[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 77 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20184-20210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7443]



[[Page 20183]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of 
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual 
Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 20184]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-but-precluded 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 [email protected]. 
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, 
[email protected]; 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-but-precluded 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

[[Page 20185]]

information we have obtained since the previous findings. As a result 
of our review, we find that warranted-but-precluded 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

[[Page 20186]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 20188]]

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 non-discretionary 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 (Fjelds[aring] 1981, as 
cited in O'Donnell and Fjeds[aring] 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

[[Page 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 Fjeds[aring] 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 Ni[ntilde]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

[[Page 20190]]

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 
Renov[aacute]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

[[Page 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 blue-billed 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 blue-billed 
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 (Su[aacute]rez-Seoane and Garc[iacute]a-
Rov[eacute]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

[[Page 20192]]

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 highly-fragmented 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 (Fjelds[aring] 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 (Fjelds[aring] 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 human-induced 
water level changes, which may be adversely affecting the fringe 
vegetation (J. Fjelds[aring] 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. Fjelds[aring] 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 
Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyac[aacute]. 
It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (occasionally as low 
as 2,100 m) in savanna and p[aacute]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; 
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BirdLife International 2006). 
This species is omnivorous, consuming a diet that includes aquatic 
invertebrates, insect larvae, worms, molluscs, dead fish, frogs, 
tadpoles, and plant material (Varty et al. 1986; BirdLife International 
2006).
    The Bogota rail is listed as Endangered by IUCN primarily because 
its range is very small and is contracting 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

[[Page 20193]]

also believed to be a significant threat to the species (BirdLife 
International 2006). Other potential competitors or predators include 
the introduced brush-tailed 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

[[Page 20194]]

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 slender-billed 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 slender-
billed 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

[[Page 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 salmon-crested 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 k[auml]k[auml]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 brush-tailed 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 yellow-crowned parakeet and the 
orange-crowned 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 orange-
fronted parakeet. With such a limited population, NZDOC focuses the 
species program on monitoring the breeding of the wild population and 
captive-breeding 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 predator-free 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 captive-bred birds from the program, NZDOC established a 
population of the orange-fronted parakeet on a predator-free island 
(Chalky Island). Individuals from this population have successfully 
reproduced and reared young. The

[[Page 20196]]

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 old-growth 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 captive-breeding program was initiated to restock the southern 
portion of Uvea. Measures are now being taken to control predators and 
prevent further colonization by rats (BirdLife International 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

[[Page 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 
Corporaci[oacute]n Ornitol[oacute]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 long-term 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.

[[Page 20198]]

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 semi-humid 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 once-believed 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

[[Page 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; 
Fjelds[aring] 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 (Fjelds[aring] 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 (Fjelds[aring] 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 re-forestation projects. Loss of 
Polylepis habitat is the greatest threat to the survival of the white-
browed tit-spinetail (Fjelds[aring] and Kessler 1996, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2000; Rome 2003). International non-government 
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 (Fjelds[aring] 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. Mendon[ccedil]a and L.P. Gonzaga in litt. 2000, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2006), and was believed to be extinct until it 
was

[[Page 20200]]

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 black-hooded 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 Ecol[oacute]gica de Jacarepi[aacute] (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 Ba[iacute]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 old-growth 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 Janda[iacute]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 Ru[iacute]z-
Tolima massif of the central Andes (Caldas, Risaralda, Quind[iacute]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 Quind[iacute]o (Kattan and 
Beltr[aacute]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 Ucumar[iacute] 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 Volc[aacute]n Tolima in 
the R[iacute]o Toche Valley, where it is considered uncommon and local 
(L[oacute]pez-Lan[uacute]s et al. 2000, L[oacute]pez-Lan[uacute]s in 
litt. 2000, 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 R[iacute]o Blanco watershed 
(Caldas) and near Roncesvalles (Tolima) (Renjifo et al. 2002, as cited 
in BirdLife International 2006).
    The greatest threat to the brown-banded antpitta is conversion of 
habitat for agricultural purposes and habitat fragmentation (Wildlife 
Conservation Society 2006, BirdLife International

[[Page 20201]]

2006). Since the 1950s, forested land has been converted to agriculture 
in the R[iacute]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 Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park, Risaralda (Kattan and Beltran 1997, as 
cited in BirdLife International 2006), unlike the R[iacute]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 Goi[aacute]s, the Federal 
District, and Minas Gerais, Brazil (Negret and Cavalcanti 1985, as 
cited in Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1992; BirdLife International 
2000). The Brasilia Tapaculo will occasionally colonize disturbed areas 
near streams (BirdLife International 2003). This species has only been 
recorded locally within Formas in Goi[aacute]s, around Bras[iacute]lia. 
Particular sites where the species has been located, at low densities, 
include Serra Negra (on the upper Dourados River) and the headwaters of 
the S[atilde]o Francisco, both in Minas Gerais; and Serra do 
Cip[oacute] and Cara[ccedil]a in the hills and tablelands of central 
Brazil (BirdLife International 2003).
    Although the species was once considered rare (Sick and Texeira 
1979, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it is now found in reasonable 
numbers in certain areas of Brasilia (D. M. Teixeira, in litt. 1987, as 
cited in Collar et al. 1992). The population is estimated at more than 
10,000 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife 
International 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 km\2\ 
(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 Patrim[ocirc] nio Natural de Volta 
Velha, near Itapo[aacute] 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 well-defined 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, well-defined 
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; Fjelds[aring] and Kessler 1996; BirdLife International 2000). It 
is relatively common in the

[[Page 20202]]

Runtacocha highland, Apurimac, and the Cordillera Vilcabamba, Cuzco 
(Fjelds[aring] 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 (Fjelds[aring] 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 (Fjelds[aring] and Kessler 1996, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2000).
    The Asociaci[oacute]n Armon[iacute]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 tit-tyrant 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 (Asociaci[oacute]n Armon[iacute]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 
Ch[aacute]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 human-induced 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, 
Soci[eacute]t[eacute][eacute] d'Ornithologie de Polyn[eacute]sie 2003). 
Threats include predation by invasive mammals and a lack of habitat 
regeneration (Thibault, personal communication to Philippe Raust, 
Soci[eacute]t[eacute][eacute] d'Ornithologie de Polyn[eacute]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.

[[Page 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 old-growth 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 old-growth forest on Ghizo is still under threat from clearance 
for local use, firewood, and gardens, and the areas of other secondary 
growth, which are sub-optimal 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 non-imminent 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

[[Page 20204]]

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 cage-bird trade (BirdLife 
International 2006).
    The black-backed tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
threat to the species is low to moderate in magnitude due to the 
species' fairly large population size and range. The threat is, 
however, imminent because the species is 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 Renov[aacute]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 Po[ccedil]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

[[Page 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 Po[ccedil]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 Po[ccedil]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 Po[ccedil]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 re-
evaluated 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; Sch[uuml]tz 2000). This species is not listed under 
CITES, nor is it listed on the European Commission's Annex B (Eur-lex 
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).

[[Page 20206]]

    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 S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]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 Po[ccedil]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 
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]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 inter-population gene flow (K. Brown, 
Jr. pers. comm. 2004). Much less is known about the other two 
Fluminense swallowtail populations. The Po[ccedil]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 Po[ccedil]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 S[atilde]o 
Jo[atilde]o, where the best-documented Fluminense swallowtail 
population is located, is within the Maca[eacute] 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). 
Maca[eacute] has been an oil boom town since 1968, supporting offshore 
drilling rigs and the natural gas-fired Maca[eacute] 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 
Maca[eacute] 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 Po[ccedil]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 Po[ccedil]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; Sch[uuml]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 (Eur-Lex 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.

[[Page 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 host-plant 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; Sch[uuml]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 
(Sch[uuml]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 host-plants 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 re-evaluated 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; East-Himalaya.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

[[Page 20208]]

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 Kaiser-I-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 (Sch[uuml]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-I-Hind 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-I-Hind 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

[[Page 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-but-precluded 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            Podicipedidae.....  Junin flightless    Peru.
                                   taczanowskii.                           grebe.
L..............  2..............  Pterodroma          Procellariidae....  Fiji petrel.......  Fiji.
                                   macgillivrayi.
C..............  2..............  Pterodroma          Procellariidae....  Chatham petrel....  Chatham Islands,
                                   axillaris.                                                  New Zealand.
L..............  8..............  Pterodroma cookii.  Procellariidae....  Cook's petrel.....  New Zealand.
L..............  2..............  Pterodroma          Procellariidae....  Galapagos petrel..  Galapagos Islands,
                                   phaeopygia.                                                 Ecuador.
L..............  8..............  Pterodroma          Procellariidae....  magenta petrel....  Chatham Islands,
                                   magentae.                                                   New Zealand.
L..............  11.............  Puffinus heinrothi  Procellariidae....  Heinroth's          Bismarck
                                                                           shearwater.         Archipelago,
                                                                                               Papua New Guinea,
                                                                                               Solomon Islands.
L..............  2..............  Leptoptilos dubius  Ciconiidae........  greater adjutant    South Asia.
                                                                           stork.
L..............  2..............  Phoenicopterus      Phoenicopteridae..  Andean flamingo...  Argentina,
                                   andinus.                                                    Bolivia, Chile,
                                                                                               Peru.
C..............  2..............  Mergus              Anatidae..........  Brazilian           Brazil.
                                   octosetaceus.                           merganser.
C..............  2..............  Penelope perspicax  Craciidae.........  Cauca guan........  Colombia.
C..............  8..............  Pauxi unicornis...  Craciidae.........  southern helmeted   Bolivia, Peru.
                                                                           curassow.
C..............  2..............  Crax alberti......  Craciidae.........  blue-billed         Colombia.
                                                                           curassow.
C..............  3..............  Tetrao urogallus    Tetraonidae.......  Cantabrian          Spain.
                                   cantabricus.                            capercaillie.
C..............  2..............  Odontophorus        Odontophoridae....  gorgeted wood-      Colombia.
                                   strophium.                              quail.
C..............  2..............  Laterallus tuerosi  Rallidae..........  Junin rail........  Peru.
C..............  8..............  Rallus              Rallidae..........  Bogota rail.......  Colombia.
                                   semiplumbeus.
C..............  8..............  Porphyrio           Rallidae..........  takahe............  New Zealand.
                                   hochstetteri.
C..............  8..............  Haematopus          Haematopodidae....  Chatham             Chatham Islands,
                                   chathamensis.                           oystercatcher.      New Zealand.
C..............  2..............  Rhinoptilus         Glareolidae.......  Jerdon's courser..  India.
                                   bitorquatus.
C..............  2..............  Numenius            Scolopacidae......  slender-billed      Africa, Algeria,
                                   tenuirostris.                           curlew.             Bulgaria,
                                                                                               southern Europe,
                                                                                               Greece, Hungary,
                                                                                               Italy,
                                                                                               Kazakhstan,
                                                                                               Morocco, Romania,
                                                                                               Russia, Tunisia,
                                                                                               Turkey, Ukraine,
                                                                                               and Yugoslavia.
C..............  2..............  Ducula galeata....  Columbidae........  Marquesan imperial- Marquesas Islands,
                                                                           pigeon.             French Polynesia.
C..............  2..............  Cacatua             Cacatuidae........  salmon-crested      South Moluccas,
                                   moluccensis.                            cockatoo.           Indonesia.

[[Page 20210]]

 
C..............  4..............  Cyanoramphus        Psittacidae.......  orange-fronted      New Zealand.
                                   malherbi.                               parakeet.
C..............  8..............  Eunymphicus         Psittacidae.......  Uvea parakeet.....  Uvea, New
                                   uvaeensis.                                                  Caledonia.
C..............  8..............  Ara glaucogularis.  Psittacidae.......  blue-throated       Bolivia.
                                                                           macaw.
C..............  3..............  Neomorphus          Cuculidae.........  southeastern        Brazil.
                                   geoffroyi dulcis.                       rufous-vented
                                                                           ground cuckoo.
C..............  3..............  Phaethornis         Trochilidae.......  Margaretta's        Brazil.
                                   malaris                                 hermit.
                                   margarettae.
C..............  3..............  Eriocnemis          Trochilidae.......  black-breasted      Ecuador.
                                   nigrivestis.                            puffleg.
C..............  2..............  Eulidia yarrellii.  Trochilidae.......  Chilean woodstar..  Chile, Peru.
C..............  2..............  Acestrura           Trochilidae.......  Esmeraldas          Ecuador.
                                   berlepschi.                             woodstar.
C..............  8..............  Dryocopus galeatus  Picidae...........  helmeted            Argentina, Brazil,
                                                                           woodpecker.         Paraguay.
C..............  7..............  Dendrocopus         Picidae...........  Okinawa woodpecker  Okinawa Island,
                                   noguchii.                                                   Japan.
C..............  11.............  Aulacorhynchus      Ramphastidae......  yellow-browed       Peru.
                                   huallagae.                              toucanet.
C..............  2..............  Cinclodes aricomae  Furnariidae.......  royal cinclodes...  Bolivia, Peru.
C..............  2..............  Leptasthenura       Furnariidae.......  white-browed tit-   Peru.
                                   xenothorax.                             spinetail.
C..............  2..............  Formicivora         Thamnophilidae....  black-hooded        Brazil.
                                   erythronotos.                           antwren.
C..............  2..............  Pyriglena atra....  Thamnophilidae....  fringe-backed fire- Brazil.
                                                                           eye.
C..............  2..............  Grallaria milleri.  Formicariidae.....  brown-banded        Colombia.
                                                                           antpitta.
C..............  8..............  Scytalopus          Conopophagidae....  Brasilia tapaculo.  Brazil.
                                   novacapitalis.
C..............  2..............  Hemitriccus         Tyrannidae........  Kaempfer's tody-    Brazil.
                                   kaempferi.                              tyrant.
C..............  2..............  Anairetes alpinus.  Tyrannidae........  ash-breasted tit-   Bolivia, Peru.
                                                                           tyrant.
C..............  2..............  Phytotoma           Phytotomidae......  Peruvian            Peru.
                                   raimondii.                              plantcutter.
C..............  3..............  Cichlherminia       Turdidae..........  St. Lucia forest    St. Lucia Island,
                                   iherminieri                             thrush.             West Indies.
                                   sanctaeluciae.
C..............  3..............  Acrocephalus        Sylviidae.........  Eiao Polynesian     Marquesas Islands,
                                   caffer aquilonis.                       warbler.            French Polynesia.
C..............  9..............  Bowdleria punctata  Sylviidae.........  Codfish Island      Codfish Island,
                                   wilsoni.                                fernbird.           New Zealand.
C..............  8..............  Zosterops           Zosteropidae......  Ghizo white-eye...  Solomon Islands.
                                   luteirostris.
C..............  11.............  Camarhynchus        Thraupidae........  medium tree-finch.  Floreana Island,
                                   pauper.                                                     Galapagos
                                                                                               Islands, Ecuador.
C..............  2..............  Nemosia rourei....  Thraupidae........  cherry-throated     Brazil.
                                                                           tanager.
C..............  8..............  Tangara peruviana.  Thraupidae........  black-backed        Brazil.
                                                                           tanager.
C..............  12.............  Strepera graculina  Cracticidae.......  Lord Howe pied      Lord Howe Islands,
                                   crissalis.                              currawong.          New South Wales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Invertebrates status
---------------------------------   Scientific name        Synonyms           Common name       Historic range
    Category         Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C..............  12.............  Eurytides           Graphium lysithous  Harris' mimic       Brazil, Paraguay.
                                   lysithous           harrisianus;        swallowtail.
                                   harrisianus.        Mimoides
                                                       lysithous
                                                       harrisianus.
C..............  8..............  Eurytides           Graphium            Jamaican kite       Jamaica.
                                   marcellinus.        marcellinus;        swallowtail.
                                                       Neographium
                                                       marcellinus;
                                                       Protographi um
                                                       marcellinus (nom.
                                                       inv.);
                                                       Protesilaus
                                                       marcellinus.
C..............  5..............  Parides ascanius..  n/a...............  Fluminense          Brazil.
                                                                           swallowtail.
C..............  11.............  Parides hahneli...  n/a...............  Hahnel's Amazonian  Brazil.
                                                                           swallowtail.
C..............  8..............  Teinopalpus         n/a...............  Kaiser-I-Hind       Bhutan, China,
                                   imperialis.                             swallowtail.        India, Laos,
                                                                                               Myanmar, Nepal,
                                                                                               Thailand,
                                                                                               Vietnam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: 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