20184 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings 

on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign 

Species; Annual Description of 

Progress on Listing Actions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Review of findings on petitions. 

SUMMARY: In this review, we announce 

our annual petition findings for foreign 

species, as required under section 

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

Act of 1973, as amended. When, in 

response to a petition, we find that 

listing a species is warranted but 

precluded, we must complete a new 

status review each year until we publish 

a proposed rule or make a determination 

that listing is not warranted. These 

subsequent status reviews and the 

accompanying 12-month findings are 

referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition 

findings. 

Information contained in this review 

describes our status review of 56 foreign 

taxa that were the subjects of previous 

warranted-but-precluded findings. 

Based on our review, we find that 50 

species continue to warrant listing, but 

that their listing remains precluded by 

higher-priority listing actions (see Table 

1). For six species previously found to 

be warranted but precluded, listing is 

now warranted. We will promptly 

publish a listing proposal for those six 

species. 

With this review, we are requesting 

additional status information for the 50 

species that remain warranted-butprecluded by higher priority listing 

actions. We will consider this 

information in preparing listing 

documents and future resubmitted 

petition findings. This information will 

also help us to monitor the status of the 

taxa and in conserving them. 

DATES: We will accept comments on 

these resubmitted petition findings at 

any time. 

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, 

information, and questions by mail to 

the Chief, Division of Scientific 

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 

750, Arlington, Virginia 22203; by fax to 

703–358–2276; or by e-mail to 

ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. Comments 

and supporting information will be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, Monday through Friday 

from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the above 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marie T. Maltese at the above address, 

or by telephone, 703–358–1708; fax, 

703–358–2276; or e-mail, 

ScientificAuthority@fws.gov; or through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

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

seq.), provides two mechanisms for 

considering species for listing. First, we 

can identify and propose for listing 

those species that are endangered or 

threatened based on the factors 

contained in section 4(a)(1). We 

implement this through the candidate 

program. Candidate taxa are those taxa 

for which we have sufficient 

information on file relating to biological 

vulnerability and threats to support a 

proposal to list the taxa as endangered 

or threatened, but for which preparation 

and publication of a proposed rule is 

precluded by higher-priority listing 

actions. None of the species covered by 

this review were assessed through the 

candidate program; they were the result 

of public petitions to add species to the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (Lists), which is the 

other mechanism for considering 

species for listing. Under section 

4(b)(3)(A), when we receive such a 

petition, we must determine within 90 

days, to the maximum extent 

practicable, whether the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

(90-day finding). If we make a positive 

90-day finding, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) 

of the Act requires that we must make 

one of three findings within 12 months 

of the receipt of the petition (12-month 

finding). 

The first possible 12-month finding is 

that listing is not warranted, in which 

case we need not take any further action 

on the petition. The second possibility 

is that we may find that listing is 

warranted, in which case we must 

promptly publish a proposed rule to list 

the species. Once we publish a 

proposed rule for a species, section 

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

procedures, regardless of whether or not 

we issued the proposal in response to 

the petition. The third possibility is that 

we may find that listing is warranted 

but precluded. A warranted-butprecluded finding means that 

immediate publication of a proposed 

rule to list a species is precluded by 

higher-priority listing proposals, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add and remove species from the Lists, 

as appropriate. 

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

Act, when, in response to a petition, we 

find that listing a species is warranted 

but precluded, we must make a new 12- 

month finding annually until we 

publish a proposed rule or make a 

determination that listing is not 

warranted. These subsequent 12-month 

findings are referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition findings. This notice contains 

our resubmitted petition findings for all 

foreign species that are currently the 

subject of outstanding petitions. 

Previous Notices 

The species discussed in this review 

were the result of three separate 

petitions submitted to the Service to list 

a number of foreign bird and butterfly 

species as threatened or endangered 

under the Act. We received petitions to 

list foreign bird species on November 

28, 1980, and April 30, 1991 (46 FR 

26464 and 56 FR 58664 respectively). 

On January 10, 1994, we received a 

petition to list 7 butterfly species as 

threatened or endangered (59 FR 24117). 

We took several actions on these 

petitions, and to notify the public, we 

published earlier petition findings, 

status reviews, and petition finding 

reviews that included foreign species in 

the Federal Register on May 12, 1981 

(46 FR 26464); January 20, 1984 (49 FR 

2485); May 10, 1985 (50 FR 19761); 

January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996); July 7, 1988 

(53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 

FR 52747); January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554); 

November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664); 

March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14496); May 10, 

1994 (59 FR 24117), and January 12, 

1995 (60 FR 2899). Our most recent 

review of petition findings was 

published on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 

29354). 

Since our last review of petition 

findings we have taken two listing 

actions related to this notice. On 

December 7, 2004, we published our 12- 

month finding on a petition to list seven 

foreign species of Swallowtail 

butterflies as threatened or endangered 

(69 FR 70580). We also published a 

proposed rule on November 22, 2006, to 

list six foreign bird species as 

endangered (71 FR 67530). 

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions 

This review describes our resubmitted 

petition findings for 56 foreign species 

for which we had previously found 

listing to be warranted but precluded. 

We have considered all of the new 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20185 

information we have obtained since the 

previous findings. As a result of our 

review, we find that warranted-butprecluded findings remain appropriate 

for 50 species. We emphasize that we 

are not proposing these species for 

listing by this review, but we do 

anticipate developing and publishing 

proposed listing rules for these species 

in the future, with an objective of 

progressively and conclusively 

addressing all 50 foreign species within 

a reasonable time-frame. 

Also as a result of this review, we find 

that for six species, listing is warranted. 

We will promptly publish proposals to 

list six species in the Family 

Procellariidae (tube-nosed seabirds). 

These species include: the Fiji petrel 

(Pterodroma macgillivrayi), the 

Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), 

Cook’s petrel (Pterodroma cookii), the 

Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma 

phaeopygia), the magenta petrel 

(Pterodroma magentae), and Heinroth’s 

shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi). 

We selected these six species from the 

list of warranted-but-precluded species 

for two reasons. First, this group has 

more Priority 2 species than any other 

taxonomic family in our list of 

warranted-but-precluded-species. The 

Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, Galapagos 

petrel, and magenta petrel are all 

classified as Priority 2 species. The two 

other species are classified as Priority 8 

(Cook’s petrel) and Priority 11 

(Heinroth’s shearwater). Although these 

two species are not of the highest 

priority under our listing priority 

ranking system, all six species face 

similar threats. With a minimum 

amount of additional effort and 

additional resources, we can proceed 

with developing the proposed listing for 

these two species concurrent with 

developing the proposed listing rule for 

the other four members of this family. 

As noted in our 1983 Listing Priority 

Guidance (48 FR 43098), the listing 

priority system provides such 

flexibility. We will be able to consult 

the same experts for species 

information, and perhaps have them act 

in a peer review capacity, because the 

scientists are likely to be knowledgeable 

about multiple taxa within the 

Procellariidae. This efficient use of 

resources also will allow us to make 

more expeditious progress in taking 

action on the species whose listing has 

been found to be warranted but 

precluded. 

The other reason we selected the 

Procellarids for our next listing proposal 

over the other Priority 2 species is 

because of the significance of the threats 

to the species. Procellarids are pelagic 

species and spend much of their lives 

on the wing at sea. The only time they 

spend any significant amount of time on 

land is to breed and rear young, and 

these species require specific islands for 

reproduction and rearing fledglings. 

Procellarids are long-lived species with 

low reproductive rates and juvenile 

mortality is often high due to predation 

by introduced mammalian species. As is 

common for all island nesting avian 

species, they are vulnerable to 

stochastic events, such as typhoons, 

which could result in rapid population 

declines or unforeseen species 

extinctions (Birdlife International 2006). 

Based on information gathered and 

assessed since May 21, 2004 and 

December 7, 2004, we have updated our 

determinations of whether listing of 

these taxa continues to be warranted or 

warranted but precluded, or whether 

listing is no longer warranted. See Table 

1 for a summary of these current 

determinations. Taxa in Table 1 of this 

notice are assigned to two status 

categories, noted in the ‘‘categories’’

column at the left side of the table. We 

identify the taxa for which we continue 

to find that listing is warranted but 

precluded by a ‘‘C’’ in the category 

column. The other category is for those 

species for which we find that listing is 

warranted and designate these taxa with 

an ‘‘L.’’ For this notice, we have not 

determined that listing is no longer 

warranted for any species whose listing 

was previously found to be warranted 

but precluded. The column labeled 

‘‘Priority’’ indicates the listing priority 

number (LPN) for all warranted or 

warranted-but-precluded taxa. We 

assign the LPN based on the immediacy 

and magnitude of threats, as well as 

taxonomic status. A complete 

description of our listing priority system 

was published on September 21, 1983 

(48 FR 43098). Following the scientific 

name of each taxon (third column) is the 

family designation (fourth column) and 

the common name, if one exists (fifth 

column). The sixth column provides the 

known historical range for the taxon. 

The avian species in Table 1 are listed 

taxonomically. 

Findings on Species for Which Listing 

Is Warranted 

Birds 

We will promptly prepare listing 

proposals for the Fiji petrel (Pterodroma 

macgillivrayi), the Chatham petrel 

(Pterodroma axillaris), Cook’s petrel 

(Pterodroma cookii), the Galapagos 

petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia), the 

magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae), 

and Heinroth’s shearwater (Puffinus 

heinrothi). These species are birds in the 

Family Procellariidae. 

Fiji petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi) 

The Fiji petrel is a marine species and 

presumably pelagic (del Hoyo et al. 

1992). It was originally known from just 

one specimen collected in 1855 on Gau 

Island and more recently from eight 

records of sightings on the island since 

1983 (BirdLife International 2000). The 

only other record is a reported sighting 

at sea over 200 km north of Gau 

(Watling 2000, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2000). The Fiji petrel’s 

breeding grounds have not been 

discovered, but may be located in areas 

of undisturbed mature forest, on rocky, 

mountainous ground, or in the cloud 

forest highlands of Gau Island (del Hoyo 

et al. 1992, Rare 2006). The species is 

classified as Critically Endangered by 

the IUCN because it is inferred, given 

the paucity of recent records, that there 

is only a tiny population confined to an 

extremely small breeding area (IUCN 

2006). The population is estimated at 

fewer than 50 individuals and is 

assumed to be declining because of 

predation by feral cats which are 

believed to prey upon nestling and 

fledgling petrels. The reduction in 

juvenile survival rates and declines in 

recruitment are believed to threaten the 

species’ long-term survival (BirdLife 

International 2000). Very little is known 

about the species and its life history. It 

is protected under Fijian law, and 

priorities for the species include 

conducting surveys on Gau and other 

islands with suitable habitat and 

reinforcing existing community 

awareness (BirdLife International 2000). 

With the goal of strengthening 

community awareness in mind, from 

2002–2004, a local conservationist on 

Gau Island, Milika Rati, conducted the 

Pride campaign (Rare 2006). Ms. Rati 

chose the Fiji petrel as the flagship 

mascot for the Pride campaign and used 

a series of high-profile activities to raise 

awareness of the plight of the 

endangered Fiji petrel. During the late 

stages of the campaign there was finally 

a confirmed sighting of a Fiji petrel 

(Rare 2006). A survey conducted at the 

close of the campaign found that 99 

percent of participants thought natural 

resource protection was important and 

94 percent knew that the Fiji petrel is 

threatened with extinction. The chiefs 

of all 16 villages on the island signed a 

formal agreement supporting the 

creation of a bird sanctuary on the 

island for the species (Rare 2006). The 

Australian Regional National Heritage 

Programme continues to fund the Pride 

campaign on Gau Island. The Wildlife 

Conservation Society, BirdLife 

International, and the National Trust of 

Fiji Islands are collaborating to follow 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20186 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

recommendations made by Ms. Rati at 

the end of the initial Pride campaign 

(Rare 2006). 

The importance of raising public 

awareness of the species’ threats and the 

recognition of the value of natural 

resource protection are intrinsic 

measures that are invaluable for species 

such as the Fiji petrel. Although 

resource economists frequently struggle 

to assign such intangible measures a 

monetary value, we recognize their 

importance and value in furthering the 

protection and conservation of 

threatened and endangered species. 

Creation of the bird sanctuary is an 

important initial step to preserve 

essential habitat for the Fiji petrel and 

the awareness of the value of natural 

resource protection should help to 

alleviate any future man-made threats. 

Public awareness alone cannot address 

population declines, the genetic effects 

of small populations, or stochastic 

events that can destroy an entire 

population during a single incident. 

However, the Fijian Pride campaign has 

united the island’s efforts to preserve 

the Fiji petrel and its habitat; therefore, 

it is anticipated that current and 

potential measures will help to reduce 

the threats to the species as the 

campaign continues to broaden in 

scope. 

The Fiji petrel does not represent a 

monotypic genus. The magnitude of 

threat to the species is high due to the 

species’ small population size which 

has continued to decrease since our 

previous notice, and the immediacy of 

threat is imminent due to continued 

predation by feral cats. Therefore, it 

receives a priority rank of 2. 

Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris; 

Previously Referred to as Pterodroma 

hypoleuca axillaris) 

The Chatham petrel is found only on 

South East Island (Rangatira) in the 

Chatham Islands of New Zealand 

(BirdLife International 2006). It is 

marine and presumably pelagic, and 

breeds on coastal lowlands and slopes 

in areas with low forest, bracken, or 

rank grass (del Hoyo et al. 1992). It nests 

in burrows amongst low vegetation and 

roots on flat to moderately sloping 

ground (Marchant and Higgins 1990). 

This species is classified as Critically 

Endangered by IUCN because it is 

restricted to South East Island and 

inferred to be continuing to decline due 

to competition from other native 

burrowing seabirds (IUCN 2006). The 

population estimate for this species is 

800–1,000 birds with a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2000). There is intense competition for 

burrows on South East Island with the 

abundant broad-billed prion (Pachyptila 

vittata), which may be the cause of low 

breeding success and the high rate of 

pair bond disruption (BirdLife 

International 2000). As a conservation 

measure, artificial nest sites have been 

provided, and burrows have been 

blocked to prevent occupation by P. 

vittata (BirdLife International 2000). 

Although these actions have greatly 

improved breeding success, only a small 

proportion of breeding burrows have 

been located (Taylor 2000). 

This species does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It has a restricted 

range and its population is declining. 

The threat to the species is high and 

imminent because the threats are 

currently ongoing. Therefore, this 

species receives a priority rank of 2. 

Cook’s petrel (Pterodroma cookii) 

Cook’s petrel is endemic to New 

Zealand. It is marine and highly pelagic 

in temperate and subtropical waters, 

and rarely approaches land except for 

nesting (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Cook’s 

petrel breeds on three islands: Little 

Barrier, Great Barrier, and Codfish 

Islands (del Hoyo et al. 1992), and 

occupies thickly forested high ridges 

and slopes, up to 700 m above sea level 

(BirdLife International 2000). This 

species is classified as Endangered by 

IUCN because it has a very small 

breeding range, and population numbers 

are decreasing (IUCN 2006). 

Furthermore, there is a danger that the 

Great Barrier Island population may 

soon be extirpated because only four 

nest burrows have been located in 

recent years and it is estimated that 

fewer than 20 pairs inhabit the island 

for breeding purposes (BirdLife 

International 2006). The population 

estimate for this species is 150,000–

200,000 birds (BirdLife International 

2006). Threats to the species are 

predominantly from invasive predator 

species such as feral cats, black rats 

(Rattus rattus), Pacific rats (R. exulans), 

and the weka (Gallirallus australis), 

which are major predators of adults and 

chicks (Heather and Robertson 1997; 

Taylor 2000). By 1980, feral cats were 

eradicated from Little Barrier Island, 

and wekas were eradicated from Codfish 

Island between 1980 and 1985 (Taylor 

2000). Pacific rats were successfully 

eradicated from Codfish Island in 

August 1998, and an eradication 

program on Little Barrier Island has 

been proposed (Conservation News 

2002). 

This species does not represent a 

monotypic genus, and has a fairly large 

population size; however, the 

population is decreasing. Primary 

threats to the species are a limited 

breeding range and predation by 

introduced species. Loss of the Great 

Barrier Island population would lessen 

the overall species’ range and 

distribution by one-third. The unique 

contributions of the Great Barrier Island 

population’s gene pool would no longer 

be available to the species. 

Although the threat of predation by 

introduced species has been reduced by 

targeted eradication programs, these 

programs are not completely successful 

and must be adequately funded to 

continue as a protective measure for the 

petrels. Finally, as is common for all 

island species, is concern for their 

vulnerability to stochastic events, such 

as typhoons, which could result in rapid 

population declines or extinction of the 

species. 

Therefore, although the threat to the 

species is moderate due to the current 

large population estimate, it is 

imminent because the population is 

decreasing, an important segment of the 

population is likely to become extinct in 

the near future, and the threat from 

predation remains. We assigned this 

species a priority ranking of 8. 

Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma 

phaeopygia; previously referred to as 

Pterodroma phaeopygia phaeopygia) 

The Galapagos petrel is a pelagic 

marine bird endemic to the Galapagos 

Islands, Ecuador (BirdLife International 

2006). It breeds on Santa Cruz, Floreana, 

Santiago, San Cristobal, Isabela, and 

possibly other islands in the Galapagos 

archipelago (Cruz and Cruz 1987; H. 

Vargas and F. Cruz in litt. 2000, as cited 

in BirdLife International 2006). This 

species is classified as Critically 

Endangered by IUCN because of its 

continuing history of declines (IUCN 

2002). In the early 1980s, Galapagos 

petrel populations underwent extremely 

rapid declines; estimates of population 

declines are as high as 81 percent in 4 

years, and it is likely to have declined 

by more than 80 percent in the last 60 

years (three generations) (IUCN 2002). 

The total population estimate for this 

species is 20,000–60,000 birds with a 

decreasing population trend (BirdLife 

International 2000). Threats to survival 

include introduced dogs, feral cats, and 

pigs, which take eggs, young, and 

adults; black rats and brown rats (R. 

norvegicus), which take eggs and chicks; 

nest-site destruction by goats, donkeys, 

cattle, and horses; and predation by 

Galapagos hawks (Buteo galapagoensis) 

(Cruz and Cruz 1987; Cruz and Cruz 

1996). Predator control and petrel 

monitoring programs are currently in 

place on Floreana, Santa Cruz, and 

Santiago Islands (H. Vargus and F. Cruz 

in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20187 

International 2006). The breeding areas 

on Santa Cruz, Floreana, and San 

Cristobal have been severely reduced 

due to vegetation clearance for 

agricultural land development and 

intensive grazing by cattle (Cruz and 

Cruz 1987; Cruz and Cruz 1996). Nearly 

half the species’ breeding range on 

Santa Cruz Island is under cultivation 

(Baker 1980, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2000). The Galapagos 

Islands are a national park and were 

declared a World Heritage Site (WHS) in 

1979 (BirdLife International 2006). The 

WHS designation encourages Ecuador to 

work carefully to enact suitable 

conservation laws and implement 

existing laws to protect the unique 

fauna and flora of the Galapagos Islands 

(UNESCO 2007). 

This species does not represent a 

monotypic genus, but it is declining and 

has persistent threats that are high in 

magnitude, such as nest predation by 

feral animals. This and other threats are 

imminent because they are ongoing; for 

instance, loss of breeding habitat that 

has been cleared for agricultural 

purposes is a threat that is nearly 

impossible to resolve. Therefore, this 

species receives a priority rank of 2. 

Magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae) 

The magenta petrel is known from 

Chatham Island, New Zealand. It breeds 

in a fragmented colony under dense 

forest, is a marine bird species, and 

presumably pelagic (BirdLife 

International 2000, del Hoyo et al. 

1992). The magenta petrel was 

rediscovered in 1978 after 10 years of 

intensive searching (Crockett 1994, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

This species is listed as Critically 

Endangered by IUCN because it has 

undergone an historic decline that is 

assumed to be greater than 80 percent in 

60 years, it has a very small population, 

and it is restricted to one extremely 

small location (IUCN 2002). The 

population is estimated to number 100–

150 individuals. It is possible that the 

species’ long-term decline may have 

begun to stabilize, but it is premature to 

assume that there is not a continuing 

decline until this information is verified 

(BirdLife International 2000). The 

species is predominantly threatened by 

introduced species that prey upon eggs, 

chicks, and adults for food; compete for 

burrows, or destroy nesting sites 

(BirdLife International 2000). 

The magenta petrel does not represent 

a monotypic genus. The magnitude of 

threat to the species is high due to its 

historic rapid decline, the current 

estimate of a very small population, and 

a single, small breeding location. These 

threats render the species highly 

vulnerable to extirpation during a single 

stochastic event. The magnitude is 

imminent because the threats are 

ongoing, and there is very little 

information available about the species’

current population dynamics. It 

therefore receives a priority rank of 2. 

Heinroth’s shearwater (Puffinus 

heinrothi) 

The Heinroth’s shearwater is known 

from the Bismarck Archipelago, around 

Bougainville in Papua New Guinea, and 

Kolombangara in the Solomon Islands 

(Buckingham et.al. 1995, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2000). It is a 

marine bird species, and presumably 

pelagic (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The 

Heinroth’s shearwater is believed to 

breed on high, inaccessible mountains. 

Introduced rats, feral cats and dogs are 

considered potential threats to the 

species. BirdLife International has 

identified a number of target 

conservation actions for the species 

including: demographic surveys and an 

assessment of the presence of 

introduced mammals on potential 

breeding grounds (BirdLife International 

2000). The Heinroth’s shearwater is 

categorized as Vulnerable by the IUCN 

because it is believed to have a very 

small population and breeding range 

(IUCN 2002). The population estimate 

for this species is 250–999 birds with an 

unknown population trend (BirdLife 

International 2000). There is no 

substantial evidence of a decline (IUCN 

2002). 

Heinroth’s shearwater does not 

represent a monotypic genus. There is 

no substantial evidence of a population 

decline; however, because of its small 

population size it faces threats that are 

moderate and non-imminent. This 

species was designated a priority rank of 

11. 

Findings on Species for Which Listing 

Is Warranted but Precluded 

We have found that, for the following 

50 bird species, issuance of proposed 

listing rules, even for species with the 

highest listing priority numbers, will 

continue to be precluded over the next 

year due to the need to complete 

pending proposals to determine if other 

species are threatened or endangered. 

We will continue to monitor the status 

of these species as new information 

becomes available. Our review of new 

information will determine if a change 

in status is warranted, including the 

need to emergency list any species or 

change the LPN of any of the species. 

As explained in the previous section, 

one of our highest priorities in the 

coming year is to prepare proposed 

listing rules for the six species of 

Procellarids. Over the next year the 

issuance of additional proposed listing 

rules will also be precluded due to the 

need to work on the following listing 

actions. We will be working on a final 

listing determination for the six foreign 

bird species that we proposed for listing 

on November 23, 2006. Reaching a final 

decision on this proposed rule is 

consistent with the statutory deadlines 

under section 4(b)(5) and is a high 

priority that takes precedence over 

proposed listings for additional 

warranted-but-precluded species. 

A foreign government has petitioned 

us to delist a species that is under its 

jurisdiction and is listed under the Act. 

Mexico submitted a petition to delist the 

Morelet’s crocodile (Crocodylus 

moreletii). The Morelet’s crocodile 

petition was submitted by the Mexican 

government through the National 

Commission for the Understanding and 

Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), and 

was received by the Service on May 26, 

2005. A 90-day finding was published 

on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36743) finding 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. The 12-month review is 

currently in progress and we must 

complete work on this petition 

consistent with our responsibilities 

under section 4(b)(3) of the Act. 

We are also in the process of making 

a final determination on whether to 

delist the Mexican bobcat (Lynx rufus 

escuinapae). The United States, with 

support from Mexico and other 

countries, proposed to transfer the 

Mexican bobcat from Appendix I to 

Appendix II of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES), based on the bobcat’s 

widespread and stable status in Mexico 

and the questionable taxonomy of the 

subspecies. The U.S. proposal was 

accepted and the change went into 

effect on November 6, 1992. On July 8, 

1996, we received a petition from the 

National Trappers Association, Inc. to 

delist the Mexican bobcat. Our 12- 

month finding and proposed rule were 

published on May 19, 2005 (70 FR 

28895). Under section 4(b)(6) of the Act, 

we have a statutory responsibility to 

complete this rule-making process. 

We are also making a final 

determination on whether to delist the 

scarlet-chested parakeet (Neophema 

splendida) and the turquoise parakeet 

(Neophema pulchella). On September 

22, 2000, we announced a review of all 

endangered and threatened foreign 

species in the Order Psittaciformes as 

part of a 5-year review under section 

4(c)(2) of the Act (65 FR 57363). One 

commenter suggested we consider these 

two species for delisting. The individual 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20188 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

provided substantial scientific 

information, including information and 

correspondence with the government of 

Australia (the range country of these 

species) regarding the status of both 

species. Under section 4(b)(6) of the Act, 

we have a statutory responsibility to 

complete this rule-making process. 

On January 4, 2005, we received a 

petition from 14 county officials 

representing 13 western States to list the 

Northern snakehead fish (Channa argus) 

as threatened or endangered under the 

Act, and further, to designate the 

Chesapeake Bay region as critical 

habitat. On March 5, 2005, we received 

a petition from a private individual to 

de-list the tiger (Panthera tigris). We 

have a statutory responsibility under 

section 4(b)(3) of the Act to process 

these petitions. 

On November 29, 2006, we received 

a petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) to list 12 species of 

penguins as threatened or endangered 

under the Act. The petitioned species 

include the emperor penguin 

(Aptenodytes forsteri) as threatened; 

Southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes 

chrysocome) as threatened; Northern 

rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes 

moseleyi) as endangered; Fiordland 

crested penguin (Eudyptes 

pachyrhynchus) as endangered; snares 

crested penguin (Eudyptes robustus) as 

threatened; erect-crested penguin 

(Eudyptes sclateri) as endangered; 

macaroni penguin (Eudyptes 

chrysolophus) as threatened, or, if not 

listed as threatened, CBD requested that 

we consider the South Georgia and 

Marion populations as Distinct 

Population Segments, or as a 

‘‘significant portion’’ of the species 

range; royal penguin (Eudyptes 

schlegeli) as threatened; white-flippered 

penguin (Eudyptula albosignata) as 

endangered; yellow-eyed penguin 

(Megadyptes antipodes) as endangered; 

African penguin (Spheniscus demersus) 

as endangered; and Humboldt penguin 

(Spheniscus humboldti) as endangered. 

We have a statutory responsibility under 

section 4(b)(3) of the Act to process this 

petition and are preparing our 90-day 

petition finding. 

In addition to these listing actions, we 

are also currently preparing a 5-year 

notice of review of all foreign-listed 

wildlife species as required under 

section 4(c)(2) of the Act. During the 

coming year, we will also be working on 

the 2008 ANOR, which sets priorities 

for the next set of listing actions. Using 

our best efforts to meet our statutory 

responsibilities under the Act is a high 

priority. 

Our ability to complete 

determinations on whether any species 

is endangered or threatened is also a 

function of available resources. The 

number of species’ proposals pending, 

and the rate at which we can process 

proposals and add more proposals, 

depends on the staff resources available. 

Listing of foreign species under the Act 

is carried out by a different Service 

program than the domestic Endangered 

Species program. The Division of 

Scientific Authority (DSA), within the 

Service’s International Affairs program, 

is solely responsible for the 

development of all listing proposals for 

foreign species and promulgation of 

final rules, whether internally-driven or 

as the result of a citizen petition. Unlike 

the Service’s domestic Endangered 

Species program, DSA does not have 

specific branch or field offices for 

endangered species functions. The DSA 

program consists of a Division Chief, a 

Branch Chief, two botanists, and three 

zoologists, when fully staffed. As of 

September 2005, DSA had one zoologist 

position vacant, and the Branch Chief 

position was vacant for most of 2006. 

Both positions were finally filled in 

August, 2006. We dedicate over 50 

percent of our existing staff resources to 

foreign endangered species listing 

activities, including processing 

petitions, preparation of the ANOR, and 

listing species which have been 

designated as warranted. 

In determining the resources available 

for listing actions under the Act, we 

must also balance these needs with the 

resources needed for completing the 

other non-discretionary activities that 

are the responsibility of DSA staff and 

that are funded under the International 

Wildlife Trade budget component of the 

International Affairs program. This 

budget is used for not only the ESA 

foreign listing activities, but also issuing 

permits under the Act, mandatory 

activities for U.S. implementation of 

CITES, implementing the Wild Bird 

Conservation Act of 1992, certain 

permitting provisions of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, and parts of the 

Pelly Amendment (Section 8 of the 

Fisherman’s Protective Act). 

The United States is a party to CITES; 

and has the responsibility under the 

Treaty to implement and enforce its 

provisions (see Article VIII, paragraph 

1). CITES regulates and monitors listed 

species in trade through a system of 

permits. Species are listed based on the 

level of threat to the species and that 

species’ need for conservation in 

international trade. Section 8A of the 

Act designates the Service, through its 

Scientific Authority and Management 

Authority, to carry out the United 

States’ CITES responsibilities. As 

required under Articles III and IV of 

CITES, the DSA staff is responsible for 

reviewing and making non-detriment 

findings for permits for the export of 

species listed in Appendix-I and 

Appendix-II of CITES , and the import 

of Appendix-I species. In 2004, DSA 

either provided written non-detriment 

findings or written non-detriment 

advice for approximately 3,192 permits 

that were issued by the Service’s 

Division of Management Authority 

(DMA). In 2005, that number had 

increased to approximately 5,854 issued 

permits. These figures do not include 

the number of non-detriment findings 

made for permit applications that were 

denied, abandoned, or withdrawn. 

DSA’s other CITES responsibilities 

include proposing species for listing or 

delisting at the biennial meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties (CoP) (see 

Article XI), and participating in the 

CITES Plants and Animals Committee 

meetings, between each CoP, for the 

dissemination of biological information 

and other Treaty business. 

The Division of Management 

Authority (DMA), which also operates 

under the International Wildlife Trade 

budget, is responsible for issuing 

permits under the Act, other ESA 

activities such as conducting section 7 

consultations, certain permitting 

provisions of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, issuing Injurious 

Wildlife permits under the Lacey Act, 

and implementing parts of the Pelly 

Amendment (section 8 of the 

Fisherman’s Protective Act). DMA also 

manages CITES implementation 

obligations. DMA and DSA share 

responsibilities for implementation of 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. 

Therefore, the resources available for 

ESA listing actions for foreign species is 

limited by these competing nondiscretionary activities funded from the 

International Wildlife Trade budget. If 

additional resources become available, 

it will be our highest priority in the 

coming year to prepare proposed listing 

rules for additional priority 2 

warranted-but-precluded species. 

Birds 

Junin flightless grebe (Podiceps 

taczanowskii) 

The Junin flightless grebe is found 

only at Lake Junin, which is located 

4,080 m above sea level in central Peru 

(Fjeldsa ̊ 1981, as cited in O’Donnell and 

Fjedsa ̊ 1997). The lake covers 

approximately 14,320 hectares bordered 

by extensive reed marshes and reaches 

a depth of 10 m at the center. The reed 

marshes are continuous in some areas of 

the lake shore, but they also form a 

mosaic with stretches of open water in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20189 

other areas. Considerable stretches of 

the lake are shallow, supporting dense 

growth of stonewort (Chara spp.) (del 

Hoyo et al. 1992). The Junin grebe 

prefers open lake habitat and remains in 

the center of the lake when it is not 

breeding. During the breeding season, 

however, it nests in areas of tall Scirpus 

californicus tatora or bays and channels 

along the outer edge of the 2–5 km-wide 

reed marshes surrounding the lake 

(O’Donnel and Fjedsa ̊ 1997). The Junin 

grebe feeds predominantly on fish 

(Orestias spp.), which constitute 

approximately 90% of its diet (del Hoyo 

et al. 1992). 

The Junin grebe experienced a 

dramatic decline during the 20th 

Century. The species was considered 

abundant in 1938, and common in 1961, 

with population estimates of several 

thousand birds (del Hoyo et al. 1992). 

Current population estimates for the 

Junin grebe range between 50 and 249 

birds, with a decreasing population 

trend (BirdLife International 2006). As a 

result of the species’ decline, and 

because it is endemic to a single Andean 

lake, the Junin grebe qualifies as 

Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red 

List (IUCN 2006). Current population 

numbers have been known to fluctuate 

considerably from year to year. 

Population fluctuations are believed to 

be tied to relatively unstable climatic 

conditions recently linked to El Nin ̃ o/ 

Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, 

with population numbers lowest during 

dry years. Although the species appears 

able to recover in good years, it remains 

unclear whether this process can be 

sustained, particularly in the face of 

other, continuing threats (IUCN 2006). 

The original decline of this species was 

brought about by declines in water 

quality of Lake Junin due to local 

mining activities and variations in water 

levels of up to 7 m, which are linked to 

electrical power generation by a local 

hydroelectric power station. The water 

level draw-downs reduced nesting and 

foraging areas (BirdLife International 

2000), and in 1969, the vegetation of 

Lake Junin appeared to be dyed yellow 

with breakdown products of sulphuric 

acids and toxic fumes from a copper 

mine (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Of less 

significance, perhaps, was the 

introduction of non-native trout species 

in the 1930s, which have replaced 

native fish species. Since 1975, several 

conservation measures have been 

implemented; Lake Junin was declared 

a protected reserve, and the Peruvian 

Government nationalized the mines of 

Cerro del Pasco in an attempt to prevent 

pollution by the mine (del Hoyo et al. 

1992). Since that time, however, there 

has been rapid expansion of the mine, 

and no available information to indicate 

that pollution controls have been put in 

place (Mbendi 2007). 

The Junin flightless grebe does not 

represent a monotypic genus. It faces 

threats that are high in magnitude, such 

as oscillations in ENSO conditions 

which can cause environmental 

conditions that are harmful to the 

species; and imminent because the 

declines in water quality are ongoing, 

and possibly increasing, as the result of 

increased production at the Cerro del 

Pasco mine. It therefore receives a 

priority rank of 2. 

Greater adjutant stork (Leptoptilos 

dubius) 

The greater adjutant stork was 

previously widespread and common, 

and found in much of South and 

Southeast Asia, from Pakistan through 

northern India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, 

to Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Viet Nam, 

and Cambodia (BirdLife International 

2006). However, during the 20th 

Century the species experienced a rapid 

decline, and currently the population 

estimate is 800–1,000 birds (BirdLife 

International 2006). Only two very small 

and highly disjunct breeding 

populations remain: one in Assam, 

India (Saikia and Bhattacharjee 1989, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006), the 

other in Cambodia (Mundkur et al. 

1995, as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). During the 19th century, there 

were vast colonies of millions of greater 

adjutant storks in Burma, and del Hoyo 

et al. (1992) noted that in Calcutta there 

was ‘‘almost one [stork] on every roof.’’

The greater adjutant stork frequents 

marshes, lakes, paddy fields, and open 

forest, and may also be found in dry 

areas, such as grasslands and fields. It 

is commonly found feeding at carcasses 

and rubbish dumps at the edges of 

towns (BirdLife International 2006). 

The greater adjutant stork is classified 

as Endangered by the IUCN (IUCN 

2006). Major threats to the species 

include direct exploitation, such as 

hunting and egg collection from nesting 

colonies; habitat destruction, 

particularly lowland deforestation and 

the felling of nest trees; and drainage, 

agricultural conversion, pollution, and 

over-exploitation of wetlands. The 

Assam population is considered 

threatened by the loss of a readily 

available food source, due to the 

reduced number of open rubbish dumps 

for the disposal of carcasses and 

foodstuffs (BirdLife International 2006). 

The greater adjutant stork does not 

represent a monotypic genus, but it 

faces threats that are high in magnitude 

and imminent because they are ongoing 

and likely to remain so. Conversion of 

the species’ habitat for agricultural 

purposes is not likely to cease; nor will 

the land, once cleared, be allowed to 

revert back to the wild habitat which is 

optimal for the storks. The loss of 

nesting trees lessens the number of 

available sites for nesting, mating, and 

recruitment of young to the population. 

Drainage of wetlands to be used for 

cultivation further impacts the stork’s 

habitat needs, forcing the birds into 

inferior habitat which increases the 

threats to the species survival. It 

therefore receives a priority rank of 2. 

Andean flamingo (Phoenicopterus 

andinus) 

The Andean flamingo is restricted to 

high-altitude salt lakes in the Andes, 

mainly between 3,500 and 4,500 m, 

from southern Peru through Bolivia to 

northern Chile and northwestern 

Argentina (del Hoyo et al. 1992). 

Population assessments for this species 

vary greatly, but it is believed that 

50,000–100,000 individuals existed 

until the mid-1980s (Rocha and Quiroga 

1997, as cited in BirdlLife International 

2006). Commercial egg collection for 

food was intensive during the mid-20th 

Century and again in the early 1980s, 

with estimates of thousands of eggs 

being taken annually. Unfavorable water 

levels resulting from weather and 

human manipulation, mining activities, 

erosion of nest sites, and human 

disturbance are other factors that are 

affecting productivity. In 1997, the 

entire population was estimated at 

34,000 individuals, indicating that the 

species had experienced a rapid 

population decline in less than 20 years 

(BirdlLife International 2006). Very low 

breeding success has been reported for 

this species (Flamingo Action Plan 

Questionnaire 1998, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006), and population 

declines may continue unabated for 

many years without an accurate 

understanding of the extent of decline 

because of the extensive longevity of the 

species (del Hoyo 1992, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). It is also 

difficult to quantify the number of 

juvenile birds that survive to adulthood 

and successfully produce viable 

offspring. Due to the species’

reproductive history, recruitment 

uncertainty, and the abiotic threats to 

the species, an assessment of the 

population decline and the need for 

conservation measures to protect the 

species are challenging. 

The Andean flamingo is categorized 

as Vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 2006) 

and is also listed in Appendix II of 

CITES (CITES 2006). Threats include 

ongoing exploitation of the species as a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20190 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

result of egg collection and declining 

habitat quality (IUCN 2006). Local 

conservation actions are currently 

underway, such as habitat management, 

prevention of egg collecting, and raising 

public awareness about the species’

decline and need for additional 

conservation measures (BirdLife 

International 2006). At this time, it is 

difficult to assess the effectiveness of 

these actions in alleviating the threats to 

the Andean flamingo, as they have only 

recently been put into place. Future 

assessments of the species will be more 

likely to include such information, after 

the conservation actions have had 

sufficient time to produce tangible 

results. 

The Andean flamingo does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

threats to the species are high in 

magnitude, such as weather-related 

water levels at nesting sites. The threats 

are imminent because they continue to 

occur. Exploitation, egg collection, 

mining activities, human disturbance, 

and reductions in the quality of the 

species’ habitat are all threats that could 

be addressed at the local level to protect 

the species, yet are ongoing. This 

species therefore receives a priority rank 

of 2. 

Brazilian merganser (Mergus 

octosetaceus) 

The Brazilian merganser is found in 

extremely low numbers at a few, highly 

disjunct localities in south-central 

Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and 

northeastern Argentina (BirdLife 

International 2006). The species 

inhabits shallow clear-water streams 

and rapid rivers, preferably surrounded 

by dense tropical forests. It is believed 

to be a highly-sedentary species and 

presumably maintains its territory all 

year (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The 

Brazilian merganser is a good swimmer 

and diver, and feeds primarily on fish, 

and occasionally on aquatic insects and 

snails (Collar et al. 1992). 

Recent records from Brazil, and a 

newly discovered northern range 

extension, indicate that the status of this 

species is better than previously 

considered because several additional, 

highly disjunct populations were 

located in 2002 (BirdLife International 

2006). However, the Brazilian merganser 

remains close to extinction and the 

IUCN categorizes the species as 

Critically Endangered (IUCN 2006). The 

population is estimated at 50–249 

individuals and the trend is decreasing 

(BirdLife International 2006). Threats to 

the species include the perturbation and 

pollution of rivers, which are 

predominately the result of 

deforestation, agriculture, and diamond 

mining in the Serra da Canastra area 

(Bartmann 1994 and 1996, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). Dam 

construction has destroyed suitable 

habitat, especially in Brazil and 

Paraguay. In Argentina, hunting and 

collecting specimens for exhibition are 

considered contributory factors to the 

species’ decline (BirdLife International 

2006). The Brazilian merganser is 

considered extirpated in Mato Grosso do 

Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, and 

Santa Catarina (BirdLife International 

2006). There is only one recent record 

of the species from Misiones, Argentina 

(Benstead 1994; Hearn 1994, as cited in 

Collar et al. 1994), and it was last 

recorded in Paraguay in 1984 (BirdLife 

International 2006). The species is 

legally protected in Brazil and it occurs 

in three Brazilian national parks (del 

Hoyo et al. 1992). The Instituto 

Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos 

Recursons Naturais Renova ́veis 

(IBAMA) in Brazil has established eight 

committees to develop and monitor 

conservation strategies for specific 

endangered species, including the 

Brazilian merganser (Marinia and Garcia 

2004). 

This species does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It faces threats that 

are high in magnitude because the small 

populations are disjunct and 

geographically isolated, resulting in 

populations which are unable to 

exchange genetic material and, are 

therefore faced with the inbreeding 

depression common to small, 

endangered populations. Additionally, 

species with few remaining individuals 

are particularly vulnerable to stochastic 

events, such as large-scale storms that 

could eliminate the entire species at one 

time. The threats remain imminent 

because all of the factors contributing to 

the destruction of the merganser’s 

habitat are ongoing and likely to be 

permanent. It therefore receives a 

priority rank of 2. 

Cauca guan (Penelope perspicax) 

The Cauca guan is endemic to the 

west slopes of the West and Central 

Andes (Risaralda, Quindio, Valle del 

Cauca, and Cauca), in Colombia (Collar 

et al. 1992). The stronghold for the 

species is the Ucumari Regional Park, 

Risaralda (BirdLife International 2006). 

The Cauca guan inhabits large, humid 

primary forests at 1,600–2,150 m 

(P.G.W. Salaman in litt. 1999 and 2000, 

as cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

Individuals have also been located at 

lower elevations of 900–1,600 m on 

exotic broadleaf tree plantations, 

secondary forest, and forest edge (Silva 

Arias 1996, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). The Cauca guan 

was considered fairly common at the 

beginning of the 20th Century, but 

severe habitat loss has had a major 

deleterious impact on the species (del 

Hoyo et al. 1994). Population estimates 

for the species have fallen from 1,000–

2,499 individuals in 2000 (BirdLife 

International 2000), to a current 

estimate of 250–999 individuals, with a 

decreasing trend (BirdLife International 

2006). The bird is hunted for food even 

in protected areas, except Ucumari 

(BirdLife International 2006). IUCN 

categorizes the species as Endangered 

because it has a small contracted range 

composed of widely fragmented patches 

of habitat, which are declining (IUCN 

2006). 

This species does not represent a 

monotypic genus. Habitat loss is the 

greatest threat to the guan, and this 

threat is high in magnitude and 

imminent because the guan now 

appears to be utilizing sub-optimal 

habitat as the result of continuing 

habitat destruction. The species is also 

hunted for food everywhere except 

Ucumari Regional Park. This species 

therefore receives a priority rank of 2. 

Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi 

unicornis) 

The southern helmeted curassow is 

known from central Bolivia and central 

and eastern Peru, where it inhabits 

dense, humid, lower montane forest and 

adjacent evergreen forest at 450–1,200 m 

(BirdLife International 2006). This 

species prefers nuts of the almendrillo 

tree (Byrsonima wadsworthii) as its 

major source of food. It also consumes 

other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft plants, 

larvae, and insects (BirdLife 

International 2006). The southern 

helmeted curassow was previously 

classified as Vulnerable by IUCN; 

however, after further assessment, it was 

uplisted in 2005 to Endangered (IUCN 

2006). The species is estimated to be 

declining very rapidly due to 

uncontrolled hunting and habitat 

destruction. It has a small range and is 

known from few locations in a narrow 

elevational band, which continues to be 

subject to habitat loss (IUCN 2006). The 

population is estimated at 10,000–

19,999 birds, with a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2006). Field surveys in portions of its 

range indicate gaps in species’

distribution (BirdLife International 

2006). The species is often hunted for 

meat and its casque, or horn (BirdLife 

International 2006), which is used to 

fashion native handicrafts (Cordier 

1971, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). 

Other threats to the species include 

forest clearing for staple and export 

crops, road building, and rural 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20191 

development. In Peru, oil exploration 

threatens the species’ habitat and is 

opening the foothills to colonization 

and additional hunting (BirdLife 

International 2006). Large parts of the 

southern helmeted curassow’s range are 

protected by inclusion in the Amboro 

and Carrasco National Parks which 

protects the species from hunting and 

declining habitat due to development 

and road building (BirdLife 

International 2006). 

The southern helmeted curassow does 

not represent a monotypic genus. It 

faces threats that are moderate in 

magnitude as the population is fairly 

large; however, the population trend has 

been declining rapidly. The threats to 

the species are imminent and ongoing. 

Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 

8. 

Blue-billed curassow (Crax alberti) 

The blue-billed curassow historically 

occurred in northern Colombia, from the 

base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa 

Marta west to the Sinu Valley and south 

in Magdalena Valley to north Tolima 

(BirdLife International 2006). It inhabits 

humid forest up to 1,200 m, but is more 

common below 600 m (del Hoyo et al. 

1994), where it feeds on fruit, shoots, 

invertebrates, and possibly carrion 

(BirdLife International 2006). 

The blue-billed curassow is 

categorized as Critically Endangered by 

IUCN (IUCN 2006) and is listed in 

Appendix III of CITES by Colombia 

(CITES 2006). The species was 

uncommon in the Santa Marta region at 

the beginning of the 20th Century; it 

was perhaps most numerous in the 

humid lowlands of the north coast of 

Colombia (Todd and Carriker 1922, as 

cited in Collar et al. 1992). The bluebilled curassow was becoming 

increasingly rare during the 20th 

Century (Haffner 1975, as cited in Collar 

et al. 1992), and by the 1980s, the 

species had disappeared from a large 

portion of its previous range (Estudillo 

Lopez 1986, as cited in Collar et al. 

1992). In 1994, the population was 

estimated at 1,000–2,500 birds and local 

reports have indicated recent and rapid 

declines (BirdLife International 2006). 

The population trend for the species 

continues to be decreasing due to the 

substantial threats it faces (BirdLife 

International 2006). Earlier reports 

indicated that outside of a few forest 

patches bordering national parks, the 

species was nearly extinct (L.M. Renjifo, 

Z. Calle, D. Rodriguez personal 

communications, as cited in Brooks and 

Strahl 2000). However, additional sites 

which are believed to harbor the species 

have been identified in work supported 

by the World Pheasant Association 

International (Cuervo and Salaman 

1999, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 

2000). 

There is very little suitable foraging 

and nesting habitat remaining for use by 

the species after the rapid deforestation 

and logging that has occurred 

throughout its range. Additionally, oil 

extraction, gold mining, government 

defoliation of illegal drug crops, 

increased human encroachment, egg 

collecting, and hunting present serious 

threats to the survival of the blue-billed 

curassow, indicating it could undergo 

an extremely rapid population 

reduction over a very short time period 

(BirdLife International 2006). The bluebilled curassow is perhaps one of the 

most endangered species identified as 

an immediate conservation priority by 

the Cracid Specialist Group (Brooks and 

Strahl 2000). International trade in this 

bird may be an additional threat to 

survival of the species (J.V. Rodriguez 

personal communication, as cited in 

Brooks and Strahl 2000). 

The blue-billed curassow does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

species faces significant threats that are 

high in magnitude. The curassow’s 

habitat continues to be seriously 

degraded by processes and pollution 

associated with oil extraction, gold 

mining, and government defoliation of 

illegal drug crops. Increased human 

encroachment is resulting in the 

destruction of habitat as land is cleared 

for agricultural purposes. The species is 

further threatened by egg collecting and 

hunting, which continue unabated. The 

threats to the species are imminent and 

ongoing; extremely limited foraging and 

nesting habitat remains after the rapid 

deforestation of the area. Therefore it 

receives a priority rank of 2. 

Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao 

urogallus cantabricus) 

The Cantabrian capercaillie inhabits 

the Cantabrian Mountains of northern 

Spain (Storch 2000). It occupies forest 

and woodland habitats that consist 

largely of coniferous species, 

particularly Pinus sylvestris, conifers 

from the Piscea and Abies genera, and 

isolated broad-leaved deciduous tree 

species (BirdLife International 2006). It 

prefers extensive areas of old-growth 

shady forest that include damp soil and 

interspersed bogs, areas of peat or 

glades, and a dense undergrowth of 

ericaceous plants (Garcia et al. 2004). 

The IUCN currently designates the 

species as Endangered (IUCN 2006). The 

population has been estimated at 250–

300 adult males, equivalent to a total 

population size of fewer than 1,000, but 

it is more likely that only 600–750 birds 

currently exist (A. Lucio, personal 

communication, as cited by Storch 

2000). The Cantabrian Capercaillie 

Specialist Group estimates that 

population numbers have declined by 

25–50 percent over the past 10–15 years 

(Storch 2000). Habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation related 

to forestry and tourism, illegal hunting, 

and disturbance by human outdoor 

activities have been identified as the 

major causes of species’ and habitat 

decline (J. Castroviejo, personal 

communication, as cited by Storch 

2000). Recent studies indicate that 

habitat fragmentation may have a greater 

effect on the species than previously 

recognized (Sua ́rez-Seoane and Garcı ́aRove ́s 2004, Garcia et al. 2005, Quevedo 

et al. 2005a, and Quevedo et al. 2005b). 

There are concerns that the population, 

as compared to other grouse 

populations, exhibits very low values of 

allelic richness and heterozygosity 

which are commonly observed in 

endangered species. Combining such 

genetic factors with a high level of 

habitat fragmentation and consistent 

indications of low average fledging 

success suggests some degree of 

inbreeding depression may be affecting 

the population (Quevedo et al. 2005a). 

This is a subspecies that faces threats 

that are high in magnitude due to the 

low number of individual animals, 

extensive habitat fragmentation, and 

very low allelic richness and 

heterozygosity values which are all 

negative survival factors for an already 

declining subspecies. The threats are 

imminent because habitat 

fragmentation, which this species is 

particularly vulnerable to, continues, 

and other man-made factors such as 

hunting, outdoor activities, and tourism 

are not likely to end in the near future. 

It receives a priority rank of 3. 

Gorgeted wood-quail (Odontophorus 

strophium) 

The gorgeted wood-quail occurs on 

the west slope of the east Andes of 

Colombia in Santander and 

Cundinamarca (Collar et al. 1992). It is 

found on the forest floor of temperate 

and subtropical forests at 1,500–2,050 

m, especially those dominated by 

Quercus humboldtii (del Hoyo et al. 

1994). The gorgeted wood-quail is 

probably dependent on primary-growth 

forest for at least part of its life cycle, 

although it has also been found in 

degraded habitats and secondary-growth 

forest (BirdLife International 2006). 

Since the 17th Century, the west slope 

of the East Andes has been extensively 

logged and converted to agriculture 

(Stiles et al. 1999). Forest habitat loss 

below 2,500 m has been almost 

complete (Stattersfield et al. 1998), with 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20192 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

habitat reduced in many areas to highly 

fragmented relict patches on steep 

slopes and along streams (Stiles et al. 

1999). The species is classified as 

Critically Endangered by IUCN because 

it has an extremely small and highlyfragmented range, with existing 

population records from only two 

locations. Hunting and logging are likely 

to be causing continued declines in 

population and range (IUCN 2006). 

Current population estimates range from 

250 to 999 individuals and the 

remaining population trend is declining 

(BirdLife International 2006). 

Additionally, until 1923, the species 

was known only from Cundinamarca, 

but there have been no reports of the 

species from that area since 1954 (Wege 

and Long 1995, in BirdLife International 

2006). It has been discovered in suitable 

habitat in several areas since 1970, and 

appears to be restricted to the larger oak 

forest remnants in the eastern 

Cordillera. Both remnants have 

decreased considerably in size during 

the previous two decades (J. Velasquez 

and N. Silva in litt. 2004, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). It is 

possible that less disturbed forests that 

have not been recently censused in west 

Boyaca and Santander may retain 

populations of the species (BirdLife 

International 2006). In November 1993, 

100 km2 of forest at Virolin was gazetted 

as a reserve, the Guanenta-Alto Rio 

Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary 

(Andrade and Repizzo 1994), which 

affords the species some protection from 

indiscriminate hunting (BirdLife 

International 2006). 

This species does not represent a 

monotypic genus. The threat to the 

species is high in magnitude because 

few individuals are interspersed over a 

very highly-fragmented range. The 

threats are imminent because hunting 

and forest clearing, which have serious 

impacts on the species, has been 

ongoing since the 17th Century and 

continues. It receives a priority rank 

of 2. 

Junin rail (Laterallus tuerosi) 

The Junin rail is endemic to the 

Andean Highlands of central Peru along 

the shores of Lago de Junin (BirdLife 

International 2006). It is known from 

two sites on the southwest shore of the 

lake, but may occur in other portions of 

the approximately 150 km2 of marsh 

surrounding the lake. The Junin rail 

inhabits rush marsh vegetation 

bordering the lake. Details regarding 

habitat preference are not fully known 

(Fjeldsa ̊ 1983, as cited in Collar et al. 

1992); however, the rail has been 

observed in mosaics of Juncus 

andecolus, mosses, and low herbs in 

open marsh landscapes (Fjeldsa ̊ 1983, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

This species is classified as Endangered 

by the IUCN because it has a very small 

range of marshland around a single lake 

where habitat quality is declining (IUCN 

2006). The population trend is 

decreasing and the current population 

estimate for this species is 1,000–2,499 

birds (BirdLife International 2006). 

Since 1955, Lago de Junin has been 

affected by pollution and humaninduced water level changes, which 

may be adversely affecting the fringe 

vegetation (J. Fjeldsa ̊ 1987 personal 

communication, as cited in Collar et al. 

1992). Reed marsh habitat has been 

destroyed due to frequent periods of 

desiccation resulting from drought 

conditions which may be linked to the 

ENSO, unsustainable water management 

by Electro Peru, and occasional flooding 

with highly acidic water from the Cerro 

de Pasco mines (J. Fjeldsa ̊ in litt. to 

Taylor and van Perlo 1998, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). Although 

the lake is a national reserve, mining 

and dam-building activities persist 

along the lake shore, further altering the 

Junin rail’s habitat. 

The Junin rail does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It faces threats that 

are high in magnitude because the 

species lives along the shores of one 

lake, and is dependent on the declining 

quality of the lake’s habitat. The threats 

are imminent because water level 

changes and management by Electro 

Peru are not made with the rail’s needs 

in mind. Furthermore, Lago de Junin is 

subject to perturbations resulting from 

the presence of ENSO, which is ongoing 

and is a change that cannot be 

controlled by man. It therefore receives 

a priority rank of 2. 

Bogota rail (Rallus semiplumbeus) 

The Bogota rail is found in the East 

Andes of Colombia on the Ubate ́-Bogota ́

Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyaca ́. It 

occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500–

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

m) in savanna and pa ́ramo marshes 

(BirdLife International 2006). This rail 

frequents wetland habitats with 

vegetation-rich shallows that are 

surrounded by tall, dense reeds and 

bulrushes. It feeds along the water’s 

edge, in flooded pasture land, and along 

small overgrown dykes and ponds 

(Varty et al. 1986; Fjeldsa ̊ and Krabbe 

1990 as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). This species is omnivorous, 

consuming a diet that includes aquatic 

invertebrates, insect larvae, worms, 

molluscs, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and 

plant material (Varty et al. 1986; 

BirdLife International 2006). 

The Bogota rail is listed as 

Endangered by IUCN primarily because 

its range is very small and is contracting 

owing to widespread habitat loss and 

degradation. Furthermore, available 

habitat has become widely fragmented 

(IUCN 2006). The current population is 

estimated to range between 1,000–2,499 

individuals and the trend is decreasing 

(BirdLife International 2006). Although 

the Bogota rail is declining, it is still 

uncommon to fairly common, with 

some notable populations, including 

nearly 400 birds at Laguna de Tota, 

some 50 territories at Laguna de la 

Herrera, approximately 110 birds at 

Parque La Florida, and other 

populations at La Conejera marsh and 

Laguna de Fuquene (BirdLife 

International 2006). Some of the birds 

occur in protected areas such as 

Chingaza National Park and Carpanta 

Biological Reserve. However, most 

savanna wetlands are virtually 

unprotected. 

The Bogota rail does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It is subject to threats 

that are moderate in magnitude and 

imminent. Therefore, it receives a 

priority rank of 8. 

Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri; 

Previously Referred to as Porphyrio 

mantelli) 

The takahe is endemic to New 

Zealand and is the world’s largest extant 

member of the rail family (del Hoyo et 

al. 1996). The species, Porphyrio 

mantelli, has been split into P. mantelli 

(extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) 

(Trewick 1996, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). BirdLife 

International (2000) incorrectly assigned 

the name P. mantelli to the extant form, 

while the name P. hochstetteri was 

incorrectly assigned to the extinct form. 

Fossils indicate that this bird was once 

widespread throughout the North and 

South Islands. However, when the 

species was rediscovered in 1948, it was 

confined to the Murchison Mountains in 

Fjordland (BirdLife International 2000). 

Originally, the species preferred forest 

and grass ecosystems; it is now limited 

to alpine tussock grasslands on the 

mainland and feeds primarily on juices 

from the bases of snow tussock and the 

rhizome of a fern species (BirdLife 

International 2006). The takahe is listed 

as Endangered by the IUCN because it 

has an extremely small population 

(IUCN 2006). The main cause of the 

species’ decline has been competition 

for tussocks by grazing red deer, Cervus 

elaphus, which were introduced after 

the 1940s (BirdLife International 2006). 

Grazing also highly modified the habitat 

(del Hoyo et al. 1996). Predation by 

introduced stoats, Mustela erminea is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20193 

also believed to be a significant threat to 

the species (BirdLife International 

2006). Other potential competitors or 

predators include the introduced brushtailed possum, Trichosurus vulpecula, 

and the threatened weka, Gallirallus 

australis (New Zealand Department of 

Conservation 1997). Since the 1980s, the 

population has fluctuated between 100–

160 birds (Maxwell in press, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). 

Populations have been established on 

four predator-free offshore islands—

Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Matangi, and 

Maud-using birds that were translocated 

between 1984 and 1991 (BirdLife 

International 2006). Red deer have been 

controlled in the Murchison Mountains 

since the 1960s (BirdLife International 

2006). Overall, population numbers are 

slowly increasing due to intensive 

management of the island populations, 

but fluctuations in the remnant 

mainland population continue to occur 

(IUCN 2006). Captive-breeding efforts 

have increased the rate of survival to 

one year of age from 50 percent to 90 

percent (BirdLife International 2006). 

However, Takahe that have been 

translocated to the islands have higher 

rates of egg infertility and low hatching 

success, contributing to the slow 

increase in the islands populations. 

Researchers postulated that the 

difference in vegetation between the 

native mainland grassland tussocks and 

that found on the islands might be 

affecting reproductive success. After 

testing nutrients from all available food 

sources, they concluded that there was 

no effect, and advised that a 

supplementary feeding program for the 

birds was not necessary or 

recommended (Jamieson 2003). 

There are grave concerns about 

inbreeding effects within this small 

population. Jamieson (2006) suggests 

that limiting the potential effects of 

inbreeding and loss of genetic variation 

should be integral to any management 

plan for a small, isolated, highly-inbred 

island species, such as the takahe. 

Failure to address these concerns may 

result in reduced fitness potential and 

much higher susceptibility to biotic and 

abiotic disturbances in the short term 

and an inability to adapt to 

environmental change in the long term 

(Jamieson et al. 2006). 

The takahe does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It faces threats that 

are moderate in magnitude and 

imminent. Therefore, it receives a 

priority rank of 8. 

Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus 

chathamensis) 

The Chatham oystercatcher is 

endemic to the Chatham Islands, New 

Zealand (BirdLife International 2006). It 

prefers rocky shores, sand or gravel 

beaches, and nests in scrapes on the 

shore away from the waterline (F.A. 

Schmechel in litt. 1999, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). This 

species is classified as Endangered by 

the IUCN because it has an extremely 

small population (IUCN 2006). In 1988, 

based on past productivity information, 

it was feared that the species was at risk 

of extinction within 50–70 years (Davis 

1988, as cited in Schmechel and 

Paterson 2005). Although the 

population is now slowly increasing 

due to intervention and management of 

the species (the Chatham Island group), 

population sizes can fluctuate as the 

result of stochastic events, with 

numbers on one island undergoing a 

long term decline (IUCN 2006). The 

total population has increased from 

approximately 50 birds in the early 

1970s to 100–110 birds during the 

breeding season of 1987–1988, which 

included 44 breeding pairs (del Hoyo et 

al. 1996). A census conducted in 1998 

revealed 140–150 birds, which 

represented a significant increase in 

total population size (BirdLife 

International 2006). In 2004, 266 birds 

were counted on the four islands in the 

Chatham group, representing an 

estimated population size of 310–325 

birds (Moore 2005, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). However, the 

population on South East Island has 

gradually declined since the 1970s 

(Schmechel and O’Connor 1999, as cited 

in BirdLife International 2006). 

Introduced predators, as well as cattle 

and sheep, are a major threat on Pitt and 

Chatham Islands (B.D. Bell in litt. as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

South East and Mangere Islands are free 

of mammalian predators, but 

oystercatcher populations are highly 

variable, and the reason for the decline 

occurring on South East Island is 

unknown (Schmechel and O’Connor 

1999, as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). The birds of the Chatham Island 

group are protected due to human 

intervention and management. Nest 

manipulation, fencing, signage, 

intensive predator control, and a 

research program aimed at assessing the 

effects of predators, flooding, and 

management on breeding success have 

been underway for several years 

(BirdLife International 2006). 

The Chatham oystercatcher does not 

represent a monotypic genus. It faces 

threats that are moderate in magnitude 

and imminent, and therefore it receives 

a priority rank of 8. 

Jerdon’s courser (Rhinoptilus 

bitorquatus; previously referred to as 

Cursorius bitorquatus) 

The Jerdon’s courser is a rare local 

endemic in southern India, where it is 

principally found in the Eastern Ghats 

of southern Andhra Pradesh and 

extreme southern Madhya Pradesh 

(BirdLife International 2006). 

Historically, the species was also 

located in the Pennar and Godaveri 

River valleys (Ripley and Beehler 1989; 

Ali and Ripley 1968–1998, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). It prefers 

sparse, thorny areas dominated by 

Acacia, Zizyphus, and Carissa (BirdLife 

International 2006). The courser may 

also inhabit scrub-forest consisting of 

Cassia, Hardwickia, Dalbergia, Butea, 

and Anogeissus, interspersed with 

patches of bare ground, in gently 

undulating rocky foothills (BirdLife 

International 2006). Historically, the 

courser was known from just a few 

records and assumed to be extinct until 

1986, when it was rediscovered around 

Lankamalai (BirdLife International 

2006). 

Jerdon’s courser is listed as Critically 

Endangered by the IUCN because it is a 

poorly-known species consisting of a 

single small, declining population 

(IUCN 2006). Threats include: 

exploitation of the scrub-forest, 

livestock grazing, disturbance by 

humans and livestock, and rock 

quarrying (IUCN 2006). Habitat 

modeling has shown that it is possible 

to ascertain an optimal level of grazing 

and woodcutting that would maintain or 

create suitable conditions for the 

species; however, additional study is 

necessary (Jeganathan et al. 2004). The 

population estimate for this species is 

50–249 birds, with a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2006). Very few individuals have been 

recorded so far, mainly due to the 

species’ nocturnal and retiring habits 

(BirdLife International 2006). Members 

of the Yanaadi community, who played 

a major role in the rediscovery of the 

species, were employed by the State 

Forest Department to locate individuals 

in other localities and habitats in the 

Eastern Ghats, but the results of this 

search remain unknown (Bhushan 1995, 

as cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

Jerdon’s courser does not represent a 

monotypic genus. The current threat to 

the species is high because there is only 

one small population in existence with 

a declining population trend and the 

species’ historic range has diminished. 

Threats to the species are imminent 

because it is highly susceptible to 

human disturbance and livestock 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20194 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

grazing which are ongoing; therefore, it 

receives a priority rank of 2. 

Slender-billed curlew (Numenius 

tenuirostris) 

The slender-billed curlew migrates 

along a west-southwest route from 

Siberia through central and eastern 

Europe (predominantly Russia, 

Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, 

Romania, and Yugoslavia) to southern 

Europe (Greece, Italy, and Turkey) and 

North Africa (Algeria, Morocco, and 

Tunisia) (BirdLife International 2006). 

The only confirmed observations of 

breeding activity were made between 

1914 and 1924, near Tara, north of 

Omsk, in Siberia, Russia (del Hoyo et al. 

1996). The few nests that were located 

at that time were found on the northern 

limit of the forest-steppe zone in habitat 

more typical of taiga marsh (BirdLife 

International 2006). During winter 

migration the curlew utilizes a wide 

variety of habitats, including steppe 

grassland, marshland, salt pans, 

brackish lagoons and wetlands, tidal 

mudflats, fish ponds, semi-desert, and 

sandy farmland near lagoons (BirdLife 

International 2006). 

During the 19th Century, the slenderbilled curlew was regarded as very 

common, but the species declined quite 

rapidly during the 20th Century 

(BirdLife International 2006). The IUCN 

designates the species as Critically 

Endangered because it has an extremely 

small population, the number of birds 

recorded annually continues to decline, 

and the population trend is continuing 

to decrease (IUCN 2006). The slenderbilled curlew is listed in CITES 

Appendix I (CITES 2006). As recently as 

the 1960s and 1970s, flocks of more 

than 100 birds were recorded in 

Morocco (BirdLife International 2006). 

However, during the 1980s, only 103 

observations were confirmed, totaling 

between 316 and 326 birds. The 

population continued to decline rapidly 

and by 1994, the population was 

estimated to range between 50–270 

birds, and current records suggest it may 

now be lower. Sporadic sightings of 1–

3 birds are reported now and then, with 

the exception of a flock of 19 birds in 

Italy in 1995 (BirdLife International 

2006). 

Historically, hunting levels have been 

high along the species’ entire migratory 

flyway, but reports of hunting seemed to 

be the highest in Russia. Hunting is 

believed to be the primary factor for the 

species’ decline (BirdLife International 

2006). The likelihood of threats to the 

breeding grounds has not been 

adequately assessed because the 

location of breeding and moulting areas 

is unknown to date (BirdLife 

International 2006). It has been 

suggested that the species’ breeding 

areas might have been located in the 

steppe zone, which has been cultivated 

on a large scale, perhaps contributing to 

the rapid decline of the species (del 

Hoyo et al. 1996). Extensive draining of 

wetlands in North Africa, Iraq, and the 

entire Mediterranean Sea region has had 

a deleterious affect on this species, and 

many other wading bird species in 

Eurasia (BirdLife International 2006). 

The slender-billed curlew does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to the species is 

high and imminent because the major 

threats, hunting and habitat loss, are 

ongoing. Although there has been no 

actual change in threats since we 

published our last Notice, habitat loss 

represents an ongoing and imminent 

threat to the slender-billed curlew. 

Therefore, to ensure consistency in the 

application of our listing priority 

guidance, we changed the listing 

priority number from 5 to 2 to reflect 

that the threats are imminent. Therefore, 

the priority rank for this species is 2. 

Marquesan imperial-pigeon (Ducula 

galeata) 

The Marquesan imperial-pigeon is 

endemic to Nuku Hiva in the Marquesas 

Islands, French Polynesia. The species 

prefers remote wooded valleys from 250 

to 1,300 m in elevation in the west and 

north of the island. It also inhabits 

secondary forest and edge habitat near 

banana and orange plantations (Holyoak 

and Thibault 1984, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). The Marquesan 

imperial-pigeon is categorized as 

Critically Endangered by IUCN because 

it has a very small population on one 

diminutive island in an isolated 

volcanic island chain in the south 

Pacific (IUCN 2006). 

Nuku Hiva was previously nearly 

inaccessible to hunters, introduced 

grazers, and rats because of its remote 

location. However, the local habitat has 

recently been modified and degraded by 

introduced vegetation and grazing by 

feral livestock (Evva 1998; Seitre and 

Seitre 1991, 1992; as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). Fortunately for the 

species, the cattle have been eradicated, 

and the number of goats and pigs are 

decreasing (Evva 1998, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). Illegal 

hunting is one of two serious threats to 

the species (Evva 1998, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). The other 

threat is believed to come from a rapidly 

increasing introduced black rat (Rattus 

rattus) population which preys on eggs 

and the young of the species (Seitre and 

Seitre 1991, 1992; as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). 

Holyoak and Thibault (1984) 

estimated a population of 200–400 birds 

in 1975. In 1998, a maximum of 85 birds 

were located and the population was 

estimated at approximately 250 

individuals (Evva 1998, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). 

The Marquesan imperial-pigeon does 

not represent a monotypic genus. It 

faces threats that are high in magnitude 

because it is confined to one small 

island population which is extremely 

vulnerable to typhoons and volcanic 

eruption, stochastic events that could 

extirpate the entire species during one 

event. The threats to the species are 

imminent because there are no known 

controls on hunting, nor is there a rat 

eradication program that we are aware 

of; hence, these threats remain and are 

ongoing. Therefore, it receives a priority 

rank of 2. 

Salmon-crested cockatoo (Cacatua 

moluccensis) 

The salmon-crested cockatoo is 

endemic to the islands of Ambon, 

Haruku, Seram, Saparua and South 

Maluku, Indonesia. Currently, the 

species is believed to survive in one 

area on Ambon, while the remaining 

population lives on Seram. There are no 

recent records of the species on Haruku 

and Saparua (BirdLife International 

2006). Lowland rain forest below 1,000 

m in elevation and unlogged lowland 

forest below 300 m are the most 

productive habitat for the species 

(Marsden 1998). Studies conducted in 

1998 suggested that habitat rich in 

strangler fig trees and Octomeles 

sumatranus, the tree species the 

cockatoos prefer for nesting, were also 

likely to produce the highest densities 

of cockatoos, but these studies need 

confirmation (Kinnaird et al. in prep., as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

The diet of salmon-crested cockatoos 

consists of seeds, nuts, coconuts, 

berries, and insects and their larvae 

(Forshaw 1989). 

The salmon-crested cockatoo was 

formerly a common species of the 

lowlands within its range (del Hoyo et 

al. 1997). This species is one of three 

threatened members of the suite of 14 

bird species that are entirely restricted 

to the Seram Endemic Bird Area 

(BirdLife International 2006). The IUCN 

lists the species as Vulnerable (IUCN 

2006), and current populations are 

estimated at 62,400 individuals with a 

decreasing population trend (BirdLife 

International 2006). 

By the 1980s, salmon-crested 

cockatoo populations were declining 

rapidly due to uncontrolled trapping for 

the caged-bird trade (BirdLife 

International 2006). Concerns about 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20195 

unrestricted trade of the species led to 

a CITES Appendix-II listing in 1981 

(CITES 2006). After the CITES listing, 

some 74,509 individual salmon-crested 

cockatoos were exported from Indonesia 

from 1981–1990 (BirdLife International 

2000). The level of imports from 

Indonesia from 1983–1988, as reported 

to CITES, averaged 9,571 birds per year 

(Marsden 1995, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2001). Considering 

unrecorded and undocumented 

international trade, domestic trade, and 

natural mortality, it is estimated that at 

least 10,000 birds were being removed 

from the Seram population annually 

during the 1980s (Kinnaird et al. [in 

prep.], as cited in BirdLife International 

2001). In October 1989, the salmoncrested cockatoo was transferred to 

CITES Appendix-I. The change in listing 

status resulted in a decrease of legally 

traded birds to zero; however the 

domestic market remains high (BirdLife 

International 2006). Interviews in 

villages suggest that perhaps as many as 

4,000 birds are still being captured each 

year (Kinnaird 1999, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2001). 

In addition to the caged-bird trade, 

forest loss, ongoing habitat degradation 

and fragmentation resulting from timber 

extraction, human settlement, and 

hydroelectric power projects are 

additional threats to the species 

(BirdLife International 2006). In 2000, a 

program was launched to promote 

ecotourism which was linked to a local 

project to raise awareness about the 

plight of the salmon-crested cockatoo. 

The income produced through the 

ecotourism program was another 

incentive to protect and conserve the 

cockatoos (BirdLife International 2000). 

Current conservation measures suggest 

continuing and expanding the 

awareness program and using the 

salmon-crested cockatoo as the island’s 

flagship species to reduce trapping 

pressure and encourage local support 

for the survival of the species (BirdLife 

International 2006). 

The salmon-crested cockatoo does not 

represent a monotypic genus. It faces 

threats that are high in magnitude. 

Despite measures taken by CITES to 

reduce international trade of the species 

by transferring the cockatoo to 

Appendix I, trapping for the domestic 

pet market continues unabated. Ongoing 

habitat loss and degradation threaten 

the survival of the species, rendering 

these threats imminent and ongoing. 

Therefore, we have assigned the species 

a priority rank of 2. 

Orange-fronted parakeet 

(Cyanoramphus malherbi) 

The orange-fronted parakeet was 

treated as an individual species until it 

was proposed to be a color morph of C. 

auriceps in 1974 (Holyoak 1974, as cited 

in Snyder et al. 2000). Further 

taxonomic analysis suggests that it 

should once again be considered as a 

distinct species (Triggs and Daugherty 

1996; Juniper and Parr 1998; ITIS 2006). 

Species’ distribution during the 19th 

Century was limited to New Zealand 

and several offshore islands, including 

Three Kings, Hen, Big Chicken, Little 

Barrier, Great Barrier (rare), Kapiti 

(rare), the Chetwolde Islands, Stewart 

Island and satellite islets, Codfish, 

Solander, Ruapuke, and the Auckland 

Islands including Adams Island (Juniper 

and Parr 1998). The parakeet was 

previously believed to be most common 

on off-shore islands where predation by 

introduced animals was less prevalent 

than on mainland New Zealand (Juniper 

and Parr 1998). Currently, there are 

three remnant populations, all located 

within a 30 km radius in Arthur’s Pass 

National Park and Lake Sumner Forest 

Park (New Zealand Department of 

Conservation [NZDOC] 2006). This 

species inhabits southern beech 

(Nothofagus spp.) forest (BirdLife 

International 2000; NZDOC 2006), with 

a preference for locales bordering stands 

of mountain beech (N. solandri) (Snyder 

et al. 2000). It requires mature trees with 

natural hollows or cavities for nesting, 

and breeding is linked with the irregular 

seed production by Nothofagus 

(BirdLife International 2000). 

The orange-fronted parakeet has an 

extremely small population and limited 

range. There have only been a few 

sightings since 1966 (Triggs and 

Daugherty 1996), and previous 

assessments of its status have ranged 

from more common than originally 

thought (Harrison 1970) to near 

extinction (Mills and Williams 1980). 

The IUCN classifies the species as 

Critically Endangered (IUCN 2006) and 

it is listed in Appendix II of CITES 

(CITES 2006). The New Zealand 

Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 

(2006) considers the orange-fronted 

parakeet, or ka ̈ka ̈riki, to be the rarest 

parakeet in New Zealand and because it 

is classified as ‘‘Nationally Critical’’

with a high risk of extinction NZDOC 

has been working intensively with the 

species to ensure its survival. The 

population is estimated at 100–200 

individuals in the wild and declining 

(NZDOC 2006). There are several 

reasons for the species’ decline; the 

most significant threats is predation by 

introduced species such as the brushtailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), 

stoats (Mustela erminea), and rats 

(Rattus spp.) (BirdLife International 

2006). The NZDOC introduced 

‘‘Operation ARK’’, an initiative to 

respond to predator problems in beech 

forests to prevent species extinctions, 

including orange-fronted parakeets. 

Predators are methodically controlled 

with traps, toxins in bait stations, bait 

bags, and aerial spraying, as necessary. 

Hybridization with yellow-crowned 

parakeets (C. auriceps) has been 

observed at Lake Sumner (Snyder et al. 

2000; Kearvell et al. 2002). Increased 

competition between the yellowcrowned parakeet and the orangecrowned parakeet in a habitat 

substantially modified by humans, 

competition with introduced finch 

species, and competition with wasp 

species for invertebrates as a dietary 

source are considered other threats to 

the species (Kearvell et al. 2002). 

The NZDOC closely monitors all 

known populations of the orangefronted parakeet. With such a limited 

population, NZDOC focuses the species 

program on monitoring the breeding of 

the wild population and captivebreeding efforts. Nest searches are 

conducted, nest holes are inspected, and 

surveys are carried out in other areas to 

look for evidence of other populations. 

In May 2003, surveys successfully 

located an additional orange-fronted 

parakeet population, and identified a 

new population in 2006 on the predatorfree Chalky Island. NZDOC officials 

remove eggs from nests on the island so 

that foster parakeet parents could 

incubate the eggs and care for the 

hatchlings until they fledged. The 

juvenile birds were then transferred 

back to the island. Monitoring of these 

birds later in 2006 indicated that they 

had successfully nested and reared 

chicks. Additional birds will be added 

to Chalky Island to augment the 

population and to increase its genetic 

diversity. 

The orange-fronted parakeet does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

current population ranges between 100 

and 200 individuals, and the species’

distribution has become limited. 

However, it faces threats that are 

moderate in magnitude because the 

NZDOC has taken important measures 

to aid in the recovery of the species. 

NZDOC implemented a successful 

captive-breeding program for the 

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

established a population of the orangefronted parakeet on a predator-free 

island (Chalky Island). Individuals from 

this population have successfully 

reproduced and reared young. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20196 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

NZDOC monitors wild nest sites, and is 

constantly looking for new nests and 

new populations, as evidenced by the 

2003 discovery of a new population. 

The NZDOC recognizes that the most 

significant threat to the species is 

predation, and has initiated a successful 

program to remove predators. The 

threats of hybridization, competition for 

food, and highly altered habitat are 

imminent as they are ongoing. 

Therefore, this species is assigned a 

priority rank of 4. 

Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis) 

This species was previously known as 

Eunymphicus cornutus, but was split 

into E. cornutus and E. uvaeensis 

following the treatment by Juniper and 

Parr (1998) (BirdLife International 

2006). The Uvea parakeet is restricted to 

Uvea, New Caledonia. It is found 

primarily in forest habitat, notably, 

those dominated by Agathis and 

Araucaria and general woodlands, and 

feeds on the berries of vines and the 

flowers and seeds of native trees and 

shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997). The 

species is restricted to areas of oldgrowth forest with nesting holes, but the 

greatest number of birds occurs close to 

gardens with papayas which they can 

utilize as a food source (BirdLife 

International 2006). 

Early population estimates were 

alarmingly low; 70–90 birds and 

declining (Hahn 1993). Surveys in 1993 

yielded estimates of approximately 600 

birds, and in 1998 some 750 birds were 

located (P. Primot, in litt. 1999, as cited 

in BirdLife International 2006). In 1999, 

it was believed that 742 individuals 

lived in northern Uvea, with 82 birds 

living in the south (Primot 1999, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

The IUCN classifies the species as 

Endangered because it occupies a very 

small, declining area of forest on one 

small island (IUCN 2006). The species 

was uplisted from Appendix II to 

Appendix I of CITES in July 2000, due 

to unsustainable trade of the species 

(CITES 2006). Habitat destruction 

during the last 30 years has caused a 30 

to 50 percent decline in primary forest. 

The species is also threatened by the 

illegal pet trade, mainly for the domestic 

market (BirdLife International 2006). 

Nesting holes are cut open to extract 

nestlings, which render the holes 

unsuitable for future nesting. The 

increasing lack of nesting sites is 

believed to be a limiting factor for the 

species (BirdLife International 2006). 

Predation is also a threat to the survival 

of the species. Juveniles are taken by 

predators such as the native brown 

goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus). 

Introductions of the species to the 

adjacent island of Lifou in 1925 and 

1963 failed (BirdLife International 

2006), possibly due to the presence of 

ship rats and Norwegian rats (Rattus 

norvegicus) (Snyder et al. 2000). 

A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet 

was prepared for the period 1997–2002, 

which included strong local 

participation in population and habitat 

monitoring (Snyder et al. 2000). The 

species has recently increased in 

popularity and is celebrated as an island 

emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; 

BirdLife International 2006). Increased 

awareness of the plight of the species 

and improvements in law enforcement 

capability are helping to address illegal 

trade of the species. In 1998, a captivebreeding program was initiated to 

restock the southern portion of Uvea. 

Measures are now being taken to control 

predators and prevent further 

colonization by rats (BirdLife 

International 2006). Current Uvea 

parakeet numbers are increasing, but 

any relaxation of conservation efforts or 

introduction of rats or other predators 

could lead to a rapid decline of the 

species (IUCN 2006). 

The Uvea parakeet does not represent 

a monotypic genus. It faces threats that 

are moderate because important 

management efforts have been put in 

place to aid in the recovery of the 

species. However, all of these efforts 

must continue to function, because this 

species is an island endemic with 

restricted habitat in one location. 

Threats to the species are imminent 

because illegal trade still occurs, and the 

removal of 30 to 50 percent of the old 

growth forest which the birds are 

dependent upon for nesting holes 

negatively impacts the reproductive 

requirements of the species. We assign 

this species a priority rank of 8. 

Blue-throated macaw (Ara 

glaucogularis) 

The blue-throated macaw is endemic 

to forest islands in the seasonally 

flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de 

Moxos) of Central Bolivia (Jordan and 

Munn 1993). It inhabits a mosaic of 

seasonally inundated savanna, palm 

groves, forest islands, and humid 

lowlands. This species is found in areas 

where palm-fruit food is available, 

especially Attalea phalerata (Hesse 

1998, as cited in BirdLife International 

2000). It inhabits elevations between 

200 and 250 m (BirdLife International 

2000). These macaws are not found to 

congregate in large flocks; but are seen 

most commonly traveling in pairs, and 

on rare occasions may be found in small 

flocks of up to five individuals (Collar 

et al. 1992). The blue-throated macaw 

nests between November and March in 

large tree cavities where one to two 

young are raised (BirdLife International 

2000). 

The taxonomic status of this species 

was long disputed, primarily because 

the species was unknown in the wild to 

biologists until 1992 (del Hoyo et al. 

1997). Trappers apparently discovered 

the species sometime during the late 

1970s or early 1980s. Between the early 

1980s and early 1990s, approximately 

400–1,200 birds were exported from 

Bolivia, and many are now in captivity 

in the European Union and in North 

America (World Parrot Trust 2003). This 

species is severely threatened by 

previous trapping for the national and 

international cage-bird trade. Recent 

estimates indicate that there are 

between 75 and 150 individuals in the 

wild (Snyder et al. 2000). This species 

is categorized as Critically Endangered 

by the IUCN and is listed in Appendix 

I of CITES (IUCN 2006; CITES 2006). 

The species is legally protected in 

Bolivia (Juniper and Parr 1998). The Eco 

Bolivia Foundation patrols existing 

macaw habitat by foot and motorbike, 

and the Armonia Association of Santa 

Cruz is searching the Beni lowlands for 

more populations. Additionally, the 

Armonia Association is building an 

awareness campaign aimed at the 

cattlemen’s association to ensure that 

these birds are not hunted by trappers 

on their property (Snyder et al. 2000). 

The blue-throated macaw does not 

represent a monotypic genus. It faces 

threats that are moderate because wild 

birds are no longer taken for the legal 

wild-bird trade as a result of the species’

CITES listing, and it is also legally 

protected in Bolivia. Wildlife managers 

in Bolivia are actively protecting the 

species and searching for additional 

populations. Threats to the species are 

imminent and ongoing because hunters 

still trap the birds for the illegal bird 

trade. We assigned this species a 

priority rank of 8. 

Southeastern rufous-vented ground 

cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis) 

The southeastern rufous-vented 

ground cuckoo is a subspecies found in 

southeastern Brazil from Espirito Santo 

to Rio de Janeiro (del Hoyo et al. 1997). 

It is found in tropical lowland evergreen 

forests, where it feeds on large insects, 

scorpions, centipedes, spiders, small 

frogs, lizards, and occasionally seeds 

and fruit (del Hoyo et al. 1997). The 

subspecies is not globally threatened, 

although populations of ground cuckoos 

in southern Brazil appear to be under 

threat due to continuing deforestation 

(del Hoyo et al. 1997). It is a rare, local, 

solitary subspecies that is dependent 

upon large blocks of undisturbed forest 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20197 

(del Hoyo et al. 1997). This extremely 

timid species is among the first to 

disappear if its primary forest habitat is 

altered, and in southeastern Brazil 

where it occurs, most of this type of 

forest has been destroyed (IUCN 1978–

1979). It is poorly known, has a small 

range, and is highly sensitive to human 

disturbance (BirdLife International 

2001). This subspecies is protected 

under Brazilian law (IUCN 1978–1979). 

The threats to the subspecies are high 

in magnitude because human 

disturbance and habitat destruction are 

ongoing and constitute highly 

significant impacts on the cuckoo’s 

survival. The subspecies is dependent 

upon large blocks of undisturbed forest 

habitat for its life-cycle requirements, 

and habitat destruction within the 

cuckoo’s range results in a patchy 

landscape, reducing the availability of 

the type of forest habitat necessary for 

the subspecies. It therefore receives a 

priority rank 

of 3. 

Margaretta’s hermit (Phaethornis 

malaris margarettae; Previously 

Referred to as Phaethornis margarettae) 

Margaretta’s hermit was first 

described as a new species in 1972 by 

A. Ruschi (Sibley and Monroe 1990). 

Current taxonomic studies place 

Margaretta’s hermit as a subspecies of 

the great-billed hermit (Phaethornis 

malaris) (Sick 1993), which is not 

considered globally threatened. This 

subspecies is found in the understory of 

inundated lowland forest, secondary 

growth, bamboo thickets, and 

shrubbery. Margaretta’s hermit is found 

in coastal East Brazil and is limited to 

forest remnants; consequently, further 

habitat destruction is a threat to the 

subspecies (del Hoyo et al. 1999). The 

Margaretta’s hermit is listed in 

Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2006). 

Habitat destruction is a significant 

threat to Margaretta’s hermit that is high 

in magnitude and imminent because it 

is ongoing and likely permanent due to 

the high pressure for coastal 

development in the area. Therefore, we 

assign the subspecies a priority rank of 

3. 

Black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis 

nigrivestis) 

The black-breasted puffleg is now 

confined to the northern ridge crests of 

Volcan Pichincha and Volcan Atacazo, 

in Pichincha Province, northwest 

Ecuador (BirdLife International 2000). 

In 1983, there was a possible sighting of 

the species at Loma Gramalote on 

Pichincha, and an additional three 

individuals were located in 1993 at the 

same location (Collar et al. 1992, Krabb 

et al. 1994a; as cited in IUCN Red List 

1996). The species occurs in dwarf, 

humid elfin forest and paramo, at 

3,100–4,500 m, from November through 

January and in humid temperate forest 

at about 2,400 m during the rest of the 

year (Philips 1989). 

There are over 100 museum 

specimens of this species, suggesting it 

was more common in the past (Philips 

1989). Between 1950 and 1993, the only 

confirmed sighting of the species was 

three individuals in 1980 (BirdLife 

International 2000). Recent fieldwork 

targeting the species has produced a few 

additional records, but it is clearly rare 

within a very limited range (Philips 

1989). The population estimate for the 

species is 50–249 birds, with a 

decreasing population trend (BirdLife 

International 2006). This species is 

classified as Critically Endangered in 

the 2006 IUCN Red List and is listed in 

Appendix II of CITES (IUCN 2006; 

CITES 2006). It qualifies as Critically 

Endangered because it has an extremely 

small range and the population is 

restricted to one location where habitat 

is being rapidly converted and there is 

ongoing volcanic activity (BirdLife 

International 2006). The main threat to 

the species is conversion of trees in the 

elfin forest to charcoal, although media 

coverage of the species has encouraged 

authorities to control access to the forest 

and forbid charcoal production (Philips 

1989). Potato cultivation and livestock 

grazing on ridge crests rapidly destroyed 

suitable habitat in these areas (Philips 

1989). Some ridges are almost 

completely devoid of natural vegetation, 

and even if black-breasted pufflegs still 

occur in these areas, their numbers are 

most likely quite low (BirdLife 

International 2000). Recently, however, 

the Jocotoco Foundation has established 

the Yanacocha Reserve on the slopes of 

Volcan Pichincha, protecting 960 

hectares of Polylepis woodland, as well 

as the entire range of the black-breasted 

puffleg in an effort to protect and 

conserve the species, which has become 

the ‘‘Emblem of the City of Quito’’

(WorldLand Trust 2005). The area will 

be managed by the Corporacio ́n 

Ornitolo ́gica de Ecuador (Ornithological 

Corporation of Ecuador, CECIA), a 

conservation organization which will 

also manage ecotourism, environmental 

education, and conservation initiatives 

including restoration of the Polylepis 

woodland (Foundacion Jocotoco 2005). 

The black-breasted puffleg does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The longterm loss of habitat is the most 

significant threat to the species as loss 

of the species’ elfin forest habitat to 

charcoal production and conversion to 

agriculture are ongoing. This threat is 

high in magnitude and imminent 

because it is ongoing. Therefore, it 

receives a priority rank of 2. 

Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii) 

The Chilean woodstar is restricted to 

a very small area on the Pacific coast 

from Tacna, Peru, to extreme northern 

Antofagasta, Chile (Collar et al. 1992). It 

is only known to regularly breed in the 

Lluta and Azapa valleys, Arica 

Department, in extreme northern Chile 

(BirdLife International 2000). It inhabits 

desert river valleys and gardens, mainly 

from sea level to about 750 m (Collar et 

al., 1992). The Chilean woodstar is 

usually a solitary feeder and has been 

reported feeding in gardens on Lantana 

and Hibiscus flowers (Collar et al. 1992), 

but it is comparatively rare in such 

habitats (Howell and Webb in prep., as 

cited in BirdLife International 2000). 

The Chilean woodstar was reported to 

be common at the beginning of the 20th 

Century (Collar et al. 1992). More 

recently, surveys have found this 

species to be scarce to locally common 

(Howell and Webb in prep., as cited in 

BirdLife International 2000). It is 

unclear whether this represents a 

serious decline or previous observers 

did not identify flowering trees favored 

by this species (BirdLife International 

2000). Indigenous plants favored by the 

Chilean woodstar may be severely 

threatened by agriculture (Collar et al. 

1992). The population is estimated at 

2,500–10,000 birds, with a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2000). The IUCN classifies the species 

as Endangered because it has a very 

small range, and all populations are 

confined to remnant habitat patches in 

two desert valleys. The desert valleys 

are heavily cultivated (IUCN 2006). The 

extent, area, and quality of suitable 

habitat are believed to be declining as a 

result of human encroachment (Collar et 

al. 1992). The Chilean woodstar is listed 

in Appendix II of CITES. All exports of 

hummingbirds from Peru and Chile are 

controlled (BirdLife International 2000). 

The Chilean woodstar represents a 

monotypic genus. It faces threats that 

are high in magnitude because 

indigenous food sources utilized by the 

species are believed to be severely 

threatened by agricultural development. 

Furthermore, the species’ range has 

been severely reduced due to human 

activity; all populations are now 

confined to remnant habitat patches in 

two desert valleys. The species’ habitat 

continues to decline due to human 

encroachment. Although there has been 

no actual change in threats since our 

last Notice was published, habitat loss 

represents an ongoing and imminent 

threat to the Chilean woodstar. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20198 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Therefore, to ensure consistency in the 

application of our listing priority 

guidance, we changed the listing 

priority number from 4 to 2 to reflect 

that the threats are imminent. Therefore, 

we assign the species a rank of 2. 

Esmeraldas woodstar (Acestrura 

berlepschi) 

The Esmeraldas woodstar is restricted 

to a small area on the Pacific Slope of 

the Andes of western Ecuador 

(Esmeraldas, Manabi, and Guayas), 

where only very rare and localized 

populations are found (BirdLife 

International 2000). The woodstar 

generally prefers lowland, moist forest 

habitat (del Hoyo et al. 1999). It has also 

been recorded in the canopy of semihumid secondary growth at 50–150 m in 

December through March, when it is 

believed to breed (Becker et al. 2000). 

The species has not been recorded in 

this habitat type at other times of year, 

and there is no evidence concerning its 

long-term ability to survive in this type 

of forest habitat (BirdLife International 

2000). 

The Esmeraldas woodstar inhabits 

one of the most threatened forest 

habitats within the Neotropics (del 

Hoyo et al. 1999). All forest types within 

the species’ range have diminished 

rapidly due to logging and clearing for 

agriculture (Dodson and Gentry 1991, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2000). 

This species is classified as Endangered 

by the IUCN. The woodstar inhabits a 

very small and severely fragmented 

range, which is decreasing rapidly in 

size. Ongoing declines in the bird’s 

population are linked to persistent 

habitat destruction (IUCN 2006). The 

species is listed in Appendix II of CITES 

(CITES 2006). The current population 

estimate for this species is 1,000–2,499 

birds with a decreasing population 

trend (BirdLife International 2000). 

Persistent grazing by goats and cattle is 

a serious threat to the species because 

they damage the understory and prevent 

regeneration of the forest that this 

species utilizes (Dodson and Gentry 

1991, as cited in BirdLife International 

2000). Dodson and Gentry (1991) 

indicated that rapid habitat loss is 

continuing, at least in unprotected 

areas, and extant forests will soon be 

eliminated. In Manabi Province, the 

Esmeraldas woodstar occurs in 

Machalilla National Park (Collar et al. 

1992), but it does not receive adequate 

protection because its habitat is 

threatened by illegal settlement, 

deforestation, livestock-grazing, and 

habitat clearance by people with land 

rights (BirdLife International 2004). 

The Esmeraldas woodstar does not 

represent a monotypic genus; however, 

it faces threats that significantly impact 

the species and are high in magnitude. 

These threats include persistent habitat 

destruction due to logging and clearing 

for agriculture. The species’ range is 

decreasing rapidly, resulting in a very 

small and severely fragmented area 

available for the species. These threats 

are therefore imminent and ongoing, 

and likely to persist because the habitat 

on which the woodstar is dependent has 

been severely altered by human 

disturbance and is unable to regenerate 

due to the presence of grazing animals. 

Therefore, the species receives a priority 

rank of 2. 

Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus 

galeatus) 

The helmeted woodpecker is endemic 

to the southern Atlantic forest region of 

southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, 

and northeastern Argentina (BirdLife 

International 2001). It is found in tall 

lowland and montane primary forest, in 

forest that has been selectively logged, 

and generally near large tracts of intact 

forest (BirdLife International 2001). This 

woodpecker feeds on beetle larvae 

which live beneath tree bark. The 

species forages primarily in the middle 

canopy of the forest interior (del Hoyo 

et al. 2002). 

Recent field work on the helmeted 

woodpecker revealed that the species is 

less rare than once thought (BirdLife 

International 2000). It is listed as 

Vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 2006). 

The current population is estimated at 

no more than 10,000 individuals and 

decreasing (BirdLife International 2000). 

The greatest threat to the species is 

widespread deforestation. Numerous 

sightings since the mid-1980s includes 

a pair in the Brazilian State of Santa 

Catarina in 1998, where the species had 

not been seen since 1946 (del Hoyo et 

al. 2002). The helmeted woodpecker is 

protected by Brazilian law and 

populations occur in numerous 

protected areas throughout its range 

(BirdLife International 2000). Further 

studies are needed to clarify species 

distribution and status (del Hoyo et al. 

2002). 

The helmeted woodpecker does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to the species is 

moderate because the population is 

much larger than previously thought 

and imminent because the forest habitat 

which the species is dependent upon is 

constantly being altered by man. It 

therefore receives a priority rank of 8. 

Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos 

noguchii), Previously Known as 

(Sapheopipo noguchii) 

The Okinawa woodpecker lives in the 

northern hills of Okinawa Island, Japan. 

Okinawa is the largest island of the 

Ryukyus Islands, a small island chain 

located between Japan and Taiwan 

(Winkler et al. 2005). This species is 

confined to Kunigami-gun, or Yambaru, 

with its main breeding areas located 

along the mountain ridges between Mt. 

Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-take (BirdLife 

International 2006). It prefers mature, 

subtropical evergreen broadleaf forests, 

with tall trees greater than 20 cm in 

diameter (Research Center, Wild Bird 

Society of Japan 1993, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2001). Trees of 

this size are generally more than 30 

years old and are confined to hilltops 

(Brazil 1991). The Okinawa woodpecker 

feeds on large arthropods, notably beetle 

larvae, spiders, moths, and centipedes, 

fruit, berries, seeds, acorns, and other 

nuts (Winkler et al. 2005). They forage 

in old-growth forests with large, often 

moribund trees, accumulated fallen 

trees, rotting stumps, debris, and 

undergrowth (Short 1993, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2001). This 

woodpecker often nests in hollow 

Castanopsis cuspidata trees (Research 

Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, 

as cited in BirdLife International 2001). 

Prior to the rediscovery of the oncebelieved extinct ivory-billed 

woodpecker in Arkansas’ Cache River 

National Wildlife Refuge in 2005 

(USFWS 2005), the Okinawa 

woodpecker was considered the world’s 

rarest extant woodpecker species 

(Winkler et al. 2005). The IUCN 

categorizes the species as Critically 

Endangered because it is comprised of 

a single diminutive, declining 

population, which is threatened by the 

continued loss of old-growth and 

mature forest to logging, dam 

construction, agricultural clearing, and 

golf course construction. Its limited 

range and tiny population make it 

vulnerable to extinction from disease 

and natural disasters such as typhoons 

(IUCN 2006). During the 1930s, the 

Okinawa woodpecker was considered 

nearly extinct. By the early 1990s, the 

breeding population was estimated to be 

about 75 birds, with a total estimated 

population ranging between 146 and 

584 individuals (BirdLife International 

2006). The species is legally protected 

in Japan and occurs in small protected 

areas on Mt. Ibu and Mt. Nishime 

(BirdLife International 2006). The 

Yambaru, a forest area in the Okinawa 

Prefecture, was designated as a national 

park in 1996, and conservation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20199 

organizations have purchased sites 

where the woodpecker occurs to 

establish private wildlife preserves (del 

Hoyo et al. 2002). 

The Okinawa woodpecker represents 

a monotypic genus. This species faces 

threats that are moderate in magnitude 

because the species is legally protected 

in Japan, and its range occurs in several 

protected areas. However, the threats to 

the species are imminent because the 

old-growth habitat, upon which the 

species is dependent, continues to be 

removed, and preferable habitat 

continues to be altered for agriculture 

and golf courses. It therefore receives a 

priority rank of 7. 

Yellow-browed toucanet 

(Aulacorhynchus huallagae) 

The yellow-browed toucanet is known 

from only two localities in north-central 

Peru, La Libertad, where it is 

uncommon, and Rio Abiseo National 

Park, San Martin, where it is very rare 

(BirdLife International 2006). There 

have been recent reports of the species 

from Leymebambe (T. Mark in litt. 2003, 

as cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

It inhabits a narrow altitudinal range 

between 2,125 and 2,510 m, preferring 

the canopy of humid, ephiphyte-laden 

montane forests, particularly areas that 

support Clusia trees (del Hoyo et al. 

2002; Fjeldsa ̊ and Krabbe 1990, as cited 

in BirdLife International 2006). This 

narrow distributional band may be 

related to the occurrence of the larger 

grey-breasted mountain toucan 

(Andigena hypoglauca) above 2,300 m, 

and the occurrence of the emerald 

toucanet (Aulacorhynchus prasinus) 

below 2,100 m (Schulenberg and Parker, 

as cited in Collar et al. 1992). The 

species’ restricted range remains 

unexplained, and recent information 

indicates that both of the suggested 

competitors have wider altitudinal 

ranges which completely encompass the 

range of the yellow-browed toucanet 

(Collar et al. 1992 and J. Hornbuckle in 

litt. 1999; as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). The yellow-browed 

toucanet does not appear to occupy all 

potentially suitable forest available 

within its range (Schulenberg and 

Parker 1997, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). 

Deforestation has been widespread in 

this region, but has largely occurred 

below the toucanet’s altitudinal range 

(BirdLife International 2006). However, 

coca growers have taken over forests 

within its altitudinal range, probably 

resulting in some reductions in the 

species’ range and population (IUCN 

2006). It is listed as Endangered by 

IUCN because of its very small range 

and extant population records from only 

two locations (IUCN 2006). The current 

population size is unknown, but the 

population trend is believed to be 

decreasing (BirdLife International 2006). 

The yellow-browed toucanet does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to the species is 

moderate and non-imminent. Therefore, 

it receives a priority rank of 11. 

Royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae) 

The royal cinclodes occurs in the 

Andes of southeastern Peru (Cuzco, 

Apurimac, and Puno) and adjacent 

Bolivia (La Paz) (BirdLife International 

2000). It is found in tiny humid patches 

of Polylepis woodland and montane 

scrub, mainly at 3,500–4,800 m (Parker 

et al. 1996). This species is classified as 

Critically Endangered by IUCN because 

it has an extremely small population 

that is restricted to a severely 

fragmented and rapidly declining 

habitat (IUCN 2006). In addition, no 

sub-population is thought to exceed 50 

mature individuals (IUCN 2006). The 

population estimate for this species is 

50–249 birds, with a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2000). The species’ main threat is the 

inability of Polylepis to regenerate due 

to the uncontrolled use of fire and heavy 

grazing (Fjeldsa ̊ and Kessler 1996, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2000). 

Harvesting for timber, firewood, and 

charcoal, although locally destructive, 

could be sustainable if regeneration was 

allowed to occur (Fjeldsa ̊ and Kessler 

1996, as cited in BirdLife International 

2000). 

The royal cinclodes does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to the species is 

high due to an extremely small 

population that inhabits a small, 

severely fragmented range. The 

immediacy of threat to the species is 

imminent resulting from the continuing 

fragmentation of habitat and lack of 

regeneration of the Polylepis forest. We 

therefore have assigned a priority rank 

of 2 to this species. 

White-browed tit-spinetail 

(Leptasthenura xenothorax) 

The white-browed tit-spinetail is 

restricted to a severely fragmented range 

in south-central Peru in the Runtacocha 

highland (Apurimac), the Nevado 

Sacsarayoc Massif, and the Cordillera 

Vilcanota (Cuzco) (BirdLife 

International 2000). These birds occur 

in small, widely scattered patches of 

humid Polylepis woodlands at 3,700–

4,550 m (BirdLife International 2000). 

Since 2000, the IUCN categorizes the 

white-browed tit-spinetail as 

Endangered because of its extremely 

small population and limited, 

fragmented range. The species’ range 

continues to decline from habitat loss 

and a lack of habitat regeneration (IUCN 

2006). The population is estimated at 

250–999 individuals and declining 

(BirdLife International 2000). 

Regeneration of Polylepis woodlands is 

prevented by uncontrolled fires, heavy 

grazing, harvest for fuel and 

construction, and the inadequacy of reforestation projects. Loss of Polylepis 

habitat is the greatest threat to the 

survival of the white-browed titspinetail (Fjeldsa ̊ and Kessler 1996, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2000; 

Rome 2003). International nongovernment organizations (NGO’s) have 

attempted to draw local attention to the 

plight of Polylepis woodlands in Cuzco, 

with the hope that it may lead to better 

environmental controls (Fjeldsa ̊ and 

Kessler 1996, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2000). The American Bird 

Conservancy and the Peruvian 

Association for the Conservation of 

Andean Ecosystems have teamed 

together with Conservation 

International’s Critical Ecosystem 

Partnership Fund (CEPF) to protect the 

Polylepis forests and develop 

alternatives for local consumption of 

fuel and timber. The joint program 

provides Polylepis saplings for forest 

regeneration, and Eucalyptus saplings 

for use as an alternative timber species. 

The villagers are paid to plant the 

saplings in a community aid program, 

ensuring stakeholder benefits for the 

Polylepis forest regeneration; and it is 

hoped, increased population numbers of 

the white-browed tit-spinetail and other 

endangered species that depend on this 

habitat (Rome 2003). 

The white-browed tit-spinetail does 

not represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to this species is 

high as the population is very small and 

declining. The immediacy of threat to 

the species is imminent and continues 

due to continuing fragmentation of its 

Polylepis forest habitat. It has therefore 

received a priority rank of 2. 

Black-hooded antwren (Formicivora 

erythronotos, Previously Referred to as 

Myrmotherula erythronotos) 

The black-hooded antwren inhabits 

early successional secondary growth 

habitats, and the understory of remnant 

old-growth secondary forests in coastal 

southeastern Brazil (BirdLife 

International 2000; Harris and Pimm 

2004). This antwren species was 

previously known only from twenty 

skins that were collected during the19th 

Century (Buzzetti 1998, E. Mendonc ̧a 

and L.P. Gonzaga in litt. 2000, as cited 

in BirdLife International 2006), and was 

believed to be extinct until it was 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20200 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

rediscovered in 1987 (Harris and Pimm 

2004). The IUCN classifies the species 

as Endangered because it has a very 

small and highly fragmented range. The 

black-hooded antwren appears to be 

declining rapidly in response to 

continuing habitat loss. Currently, it is 

known to inhabit seven sites (IUCN 

2006). The population is estimated at 

1,000–2,499 birds with a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2006). IUCN notes, however, that there 

is a serious need for new population 

demographic information because the 

species’ current population size is 

unknown (IUCN 2006). The blackhooded antwren resides in one of the 

most densely populated regions of 

Brazil and deforestation has been 

occurring for more than 400 years 

(BirdLife International 2003). The main 

threats to the species include ongoing 

urbanization, industrialization, and 

agricultural expansion. The antwren’s 

habitat has been reduced to less than 10 

percent of its original extent (Brown and 

Brown 1992, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2003). 

There have been recent reports that 

the species has been seen with 

increased frequency at a coastal reserve 

near Rio De Janeiro, the Reserva 

Ecolo ́gica de Jacarepia ́ (Worldtwitch 

2006). The black-hooded antwren 

inhabits an Endemic Bird Area (EBA), 

which is an area BirdLife International 

selects for habitat-based conservation of 

birds. Designating a particular area or 

region as an EBA encourages national 

and local governments to increase and 

improve conservation measures for the 

EBA, and possibly, other areas of 

concern (BirdLife International 2003). 

This particular EBA is located in coastal 

southeast Brazil around the Baı ́a Ilha 

Grande in south Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 

(BirdLife International 2001; BirdLife 

International 2006). 

The black-hooded antwren does not 

represent a monotypic genus. It faces 

threats that are high in magnitude; the 

most significant threat is loss of habitat. 

The antwren prefers remnant oldgrowth secondary forests; however, it 

resides in one of the most densely 

populated regions of Brazil, where 

deforestation has occurred for centuries. 

Threats are imminent because 

degradation and loss of the species’

habitat is a continuing problem as a 

result of urbanization, industrialization, 

and agricultural expansion. Therefore, 

the species receives a priority rank of 2. 

Fringe-backed fire-eye (Pyriglena atra) 

The fringe-backed fire-eye is known 

from the narrow coastal belt of Atlantic 

forest in the vicinity of Salvador, coastal 

Bahia (west of the town of Santo 

Amaro), forest patches along the Linha 

Verde highway, and north to southern 

Sergipe (in the vicinity of Crasto and 

Santa Luzia de Itanhia), Brazil (Collar et 

al. 1992, Pacheco and Whitney 1995, J. 

Minns in litt. 1998, B.M. Whitney in litt. 

1999, and J. Mazar Barnett in litt. 2000; 

all as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). Recent fieldwork indicates that 

species’ distribution is not as disjunct as 

previously considered because the 

species has been found in remnant 

forest and secondary-growth patches 

along the northern coast of Bahia at 

Conde and Jandaı ́ra (Souza 2002, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

Although populations may have been 

vastly reduced over time, the species’

preference for early successional 

secondary-growth habitat means its 

range is likely to have been 

underestimated (BirdLife International 

2006). The fire-eye also favors the 

tangled, dense undergrowth of lowland 

forests as well as other semi-open 

habitats where horizontal perches are 

located close to the ground (BirdLife 

International 2006). Currently, the 

population is estimated at 1,000–2,499 

individuals (BirdLife International 

2006), an increase from the population 

estimate in 2000, which indicated 

between 250 and 999 individuals 

remained in the wild (BirdLife 

International 2000). The increase in 

population numbers may be attributed 

to recent fieldwork which indicates that 

distribution was not as disjunct as 

previously thought because the species 

was found to reside in habitat that had 

not been considered to contain the 

species (Souza 2002, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). From 2000–2004, 

the fringe-backed fire-eye was 

categorized as Critically Endangered by 

the IUCN because of its extremely small 

range and declining habitat, and 

because it was known from a few, 

highly-fragmented localities (IUCN 

2002). The fringe-backed fire-eye is now 

classified as Endangered by the IUCN 

because the fieldwork has shown that 

the species’ range is more extensive 

than previously known. It does, 

however, still have a very small, 

fragmented range within which the 

extent and quality of its habitat are 

continuing to decline, and where it is 

only known from a few localities (IUCN 

2006). The species is protected under 

Brazilian law (BirdLife International 

2006). The greatest threat to the species 

continues to be habitat loss (BirdLife 

International 2006). 

The fringe-backed fire-eye does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

greatest threat to the species continues 

to be habitat loss. This threat is high in 

magnitude because it has a significant 

impact on the species. Threats to the 

species are imminent because the 

species utilizes only a very small, 

fragmented range within which the 

extent and quality of its habitat are 

continuing to decline. It therefore 

receives a priority rank of 2. 

Brown-banded antpitta (Grallaria 

milleri) 

The brown-banded antpitta is 

endemic to the Volcan Ruı ́z-Tolima 

massif of the central Andes (Caldas, 

Risaralda, Quindı ́o, and Tolima), 

Colombia (BirdLife International 2006). 

In Ucumari, this species has been 

recorded in three types of habitat with 

no significant difference in population 

density between the three: Early 

secondary growth vegetation with a high 

density of herbs and shrubs; the 

understory of 30-year-old alder (Alnus) 

plantations; and the understory of 30- 

year-old secondary forest (Kattan and 

Beltran 1997, as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). Kattran and Beltran 

(2002) found that the species exhibited 

high site fidelity over a relatively small 

territory. Between 1911 and 1942, only 

ten specimens were collected at 

elevations of 2,745–3,140 m in Caldas 

and Quindı ́o (Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, 

BirdLife International 2006; as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). The 

species was not seen for more than 50 

years, until it was rediscovered in May 

1994, in Ucumarı ́ Regional Park, 

Risaralda (Kattan and Beltran 1997, 

BirdLife International 2003; as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). Surveys 

conducted between 1994 and 1997 

along a narrow elevational band of 

2,400–2,600 m discovered 11 more birds 

which were subsequently banded. Based 

on these surveys, it was estimated that 

106 individuals were present in a 0.63 

km2 area (Kattan and Beltran 1997, 

1999; as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). Further observations of the 

species were made during 1998–2000 on 

the southeast slope of Volca ́n Tolima in 

the Rı ́o Toche Valley, where it is 

considered uncommon and local 

(Lo ́pez-Lanu ́ s et al. 2000, Lo ́pez-Lanu ́ s 

in litt. 2000, P.G.W. Salaman in litt. 

1999, 2000; and Renjifo et al. 2002; as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). In 

1999 and 2000, the brown-banded 

antpitta was also found in the Rı ́o 

Blanco watershed (Caldas) and near 

Roncesvalles (Tolima) (Renjifo et al. 

2002, as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). 

The greatest threat to the brownbanded antpitta is conversion of habitat 

for agricultural purposes and habitat 

fragmentation (Wildlife Conservation 

Society 2006, BirdLife International 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20201 

2006). Since the 1950s, forested land 

has been converted to agriculture in the 

Rı ́o Toche Valley and natural vegetation 

cover within a narrow elevational band, 

between 1,900 and 3,200 m where the 

species is most likely to be found, has 

been reduced to about 15 percent 

(BirdLife International 2006). The IUCN 

has classified the species as Endangered 

since 1994 because it is known from 

very few locations, in a very small range 

(IUCN 2006). This classification also 

takes into account continuing habitat 

loss and degradation within that limited 

range (IUCN 2006). Population estimates 

for this species range between 250–999 

birds, with a decreasing population 

trend (BirdLife International 2006). It 

should be noted however, that Kattan 

and Beltran (2002) found that 

population densities are higher than 

previously assumed because the species 

is very secretive and difficult to locate 

in the forest understory. Significant 

numbers of brown-banded antpittas are 

protected in Ucumarı ́ Regional Park, 

Risaralda (Kattan and Beltran 1997, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006), 

unlike the Rı ́o Toche watershed area 

which does not provide any form of 

legal protection for the species. The 

limited remaining forest within the 

watershed continues to diminish and 

has become increasingly fragmented 

(Lopez-Lanus et al. 2000) 

The brown-banded antpitta does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

threats to the species are high in 

magnitude, and the conversion of 

habitat for agricultural purposes is the 

most significant threat. Previously 

forested land has been converted to 

agriculture, and natural vegetative cover 

within a narrow elevational band where 

the species is most likely to be found 

(between 1,900 and 3,200 m) has been 

reduced to about 15 percent of its 

former extent. Habitat fragmentation, 

range reduction, and the decline in 

habitat quality are imminent and 

ongoing threats to the species. It 

therefore receives a priority rank of 2. 

Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus 

novacapitalis) 

The Brasilia tapaculo is found in 

swampy gallery forest, disturbed areas 

of thick streamside vegetation, and 

dense secondary growth of the bracken 

fern Pteridium aquilinum, from Goia ́s, 

the Federal District, and Minas Gerais, 

Brazil (Negret and Cavalcanti 1985, as 

cited in Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 

1992; BirdLife International 2000). The 

Brasilia Tapaculo will occasionally 

colonize disturbed areas near streams 

(BirdLife International 2003). This 

species has only been recorded locally 

within Formas in Goia ́s, around Brası ́lia. 

Particular sites where the species has 

been located, at low densities, include 

Serra Negra (on the upper Dourados 

River) and the headwaters of the Sa ̃o 

Francisco, both in Minas Gerais; and 

Serra do Cipo ́ and Carac ̧a in the hills 

and tablelands of central Brazil 

(BirdLife International 2003). 

Although the species was once 

considered rare (Sick and Texeira 1979, 

as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it is now 

found in reasonable numbers in certain 

areas of Brasilia (D. M. Teixeira, in litt. 

1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). The 

population is estimated at more than 

10,000 birds, with a decreasing 

population trend (BirdLife International 

2000). The IUCN categorizes Scytalopus 

novacapitalis as Lower Risk/near 

threatened (IUCN 2006). The species 

occupies a very limited range and is 

presumably losing habitat around 

Brasilia. However, its distribution now 

appears larger than initially believed, 

and the swampy gallery forests where it 

is found are not conducive for 

clearance, protecting at least some of the 

species’ habitat (D. M. Teixeira in litt. 

1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). The 

Brasilia tapaculo is currently protected 

by Brazilian law (Bernardes et al. 1990, 

as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and it is 

found in six protected areas (Machado 

et al. 1998, Wege and Long 1995; as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

Annual burning of adjacent grasslands 

limits the extent and availability of 

suitable habitat, as does wetland 

drainage and the sequestration of water 

for irrigation (Machado et al. 1998, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

The Brasilia tapaculo does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to the species is 

moderate because the population is 

much larger than previously believed 

and preferred habitat is swampy and 

difficult to clear. Threats are imminent, 

however, because habitat is being 

drained for agricultural irrigation and 

grassland burning limits the extent of 

suitable habitat. Therefore, it receives a 

priority rank of 8. 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus 

kaempferi, Previously Referred to as 

Idioptilon kaempferi) 

The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is very 

rare and has a very small, extremely 

fragmented range which is estimated to 

be about 19 km2 (BirdLife International 

2006). The species is only known from 

three localities in Santa Catarina, Brazil: 

one record at Salto do Pirai near Villa 

Nova in 1929, one specimen that was 

collected at Brusque in 1950, and 

another in Reserva Particular do Patrimoˆ

nio Natural de Volta Velha, near Itapoa ́

in 1998 (Mazar Barnett et al. 2000, L.N. 

Naka in litt. 1999; as cited in BirdLife 

International 2006). It inhabits humid 

lowland Atlantic forest. At one of these 

localities, Salto do Pirai, the species has 

typically been found in habitats which 

include forest edge, well-shaded 

secondary growth, and sections of low, 

epiphyte-laden open woodland near 

watercourses (Mazar Barnett et al. 2000, 

as cited by BirdLife International 2006). 

It feeds predominantly in the midstory 

of medium-sized trees, and mated pairs 

appear to remain within small welldefined areas (Mazar Barnett et al. 2000, 

as cited by BirdLife International 2006). 

In 2004, the IUCN changed the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant’s decade-long 

classification from Endangered to 

Critically Endangered because the 

species has an extremely small and 

fragmented range, with recent records 

from only two locations, and ongoing 

deforestation is occurring in the vicinity 

of these sites (IUCN 2006). The 

population estimate is 1,000–2,499 

individuals and declining (BirdLife 

International 2006). The Atlantic forest 

has been extensively deforested, and the 

lowland forest continues to be cleared 

in the vicinity of the two remaining sites 

(BirdLife International 2006). The 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is protected by 

Brazilian law, occurring in one 

protected area, and in adjacent forest 

(BirdLife International 2006). 

This species does not represent a 

monotypic genus. Threats to the species 

are high in magnitude because the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant displays specific 

habitat preferences that are becoming 

more difficult to locate over time. The 

species is adapted to specific areas 

within the forest, and mated pairs 

appear to remain within small, welldefined locales. However, ongoing 

deforestation has had a significant 

impact on the species’ habitat and is 

limiting the species to a very small, 

extremely fragmented range. The threats 

to the species are imminent because 

deforestation of the Brazilian Atlantic 

forest is ongoing. Therefore, it has been 

assigned a priority rank of 2. 

Ash-breasted tit-tyrant (Anairetes 

alpinus) 

The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is confined 

to semi-humid Polylepis-Gynoxys 

woodlands in the high Andes in Peru 

and Bolivia (BirdLife International 

2000). There are two widely disjunct 

populations: the subspecies A. a. 

alpinus occurs in the Cordilleras Central 

and Occidental, Peru, and A. a. 

bolivianus occurs in the Cordillera 

Oriental, Peru, and in the Cordillera 

Real, Bolivia (Collar et al. 1992; Fjeldsa ̊

and Kessler 1996; BirdLife International 

2000). It is relatively common in the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20202 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Runtacocha highland, Apurimac, and 

the Cordillera Vilcabamba, Cuzco 

(Fjeldsa ̊ and Kessler 1996, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2000). The IUCN 

categorizes the ash-breasted tit-tyrant as 

Endangered because it has a very small 

population and is confined to a habitat 

which is severely fragmented and 

undergoing continuing decline in 

extent, area, and quality (IUCN 2006). 

The population is estimated at 250–999 

individuals and declining (BirdLife 

International 2000). Extensive cattle 

grazing is the primary threat to the 

species, especially in Ancash, which, 

combined with the uncontrolled use of 

fire, prevents Polylepis regeneration 

(Fjeldsa ̊ and Kessler 1996 and G. Servat 

in litt., as cited in BirdLife International 

2000). Additionally, recent changes 

from camelid to sheep and cattle 

farming, erosion, and soil degradation 

caused by agricultural projects and 

deforestation are contributing factors to 

the continued decline of the species 

(Fjeldsa ̊ and Kessler 1996, as cited in 

BirdLife International 2000). 

The Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a, 

Conservacion de Aves en Bolivia 

(Conservation of Birds in Bolivia), 

which is associated with BirdLife 

International, currently has two projects 

in the field to support the conservation 

of the ash-breasted tit-tyrant. The first, 

initiated in 2003, led to the discovery of 

several new sites for the ash-breasted tittyrant and the royal cinclodes. The goal 

of the project is to conduct ecological 

research on the ash-breasted tit-tyrant 

regarding its reproduction, territory size 

and behavior, which is essential for the 

species long-term conservation efforts. 

The other project involves meetings 

with local communities that live near 

the remaining fragments of Polylepis 

forests, to present information regarding 

the importance of these forest fragments. 

The project hopes to gain local support 

in developing methods to decrease 

threats to the forests and their 

associated fauna (Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a 

2005). 

The ash-breasted tit-tyrant does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The threat 

is high in magnitude for this species 

because grazing cattle prevent 

regeneration of the Polylepis forest that 

is essential to the species. Threats to the 

species are imminent because habitat 

degradation is ongoing. Therefore, we 

have assigned it a priority rank of 2. 

Peruvian plantcutter (Phytotoma 

raimondii) 

The Peruvian plantcutter formerly 

inhabited the coastal region of northern 

Peru from Tumbus to Lima (BirdLife 

International 2006). There have only 

been records from two areas, near Talara 

and Chiclayo in recent years (G. 

Engblom in litt. 1998, 1999, 2000; 

Flanagan and Cha ́vez-Villavicencio 

2000; Begazo et al. 2001; as cited in 

BirdLife International 2006). Searches at 

other sites and in apparently suitable 

habitat have failed to locate the species 

(G. Engblom in litt. 1998, 1999, 2000; as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

The species occurs in desert scrub at 

elevations up to 500 m, in areas of 

riparian thicket, and low dense, and 

open woodland dominated by Prosopis 

trees, with some Acacia spp. (G. 

Engblom in litt. 1998, 1999, 2000; as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

The IUCN categorizes the Peruvian 

plantcutter as Endangered because of its 

extremely small and fragmented range, 

and its remaining habitat is subject to 

rapid and continuing destruction and 

degradation (IUCN 2006). The 

population is currently estimated at 

500–1,000 individuals and declining 

(BirdLife International 2006). Threats 

include the near-complete conversion of 

coastal river valleys to cultivation, 

removal of the shrub layer by grazing 

goats, and burning and logging for 

firewood and charcoal (Engblom in litt. 

1998, 1999, 2000; as cited by BirdLife 

International 2000). 

A portion of the species habitat is 

located within an area that is owned by 

PetroPeru; the company prevents 

trespassing on its lands, and as a result, 

the species is afforded some protection. 

PetroPeru has also supported fieldwork 

and educational programs for the 

species (Elton 2004). 

The Peruvian plantcutter does not 

represent a monotypic genus. Threats to 

the species are high in magnitude due 

to forest land conversion for agriculture, 

removal of the shrub layer by grazing 

goats, and burning and logging for 

firewood and charcoal. The threats are 

imminent because this land conversion 

is ongoing and continues to reduce the 

species’ range. Therefore, it receives a 

priority rank of 2. 

St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlherminia 

iherminieri sanctaeluciae) 

The St. Lucia forest thrush is found 

on the island of St. Lucia in the West 

Indies (Raffaele et al. 1998). It generally 

inhabits the undergrowth of mid- and 

high-altitude primary and secondary 

moist forest (Raffaele et al. 1998; Keith 

1997, as cited in BirdLife International 

2000). On St. Lucia, it is uncommon to 

rare, but was considered numerous in 

the late 19th Century (Keith 1997, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2000). It 

is currently treated as a subspecies of 

the forest thrush (Cichlherminia 

iherminieri), which is classified as 

Vulnerable by IUCN because of humaninduced deforestation and introduced 

predators (IUCN 2006). Habitat loss has 

occurred throughout the subspecies’

range, and other threats include 

competition with the bare-eyed robin 

(Turdus nudigenis), brood parasitism by 

the shiny cowbird, hunting by humans 

for food, and predation by mongooses 

and other introduced predators (Raffaele 

et al. 1998). 

This subspecies faces threats that are 

high in magnitude because of a 

declining population trend, and 

imminent resulting from ongoing 

deforestation, competition with other 

avian species, brood parasitism, and 

predation by animals and humans. It 

therefore receives a priority rank of 3. 

Eiao Polynesian warbler (Acrocephalus 

caffer aquilonis) 

The Eiao Polynesian warbler is 

restricted to dry forest on Eiao Island in 

the Marquesas Islands. Decker (1973) 

found that other races of the subspecies 

occupy a variety of habitats possessing 

trees or tall bushes, ranging from 

cultivated areas to dense forests. By 

1960, only tiny remnants of woodland 

remained on the island, and after many 

years of grazing by introduced sheep 

and swine, it was described as being a 

barren desert of rock and orange clay. 

This warbler was apparently common in 

1922, when the Whitney South Sea 

Expedition collected a number of 

specimens (Holyoak 1975, as cited by 

IUCN 1978–1979). Three more 

individuals were collected in 2 days in 

1929, and it was still present in small 

numbers in 1968 (Holyoak 1975, as 

cited by IUCN 1978–1979). The 

population in 1987 was estimated at 

100–200 individuals (Thibault, personal 

communication to Philippe Raust, 

Socie ́te ́e ́ d’Ornithologie de Polyne ́sie 

2003). Threats include predation by 

invasive mammals and a lack of habitat 

regeneration (Thibault, personal 

communication to Philippe Raust, 

Socie ́te ́e ́ d’Ornithologie de Polyne ́sie 

2003). This subspecies is also 

threatened by stochastic events, such as 

typhoons, which could extirpate this 

entire subspecies. 

The most significant threat to the Eiao 

Polynesian warbler is habitat loss and 

its continued destruction due to grazing 

of introduced species. The threat is high 

in magnitude because the threat affects 

the entire population of this island 

endemic species. The threat is imminent 

as it is ongoing and is rendering the 

island largely barren of suitable habitat 

for the warbler. It therefore receives a 

priority rank of 3. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20203 

Codfish Island fernbird (Bowdleria 

punctata wilsoni) 

The Codfish Island fernbird is found 

only in low scrub habitat on Codfish 

Island, off the northwest coast of 

Stewart Island, New Zealand (IUCN 

1979). Codfish Island’s native vegetation 

has been modified by introduced 

Australian brush-tailed possums 

(Trichosurus vulpecula). Fernbird 

populations have also been reduced due 

to predation by weka (Gallirallus 

australis scotti) and Polynesian rats 

(Rattus exulans) (Merton 1974, personal 

communication, as cited in IUCN 1979). 

In 1966, the status of this subspecies 

was considered relatively safe 

(Blackburn 1967, as cited in IUCN 

1979), but estimates dating from 1975 

indicated a gradually declining 

population numbering approximately 

100 individuals (Bell 1975, as cited in 

IUCN 1979). At that time, the subspecies 

was absent from areas of Codfish Island 

that it had formerly occupied 

(Blackburn 1967, as cited in IUCN 

1979). Several conservation measures 

have been undertaken on Codfish 

Island. An eradication program for the 

weka was carried out between 1980 and 

1985 (Taylor 2000), and Polynesian rats 

were eradicated from Codfish Island in 

August 1998 (Conservation News 2002). 

The fernbird population is rebounding 

strongly with the removal of invasive 

predator species (Hayley Meehan, New 

Zealand Forest and Birds, personal 

communication, 2003). 

The Codfish Island fernbird is a 

subspecies that is now facing threats 

that are low to moderate in magnitude 

because the removal of invasive 

predator species has allowed for a 

strong rebound in the subspecies’

population. Threats are non-imminent 

because the conservation measures to 

prevent the invasion of predatory 

invasive species have proven to be very 

successful. It therefore receives a 

priority rank of 9. 

Ghizo white-eye (Zosterops luteirostris) 

The Ghizo white-eye is endemic to 

Ghizo in the Solomon Islands (BirdLife 

International 2006). Birds are locally 

common in the remaining tall or oldgrowth forests located on Ghizo 

(Buckingham et al. 1995 and Gibbs 

1996, as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). It is less common in scrub close 

to large trees and in plantations 

(BirdLife International 2006), and it is 

not known whether these two habitats 

can support sustainable breeding 

populations (Buckingham et al. 1995, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

The IUCN classifies this species as 

Endangered because of its very small 

population that is inferred to be 

declining due to habitat loss (IUCN 

2006). It further notes that the species 

would be classified as Critically 

Endangered if the species’ range was 

judged to be severely fragmented (IUCN 

2006). The population estimate for this 

species is 250–999 birds with a 

decreasing population trend (BirdLife 

International 2006). The very tall oldgrowth forest on Ghizo is still under 

threat from clearance for local use, 

firewood, and gardens, and the areas of 

other secondary growth, which are suboptimal habitats for this species, are 

under considerable threat from 

clearance for agricultural land (BirdLife 

International 2006). 

The Ghizo white-eye does not 

represent a monotypic genus. It faces 

threats that are moderate in magnitude 

and imminent. Threats are continuing 

because the old-growth forest which the 

species is dependent upon is still being 

cleared for local use and secondary 

growth is being converted for 

agricultural purposes. Therefore we 

assign the species a priority rank of 8. 

Medium tree-finch (Camarhynchus 

pauper) 

The medium tree-finch is endemic to 

Floreana in the Galapagos Islands, 

Ecuador (BirdLife International 2006). It 

is common in the highlands and 

considered uncommon to rare on the 

coast (Harris 1992). The finch prefers 

montane evergreen and tropical 

deciduous forest, the Scalesia zone, and 

humid scrub (Stotz et al. 1996). This 

poorly known species is considered 

Vulnerable by the IUCN because 

population trends are unknown; it has 

a very small range, and it is restricted 

to a single island where introduced 

species are a potential threat (IUCN 

2006). Predator control is occurring on 

Floreana, Santa Cruz, and Santiago 

Islands (H. Vargus and F. Cruz (in litt.) 

2000, as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). The Galapagos Islands are a 

national park and were declared a 

World Heritage Site (WHS) in 1979 

(BirdLife International 2006). When a 

specific area is designated a WHS it 

means that the area is considered 

globally important, and it is in the 

interest of the international community 

to preserve the site for future 

generations of humanity. The protection 

and conservation of the site becomes a 

concern of all the World Heritage 

countries. Furthermore, funds for 

certain conservation projects can be 

obtained through the World 

Conservation Fund by designees 

(UNESCO 2006). 

The Government of Ecuador (GoE) has 

also been encouraged by the World 

Heritage Committee and others to 

further protect the islands through 

enactment of the Special Law for 

Galapagos which includes: stricter 

controls on immigration to the site; 

creation of a quarantine system to 

combat alien species; the creation of a 

much larger marine reserve around the 

islands with improved legal protection; 

limitations on property rights and 

economic activities to make these 

consistent with the goal of conservation, 

and; increased national funding 

allocation to the site (WHS 2006). 

Designating the Galapagos Islands as a 

WHS, however, has also led to an 

increase in tourism, which has in turn 

produced a negative effect on the 

islands through the increased volume of 

waste generated by tourists, and more 

importantly for this species, the spread 

of invasive species. 

The medium tree-finch does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

magnitude of threat to the species is 

moderate in magnitude as the species is 

common in the forested highlands and 

its habitat has not been highly degraded. 

The immediacy of threat is nonimminent because the species’ habitat is 

protected by the area’s national park 

and WHS status. We therefore give this 

species a priority rank of 11. 

Cherry-throated tanager (Nemosia 

rourei) 

The cherry-throated tanager is 

currently known from Fazenda 

Pindobas IV in Espirito Santo, Brazil, 

where small numbers have been 

recorded since 1998 (Bauer et al. 2000). 

Prior to 1998, the species was only 

known from one type specimen, 

collected around the mid-19th Century 

in Muriae, Minas Gerais, and from a 

flock of eight individuals seen in the 

region of Jatiboca, Espirito Santo, in 

1941 (Collar et al. 1992). Unconfirmed 

sightings of the tanager at the Augusto 

Ruschi (Nova Lombardia) Biological 

Reserve in 1992 (Scott 1997) and 

Fazenda Pedra Bonita, Minas Gerais led 

to intensive fieldwork in an effort to 

document the presence of the species 

(Bauer et al. 2000). Two groups of N. 

rourei have been definitely located, a 

population of at least six individuals at 

Fazenda Pindobas IV and another of at 

least eight individuals at Caetes. Further 

observations of a low-density 

population from the reserve at Augusto 

Ruschi confirmed Scott’s (1997) 

sightings of the species (Venturini et al. 

2005). 

The species inhabits the canopy of 

Atlantic dense ombrophyllous montane 

forest at elevations of 850–1,200 m 

(Venturini et al. 2005). There is 

evidence of the species’ occurrence in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20204 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

coffee plantations and plantations of 

Eucalyptus sp. and Pinus spp., but these 

sightings are sporadic and believed to be 

related to movements between 

fragments through corridors of 

otherwise unsuitable habitat (Venturini 

et al. 2005). The cherry-throated tanager 

is categorized as Critically Endangered 

by IUCN because of its extremely small 

range and small population (IUCN 

2006). The population is estimated at 

50–249 individuals and declining 

(BirdLife International 2000). Extensive 

deforestation is believed to have had an 

adverse impact on the species (IUCN 

2006). This species is protected by 

Brazilian law and its range may include 

protected areas (BirdLife International 

2000). The owners of Fazenda Pindobas 

IV have expressed interest in protecting 

the remaining native forest on their 

property (Venturini, in litt. 2000, as 

cited in BirdLife International 2006). 

Fazenda Pindobas IV has been 

designated an Important Bird Area (IBA) 

by BirdLife International. The IBA 

program is a worldwide initiative to 

identify and protect a network of critical 

sites for the conservation of the world’s 

birds. The owners of Fazenda Pindobas 

IV are cooperative with the scientists 

studying the species within their 

particular IBA (BirdLife International 

2006). 

The cherry-throated tanager does not 

represent a monotypic genus. Loss of 

habitat is the most significant threat to 

the species, and this threat is high in 

magnitude because there has been 

extensive deforestation within the 

species’ extremely limited range. This 

threat is imminent because deforestation 

continues throughout the area. 

Therefore, the species receives a priority 

rank of 2. 

Black-backed tanager (Tangara 

peruviana) 

The black-backed tanager is endemic 

to the coastal Atlantic forest region of 

southeastern Brazil, with records from 

Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Parana, Santa 

Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and 

Espirito Santo (Argel-de-Oliveira, in litt. 

2000, as cited in BirdLife International 

2006). It is largely restricted to coastal 

sand-plain forest and littoral scrub, or 

restinga, and has also been located in 

secondary forests (BirdLife International 

2006). The black-backed tanager is 

generally not considered rare within 

suitable habitat (BirdLife International 

2006; IUCN 2006). It has a complex 

distribution with periodic local 

fluctuations in numbers owing to 

seasonal movements, at least in Rio de 

Janeiro and Sao Paolo (BirdLife 

International 1992; IUCN 2006). 

Clarification of the species’ seasonal 

movements will provide an improved 

understanding of the species’

population status and distribution 

(IUCN 2006). Population estimates range 

from 2,500 to 10,000 individuals 

(BirdLife International 2006), and it is 

considered Vulnerable by the IUCN 

(IUCN 2006). The species is threatened 

by the rapid and widespread loss of 

habitat for beachfront development and 

occasionally appears in the illegal cagebird trade (BirdLife International 2006). 

The black-backed tanager does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The threat 

to the species is low to moderate in 

magnitude due to the species’ fairly 

large population size and range. The 

threat is, however, imminent because 

the species is threatened by rapid and 

widespread loss of habitat due to 

beachfront development. Therefore, we 

give this species a priority rank of 8. 

Lord Howe pied currawong (Strepera 

graculina crissalis) 

The Lord Howe Island subspecies of 

the pied currawong is endemic to the 

Lord Howe Island group in New South 

Wales, Australia. The highest densities 

of nests are located on the slopes of Mt. 

Gower and in the Erskine Valley, with 

smaller numbers on the lower land to 

the north (Knight 1987, as cited in 

Garnett and Gabriel 2000). This 

subspecies is highly mobile, and 

individuals can be found anywhere on 

the island as well as on offshore islands 

such as the Admiralty group (Garnett 

and Gabriel 2000). Pied currawong 

territories include sections of streams or 

gullies that are lined by tall timber 

(Garnett and Gabriel 2000). They feed 

on dead rats, possibly chase and kill live 

rats, and have also been recorded taking 

seabird chicks, poultry, and the chicks 

of the Lord Howe woodhen 

(Tricholimnas sylvestris) and white 

terns (Gygis alba). The pied currawong 

will also consume fruits and seeds 

(Hutton 1991 and McFarland 1994, as 

cited Garnett and Gabriel 2000). Local 

residents have been known to kill 

currawongs that have attacked poultry, 

woodhens, or terns (Garnett and Gabriel 

2000). However, it is unknown what 

effect this localized killing has on the 

overall population size and distribution 

of the subspecies (Garnett and Gabriel 

2000). The Lord Howe pied currawong 

is listed as Endangered on the schedules 

of the New South Wales Threatened 

Species Conservation Act (Garnett and 

Gabriel 2000) because it has a limited 

range, only occurring on Lord Howe 

Island (New South Wales National Parks 

and Wildlife Service 2003). In the 

Action Plan for Australian Birds (2000), 

the population was estimated at 

approximately 80 mature individuals. 

The Lord Howe pied currawong is a 

subspecies facing threats that are low in 

magnitude and non-imminent. 

Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 

12. 

Invertebrates 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail (Eurytides 

[syn. Mimoides] lysithous harrisianus) 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail is native to 

Brazil and may also occur in Paraguay 

(Collins and Morris 1985; Finnish 

University and Research Network 

(Funet) 2004). Two populations are 

confirmed in Rio de Janeiro and it is 

believed to be extant in Espirito Santo 

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

Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 

Brazil, pers. comm. 2004). Harris’ mimic 

swallowtail occupies the sandy flats 

above the tidal margins of the coastal 

Atlantic Forest. The IUCN designated 

this subspecies as Endangered in 1988, 

1990, and 1994 (IUCN 1996). However, 

it has not been re-evaluated using the 

1997 criteria, nor has it been included 

on the 2006 IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006). 

The Brazilian Institute of the 

Environment and Natural Resources 

(Instituto Brasileiro do a Meio Ambiente 

de do Recursos Naturais Renova ́veis; 

IBAMA) considers this subspecies to be 

critically imperiled. 

The flight habits of the Harris’ mimic 

swallowtail are such that individuals 

are very hard to locate (K. Brown, Jr., 

pers. comm. 2004). Only one of the two 

known populations in Rio de Janeiro 

has been well-studied. This population 

has varied in numbers ranging between 

50–250 individuals over an eight year 

period, and in 2004, was reported to be 

viable, vigorous, and stable (Brown 

1996; K. Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 2004). 

In 1997, a second population in Rio de 

Janeiro was located and confirmed in 

the Poc ̧o das Antas Biological Reserve, 

where it had not been seen for thirty 

years. Researchers believe that 

additional populations are likely to exist 

within the reserve (K. Brown, Jr., pers. 

comm. 2004). 

The adult Harris’ mimic swallowtail 

mimics at least three Parides spp. which 

are located within its range. Mimicry 

(being similar in appearance to other 

non-related species) can produce errors 

when attempting to determine the 

species’ range, distribution, and existing 

population. Farther north along the 

coastal plain, the species is often 

confused with the Fluminense 

swallowtail (Parides ascanius) (K. 

Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 2004). It is 

possible that Harris’ mimic swallowtail 

exists in Espirito Santo, but that it has 

been mistaken for the Fluminese 

swallowtail (Brown 1991; Otero and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20205 

Brown 1984; R. Robbins, Research 

Entomologist, National Museum of 

Natural History, Department of 

Entomology, Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, DC pers. comm. 2004). 

IBAMA listed Harris’ mimic swallowtail 

as ‘‘strictly protected’’ in 1989. 

Collection and trade of the species are 

prohibited under this listing (Brown 

1996). 

Habitat destruction due to 

urbanization, and air and water 

pollution are the main threats to this 

subspecies (Brown 1996; Central 

Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2006). The 

Poc ̧o das Antas Biological Reserve, 

where one population of the Harris’

mimic swallowtail is known to exist, 

was established in 1974 and 

encompasses 5,300 hectares of inland 

Atlantic Forest territory (WWF 2006; 

Decree No. 73,791 1974). In the period 

between 1989 and 2002, the Reserve 

experienced at least six fires; however, 

there have been no recent reports of 

fires within the Reserve, and it appears 

that significant progress is being made 

in engaging private landowners in 

conservation efforts near the Reserve 

(Cullen et al. 2005; Matsuo 2005; WWF 

2001a). Espirito Santo lies completely 

within the Atlantic Forest region. Only 

8.4 per cent (less than 400,000 hectares) 

of the original forest remains and only 

3 per cent (or 72,263 hectares) is 

managed and protected by the state or 

federal government (Critical Ecosystem 

Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2001; Roach 

2002). 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail does not 

represent a monotypic genus, but it is a 

subspecies. The current threats to the 

species are low in magnitude because of 

the two known populations, one is 

considered to be viable, vigorous, and 

stable and the other population has been 

located and confirmed in the Poc ̧o das 

Antas Biological Reserve, where it had 

previously not been seen for thirty 

years. The threats are non-imminent 

because the species is strictly protected 

by Brazilian law. Furthermore, at least 

one population resides in the Poc ̧o das 

Antas Biological Reserve, where the 

species and its habitat are protected and 

preserved. Researchers presume that the 

species’ distribution is larger than 

currently known, and are attempting to 

locate other populations inhabiting the 

Reserve and additional sites within the 

coastal Atlantic forest, including 

suitable areas in Paraguay. Therefore, 

the species is designated a priority rank 

of 12. 

Jamaican kite swallowtail (Eurytides 

marcellinus) 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail is 

endemic to Jamaica. The IUCN 

designated this swallowtail as 

Vulnerable, but it has not been reevaluated using the 1997 criteria (IUCN 

2006). The species is protected under 

Jamaica’s Wildlife Protection Act of 

1998 and is included in Jamaica’s 

National Strategy and Action Plan on 

Biological Diversity, which has 

established specific goals and priorities 

for the conservation of Jamaica’s 

biological resources (Schedules of The 

Wildlife Protection Act 1998). 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail appears 

to have a low population level, but 

occasionally becomes locally abundant 

during breeding season for a week or 

two at its breeding site. There is only 

one known breeding site being utilized 

by the species at this time. This area is 

located in Rozelle, where the 

swallowtails brood in early summer and 

occasionally again in early fall (Collins 

and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; 

Smith et al. 1994). Episodic population 

explosions have been recorded which 

are subsequently accompanied by 

significant westerly migrations of males 

when population numbers become high 

(Brown and Heineman 1972; Collins 

and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993). 

Considerable numbers of Jamaican kite 

swallowtails were reported in western 

Jamaican parishes during the 1940s and 

1950s (Bailey 1994; Garraway et al. 

1993). Adult Jamaican kite swallowtails 

have recently been sighted as far away 

as St. Thomas, as well as westward to 

St. Andrew, St. Ann, Trelawny, and the 

extreme western coast Parish of 

Westmoreland. The species has 

reportedly migrated even as far as 

Florida (Bailey 1994; Funet 2004; Harris 

2002; Smith et al. 1994; WRC 2001). 

Under normal conditions, the 

Jamaican kite swallowtail disperses no 

farther than three kilometers from its 

breeding site, but considering the 

presence of the larval host-plant 

throughout the island (R. Robbins, pers. 

comm. 2004), it is likely that additional 

breeding sites exist. The only known 

larval food plant is West Indian 

lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata) (Bailey 

1994; Xerces 2004); adult food 

preferences are unknown. 

The John Crow Mountains, spanning 

several parishes where Jamaican kite 

swallowtail adults have been found, was 

declared a protected area in 1993. 

Cockpit Country (Trelawny Parish), 

where Jamaican kite swallowtail adults 

have recently been sighted, is described 

as nearly impenetrable to humans owing 

to its terrain (WRC 2002). In 2001, the 

area became part of the Parks-in-Peril 

project (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

2004–06). In 2003, the National 

Environment and Planning Agency 

(NEPA) identified Cockpit Country and 

Rozelle Beach as priority locations to 

receive protected area status within the 

next five to seven years (NEPA 2003). 

In 2004, habitat destruction was 

considered a primary threat to the 

species. Rozelle has undergone 

extensive habitat modification for 

agricultural and industrial purposes 

(IUCN 2006). Mining operations, 

deforestation, and the lack of public 

awareness for conservation issues are 

threats throughout most of the island 

(WWF 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). 

Additionally, the West Indian 

lancewood, the larval stage’s food plant, 

is a commercially desirable tree. Its 

wood is used to make fishing rods, pool 

cues, and other products (Windsor 

Plywood 2004). Harvesting the tree 

removes the larval stage’s food source, 

and poses an additional threat because 

the swallowtail does not thrive in 

disturbed habitats (Collins and Morris 

1985). 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail is also 

subject to naturally occurring, high 

impact stochastic events. Jamaica lies 

within the Atlantic Ocean hurricane belt 

and is subject to severe tropical weather, 

such as tropical storms, and hurricanes 

(Mahlung 2001). In the last 18 years, 

Jamaica has been devastated by a 

tropical storm (Tropical Storm George in 

1998), a Category 3 hurricane (Hurricane 

Gilbert in 1988), and four Category 5 

hurricanes (Hurricane Mitch in 1998; 

Hurricane Ivan in 2004; Hurricane 

Dennis and Hurricane Emily in 2005). 

The hurricanes resulted in extensive 

damage throughout the island, 

particularly in Rozelle, which 

experienced 75 percent erosion in 1988 

from Hurricane Gilbert, and extensive 

beach erosion in 2004 during Hurricane 

Ivan (The United Nations Environment 

Programme-Caribbean Environment 

Programme (UNEP-CEP) 1989; Go Local 

Jamaica 2004). 

In 2000, the Jamaican kite swallowtail 

was identified as a species that was 

threatened by commercial trade in the 

European Union (EU); one female 

Jamaican kite swallowtail alone had a 

market value of US$150 (Melisch 2000; 

Schu ̈tz 2000). This species is not listed 

under CITES, nor is it listed on the 

European Commission’s Annex B (Eurlex 2006), both of which regulate 

international trade in animals and 

plants of conservation concern. There is 

no captive breeding program for the 

Jamaican kite swallowtail at this time. 

Protection under the Wildlife Protection 

Act, which carries a maximum penalty 

of $100,000 (Jamaican Dollars) or 12 

months imprisonment, appears to be 

effectively protecting this species from 

illegal trade (NEPA 2005c). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20206 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail does 

not represent a monotypic genus. 

Threats to the species are moderate in 

magnitude because Jamaica has taken 

several important regulatory steps to 

preserve their native swallowtail 

species. Habitat destruction, however, is 

an ongoing problem. Although there has 

been no actual change in threats since 

this species was originally ranked in our 

December 7, 2004, 12–Month Finding 

on a Petition to List Seven Foreign 

Species of Swallowtail Butterflies as 

Threatened or Endangered (69 FR 

70580), habitat loss represents an 

ongoing and imminent threat to the 

Jamaica swallowtail. Therefore, to 

ensure consistency in the application of 

our listing priority process, we changed 

the listing priority number from a 5 to 

an 8 to reflect that the threats are 

imminent. Therefore, it receives a 

priority rank of 8. 

Fluminense swallowtail (Parides 

ascanius) 

The Fluminense swallowtail is 

endemic to Brazil’s restinga habitat 

(Thomas 2003). Restinga habitat, or 

Atlantic coastal forest, is a distinct type 

of coastal tropical and subtropical moist 

broadleaf forest found in Brazil. 

Restingas form on sandy, acidic, and 

nutrient-poor soils, and are 

characterized by medium sized trees 

and shrubs adapted to coastal 

conditions. Although the species has 

been reported in the three Brazilian 

states of Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo, 

and Sao Paulo where suitable habitat 

exists, the only confirmed populations 

are in Rio de Janeiro. The caterpillar 

feeds on a species in the Dutchman’s 

pipe genus (Aristolochia macroura) 

(Otero and Brown 1984). Adult 

Fluminense swallowtails prefer 

nearshore environments, delta and 

estuarine forest and swamps, but have 

also been known to frequent scrub 

habitats and urban locations (Brown 

1996; K. Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 2004). 

Since 1988, the IUCN has designated 

this species as Vulnerable, based on a 

small distribution and a decline in the 

number of populations due to habitat 

fragmentation and decline. In 1973, the 

Fluminense swallowtail was the first 

invertebrate to be placed on Brazil’s list 

of animals threatened with extinction. It 

was originally listed due to habitat 

destruction, and IBAMA continues to 

consider the species imperiled. 

In Rio de Janeiro, the only 

Fluminense swallowtail population that 

was known for some time was located 

in Barro de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o. However, with 

large amounts of suitable habitat 

remaining to support Fluminense 

swallowtails, several large populations 

have been located in Rio de Janeiro 

State (K. Brown, pers. comm. 2004). 

Recent information suggests that at least 

two additional populations may exist, 

one far inland within the Poc ̧o das 

Antas Biological Reserve, and another 

along the coast in the Restinga de 

Jurubatiba National Park (K. Brown, Jr., 

pers. comm. 2004). Although the species 

is generally sparsely distributed, it can 

be seasonally common, with sightings of 

up to 50 individuals in one morning 

(Otero and Brown 1984; Tyler et al. 

1994). It is unknown whether the 

species can produce more than one 

brood per year. Populations are 

localized, and require a large area to 

maintain a viable population (Otero and 

Brown 1984). 

Over an 8-year period (1984 to 1991), 

the population at Barro de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o was 

found to fluctuate widely each year 

(ranging from 20 to 100 individuals). 

Individuals can fly distances of up to 

1000 m. Individuals from this viable 

population migrate widely in some 

years, which will likely enhance interpopulation gene flow (K. Brown, Jr. 

pers. comm. 2004). Much less is known 

about the other two Fluminense 

swallowtail populations. The Poc ̧o das 

Antas Biological Reserve is considered 

the only protected area with suitable 

habitat that is large enough to maintain 

a viable Fluminense swallowtail colony. 

Researchers have located large numbers 

of the swallowtails in the Reserve, and 

all of the Reserve’s populations are 

being actively monitored (Otero and 

Brown 1984; R. Robbins, pers. comm. 

2004). 

This species is threatened by habitat 

destruction and commercial trade. The 

range of the Fluminense swallowtail 

overlaps that of the Harris’ mimic 

swallowtail and faces similar threats to 

its restinga habitat, including 

urbanization, land conversion for 

cultivation and cattle grazing, and fires 

in the Poc ̧o das Antas Biological 

Reserve. However, there have been 

efforts to alleviate threats through 

resolutions of land disputes, efforts to 

increase public awareness of the plight 

of the butterflies, and private 

landowner’s agreements to participate 

in conservation measures for the 

species. 

The population located near the 

Jurubatiba National Park may face 

threats from industrialization. The 

sandy-soiled Barro de Sa ̃o Joa ̃o, where 

the best-documented Fluminense 

swallowtail population is located, is 

within the Macae ́ River basin. This river 

basin provides the coastal drainage 

habitat preferred by the Fluminense 

swallowtail and marks the outer edge of 

the Jurubatiba National Park 

(International Finance Corporation (IFC) 

2002). Macae ́ has been an oil boom town 

since 1968, supporting offshore drilling 

rigs and the natural gas-fired Macae ́

Merchant Power Plant which was built 

in 2003 (IFC 2002). Prior to 

construction, United States-based El 

Paso had committed to several projects 

that would mitigate the environmental 

impacts of the power plant. These 

projects included promotion of 

environmental recovery, preservation of 

a mangrove preserve, and reforestation 

of native species within the Macae ́ river 

basin (IFC 2002). In April 2006, El Paso 

sold its interest in the power plant to 

Brazilian-based Petrobras (El Paso 

Corporation 2006). The current status 

and future disposition of the mitigation 

projects are unknown. 

This species requires a large area to 

maintain a viable population; therefore, 

the Poc ̧o das Antas Biological Reserve is 

considered the species’ best hope for 

conservation. Recent sightings of the 

Fluminense swallowtail in the 

Jurubatiba National Park, which is larger 

than Poc ̧o das Antas Biological Reserve, 

may bode well for the species. However, 

the management plan for the Jurubatiba 

National Park is not yet completed, and 

the Park is understaffed, lacks 

infrastructure, and has land ownership 

problems (Anonymous 2003). 

Unlike Harris’ mimic swallowtail, the 

Fluminense swallowtail is easy to 

capture. The species is strictly protected 

from commerce in Brazil, and a German 

market study in 2000 identified the 

Fluminense swallowtail as being 

commercially threatened in the EU (K. 

Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 2004; Melisch 

2000; Schu ̈tz 2000). The species is not 

listed in the CITES Appendices, but it 

is listed on Annex B of the European 

Union’s Council Regulation (EC) No. 

338/97, which regulates imports of 

certain species into any country 

belonging to the European Union (EurLex 2006). Import of an Annex B-listed 

species must be accompanied by 

information that demonstrates that the 

import will not detrimentally affect the 

conservation status of the species or its 

habitat (Eur-Lex 2006). There is no 

recent information regarding the current 

market for this species in the European 

Union. 

The Fluminense swallowtail does not 

represent a monotypic genus. The 

current threats to the species are 

moderate in magnitude because three 

additional populations have been 

discovered recently, and it is believed 

that two additional populations are 

about to be located in the restinga. The 

species is desirable in trade, but it is 

strictly protected from international 

trade by Brazilian and EU regulation. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20207 

Threats to the species, however, are 

imminent and ongoing because habitat 

alteration and fragmentation continues 

due to increased urbanization, land 

conversion for cultivation and cattle 

grazing, and periodic fires. Therefore, it 

receives a priority rank of 5. 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail 

(Parides hahneli) 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is 

endemic to two known populations 

along the tributaries of the middle and 

lower Amazon Basin of Amazonas and 

Para ́ States in Brazil (Collins and Morris 

1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 

1994). The species occupies a wide 

range and is common in some areas, but 

is usually characterized as a species that 

is very local, rare and patchy in 

distribution due to its preference for 

highly specialized habitat (K. Brown, Jr., 

pers. comm. 2004). The swallowtail 

depends upon stranded beaches of river 

drainage areas. Wells et al. (1983) 

describes the habitat as ancient sandy 

beaches covered by scrubby or dense 

vegetation that is not floristically 

diverse. The larval host-plant is 

believed to be a species in the 

Dutchman’s pipe genus, either 

Aristolochia lanceolato-lorato or A. 

acutifolia. 

In 1983, the IUCN categorized this 

species as Rare; however, in 1996, when 

the species was most recently assessed, 

the IUCN determined that there was 

insufficient data to determine its status 

(Wells et al. 1983; IUCN 2006). In Brazil, 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is 

listed as a species under study, but it is 

not listed on the Brazilian list of 

animals threatened with extinction 

(MMA 2006), perhaps due to the 

species’ wide range and tendency to be 

locally common (K. Brown, Jr., pers. 

comm. 2004). 

Threats to the species include 

competition with other species, habitat 

destruction, and commercial trade. This 

species occupies the same range with 

another swallowtail butterfly, Parides 

chabrias ygdrasilla, and mimics at least 

two other genera that occupy the same 

area, Methona and Thyrides (Brown 

1996). Previously, researchers believed 

that this species might suffer from hostplant competition with the other 

butterfly species in the region (Collins 

and Morris 1985; Wells 1983); however, 

this has not been demonstrated, nor has 

it been observed. The species has 

extremely limited habitat preferences; 

therefore, any type of river modification 

activity, such as impoundment, 

channelization, or levee construction 

would have an immediate and highly 

negative impact on the species (Wells et 

al. 1983; New and Collins 1991). 

Commercial exploitation is 

considered to be a threat to Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail (Melisch 2000; 

Schu ̈tz 2000). A survey of German 

markets found swallowtails to be among 

the most popular species being sold; 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtails sold 

for USD $200 per pair (Schu ̈tz 2000). 

Currently, there is limited trade of the 

species over the internet. The species is 

not listed in the CITES Appendices, but 

it is listed on the European 

Commission’s Annex B, which regulates 

imports of certain species into the EU. 

It is unclear how this listing has affected 

trade in the species; however, experts 

agree that species with restricted 

distributions or localized populations, 

such as the Hahnel’s Amazonian 

swallowtail, are more vulnerable to 

over-collection than those with a wider 

distribution (K. Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 

2004; R. Robbins, pers. comm. 2004). 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail does 

not represent a monotypic genus. The 

current threats to the species are low in 

magnitude and non-imminent; 

therefore, it receives a priority rank of 

11. 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail (Teinopalpus 

imperialis) 

The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is 

native to the Himalayan regions of 

Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, 

Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam (Food 

and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

2001; Igarashi 2001; Masui and Uehara 

2000; Osada et al. 1999). This swift 

species prefers undisturbed montane 

deciduous forests and flies at altitudes 

of 1500 and 3050 m (Bond 1964; 

Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999). 

Although the species was first described 

in 1843, its life history was not well 

characterized until 1986 (Igarashi and 

Fukuda 2000). The Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail produces two broods per 

year, the first in spring, and another in 

late summer (Igarashi 2001). Females of 

the species are much larger than males 

and males predominate in sex ratio 

calculations (Bond 1964). Larval hostplants may differ across the species’

range, and include: Magnolia campbellii 

in China (Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; 

Sung and Yan 2005; Yen and Yang 

2001); Magnolia spp. in Vietnam (Funet 

2004); Daphne spp. in India, Nepal, and 

Myanmar (Funet 2004); and Daphne 

nipalensis also in India (Robinson et al. 

2004). 

In 1996, the IUCN categorized the 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail as a species of 

Least Concern and it has not been reevaluated using the 1997 criteria. The 

species remains in this category in the 

2006 IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006). 

Despite its widespread distribution, 

local populations are not abundant 

(Collins and Morris 1985). We were 

unable to locate current conservation or 

population status information for 

Bhutan, Laos and Myanmar, and 

information for the remaining range 

countries is limited. 

In 1994, with no verified occurrences 

in 50 years, researchers considered the 

species to be in immediate danger of 

extinction in China. However, the 

species has since been reported in Fuji, 

Guangxi, Hubei, Jiangsu, Sichuan, and 

Yunnan Provinces (The United Nations 

Environment Programme-World 

Conservation Monitoring Center 

(UNEP–WCMC) 1999; Igarashi and 

Fukuda 2000; Sung and Yan 2005). The 

species is classified by the 2005 China 

Species Red List as Vulnerable (China 

Red List 2006). 

In India, the species has previously 

been reported in Assam, Darjeeling, 

Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and West 

Bengal (Collins and Morris 1985; EastHimalaya.com 2006; Prime.travels.com 

2006). However, we were unable to 

confirm the population status of the 

species in any of the regions except 

Sikkim, where a sighting was confirmed 

in 2003 (Ministry of Environment and 

Forests 2005). The Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail is listed on Schedule II of 

the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 

1972 (Collins and Morris 1985; Indian 

Wildlife Protection Act 2006). 

In Nepal, the Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail has been reported along the 

southern border of Godavari and in the 

central region of Pokhara (Anonymous 

2002; Environmental Law Alliance 

Worldwide (E-Law) 2002). The 

swallowtail reportedly produces one 

brood in the spring in Nepal , as 

opposed to the production of the normal 

two broods elsewhere throughout the 

species’ range (Anonymous 2002). The 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is protected 

by the National Parks and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1973 (E-Law 2002; 

His Majesty’s Government of Nepal 

(HMGN) 2002; Shreshta 1999). 

In Thailand, the species has been 

reported in Chang Mai province 

(Pornpitagpan 1999) but we have not 

been able to find additional locality or 

status information. The Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail and 13 other invertebrates 

are listed under Thailand’s Wildlife 

Reservation and Protection Act of 1992, 

which makes it illegal to collect wildlife 

(whether alive or dead) or to have the 

species in one’s possession (FAO 2001; 

Hongthong 1998; Pornpitagpan 1999). 

In Vietnam, the Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail has been confirmed in three 

Nature Reserves (Tordoff et al. 1999; 

Trai and Richardson 1999), but there is 

no domestic regulatory protection for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20208 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the species. It is afforded some 

protection, however, because the Nature 

Reserves are considered to have low 

levels of disturbance (Tordoff et al. 

1999; Trai and Richardson 1999). 

Habitat destruction is the greatest 

threat to this species which prefers 

undisturbed high altitude habitat. In 

China and India, the Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail populations are threatened 

by habitat modification and destruction 

due to commercial and illegal logging 

(Yen and Yang 2001; Maheshwari 2003). 

In Nepal, the two locations where the 

species has been confirmed are 

threatened by habitat disturbance and 

destruction resulting from mining, fuel 

wood collection and burning, and 

grazing animals (Baral et al. 2005; E-Law 

2002). Nepal’s Forest Ministry considers 

habitat destruction to be a critical threat 

to all biodiversity, including the KaiserI-Hind swallowtail (HMGN 2002). 

Habitat degradation and loss caused by 

deforestation and land conversion for 

agricultural purposes is a primary threat 

to the species in Thailand (Hongthong 

1998; FAO 2001). 

Commercial utilization is another 

threat to the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail. 

The species is valued for its beauty, and 

thus, its marketability. In China, the 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is considered 

to be more valuable than the Southern 

tailed birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera 

meridionalis), which was reportedly 

valued at U.S. $8,700 per pair, in 2000 

(Schu ̈tz 2000; Watanabe 1997). 

According to the Nepal Forestry 

Ministry, the high commercial value of 

endangered species on the local and 

international market may result in local 

extinctions of many of Nepal’s most 

endangered plants and animals, 

including this species (HMGN 2002). 

Unsustainable collection for the 

souvenir trade is also a primary threat 

to the species in Thailand (FAO 2001), 

where villagers from Chang Mai 

province have nicknamed the Kaiser-IHind butterfly the ‘‘motorbike insect’’

because a ‘‘villager in this northern 

province [who is] lucky enough to catch 

one will earn enough money to buy a 

motorcycle’’ (Pornpitagpan 1999). In 

Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails are 

reported to be among the most valuable 

of all butterflies (World Bank 2005). 

The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails (both 

the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail and the 

Golden Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail) were 

listed in CITES Appendix II in 1987 

(UNEP–WCMC 2006a). Between 1991 

and 2005, 160 Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail 

specimens were exported in 

international trade (UNEP–WCMC 

2006b). The United States is the largest 

importer of the butterflies and China 

exported the largest percentage of 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails (both 

countries account for more than 50 

percent of the trade). In addition to 

China, India and Thailand are the only 

range countries that have been 

identified as sources of legal specimens 

in international trade. There are 

unconfirmed reports that the Kaiser-IHind swallowtail is being captive-bred 

in Taiwan (Yen and Yang 2001); 

however, according to CITES trade data, 

only one export of captive bred 

specimens has been reported since the 

1987 listing, and those were 

Teinopalpus spp. eggs that were 

exported from the Philippines in 2002. 

Since 1993, there have been no reported 

seizures of Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail in 

the United States (Office of Law 

Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arlington, Virginia, pers. 

comm. 2006). 

In summary, the Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail is native to eight countries 

in southern and southeast Asia. 

Population status information is lacking 

throughout the species’ range, except in 

Nepal and China, where the species is 

considered vulnerable and rare, 

respectively. Habitat degradation and 

conversion threaten the species in at 

least four range countries (China, India, 

Nepal, and Thailand), principally 

because the species prefers undisturbed 

habitat. The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is 

collected for commercial trade in at 

least four range countries (China, India, 

Nepal, and Thailand), and three range 

countries have reported limited 

international trade in the species 

(China, India, and Thailand). At least 

three of the range countries (India, 

Nepal, and Thailand) have additional 

protective regulatory measures in place 

for conservation of the species. 

The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail does 

not represent a monotypic genus. The 

current threat to the species is moderate 

to low in magnitude due to its wide 

distribution, conservation in 

international trade afforded by CITES, 

and additional protective regulatory 

measures that are in place in at least 

three of the five species’ range 

countries. Threats are imminent because 

the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is acutely 

affected by habitat disturbance and 

degradation, which is ongoing 

throughout its range. Additionally, 

considering the high prices reaped by 

the species in international trade, 

collection continues to be a threat to the 

species. Therefore, it receives a priority 

rank of 8. 

Progress in Revising the Lists 

As described in section 

4(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, we must 

show that we are making expeditious 

progress to add qualified species to the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants and to remove 

species from the lists for which the 

protections of the Act are no longer 

necessary. We are making expeditious 

progress in listing and delisting species 

as shown by the recent high-priority 

listing actions: our December 7, 2004, 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

seven foreign species of swallowtail 

butterflies as threatened or endangered 

(69 FR 70580); publication of a 12- 

month petition finding and proposed 

rule to delist the Mexican bobcat (Lynx 

rufus escuinapae) on May 19, 2005 (70 

FR 28895); our September 2, 2005, final 

rule listing the scimitar-horned oryx, 

addax, and dama gazelle as endangered 

(70 FR 52319); our March 29, 2006, final 

rule listing the Tibetan antelope as 

endangered (71 FR 15620); and our June 

28, 2006, 90-day finding to a petition to 

delist the Morelet’s crocodile (71 FR 

36743). We also published a proposed 

rule to list six foreign birds as 

endangered on November 23, 2006 for 

which listing was found to be warranted 

in our 2004 ANOR (71 FR 67530). In 

addition to these actions, since 

publication of the 2004 ANOR, we 

promulgated a special rule to control the 

trade of threatened beluga sturgeon 

(Huso huso) on March 4, 2005 (70 FR 

10493) and a final rule to manage U.S. 

captive bred scimitar-horned oryx, 

addax, and dama gazelle under the Act 

on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52310). 

Our ability to make progress in adding 

or removing qualified species to the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants is dependent upon 

resources available. As discussed 

previously, along with having this 

responsibility, the DSA must also carry 

out its other responsibilities under the 

Act, its responsibilities under CITES, 

and its responsibilities under the Wild 

Bird Conservation Act. Currently, more 

than 50 percent of DSA staff resources 

are devoted to listing activities under 

the Act. We will continue to make 

expeditious progress to add or remove 

species from the Lists consistent with 

our available staff and budget resources. 

Monitoring 

Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act 

requires us to ‘‘implement a system to 

monitor effectively the status of all 

species’’ for which we have made a 

warranted-but-precluded 12-month 

finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the 

[emergency listing] authority [under 

section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant 

risk to the well being of any such 

species.’’ For foreign species, the 

Service’s ability to gather information to 

monitor species is limited. While the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20209 

Service welcomes all information 

relevant to the status of these species, 

we have no ability to gather data in 

foreign countries directly and cannot 

compel another country to provide 

information. Thus, this ANOR plays a 

critical role in our monitoring efforts for 

foreign species. With each ANOR, we 

request information on the status of the 

species included in the notice. 

Information and comments on the 

annual findings can be submitted at any 

time. We review all new information 

received through this process as well as 

any other new information we obtain 

using a variety of methods. We collect 

information from the peer-reviewed 

scientific literature, unpublished 

literature, scientific meeting 

proceedings, and CITES documents 

(including species proposals and reports 

from scientific committees). We also 

obtain information through the permit 

application processes under CITES, the 

Act, and the Wild Bird Conservation 

Act. We also consult with staff members 

of the Service’s Division of International 

Conservation, the World Conservation 

Union species specialist groups (IUCN), 

and attend scientific meetings to obtain 

current status information for relevant 

species. As previously stated, if we 

identify any species for which 

emergency listing is appropriate, we 

will make prompt use of the emergency 

listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of 

the Act. 

Request for Information 

We request the submission of any 

further information on the species in 

this notice as soon as possible, or 

whenever it becomes available. We 

especially seek information: (1) 

Indicating that we should remove a 

taxon from warranted or warranted-butprecluded status; (2) indicating that we 

should remove a species from warranted 

or warranted-but-precluded status; (3) 

documenting threats to any of the 

included species; (4) describing the 

immediacy or magnitude of threats 

facing these species; (5) pointing out 

taxonomic or nomenclatural changes for 

any of the species; (6) suggesting 

appropriate common names; or (7) 

noting any mistakes, such as errors in 

the indicated historical ranges. 

References Cited 

A list of the references used to 

develop this notice is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary author of the bird 

portion of this notice is Marie T. 

Maltese and the primary author of the 

invertebrate portion of this notice is Dr. 

Patricia De Angelis. Both authors are in 

the Division of Scientific Authority, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

This notice of review is published 

under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE REVIEW

[C=listing warranted but precluded; L=to be listed] 

Birds status 

Scientific name Family Common name Historic range 

Category Priority 

C ............. 2 ............. Podiceps taczanowskii ........ Podicipedidae ..................... Junin flightless grebe .......... Peru. 

L ............. 2 ............. Pterodroma macgillivrayi .... Procellariidae ...................... Fiji petrel ............................. Fiji. 

C ............. 2 ............. Pterodroma axillaris ............ Procellariidae ...................... Chatham petrel ................... Chatham Islands, New Zealand. 

L ............. 8 ............. Pterodroma cookii ............... Procellariidae ...................... Cook’s petrel ....................... New Zealand. 

L ............. 2 ............. Pterodroma phaeopygia ..... Procellariidae ...................... Galapagos petrel ................ Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. 

L ............. 8 ............. Pterodroma magentae ........ Procellariidae ...................... magenta petrel .................... Chatham Islands, New Zealand. 

L ............. 11 ........... Puffinus heinrothi ................ Procellariidae ...................... Heinroth’s shearwater ......... Bismarck Archipelago, 

Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands. 

L ............. 2 ............. Leptoptilos dubius ............... Ciconiidae ........................... greater adjutant stork .......... South Asia. 

L ............. 2 ............. Phoenicopterus andinus ..... Phoenicopteridae ................ Andean flamingo ................. Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, 

Peru. 

C ............. 2 ............. Mergus octosetaceus .......... Anatidae .............................. Brazilian merganser ............ Brazil. 

C ............. 2 ............. Penelope perspicax ............ Craciidae ............................. Cauca guan ........................ Colombia. 

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

curassow.

Bolivia, Peru. 

C ............. 2 ............. Crax alberti ......................... Craciidae ............................. blue-billed curassow ........... Colombia. 

C ............. 3 ............. Tetrao urogallus 

cantabricus.

Tetraonidae ......................... Cantabrian capercaillie ....... Spain. 

C ............. 2 ............. Odontophorus strophium .... Odontophoridae .................. gorgeted wood-quail ........... Colombia. 

C ............. 2 ............. Laterallus tuerosi ................ Rallidae ............................... Junin rail ............................. Peru. 

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

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

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

C ............. 2 ............. Rhinoptilus bitorquatus ....... Glareolidae .......................... Jerdon’s courser ................. India. 

C ............. 2 ............. Numenius tenuirostris ......... Scolopacidae ...................... slender-billed curlew ........... Africa, Algeria, Bulgaria, 

southern Europe, Greece, 

Hungary, Italy, 

Kazakhstan, Morocco, 

Romania, Russia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, and 

Yugoslavia. 

C ............. 2 ............. Ducula galeata .................... Columbidae ......................... Marquesan imperial-pigeon Marquesas Islands, French 

Polynesia. 

C ............. 2 ............. Cacatua moluccensis .......... Cacatuidae .......................... salmon-crested cockatoo .... South Moluccas, Indonesia. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2
20210 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 77 / Monday, April 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE REVIEW—Continued 

[C=listing warranted but precluded; L=to be listed] 

Birds status 

Scientific name Family Common name Historic range 

Category Priority 

C ............. 4 ............. Cyanoramphus malherbi ..... Psittacidae .......................... orange-fronted parakeet ..... New Zealand. 

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

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

C ............. 3 ............. Neomorphus geoffroyi 

dulcis.

Cuculidae ............................ southeastern rufous-vented 

ground cuckoo.

Brazil. 

C ............. 3 ............. Phaethornis malaris 

margarettae.

Trochilidae .......................... Margaretta’s hermit ............. Brazil. 

C ............. 3 ............. Eriocnemis nigrivestis ......... Trochilidae .......................... black-breasted puffleg ........ Ecuador. 

C ............. 2 ............. Eulidia yarrellii ..................... Trochilidae .......................... Chilean woodstar ................ Chile, Peru. 

C ............. 2 ............. Acestrura berlepschi ........... Trochilidae .......................... Esmeraldas woodstar ......... Ecuador. 

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

C ............. 7 ............. Dendrocopus noguchii ........ Picidae ................................ Okinawa woodpecker ......... Okinawa Island, Japan. 

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

C ............. 2 ............. Cinclodes aricomae ............ Furnariidae .......................... royal cinclodes .................... Bolivia, Peru. 

C ............. 2 ............. Leptasthenura xenothorax .. Furnariidae .......................... white-browed tit-spinetail .... Peru. 

C ............. 2 ............. Formicivora erythronotos .... Thamnophilidae .................. black-hooded antwren ........ Brazil. 

C ............. 2 ............. Pyriglena atra ...................... Thamnophilidae .................. fringe-backed fire-eye ......... Brazil. 

C ............. 2 ............. Grallaria milleri .................... Formicariidae ...................... brown-banded antpitta ........ Colombia. 

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

C ............. 2 ............. Hemitriccus kaempferi ........ Tyrannidae .......................... Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant ........ Brazil. 

C ............. 2 ............. Anairetes alpinus ................ Tyrannidae .......................... ash-breasted tit-tyrant ......... Bolivia, Peru. 

C ............. 2 ............. Phytotoma raimondii ........... Phytotomidae ...................... Peruvian plantcutter ............ Peru. 

C ............. 3 ............. Cichlherminia iherminieri 

sanctaeluciae.

Turdidae .............................. St. Lucia forest thrush ........ St. Lucia Island, West Indies. 

C ............. 3 ............. Acrocephalus caffer 

aquilonis.

Sylviidae .............................. Eiao Polynesian warbler ..... Marquesas Islands, French 

Polynesia. 

C ............. 9 ............. Bowdleria punctata wilsoni Sylviidae .............................. Codfish Island fernbird ........ Codfish Island, New Zealand. 

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

C ............. 11 ........... Camarhynchus pauper ....... Thraupidae .......................... medium tree-finch ............... Floreana Island, Galapagos 

Islands, Ecuador. 

C ............. 2 ............. Nemosia rourei ................... Thraupidae .......................... cherry-throated tanager ...... Brazil. 

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

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

South Wales. 

Invertebrates status 

Scientific name Synonyms Common name Historic range 

Category Priority 

C ............. 12 ........... Eurytides lysithous 

harrisianus.

Graphium lysithous 

harrisianus; Mimoides 

lysithous harrisianus.

Harris’ mimic swallowtail ..... Brazil, Paraguay. 

C ............. 8 ............. Eurytides marcellinus .......... Graphium marcellinus; 

Neographium marcellinus; 

Protographium 

marcellinus (nom. inv.); 

Protesilaus marcellinus.

Jamaican kite swallowtail ... Jamaica. 

C ............. 5 ............. Parides ascanius ................ n/a ....................................... Fluminense swallowtail ....... Brazil. 

C ............. 11 ........... Parides hahneli ................... n/a ....................................... Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail.Brazil. 

C ............. 8 ............. Teinopalpus imperialis ........ n/a ....................................... Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail ..... Bhutan, China, India, Laos, 

Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam. 

Dated: April 13, 2007. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–7443 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2