very thorough and 

comprehensive. We made some 

technical corrections based on new, 

although limited, information. None of 

the information, however, changed our 

determination that listing these species 

as endangered is warranted. 

One substantive change we have 

made is in our analysis of the slenderbilled curlew. In our proposed rule, we 

concluded that Factor A. (Present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range) was a 

threat to the species throughout its 

range. However, after further analysis of 

the information, we find that the loss of 

habitat is historic and that other species 

that use the same types of habitat have 

not experienced the same population 

decline seen in the slender-billed 

curlew. Furthermore, since it is not 

known what habitat the slender-billed 

curlew currently uses when in its 

nesting grounds, passage areas, or 

wintering grounds, we cannot properly 

assess the current or potential future 

threat of habitat modification or the 

impacts on this species. Therefore, we 

find that Factor A is not a threat to the 

species. This change did not alter our 

overall determination that the slenderbilled curlew is in danger of extinction 

and should be listed as endangered 

under the Act. 

Species Information and Factors 

Affecting the Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on any 

of the following five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. 

Despite the fact that global climate 

changes are occurring and affecting 

habitat, the climate change models that 

are currently available do not yet enable 

us to make meaningful predictions of 

climate change for specific, local areas 

(Parmesan and Matthews 2005, p. 354). 

We have obtained information on 

climate change for the slender-billed 

curlew and potential impacts to this 

species (See Factor E). However, we do 

not have models to predict how the 

climate in the range of the other 

Eurasian and Asian bird species will 

change, and we do not know how any 

change that may occur would affect 

these species. Nor do we have 

information on past and future weather 

patterns within the specific range of 

these species. Therefore, based on the 

current lack of information, we did not 

evaluate climate change as a threat to 

five of these species. 

Below is a species-by-species 

description and analysis of the five 

factors. The species are considered in 

alphabetical order, beginning with the 

Cantabrian capercaillie, followed by the 

Eiao Marquesas reed-warbler, greater 

adjutant, Jerdon’s courser, Marquesan 

Imperial Pigeon, and the slender-billed 

curlew. 

I. Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao 

urogallus cantabricus) 

Species Description 

The Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao 

urogallus cantabricus) is a subspecies of 

the western capercaillie (T. urogallus) in 

the family Tetraonidae. The species in 

general is a large, very dark grouse of 80 

to 115 centimeters (cm) in length (31 to 

45 inches (in)), with the female being 

much smaller than the male. The 

species is characterized by having slate 

gray plumage with fine blackish 

vermiculation (wavelike pattern) around 

the head and neck. The breast is a glossy 

greenish-black. The wings are dark 

brown with a prominent white carpal 

patch and variable amount of white on 

the upper- and undertail-coverts 

(feathers) and the underparts. This bird 

has a long, rounded tail, an ivory white 

bill, and a scarlet supraorbital comb 

(above the eye). Females are mottled 

black, gray and buff with a large rusty 

patch on the breast (World Association 

of Zoos and Aquaria 2009, 

unpaginated). Based on ecological 

differences from other capercaillie 

subspecies (the Cantabrian capercaillie 

is the only subspecies that inhabits pure 

deciduous forests) and morphological 

differences from the Pyrenean 

capercaillie (T. u. aquitanicus) 

(Cantabrian capercaillie are lighter in 

color and have a smaller beak), the 

Cantabrian population was described as 

belonging to a different subspecies by 

Castroviejo 1976 (Rodrı ́guez-Mun ̃ oz et 

al. 2007, pp. 660, 666). 

The Cantabrian capercaillie once 

existed along the whole of the 

Cantabrian Mountain range from 

northern Portugal through Galicia, 

Asturias, and Leon, to Santander in 

northern Spain (IUCN Redbook 1979, 

p. 1). Currently its range is restricted to 

both the northern slope (Asturias and 

Cantabria provinces) and the southern 

slope (Leo ́n and Palencia provinces) of 

the Cantabrian Mountains in northwest 

Spain. The subspecies inhabits an area 

of 1,700 square kilometers (km2) (656 

square miles (mi2)), and its range is 

separated from its nearest neighboring 

subspecies of capercaillie (T. u. 

aquitanus) in the Pyrenees mountains 

by a distance of more than 300 km (186 

mi) (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 268). 

Unlike other capercaillie subspecies, 

the Cantabrian capercaillie occurs in 

entirely deciduous forests consisting of 

a rugged montane landscape of mature 

beech (Fagus sylvatica), sessile oak 

(Quercus petraea), and birch (Betula 

pubescens) (Rodrı ́guez-Mun ̃oz et al. 

2007, pp. 659, 660; Banuelos et al. 2008, 

pp. 245–246) at elevations ranging from 

800 to 1,800 m (2,600 to 5,900 ft). The 

Cantabrian capercaillie also uses other 

microhabitat types (broom (Genista 

spp.), meadow, and heath (Erica spp.)) 

selectively throughout the year 

(Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271). A recent 

study has found that some habitat 

partitioning occurs amongst the 

Cantabrian capercaillie. During the 

summer, hens and cocks are more 

associated with open areas than the 

forested spring display areas. 

Specifically, hens with broods are more 

associated with treeline birch forests, 

which are the most suitable areas for the 

species, and are characterized by a rich 

understory of shrubs such as heath and 

bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus); hens 

without broods prefer a more rugged 

terrain; and cocks prefer beech or oak 

forests (Banuelos et al. 2008, p. 249). 

Diet appears to be a driver of habitat 

selection (Blanco-Fontao et al. 2009, 

pp. 1, 6). In summer and autumn, the 

majority of the Cantabrian capercaillie 

diet consists of bilberry (mainly berries) 

and fern fronds. In winter, holly leaves 

(Ilex aquifolium), beech buds, bilberry 

shoots and fern fronds make up a 

majority of the diet, whereas only beech 

buds, bilberry shoots and fern fronds 

dominate the spring diet. Birch, oak, 

rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), heath, and 

broom are also consumed, but in much 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50055 

smaller amounts (Blanco-Fontao et al. 

2009, p. 4). 

The current population is likely less 

than 1,000 birds; however, reliable 

estimates are lacking (Storch 2007, 

p. 49). Population estimates for species 

of grouse are commonly assessed by 

counting males that gather during the 

breeding season to sing and display at 

leks (traditional places where males 

assemble during the mating season and 

engage in competitive displays to attract 

females). In a 1981–1982 survey of the 

southern slope, Pollo et al. (2005, 

p. 401) estimated a minimum number of 

274 singing male capercaillie; in 

subsequent surveys from 1987–1989, 

1998, and 2000–2003, only 219, 94, and 

81 males were recorded, respectively, 

indicating a 70 percent reduction. This 

is equivalent to an average decline of 3 

percent per year, or 22 percent over 8 

years (Storch et al. 2006, p. 654). A 

study conducted from 2005 to 2007 

found that only 30 percent of all known 

leks were occupied in the northern 

watershed of the species’ range, 

indicating an occupancy decline of 5.4 

percent. In the southern watershed, only 

34.5 percent of all known leks in the 

area remain occupied (Ban ̃uelos and 

Quevedo 2008, p. 5). 

The area occupied by Cantabrian 

capercaillie in 1981–1982 covered up to 

approximately 2,070 km2 (799 mi2) of 

the southern slope (972 km2 (375 mi2) 

in the west and 1,098 km2 (424 mi2) in 

the east). Between 2000 and 2003, the 

area of occupancy had declined to 693 

km2 (268 mi2), specifically 413 km2 (159 

mi2) in the west and 280 km2 (108 mi2) 

in the east. Thus, over a 22-year period, 

there was a 66-percent reduction in the 

areas occupied by this subspecies on the 

southern slope of the Cantabrian 

Mountains (Pollo et al. 2005, p. 401). 

Based on this data, the subpopulation in 

the eastern portion of the range appears 

to be declining at a faster rate than the 

subpopulation in the western portion of 

the range. 

Conservation Status 

Although Storch et al. (2006 p. 653) 

noted that the Cantabrian capercaillie 

meets the criteria to be listed as 

‘‘Endangered’’ on the IUCN Redlist due 

to ‘‘rapid population declines, small 

population size, and severely 

fragmented range,’’ it is currently not 

classified as such by the IUCN. The 

species (western capercaillie (Tetrao 

urogallus)) has been evaluated and is 

listed as Least Concern (Birdlife 

International 2009, unpaginated); 

subspecies are generally omitted due to 

capacity limitations, although the IUCN 

categories and criteria can be applied to 

subspecies (Storch et al. 2006 p. 653). 

The species is classified as ‘‘in danger 

of extinction’’ in Spain under the 

National Catalog of Endangered Species 

(Ministry of the Environment MAM 

Order/2231/2005). The species has not 

been formally considered for listing in 

the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES) Appendices (http:// 

www.cites.org). Recent phylogenetic 

studies indicate that the Cantabrian 

capercaillie forms a different clade from 

those of other European capercaillie, 

and factoring in ecological differences, 

qualifies as an Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit (Storch et al. 2006, p. 

653; Rodrı ́guez-Mun ̃ oz et al. 2007, p. 

668). Combined with recent population 

trends and changes in distribution, 

Rodrı ́guez-Mun ̃ oz et al. (2007, p. 668) 

suggest the status of this species should 

be defined as critical. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Cantabrian Capercaillie 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

Numerous limiting factors influence 

the population dynamics of the 

Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its 

range, including habitat degradation, 

loss, and fragmentation (Storch 2000, p. 

83; 2007, p. 96). Forest structure plays 

an important role in determining habitat 

suitability and occupancy. Quevedo et 

al. (2006b, p. 274) found that open forest 

structure with well-distributed bilberry 

shrubs were the preferred habitat type of 

Cantabrian capercaillie. Management of 

forest resources for timber production 

has caused and continues to cause 

significant changes in forest structure 

such as: Species composition, density 

and height of trees, forest patch size, 

and understory vegetation (Pollo et al. 

2005, p. 406). 

The historic range occupied by this 

subspecies (3,500 km2 (1,350 mi2)) has 

declined by more than 50 percent 

(Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 268). The 

current range is severely fragmented, 

with low forest habitat cover (22 percent 

of the landscape) and most of the 

suitable habitat remaining in small 

patches less than 10 hectares (ha) (25 

acres (ac)) in size (Garcia et al. 2005, p. 

34). Patches of good-quality habitat are 

scarce and discontinuous, particularly 

in the central parts of the range 

(Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 269), and leks 

in the smaller forest patches have been 

abandoned during the last few decades. 

The leks that remain occupied are now 

located farther from forest edges than 

those occupied in the 1980s (Quevedo et 

al. 2006b, p. 271). 

Based on population surveys, forest 

fragments containing occupied leks in 

2000 were significantly larger than 

fragments containing leks in the 1980s 

that have since been abandoned 

(Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271). The 

forest fragments from which the 

Cantabrian capercaillie has disappeared 

since the 1980s are small in size, and 

are the most isolated from other forest 

patches. In addition, the Cantabrian 

capercaillie have disappeared from 

forest patches located closest to the edge 

of the range in both the eastern and 

western subpopulations of the south 

slope of the Cantabrian Mountains, 

suggesting that forest fragmentation is 

playing an important role in the 

population dynamics of this subspecies 

(Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271). Research 

conducted on other subspecies of 

capercaillie indicate that the size of 

forest patches is correlated to the 

number of males that gather in leks to 

display, and that below a certain forest 

patch size, leks are abandoned 

(Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 273). 

In highly fragmented landscapes, 

forest patches are embedded in a matrix 

of other habitats, and forest dwellers 

like capercaillies frequently encounter 

open areas within their home range. 

Quevedo et al. (2006a, p. 197) 

developed a habitat suitability model for 

the Cantabrian capercaillie that assessed 

the relationship between forest patch 

size and occupancy. He determined that 

the subspecies still remains in habitat 

units that show habitat suitability 

indices below the cut-off values of the 

two best predictive models (decline and 

general), which may indicate a high risk 

of local extinction. Other researchers 

suggested that, should further habitat or 

connectivity loss occur, the Cantabrian 

capercaillie population may become so 

disaggregated that the few isolated 

subpopulations will be too small to 

ensure their own long-term persistence 

(Grimm and Storch 2000, p. 224). 

A demographic model based on 

Bavarian alpine populations of 

capercaillie suggests a minimum viable 

population size of the order of 500 birds 

(Grimm and Storch 2000, p. 222). 

However, genetic data show clear signs 

of reduced variability in populations 

with numbers of individuals in the 

range of fewer than 1,000 birds, which 

indicates that a demographic minimum 

population of 500 birds may be too 

small to maintain high genetic 

variability (Segelbacher et al. 2003, p. 

1779). Genetic consequences of habitat 

fragmentation exist for this species in 

the form of increased genetic 

differentiation due to increased 

isolation of populations (Segelbacher et 

al. 2003, p. 1779). Therefore, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

anthropogenic habitat deterioration and 

fragmentation not only leads to range 

contractions and extinctions, but may 

also have significant genetic, and thus, 

evolutionary consequences for the 

surviving populations (Segelbacher et 

al. 2003, p. 1779). 

In summary, recent population 

surveys show this subspecies is 

continuing to decline throughout its 

current range, and subpopulations may 

be isolated from one another due to 

range contractions in the eastern and 

western portions of its range, leaving the 

central portion of the subspecies range 

abandoned (Pollo et al. 2005, p. 401). 

Some remaining populations may 

already have a high risk of local 

extinction (Quevedo et al. 2006a, p. 

197). Management of forest resources for 

timber production continues to 

negatively affect forest structure, 

thereby affecting the quality, quantity, 

and distribution of suitable habitat 

available for this subspecies. In 

addition, the structure of the matrix of 

habitats located between forest patches 

is likely affecting the ability of 

capercaillies to disperse between 

subpopulations. Therefore, we find that 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

habitat or range is a threat to the 

continued existence of the Cantabrian 

capercaillie throughout its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Currently hunting of the Cantabrian 

capercaillie is illegal in Spain; however, 

illegal hunting still occurs (Storch 2000, 

p. 83; 2007, p. 96). Because this species 

congregates in leks, individuals are 

particularly easy targets, and poaching 

of protected grouse is considered 

common (Storch 2000, p. 15). It is 

unknown what the incidence of 

poaching is or what impact it is having 

on this subspecies; however, given the 

limited number of birds remaining and 

the reduced genetic variability already 

evident at current population levels, the 

further loss of breeding adults could 

have substantial impact on the 

subspecies. Therefore, we find that 

overutilization for recreational purposes 

is a threat to the continued existence of 

the Cantabrian capercaillie throughout 

its range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Diseases and parasites have been 

proposed as factors associated with the 

decline of populations of other species 

within the same family of birds as the 

capercaillie (Tetraonidae) (Obeso et al. 

2000, p. 191). In an attempt to 

determine if parasites were contributing 

to the decline of the Cantabrian 

capercaillie, researchers collected and 

analyzed fecal samples in 1998 from 

various localities across the range of this 

subspecies. The prevalence of common 

parasites (Eimeria sp. and Capillaria sp.) 

was present in 58 percent and 25 

percent of the samples collected, 

respectively. However, both the 

intensity and average intensity of these 

parasites were very low compared to 

other populations of species of birds in 

the Tetraonidae family. Other parasites 

were found infrequently. The 

researchers concluded that it was 

unlikely that intestinal parasites were 

causing the decline of the Cantabrian 

capercaillie. 

Based on the information above, we 

do not believe that parasite infestations 

are a significant factor in the decline of 

this subspecies. We are not aware of any 

species-specific information currently 

available that indicates that predation 

poses a threat to the species. Therefore, 

we are not considering disease or 

predation to be contributing threats to 

the continued existence of the 

Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its 

range. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

This subspecies is currently classified 

as ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ in Spain 

under the National Catalog of 

Endangered Species, which affords it 

special protection (e.g., additional 

regulation of activities in the forests of 

its range, regulation of trails and roads 

in the area, elimination of poaching, and 

protection of areas important to young). 

Although it is classified as ‘‘in danger of 

extinction,’’ as mentioned above (see 

Factor B), illegal hunting still occurs. 

In conjunction with this subspecies 

being listed as ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ 

under the National Catalog of 

Endangered Species, a recovery plan for 

the Cantabrian capercaillie was 

approved by the Autonomous 

Community of Castilla and Leon. This 

official document approves the recovery 

plan and adopts measures for the 

protection of the species in the 

Community of Castilla and Leon (Decree 

4/2009, dated January 15, 2009; Pollo 

2010, pers. comm.). The purpose of the 

Recovery Plan is to foster necessary 

actions to allow the species to achieve 

a more favorable conservation status 

and to ensure its long-term viability and 

stop population decline. The Recovery 

Plan includes requirements that the 

effects to the Cantabrian capercaillie or 

its habitat be considered before a plan 

or activity can be implemented; 

restricting access to critical areas; 

suspension of resource exploitation 

activities following wildlife catastrophic 

events (e.g., animal epidemics, 

poisoning, widespread wildfires) to 

allow for recovery; prohibiting certain 

activities within critical areas; and 

specific measures to meet the goals of 

the Recovery Plan. 

The European Union (EU) Habitat 

Directive 92/43/EEC addresses the 

protection of habitat and species listed 

as endangered at the European scale 

(European Union 2008). Several habitat 

types valuable to capercaillie have been 

included in this Directive, such as in 

Appendix I, Section 9, Forests. The EU 

Bird Directive (79/407/EEC) lists the 

capercaillie in Annex I as a ‘‘species 

that shall be subject to special habitat 

conservation measures in order to 

ensure their survival.’’ Under this 

Directive, a network of Special 

Protected Areas (SPAs) comprising 

suitable habitat for Annex I species is to 

be designated. This network of SPAs 

and other protected sites are collectively 

referred to as Natura 2000. Several 

countries in Europe, including Spain, 

are in the process of establishing the 

network of SPAs. The remaining 

Cantabrian capercaillie populations 

occur primarily in recently established 

Natural Reserves in Spain that are part 

of the Natura 2000 network (Muniellos 

Biosphere Reserve). Management of 

natural resources by local communities 

is still allowed in areas designated as an 

SPA; however, the development of 

management plans to meet the various 

objectives of the Reserve network is 

required. 

This subspecies is also afforded 

special protection under the Bern 

Convention (Convention on the 

Conservation of European Wildlife and 

Natural Habitats; European Treaty 

Series/104; Council of Europe 1979). 

The Cantabrian capercaillie is listed as 

‘‘strictly protected’’ under Appendix II, 

which requires member states to ensure 

the conservation of the listed taxa and 

their habitats. Under this Convention, 

protections of Appendix-II species 

include the prohibition of: The 

deliberate capture, keeping, and killing 

of the species; deliberate damage or 

destruction of breeding sites; deliberate 

disturbance during the breeding season; 

deliberate taking or destruction of eggs; 

and the possession or trade of any 

individual of the species. We were 

unable to find information on the 

effectiveness of this designation in 

preventing further loss of Cantabrian 

capercaillie or its habitat; however, 

poaching of protected grouse is known 

to be common, suggesting that this 

designation has not been effectively 

implemented. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50057 

In November 2003, Spain enacted the 

‘‘Forest Law,’’ which addresses the 

preservation and improvement of the 

forest and rangelands in Spain. This law 

requires development of plans for the 

management of forest resources, which 

are to include plans for fighting forest 

fires, establishment of danger zones 

based on fire risk, formulation of a 

defense plan in each established danger 

zone, the mandatory restoration of 

burned area, and the prohibition of 

changing forest use of a burned area into 

other uses for a period of 30 years. In 

addition, this law provides economic 

incentives for sustainable forest 

management by private landowners and 

local entities. We do not have 

information on the effectiveness of this 

law with regard to its ability to prevent 

negative impacts to Cantabrian 

capercaillie habitat. 

Despite recent advances in protection 

of this subspecies and its habitat 

through EU Directives and protection 

under Spanish law and regulation, 

populations continue to decline 

(Ban ̃uelos and Quevedo 2008, p. 5; 

Storch et al. 2006, p. 654; Pollo et al. 

2005, p. 401), habitat continues to be 

degraded, lost, and fragmented (Storch 

2000, p. 83; 2007, p. 96), and illegal 

poaching still occurs (Storch 2000, p. 

83; 2007, p. 96). We were unable to find 

information on the effectiveness of any 

of these measures at reducing threats to 

the species. Therefore, we find that 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the Cantabrian capercaillie 

throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Suarez-Seoane and Roves (2004, pp. 

395, 401) assessed the potential impacts 

of human disturbances in core 

populations of Cantabrian capercaillie 

in Natural Reserves in Spain. They 

found that locations selected as leks 

were located at the core of larger 

patches of forest and were less subject 

to human disturbance. They also found 

that Cantabrian capercaillie disappeared 

from leks situated in rolling hills at 

lower altitudes closer to houses, hunting 

sites, and repeatedly burned areas. 

Recurring fires have also been 

implicated as a factor in the decline of 

the subspecies. An average of 85,652 ha 

(211,650 ac) of forested area per year 

over a 10-year period (1995–2005) has 

been consumed by fire in Spain (Lloyd 

2007a, p. 1). On average, 80 percent of 

all fires in Spain are set intentionally by 

humans (Lloyd 2007a, p. 1). SuarezSeoane and Garcia-Roves (2004, p. 405) 

found that the stability of Cantabrian 

capercaillie breeding areas throughout a 

20-year period was mainly related to 

low fire recurrence in the surrounding 

area and few houses nearby. In addition, 

the species avoids areas that are 

recurrently burned because the areas 

lose their ability to regenerate and 

cannot produce the habitat the species 

requires (Suarez-Seoane and GarciaRoves 2004, p. 406). We were unable to 

find information as to how many 

hectares of suitable Cantabrian 

capercaillie habitat is consumed by fire 

each year. However, since the species 

requires a low recurrence of fire, and 

both disturbance and fire frequency are 

likely to increase with human presence, 

this could be a potential threat to both 

habitat and individual birds where there 

is a high prevalence of disturbance and 

fire frequency. 

In summary, disturbance from 

humans appears to impact the species; 

birds are typically found in areas of less 

anthropogenic disturbance and further 

from homes. Natural Protected Areas in 

Spain have seen an increase in human 

use for recreation and hunting. As 

human population centers expand and 

move closer to occupied habitat areas, 

increased disturbance to important 

breeding, feeding, and sheltering 

behaviors of this species is expected to 

occur. Additionally, as human presence 

increases, it is likely that both fires and 

disturbances will increase. Either or 

both of these factors have the potential 

to impact both individuals and their 

habitat. Therefore, we conclude that 

other natural or manmade factors, in the 

form of forest fires and disturbance, are 

threats to the continued existence of the 

Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its 

range. 

Status Determination for the 

Cantabrian Capercaillie 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Cantabrian capercaillie. The species is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A), 

overutilization (Factor B), inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor 

D), and other natural or manmade 

factors affecting its continued existence 

in the form of forest fires and 

disturbance (Factor E). 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

The Cantabrian capercaillie is the 

most threatened subspecies of 

capercaillie; the current population is 

likely less than 1,000 individuals and 

continues to decline. Management of 

forest resources for timber production 

continues to negatively affect forest 

structure and the quality, quantity, and 

distribution of suitable habitat and the 

structure of the matrix between forest 

patches, which may be affecting the 

ability of capercaillie to disperse. In 

addition, hunting of Cantabrian 

capercaillie, although illegal, still 

occurs. Congregation at leks makes this 

species an easy target and particularly 

vulnerable as poaching of protected 

grouse is considered common. The level 

of poaching is unknown, but given the 

small population size and the already 

evident reduced genetic variability, 

further loss of breeding individuals 

could have a significant impact on the 

population. Regulatory mechanisms are 

in place to protect the subspecies and its 

habitat, but are inadequate to ameliorate 

current threats. Furthermore, as human 

population centers expand, increased 

disturbance to important breeding, 

feeding, and sheltering behaviors is 

expected, further affecting this 

subspecies. These threats are affecting 

the quality and quantity of suitable 

habitat, the ability of the species to 

disperse and expand their current range, 

and may affect the breeding capability 

of the populations. Without regulatory 

mechanisms to reduce or ameliorate 

these threats, negative impacts to the 

subspecies will continue. In considering 

these ongoing threats in combination 

with the currently small and declining 

Cantabrian capercaillie population, we 

determine that the magnitude of these 

threats are such that this subspecies is 

in danger of extinction throughout all of 

its range. Therefore, on the basis of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we are listing the 

Cantabrian capercaillie as an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range. Because we find that the 

Cantabrian capercaillie is endangered 

throughout all of its range, there is no 

reason to consider its status in a 

significant portion of its range. 

II. Eiao Marquesas Reed-Warbler 

(Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis), 

Previously Referred to as Eiao 

Polynesian Warbler (Acrocephalus 

mendanae aquilonis and 

Acrocephalus caffer aquilonis) 

Species Description 

Due to the similarity of all the reedwarblers of Polynesia, these warblers 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

were once considered a single, 

widespread species known as the longbilled reed-warbler (Acrocephalus 

caffer). The 1980 petition from Dr. 

Warren B. King included the Eiao 

Polynesian warbler (Acrocephalus caffer 

aquilonis), a subspecies of reed-warbler. 

The subspecies aquilonis denoted those 

warblers found on Eiao Island. The 

species was later split into three 

separate species: those of the Society 

Islands (Acrocephalus caffer), Tuamotu 

(A. atyphus), and Marquesas (A. 

mendanae) (Cibois et al. 2007, p. 1151). 

This subspecies then became known as 

A. mendanae aquilonis. Recent genetic 

research on Marquesas reed-warblers 

found two independent lineages: 

warblers found in the northern islands 

of the Marquesas Archipelago (Nuku 

Hiva, Eiao, Hatuta’a, and Ua Huka) and 

those found on the southern islands 

(Hiva Oa, Tahuata, Ua Pou, and Fatu 

Iva). As a result, the Marquesas species 

was split into two separate species; 

those of the four most northern islands 

(A. percernis) and those in the southern 

islands (A. mendanae). The reedwarblers found on Eiao are now 

classified as a subspecies of Northern 

Marquesas reed-warblers (A. percernis 

aquilonis) (Cibois et al. 2007, pp. 1155, 

1160), with a suggested common name 

of Eiao Marquesas reed-warbler (Cibois 

2010, pers. comm.). 

The Eiao Marquesas reed-warbler 

(Eiao reed-warbler) is a large, 

insectivorous reed-warbler of the family 

Acrocephalidae. It is characterized by 

brown plumage with bright yellow 

underparts (Cibois et al. 2007, p. 1151). 

The Eiao reed-warbler is endemic to the 

island of Eiao in the French Polynesian 

Marquesas Archipelago in the Pacific 

Ocean. The Marquesas Archipelago is a 

territory of France located 

approximately 1,600 km (994 mi) 

northeast of Tahiti. Eiao Island is one of 

the northernmost islands in the 

Archipelago and encompasses 40 km2

(15 mi2). 

Population densities of the Eiao reedwarbler are thought to be high within 

the remaining suitable habitat; one 

singing bird was found nearly every 40– 

50 m (131–164 ft). The total population 

is estimated at more than 2,000 birds 

(Raust 2007, pers. comm.). This 

population estimate is much larger than 

the 100–200 individuals last reported in 

1987 by Thibault (as reported in FR 72 

20184). It is unknown if the population 

actually increased from 1987 to 2007, or 

if the differences in the population 

estimates are a result of using different 

survey methodologies. We have no 

reliable information on the population 

trend of this subspecies. 

Reed-warblers of the Polynesian 

islands utilize various habitats, ranging 

from shrubby vegetation in dry, lowland 

areas to humid forest in wet montane 

areas (Cibois et al. 2007, pp. 1151, 

1153). Reed-warblers in general display 

strong territorial behavior (Cibois et al. 

2007, p. 1152). Like other reed-warblers, 

the female Marquesas reed-warblers 

build the nest with little help from the 

male; the male incubates and broods 

three to four times a day, but never for 

more than 20 minutes at a time (Bruner 

1974, p. 93). Vines, coconut fiber, and 

grasses are the most common nesting 

material (Mosher and Fancy 2002, p. 8). 

Warbler nests are found in the tops of 

trees and on vertical branches (Thibault 

et al. 2002, pp. 166, 169). Bruner (1974, 

p. 93) found the eggs of A. mendanae 

vary in base color, even within a nest, 

but are all blotched and speckled with 

white, brown, and black and clutch 

sizes range from two to five eggs. 

Incubation lasts 9 days and the young 

leave the nest and follow their parents 

after 10 days (Bruner 1974, p. 94). 

Conservation Status 

Marquesas reed-warblers (A. 

mendanae) are classified as ‘‘of least 

concern’’ by the IUCN (IUCN 2009a, 

unpaginated). However, it appears that 

the recent split of the Marquesas reedwarblers into the Northern and 

Southern Marquesas reed-warblers is 

not yet reflected in the IUCN 

assessment. Northern Marquesas reedwarblers (A. percernis) are protected 

under Law Number 95–257 in French 

Polynesia. The species has not been 

formally considered for listing in the 

CITES Appendices (http:// 

www.cites.org). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

Eiao Island was declared a Nature 

Reserve in 1971 and is not currently 

inhabited by humans. However, the 

entire island has been heavily impacted 

by introduced domestic livestock that 

have become feral (Manu 2009, 

unpaginated). Feral sheep have been 

identified as the main threat to the 

forest on the island (Thibault et al. 2002, 

p. 167). Sheep and pigs have devastated 

much of the vegetation and soil on Eiao, 

and native plant species have been 

largely replaced by introduced species 

(Merlin and Juvik 1992, pp. 604–606). 

Sheep have overgrazed the island, 

leaving areas completely denuded of 

vegetation. The exposed soil erodes 

from rainfall, further preventing native 

plants from regenerating (WWF 2001, 

unpaginated). Currently, only 10–20 

percent of the island contains suitable 

habitat for the Eiao reed-warbler (Raust 

2007, pers. comm.). These areas of 

suitable habitat are likely restricted to 

small refugia inaccessible to the feral 

livestock. We are not aware of any 

current efforts or future plans to reduce 

the number of feral domestic livestock 

on the island. 

In summary, the ongoing habitat 

degradation from overgrazing livestock 

continues to have significant and 

ongoing impacts to the natural habitat 

for this subspecies. The current level of 

grazing on the island prevents recovery 

of native vegetation. Without active 

management of the feral livestock 

population on the island, the population 

of Eiao reed-warblers will continue to be 

restricted to small portions of the island 

that are inaccessible to the feral 

livestock. Furthermore, although the 

current estimated population is 2,000 

individuals, the subspecies will not be 

able to expand to the rest of the island 

and recover beyond this current 

population level due to habitat loss. 

Because the Eiao reed-warbler is limited 

to one small island, the continuing loss 

of habitat makes this subspecies 

extremely vulnerable to extinction. 

Therefore, we find that present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the habitat or range are 

threats to the continued existence of the 

Eiao reed-warbler throughout its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We are unaware of any information 

currently available that indicates the use 

of this subspecies for any commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purpose. As a result, we are not 

considering overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the Eiao reed-warbler 

throughout its range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Avian diseases are a concern for 

species with restricted ranges and small 

populations, especially if the species is 

restricted to an island. Hawaii’s avian 

malaria is a limiting factor for many 

species of native passerines and is 

dominant on other remote oceanic 

islands, including French Polynesia 

(Beadell et al. 2006, p. 2935). This strain 

was found in 9 out of 11 Marquesas 

reed-warblers collected on Nuku Hiva in 

1987. However, because these birds 

were thought to be more robust (all 

Marquesas reed-warblers were 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50059 

considered A. mendanae), avian malaria 

was not thought to pose a threat to the 

species (Beadell et al. 2006, p. 2940). 

We have no data on whether Hawaii’s 

avian malaria is present on Eiao or what 

effects it may have on the population of 

reed-warblers. 

Black rats (Rattus rattus) were 

introduced to Eiao, Nuku Hiva, Ua Pou, 

Hiva Oa, Tahuata, and Fatu Iva of the 

Marquesas Archipelago in the early 20th 

century (Cibois et al. 2007, p. 1159); 

although Thibault et al. (2002, p. 169) 

state that the presence of black rats on 

Eiao is only suspected. A connection 

between the presence of rats and the 

decline and extirpation of birds has 

been well documented (Blanvillain et 

al. 2002, p. 146; Thibault et al. 2002, p. 

162; Meyer and Butaud 2009, pp. 1169– 

1170). Specifically, predation on eggs, 

nestlings, or adults by rats has been 

implicated as an important factor in the 

extinction of Pacific island birds 

(Thibault et al. 2002, p. 162). However, 

Thibault et al. (2002, pp. 165, 169) did 

not find a significant effect of rats on the 

abundance of Polynesian warblers. It is 

thought that the position of warbler 

nests on vertical branches close to the 

tops of trees makes them less accessible 

to rats (Thibault et al. 2002, p. 169), 

even though rats are known to be good 

climbers. 

The common myna (Acridotheres 

tristis), an introduced bird species, may 

contribute to the spread of invasive 

plant species by consuming their fruit 

and may also prey on the eggs and 

nestlings of native birds species or 

outcompete native bird species for 

nesting sites. The myna is thought to 

have contributed to the decline of 

another reed-warbler endemic to the 

Marquesas (A. caffer mendanae) (Global 

Invasive Species Database 2009, 

unpaginated). Mynas do not currently 

occur on Eiao Island. Furthermore, 

Thibault et al. (2002, p. 165) found no 

significant effect of mynas on 

Polynesian warblers in Marquesas. If the 

myna expands its range and colonizes 

Eiao Island, it is unknown to what 

extent predation would affect the Eiao 

reed-warbler. 

In summary, although the presence of 

avian malaria has been documented on 

Eiao and the presence of introduced rats 

is suspected, there is no data indicating 

that either is affecting the warbler 

population on Eiao. Nest location 

appears to be high enough in the trees 

to avoid significant predation from the 

introduced rat. Mynas are not known to 

inhabit Eiao Island, and it is not clear 

that they would negatively impact the 

warbler population if they were to 

colonize Eiao. Therefore, we find that 

disease and predation are not a threat to 

the continued existence of the Eiao 

reed-warbler throughout its range. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Eiao reed-warbler is a protected 

species in French Polynesia. Northern 

Marquesas reed-warblers (A. percernis) 

are classified as a Category A species 

under Law Number 95–257. Article 16 

of this law prohibits the collection and 

exportation of species listed under 

Category A. In addition, under Part 23 

of Law 95–257, the introduced myna 

bird species, which is commonly known 

to outcompete other bird species, is 

considered a danger to the local 

avifauna and is listed as ‘‘threatening 

biodiversity.’’ Part 23 also prohibits 

importation of all new specimens of 

species listed as ‘‘threatening 

biodiversity,’’ and translocation from 

one island to another is prohibited. As 

described above, Eiao Island is not 

currently inhabited by humans and we 

found that overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is not a threat to 

this subspecies. Furthermore, mynas do 

not occur on Eiao Island and is not a 

threat to the Eiao reed-warbler. 

Although this law may provide 

adequate protection to this subspecies 

from these threats, it does not protect 

the Eiao reed-warbler from current 

threats such as habitat destruction. 

The French Environmental Code, 

Article L411–1, prohibits the 

destruction or poaching of eggs or nests; 

mutilation, destruction, capture or 

poaching, intentional disturbance, the 

practice of taxidermy, transport, 

peddling, use, possession, offer for sale, 

and the sale or the purchase of nondomesticated species in need of 

conservation, including northern 

Marquesas reed-warblers (A. percernis). 

It also prohibits the destruction, 

alteration, or degradation of habitat for 

these species. As overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is not a threat to 

this subspecies, this regulation may 

provide adequate protection against this 

threat; however, habitat destruction by 

overgrazing livestock remains a problem 

on Eiao Island. Therefore this regulation 

does not provide adequate protection 

against threats currently faced by this 

subspecies. 

Hunting and destruction of all species 

of birds in French Polynesia were 

prohibited by a 1967 decree (Villard et 

al. 2003, p. 193); however, destruction 

of birds which have been listed as 

‘‘threatening biodiversity’’ is legal. 

Furthermore, restrictions on possession 

of firearms in Marquesas are in place 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). Hunting is 

not known to be a threat to the survival 

of this subspecies. 

In addition, the entire Eiao Island was 

declared an officially protected area in 

1971. It is classified as Category IV, an 

area managed for habitat or species. 

However, of the nine protected areas in 

French Polynesia, only one (Vaikivi on 

Ua Huka) is actively managed (Manu 

2009, unpaginated). We found no 

information on the direct effects of this 

protective status on the Eiao reedwarbler or its habitat. However, Eiao 

Island is not actively managed and, as 

discussed under Factor A, the entire 

island has been heavily impacted by 

introduced domestic livestock, 

suggesting this regulatory mechanism is 

not effective at reducing or ameliorating 

threats to the species. 

In summary, regulations exist that 

protect the subspecies and its habitat. 

However, as described under Factor A, 

habitat destruction continues to threaten 

this subspecies. Although legal 

protections are in place, there are none 

effectively protecting the suitable 

habitat on the island from damage from 

overgrazing sheep and other livestock as 

described in Factor A. Therefore, we 

find that the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to 

ameliorate the current threats to the 

Eiao reed-warbler throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Island populations have a higher risk 

of extinction than mainland 

populations. Ninety percent of bird 

species that have been driven to 

extinction were island species (as cited 

in Frankham 1997, p. 311). Based on 

genetics alone, endemic island species 

are predicted to have higher extinction 

rates than nonendemic island 

populations (Frankham 2007, p. 321). 

Small, isolated populations may 

experience decreased demographic 

viability (population birth and death 

rates, immigration and emigration rates, 

and sex ratios), increased susceptibility 

of extinction from stochastic 

environmental factors (e.g., weather 

events, disease), and an increased threat 

of extinction from genetic isolation and 

subsequent inbreeding depression and 

genetic drift. 

Because the population of Eiao reedwarblers is restricted to only one small 

island, it is vulnerable to stochastic 

events. Furthermore, the warblers are 

limited to the fraction of the island’s 

area that contains suitable habitat. 

Eradication of feral livestock is needed 

to allow recovery of native vegetation 

and provide additional suitable habitat 

throughout the island. Expansion and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

recovery of native vegetation will permit 

the subspecies to recover beyond the 

current population of 2,000 individuals 

and buffer the subspecies against 

impacts from stochastic events. 

In summary, the limited range of the 

Eiao reed-warbler makes this subspecies 

extremely vulnerable to stochastic 

events and, therefore, extinction. 

Additional habitat is needed to expand 

the population and buffer the 

subspecies from the detrimental effects 

typical of small island populations. 

Therefore, we find that other natural or 

manmade factors threaten the continued 

existence of the Eiao reed-warbler 

throughout its range. 

Status Determination for the Eiao 

Marquesas Reed-Warbler 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Eiao Marquesas reed-warbler. The 

subspecies is currently at risk on Eiao 

Island due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A) 

and stochastic events associated with 

the subspecies’ restricted range (Factor 

E). Furthermore, we have determined 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate 

the current threats to the subspecies. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

The estimated 2,000 Eiao reedwarblers are isolated on one 40 km2 (15 

mi2) island, of which only 10–20 

percent contains suitable habitat. The 

ongoing habitat degradation from 

overgrazing livestock prevents recovery 

of native vegetation. Although the 

current estimated population is 2,000 

individuals, without active management 

of the feral livestock population on the 

island, the population of Eiao reedwarblers will continue to be restricted to 

small portions of the island and will not 

be able to expand to the rest of the 

island and recover beyond this current 

population level. Because the Eiao reedwarbler is limited to one small island, 

the continuing loss of habitat makes this 

subspecies extremely vulnerable to 

stochastic events and extinction. Island 

populations are naturally at a higher 

risk of extinction. Detrimental effects 

typical of small island populations, 

such as, decreased demographic 

viability, environmental factors, and 

genetic isolation, may lead to inbreeding 

depression and reduced fitness. These 

genetic threats will exacerbate other 

threats to the species and likely increase 

the risk of extinction. There are 

regulatory mechanisms in place, but are 

inadequate to protect the Eiao reedwarbler’s habitat from overgrazing and 

eradication of native species. Without 

regulatory mechanisms to reduce or 

ameliorate these threats, negative 

impacts to this subspecies will 

continue. Based on the magnitude of 

overgrazing livestock to the extremely 

restricted range and isolated population 

of the Eiao Marquesas reed-warbler, as 

described above, we determine that this 

subspecies is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, on 

the basis of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we are 

listing the Eiao Marquesas reed-warbler 

as an endangered subspecies throughout 

all of its range. Because we find that the 

Eiao Polynesian warbler is endangered 

throughout all of its range, there is no 

reason to consider its status in a 

significant portion of its range. 

III. Greater Adjutant (Leptoptilos 

dubius) 

Species Description 

The greater adjutant (Leptoptilos 

dubius) is a very large (145 to 150 cm 

long (4.7 to 4.9 ft)) species of stork in 

the family Ciconiidae. This species is 

characterized by a naked pink head and 

a low-hanging neck pouch. Its bill is 

very thick and yellow in color. The 

plumage ruff of the neck is white, and 

other than a pale grey leading edge on 

each wing, the rest of the greater 

adjutant’s body is dark grey (Birdlife 

International (BLI) 2009a, unpaginated). 

This species of bird once was 

common across much of Southeast Asia, 

occurring in India, Bangladesh, Burma, 

Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, 

Myanmar, Vietnam, Sumatra, Java, and 

Borneo. Large breeding colonies 

occurred in Myanmar, with the highest 

concentration found in Pegu; however, 

this colony collapsed in the mid-1900s 

(Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 264). 

The current distribution of this 

species consists of two breeding 

populations, one in India and the other 

in Cambodia. Recent sighting records of 

this species from the neighboring 

countries of Nepal, Bangladesh, 

Vietnam, and Thailand are presumed to 

be wandering birds from one of the two 

populations in India and Cambodia (BLI 

2009a, unpaginated). 

India: The most recent range-wide 

population estimate for this species in 

India (600 to 800 birds) comes from data 

collected in 1995 through 1996 (Singha 

et al. 2003, p. 146). Approximately 11 

breeding sites are located in the 

Brahmaputra Valley in the State of 

Assam (Singha et al. 2003, p.147). 

Recent information indicates that 

populations of this species continue to 

decline in India. At two breeding sites 

near the city of Guwahati in the State of 

Assam, the most recent survey data 

show that the number of breeding birds 

has declined from 247 birds in 2005 to 

118 birds in 2007 (Hindu 2007, 

unpaginated). 

In India, much of the greater 

adjutant’s native habitat has been lost. 

The greater adjutant uses habitat in 

three national parks in India; however, 

almost all nesting colonies in India are 

found outside of the national parks. The 

greater adjutant often occurs close to 

urban areas; the species feeds in and 

around wetlands in the breeding season, 

and disperses to scavenge at trash 

dumps, burial grounds, and slaughter 

houses at other times of the year. The 

natural diet of the greater adjutant 

consists primarily of fish, frogs, reptiles, 

small mammals and birds, crustaceans, 

and carrion (Singha and Rahmani 2006, 

p. 266). 

This species breeds in colonies during 

the dry season (winter) in stands of tall 

trees near water sources. In India, the 

greater adjutant prefers to nest in large, 

widely branched trees in a tightly 

spaced colony with little foliage cover 

and food sources nearby (Singha et al. 

2002, p. 214). The breeding sites are also 

commonly associated with bamboo 

forests which provide protection from 

heavy rain during the pre-monsoon 

season (Singha et al. 2002, p. 218). Each 

adult female greater adjutant commonly 

lays two eggs each year (Singha and 

Rahmani 2006, p. 266). 

Cambodia: Currently there are two 

known breeding populations in 

Cambodia. The larger of these two 

populations occurs in the Tonle Sap 

Biosphere Reserve (TSBR) near Tonle 

Sap Lake and has recently been 

estimated at 77 breeding pairs (Clements 

et al. 2007, p. 7). The Tonle Sap 

floodplain (and associated rivers) is 

considered one of the few remaining 

remnants of freshwater swamp forest in 

the region. Approximately 5,490 km2

(2,120 mi2) of the freshwater swamp 

forest ecoregion is protected in 

Cambodia. Of this, the Tonle Sap Great 

Lake Protected Area (which includes the 

Tonle Sap floodplain) makes up 5,420 

km2 (2,092 mi2) (WWF 2007, p. 3). 

A smaller population of greater 

adjutants was recently discovered in the 

Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary in 

the Northern Plains of Cambodia. This 

population has been estimated at 40 

birds (Clements 2008, pers. comm.; BLI 

2009, unpaginated). Although other 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50061 

breeding sites have not yet been found 

in Cambodia, researchers expect that the 

greater adjutant may nest along the 

Mekong River in the eastern provinces 

of Mondulkiri, Ratanakiri, Stung Treng, 

and Kratie in Cambodia (Clement 2008, 

pers. comm.). 

In Cambodia, the greater adjutant 

breeds in freshwater flooded forest, and 

disperses to seasonally inundated forest, 

tall wet grasslands, mangroves, and 

intertidal flats to forage. These forests 

are characterized by deciduous tropical 

hardwoods (Dipterocarpaceae family) 

and semi-evergreen forest (containing a 

mix of deciduous and evergreen trees) 

interspersed with meadows, ponds, and 

other wetlands (WWF 2006b, p. 1). 

Conservation Status 

The IUCN classifies the greater 

adjutant as critically endangered. In 

India, the greater adjutant is listed 

under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife 

Protection Act of 1972. The species is 

not listed in the Appendices of CITES 

(http://www.cites.org). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Greater Adjutant 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

India: The greater adjutant occurs in 

Kaziranga, Manas, and DiburuSaikhowa National Parks. However, 

nearly all breeding sites for this species 

are located outside of protected areas 

(Singha et al. 2003, p. 148). The ongoing 

loss of habitat through conversion for 

development and agriculture, and the 

clearing of trees that are suitable for 

breeding sites, is a primary threat to the 

greater adjutant. The recent decline in 

the population at the breeding colonies 

near Guwahai, India, is believed to be 

caused by tree removal at the breeding 

site and filling of wetlands in an area 

near the city that had been used by the 

greater adjutant as feeding areas (Hindu 

2007, unpaginated). These activities 

were undertaken for the purpose of 

expanding residential developments in 

the city. The species is also seasonally 

dependent on wetlands for forage. These 

sites are impacted in India by drainage, 

encroachment, and overfishing. For 

instance, some sites have reportedly 

experienced encroachment from rice 

cultivation (BLI 2001, p. 284). 

Singha et al. 2002 (pp. 218–219) 

found that preferred nest trees were 

significantly larger and different in 

structure to non-nest trees near Nagaon 

in central Assam. The nest trees were 

large and widely branched with thin 

foliage cover (Singha et al. 2002, p. 214). 

Researchers believe that removal of 

preferred nesting trees at breeding may 

result in adjutants nesting in suboptimal 

trees at existing nest sites or relocating 

to other suboptimal nest sites. The trees 

and their limbs at suboptimal breeding 

sites are smaller in diameter, and the 

structure of the limbs does not always 

support the combined weight of the 

nest, adults, and chicks. As chicks grow 

older, nest limbs often break, sending 

the half-grown chicks tumbling from the 

nest. Approximately 15 percent of 

chicks die after falling from their nests, 

for a variety of causes, including 

injuries and abandonment (Singha et al. 

2006, p. 315). Some efforts have been 

made to reduce chick mortality, like 

those employed at two breeding sites 

near Nagaon from 2001 to 2003 (Singha 

et al. 2006, pp. 315–320). Safety nets are 

placed under the canopy of nest trees to 

catch falling chicks. Chicks are either 

replaced in their nest, if onsite monitors 

can determine which nest the chick 

came from, or raised in captivity and 

later released. Juvenile birds were 

monitored after their release, and the 

program is considered a success (Singha 

and Rahmani 2006, p. 268; Singha et al. 

2006, pp. 315–320). Though some 

efforts have been undertaken to reduce 

chick mortality due to falls from nests, 

loss of chicks based on nesting in 

suboptimal breeding sites is likely still 

occurring at other breeding sites. 

Cambodia: The largest breeding 

colonies are located in the Tonle Sap 

Biosphere Reserve, which consists 

primarily of the Tonle Sap Lake and its 

floodplain. A second breeding 

population occurs in the Kulen Promtep 

Wildlife Sanctuary in the Northern 

Plains. Poole (2002, p. 35) reported that 

large nesting trees around Cambodia’s 

Tonle Sap floodplain, particularly 

crucial to greater adjutants for nesting, 

are under increasing pressure by felling 

for firewood and building material. 

Poole (2002, p. 35) concluded that a lack 

of nesting trees, both at Tonle Sap and 

in the Northern Plains, may be the most 

serious threat in the future to large 

water bird colonies. 

The Mekong River Basin flows 

through several countries in Southeast 

Asia, including Tibet, China, Myanmar, 

Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and 

Laos, traveling over 4,800 km (2,980 mi) 

from start to finish. In Cambodia, the 

Mekong River flows into the Tonle Sap 

floodplain. Tonle Sap Lake expands and 

contracts throughout the year as a result 

of rainfall from monsoons and the flow 

of the Mekong River. The lake acts as a 

storage reservoir at different times of the 

year to regulate flooding in the Mekong 

Delta (Davidson 2005, p. 3). This 

flooding also results in flooded forests 

and shrublands, which provides 

seasonal habitat to several species. The 

Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve is one of 

Southeast Asia’s most important 

wetlands for biodiversity and is 

particularly crucial for birds, reptiles, 

and plant assemblages (Davidson 2005, 

p. 6). 

Upstream developments in the 

Mekong have already led to significant 

trapping of sediments and nutrients in 

upstream reservoirs, which could lead 

to increased bed and bank erosion 

downstream, as well as decreased 

productivity (Kummu and Varis 2007, 

pp. 289, 291). According to the Asian 

Development Bank (ADB 2005, p. 2), 13 

dams have been built, are being built, or 

are proposed to be built along the 

Mekong River. Proposed hydroelectric 

dams along the Mekong River in 

countries upstream from Cambodia have 

the potential to adversely affect the 

habitat of the greater adjutant by 

affecting the hydrology of the basin and 

reducing the overall foraging habitat and 

the abundance of prey species during 

the breeding season (Clements et al. 

2007, p. 59). In addition, decline in 

productivity of the habitat, and thereby 

prey species abundance, may increase 

competition for food, and increased 

releases from upstream dams during the 

dry season could result in permanent 

flooding of these forests that will 

eventually kill the trees in these areas 

(Clements et al. 2007, p. 59). Under 

some scenarios, up to half of the core 

area (21,342 ha (52,737 ac)) of the Prek 

Toal area in the Tonle Sap Biosphere 

Reserve could be affected. 

In summary, this species continues to 

face significant ongoing threats to its 

breeding and foraging habitat in both 

India and Cambodia. In India, activities 

such as the draining and filling of 

wetlands (Hindu 2007, unpaginated), 

removal of nest trees, and encroachment 

on habitat significantly impact this 

species (BLI 2001, p. 284). In Cambodia, 

threats include tree removal (Poole 

2002, p. 35) and large-scale hydrologic 

changes due to existing dams and 

proposed dam construction (Clements et 

al. 2007, p. 59; Kummu and Varis, pp. 

287–288). The latter threat could 

potentially eliminate habitat in 

protected areas such as the Tonle Sap 

Biosphere Reserve, and it could 

additionally reduce productivity of 

these areas, which would further impact 

the species by affecting the foraging base 

and potentially increasing competition 

with other species (Clements et al. 2007, 

p. 59). Therefore, we find that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

habitat or range is a threat to the 

continued existence of the greater 

adjutant throughout its range. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The main threat to the greater adjutant 

is harvesting of eggs, chicks, or young 

fledglings (Clements 2008, pers. comm.). 

Local communities collect bird eggs and 

chicks for consumption and for trade in 

both India and Cambodia. Due to their 

rarity, greater adjutants are believed to 

have a high market value, which 

increases the likelihood this type of 

activity will continue. The 

implementation of bird nest protection 

programs has been developed by the 

Wildlife Conservation Society. Local 

people have been employed as nest 

protectors at Prek Toal and Kulen 

Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary (ACCB 

2009, unpaginated; Clements 2008, pers. 

comm.). Although the impacts from 

large-scale collection of bird eggs and 

chicks have been reduced through these 

programs, collection still remains a 

threat to the species. Furthermore, 

unprotected colonies are likely 

disturbed every year and may not 

successfully breed (Clements 2008, pers. 

comm.). At the largest breeding sites for 

this species in India, reproductive 

success is low, less than one chick per 

nest per year (Singha and Rahmani 

2006, p. 264). Because the total 

population of the greater adjutant is 

fewer than 1,000 birds, the loss of any 

eggs or chicks in populations in India 

and Cambodia is a significant threat to 

the species. 

Accounts of poisoning, netting, 

trapping, and shooting of adult birds 

were also reported at various locations 

in both India and Cambodia during the 

1990s (BLI 2001, pp. 285–286). In India, 

some birds were shot because of 

perceived impact on fish stocks; others, 

in hunts (BLI 2001, p. 285). In 

Cambodia, some birds were captured to 

be sold as food and for use as pets, and 

some were also hunted (BLI 2001, p. 

286). Birds are also likely inadvertently 

injured or killed as a result of 

destructive fishing techniques in 

Cambodia such as electro-fishing and 

the use of poisons (Clements 2008, pers. 

comm.). In a 1999 article, the Phnom 

Penh Post (as reported in Environmental 

Justice Foundation 2002, p. 25) reported 

that pesticides are used to kill both fish 

and wildlife species at Tonle Sap. 

In summary, although we are unaware 

of any scientific or educational purpose 

for which the adjutant is used, local 

communities are known to collect bird 

eggs, chicks, and adults for 

consumption and other purposes (e.g., 

pet trade and perceived threat to fish 

stocks) in either or both India or 

Cambodia (BLI 2001, pp. 285–286). 

Incidence of local residents collecting 

eggs and chicks for consumption has 

been reduced in some areas due to 

educational and enforcement programs, 

however, these impacts still occur. 

Therefore, we find that overutilization 

due to commercial and recreational 

purposes is a threat to the continued 

existence of the greater adjutant 

throughout its range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Highly pathogenic avian influenza 

(HPAI) H5N1 continues to be a serious 

problem for this species. This strain of 

avian influenza first appeared in Asia in 

1996, and spread from country to 

country with rapid succession as found 

by Peterson et al. (2007, p. 1). By 2006, 

the virus was detected across most of 

Europe and in several African countries. 

Influenza A viruses, to which group 

strain H5N1 belongs, infects domestic 

animals and humans, but wildfowl and 

shorebirds are considered the primary 

source of this virus in nature (Olsen et 

al. 2006, p. 384). Though it is still 

unclear if the greater adjutant is a 

carrier, lack of an avian influenza wild 

bird surveillance program in Cambodia 

will make it difficult to resolve this 

question. 

Until recently, there was no 

information on predation affecting the 

greater adjutant. However, recent 

research on other waterbirds suggests 

that predation may impact the greater 

adjutant in Cambodia. For example, 

nesting surveys for several waterbirds 

were conducted between 2004 and 2007 

at the Prek Toal area in Tonle Sap 

Biosphere Reserve. These surveys 

included monitoring of nest sites. 

Human disturbances at nest sites due to 

illegal collection of chicks and eggs 

resulted in an increase of predation by 

crows (Corvus spp.) on spot-billed 

pelicans in the 2001–2002 breeding 

season, causing up to 100 percent loss 

of reproduction, and again in the 2002– 

2003 breeding season, resulting in up to 

60 percent loss in reproduction due to 

a combination of collection and 

predation. In some locations, the spotbilled pelicans abandoned their nests 

for the remainder of the breeding season 

(Clements et al. 2007, p. 57). It is likely 

that other waterbirds, such as the greater 

adjutant, at Prek Toal would be 

similarly affected due to illegal 

collection of eggs by humans and nest 

site disturbance (see Factor B), and the 

subsequent increase in crow presence, 

thereby increasing the predation of their 

chicks and eggs. 

In summary, we found no information 

indicating that avian diseases are 

impacting greater adjusts. However, 

research on other waterbirds in the same 

area as the greater adjutant found a 

significant impact on reproduction from 

predation by crows. Presence of crows 

was found in conjunction with human 

disturbances, such as illegal collection 

of eggs and chicks. Greater adjutant eggs 

and chicks are known to also be 

subjected to this type of human 

disturbance (See Factor B); therefore 

greater adjutants may also suffer 

impacts from predation by crows. 

Because the total population of the 

greater adjutant is fewer than 1,000 

birds, and reproductive success for this 

species at the largest breeding sites in 

India is less than one chick per nest per 

year, the loss of any eggs and chicks in 

populations in India and Cambodia is a 

significant threat to the species. 

Therefore, we find that predation is a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

greater adjutant throughout its range. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Although there is evidence of 

commercial trade across the Cambodia 

border into Laos and Thailand, this 

species is currently not listed under 

CITES. 

India: The greater adjutant is listed 

under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife 

Protection Act of 1972 (IWPA). 

Schedule I provides absolute protection, 

with the greatest penalties for offenses. 

This law prohibits hunting, possession, 

sale, and transport of listed species. The 

IWPA also provides for the designation 

and management of sanctuaries and 

national parks for the purposes of 

protecting, propagating, or developing 

wildlife or its environment. As stated 

above in Factor A, the ongoing loss of 

habitat through habitat conversion for 

development and agriculture is a 

primary threat to this species. 

Furthermore, greater adjutant eggs and 

chicks are known to be taken for local 

consumption and trade, and adult birds 

are known to be poisoned, netted, and 

trapped for various reasons. Therefore, 

this regulatory mechanism is not 

adequate to ameliorate these threats to 

this species. 

Protected areas in India allow for 

regulated levels of human use and 

disturbance and are managed to prevent 

widespread clearing and complete loss 

of suitable habitat. Although the greater 

adjutant uses habitat in three national 

parks in India, almost all nesting 

colonies of this species in India are 

found outside of protected areas (Singha 

et al. 2003, p. 148). Some of the species’ 

foraging areas are also located outside of 

protected areas. Ongoing loss of habitat 

through habitat conversion for 

development and agriculture is a 

primary threat to this species; therefore, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50063 

it appears that regulatory mechanisms 

outside of protected areas, such as 

national parks, do not provide adequate 

protection of habitat for the greater 

adjutant. 

Cambodia: Areas designated as 

natural areas by the Ministry of 

Environment, such as the Tonle Sap 

Biosphere Reserve, are to be managed 

for the protection of the natural 

resources contained within. Portions of 

the Biosphere Reserve have also been 

designated as areas of importance under 

the Convention of Wetlands of 

International Importance of 1971. 

The Mekong River Commission (MRC) 

was formed between the governments of 

Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and 

Vietnam in 1995 as part of the 

Agreement on the Cooperation for the 

Sustainable Development of the Mekong 

River Basin. The signatories agreed to 

jointly manage their shared water 

resources and the economic 

development of the river (MRC 2007, p. 

1–2). According to the Asian 

Development Bank, 13 dams have been 

built, are being built, or are proposed to 

be built along the Mekong River (ADB 

2005, p. 2). The continued modification 

of greater adjutant habitat has been 

identified as a primary threat to this 

species (Factor A), and this regional 

regulatory mechanism is not effective at 

reducing that threat. 

Several laws exist in Cambodia to 

protect the greater adjutant from two of 

the primary threats to the species: 

Habitat destruction and hunting. 

However, they are ineffective at 

reducing those threats. In Cambodia, 

Declaration No. 359, issued by the 

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and 

Fisheries in 1994, prohibits the hunting 

of greater adjutant. However, reports of 

severe hunting pressure within the 

greater adjutant’s habitat exist and 

illegal poaching of wildlife in Cambodia 

continues (Bird et al. 2006, p. 23; Poole 

2002, pp. 34–35; UNEP–SEF 2005, pp. 

23, 27). 

The Creation and Designation of 

Protected Areas regulation (November 

1993) established a national system of 

protected areas. In 1994, through 

Declaration No. 1033 on the Protection 

of Natural Areas, the following activities 

were banned in all protected areas: 

(1) Construction of saw mills, 

charcoal ovens, brick kilns, tile kilns, 

limestone ovens, tobacco ovens; 

(2) Hunting or placement of traps for 

tusks, bones, feathers, horns, leather, or 

blood; 

(3) Deforestation; 

(4) Mining minerals or use of 

explosives; 

(5) The use of domestic animals such 

as dogs; 

(6) Dumping of pollutants; 

(7) The use of machines or heavy cars 

which may cause smoke pollution; 

(8) Noise pollution; and 

(9) Unpermitted research and 

experiments. 

In addition, the Law on Environmental 

Protection and Natural Resource 

Management of 1996 sets forth general 

provisions for environmental protection. 

Under Article 8 of this law, Cambodia 

declares that its natural resources 

(including wildlife) shall be conserved, 

developed, and managed and used in a 

rational and sustainable manner. 

Protected Areas have been established 

within the range of the greater adjutant, 

such as the Tonle Sap Lake Biosphere 

Reserve. The Tonle Sap Great Lake 

protected area was designated a 

multipurpose protected area in 1993 

(Matsui et al. 2006, p. 411). Under this 

decree, Multiple Use Management Areas 

are those areas which provide for the 

sustainable use of water resources, 

timber, wildlife, fish, pasture, and 

recreation; the conservation of nature is 

primarily oriented to support these 

economic activities. In 1997, the Tonle 

Sap region was nominated as a 

Biosphere Reserve under UNESCO’s 

(United Nations Educational, Scientific 

and Cultural Organization) ‘‘Man and 

the Biosphere Program.’’ The 

Cambodian Government developed a 

National Environmental Action Plan 

(NEAP) in 1997, supporting the 

UNESCO site goals. Among the priority 

areas of intervention are fisheries and 

floodplain agriculture at Tonle Sap 

Lake, biodiversity and protected areas, 

and environmental education. NEAP 

was followed by the adoption of the 

Strategy and Action Plan for the 

Protection of Tonle Sap (SAPPTS) in 

February 1998 (Matsui et al. 2006, p. 

411), and the issuance of a Royal Decree 

officially creating Tonle Sap Lake 

Biosphere Reserve (TSBR) on April 10, 

2001. The royal decree was followed by 

a subdecree by the Prime Minister to 

establish a Secretariat, along with its 

roles and functions, for the TSBR with 

the understanding that its objectives 

could not be achieved without 

cooperation and coordination among 

relevant stakeholders (TSBR Secretariat 

2007, p. 1). 

Joint Declaration No. 1563, on the 

Suppression of Wildlife Destruction in 

the Kingdom of Cambodia, was issued 

by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, 

and Fisheries in 1996. Although the 

Japan International Cooperation Agency 

(JICA 1999, p. 19) reported that this 

regulatory measure was ineffectively 

enforced, some strides have been made 

recently through the combined efforts of 

WCS, the Cambodian Government, and 

local communities at Tonle Sap Lake. 

WCS Cambodia (2009, unpaginated) 

reports that the illegal wildlife trade in 

Cambodia is ‘‘enormous’’ and driven by 

demand for meat and traditional 

medicines in Thailand, Vietnam, and 

China. Substantial progress has been 

made in protecting seven species of 

waterbirds at Prek Toal Core Area in the 

TSBR, increasing populations of some 

species tenfold by working with the 

primary management agencies and 

working at the field level to improve 

community engagement, law 

enforcement, and long-term research 

and monitoring (WCS Cambodia 2009, 

unpaginated). 

The Forestry Law of 2002 strictly 

prohibits hunting, harming, or harassing 

wildlife (Article 49) (Law on Forestry 

2003). This law further prohibits the 

possession, trapping, transport, or trade 

in rare and endangered wildlife (Article 

49). However, to our knowledge, 

Cambodia has not yet published a list of 

endangered or rare species. Thus, this 

law is not currently effective at 

protecting the greater adjutant from 

threats by hunting. 

In 2006, the Cambodian Government 

created Integrated Farming and 

Biodiversity Areas (IFBA), including 

over 161 km (100 mi) of grassland (over 

30,000 ha (74,132 ac)) near Tonle Sap 

Lake to protect the Bengal florican, an 

endangered bird in that region (WWF 

2006a, pp. 1–2). The above measures 

have focused attention on the 

conservation situation at TSBR and have 

begun to improve the conservation of 

the area and its wildlife there, but 

several management challenges remain. 

These challenges include 

overexploitation of flooded forests and 

fisheries; negative impacts from 

invasive species; lack of monitoring and 

enforcement; low level of public 

awareness of biodiversity values; and 

uncoordinated research, monitoring, 

and evaluation of species’ populations 

(Matsui et al. 2006, pp. 409–418; TSBR 

Secretariat 2007, pp. 1–6). 

Even though the wildlife laws 

discussed above exist, greater adjutant 

habitat within Cambodian protected 

areas faces several challenges. The legal 

framework governing wetlands 

management is institutionally complex. 

It rests upon legislation vested in 

government agencies responsible for 

land use planning (Land Law 2001), 

resource use (Fishery Law 1987), and 

environmental conservation 

(Environmental Law 1996, Royal Decree 

on the Designation and Creation of 

National Protected Areas System 1993); 

however, there is no interministerial 

coordinating mechanism nationally for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

wetland planning and management 

(Bonheur et al. 2005, p. 9). As a result 

of this institutional complexity and lack 

of defined jurisdiction, natural resource 

use goes largely unregulated (Bonheur et 

al. 2005, p. 9). Thus, the protected areas 

system in Cambodia is ineffective in 

removing or reducing the threats of 

habitat modification and hunting faced 

by the greater adjutant. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms in 

both India and Cambodia are ineffective 

at reducing or removing threats to the 

species such as habitat modification and 

collection of eggs and chicks for 

consumption. Although progress has 

been made recently in the protection of 

nests and birds at specific locations, this 

has largely been driven by measures 

from the private sector. We believe that 

the inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms, especially with regard to 

lack of law enforcement and habitat 

protection, is a significant risk factor for 

the greater adjutant. Therefore, we find 

that existing regulatory mechanisms are 

inadequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the greater adjutant 

throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Man-Made Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

India: Due to a lack of natural foraging 

areas and availability of native wildlife 

carcasses to feed upon, the greater 

adjutant is known to commonly forage 

in refuge dumps and slaughterhouses 

during certain times of the year. 

Researchers believe that along with the 

refuse at these sites, these birds are 

inadvertently ingesting household 

contaminants and plastics that can 

adversely affect their health and 

reproductive capability (Singha et al. 

2003, p. 148; BLI 2009a, unpaginated). 

In addition, pesticide has been used in 

winter to kill fish at a national park in 

India, and may be a widespread practice 

throughout the Brahmaputra lowlands 

(BLI 2001, p. 287). As the remaining 

natural foraging habitat for this species 

continues to shrink, the level of foraging 

at refuge dumps and slaughterhouses is 

expected to increase, thereby increasing 

the incidence of greater adjutants 

ingesting contaminants at these sites. 

Also, the use of pesticides in and near 

water sources in the Brahmaputra 

lowlands may result in further 

contamination to the species. 

Cambodia: Increasing use of agrochemicals, especially pesticides, is a 

major concern in the TSBR and 

throughout Cambodia. A survey 

conducted of Cambodian agricultural 

practices in 2000 showed that 67 

percent of farms used pesticides. Of 

these farms, 44 percent began using 

pesticides in the 1980s, and 23 percent 

began using them in the 1990s 

(Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) 

2002, p. 13). All of the pesticides used 

in Cambodia are produced outside of 

the country, and the labels, which 

include information on the appropriate 

use of these chemicals, are often not 

written in a language understandable to 

local villagers (EJF 2002, p. 18). A Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations (FAO) study found that 

only 1 percent of vegetable farmers 

received technical training in pesticide 

use (EJF 2002, p. 17). This problem 

often leads to overuse of these highly 

toxic compounds. 

In Cambodia, organochlorine 

insecticides, such as dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and 

organophosphate insecticides such as 

methyl-parathion are commonly used. 

Organochlorine insecticides are known 

to accumulate in aquatic systems and 

concentrate in the organs of species of 

waterbirds such as the greater adjutant. 

The effects of persistent organic 

pesticides are variable depending on 

concentration and species, but can 

include direct mortality, feminization of 

embryos, reduced hormones for egglaying, and egg-shell thinning (EJF 2002, 

p. 24). 

In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural 

use of DDT was banned in most 

developed countries; however, it is still 

used for agriculture in Cambodia. In 

recent years, mong bean farmers in Siem 

Reap province are estimated to have 

applied 10 tons of a pesticide mix of 

DDT, Thiodan (endosulfan), and 

methyl-parathion on fields that are 

submerged in the wet season and thus 

capable of polluting the Tonle Sap basin 

(EJF 2002, p. 25). In addition, methylparathion and endosulfan are used in 

illegal fishing (EJF 2002, p. 14). Methylparathion is considered highly toxic to 

birds and may take 2 weeks to degrade 

in lakes and rivers. The decline in the 

number of some bird species from 

around the Tonle Sap Lake may be 

partly due to pesticide poisoning (EJF 

2002, p. 25). Further, because higher 

levels of persistent organochlorines 

have been recorded in freshwater fish 

and mussels than marine fish and 

mussels, the source of these compounds 

is likely inland watersheds (EJF 2002, p. 

24). Although we could not locate any 

specific contaminant reports on the 

amount of these toxic chemicals found 

in greater adjutants based on the above 

data, it is likely that the persistent use 

of these compounds is contributing to 

the decline of this species. 

In summary, the use of pesticides 

occurs in both India and Cambodia for 

a variety of reasons, including 

agriculture, fishing, and insect control. 

As human interactions with the adjutant 

continue to increase, the chances of 

poisoning of the species, both directly 

and indirectly, also continue to rise. 

Therefore we find that other natural or 

manmade factors affecting the 

continued existence of the species in the 

form of pesticide use and ingesting 

other contaminants is a threat to the 

greater adjutant throughout its range. 

Status Determination for the Greater 

Adjutant 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

greater adjutant. The species is currently 

at risk throughout all of its range due to 

ongoing threats of habitat destruction 

and modification (Factor A); 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes in the form of hunting, egg and 

chick collection, and trapping (Factor 

B); predation (Factor C); inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor 

D); and other natural or manmade 

factors affecting its continued existence 

in the form of toxic compounds and 

other contaminants (Factor E). 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

In both India and Cambodia, breeding 

and foraging areas continue to be 

threatened by draining and filling of 

wetlands, removal of nest trees, and 

encroachment on habitat. Within 

Cambodia, existing dam construction 

and proposed dam construction have 

and are likely to continue to cause largescale hydrologic changes and 

potentially eliminate habitat in 

protected areas. The types of changes 

could result in decreased productivity 

in these areas and increase competition 

with other species. In addition, local 

communities are known to collect 

greater adjutant eggs, chicks, and adults 

for consumption, for use as pets, and 

because of perceived threats to fish 

stocks. The use of pesticides occurs in 

both India and Cambodia for a variety 

of reasons, including agriculture, 

fishing, and insect control. As human 

interactions with the adjutant continue 

to increase, the chances of poisoning the 

species also continue to rise. Existing 

regulatory mechanisms are ineffective at 

reducing or removing threats to the 

species. Lack of enforcement and habitat 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50065 

protection is a significant threat to the 

species. Furthermore, with a population 

estimated at fewer than 1,000 birds, loss 

of eggs, chicks, or adults is a significant 

threat to the survival of this species. 

Based on the magnitude of the ongoing 

threats to the small population of greater 

adjutant and its habitat throughout its 

entire range, as described above, we 

determine that this species is in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are listing the greater 

adjutant as an endangered species 

throughout all of its range. Because we 

find that the greater adjutant is 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

there is no reason to consider its status 

in a significant portion of its range. 

IV. Jerdon’s Courser (Rhinoptilus 

bitorquatus) 

Species Description 

The Jerdon’s courser, also known as 

the double-banded courser (Rhinoptilus 

bitorquatus), is a small, nocturnal bird, 

which is specialized for running and 

belongs to the family Glareolidae 

(Bhushan 1986, pp. 1, 6; Jeganathan et 

al. 2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 

2004b, p. 7). It was first described by T. 

C. Jerdon in 1848 (Bhushan 1986, p. 1; 

Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 1). This 

species averages 27 cm (11 in) in length, 

its plumage consists of a brown breast 

with two narrow white bands (bordered 

with black) below an orange-chestnut 

gorget (throat patch), a blackish colored 

crown with a white coronal stripe, a 

broad buff-colored supercilium 

(eyebrow stripe) over a dark cheekpatch, white lores (space between the 

eye and bill), and a short yellow bill 

with a black tip (Rasmussen and 

Anderton 2005, p. 183; BLI 2009b, 

unpaginated). Males and females are not 

known to differ, and juvenile plumage 

is unknown (Rasmussen and Anderton 

2005, p. 184). 

The Jerdon’s courser is a rare species 

of bird that is endemic to the Eastern 

Ghats of the states of Andhra Pradesh 

and extreme southern Madhya Pradesh 

in India (BLI 2009b, unpaginated). The 

size of the population is not known. 

Historically, this species was reported 

in the Khamman, Nellore, and 

Anantapur districts of Andhra Pradesh 

and the Gadchiroli District of 

Maharashtra (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 

5). Until 1900, its presence was 

periodically recorded, including some 

records in the Pennar and Godavari 

river valleys and near Anantapur 

(Bhushan 1986, p. 2; Jeganathan et al. 

2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, 

p. 7; Jeganathan et al. 2006, p. 227). 

Efforts by various ornithologists in the 

early 1930s and mid to late 1970s to 

record the presence of this species 

failed, leading to the belief that the 

species was extinct (Bhushan 1986, p. 2; 

Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7). In 1986, 

the Jerdon’s courser was rediscovered 

near Reddipalli village, Cuddapah 

District, Andhra Pradesh (Bhushan 

1986, pp. 8–9; Jeganathan et al. 2004a, 

p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; 

Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 3; Jeganathan 

et al. 2006, p. 227; Senapathi et al. 2007, 

p. 1). 

The area where the species was 

rediscovered was designated as the Sri 

Lankamaleswara Wildlife Sanctuary 

(SLWS) (Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; 

Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 3). After its 

rediscovery, it was only observed 

regularly at a few sites in and around 

the SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7, 

18; Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5; 

Jeganathan et al. 2006, p. 227; Senapathi 

et al. 2007, p. 1), including reports of its 

presence in Sri Penusula Narasimha 

Wildlife Sanctuary (SPNWS) in the 

Cuddapah and Nellore districts, Andhra 

Pradesh (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 3). It 

has since been found at three additional 

localities in and around SLWL 

(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 228; 

Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 20; BLI 

2009b, unpaginated). 

Due to the nocturnal nature of the 

species and the wooded nature of its 

habitat, individuals are rarely seen; 

therefore, very little information is 

available on the distribution, ecology, 

population size, and habitat 

requirements of the Jerdon’s courser 

(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 225; 

Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; Jeganathan 

et al. 2005, p. 3; Jeganathan et al. 2006, 

p. 227; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1). New 

survey techniques have allowed 

researchers to detect the presence and 

absence of Jerdon’s courser using track 

strips and a tape playback of the 

species’ call. These methods can be 

useful in mapping the geographic range 

of the Jerdon’s courser and in estimating 

the population size, and have 

contributed to a better understanding of 

habitat preferences. Surveys have not 

been conducted in all areas with 

suitable habitat characteristics; 

additional surveys are needed to 

confirm the current range and 

population size of this species. 

Although the size of the population is 

not known, it is believed to be a small, 

declining population (Jeganathan 2004b, 

p. 7; BLI 2009b, unpaginated; IUCN 

2009c, unpaginated). 

The Jerdon’s courser inhabits open 

patches within scrub-forest interspersed 

with patches of bare ground, in gently 

undulating, rocky foothills (Jeganathan 

et al. 2005, p. 5; Senapathi et al. 2007, 

p. 1). Studies show that this species is 

most likely to occur where the density 

of large bushes (greater than 2 m (6 ft) 

tall) ranges from 300 to 700 per ha (121– 

283 large bushes per acre) and the 

density of smaller bushes (less than 2 m 

(6 ft) tall) is less than 1,000 per ha (404 

per acre) (Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 

228; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 22; 

Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5; Senapathi 

et al. 2007, p. 1). The dominant woody 

vegetation includes species of shrub, 

particularly Zizyphus rugosa, Carissa 

carandas, and Acacia horrida 

(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 228; 

Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 22). 

The amount of suitable habitat that 

existed for this species in 2000 was 

estimated to be approximately 3,847 

km2 (1,485 mi2) of scrub habitat in the 

Cuddapah and Nellore districts of the 

State of Andhra Pradesh (Senapathi et 

al. 2007, p. 6). Jeganathan (2008, pers. 

comm.) further stated that the amount of 

suitable habitat available in and around 

the SLWS is approximately 132 km2 (51 

mi2). A comprehensive habitat 

assessment of all the shrub habitat areas 

within the historic range of this species 

has not yet been completed; therefore, 

suitable habitat may occur elsewhere for 

this species. 

Little information is known about 

feeding habits or feeding areas of this 

species. The only information known 

comes from the analysis of two Jerdon’s 

courser fecal samples, which consisted 

mainly of termites and ants. Jeganathan 

(2004a, p. 234) suggested that despite 

being nocturnal and affected by the 

shadowing effects of the canopy, 

coursers may be able to see invertebrate 

prey on the ground by selecting 

relatively well-illuminated open areas. 

There is no information on the life 

history of the Jerdon’s courser; no nests 

or young birds have ever been found, 

although the footprints of a young bird 

along with an adult Jerdon’s courser 

suggests successful breeding is taking 

place (Jeganathan et al. 2004b, pp. 17, 

29). The calling period is brief, starting 

approximately 45 to 50 minutes after 

sunset and continuing for a few minutes 

to approximately 20 minutes. 

Conservation Status 

Due to the single, small, and declining 

population of the Jerdon’s courser, it is 

classified as ‘‘critically endangered’’ by 

the IUCN (Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; 

Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1; Jeganathan 

et al. 2008, p. 73; IUCN 2009c, 

unpaginated), a category assigned to 

species facing an extremely high risk of 

extinction in the wild. It is also listed 

under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife 

Protection Act of 1972. The species has 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

not been formally considered for listing 

in the Appendices of CITES (http:// 

www.cites.org). 

In 2010, a recovery plan was 

published for the Jerdon’s courser. The 

goals of this plan are to ‘‘secure the 

long-term future of the Jerdon’s courser 

and the scrub forest it is found in’’ and 

improve the conservation status of the 

Jerdon’s courser within the next 10 

years (2010–11 to 2020–21) (Anon 2010, 

p. 13). The Recovery Plan lays out 

objectives with specific actions to reach 

those objectives and includes a time 

scale and parties responsible for each 

action. Objectives include protection of 

existing habitat, locating suitable habitat 

and determining if the species occurs in 

those areas, research and monitoring to 

support conservation efforts and track 

populations and habitat changes, and 

raising awareness of the conservation 

issues (Anon 2010, p. 16). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Jerdon’s Courser 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

The primary threat to the persistence 

of the Jerdon’s courser is habitat 

destruction and alteration due to 

conversion of suitable habitat to 

agriculture lands, grazing, and 

construction within and around the 

SLWS and SPNWS, and increasing 

settlements (Jeganathan 2005 et al. 2005, 

p. 6; Norris 2008, pers. comm.; 

Jeganathan 2009, pers. comm.). 

Agriculture is the main occupation of 

the people living in the area. The State 

of Andhra Pradesh has experienced 

growth of intensive agricultural 

practices in recent years (Senapathi et 

al. 2007, p. 2), with paddy (Oryza 

sativa), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), 

cotton (Gossypium sp.), groundnut 

(Arachis hypogaea), finger millet 

(Eleusince coracana), turmeric 

(Curcuma longa), and onion (Allium 

cepa) being the major crops of the area 

(Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 77). From 

1991 to 2000, scrub habitat in the 

Cuddapah District and parts of the 

Nellore District in Andhra Pradesh 

decreased by 11–15 percent, while the 

area occupied by agricultural land more 

than doubled (109 percent increase) 

during the same time period. Remaining 

scrub patches were also found to be 

smaller (38.4 percent decrease) and 

further from human settlements 

(Senapathi et al. 2007, pp. 1, 4; 

Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76). 

The main causes for the loss of scrub 

habitat were human settlements and 

subsequent conversions of scrub habitat 

to agriculture and cleared areas 

(Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 6). From 2001 

to 2004, an estimated 480 ha (1,186 ac) 

of scrub habitat were cleared within and 

around the SLWS, 275 ha (680 ac) of 

which were cleared to provide land for 

agriculture to the people who were 

displaced by floods and for farming of 

lemons and forestry plantations. These 

cleared areas fall within 1 km (0.6 mi) 

of previously known and newly 

discovered Jerdon’s courser areas 

(Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76). From 

2000 to 2005, Jeganathan et al. (2008, p. 

77) noted that approximately 215 ha 

(531 ac) of scrub habitat outside of the 

SLWS were cleared and most likely will 

become lemon farms. The irrigation 

required to sustain agricultural activities 

will likely further fragment any 

remaining suitable habitat (Senapathi et 

al. 2007, p. 7). 

The Jerdon’s courser inhabits open 

patches within scrub-forest and prefers 

areas with moderate densities of trees 

and bushes (Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 

234). Researchers believe this open 

habitat is maintained by grazing animals 

and some woodcutting (Norris 2008, 

pers. comm.). Known Jerdon’s courser 

sites are already being used for grazing 

livestock and woodcutting, but at 

moderate levels that maintain the 

appropriate vegetation structure 

(Jeganathan 2005, p. 15). Mechanical 

clearing of bushes to create pasture, 

orchards, and tilled land; high levels of 

woodcutting; and high level of use by 

domestic livestock are likely to cause 

deterioration in scrub habitat by 

creating a scrub forest that is too open 

for the Jerdon’s courser. However, low 

levels of grazing by livestock or absence 

of woodcutting may also lead to habitat 

that is more closed and, therefore, 

unsuitable (Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 

234; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 23; 

Norris 2008, pers. comm.). 

Land in SLWS and adjacent areas is 

used by the people from villages in 

Sagileru valley for grazing herds of 

domestic buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), 

sheep (Ovis aries), and goats (Capra 

hircus), and for woodcutting 

(Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 9). 

Jeganathan (2008, pers. comm.) states 

that most of the potentially suitable 

habitat for Jerdon’s courser is located on 

the fringe of the forest and can be easily 

accessed by locals for grazing and 

woodcutting. Jeganathan et al. (2008, p. 

77) notes three types of grazing within 

and around the SLWS and SPNWS. The 

first includes shepherds who bring 

goats, sheep, and buffalo into the scrub 

habitat in and around the sanctuaries 

every morning, grazing 2–3 km (1–2 mi) 

into the forest before returning to the 

villages in the evening. The second 

includes nomads with 200–300 cattle. 

Although they are invited by farmers to 

help fertilize the lemon farms, they stay 

3 to 4 months and graze in the forested 

areas in and around the sanctuaries. The 

third includes sheep that graze inside 

the sanctuaries throughout the year; 

however, this type of grazing did not 

occur in scrub habitat. Furthermore, a 

common practice is to cut and bend the 

branches of scrub and tree species to 

facilitate better access for grazing 

(Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 78). In 

addition, the people of the local villages 

also use the sanctuaries for timber and 

nontimber forest products; including 

fuel wood, illegal wood collecting, 

grass, and bamboo. From 2001 to 2003, 

Jeganathan et al. (2008, pp. 77–78) 

regularly observed wood loads being 

removed by either head loads, bullock 

cart, or tractor. 

Development activities within the 

SLWS, including the construction of 

check dams and percolation ponds and 

digging of trenches, have been observed 

in known and newly recorded areas of 

the Jerdon’s courser (Jeganathan et al. 

2004a, pp. 26, 28; Jeganathan et al. 

2008, p. 76). Approximately 0.5 to 1 ha 

(1–2 ac) of scrub forest was cleared for 

each of five percolation ponds dug near 

the main Jerdon’s courser area and 

exotic plant species planted on the 

embankment. In addition, scrub habitat 

was thinned (removal of all scrub 

species except selected tree saplings), 

and pits for collecting rainwater were 

dug (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76). 

Furthermore, various sizes of stones 

were collected from the scrub jungle 

within and around the SLWS for road 

construction every year. Collection 

included digging of stones with 

crowbars, collection of stones in heavy 

vehicles, and the excavation of 15 large 

pits (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76). 

Construction of dams and reservoirs 

and river floods in the area has resulted 

in the relocation of villages near the 

SLWS and SPNWS. Fifty-seven villages 

were relocated closer to SLWS after the 

construction of the Somasila dam. 

Fifteen were displaced due to the 

construction of the Sri Potuluri Veera 

Brahmendraswamy (SPVB) Reservoir. 

Currently, there are approximately 146 

villages between the SLWS and SPNWS 

(Jeganathan et al. 2008, pp. 76–77). 

There are more villages in the area of 

Somasila and SPVB Reservoir that could 

be relocated near the sanctuaries in the 

future, and there are plans to increase 

the height of the Somasila dam, which 

will cause the displacement of more 

villages near the southeastern part of 

SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 77). 

With the relocation and expansion of 

human settlements, there is concern 

over additional land conversion for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50067 

agriculture, increased pressure for 

grazing and woodcutting, and further 

development. 

At the time of the Jerdon’s courser 

rediscovery in 1986, the only known 

site where the species was found was 

under threat from a project to construct 

the Telugu-Ganga canal through its 

habitat. The Andhra Pradesh Forestry 

Department (APFD) and the State 

Government of Andhra Pradesh 

responded by designating the site as the 

SLWS to protect the species. The 

proposed route of the canal was 

adjusted to avoid the sanctuary 

(Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 6; Jeganathan 

et al. 2008, p. 78). However, in 2005, 

construction of the Telugu-Ganga canal 

began, illegally, within the SLWS. 

Construction was stopped immediately 

once the APFD was notified (Jeganathan 

et al. 2005, p. 6; Kohli 2006, 

unpaginated). Illegal excavation was 

reported even after construction was 

stopped and the contracting company 

fined (Kohli 2006, unpaginated). 

Jeganathan et al. (2005, p. 12) found 

that 80 to 100 m (263 to 328 ft) were 

cleared for canals that were 16 to 20 m 

(53 to 66 ft) wide. They also found that 

approximately 22 ha (54 ac) of 

potentially suitable habitat were cleared 

and one of the three newly recorded 

sites for the Jerdon’s courser was 

destroyed by the illegal construction 

within the SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 

2005, p. 12; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 

73). The potential impacts of the 

proposed realignment were also 

assessed and it was determined that the 

construction of the canal would still 

impact 650 ha (1,606 ac) of suitable 

habitat around the SLWS and would 

pass within 500 m (1640 ft) of recent 

records of the Jerdon’s courser and pass 

very close to the only place where the 

species has been regularly sighted since 

1986 (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 12; 

Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 80). Plans for 

the Telugu-Ganga canal included 

another canal project along the western 

boundary of the SPNWS. Unauthorized 

work near the Sanctuary boundary was 

stopped by the Cuddapah Forest 

Division in October 2005. In some 

locations along the canal route, forest 

had been cleared and roads developed 

inside of the Sanctuary boundary 

(Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 9). 

Approximately 163 ha (403 ac) were 

cleared for the construction of the canal 

in and around the SPNWS (Jeganathan 

et al. 2005; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 

80). It is unknown how much of this 

area is occupied by the Jerdon’s courser. 

Following the illegal construction of 

the canal within the SLWS and SPNWS, 

the issue was raised to the Central 

Empowered Committee (CEC), a 

monitoring body on forest matters set up 

by the Supreme Court (Kholi 2006, 

unpaginated). The CEC ruled in favor of 

a realignment route completely avoiding 

courser habitat. Also, the government of 

Andhra Pradesh has transferred 

approximately 1,000 ha (2,4711 ac) of 

land between the canal and the SLWS 

to the APFD (BLI 2009b, unpaginated; 

Jeganathan 2009, pers. comm.). 

During the construction of the TeluguGanga canal, Jeganathan et al. (2005, p. 

13) identified additional threats in 

association with the construction. Roads 

were built along the canal route and 

from the main roads to the canal, which 

subsequently provided easy access to 

the forest for unauthorized woodcutting. 

Furthermore, the SLWS is known to 

have red sanders (Pterocarpus 

santalinus), a highly valued species of 

trees sought after by illegal woodcutters. 

APDF records from 1984 to 2003 show 

that more than 116,000 kilograms 

(255,736 pounds) of matured red 

sanders were seized from smugglers 

(Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 13). Pressure 

from smugglers on mature red sanders, 

coupled with the increased access 

points into the SLWS due to canal 

construction activities, has caused 

extensive unauthorized woodcutting 

within the SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 

2005, p. 13). 

In summary, the scrub habitat known 

to be occupied by the species and 

potentially suitable habitat on adjacent 

lands in and around the SLWS and 

SPNWS in the Cuddapah District of 

India have been destroyed and 

diminished due to conversion of land 

for agricultural purposes, grazing 

livestock, construction, and 

woodcutting. These actions are a result 

of human expansion and the subsequent 

increase in human activity in and 

around the SLWS and SPNWS. 

Additional relocation of villages around 

SLWS and SPNWS is anticipated. 

Because the two most common 

livelihoods are agriculture and cattle 

rearing and because the establishment of 

additional villages will require more 

land to accommodate agriculture and 

livestock needs, the scrub habitat that is 

vital to the Jerdon’s courser remains at 

risk of further curtailment. The 

population of the Jerdon’s courser is 

extremely small and believed to be 

declining, so any further loss or 

degradation of remaining suitable 

habitat represents a significant threat to 

the species. Therefore, we find that 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

habitat or range are threats to the 

continued existence of the Jerdon’s 

courser throughout its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Jeganathan et al. (2008, p. 78) noted 

a few encounters with illegal bird 

trapping within the peripheral areas of 

the eastern part of the SLWS; on one 

occasion a trapper was seen near the 

main Jerdon’s courser area. Although 

trappers mainly target other species, 

such as Grey partridge (Francolinus 

pondicerianus) and Quail species, the 

traps consist of nooses and nets in 

which the Jerdon’s courser could 

potentially get caught (Jeganathan et al. 

2008, p. 78). However, there is no 

quantitative information on which to 

analyze the extent to which this threat 

may be acting on this species. In 

addition, we are not aware of any 

information currently available that 

indicates the use of this species for any 

scientific or educational purpose. As a 

result, we are not considering 

overutilization to be a contributing 

threat to the continued existence of the 

Jerdon’s courser throughout its range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

We are not aware of any information 

currently available that indicates 

disease or predation pose a threat for 

this species. As a result, we are not 

considering disease or predation to be 

contributing threats to the continued 

existence of the Jerdon’s courser 

throughout its range. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Jerdon’s courser is listed under 

Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife 

Protection Act of 1972. Schedule I 

provides absolute protection with the 

greatest penalties for offenses. This law 

prohibits hunting, possession, sale, and 

transport of listed species and allows 

the State Government to designate an 

area as a sanctuary or national park for 

the purpose of protecting, propagating, 

or developing wildlife or its 

environment. The Jerdon’s courser is 

also listed as a priority species under 

the National Wildlife Action Plan 

(2002–2016) of India. This National Plan 

includes guidance to expand and 

strengthen the existing network of 

protected areas, develop management 

plans for protected areas in the country, 

restore and manage degraded habitats 

outside of protected areas, and control 

activities such as poaching and illegal 

trade, among others. We are unaware of 

any management plans for the protected 

areas in Andhra Pradesh where the 

Jerdon’s courser occurs. This species is 

also proposed as a threatened species 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

under section 38 of the Biological 

Diversity Act, 2002 (Anon 2010, p. 6). 

The SLWS and SPNWS were 

established for the purpose of protecting 

the habitat of the Jerdon’s courser. The 

sanctuaries allow for regulated levels of 

human use and disturbance while 

preventing complete loss of scrub 

habitat (Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 8). The 

SLWS and SPNWS are protected by the 

Forest Conservation Act of 1980. 

Section 2 of this law restricts the use of 

forest land for nonforest purposes, such 

as the fragmentation or clearing of any 

forest. In addition, the SLWS and 

SNPWS are designated as Important 

Bird Areas (IBA) in India (Jeganathan et 

al. 2005, p. 5). IBAs are sites of 

international importance for the 

conservation of birds, as well as other 

animals and plants, and are meant to be 

used to focus conservation efforts and 

reinforce the existing protected areas 

network. However, designation as an 

IBA provides no legal protection of 

these areas (BNHS 2009, unpaginated). 

In 2010, a recovery plan was 

published for the Jerdon’s courser. The 

plan uses a multi-pronged approach to 

secure the long-term survival of this 

species. Elements of the plan include 

research, monitoring, advocacy, 

conservation education, habitat 

management, training, and funding. The 

actions outlined in the plan involve 

several national and international 

groups and the APFD, which has the 

primary responsibility for the 

management of Jerdon’s courser habitat 

(Anon 2010, pp. 3, 5). Implementation 

of the recovery plan is dependent on 

funding (approximately 1.8 million U.S. 

dollars) and the cooperation of several 

agencies (Anon 2010, pp. 16–21). 

Although this plan was published by 

the APFD and submitted to The 

Ministry of Environment and Forests, 

Government of India, we could not 

determine that implementation of this 

plan is mandatory or binding; rather the 

plan is meant to serve as a reference for 

conservation managers, policy-makers, 

researchers, decision-makers, and serve 

as a basis for future conservation 

actions. Furthermore, as this recovery 

plan was just published in November 

2010, it is too early to determine if this 

plan will be effective in providing 

protection to the species. 

In summary, although protections for 

the species exist, the primary threat to 

this species is ongoing loss of habitat. 

Senapathi et al. (2007, pp. 7–8) found an 

extensive and rapid decline in scrub 

habitat, with most removal of scrub 

occurring up to sanctuary boundaries 

and little loss occurring within the 

wildlife sanctuaries. Due to the threat of 

an increasing number of settlements 

near the sanctuaries, and the subsequent 

further loss of scrub habitat to 

agriculture and livestock, protection of 

scrub habitat used by the Jerdon’s 

courser will be important for the 

species’ continued existence. Jeganathan 

et al. (2004, p. 28) classified many areas 

in the Cuddapah District as suitable 

habitat for the Jerdon’s courser; 

however, with the exception of two 

sanctuaries, the rest of the suitable 

habitats are not protected. Therefore, 

current regulatory mechanisms do not 

provide enough protection of suitable 

habitat for this species outside of 

existing protected areas. We are also 

unaware of any grazing standards 

within SLWS and SPNWS to ensure the 

maintenance of open scrub habitat and 

prevent overgrazing by livestock. When 

combined with Factor A (the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the habitat or range), we 

find that the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to 

ameliorate the current threats to the 

Jerdon’s courser throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

There are particular species 

characteristics that render a species 

vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2002, 

p. 193). For example, species with a 

narrow geographic range, small 

population size, declining population, 

and specialized habitat requirements are 

more susceptible to extinction than 

others without these characteristics 

(Primack 2002, pp. 193–200). Although 

exact population estimates and 

distribution of the Jerdon’s courser are 

not available, the species has been 

reported as a small, declining 

population (Jeganathan 2004b, p. 7; BLI 

2009b, unpaginated; IUCN 2009c, 

unpaginated) and only reported from a 

small patch of scrub habitat in and 

around the SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 

2008, p. 73). Furthermore, certain 

species characteristics, such as those 

found in this species, predispose it to 

particular sources of extinction (Owens 

and Bennett 2000, p. 12147). Owens and 

Bennett (2000, p. 12147) found that 

extinction risks for birds with 

specialized habitat and small body size 

increased with habitat loss. The Jerdon’s 

courser is a small bird dependent on 

scrub habitat of moderate density for 

survival. Habitat loss, as described 

under Factor A, is the primary threat to 

this species. Further loss of Jerdon’s 

courser habitat may fragment remaining 

suitable habitat adjacent to the SLWS 

and increase the extinction risk for the 

species. In addition, small, isolated 

populations may experience decreased 

demographic viability and increased 

susceptibility to extinction from 

stochastic environmental factors (e.g., 

weather events, disease) and an 

increased threat of extinction from 

genetic isolation and subsequent 

inbreeding depression and genetic drift. 

In conclusion, the single known 

population of Jerdon’s courser is likely 

to be vulnerable to threats associated 

with low population sizes. Because the 

known population is small in size, and 

restricted in range, and depends on a 

special habitat for survival, any factor 

(i.e., habitat change, a loss of 

demographic viability, etc.) that results 

in a decline in habitat or individuals is 

problematic for the long-term survival of 

this species. Therefore, we find that 

other natural or manmade factors pose 

a threat to the Jerdon’s courser 

throughout its range. 

Status Determination for the Jerdon’s 

Courser 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Jerdon’s courser. The species is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A), 

and demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events and 

other complications associated with the 

species’ low population and restricted 

range (Factor E). Furthermore, we have 

determined that the existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) are not adequate 

to ameliorate the current threats to the 

species. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

Known occupied habitat and 

potentially suitable habitat have already 

been destroyed and diminished due to 

conversion of land for agriculture, 

grazing livestock, construction, and 

wood cutting. Additional relocation of 

villages around the SLWS and SPNWS 

is anticipated. The two most common 

livelihoods for people in this region are 

agriculture and cattle rearing; relocation 

of villages will require the conversion of 

additional land to accommodate these 

needs. Currently, there are protections 

in place for this species, but these do 

not provide enough protection to 

suitable habitat outside of protected 

areas. Within protected areas, grazing 

still occurs and there are no grazing 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50069 

standards in place to ensure 

maintenance of open scrub habitat. 

Characteristics of the Jerdon’s courser, 

such as small body size, small 

population, declining population, 

narrow geographic range, and 

specialized habitat requirements, 

naturally put this species more at risk of 

extinction. 

Any factor (i.e., habitat change, a loss 

of demographic viability, etc.) that 

results in a decline in habitat or 

individuals is problematic for the longterm survival of this species. Decreased 

demographic viability, environmental 

factors, and genetic isolation may lead 

to inbreeding depression and reduced 

fitness. These genetic threats will 

exacerbate other threats to the species 

and likely increase the risk of 

extinction. Based on the magnitude of 

the ongoing threats to the Jerdon’s 

courser habitat throughout its entire 

range, as described above (Factor A and 

D), combined with the small population, 

restricted range, and specialized habitat 

requirements (Factor E), we determine 

that this species is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are listing the Jerdon’s 

courser as an endangered species 

throughout all of its range. Because we 

find that the Jerdon’s courser is 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

there is no reason to consider its status 

in a significant portion of its range. 

V. Marquesan Imperial Pigeon (Ducula 

galeata) 

Species Description 

The Marquesan Imperial Pigeon 

(Ducula galeata), known locally as Upe, 

is a very large arboreal pigeon belonging 

to the family Columbidae. It was first 

described by Charles Lucien Bonaparte 

in 1855 (Villard et al. 2003, p. 198; BLI 

2009c, unpaginated). The species 

measures 55 cm (22 in) in length, is dark 

slate-grey with bronze-green reflections 

on the upperparts, rufous-chestnut 

undertail-coverts, white eyes, and a 

white and grey-black cere protruding 

almost to the tip of the bill (Blanvillain 

et al. 2007, unpaginated; BLI 2009c, 

unpaginated). 

The pigeon is endemic to the French 

Polynesian Marquesas Archipelago in 

the Pacific Ocean. The Marquesas 

Archipelago is a territory of France 

located approximately 1,600 km (994 

mi) northeast of Tahiti. Based on 

subfossil records, the pigeon was 

historically present on four islands in 

the Marquesas Archipelago, Hiva Oa, Ua 

Huka, Tahuata, and Nuku Hiva, as well 

as the Cook, the Pitcairn, and Society 

Island chains (Steadman 1997, p. 740; 

Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 6; Blanvillain 

and Thorsen 2003, p. 381; Blanvillain et 

al. 2007, unpaginated). At the time of its 

discovery, the pigeon was already 

restricted to Nuku Hiva, a 337 km2 (130 

sq mi2) island. Researchers believe that 

hunting, degradation of local forest, 

invasive weeds and trees, and predation 

were the probable causes of its decline 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, pp. 8–9; 

Blanvillian et al. 2007, unpaginated). 

On Nuku Hiva, the pigeon is restricted 

to 7 sites which are difficult to access 

by hunters and livestock (Villard et al. 

2003, p. 191; BLI 2009c, unpaginated). 

In an effort to protect the remaining 

population from extinction due to 

catastrophic events, the pigeon was 

reintroduced to Ua Huka, an island 50 

km (31 mi) east of Nuku Hiva in 2000 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 14; Blanvillain 

and Thorsen 2003, p. 385; BLI 2009c, 

unpaginated). Ua Huka was chosen as a 

reintroduction site primarily because 

the pigeon was historically found on the 

island, and due to availability of 

suitable habitat located in a protected 

area, a lack of black rats (Rattus rattus), 

and a smaller human population 

compared to other Marquesan islands 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 13). 

Population estimates on Nuku Hiva 

have ranged from 75 to 300 birds since 

1975; however, the most recent survey, 

conducted in 2000, estimated the 

population to be approximately 80–150 

birds (Villard et al. 2003, p. 194). In 

2000, five birds were translocated to Ua 

Huka and an additional five 

translocated in 2003. In 2006, 

approximately 32 birds were present. In 

2008, another survey was conducted. 

Two groups of nine and six birds were 

observed within the initial translocation 

area (Gouni and Gustemme 2009, p. 4). 

Gouni and Gustemme (2009, p. 4) 

suggest that the population has 

expanded into inaccessible parts of the 

island where surveys are not possible 

and further speculate that, given the 

lack of limiting factors on the island, the 

population may have already reached 50 

individuals. 

The species is almost exclusively 

arboreal and prefers the intermediate 

and upper canopy forest layers 

consisting of Guettarda speciosa, 

Cerbera manghas, Ficus spp., 

Terminalia cattapa, and Sapindus 

saponaria; however, individuals have 

also been observed perched on shrubs 

(Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 382; 

Villard et al. 2003, p. 191). These 

pigeons heavily rely on this canopy 

forest for roosting and feeding. Based on 

observations of pigeons in 2000, this 

species appears to return to the same 

feeding and night roosting areas. 

Species of Ducula are primarily 

frugivorous (fruit eaters). The diet of 

Marquesan imperial pigeons consists 

mainly of fruits, which are usually 

swallowed whole, from Ficus spp. and 

Psidium guajava (guava; an introduced 

species); however, it has been reported 

that caterpillars from S. saponaria and 

the foliage and flowers of other tree and 

shrub species also make up a portion of 

the pigeon’s diet. The species’ 

consumption of an introduced shrub 

species, the guava, is likely due to the 

degradation of native habitat 

(Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 384) 

and the subsequent loss of native fruits, 

foliage, and flowers. Gleaning, the 

catching of invertebrate prey items by 

plucking them from foliage, the ground, 

or from rock crevices, and browsing are 

the two main feeding methods 

(Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, pp. 382– 

383). 

Courtship behavior includes the male 

and female sitting next to one another 

and allopreening, preening the potential 

mate’s breast and neck areas and 

mirroring each other’s actions 

(Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 383). 

The breeding season is long, occurring 

from mid-May to December (Thorsen et 

al. 2002, p. 6). Nests are constructed of 

intermingled branches, approximately 

60 cm (24 in) in diameter, 10 to 18 m 

(33 to 59 ft) above ground at the top of 

the canopy (Blanvillain and Thorsen 

2003, p. 384); clutch size is only one egg 

(Villard et al. 2003, pp. 192, 195). 

Abundance of fruit is critical in 

determining the breeding success of 

frugivorous birds (Thorsen et al. 2002, 

p. 10). However, studies suggest that the 

pigeon is successfully breeding in 

different areas where it exists (Thorsen 

et al. 2002, p. 17; Villard et al. 2003, 

p. 195). 

Conservation Status 

The Marquesan imperial pigeon was 

originally classified as ‘‘critically 

endangered’’ by the IUCN. In 2008, 

however, this species was downlisted to 

‘‘endangered’’ status due to the 

establishment of a second population 

through the translocation of birds to Ua 

Huka (IUCN 2009b, unpaginated). The 

Marquesan imperial pigeon is also 

protected under Law Number 95–257 in 

French Polynesia. The species has not 

been formally considered for listing in 

the Appendices of CITES (http:// 

www.cites.org). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Marquesan Imperial Pigeon 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

Destruction of habitat associated with 

human colonization is one of the main 

threats to the remaining populations of 

the Marquesan imperial pigeon. Since 

Polynesian occupation and discovery of 

the area by Europeans, substantial 

changes to the Nuku Hiva landscape 

have occurred (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 8; 

Villard et al. 2003, p. 190) and are still 

occurring. These changes include 

clearing of land for agriculture and 

development, introduction of domestic 

livestock, introduction of exotic plants, 

and introduction of rats (Rattus spp.) 

and cats (Felis catus) (Thorsen et al. 

2002, pp. 8–9). 

Most of Nuku Hiva was originally 

covered by forest, with the exception of 

the drier northwestern plain where 

shrub savanna is predominant. Since 

colonization of Nuku Hiva, the native 

landscape has been cleared for 

agriculture and settlement. Fires have 

been used to clear land for agriculture 

and plantations (Manu 2009, 

unpaginated). In more recent times 

(between 1974 and 1989), all natural 

vegetation on a large area of the main 

plateau (de Toovii) on the island was 

cut down or burned to be converted into 

grassland for pasture, and 1,100 ha 

(2,718 ac) were planted with Caribbean 

pine (Pinus caribaea), an exotic tree 

species. By 2000, modern facilities, such 

as roads, an airport, and other buildings 

had been built (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 

190, 195). 

Suitable habitat for this species has 

also been modified and degraded by 

introduced domestic livestock and 

exotic plant species. Domestic livestock 

have become feral, and while cattle and 

horses are mostly controlled, feral goats 

(Capra hircus) and pigs (Sus scrofa) 

continue to be a major concern (Villard 

et al. 2003, p. 193). Goats are 

particularly destructive; they have 

caused devastation to natural habitats 

on several other islands (Sykes 1969, 

pp. 13–16; Parkes 1984, pp. 95–101; 

Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9). 

The Nuku Hiva goat population has 

been increasing since the 1970s, and 

both goats and pigs are found 

everywhere on the island (Villard et al. 

2003, p. 195). Goats have the potential 

to damage and alter the vegetative 

composition of an area by overgrazing 

indigenous and endemic species to the 

point at which seedlings are consumed 

before they are able to mature to a 

height that is out of the reach of goats 

and, therefore, survive (Sykes 1969, p. 

14; Parkes 1984, pp. 95, 96, 101; Villard 

et al. 2002, p. 189). Subsequently, exotic 

plant species are able to flourish and 

outcompete native species, which 

results in little or no regeneration of 

native trees (Sykes 1969, p. 15; Thorsen 

et al. 2002, p. 9). Large patches of 

natural forest have been destroyed by 

goats and pigs in areas where 

Marquesan imperial pigeons are found 

and there is poor natural forest 

regeneration (Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). 

Blanvillain and Thorsen (2003, pp. 382– 

383) found most of the ground covered 

by several introduced plant species, 

including guava, African basil (Ocimum 

gratissimum), and soft elephants foot 

(Elephantopus mollis). Overgrazing, 

combined with the introduction of 

exotic species, prohibits the tall trees 

that comprise the canopy layer of the 

forest from regenerating and from 

providing feeding and roosting sites 

needed by pigeons. 

In addition, introduced rats on the 

island of Nuka Hiva inhibit regeneration 

of native trees because they consume 

the flowers, fruits, seeds, seedlings, 

leaves, buds, roots, and rhizomes 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9; Meyer and 

Butaud 2009, p. 1570), thus further 

contributing to the alteration of the 

vegetation composition. Thorsen et al. 

(2002, p. 9) noted that seed caches 

containing many seeds that are part of 

the Marquesan imperial pigeon’s food 

supply were common. 

Marquesan imperial pigeons are 

frugivorous birds and act as seed 

dispersal agents for those trees from 

which they feed and roost. Habitat loss, 

predation, or any other factor resulting 

in the decline of pigeons indirectly 

contributes to a decrease in seed 

dispersal, possibly contributing to low 

recruitment of the vital native tree 

species. Therefore, hunting may also 

contribute to the destruction and 

modification of habitat (See also Factor 

B). 

The habitat in the Vaiviki Valley on 

the island of Ua Huka, where the pigeon 

was reintroduced, was classified as a 

protected area in 1997 (Thorsen et al. 

2002, p. 13). There are no indications 

that ongoing habitat degradation from 

livestock grazing is occurring in this 

area. 

In summary, the Marquesan imperial 

pigeon prefers to inhabit the canopy 

forest layer of mature forests and relies 

on the fruits of these trees as a food 

source. This habitat on Nuku Hiva has 

been destroyed, and continues to be 

destroyed by conversion of land for 

agriculture and development, 

overgrazing, and competition with 

exotic plant species. The species is 

currently restricted to seven small sites 

in the most remote areas of Nuku Hiva 

(Villard et al. 2003, p. 191). An intact 

canopy of native species is rare; in 

addition, the native understory and 

shrub layers are absent and composed 

mostly of browse-resistant species 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9). Poor natural 

forest regeneration is evident in areas 

where pigeons are found (Villard et al. 

2003, p. 193). Overgrazing by goats and 

competition with exotic species remain 

a threat to the pigeon’s habitat on Nuku 

Hiva; any additional loss of suitable 

habitat is likely to have a large impact 

on the distribution of this species. 

The Marquesan imperial pigeon does 

not appear to experience habitat 

destruction on Ua Huka, as it is 

classified as a protected area and there 

is no indication of ongoing habitat 

degradation from livestock grazing in 

this area. However, the largest 

population of pigeons is located on 

Nuka Hiva, and impacts to the suitable 

habitat on this island are ongoing. 

Therefore, we find that present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the habitat or range is a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

Marquesan imperial pigeon. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Two researchers found that hunting is 

the primary reason for the current 

restricted range of the species to remote 

areas of Nuku Hiva (Thorsen et al. 2002, 

p. 8; Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). By 

1922, most of the modification of habitat 

by man had already occurred, yet 

Marquesan imperial pigeons were still 

abundant (Villard et al. 2003, p. 195). In 

a 1922 expedition, 82 birds were killed; 

Villard et al. (2003, p. 194) theorized 

that this represented a significant 

portion of the estimated several 

hundred birds present at that time. After 

these killings, the pigeon was reported 

as ‘‘not so abundant.’’ In 1944, many 

birds were reported on the northern 

coast of Nuku Hiva and hunters were 

known to bring back full bags of birds. 

In 1951, the population of pigeons 

appeared to be decreasing and, with the 

introduction of shotguns in the 1950s, 

the effect was amplified. During the 

construction of the airport from 1978 to 

1979, workers were known to hunt for 

pigeons (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 193, 

195). On Ua Huka, a local agreement 

now exists not to hunt pigeons (Thorsen 

et al. 2002, p. 13). 

Bird hunting in the French Polynesia 

was banned in 1967; however, the law 

is rarely enforced and hunting still 

occurs (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10) on 

Nuku Hiva. Most Marquesan imperial 

pigeons that are killed are opportunistic 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50071 

kills by those hunting goats and pigs, 

but some intentionally target pigeons for 

sale to local inhabitants (Thorsen et al. 

2002, p. 10). In an effort to reduce illegal 

hunting and engage the public in 

conservation of local endemic species, 

the Socie ́te ́ d’Ornithologie de Polyne ́sie 

(Manu), a conservation organization in 

French Polynesia, developed a public 

outreach and educational program for 

local schools about the importance of 

this species. Although this appears to 

have reduced illegal hunting, poaching 

remains a threat and has the potential to 

rapidly reduce to the remaining small 

population (BLI 2009c, unpaginated). To 

protect the remaining populations from 

hunting, an agreement by the 

inhabitants of Nuku Hiva to stop 

hunting pigeons or the appointment of 

a ranger to enforce current laws is 

needed (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 11). 

An adult Marquesan imperial pigeon 

lays only one egg per year, suggesting 

this species is long lived (Villard et al. 

2003, pp. 192, 195). Populations of 

species that are long-lived with low 

fecundity rates tend to be more affected 

by loss of breeding adults than those 

species with shorter lifespans and high 

fecundity. Therefore, an increase in 

adult mortality due to illegal hunting 

would likely have a substantial impact 

on the survival of this species. 

Furthermore, because pigeons are 

frugivorous and act as seed dispersal 

agents for those trees from which they 

feed and roost, further declines in 

pigeons may indirectly contribute to 

low recruitment of the vital native tree 

species. 

In summary, hunting was likely a 

major contributing factor to the current 

restricted range and small population of 

Marquesan imperial pigeon. On the 

island of Ua Huka, because the species 

is in a protected area, there is a smaller 

human population compared to other 

Marquesan islands, and since there is no 

information indicating hunting is a 

threat to this species on the island of Ua 

Huka, we find that overutilization is not 

a threat to the continued existence of 

the pigeon. On the island of Nuku Hiva, 

although hunting of pigeons is illegal, 

the law is not enforced and poaching 

remains a threat. Because this species 

has a clutch size of one egg, poaching 

would have a substantial impact on the 

species’ continued existence. Therefore, 

we find that overutilization is a threat 

to the continued existence of Marquesan 

imperial pigeon on the island of Nuku 

Hiva. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Avian diseases are a concern for 

species with restricted ranges and small 

populations, especially if the species is 

restricted to an island. Extensive human 

activity in previously undisturbed or 

isolated areas can lead to the 

introduction and spread of exotic 

diseases, some of which (e.g., West Nile 

virus) can negatively impact endemic 

bird populations (Naugle et al. 2004, p. 

704). The introduction and transmittal 

of an avian disease could result in the 

extinction of the Marquesan imperial 

pigeon (Blanvillian et al. 2007, 

unpaginated). Beadell et al. (2006, p. 

2940) found the presence of Hawaii’s 

avian malaria in reed-warblers on Nuku 

Hiva; however, there is no data on the 

effects of this malaria on the population 

of pigeons on the island. Although large 

and stable populations of wildlife 

species have adapted to natural levels of 

disease and predation within their 

historic ranges, any additive mortality to 

the Marquesan imperial pigeon 

population or a decrease in its fitness 

due to an increase in the incidence of 

disease or predation could adversely 

impact the species’ overall viability (see 

Factor E). However, while these 

potential influences remain a concern 

for future management of the species, 

we are not aware of any information 

currently available that specifically 

indicates the occurrence of disease in 

the Marquesan imperial pigeon. No 

other diseases are known to affect the 

pigeons. In addition, the reintroduction 

of the pigeons to the island of Ua Huka 

reduces the likelihood of diseases 

causing extinction of the species. 

Black rats were introduced to Nuku 

Hiva in 1915 and are now found 

everywhere pigeons are located on 

Nuku Hiva (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 193, 

195). Rats may prey upon the eggs and 

nestlings of Marquesan Imperial 

pigeons, even if the nests are located in 

the tops of trees (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 

10). However, due to the large size of 

this species, adult pigeons may be able 

to chase away rats from their nests 

(Villard et al. 2003, p. 195). 

Furthermore, Thorsen et al. (2002, p. 10) 

observed juveniles and Villard et al. 

(2003, p. 195) noted a significant 

proportion of young pigeons, suggesting 

that black rats are not affecting breeding 

success. Due to the potential threat of 

black rats, pigeons were introduced to 

Ua Huka where black rats were not 

present. As an additional measure, 

poison bait stations were established 

around the wharf area of Ua Huka to 

prevent introduction of black rats 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 17). 

Cats have also been introduced to 

both the islands of Nuku Hiva and Ua 

Huka. While predation of adult and 

juvenile birds by cats is possible when 

pigeons are forced to feed on low 

shrubs, such as guava, due to 

destruction and absence of native 

species (See Factor A) (Thorsen et al. 

2002, p. 10), we are not aware of any 

information currently available that 

specifically indicates that predation by 

cats is a threat to the survival of this 

species. 

In summary, while avian diseases 

such as avian malaria in reed-warblers 

was found to be present on Nuku Hiva, 

no avian diseases are known to affect 

Marquesan imperial pigeons. Although 

predation has been indicated as a 

contributing factor to the decline of the 

species (Thorsen et al. 2002, pp. 9, 10; 

Blanvillain et al. 2007, unpaginated), we 

did not find information to suggest that 

predation is currently a threat to the 

survival of this species. Further, while 

black rats are found everywhere pigeons 

are found on Nuku Hiva, the 

observation of a significant proportion 

of juveniles suggests that predation of 

pigeon eggs and nestlings by black rats 

on Nuku Hiva is not a significant threat 

to pigeons. Cats are present on both 

islands, and there is potential for 

predation when pigeons are forced to 

feed on low shrubs, such as guava; 

however, there is no information to 

substantiate cat predation as a threat to 

the species’ survival. Therefore, we find 

that disease and predation are not 

contributing threats to the continued 

existence of the pigeon throughout its 

range. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Marquesan imperial pigeon is a 

protected species in French Polynesia; it 

is classified as a Category A species 

under Law Number 95–257. Article 16 

of this law prohibits the collection and 

exportation of species listed under 

Category A. Under Article L411–1 of the 

French Environmental Code, the 

destruction or poaching of eggs or nests, 

mutilation, destruction, capture or 

poaching, intentional disturbance, the 

practice of taxidermy, transport, 

peddling, use, possession, offer for sale, 

or the sale or the purchase of 

nondomestic species in need of 

conservation is prohibited. The French 

Environmental Code also prohibits the 

destruction, alteration, or degradation of 

habitat for these species. 

Hunting of this species is believed to 

be one of the main reasons for the 

species’ decline (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 

10; Villard et al. 2003, p. 195). Hunting 

and destruction of all species of birds in 

French Polynesia was prohibited by a 

decree enacted in 1967 (Villard et al. 

2003, p. 193). Furthermore, although 

restrictions on possession of firearms in 

Marquesas are in place, firearms are 

made available through visiting boats 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50072 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). On Ua 

Huka, there is an agreement in force not 

to hunt pigeons (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 

13). Although this species is fully 

protected, and hunting has been 

banned, illegal hunting of the 

Marquesan Imperial pigeon still occurs 

(see Factor B) and remains a threat on 

Nuku Hiva. 

The Marquesas Archipelago is 

designated as an Endemic Bird Area 

(EBA) (Manu 2009, unpaginated, BLI 

2009c). EBAs are territories less than 

50,000 km2 (19,300 mi2) where at least 

two bird species with restricted ranges 

are found together, and represent 

priority areas for biodiversity. NordOuest de Nuku Hiva is 9,000 ha area 

designated as an Important Bird Area 

(IBA) (Manu 2009, unpaginated). 

Designation as an IBA constitutes 

recognition of the area as a critical site 

for conservation of birds. In addition, 

Nuku Hiva is designated as an Alliance 

for Zero Extinction (AZE) (Manu 2009, 

unpaginated). AZEs are considered 

areas that are in the most urgent need 

of conservation. Although Nuku Hiva 

and Ua Huka are designated as areas of 

importance to the conservation of birds, 

these designations only serve to identify 

areas of biodiversity and focus 

conservation efforts; there is no legal 

protection of these areas. There is one 

officially protected area on Ua Huka 

(Vaikivi), established in 1997, which is 

actively managed. 

In summary, regulations exist to 

protect the species and its habitat. The 

threats that affect the species on each 

island are different. On the island of Ua 

Huka, also described under Factors A 

and B, destruction and modification of 

habitat are not known to threaten this 

species and illegal hunting is not 

occurring. This is likely because the 

protected area on Ua Huka is actively 

managed, the human population is less 

substantial, and there is a local 

agreement preventing hunting on this 

island. Furthermore, pigeons were 

reintroduced to Ua Huka due to the 

absence of threats to the species. 

Therefore, we find that the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms is not 

applicable to Ua Huka. However, as 

described in Factors A and B, habitat 

destruction continues to threaten this 

species and illegal hunting continues to 

occur on the island of Nuku Hiva. 

Therefore, we find that the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to ameliorate the current threats to the 

Marquesan imperial pigeon on the 

island of Nuku Hiva. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Introduced animal and plant species 

threaten the habitat and survival of the 

Marquesan imperial pigeon by 

inhibiting the growth of canopy tree 

species needed for nesting and roosting 

and creating competition for food 

sources. 

As described under Factor A, the 

introduction of livestock, including 

cattle, horses, goats and pigs, has caused 

and continues to cause substantial 

changes in the forest composition, 

affecting the amount of suitable habitat 

available for pigeons. Horses are now 

under control and cattle were eradicated 

by hunters (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9; 

Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). However, 

goats, in particular, overgraze native 

species to a level at which seedlings are 

consumed before they mature to a 

height out of goats’ reach (Sykes 1969, 

p. 14; Parkes 1984, pp. 95, 96, 101; 

Villard et al. 2002, p. 189). 

Consequently, exotic plant species such 

as guava are able to proliferate, 

preventing regeneration of natural forest 

(Sykes 1969, p. 15; Thorsen et al. 2002, 

p. 9). To restore native forests, measures 

to control feral goats are needed. Local 

inhabitants hunt goats and pigs 

(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10); however, 

overgrazing continues to be a problem. 

Fenced enclosures would exclude any 

livestock and allow regeneration of 

native species (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 

11). In addition, introduced rats on the 

island of Nuka Hiva inhibit regeneration 

of native trees by consuming the 

flowers, fruits, seeds, seedlings, leaves, 

buds, roots, and rhizomes (Thorsen et 

al. 2002, p. 9; Meyer and Butaud 2009, 

p. 1570) of native tree species, further 

contributing to the alteration of forest 

composition. Introduced species are not 

known to threaten pigeons on Ua Huka. 

Introduced rats on Nuku Hiva may 

also be a source of competition for food 

resources that would otherwise be 

available to pigeons. The diet for the 

Marquesan imperial pigeon consists of 

fruits from Ficus spp. and guava, foliage 

of S. saponaria, T. cattapa, and 

Misceltum spp., and the flowers of H. 

tiliaceus, C. manghas, and G. speciosa 

(Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 382). 

Rats are known to consume the flowers, 

fruits, and leaves of the same tree 

species, including guava, T. cattapa, 

Ficus spp., and S. saponaria (Thorsen et 

al. 2002, p. 9). The consumption of 

these fruits and foliage by rats may 

reduce the available food supply for this 

frugivorous bird. Furthermore, during 

periods of limited fruit availability, the 

pigeons may also compete with the 

white-capped fruit pigeon (Ptilinopus 

dupetitbouarsii), a wider ranging pigeon 

found in French Polynesia (including 

Nuku Hiva and Ua Huka), for food 

sources (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). 

Abundance of fruit is critical to the 

breeding success of frugivorous birds. 

When food resources are limited, 

breeding output and fledgling and adult 

survival may also be affected (Thorsen 

et al. 2002, p. 10). This may be 

especially critical to the Marquesan 

imperial pigeon since it is a long-lived 

species with low fecundity. An increase 

in adult mortality due to decreased food 

availability would likely have a 

substantial impact on the breeding 

success and, ultimately, on the survival 

of this species. 

Island populations have a higher risk 

of extinction than mainland 

populations. Ninety percent of bird 

species driven to extinction were island 

species (as cited in Frankham 1997, p. 

311). Based on genetics alone, endemic 

island species are predicted to have 

higher extinction rates than nonendemic 

island populations (Frankham 2007, p. 

321). Small, isolated populations may 

experience decreased demographic 

viability (population birth and death 

rates, immigration and emigration rates, 

and sex ratios), increased susceptibility 

of extinction from stochastic 

environmental factors (e.g., weather 

events, disease), and an increased threat 

of extinction from genetic isolation and 

subsequent inbreeding depression and 

genetic drift. As discussed above, there 

are two small extant populations of 

Marquesan imperial pigeons, one on 

Nuku Hiva and a reintroduced 

population on Ua Huka. Because the 

species now present on Ua Huka 

originated from the Nuku Hiva 

population, there is no genetic variation 

between the two populations. 

Furthermore, we have no indication that 

there is natural dispersion between the 

populations and, thus, no genetic 

interchange. The lack of genetic 

variation may lead to inbreeding and 

associated complications, including 

reduced fitness. Species with low 

fecundity, like the pigeon, are 

particularly vulnerable to inbreeding 

depression because they can withstand 

less decrease in survival before 

population growth rates are affected and 

they recover more slowly (Lacy 2000, p. 

47). In addition, genetic threats 

associated with small populations will 

exacerbate other threats to the species 

and likely increase the risk of extinction 

of island populations (Frankham 1997, 

p. 321). 

In summary, introduced livestock and 

rats are altering the native forests of 

Nuku Hiva on which the Marquesan 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50073 

imperial pigeon depends. Native tree 

species are unable to regenerate due to 

overgrazing by goats; allowing grazeresistant exotic plant species to 

proliferate. Through consumption of 

fruits, flowers, seeds, and foliage, rats 

contribute to the alteration of the native 

forest and also serve as a source of 

competition for food. On Nuku Hiva and 

Ua Huka, the white-capped fruit pigeon 

may also serve as a source of 

competition for food during periods of 

limited fruit availability. When food 

resources are limited, breeding output 

and fledgling and adult survival may 

also be affected, which may be 

particularly critical for a species with 

low fecundity. 

Both pigeon populations are subject to 

detrimental effects typical of small 

island populations. Decreased 

demographic viability, environmental 

factors, and genetic isolation may lead 

to inbreeding depression and associated 

complications, including reduced 

fitness. Species with low fecundity are 

particularly vulnerable because they can 

withstand less decrease in survival and 

recover more slowly. These genetic 

threats will exacerbate other threats to 

the species and likely increase the risk 

of extinction. Therefore, we find that 

other natural or manmade factors are 

threats to the continued existence of the 

Marquesan imperial pigeon on both 

Nuku Hiva and Ua Huka. 

Status Determination for the 

Marquesan Imperial Pigeon 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Marquesan Imperial Pigeon. The species 

is currently at risk on Nuku Hiva due to 

ongoing threats of habitat destruction 

and modification (Factor A); illegal 

hunting (Factor B); and competition 

with rats for food on Nuku Hiva, as well 

as demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events 

associated with the species’ low 

population, restricted range, and low 

fecundity (Factor E). Furthermore, we 

have determined that the existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are 

not adequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the species. In addition, we 

have determined that Factors A, B, C, 

and D are not factors affecting the 

continued existence of the species on 

Ua Huka. However, we have determined 

that the Ua Huka population is at risk 

due to demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events 

associated with the species’ low 

population, restricted range, and low 

fecundity (Factor E). 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

The Marquesas imperial pigeon is 

restricted to two islands and has a total 

maximum combined population 

estimate of 200 (80–150 on Nuku Hiva 

and 50 on Ua Huka). Intact canopy on 

Nuku Hiva is rare due to conversion of 

land to agriculture, overgrazing by goats 

and the subsequent poor natural forest 

regeneration, and competition with 

exotic plant species, which has 

restricted this population to seven small 

sites on the island. Further loss of 

suitable habitat could have a large 

impact on this small isolated 

population. Furthermore, hunting of 

pigeons is illegal, but is not enforced. 

Because this species is a long-lived 

species with low fecundity, it is 

particularly vulnerable to continued 

illegal hunting and, on both Nuku Hiva 

and Ua Huka, detrimental effects typical 

of small island populations. 

Decreased demographic viability, 

environmental factors, and genetic 

isolation may lead to inbreeding 

depression and reduced fitness. Species 

with low fecundity are particularly 

vulnerable because they can withstand 

less decrease in survival and recover 

more slowly. These genetic threats will 

exacerbate other threats to the species 

and likely increase the risk of 

extinction. Based on the magnitude of 

the ongoing threats to the extremely 

small and isolated population of 

Marquesan Imperial Pigeon throughout 

its entire range, as described above, we 

determine that this species is in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are listing the 

Marquesan Imperial Pigeon as an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range. Because we find that the 

Marquesan Imperial Pigeon is 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

there is no reason to consider its status 

in a significant portion of its range. 

VI. Slender-Billed Curlew (Numenius 

tenuirostris) 

Species Description 

The slender-billed curlew (Numenius 

tenuirostris) is a species of wading bird, 

one of the six curlews of the same genus 

within the family Scolopacidae. It was 

described from Egypt in 1871 by Vieillot 

(Gretton 1991, p. 1). It is medium-sized 

and mottled brown-grey in color. It has 

white underparts marked with black 

heart-shaped spots on the flanks. It has 

a decurved bill that tapers to a distinctly 

fine tip. It has pale, barred inner 

primary feathers and its secondary 

feathers contrast markedly with its 

brown-black primary feathers. Its tail is 

virtually unmarked, with a few dark 

bars on a white background (BLI 2006, 

p. 1). 

The species is believed to breed in 

Northwest Siberia (though the only two 

confirmed cases of breeding were in 

1914 and 1924). The species migrates 

5,000–6,000 km (3,100–3,700 mi) 

towards the west-southwest across 

Kazakhstan, passing north of the 

Caspian and Black Seas through 

southeastern and southern Europe to its 

wintering grounds in the Mediterranean 

and Middle East (Gretton 1996, p. 6; 

Chandrinos 2000, p. 1; Hirschfeld 2008, 

p. 139; Schmidt 2009, p. 46; Boere 2010, 

pers. comm.). 

The species has been sighted in 

Eastern Europe, including Russia, 

Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, 

Romania, and Yugoslavia; in Southern 

Europe, including Albania, Greece, 

Italy, and Turkey; in Western Europe, 

including France and Spain; in North 

Africa, including Algeria, Morocco, and 

Tunisia; and in the Middle East, 

including Iran and Iraq (van der Have et 

al. 1998, p. 36; Chandrinos 2002, 

unpaginated; Gretton et al. 2002, pp. 

335, 342; Gretton 2006, pp. 10–15; BLI 

2006, p. 2; Schmidt 2009, p. 44). It has 

also been reported in Slovenia, 

Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Oman, Saudi 

Arabia, and Yemen (BLI 2006, p. 2). 

During the 19th Century, the slenderbilled curlew was described as the most 

common curlew in countries such as 

Spain, Sicily, Malta, Tunisia, Morocco, 

and Algeria; described as abundant in 

Romania, southeast Hungary, and Italy; 

and regularly recorded in France 

(Gretton 1991, p. 16). Flocks were 

reported as hundreds, sometimes 

thousands, strong. Its population 

density frequently exceeded that of two 

relative species: The Eurasian curlew 

(Nemenius arquata) and the whimbrel 

(Numenius phaeopus) (Chandrinos 

2000, p. 1). From 1900 to the 1930s, the 

species was still regularly recorded, 

although not as abundant as in the 

1800s (Gretton 1991, p. 1). By 1940, a 

decline in slender-billed curlew 

populations was apparent and the 

species continued to decline, although 

flocks of more 100 birds were recorded 

in Morocco as late as the 1960s and 

1970s (Gretton 1996, p. 6). In 1978, a 

flock of 150 birds was observed in 

Turkey (Nankinov 1991, p. 26). In the 

1970s and 1980s, about 10–15 sightings 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50074 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

were reported annually. In the 1990s, 

annual records consist of sightings of 1 

to 3 birds, with the exception of 19 birds 

sighted in Italy in 1995 and a group of 

up to 50 wintering along the southern 

coast of Iran (Baccetti et al. 1996, p. 53; 

Boere and Yurlov 1998, p. 35; BLI 2006, 

p. 3; Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139). 

No nesting birds have been found 

since 1924, although in 1996 an adult 

slender-billed curlew in flight was 

reported west-north-west of Tara (Bojko 

and Nowak 1996, p. 79; Gretton et al. 

2002, p. 342). Juveniles were reported in 

1998 and 1999, indicating that the 

slender-billed curlew is still breeding 

somewhere (Gretton et al. 2002, p. 335; 

Schmidt 2009, p. 43). Between 1987 and 

1995, 1 to 3 slender-billed curlews were 

regularly recorded in Merja Zergas 

(Morocco), the last known regular 

wintering site; however, it has not been 

recorded at this location since 1995 (van 

der Have et al. 1998, p. 36; Gretton 

1996, p. 6; Chandrinos 2000, p. 2; 

Crockford 2009, p. 62). Most of the 

recent records have come from 

southeastern Europe in countries along 

the migration route (Chandrinos 2000, 

unpaginated). However, the last 

confirmed sighting of a slender-billed 

curlew was in 2001 in Hungary 

(Crockford 2009, p. 62; UNEP–AEWA 

2009, unpaginated). 

The most recent population estimate 

is fewer than 50 birds (BLI 2006, p. 3; 

Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139; BLI 2010, 

unpaginated). Surveys were conducted 

from 1987 through 2000 in various parts 

of the species’ historic breeding range, 

which covered several thousand 

kilometers of habitat. No slender-billed 

curlews were found during these survey 

efforts (Gretton et al. 2002, p. 341; CMS 

update 2004, p. 2). In 2009–10 a search 

to find this species within the nonbreeding range began; this survey 

involved teams of observers covering 35 

countries around the Mediterranean, 

Middle East, and Indian subcontinent 

(UNEP–AEWA 2009, unpaginated). As 

of March 2010, no slender-billed 

curlews have been found, which may 

mean the population is below an 

absolute minimum to be able to recover 

(Boere 2010, pers. comm.). 

Current breeding grounds are 

unknown. What is known about this 

species’ nests and nesting habitat comes 

from the only two confirmed historical 

accounts of slender-billed curlew nests. 

These accounts were both in the early 

1900s and are described in four papers 

by V.E. Ushakav that were later 

translated. These nests were located in 

a wet marsh at Krasnoperovaya, south of 

Tara, Siberia. The habitat was described 

as open marsh containing some birch 

(Betula) and marshy areas adjacent to 

pine (Pinus) forests. The nests were 

located in the middle of the marsh on 

grassy hillocks or on small dry islands 

(Gretton et al. 2002, pp. 335–336). Based 

on the historical habitat descriptions, 

breeding sites occurred in the foreststeppe zone, although it is unknown 

whether these sites were typical of the 

species; there is belief that the species 

may also breed in more northern areas 

in the southern taiga or in more 

southern areas in the northern parts of 

the steppe region (Belik 1994, pp. 37– 

38; Danilenko et al. 1996, pp. 71, 76; 

Boere 2010, pers. comm.). Danilenko et 

al. (1996, p. 72) provided a more general 

habitat description taking into 

consideration the historical descriptions 

and the marginal position of those sites 

described by Ushakav. This description 

is as follows: Open, locally wet areas 

with dense sedge or grass vegetation, 

with patches of bare ground, relief 

which is not flat (moderate elevations 

and depressions), and with adjacent 

shrubs or woodland patches formed 

mostly by deciduous trees and/or pines. 

Based on the early accounts, complete 

clutch sizes were found to be four eggs 

per nest between May 11 and June 1, 

1900. The young fledged in early July, 

and family groups of five to six birds 

were seen wandering around the marsh 

in early August. Overall, slender-billed 

curlews were seen in their nesting 

grounds in Siberia from mid-May until 

early August (Gretton et al. 2002, pp. 

335–336). 

During seasonal migrations and in the 

winter months, the species is known to 

be more of a habitat generalist, using a 

variety of habitats, including steppe 

grassland, saltmarsh, fishponds, 

brackish lagoons, saltpans, tidal 

mudflats, semidesert, brackish 

wetlands, and sandy farmland near 

lagoons (Gretton 1991, p. 35; Hirschfeld 

2008, p. 139). 

There is little information on the diet 

of this species. The birds at Merja Zerga 

(wintering ground in Morocco) have 

been recorded eating earthworms and 

tipulid larvae. Elsewhere, the species 

has been recorded eating other insects 

(grasshoppers, earwigs, and beetles), 

mollusks, and crustaceans (Gretton 

1996, p. 7). 

Conservation Status 

The slender-billed curlew is classified 

as critically endangered by the IUCN 

and is listed CITES Appendix I. Species 

included in CITES Appendix I are the 

most endangered CITES-listed species. 

They are considered threatened with 

extinction, and international trade is 

permitted only under exceptional 

circumstances, which generally 

precludes commercial trade. The 

species is also listed on Annex I of the 

European Union (EU) Wild Bird 

Directive (Europa Environment 2009, 

unpaginated) and Appendix I of the 

Convention on the Conservation of 

Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also 

known as CMS or Bonn Convention), 

which encourages international 

cooperation for the conservation of 

species. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Slender-Billed Curlew 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

Breeding Grounds 

Surveys of the forest-steppe area of 

Novosibirsk, Siberia in 1989 revealed a 

considerable amount of arable land 

interspersed with grazing land, birch 

woods, and marshes (Gretton 1991, p. 

35). Surveyors noted that in 1990 and 

1994 there were still substantial areas of 

marsh at Krasnopervaya that were quite 

similar to that described by Ushakov, 

with possibly more trees being present 

than in the early 1900s. By 1997, the 

area had changed dramatically; the 

remaining steppe plots on the higher 

parts of the marshes had been converted 

to wheat fields and the marsh itself 

completely covered with young forest 

(Boere and Yurlov 1998, p. 37). Boere 

and Yurlov (1998, pp. 36–37) visited 7 

of the 22 sites described by Danilenko 

et al. (1996, p. 77), based on the current 

understanding of what slender-billed 

curlews require for breeding habitat, as 

the best potential localities for recording 

breeding slender-billed curlews. Of 

these seven localities, they found that 

four were completely destroyed by 

human activities such as overgrazing, 

building of drainage/irrigation canals, 

and conversion into arable land. They 

also found that agricultural activities 

drained the water table in many lakes, 

stimulating the growth of trees on 

formerly wet marshes. 

Threats on the breeding grounds are 

largely unknown due to the lack of 

information on this species’ nesting 

localities. The impacts to the species 

from habitat modification would vary 

depending on which habitat types are 

used for nesting (Gretton 1996, p. 8). 

However, it should be noted that 

conversion to agriculture has not been 

limited to the later 20th Century; from 

1825–1858, the area under crops more 

than doubled in Novosibirsk, Omsk, and 

Tomsk (Gretton 1991, p. 36). 

Passage Areas 

Passage areas are those sites along the 

migration route that the slender-billed 

curlew uses for resting and feeding. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50075 

Because of the lack of occurrence data 

for this species, it is difficult to assess 

how important certain areas are to the 

species and fully analyze the effects of 

habitat modification; however there is 

evidence that modification has occurred 

in Europe and Russia (Gretton 1991, p. 

33). Coastal passages in Russia and 

Europe have been less modified than 

inland wetlands; however, these 

wetlands provide only a small portion 

of the species habitat needs as 75 

percent or more of the slender-billed 

curlew’s migration is over land (Gretton 

1991, p. 34). 

Gretton (1991, p. 34) noted that the 

conversion of the Russian steppe 

habitat, within northwest Kazakhstan, to 

arable agriculture may have 

significantly affected the slender-billed 

curlew. Within the 20th Century, central 

Europe experienced an immense loss of 

steppes and wetlands. For example, an 

important passage area, the Pannonian 

Plain, in southern Hungary and the 

former Yugoslavia has been almost 

entirely converted to arable farmland. 

The only natural remnants remaining 

are those protected by a reserve status. 

In Hungary, these protected areas 

combined comprise about 74,000 ha 

(182, 858 ac) but are scattered among a 

vast area of arable farmland. In the 

former Yugoslavia, the protected area 

equals about 6,600 ha (16,309 ac), which 

is only one percent of the area once 

comprised of steppes and wetlands 

(Gretton 1991, p. 34). 

In the past, there have been records of 

slender-billed curlews from the Danube 

floodplain (Nankinov 1991, p. 26). The 

majority of marshes and floodplains 

along the Romanian Danube have been 

drained. More recent sightings have 

come from the Danube Delta and 

Dobrodja lagoons, which have remained 

relatively intact. In Italy, during the late 

20th Century, the area of arable 

farmland drastically increased, and 

largely at the expense of steppe habitat 

in the south. Furthermore, low-lying 

areas, such as the Valli di Comacchio, 

in Italy have been almost entirely 

drained and converted to agriculture 

(Gretton 1991, p. 34). 

Gretton (1991, p. 34) also noted that 

Turkish wetlands had been threatened 

with development in the late 20th 

Century. Also, some of the finest coastal 

wetlands in Greece have been damaged 

due to the creation of fish farms and 

expansion of agriculture (Gretton 1991, 

p. 34). 

It is probable that the species 

historically used a series of traditional 

passage sites for rest and feeding during 

migration. As these sites were drained 

or otherwise damaged, the slenderbilled curlew’s migration became more 

difficult, forcing birds to make longer 

nonstop flights and possibly using 

suboptimal coastal sites (Gretton 1991, 

p. 35). 

Wintering Grounds 

Threats to potential wintering habitat 

are summarized in the 1996 version of 

the International Action Plan for the 

Slender-billed Curlew (Gretton 1996, 

pp. 8–9). Parts of the wintering grounds 

(e.g., the Rharb plain of northwest 

Morocco) have undergone extensive 

drainage of wetlands. Only a few 

scattered lakes and marshes, such as 

Merja Zerga, remain (Gretton 1991, p. 

35). Furthermore, in Tunisia, temporary 

freshwater marshes of the Metbassta 

region have been seriously damaged by 

construction of dams for flood control 

and the provision of water supplies. Due 

to the damming of several streams, it is 

expected that the region will dry more 

frequently, reducing the suitability of 

the sites as foraging areas (van der Have 

et al. 1998, p.37). In other parts of North 

Africa, other types of wetlands have 

been less affected, including coastal 

sites and inland sites, such as temporary 

brackish wetlands. In the Middle East, 

the permanent marshes in the central 

(Qurnah) area were reduced to 40 

percent of their 1985 extent by 1992, 

from 1,133,000 ha to 457,000 ha 

(2,800,000 ac to 1,129,000 ac), with 

further loss expected (Gretton 1996, p. 

8). Although wintering grounds have 

experienced habitat modification, it is 

not to the same extent as that of the 

passage areas. 

In conclusion, this species annually 

migrates 5,000 to 6,500 km (3,100 to 

4,000 mi) between its presumed 

breeding grounds in Siberia and the last 

known wintering ground in Morocco, 

passing though many European 

countries. Loss of breeding ground 

habitat would better explain the drastic 

population decline, since the species is 

thought to use a more specialized 

habitat for breeding. Belik (1994, p. 37) 

argued that the species may nest 

primarily in steppe areas. If this is the 

case, then the species population 

decline would be better explained by 

the extensive loss of this habitat type, 

particularly in Kazakhstan (Gretton 

1996, p. 7). Many of the areas along the 

migratory route, such as steppe areas in 

central and eastern Europe, have 

experienced substantial anthropogenic 

impacts. Loss of passage sites may have 

made migration difficult for this species, 

especially if it is dependent on a series 

of traditional sites. However, since the 

species is thought to use a wide variety 

of habitats along its migratory route and 

in its wintering grounds, it is unlikely 

that habitat loss in these areas has 

played a substantial part in the decline 

of this species, especially since many 

other wading birds using these areas 

have not shown such a decline (Gretton 

1996, pp. 7–8). Because Merja Zerga was 

the only known regular wintering site 

for the species, and the species has not 

been recorded there since 1995, the 

situation on wintering grounds is hard 

to assess. Although the loss of habitat 

does not fully explain the drastic 

reduction in this species, it certainly has 

contributed to the decline as a 

secondary factor. 

There is evidence of habitat loss for 

the slender-billed curlew in breeding, 

passage, and wintering grounds, and 

species experts name habitat loss as a 

threat to this species. With a population 

estimated at fewer than 50 birds, any 

loss of habitat could have a negative 

impact on this species. However, the 

habitat loss described above is historical 

and there is no information on habitat 

currently used by the slender-billed 

curlew for breeding, passage, or 

wintering grounds or habitat 

modification within these areas. At this 

time, there is not enough information to 

adequately assess the current or 

potential future threat of habitat 

modification or the impacts on this 

species. Furthermore, other species of 

waders that use the same type of habitat 

have not undergone drastic population 

declines seen in the slender-billed 

curlew population. Therefore, we find 

that present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

habitat or range is not a threat to the 

continued existence of the slenderbilled curlew throughout its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Being the largest waders, curlews are 

automatically a target for hunting, 

particularly as their meat is said to taste 

‘‘extremely good’’ (Gretton 1991, p. 37). 

Large-scale hunting of waders was 

known to occur across most of Europe 

during the early 20th Century, with 

curlews being preferred (Gretton 1996, 

p. 8). Although slender-billed curlews 

are half the weight of Eurasian curlews, 

they are also subject to hunting due to 

the similarity in appearance. Slenderbilled curlews have been seen and shot 

with the use of decoys for Eurasian 

curlews (Gretton 1991, p. 37). Because 

the bulk of the species’ migration route 

is over land, it is likely to be more at 

risk for hunting as inland sites are more 

accessible to man and thus have a 

greater concentration of hunters 

(Gretton 1991, p. 40). Furthermore, this 

species has a reputation for being 

‘‘tame,’’ in that it does not show fear of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50076 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

humans, and was easily targeted during 

a hunt (Gretton 1996, p. 8). 

A significant number of slender-billed 

curlew specimens from the early 20th 

Century were from markets, notably 

from Hungary and Italy (Gretton 1991, 

pp. 37–38). Between 1962 and 1987, 17 

slender-billed curlews were known to 

have been shot (13 of these in Italy and 

former Yugoslovia) (Gretton 1996, p. 9). 

Accurate hunting records are not 

available for this species. The only 

records of shot slender-billed curlews 

are those that reach museum 

collections; Gretton (1991, p. 37) 

estimates that these most likely 

represent a small proportion, less than 

one percent, of all specimens of this 

species shot and sold and that 

thousands of this species were likely 

shot over Italy from 1880 to 1950. In 

parts of North Africa, hunting pressure 

was strong up to at least the 1970s 

(Gretton 1996, p. 9). In Morocco, the 

slender-billed curlew has not only been 

hunted by locals, but also by foreign 

hunters via tourist agencies (Gretton 

1991, p. 38). One agency is known to 

shoot regularly in the northern part of 

Merja Zerga. As late as 1980, one guide 

described the taking of ‘‘a great number’’ 

from a flock of about 500 in Morocco 

(Gretton 1991, p. 38). 

Information strongly indicates that 

hunting was a significant factor in the 

decline of the slender-billed curlew. 

Furthermore, loss of habitat may have 

concentrated this species in remaining 

suitable areas making the species more 

vulnerable to hunting at these sites. 

Although hunting played a significant 

role in the decline of slender-billed 

curlews in the early 20th Century, it still 

poses a serious threat to the species 

(Gretton 1991, p. 41). Even after the 

species became one of the rarest birds in 

Europe, 15 slender-billed curlews were 

shot between 1962 and 1987 in 5 

countries. In at least two cases, the birds 

were shot to obtain a scientific 

specimen; in the other cases, it is not 

known whether the birds were 

purposely shot, but Gretton (1991, p. 41) 

suggests that there is considerable 

interest in the species for its rarity 

value. Although it seems unlikely that a 

slender-billed curlew could be found 

and shot with such a low population, in 

1989 a slender-billed curlew was shot at 

Merja Zerga in Morocco. 

In countries where the slender-billed 

curlew is protected from hunting, but 

other curlews can be legally shot, the 

slender-billed curlew is still at risk 

given the similarity of appearance and 

the inability of hunters to distinguish 

between species (Gretton 1991, p. 40). 

Italy has the most uncontrolled hunting 

in Europe, although hunting pressure is 

also heavy and often unregulated in 

Turkey, Greece, the former Yugoslavia, 

France, Spain, and Morocco. In Albania, 

the economic situation is such that 

curlews are likely at some risk due to 

hunting. Although all curlew species are 

protected in Bulgaria, there are 

problems with poaching and 

uncontrolled foreign hunters shooting 

globally threatened species. Intense 

hunting pressure in some areas of 

Greece puts adjacent areas historically 

used by slender-billed curlew at risk 

from illegal encroachment by hunters. 

Italy has problems with uncontrolled 

hunting next to and within protected 

areas. Hunting is allowed in the 

northern part of Merja Zerga, and as 

stated above, a slender-billed curlew 

was shot and wounded there in 1989. 

Slender-billed curlews and other 

species of curlews are protected in 

Turkey, but other waders are not 

protected and almost all waders are 

liable to be shot as there is little 

awareness or enforcement of existing 

laws (Gretton 1996, pp. 10–15). Given 

the similarity in appearance to the 

Eurasian curlew, what few slenderbilled curlews remain are still 

threatened by the continued legal and 

illegal hunting of curlews. 

In 1975, the slender-billed curlew was 

listed on Appendix II of the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES). CITES is an international 

agreement between governments to 

ensure that the international trade of 

CITES-listed plant and animal species 

does not threaten species’ survival in 

the wild. There are currently 175 CITES 

Parties (member countries or signatories 

to the Convention). Under this treaty, 

CITES Parties regulate the import, 

export, and reexport of CITES-protected 

plants and animal species (also see 

Factor D). Trade must be authorized 

through a system of permits and 

certificates that are provided by the 

designated CITES Scientific and 

Management Authorities of each CITES 

Party (CITES 2010a, unpaginated). 

In 1983, the slender-billed curlew was 

uplisted to Appendix I of CITES. An 

Appendix-I listing includes species 

threatened with extinction whose trade 

is permitted only under exceptional 

circumstances, which generally 

precludes commercial trade. The import 

of an Appendix-I species requires the 

issuance of both an import and export 

permit. Import permits are issued only 

if findings are made that the import 

would be for purposes that are not 

detrimental to the survival of the 

species in the wild and that the 

specimen will not be used for primarily 

commercial purposes (CITES Article 

III(3)). Export permits are issued only if 

findings are made that the specimen 

was legally acquired and trade is not 

detrimental to the survival of the 

species in the wild (CITES Article 

III(2)). 

On the same day the slender-billed 

curlew was listed in Appendix I, 

Austria entered a reservation stating that 

it would not be bound by the provisions 

of CITES relating to trade of slenderbilled curlew (CITES 2010b, 

unpaginated). Since the species was first 

listed in CITES Appendix II in 1975, the 

only CITES trade reported to the United 

Nations Environment Programme— 

World Conservation Monitoring Center 

(UNEP–WCMC) occurred in 1986. Two 

bodies were imported into Denmark 

from Austria, and then reexported from 

Denmark to Austria, for commercial and 

scientific purposes (UNEP–WCMC 2010, 

unpaginated). In 1989, Austria 

withdrew its reservation (CITES 2010b, 

unpaginated). Based on the low 

numbers of slender-billed curlew 

reported to be in trade, with no trade 

reported since 1986, we believe that 

international trade is not a threat to the 

species. Furthermore, we have no 

information indicating that illegal trade 

is a threat to this species. 

In summary, hunting has been 

indicated as a factor in the range-wide 

decline of this species during the first 

half of the 20th century. Today, both 

legal and illegal hunting of curlews is 

likely to still occur throughout the range 

of this species. Given the similarity in 

appearance with other curlew species 

and its rarity value, the slender-billed 

curlew is still at risk of hunting and 

based on the very small population size 

and the long-range migratory habits of 

this species, loss of individual birds is 

expected to have a significant impact on 

the remaining population. Therefore, we 

find that overutilization is a threat to the 

continued existence of the slenderbilled curlew throughout its range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

We are unaware of any threats due to 

disease or predation for this subspecies. 

As a result, we are not considering 

disease or predation to be contributing 

threats to the continued existence of the 

slender-billed curlew. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

As stated above, the slender-billed 

curlew is listed on Annex I of the 

European Union (EU) Wild Bird 

Directive, which includes protection for 

habitat, bans on activities that directly 

threaten wild birds, and a network of 

protected areas for wild birds found 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50077 

within the EU (Europa Environment 

2009, unpaginated). 

The slender-billed curlew is listed in 

Appendix I of CITES. CITES is an 

international treaty among 175 nations, 

including Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, 

France, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Italy, 

Kazakhstan, Morocco, Oman, Romania, 

Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Spain, 

Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Yemen, and 

the United States, entered into force in 

1975. In the United States, CITES is 

implemented through the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. The Secretary of the Interior 

has delegated the Department’s 

responsibility for CITES to the Director 

of the Service and established the CITES 

Scientific and Management Authorities 

to implement the treaty. Under this 

treaty, member countries work together 

to ensure that international trade in 

animal and plant species is not 

detrimental to the survival of wild 

populations by regulating the import, 

export, and reexport of CITES-listed 

animal and plant species. As discussed 

under Factor B, we do not consider 

international trade to be a threat 

impacting this species. Therefore, 

protection under this Treaty is an 

adequate regulatory mechanism. 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act 

(WBCA) provides restrictions on the 

importation of slender-billed curlew 

into the United States. The purpose of 

the WBCA is to promote the 

conservation of exotic birds by ensuring 

that all imports to the United States of 

exotic birds is biologically sustainable 

and is not detrimental to the species. 

The WBCA generally restricts the 

importation of most CITES-listed live or 

dead exotic birds except for certain 

limited purposes such as zoological 

display or cooperative breeding 

programs. Import of dead specimens is 

allowed for scientific specimens and 

museum specimens. To date, no request 

for importation of slender-billed curlew 

into the United States has been 

received. 

This species is also listed in 

Appendix I of the CMS or Bonn 

Convention, which includes species 

threatened with extinction. This 

convention encourages international 

cooperation for the conservation of 

species. Inclusion in Appendix I of CMS 

means that member states work toward 

strict protection, conserving and 

restoring the habitat of the species, 

controlling other reasons for 

endangerment, and mitigating obstacles 

to migration, whereas Appendix II 

encourages multistate and regional 

cooperation for conservation (CMS 

2009, unpaginated). 

A Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) was developed under CMS 

auspices and became effective on 

September 10, 1994. The MOU area 

covers 30 Range States in Southern and 

Eastern Europe, Northern Africa, and 

the Middle East. The MOU has been 

signed by 18 Range States and 3 

cooperating organizations (CMS 2010, p. 

17). In early 1996, a status report was 

produced and distributed by the CMS 

Secretariat. An International Action 

Plan for the Conservation of the 

Slender-billed Curlew was prepared by 

BLI in 1996, which was later approved 

by the European Commission and 

endorsed by the Fifth Meeting of the 

CMS. The Action Plan is the main tool 

for conservation activities for the 

species under the MOU. Conservation 

priorities include: effective legal 

protection for the slender-billed curlew 

and its look-alikes; locating its breeding 

grounds and key wintering and passage 

sites; appropriate protection and 

management of its habitat; and 

increasing the awareness of politicians 

in the affected countries (CMS 2009, 

unpaginated). 

The CMS Web site (CMS 2004) 

includes an update on the progress 

being made under the Slender-billed 

curlew MOU. It states that conservation 

activities have already been undertaken 

or are under way in Albania, Bulgaria, 

Greece, Italy, Morocco, the Russian 

Federation, Ukraine, and Iran (CMS 

2009, unpaginated). However, no details 

of these activities are provided. 

In Algeria, Tunisia, and Turkey, the 

slender-billed curlew is protected 

(Gretton 1996, pp. 10, 14); however, we 

have been unable to determine under 

what laws it is protected or the 

provisions of the protection. All 

Numenius species are protected, along 

with most other waders, in Bulgaria 

under Ordinance 342, 21/4/86. The 

penalty for shooting a slender-billed 

curlew is approximately 450 U.S. 

dollars (USD) (Gretton 1996, p. 10). The 

slender-billed curlew is also protected 

in Greece and Hungary with penalties of 

300–3,000 USD and 1,185 USD with 

potentially one year in jail, respectively 

(Gretton 1996, p. 11). In the Islamic 

Republic of Iran, hunting of waders is 

not allowed and all species of waders 

are protected (Behrouzi-Rad 1991, p. 

33). Curlews are not listed as legal 

quarry species in Italy, and are thus 

considered protected by Gretton (1996, 

p. 12). All curlew species are protected 

in Morocco; however, other species of 

waders are not (Gretton 1996, p. 13). 

Based on the lack of information 

available on this species (location of 

breeding and wintering areas), it is 

difficult to assess the adequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms in 

preventing the extinction of this species. 

Although progress is under way in 

various countries to better protect the 

habitat, prevent loss of individuals from 

hunting and misidentification, and 

educate the public about the precarious 

status of this species, not all 30 Range 

States of this species have signed the 

MOU (CMS 2009, unpaginated). 

Furthermore, many of the range 

countries have provisions in place to 

protect the slender-billed curlew; 

however, legal and illegal hunting 

continues to be a threat to the species 

(See Factor B). In countries where the 

slender-billed curlew is protected from 

hunting, but other curlews can be 

legally shot, the slender-billed curlew is 

still at risk given the similarity of 

appearance and the inability of hunters 

to distinguish between species (Gretton 

1991, p. 40). In addition, enforcement of 

existing laws is also a problem in many 

countries (See Factor B). Therefore, we 

find that the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the 

continued existence of the slenderbilled curlew throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

The status of the slender-billed 

curlew is extremely precarious. As 

stated above, the most recent population 

estimate for this species is fewer than 50 

birds. Most sightings of this species in 

the 1990s were of groups consisting of 

no more than three birds, and the last 

confirmed sighting of a slender-billed 

curlew was of a single bird in 2001. 

Small, isolated populations may 

experience decreased demographic 

viability (population birth and death 

rates, immigration and emigration rates, 

and sex ratios), increased susceptibility 

of extinction from stochastic 

environmental factors (e.g., weather 

events, disease), and an increased threat 

of extinction from genetic isolation and 

subsequent inbreeding depression and 

genetic drift. In smaller populations, 

additional threats to persistence and 

stability often surface, which can further 

lead to instability of population 

dynamics. Among these factors are rates 

of mate acquisition, breeding success, 

transmission of genetic material, 

dispersal, survival, and sex 

determination. Further, fluctuations in 

rates can couple with reduction in 

growth rates to act synergistically (Lacy 

2000, pp. 39–40). 

Due to the distance of annual 

migration, the geographic spread of the 

range, and the limited numbers of birds, 

the slender-billed curlew is likely 

vulnerable to one or more threats 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

associated with small population size. 

Early records of this species often 

referred to large flocks on migration and 

in winter. Based on what we know of 

other similar migratory bird species, it 

is likely that the experience of older 

birds was important in guiding such 

flocks along the migration route. As 

slender-billed curlew numbers declined, 

individuals would be more likely to join 

flocks of other species, notably the 

Eurasian curlew. The chances of 

slender-billed curlews meeting each 

other on the breeding grounds would 

become increasingly low (as was 

described for the Eskimo curlew by 

Bodsworth in 1954). The smaller the 

population, the less likely it is that this 

species would be able to locate another 

slender-billed curlew and successfully 

reproduce. Since this species has not 

been recorded on the only known 

historic breeding grounds for a number 

of years (Gretton 1996, p. 6), it is 

difficult to assess whether a breakdown 

of social behavior patterns has already 

occurred. 

Migrant waterbirds are particularly 

vulnerable to climate change due to 

their reliance on a network of dispersed 

sites between which they must travel. 

Wetlands are one of the habitats likely 

to be most affected by climate change. 

Additionally, timing of migration 

between sites is extremely important as 

they must arrive at certain sites in time 

to benefit from resource abundance 

(Maclean et al. 2008, p. 22). Migration 

routes could also be affected by the 

amount and location of suitable habitat. 

The slender-billed curlew was found by 

Maclean et al. (2008, p. 57) to be 

critically threatened by climate change, 

after factoring in population size, range 

size, fragmentation, habitat, and food 

requirements. 

It is predicted that the annual mean 

temperatures in Asia Minor (Turkey and 

Albania), the Middle East, and Europe 

will increase more than the global mean 

(Maclean et al. 2008, pp. 15–16). Within 

Asia Minor and the Middle East, 

temperature increases are predicted to 

be greater during the summer than 

winter and greater inland than coastal 

areas. Changes are predicted to be 

between 2–7 degree Celsius (°C) (3.6– 

12.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), depending 

on the season and area. Asia Minor is 

predicted to experience significant 

decreases in rainfall, with a 20–30 

percent decrease in summer and a 15– 

25 percent decrease in the winter. The 

northern Middle East is predicted to 

experience 30–50 percent reductions 

during the summer, but no major change 

during the winter. The southern Arabian 

Peninsula is predicted to be wetter 

throughout the year with a 5–20 percent 

increase in precipitation (Maclean et al. 

2008, pp. 16, 18). 

The warming in northern Europe is 

likely to be highest in winter with an 

increase of almost 10 °C (18 °F). In the 

Mediterranean, the warming is 

predicted to be highest in summer with 

a predicted increase of 5 °C (9 °F). 

Annual rainfall is likely to increase in 

most of northern Europe, but decrease 

in most of the Mediterranean area. In 

general, increases will be more 

pronounced in winter, whereas 

decreases will be more pronounced in 

summer. By 2100, southern Spain and 

Greece are expected to experience 

decreases in rainfall of 15–30 percent 

(Maclean et al. 2008, pp. 16, 18). 

All of Africa is expected to be warmer 

this century and the annual average 

warming throughout the continent 

higher than the global average. By 2065, 

coastal Africa temperature is expected 

to increase by 1.5–3 °C (2.7–5.4 °F). 

Rainfall is predicted to decrease, with 

the Mediterranean coast experiencing 

less than half the present annual rainfall 

(Maclean et al. 2008, pp. 15, 17) 

In addition to increases in 

temperature and fluctuations in rainfall, 

sea-level is projected to rise by 18 to 59 

cm during the 21st Century, with an 

estimate of approximately 4 mm per 

year (Maclean et al. 2008, p. 19). 

However, it should be noted that these 

estimates do not incorporate uncertainty 

in certain factors, such as ice sheet flow. 

In light of these predictions associated 

with climate change, slender-billed 

curlew nesting habitat may be 

threatened by the expansion of 

agriculture into areas formally too cold 

for farming. Additionally, wintering 

habitat is likely to be threatened, to 

some degree, by sea-level rise, but more 

so by drier conditions in the 

Mediterranean and Black Seas areas, 

which may reduce the area covered by 

wetlands (Maclean et al. 2008, p. 63). 

In summary, breakdown of social 

behavior patterns is increasingly likely 

to occur in addition to the general 

threats posed by small population size 

such as increased susceptibility to 

demographic, environmental, and 

genetic stochasticity, as this species’ 

population levels decline. Because so 

few individuals have been found in 

recent years, it is difficult to assess 

whether the breakdown of social 

behavior patterns has already occurred. 

However, given the species’ low 

numbers, this and other threats of small 

population size could already be 

occurring. Additionally, climate change 

could potentially alter slender-billed 

curlew habitat such that it negatively 

impacts the species. Although data on 

habitat currently used by slender-billed 

curlews is lacking, based on historical 

occurrence records nesting areas could 

be further threatened by agriculture 

expansion, and the amount of essential 

wetlands along passage and wintering 

areas could be significantly decreased. 

Therefore, we find that natural and 

manmade factors are threats to the 

continued existence of the slenderbilled curlew throughout its range. 

Status Determination for the SlenderBilled Curlew 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

slender-billed curlew. The species is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes in the form of hunting (Factor 

B) and threats associated with small 

population size (Factor E). Furthermore, 

we have determined that the existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are 

not adequate to ameliorate the threat of 

hunting to the species. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ 

The status of the slender-billed 

curlew is difficult to assess; species 

records and threats to the species are 

largely historical, the species has not 

been recorded since 2001, and recent 

studies have concentrated on locating 

the species rather than current threats to 

the species. However, total population 

for slender-billed curlew is estimated at 

fewer than 50 individuals. With a 

population of this size, the population 

may be below an absolute minimum to 

be able to recover, and genetic impacts 

and a breakdown of social behaviors 

will naturally occur, putting the species 

at a higher risk of extinction. 

Furthermore, the slender-billed curlew 

is at risk of being hunted either for its 

rarity value or due to the inability of 

hunters to distinguish between curlew 

species. Any loss of individuals from 

the remaining population would have a 

significant effect on the species’ ability 

to recover. At this time, regulatory 

mechanisms, although in place, appear 

to be inadequate as the slender-billed 

curlew is still threatened with legal and 

illegal hunting. Based on the magnitude 

of the ongoing threats to the extremely 

small population of slender-billed 

curlew throughout its entire range, as 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50079 

described above, we determine that this 

species is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, on 

the basis of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we are 

listing the slender-billed curlew as an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range. Because we find that the slenderbilled curlew is endangered throughout 

all of its range, there is no reason to 

consider its status in a significant 

portion of its range. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, requirements for Federal 

protection, and prohibitions against 

certain practices. Recognition through 

listing results in public awareness, and 

encourages and results in conservation 

actions by Federal and foreign 

governments, private agencies and 

interest groups, and individuals. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

and as implemented by regulations at 50 

CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies 

to evaluate their actions within the 

United States or on the high seas with 

respect to any species that is proposed 

or listed as endangered or threatened, 

and with respect to its critical habitat, 

if any is being designated. However, 

given that the Cantabrian capercaillie, 

Marquesan imperial pigeon, Eiao 

Marquesas reed-warbler, greater 

adjutant, Jerdon’s courser, and slenderbilled curlew are not native to the 

United States, we are not proposing 

critical habitat for these species under 

section 4 of the Act. 

Section 8(a) of the Act allows limited 

financial assistance for the development 

and management of programs that the 

Secretary of the Interior determines to 

be necessary or useful for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species in foreign countries. 

Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act 

authorize the Secretary to encourage 

conservation programs for foreign 

endangered species and to provide 

assistance for such programs in the form 

of personnel and the training of 

personnel. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered and threatened 

wildlife. As such, these prohibitions are 

applicable to the Cantabrian 

capercaillie, Marquesan imperial 

pigeon, Eiao Marquesas reed-warbler, 

greater adjutant, Jerdon’s courser, and 

slender-billed curlew. These 

prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21, make 

it illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

‘‘take’’ (take includes harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, collect, or to attempt any of 

these) within the United States or upon 

the high seas, import or export, deliver, 

receive, carry, transport, or ship in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of a commercial activity, or to 

sell or offer for sale in interstate or 

foreign commerce, any endangered 

wildlife species. It also is illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken in violation of the Act. Certain 

exceptions apply to agents of the 

Service and State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered and threatened 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, for 

endangered species, and 17.32 for 

threatened species. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit may be 

issued for the following purposes: for 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species, 

and for incidental take in connection 

with otherwise lawful activities. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this final rule is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2009–0084 or 

upon request from the Endangered 

Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Author 

The primary author of this final rule 

is staff of the Branch of Foreign Species, 

Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax 

Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding new 

entries for ‘‘Adjutant, greater,’’ 

‘‘Capercaillie, Cantabrian,’’ ‘‘Courser, 

Jerdon’s,’’ ‘‘Curlew, slender-billed,’’ 

‘‘Pigeon, Marquesan imperial,’’ and 

‘‘Warbler, Eiao Marquesas reed-’’ in 

alphabetical order under BIRDS to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population 

where endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

BIRDS

* * * * * * * 

Adjutant, greater ..... Leptoptilos dubius .. ................................ Entire ......................... E 783 NA NA 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
50080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population 

where endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

Capercaillie, 

Cantabrian.

Tetrao urogallus 

cantabricus.

................................ Entire ......................... E 783 NA NA 

*******

Courser, Jerdon’s ... Rhinoptilus 

bitorquatus.

India ....................... Entire ......................... E 783 NA NA 

*******

Curlew, slenderbilled.Numenius 

tenuirostris.

................................ Entire ......................... E 783 NA NA 

*******

Pigeon, Marquesan 

imperial.

Ducula galeata ....... French Polynesia ... Entire ......................... E 783 NA NA 

*******

Warbler, Eiao Marquesas reed-.Acrocephalus 

percernis 

aquilonis.

................................ Entire ......................... E 783 NA NA 

*******

Dated: June 21, 2011. 

Gregory E. Siekaniec, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19953 Filed 8–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3