[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44062-44099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17215]



[[Page 44061]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 29, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 44062]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[96000-1671-0000-B6]


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we announce our annual petition 
findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) 
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to 
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, 
we must complete a new status review each year until we publish a 
proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. 
These subsequent status reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings 
are referred to as ``resubmitted'' petition findings.
    Information contained in this notice describes our status review of 
50 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2007 Notice of 
Review (72 FR 20184). Based on our current review, we find that 20 
species (see Table 1) continue to warrant listing, but that their 
listing remains precluded by higher-priority listing actions. For 30 
species previously found to be warranted but precluded, the petitioned 
action is now warranted. We will promptly publish listing proposals for 
those 30 species (see Table 1).
    With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting 
additional status information for the 20 taxa that remain warranted but 
precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will consider this 
information in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted 
petition findings for these 20 taxa. This information will also help us 
to monitor the status of the taxa and in conserving them.

DATES: We will accept comments on these resubmitted petition findings 
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, information, and questions by mail to 
the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, Virginia 22203; by 
fax to 703-358-2276; or by e-mail to [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: Mary M. Cogliano, PhD, at the above 
address or by telephone 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. First, we can identify and propose for listing those species 
that are endangered or threatened based on the factors contained in 
section 4(a)(1). We implement this through the candidate program. 
Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have sufficient information 
on file relating to biological vulnerability and threats to support a 
proposal to list the taxa as endangered or threatened, but for which 
preparation and publication of a proposed rule is precluded by higher-
priority listing actions. None of the species covered by this notice 
were assessed through the candidate program; they were the result of 
public petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), which is the other mechanism 
for considering species for listing.
    Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a listing 
petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent 
practicable, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted (90-day finding). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we 
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the 
species, whereby, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act we 
must make one of three findings within 12 months of the receipt of the 
petition (12-month finding). The first possible 12-month finding is 
that listing is not warranted, in which case we need not take any 
further action on the petition. The second possibility is that we may 
find that listing is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish 
a proposed rule to list the species. Once we publish a proposed rule 
for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further procedures, 
regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to the 
petition. The third possibility is that we may find that listing is 
warranted but precluded. A warranted-but-precluded finding on a 
petition to list means that listing is warranted, but that the 
immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is 
precluded by higher priority listing actions. In making a warranted-but 
precluded finding under the Act, the Service must demonstrate that 
expeditious progress is being made to add and remove species from the 
lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
    Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in response to 
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, 
we must make a new 12-month finding annually until we publish a 
proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. 
These subsequent 12-month findings are referred to as ``resubmitted'' 
petition findings. This notice contains our resubmitted petition 
findings for all foreign species previously described in the 2007 
Notice of Review (72 FR 20184) and that are currently the subject of 
outstanding petitions.

Previous Notices

    The species discussed in this notice were the result of three 
separate petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) to list a number of foreign bird and butterfly species as 
threatened or endangered under the Act. We received petitions to list 
foreign bird species on November 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 26464 
and 56 FR 65207, respectively). On January 10, 1994, we received a 
petition to list 7 butterfly species as threatened or endangered (59 FR 
24117).
    We took several actions on these petitions. To notify the public on 
these actions, we published petition findings, listing rules, status 
reviews, and petition finding reviews that included foreign species in 
the Federal Register on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464); January 20, 1984 
(49 FR 2485); May 10, 1985 (50 FR 19761); January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996); 
July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746); April 25, 
1990 (55 FR 17475); September 28, 1990 (55 FR 39858); November 21, 1991 
(56 FR 58664); December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65207); March 28, 1994 (59 FR 
14496); May 10, 1994 (59 FR 24117); January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899); and 
May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). Our most recent review of petition findings 
was published on April 23, 2007 (72 FR 20184).
    Since our last review of petition findings, we have taken two 
listing actions related to this notice (see Preclusion and Expeditious 
Progress section for additional listing actions that were not related 
to this notice). On

[[Page 44063]]

December 17, 2007, we published a proposed rule to list 6 species of 
foreign Procellariids under the Act (72 FR 71298). We also published a 
final rule on January 16, 2008, to list 6 foreign bird species as 
endangered under the Act (73 FR 3146).

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions

    This notice describes our resubmitted petition findings for 50 
foreign species for which we had previously found proposed listing to 
be warranted but precluded. We have considered all of the new 
information that we have obtained since the previous findings, and we 
have updated the listing priority number (LPN) of each taxon for which 
proposed listing continues to be warranted but precluded, in accordance 
with our Listing Priority Guidance published September 21, 1983 (48 FR 
43098). Such a priority ranking guidance system is required under 
section 4(h)(3) of the Act. Using this guidance, we assign each taxon 
an LPN of 1 to 12, whereby we first categorize based on the magnitude 
of the threat(s) (high versus moderate-to-low), then by the immediacy 
of the threat(s) (imminent versus nonimminent), and finally by 
taxonomic status; the lower the listing priority number, the higher the 
listing priority (i.e., a species with an LPN of 1 would have the 
highest listing priority).
    As a result of our review of 50 foreign species, we find that 
warranted-but-precluded findings remain appropriate for 20 species. We 
emphasize that we are not proposing these species for listing by this 
notice, but we do anticipate developing and publishing proposed listing 
rules for these species in the future, with an objective of making 
expeditious progress in addressing all 20 of these foreign species 
within a reasonable timeframe.
    Also as a result of this review, we find that proposing 30 taxa for 
listing under the Act is warranted. We will promptly publish proposals 
to list these 30 taxa, listed below in taxonomic order: Jun[iacute]n 
flightless grebe (Podiceps taczanowskii), greater adjutant stork 
(Leptoptilos dubius), Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus), 
Brazilian merganser (Mergus octosetaceus), Caucau Guan (Crax alberti), 
blue-billed curassow (Penelope perspicax), Cantabrian capercaillie 
(Tetrao urogallus cantabricus), gorgeted wood-quail (Odontophorus 
strophium), Jun[iacute]n rail (Laterallus tuerosi), Jerdon's Courser 
(Rhinoptilus bitorquatus), slender billed curlew (Numenius 
tenuirostris), Marquesan imperial pigeon (Ducula galeata), salmon-
crested cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis), southeastern rufous-vented 
ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis), Margaretta's hermit 
(Phaethornis malaris margarettae), black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis 
nigrivestis), Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), Esmeraldas woodstar 
(Chaetocerus berlepschi), royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae), white-
browed tit-spinetail (Leptasthenura xenothorax), black-hooded antwren 
(Formicivora erythronotos), fringe-backed fire-eye (Pyriglena atra), 
brown-banded antpitta (Grallaria milleri), Kaempfer's tody-tyrant 
(Hemitriccus kaempferi), ash-breasted tit-tyrant (Anairetes alpinus), 
Peruvian plantcutter (Phytotoma raimondii), St. Lucia forest thrush 
(Cichlherminia herminieri sanctaeluciae), Eiao Polynesian warbler 
(Acrocephalus cafier aquilonis), medium tree-finch (Camarhynchus 
pauper), and cherry-throated tanager (Nemosia rourei).
    Our warranted finding is based on a species' LPN, as well as a 
recent court order. We have found all taxa with LPNs of 2 or 3, as 
reported in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184), to be warranted 
for proposed listing under the Act, because these species face threats 
that are both imminent and high in magnitude. In addition to the LPN 
directing our findings, on January 23, 2008, the United States District 
Court ordered the Service to propose listing rules for five foreign 
bird species, actions which had been previously determined to be 
warranted but precluded: the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), 
Andean flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus), medium tree-finch 
(Camarhynchus pauper), black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis), 
and the St. Lucia forest thrush (Cichlherminia herminieri 
sanctaeluciae). Of these five species, only one, the medium tree-finch 
(Camarhynchus pauper), did not have an LPN number of 2 or 3. To comply 
with the court-order, however, we are declaring the medium tree-finch 
to be warranted for proposed listing at this time, in addition to the 
29 species that were reported with LPNs of 2 or 3 in our 2007 Notice of 
Review, for which we have already begun to prepare proposed listing 
rules.
    Based on our review of 50 species, we did not find any taxa to be 
no longer warranted for listing. Table 1 provides a summary of all 
updated determinations of the 50 taxa in our review. Any changes in LPN 
are explained in the species summaries in the text of this notice. Taxa 
in Table 1 of this notice are assigned to two status categories, noted 
in the ``Category'' column at the left side of the table. We identify 
the taxa for which we find that listing is warranted but precluded by a 
``C'' in the category column, referring to these taxa as ``candidates'' 
under the Act. The other category is for those species for which we 
find that proposed listing is warranted, and we designate these taxa 
with a ``P,'' indicating that proposed rules to list these taxa under 
the Act will be published promptly. The column labeled ``Priority'' 
indicates the LPN for all taxa for which proposed listing is warranted 
but precluded. Following the scientific name of each taxon (third 
column) is the family designation (fourth column) and the common name, 
if one exists (fifth column). The sixth column provides the known 
historic range for the taxon. The avian species in Table 1 are listed 
taxonomically.

Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted

    Below are our 12-month resubmitted petition findings on the 30 taxa 
found by this notice to be warranted for proposed listing under the 
Act.

Birds

Jun[iacute]n Flightless Grebe (Podiceps taczanowskii)
    The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe is endemic to Lake Junon, a large 
lake that covers 35,385 acres (ac) (14,320 hectares (ha)) in the 
central Andes of Peru at 13,386 feet (ft) (4,080 meters (m)) above sea 
level (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Fjelds[aring] 2004; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 
1990; INRENA 1996). Historically, the species was likely distributed 
throughout the lake, but it is now absent from the northwest portion of 
the lake due to contamination from mining wastes (Fjelds[aring] 1981).
    The lake is bordered by extensive reed marshes and reaches a depth 
of 32.8 ft (10 m) at the center. The reed marshes are continuous in 
some areas of the lake shore, but they form a mosaic with stretches of 
open water in other areas. Considerable stretches of the lake are 
shallow, supporting dense growth of stonewort (Chara spp.) (del Hoyo et 
al. 1992). The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe prefers open lake habitat 
and remains in the center of the lake when it is not breeding. During 
the breeding season, however, it nests in stands of tall Scirpus 
californicus tatora or bays and channels along the outer edge of the 
reed marshes surrounding the lake (O'Donnel and Fjeds[aring] 1997). The 
Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe feeds predominantly on fish (Orestias 
spp.), which constitute approximately 90 percent of its diet (del Hoyo 
et al. 1992).
    The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe has experienced dramatic 
population

[[Page 44064]]

declines since the early 1960s when there were at least 1,000 
individuals (F. Gill and R.W. Storer, as cited in Fjelds[aring] 2004). 
Prior to the 1960s, the Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe had been 
described as ``extremely abundant on the lake'' (Morrison 1939). 
However, by 1979, the population was estimated to be 250 to 300 birds, 
indicating a rapid and extensive decline (Harris 1981, as cited in 
O'Donnell and Fjelds[aring] 1997). From 1979 through 2004, population 
estimates fluctuated between 50 to 375 birds (J. Fjelds[aring] 2005, as 
cited in Butchart et al. 2006; O'Donnel and Fjelds[aring] 1997). In 
2004, the population estimate was 100 to 300 birds (BirdLife 
International 2007); however, in dry years (e.g., 1983-1987, 1991, 
1994-1997), the population was reduced to 100 birds or fewer (Elton 
2000; Fjelds[aring] 2004). Short-term population increases ranging from 
200 to 300 birds have occurred in years with high rainfall levels 
related to the El Ni[ntilde]o Southern-Oscillation (ENSO) (1997-1998 
and 2001-2002) (T. Valqui and PROFONANPE 2002, as cited in 
Fjelds[aring] 2004). In 2007, the population once more declined due to 
a high-mortality weather event (Hirschfeld 2007).
    The Jun[iacute]n flightless grebe is considered ``Critically 
Endangered'' by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of 
Nature) Red List because of the species' rapid decline, highly 
restricted range, and increasing exposure to contaminants produced by 
the mining industry (Birdlife International 2006). Variations in lake 
water levels of up to 23 ft (7 m) at a time are linked to electrical 
power generation by a local hydroelectric power station. These water-
level fluctuations have reduced prey populations, resulting in 
increased food competition with white-tufted grebes (Rollandia 
rolland). Frequent manipulation and drawdowns of the lake's water level 
also prevent foraging, nest building, and breeding in drought years 
(BirdLife International 2007). In addition, contamination from mining 
wastes (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Martin and McNee 1999) has reduced the 
amount of available habitat in the northern section of the lake by 
diminishing or eliminating stands of submerged aquatic vegetation 
(Fjelds[aring] 2004; ParksWatch 2006). Greater concentration of 
contaminants in the lake as a result of droughts (T. Valqui and J. 
Barrio in litt. 1992, as cited in Collar et al. 1992) has coincided 
with mortality of Jun[iacute]n flightless grebes (T. Valqui and J. 
Barrio in litt. 1992, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and is believed 
either to have directly caused the mortalities or to have resulted in 
mortality of the grebes by reducing their prey (Fjelds[aring] 2004). 
Threats to this species and its habitat continue, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Greater Adjutant Stork (Leptoptilos dubius)
    The current range of the greater adjutant stork consists of two 
breeding populations, one in India and the other in Cambodia. Recent 
sighting records of this species from the neighboring countries of 
Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand are presumed to be wandering 
birds from one of the two populations in India or Cambodia (Birdlife 
International 2007).
    The greater adjutant stork frequents marshes, lakes, paddy fields, 
and open forest, and may also be found in dry areas, such as grasslands 
and fields. In India, much of the native habitat has been lost. The 
greater adjutant stork often occurs close to urban areas, feeding in 
and around wetlands in the breeding season, and disperses to feed on 
carcasses and to scavenge at trash dumps, burial grounds, and slaughter 
houses at other times of the year. The natural diet of the greater 
adjutant stork consists primarily of fish, frogs, reptiles, small 
mammals and birds, crustaceans, and carrion (BirdLife International 
2007; Singha and Rahman 2006).
    This species breeds in colonies during the dry season (winter) in 
stands of tall trees near water sources. In India, the breeding sites 
are commonly associated with bamboo forests which provide protection 
from wind (Singha et al. 2002). The greater adjutant stork constructs 
platform nests made of sticks in the upper lateral limbs of large trees 
(Singha et al. 2002). In Cambodia, the greater adjutant stork breeds in 
freshwater flooded forest and disperses to seasonally inundated forest, 
tall wet grasslands, mangroves, and intertidal flats to forage. At the 
Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary, it is known to nest only in evergreen 
forests (Clements et al. 2007b). At two breeding sites near the city of 
Guwahati in the State of Assam, the most recent survey data show that 
the number of breeding birds has declined from 247 birds in 2005 to 118 
birds in 2007 (Hindu 2007).
    During the nineteenth century, there were vast colonies of millions 
of greater adjutant storks in Burma, and del Hoyo et al. (1992) noted 
that in Calcutta there was ``almost one [stork] on every roof.'' 
However, during the twentieth century the species experienced a rapid 
decline, and currently the population estimate is 800 to 1,000 birds in 
two very small and highly disjunct breeding populations (BirdLife 
International 2007). The greater adjutant stork is classified as 
``Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International 2007).
    Identified risks to this species include habitat destruction, 
particularly lowland deforestation and the felling of nest trees (Hindu 
2007; Singha et al. 2002; Singha et al. 2006; WCS 2007); habitat 
modification from flooding and hydrological changes brought about by 
Mekong River dam development (Clements et al. 2007b; WCS 2007); direct 
exploitation, such as hunting and egg collection from nesting colonies 
(Clements et al. 2007a); and drainage, agricultural conversion, 
pollution, and over-exploitation of wetlands (BirdLife International 
2007; Clements et al. 2007; Singha et al. 2003). The Assam population 
is also negatively impacted by the loss of a readily available food 
source, due to the reduced number of open rubbish dumps for the 
disposal of carcasses and foodstuffs (BirdLife International 2007). 
Threats to this species and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Andean Flamingo (Phoenicoparrus andinus)
    The Andean flamingo is the rarest of six flamingo species worldwide 
and one of three endemic to the high Andes of South America (Arengo in 
litt. 2007; Caziani et al. 2007; del Hoyo et al. 1992; Johnson et al. 
1958; Johnson 1967; Line 2004). The Andean flamingo is found in lakes 
in the Andean altiplano (high plains) from southern Peru and 
southwestern Bolivia to northern Chile and northwest Argentina. A small 
section of the population winters in the lowlands of central Argentina, 
mainly at Mar Chiquita Lake (Blake 1977; Bucher 1992; Boyle et al. 
2004; Caziani et al. 2006; Caziani et al. 2007; Fjelds[aring] and 
Krabbe 1990; Hurlbert and Keith 1979; Kahl 1975). There have been 
several documented occurrences of Andean flamingos in Brazil, but it is 
unclear whether the species is accidental or a more frequent visitor 
(Bornschein and Reinert 1996; Sick 1993).
    Andean flamingo habitat consists of plankton-rich, high-elevation, 
shallow lakes and salt flats (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990). The range 
of the species becomes more restricted in the winter as low 
temperatures and aridity seasonally inhibit the suitability of some 
wetlands (Caziani et al. 2007; Mascitti and Bonaventura 2002). The 
Andean flamingo feeds in large flocks on diatoms of the genus Surirella 
from the benthic interface in water less than 3 ft (1 m) deep (Hurlbert 
and Chang 1983; Mascitti and Casta[ntilde]era 2006; Mascitti and 
Kravetz 2002).

[[Page 44065]]

    Population assessments for this species vary greatly. In 1967, 
Charles Cordier estimated the number of Andean flamingos to be 250,000 
to 300,000 birds (Johnson 1967). Kahl (1975) reviewed previous 
estimates and noted that Cordier's 1965 and 1968 population estimates 
varied by an order of magnitude (from 50,000 to 500,000) during that 
same time period. By 1986, R. Schlatter estimated the population to be 
fewer than 50,000 individuals, with a declining population trend 
(Johnson 2000). However, the accuracy of these early estimates has 
never been confirmed, making it difficult to establish trends.
    Using a comprehensive sampling design and conducting simultaneous 
surveys at over 200 wetlands in Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, 
Caziani et al. (2007) counted 33,918 Andean flamingos in January 1997; 
27,913 in January 1998; 14,722 in June 1998; and 24,442 in July 2000. 
In the summer of 2005, Caziani et al. (2006) reported 31,617 Andean 
flamingos distributed throughout 25 wetlands, with 50 percent of the 
population located in five wetlands in Chile and Bolivia.
    Long-lived species with slow rates of reproduction, such as the 
Andean flamingo, may appear to have robust populations, but can rapidly 
decline if reproduction does not keep pace with mortality. Andean 
flamingo recruitment was very low from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, 
averaging only 800 chicks per year from 1988 through 1997. Recruitment 
appears to have improved in recent years, with a total of 13,201 Andean 
flamingo chicks hatched from 1997 through 2001 (Caziani et al. 2007), 
and an average of 3,000 chicks per year has fledged since 2000 (Amado 
et al. 2007 as cited in Arengo in litt. 2007). However, in some years 
breeding success is extremely limited; in 1997, only 200 chicks were 
observed to have hatched (Caziani et al. 2007). The reasons for such 
variation appear to be related to annual climatic conditions (Caziani 
et al. 2007). When climatic conditions are favorable, breeding takes 
place, whereas, when climatic conditions are unfavorable breeding is 
abandoned, very limited, or takes place at alternative breeding 
grounds, which tend to be less productive (Bucher et al. 2000).
    The IUCN categorizes the Andean flamingo as ``Vulnerable'' because 
it has undergone a rapid population decline, it is exposed to ongoing 
exploitation and declines in habitat quality, and finally, although 
previous exploitation has decreased, the longevity and slow breeding of 
flamingos suggest that the legacy of past threats may persist through 
future generations (BirdLife International 2007).
    Experts consider the greatest threats to the Andean flamingo to be 
habitat degradation caused by mining, agricultural, and residential/
urban development, and tourism (Arengo in litt. 2007). Mining takes 
place in or near many of the wetlands occupied by the Andean flamingo, 
including successful breeding sites (Corporaci[oacute]n Nacional 
Forestal 1996a; Soto 1996; Ugarte-Nunez and Mosaurieta-Echegaray 2000). 
Loss of habitat due to excavations in the lakebed and extraction of 
water are attributed to mining, which also causes extensive degradation 
of water quality. Chemical pollution produced by the mining and 
metallurgical industries and recent petroleum spills are also 
responsible for the degradation of water resources (OAS/UNEP and ALT 
1999, as cited in Rocha 2002). Pollution from mining wastes has been 
reported as a risk factor to flamingos in Argentina (Laredo 1990 as 
cited in Administraci[oacute]n de Parques Nacionales 1994), although it 
was not reported whether the risk was due to direct mortality of 
flamingos or due to a reduction in their food supply. In Chile, where 
Andean flamingo breeding colonies are concentrated and where mineral 
and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation have increased in the last 
two decades, both the number of successful breeding colonies and the 
total production of chicks of Andean Flamingos have declined since the 
1980s (Parada 1992, Rodr[iacute]guez and Contreras 1998, as cited in 
Caziani et al. 2007).
    Water consumption for agriculture and domestic use can cause 
serious declines in water levels at important breeding sites (Messerli 
et al. 1997), and increased tourism is likely to further stress already 
tenuous water budgets as hotels and restaurants are established (RIDES 
2005). Other potential risks to the species include overutilization of 
individuals (Valqui et al. 2000) and eggs (Caziani et al. 2007) as a 
food resource and collection of feathers (Valqui et al. 2000). Threats 
to the Andean flamingo and its habitat continue, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Brazilian Merganser (Mergus octosetaceus)
    The Brazilian merganser is a diving duck that occurred historically 
in riverine habitats throughout southern Brazil, northeastern 
Argentina, and eastern Paraguay (Hughes et al. 2006). The species is 
considered extinct in Mato Grosso do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, 
and Santa Catarina (BirdLife International 2007). There is only one 
recent record of the species from Misiones, Argentina (Benstead 1994; 
Hearn 1994, as cited in Collar et al. 1994), and it was last recorded 
in Paraguay in 1984 (BirdLife International 2007).
    Currently the species is found in extremely low numbers at six 
highly disjunct localities, of which five are in southeastern Brazil, 
and one is in northeastern Argentina and, possibly, extreme eastern 
Paraguay (BirdLife International 2007; Hughes et al. 2006). The species 
inhabits shallow clear-water streams and rapid rivers, preferably 
surrounded by dense tropical forests, and it is believed to be a highly 
sedentary, monogamous species, presumably maintaining its territory all 
year (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Bruno et al. 2006; Ducks Unlimited 2007; 
Hughes et al. 2006). The Brazilian merganser is a good swimmer and 
diver, and feeds primarily on fish, and occasionally aquatic insects 
and snails (Collar et al. 1992).
    Recent records from Brazil and a newly discovered northern range 
extension indicate that the status of this species is better than 
previously considered, as several highly disjunct populations were 
located in 2002 (BirdLife International 2007; Hughes et al. 2006). 
However, the IUCN categorizes the species as ``Critically Endangered'' 
(BirdLife International 2007). Additionally, the population is 
estimated at between 50 to 249 individuals, and the trend is decreasing 
(BirdLife International 2007).
    Identified risks to the species include habitat loss and 
degradation, fragmentation, and hydrological changes with perturbation 
and pollution of rivers, which are predominately the result of 
deforestation, agriculture, and diamond mining in the Serra da Canastra 
area (Bianchi et al. 2005; Bartmann 1994 and 1996, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2007; Bruno et al. 2006; Collar et al. 1994; Ducks 
Unlimited 2007; Hughes et al. 2006; Lamas and Santos 2004). Each 
breeding pair of Brazilian mergansers requires relatively long segments 
of river--up to ca. 7.5 miles (mi) (12 kilometers (km))--and the 
species is sensitive to human disturbance, including activities 
associated with expanded human presence such as tourism and scientific 
research programs (Braz et al. 2003; Bruno et al. 2006). Dam 
construction has destroyed suitable habitat, especially in Brazil and 
Paraguay (BirdLife International 2007). The species is highly adapted 
to shallow, rapid-flowing riverine conditions and, therefore, cannot 
tolerate the lacustrine (i.e., lake-like) conditions of reservoirs

[[Page 44066]]

that result from dam-building activities within their occupied range 
(Hughes et al. 2006).
    The Brazilian merganser is legally protected in Brazil, and four of 
Brazil's protected areas represent the major sites where the species 
occurs (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Hughes et al. 2006). These sites are 
critical for protecting some of the key remaining subpopulations of the 
Brazilian merganser (del Hoyo et al. 1992; Braz et al. 2003; Bianchi et 
al. 2005; Bruno et al. 2006; BirdLife International 2007). The 
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais 
Renov[aacute]veis (IBAMA) in Brazil has established eight committees to 
develop and monitor conservation strategies for the country's 
``endangered'' species, including the Brazilian merganser (Marinia and 
Garcia 2004). These committees developed an Action Plan for 
Conservation of the Brazilian Merganser, which has recently been 
published by the government of Brazil (Hughes et al. 2006). Despite 
these protections, threats to the Brazilian merganser continue. 
Therefore, we find that proposing this species for listing under the 
Act is warranted.
Cauca Guan (Penelope perspicax)
    The Cauca guan is a medium-sized cracid with a bright red dewlap. 
It is dull brownish-gray, with mainly chestnut rear parts. It has 
whitish-scaled feather edges from head to mantle and breast (BirdLife 
International 2008). The Cauca guan is endemic to the slopes of the 
west and central Andes (Risaralda, Quindio, Valle del Cauca, and Cauca) 
in Colombia (Collar et al. 1992). The historic range is estimated to 
have been approximately 9,614 mi\2\ (24,900 km\2\) (Renjifo 2002). In 
the early part of the twentieth century, the Cauca guan inhabited the 
dry forests of the Cauca, Dagua, and Pat[iacute]a Valleys (Renjifo 
2002). Today, most of the dry forests have been eliminated or highly 
fragmented, such that continuous forest exists only above 6,562 ft 
(2,000 m) (Renjifo 2002). At the beginning of the twentieth century 
through the 1950s, the species was considered common (Renjifo 2002; 
BirdLife International 2007). Between the 1970s and 1980s, there was 
extensive deforestation in the Cauca Valley, and the species went 
unobserved during this time, leading researchers to suspect that the 
Cauca guan was either extinct or on the verge of extinction (Brooks and 
Strahl 2000; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Hilty 1985; Hilty and Brown 1986). 
The species was rediscovered in 1987 (Renjifo 2002). In the late 1990s, 
Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park was considered the stronghold of the 
species (BirdLife International 2007). However, the species has not 
been observed again in that location since 1995 (Wege and Long 1995).
    Cauca guan populations are characterized as small, containing only 
tens of individuals or, in rare instances, hundreds (Renjifo 2002). 
BirdLife International (2007) reported that the largest subpopulation 
contained an estimated 50 to 249 individuals; however, they did not 
specify to which population this refers, and these figures are not 
found in any other literature regarding population surveys of the Cauca 
guan. Kattan et al. (2006) conducted the only two population surveys in 
2000 and 2001 (Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006). They estimated population 
densities at two locations--Ot[uacute]n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna 
Sanctuary (Risaralda) and Reserva Forestal de Yotoco (Valle de Cauca)--
to be between 144 and 264 individuals and 35 to 61 individuals, 
respectively (Kattan et al. 2006). Kattan et al. (2006) examined 10 
additional localities, based on locality data reported by Renjifo 
(2002). Visual confirmations were made at only 2 of the 10 localities, 
and auditory confirmations were made at 5 of the 10 localities (Kattan 
et al. 2006). In 2006, Kattan (in litt., as cited in Mu[ntilde]oz et 
al. 2006) estimated the global population to be between 196 and 342 
individuals. The IUCN categorizes the species as ``Endangered'' due to 
its small, contracted range, composed of widely fragmented patches of 
habitat (BirdLife International 2007) and considers the overall 
population to be in decline (BirdLife International 2007; Kattan 2004; 
Renjifo 2002). The Cauca guan is listed as ``Endangered'' under 
Colombian law, which prohibits commercial and sport hunting of the 
species (ECOLEX 2007). The level of enforcement is uncertain, however, 
despite this protection. Poaching continues to be a problem for the 
Cauca guan and may play a role in the possible local extirpation of the 
species from at least two protected areas (Collar et al. 1992; del Hoyo 
et al. 1994; Strahl et al. 1995).
    Extensive habitat destruction and fragmentation since the 1950s 
have resulted in an estimated 95 percent range reduction of this 
species (Chapman 1917; Collar et al. 1992; Kattan et al. 2006; Renjifo 
2002; Rios et al. 2006). As a result, although it prefers mature, 
tropical, humid forests, the Cauca guan exists primarily in fragmented 
and isolated secondary forest remnants, forest edges, and in 
plantations of the nonnative Chinese ash trees (Fraxinus chinensis) 
that are located within 0.62 mi (1 km) of primary forest (Renjifo 2002; 
Kattan et al. 2006; Rios et al. 2006). Its current range is estimated 
to be less than 290 mi\2\ (750 km\2\), of which only 216 mi\2\ (560 
km\2\) is considered suitable habitat (BirdLife International 2007; 
Kattan et al. 2006; Rios et al. 2006). It is estimated that more than 
30 percent of this loss of habitat has occurred within the species' 
last 3 generations (30 years) (Renjifo 2002), and recent studies 
indicate that the rate of habitat destruction is accelerating (Butler 
2006; FAO 2003).
    Cauca guans, the largest birds in their area of distribution, are 
considered among those species most rapidly depleted by hunting 
(Redford 1992; Renjifo 2002). It serves as a major source of 
subsistence protein for indigenous people (Brooks and Strahl 2000), 
although hunting by local residents is illegal (del Hoyo et al. 1994; 
Mu[ntilde]oz et al. 2006; Renjifo 2002; Rios et al. 2006). Threats to 
the Cauca guan and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing 
this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Blue-Billed Curassow (Crax alberti)
    The blue-billed curassow is a large, mainly black, terrestrial 
cracid. The species historically occurred in northern Colombia, from 
the base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, west to the Sin[uacute] 
valley, through the R[iacute]o Magdalena (BirdLife International 2007; 
Cuervo and Salaman 1999; del Hoyo et al. 1994). The species' historic 
range encompassed an approximate area of 41,197 mi\2\ (106,700 km\2\) 
(Cuervo 2002). There were no confirmed observations of blue-billed 
curassows between 1978 and 1997 (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001), and 
surveys conducted in 1998 failed to locate any males (BirdLife 
International 2007), prompting researchers to believe the species to be 
extinct in the wild (del Hoyo et al. 1994). However, a series of 
observations reported in 1993 were later confirmed (Cuervo 2002).
    The current range of the blue-billed curassow is estimated to be 
807 mi\2\ (2,090 km\2\) (BirdLife International 2007) of fragmented, 
disjunct, and isolated tropical, moist, and humid lowlands and 
premontane forested foothills in the Rio Magdalena and lower Cauca 
Valleys of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Mountains, where it feeds 
on fruit, shoots, invertebrates, and possibly carrion. The species is 
more commonly found below 1,968 ft (600 m) (del Hoyo et al. 1994), but 
can be found at elevations up to 3,937 ft (1,200 m) (Collar et al. 
1992; Cuervo and Salaman 1999; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Donegan and 
Huertas 2005; Salaman et al. 2001).

[[Page 44067]]

    In 1993, sightings were reported in the northern Departments of 
C[oacute]rdoba (at La Terretera, near Alto Sin[uacute]) and 
Bol[iacute]var (in the Serran[iacute]a de San Jacinto) (Williams in 
litt., as cited in BirdLife International 2007). Additional 
observations were made in the northernmost Department of La Guajira in 
2003 (in the Valle de San Salvador Valley) (Strewe and Navarro 2003). 
More recently, individuals have been observed in the tropical forests 
of the more central Departments of Antioqu[iacute]a, and Santander and 
Boyac[aacute] Departments, and in the southeastern Department of Cauca 
(BirdLife International 2007; Cuervo 2002; Donegan and Huertas 2005; 
Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006). Experts 
consider the most important refugia for this species to be: (1) 
Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas (Antioqu[iacute]a); (2) Paramillo National 
Park (Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba Departments); (3) Bajo Cauca-
Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve (Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba 
Departments); and (4) Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas Bird Reserve 
(Santander and Boyac[aacute] Departments) (BirdLife International 2007; 
Cuervo 2002).
    The blue-billed curassow is categorized as ``Critically 
Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List (BirdLife International 2007) and is 
considered a ``Critically Endangered'' species under Colombian law, 
pursuant to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of the Law 99 of 1993, as 
outlined in Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (ECOLEX 2007b). The blue-billed 
curassow is identified as an immediate conservation priority by the 
Cracid Specialist Group (Brooks and Strahl 2000). There is little 
information on population numbers for the various reported localities. 
In 2003, the population at Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas 
(Boyac[aacute] Department) was estimated to be between 250 and 1,000 
birds. The only other information on the subpopulation level is a 
report from Strewe and Navarro (2003), based on field studies conducted 
between 2000 and 2001, that hunting had nearly extirpated the blue-
billed curassow from a site in San Salvador. In 1994, the IUCN 
estimated the blue-billed curassow population at between 1,000 and 
2,499 individuals (BirdLife International 2007). In 2001, Brooks and 
Gonzalez-Garcia (2001) estimated the total population to be much less 
than 2,000 individuals. In 2002, it was estimated that the species had 
lost 88 percent of its habitat and half of its population within the 
species' previous 3 generations (30 years) (Cuervo 2002).
    Rapid deforestation and habitat loss throughout the lowland forests 
across northern Colombia over the past 100 years has extirpated the 
blue-billed curassow from a large portion of its previous range and 
continues to impact remaining populations (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 
2001; Collar et al. 1992; Cuervo and Salaman 1999). Additionally, oil 
extraction, gold mining, government defoliation of illegal drug crops, 
and increased human encroachment put the blue-billed curassow at risk 
(BirdLife International 2007). Blue-billed curassows are hunted by 
indigenous people and local residents for sustenance, sport, trade, and 
entertainment (Brooks 2006; Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001; Brooks and 
Strahl 2000; Cuervo and Salaman 1999), involving the species at all 
life stages, with eggs and chicks collected in some areas for sale at 
local markets or for domestic use (Brooks 2006; Cuervo 2002). Threats 
to the blue-billed curassow and its habitat are ongoing, and we find 
that proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Cantabrian Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus)
    The Cantabrian capercaillie is a subspecies of the western 
capercaillie (T. ugogallus). Currently it is restricted to the 
Cantabrian Mountains in northwest Spain. This grouse's range is 
separated by the Pyrenees Mountains from its nearest neighboring 
capercaillie subspecies (T. u. aquitanus) by a distance of more than 
186 mi (300 km) (Quevedo et al. 2006).
    The Cantabrian capercaillie occurs in mature beech forests (Fagus 
sylvatica) and mixed beech and oak forests (Quercus robur, Q. petraea, 
and Q. pyrenaica) at elevations ranging from 2,625 to 5,900 ft (800 to 
1,800 m). The Cantabrian capercaillie also inhabits other microhabitat 
types such as broom (Genista spp.), meadow, and heath (Erica spp.) 
selectively throughout the year (Quevedo et al. 2006). Bilberry 
(Vaccinium myrtillus) is an important component of its diet, and it 
also feeds on beech buds, catkins of birch (Betrula alba), and holly 
leaves (Ilex aquifolium) (Rodriguez and Obeso 2000, as cited in Pollo 
et al. 2005).
    In 2004, at the species level, the western capercaillie (Tetrao 
urogallus) was assessed by the IUCN as a species of ``Least Concern'' 
(BirdLife International 2004a). However, the IUCN Species Survival 
Commission's Grouse Specialist Group has noted that the subspecies 
qualifies to be listed as ``Endangered'' according to the IUCN Red List 
criteria (Storch 2000). In the year 1998-1999, it was estimated there 
were 1,900 to 2,000 pairs and that the subspecies was in decline 
(BirdLife International 2004b). This subspecies is currently classified 
as ``Vulnerable'' in Spain, which affords it protection from hunting. 
Although hunting the capercaillie is prohibited in Spain, poaching 
still occurs. It is unknown what the incidence of poaching is or what 
impact it has on the subspecies (Storch 2000, 2007).
    Habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation influence the 
population dynamics of the Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its range 
(Storch 2000, 2007). This subspecies' historic range has declined by 
more than 50 percent (Quevedo et al. 2006). The current range is 
severely fragmented, with 22 percent in low forest habitat, and most of 
the remaining suitable habitat is in small patches of less than 25 ac 
(10 ha) (Garcia et al. 2005). Research conducted on other subspecies of 
capercaillie indicates that the size of forest patches is correlated to 
the number of males that gather in leks (courtship grounds) to display 
and that below a certain forest patch size, leks are abandoned (Quevedo 
et al. 2006).
    Patches of good quality habitat are scarce and discontinuous, 
particularly in the central portions of the species' range (Quevedo et 
al. 2006), and leks in the smaller forest patches have been abandoned 
during the last few decades. The leks that remain are now located 
farther from forest edges than those that were occupied in the 1980s 
(Quevedo et al. 2006). Recent studies indicate that habitat 
fragmentation may have a greater effect on this subspecies than 
previously recognized (Quevedo et al 2005; Vandermeer and Carvajal 
2001), and if further habitat fragmentation occurs, the Cantabrian 
capercaillie population could end up in a few isolated subpopulations 
too small to ensure the subspecies' long-term survival (Grimm and 
Storch 2000).
    Forest silviculture practices affect both the quantity, as well as 
the quality, of suitable habitat for the Cantabrian capercaillie. 
Forest structure plays an important role in determining habitat 
suitability and occupancy for the subspecies. Quevedo et al. (2006) 
found that open forest structure with well-distributed bilberry shrubs, 
an important component of the species' diet (Rodriguez and Obeso 2000, 
as reported in Pollo et al. 2005), was the preferred habitat type of 
Cantabrian capercaillie.
    Management of forest resources for timber production causes 
significant changes in forest structure, such as species composition, 
tree density and height, forest patch size, and understory vegetation 
(Pollo et al. 2005). Such silviculture practices continue to negatively 
affect the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable habitat

[[Page 44068]]

available for this subspecies, particularly by reducing the 
availability of bilberry food resources and potentially reducing the 
availability of suitably sized breeding grounds.
    Recurring fires have also been implicated as a factor in the 
decline of the subspecies (Lloyd 2007). Threats to the Cantabrian 
capercaillie and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing 
this subspecies for listing under the Act is warranted.
Gorgeted Wood-Quail (Odontophorus strophium)
    The gorgeted wood-quail is endemic to the west slope of the East 
Andes, in the Magdalena Valley (Donegan and Huertas 2005). It is 
currently known only in the central Colombian Department of Santander, 
with less than 10 sightings (del Hoyo et al. 1994; Fjelds and Krabbe 
1990; Hilty and Brown 1986).
    The gorgeted wood-quail prefers montane temperate and humid 
subtropical forests dominated by roble (Tabebuia rosea), and secondary 
growth forests in proximity to mature forests (Sarria and 
[Aacute]lvarez 2002), especially those dominated by oak (Quercus 
humboldtii). The species is most often found at elevations between 
5,741 and 6,726 ft (1,750 and 2,050 m) (BirdLife International 2007; 
Donegan et al. 2003; Donegan and Huertas 2005; Sarria and 
[Aacute]lvarez 2002; Turner 2006; Wege and Long 1995). The gorgeted 
wood-quail is primarily terrestrial (Fuller et al. 2000), living on the 
forest floor and feeding on fruit, seeds, and arthropods (Collar et al. 
1992; del Hoyo et al. 1994; Fuller et al. 2000). It is probably 
dependent on primary-growth forest for at least part of its life cycle, 
although it has also been found in degraded habitats and secondary-
growth forest (BirdLife International 2007).
    The species is classified as ``Critically Endangered'' by the IUCN 
Red List due to its small and highly fragmented range, with recent 
population records from only two areas. Logging and hunting are 
believed to be causing some declines in range and population size 
(BirdLife International 2004). The population is estimated at between 
250 and 999 individuals (BirdLife International 2007).
    Since the seventeenth century, the west slope of the East Andes has 
been extensively logged and converted to agriculture (Stiles et al. 
1999). Forest habitat loss below 8,200 ft (2,500 m) has been almost 
complete (Stattersfield et al. 1998), with habitat reduced in many 
areas to highly fragmented relict patches on steep slopes and along 
streams (Stiles et al. 1999). In the early part of the twentieth 
century, the gorgeted wood-quail was known only in the oak forests in 
the Department of Cundinamarca. However, extensive deforestation and 
habitat conversion for agricultural use nearly denuded all the oak 
forests in Cundinamarca below 8,202 ft (2,500 m) (BirdLife 
International 2007; Hilty and Brown 1986). Subsequent surveys have not 
located the species in this area since 1954 (Collar et al. 1992; Fuller 
et al. 2000; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002), and researchers consider 
the gorgeted wood-quail to be locally extirpated from Cundinamarca 
(BirdLife International 2007; Fuller et al. 2000; Sarria and 
[Aacute]lvarez 2002; Wege and Long 1995). The species has recently been 
confirmed to exist in three locations, and its current range is between 
4 mi \2\ (10 km \2\) (Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 2002) and 10.42 mi \2\ 
(27 km \2\) (BirdLife International 2007). These localities are in two 
disjunct areas within the Department of Santander. Serranoa de los 
Yarguoes is in northern Santander and the other two localities are 
adjacent to each other in southern Santander (Donegan and Huertas 
2005). The species has lost 92 percent of its former habitat (Sarria 
and [Aacute]lvarez 2002), and habitat loss through logging and land 
conversion to agricultural purposes continues throughout its range 
(BirdLife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1994; 
Donegan et al. 2003; Hilty and Brown 1986; Sarria and [Aacute]lvarez 
2002; Stattersfield et al. 1998). Threats to the gorgeted wood-quail 
and its habitat continue, and we find that proposing this species for 
listing under the Act is warranted.
Jun[iacute]n Rail (Laterallus tuerosi)
    The Jun[iacute]n rail is endemic to Lake Jun[iacute]n. The lake is 
large, covering 35,385 ac (14,320 ha) in the central Andes of Peru at 
13,386 ft (4,080 m) above sea level (BirdLife International 2000; 
Fjelds[aring] 1983). The Jun[iacute]n rail is known from only two sites 
on the southwest lakeshore, near Ondores and Pari, but it may occur in 
other portions of the 37,066 ac (15,000 ha) of marshlands surrounding 
Lake Jun[iacute]n (Fjelds[aring] 1983).
    The species' habitat preferences are not fully understood, but it 
is known to inhabit marshy vegetation located around the margins of 
Lake Jun[iacute]n. The Jun[iacute]n rail has been observed in the 
interior of large stands of Juncus spp. on the southeast shoreline of 
the lake and in mosaics of open marshes, in association with Juncus 
spp., mosses, and low herbs (Fjelds[aring] 1983).
    Rigorous population estimates for the Jun[iacute]n rail have not 
been made. In 1983, however, the species was believed to be common 
based on anecdotal reports of two local fishermen (Fjelds[aring] 1983). 
Based on these accounts, BirdLife International (2000, 2007) estimated 
that the population might range between 1,000 and 2,500 individuals. 
BirdLife International, however, acknowledged that the data quality is 
poor and that the actual population size might be much smaller 
(BirdLife International 2000).
    The Jun[iacute]n rail is categorized as ``Endangered'' by the IUCN 
because its range is limited to the shores of a single lake where 
habitat quality is declining, and the population is very small and 
believed to be declining (BirdLife International 2007). The 
Jun[iacute]n rail is considered an ``Endangered'' species by the 
Peruvian government under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG, which 
prohibits hunting, taking, transport, or trade of this species, except 
as permitted by regulation.
    One of the key factors contributing to the species' decline is 
adverse habitat modification. Dam operations cause seasonal lake-level 
fluctuations of up to 6 ft (2 m) (Martin and McNee 1999). Because few 
reed-beds are now permanently inundated, tall reeds (Scirpus tatora) 
have virtually disappeared from the lake's shoreline (O'Donnel and 
Fjelds[aring] 1997). Long-term drawdowns of water levels lead to 
desiccation of the Juncus spp. marshes, and it has been suggested that 
the Jun[iacute]n rail may be particularly susceptible to such effects 
because they tend to occupy dry or shallow-water lakeshore sites 
(Eddleman et al. 1988).
    Marsh desiccation also provides easy access to the shore for large 
livestock herds (primarily sheep, but also cattle, and to a lesser 
extent llamas and alpacas) to move into the wetlands surrounding the 
lake, resulting in overgrazing and soil compaction (INRENA 2000, as 
cited in ParksWatch 2006). Given the large number of livestock that are 
currently located around the lake (approximately 60,000 to 70,000), 
habitat destruction and trampling of nests and fledglings negatively 
impact this species (BirdLife International 2000; BirdLife 
International 2007; Collar et al. 1992).
    Another threat to the Jun[iacute]n rail's habitat is the 
contamination of Lake Jun[iacute]n from mining wastes. There are a 
number of mining operations (lead, copper, and zinc) to the north of 
Lake Jun[iacute]n, and wastewater from these mines runs untreated into 
the lake via the Rio San Juan (Fjelds[aring] 1981; Martin and McNee 
1999). The Rio San Juan (the primary input of water into the Lake) 
exhibits elevated levels of several trace metals in comparison to local 
background values (Martin and McNee 1999). In addition, concentrations 
of

[[Page 44069]]

fertilizer by-products such as ammonium and nitrate have been found to 
be elevated (Martin and McNee 1999), and agricultural insecticides, 
which wash into the lake from the surrounding fields and through 
drainage systems from villages around the lake, have been detected 
(ParksWatch 2006). The contaminant load increases substantially during 
the wet season when agricultural run-off is greater (Martin and McNee 
1999).
    Cattail (Typha spp.) harvesting and burning also destroy the 
Jun[iacute]n rail's habitat (ParksWatch 2006), resulting in long-term 
impacts to the species' habitat (Eddleman et al. 1988). Cattails are 
harvested for handicrafts and livestock forage and are periodically 
burned to encourage shoot renewal (ParksWatch 2006). Threats to the 
Jun[iacute]n rail and its habitat continue, and we find that proposing 
this species under the Act is warranted.
Jerdon's Courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus)
    The Jerdon's courser is endemic to the Eastern Ghats of the states 
of Andhra Pradesh and extreme southern Madhya Pradesh in India. The 
species was thought to be extinct for approximately 86 years until 
1986, when it was rediscovered in Lankamalai. It has since been located 
at six additional sites in the vicinity of the Velikonda and Palakonda 
hills, in the southern State of Andhra Pradesh (Birdlife International 
2006). It prefers sparse, thorny areas dominated by Acacia spp., 
Zizyphus spp., and Carissa spp. (BirdLife International 2006). The 
Jerdon's courser may also inhabit scrub forest consisting of Cassia 
spp., Hardwickia spp., Dalbergia spp., Butea spp., and Anogeissus spp., 
interspersed with patches of bare ground, in gently undulating rocky 
foothills (BirdLife International 2006).
    This species' population is estimated at 50 to 249 birds (Birdlife 
International 2006). Very few individuals have been recorded thus far, 
mainly due to the species' nocturnal and secretive habits (BirdLife 
International 2006). Negative impacts to the species include 
exploitation of the scrub-forest, livestock grazing, disturbance by 
humans and livestock (BirdLife International 2006), and construction of 
canals (Jegananthen et al. 2005). Jeganathan et al. (2004) found that 
Jerdon's courser occurrence is strongly correlated with the density of 
bushes and trees, which is, in turn, negatively affected by mismanaged 
livestock grazing, woodcutting, and land clearing for agricultural 
production. The State of Andhra Pradesh has experienced intensive 
agricultural growth in recent years (Senapathi et al. 2006). From 1991 
through 2000, a net loss of 14.6 percent of scrub habitat in the 
Cuddapah District and parts of the Nellore District in Andhra Pradesh 
took place, while the amount of land occupied by agricultural fields 
more than doubled during the same time period (Senapathi et al. 2006). 
The main cause for the loss of scrub habitat was conversion to 
agriculture, while gains in scrub habitat came largely at the expense 
of native deciduous forest due to mechanical clearing and fire 
(Jeganathan et al. 2004b). Researchers believe that suitable habitat 
conditions for the Jerdon's courser could be created through the use of 
a combination of well-managed animal grazing and woodcutting to 
maintain optimal height, density, and species composition of shrubs for 
the species. However, over-utilization of scrub habitat could also 
result in local courser extirpations (Jeganathan et al. 2004a; 
Senapathi et al. 2006). If not well-managed, increased levels of 
woodcutting and livestock grazing, as well as mechanical clearing of 
scrub habitat to create pasture, orchards, and agricultural fields, are 
all land uses likely to create habitat that is low in quality, highly-
fragmented, and unsuitable for use by the Jerdon's courser. From 1991 
through 2000, the patch size of scrub habitat declined significantly 
(Senapathi et al. 2006). Continuing encroachment of human settlement 
into areas currently occupied by the courser is likely to result in 
increased livestock grazing pressure and additional land conversion for 
agricultural purposes.
    The Jerdon's courser is categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' on 
the IUCN Red List because of its small, declining population and 
habitat that is being reduced by livestock overgrazing and disturbance 
(BirdLife International 2004). The species is also listed under 
Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Hunting of 
Schedule I-listed species is strictly prohibited. The Indian Wildlife 
Protection Act provides for the designation and management of 
Sanctuaries and National Parks for the purposes of protecting, 
propagating, or developing wildlife or its environment. Two areas have 
been established to protect the habitat of the Jerdon's courser. 
Suitable habitat, however, outside of these Protected Areas continues 
to be lost through its conversion for development and agriculture. 
Threats to Jerdon's courser and its habitat continue, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Slender-Billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)
    The slender-billed curlew migrates along a west-southwest route 
from Siberia through central and eastern Europe (predominantly Russia, 
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungrary, Romania, and Yugoslavia) to 
southern Europe (Greece, Italy, and Turkey) and North Africa (Algeria, 
Morocco, and Tunisia). The species has only been confirmed breeding 
near Tara, Siberia, Russia, between 1909 and 1925, and the only known 
nests were found on the northern limit of the forest-steppe habitat 
(Birdlife International 2006). During seasonal migrations and the 
winter months, the slender-billed curlew utilizes a wide variety of 
habitats, including coastal marshes, steppe grassland, fish ponds, 
saltpans, brackish lagoons, tidal mudflats, semi-desert, brackish 
wetlands, and sandy farmlands in close proximity to lagoons (Hirschfeld 
2007).
    From the second half of the nineteenth century until 1920, the 
slender-billed curlew was considered an abundant bird (Chandrinos 
2000). Flocks of more than 100 slender-billed curlews were recorded in 
Morocco as late as 1970. However, population declines have been 
observed since 1980 (BirdLife International 2006). BirdLife 
International (2008) reports that in 1994 the population estimate was 
50-270 individuals, but the lack of recent confirmed sightings, despite 
extensive survey efforts, indicates that the population may now include 
less than 50 birds. Surveys were conducted between 1987 and 2000 in 
various sections of the species' historic range and covered hundreds of 
miles (and the corresponding number of kilometers) of habitat. Not a 
single slender-billed curlew, however, was located during these efforts 
(CMS 2004; Gretton et al. 2002).
    The slender-billed curlew is classified as ``Critically 
Endangered'' by the IUCN, because the species has an extremely small 
population size, and the number of birds recorded annually continues to 
fall, likely representing a continuing population decline (BirdLife 
International 2004). The species is listed under Appendix I of CITES; 
commercial trade of this species is strictly prohibited (UNEP-WCMC 
2008).
    The slender-billed curlew is also listed under Appendices I and II 
of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) (BirdLife International 
2004). In an effort to safeguard the slender-billed curlew, a 
Memorandum of

[[Page 44070]]

Understanding (MOU) was developed under CMS auspices and became 
effective on September 10, 1994. The MOU area covers 30 Range States in 
Southern and Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. As of 
December 31, 2000, the MOU had been signed by 18 Range States and three 
co-operating organizations. An International Action Plan for the 
Conservation of the slender-billed Curlew has been prepared by BirdLife 
International (Council of Europe, 1996), and approved by the European 
Commission and endorsed by the Fifth Meeting of the CMS. Conservation 
priorities include effective legal protection for the slender-billed 
curlew and its look-alikes, locating its breeding grounds as well as 
key wintering and passage sites, applying appropriate protection and 
management of its habitat, and increasing the awareness of politicians 
in the affected countries. The CMS website includes an update on the 
progress being made under the slender-billed curlew MOU. It states that 
conservation activities have already been undertaken or are underway in 
Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Russian Federation, Ukraine 
and Iran. However, no details of these activities are provided.
    The slender-billed curlew is listed on Annex I of the European 
Union Wild Bird Directive (BirdLife International 2004), which provides 
a framework for the conservation and management of wild birds in 
Europe. Although this Directive sets objectives for activities intended 
to protect wild birds, the legal implementation and achievement of 
these objectives are at the discretion of each Member State (DEFRA 
2008). This species is also listed on Appendix II of the Bern 
Convention (COE 1979), ``a binding international legal instrument in 
the field of nature conservation, which covers the whole of the natural 
heritage of the European continent and extends to some States of 
Africa'' (COE n.d.). This agreement, however, would not afford 
protections to the species' breeding habitats in the forest-steppe of 
Russia.
    Historically, hunting levels have been high along the species' 
entire migratory flyway, especially Russia, and are believed to be the 
primary factor for the species' previous decline (BirdLife 
International 2006). Threats to the species on its current breeding 
grounds are largely unknown due to the lack of information on its 
nesting localities. However, modification of the forest-steppe habitat 
within the species' breeding range suggests that the species may be at 
risk due to loss of its breeding habitat. The forest-steppe has been 
partially cultivated, and much of the steppe has been developed for 
intensive agricultural purposes (Gretton 1996).
    Progress is underway in some range nations to conserve habitat, 
prevent hunter misidentification of the species, and increase awareness 
about the species' precarious status; however, range nations have had 
differing levels of success in the implementation of needed 
protections. Threats to the slender-billed curlew and its habitat are 
ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under the 
Act is warranted.
Marquesan Imperial-Pigeon (Ducula galeata)
    The Marquesan imperial-pigeon, a very large, broad-winged pigeon, 
is endemic to Nuku Hiva, the largest of the Marquesas Islands in French 
Polynesia (BirdLife International 2007). Nuku Hiva is a volcanic island 
130 mi\2\ (337 km\2\) in area; most of the island was originally 
forested except for the drier north-western plain, where shrub savanna 
is now predominant. Following conservation recommendations, small 
numbers of Marquesan imperial-pigeons were translocated beginning in 
2000, to the Vaiviki Valley of a second island, Ua Huka, which has been 
classified as a protected area since 1997. This island contains 
suitable habitat for this species and is free of mammalian predators 
(BirdLife International 2007; Blanvillian et al. 2007). The remaining 
Marquesan imperial-pigeon populations are small, with an estimated 80 
to 150 birds on Nuku Hiva (Villard et al. 2003) and 32 birds on Ua Huka 
(Blanvillian et al. 2007).
    The Marquesan imperial-pigeon prefers remote wooded valleys from 
820 to 4,265 ft (250 to 1,300 m) in elevation in the west and north of 
Nuku Hiva. It also inhabits secondary forest and edge habitat near 
banana and orange plantations (BirdLife International 2007; Blanvillian 
and Thorsen 2003). The species appears to have strong site-fidelity for 
its feeding and night roosting sites (Villard et al. 2003).
    The Marquesan imperial-pigeon has been categorized as ``Critically 
Endangered'' by the IUCN since 1994, because it has a very small 
population size with a decreasing trend and only inhabits one tiny 
island (aside from the population that is being established at Ua Huka 
through release efforts). The species appears to owe its survival to 
the existence of habitat in several areas which are difficult for 
hunters and introduced species to access (BirdLife International 2007).
    The pigeon is protected under the French Environmental Code, which 
means that the destruction or poaching of eggs or nests or the 
mutilation, destruction, capture, poaching, intentional disturbance, 
taxidermy, transport, peddling, use, possession, offer for sale, or 
purchase of individuals is prohibited by law. Currently, there is no 
evidence that collection for trade of this species is occurring.
    Loss of habitat is believed to have had a large impact on the 
reduced distribution of the Marquesan imperial-pigeon. Continued 
grazing by feral goats prevents regeneration of trees, furthering the 
impacts to previously modified habitat (Thorsen et al. 2002) The 
introduced black rat (Rattus rattus) contributes to habitat degradation 
on Nuku Hiva by consuming flowers and fruit, thereby inhibiting habitat 
regeneration (Powlesland et al. 1997).
    Transmittal of diseases from domestic pigeons or poultry, or from 
other introduced avian species imported to Nuku Hiva, has been 
suggested as a potential risk to this species (Blanvillian et al. 
2007). The introduced black rat, although not believed to be a 
significant predator on adult pigeons (Villard et al. 2003), preys on 
eggs and young pigeons, potentially putting the species at risk. Rats 
are also believed to compete for food resources that would otherwise be 
available to the pigeons (Powlesland et al. 1997). Feral cats have also 
been introduced on the islands and are suspected to be a predator of 
adult and juvenile pigeons when they are feeding on low shrubs such as 
guava (Psidium guajava) (Rare Bird Yearbook 2008; Thorsen et al. 2002).
    Hunting is believed to be one of the primary contributors to this 
species' decline and to local extirpations on neighboring islands 
(Villard et al. 2003). Despite the ban on hunting in French Polynesia 
since 1967, and the fully protected status of the Marquesan imperial-
pigeon species, illegal hunting of the species still occurs. There are 
no estimates of the current extent of illegal hunting; but long-lived 
species such as the Marquesan imperial-pigeon with low fecundity rates 
are generally more affected by the loss of breeding adults than species 
with shorter life-spans and higher fecundity rates (Clout et al. 1995). 
Threats to this species and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that 
proposing the Marquesan imperial-pigeon for listing under the Act is 
warranted.
Salmon-Crested Cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis)
    This cockatoo is endemic to the islands of Ambon, Haruku, Seram, 
and Saparua in South Maluku, Indonesia. It was formerly a common 
species of the

[[Page 44071]]

lowlands within its range (del Hoyo et al. 1997). Although the species 
was regarded as locally common in 1970, the following decade saw a 
dramatic decline (Juniper and Parr 1998). Currently, the species is 
believed to survive in one area on Ambon; however, almost the entire 
population is restricted to Seram, where, during the 1990s, it suffered 
declines of 20 to 40 percent in one region. The species is still 
locally common in Manusela National Park and probably in east Seram. 
There are no recent records of the species on Haruku and Saparua 
(BirdLife International 2000).
    The salmon-crested cockatoo is largely a resident in lowland 
rainforest below 3,280 ft (1,000 m) in elevation. The highest densities 
of cockatoos were encountered in unlogged forest below 590 ft (180 m), 
illustrating the importance of primary lowland forest (BirdLife 
International 2007). In a study of the density and distribution of the 
salmon-crested cockatoo, Kinnaird et al. (2003) confirmed that the 
highest densities of cockatoos occurred in primary forest sites with 
good forest structure and found that the lowest density was a logged 
site with low stature forest. Marsden (1998) found that density 
estimates of salmon-crested cockatoos in unlogged forest below 984 ft 
(300 m) were more than double those in logged forests. Habitat rich in 
strangler fig trees (Ficus spp.) and Octomeles sumatranus, the tree 
species the cockatoos prefer for nesting, was also likely to produce 
the highest densities of cockatoos (Kinnaird et al. 2003). The diet of 
salmon-crested cockatoos consists of seeds, nuts, young coconuts (Cocos 
nucifera) (the birds chew through the outer layers of green coconuts to 
get at the soft pulp), berries, and insects and their larvae (Forshaw 
1989; Juniper and Parr 1998).
    The species is listed as ``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red List 
because it has suffered a rapid population decline as a result of 
trapping for the pet bird trade and because of deforestation in its 
small range (BirdLife International 2004). Current populations are 
estimated at 62,400 individuals, with a decreasing population trend; 
the decline for the past 10 years or 3 generations is estimated at 30 
to 49 percent (BirdLife International 2007b).
    By the 1980s, salmon-crested cockatoo populations were declining 
rapidly due to uncontrolled trapping for the pet bird trade (BirdLife 
International 2007a). Concerns about unrestricted trade of parrots, 
including the salmon-crested cockatoo, led to a CITES Appendix-II 
listing of all Psittaciformes spp. in 1981 (CITES 2008). After the 
CITES listing, some 74,509 individual salmon-crested cockatoos were 
exported from Indonesia from 1981 to 1990 (BirdLife International 
2000). The level of imports from Indonesia from 1983 to 1987, as 
reported to CITES, averaged 8,500 to 9,500 birds per year (CITES 
1989b); trade reported in 1985 and 1987 exceeded the quota set by 
Indonesia by over 1,300 and 3,661 birds, respectively (CITES 1989a). In 
October 1989, the salmon-crested cockatoo was transferred to CITES 
Appendix I, which precludes commercial international trade. However, 
trappers reportedly remained active, and wild-caught birds were being 
openly sold in the domestic market (Metz and Nursahid 2004). Interviews 
in villages suggest that perhaps as many as 4,000 birds are still being 
captured each year (BirdLife International 2001).
    Currently, logging impedes salmon-crested cockatoo conservation. 
Nearly 50 percent of Seram is held within logging concessions, with 
more than 75 percent held within lowland habitat, prime salmon-crested 
cockatoo habitat. Only 14 percent of the forests are in protected 
areas, and logging concessions overlap more than 30 percent of these 
protected areas, with conflicts over the boundaries of parks and 
logging concessions. Small-scale illegal logging also occurs within 
these protected areas. Unsustainable logging practices, which destroy 
the forest canopy, dramatically reduce habitat available for cockatoos, 
especially if large nest trees are harvested (Kinnaird et al. 2003).
    In addition, the salmon-crested cockatoo's habitat is being 
degraded and threatened by agriculture, human settlement, and 
hydroelectric power projects (BirdLife International 2007a). The 
species has been considered a pest to coconut palms, and consequently 
has been persecuted, at least historically (BirdLife International 
2000).
    In 2000, a program was launched to promote ecotourism which was 
linked to a local project to raise awareness about the plight of the 
salmon-crested cockatoo. Current conservation measures suggest 
continuing and expanding the awareness program and using the salmon-
crested cockatoo as the island's flagship species to reduce trapping 
pressure and encourage local support for the survival of the species 
(BirdLife International 2007a). At the present time, however, the 
threats to the salmon-crested cockatoo and its habitat continue, and we 
find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is 
warranted.
Southeastern Rufous-Vented Ground Cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis)
    The southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo is one of seven 
subspecies of the rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi). 
The species as a whole ranges from Nicaragua to central South America, 
occurring at several disjunct localities (del Hoyo et al. 1997; Howard 
and Moore 1980; Payne 2005; Sibley and Monroe 1990). There is currently 
little concern for the conservation status of the whole species, but 
the N. g. dulcis subspecies, the southeastern rufous-vented ground 
cuckoo, has experienced serious declines (BirdLife International 2007). 
Historically, the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo subspecies 
had a widespread distribution in southeastern Brazil from Espirito 
Santo to Rio de Janeiro (del Hoyo et al. 1997), where it has likely 
always been locally rare (IUCN 1981). This subspecies may now, however, 
be extinct throughout its entire range; the last confirmed sighting was 
in 1977 in the Sooretama Biological Reserve north of the Doce River in 
Esprito Santo (Payne 2005; Scott and Brooke 1985). A recent 
photographic record (ca. 2004) of a single bird indicates that the 
subspecies may still occur at Doce River State Park in Minas Gerais 
(Scoss et al. 2006), but there are no population figures beyond this 
information.
    The southeastern rufous-vented ground cuckoo inhabits tropical 
lowland evergreen forests, where it feeds on large insects, scorpions, 
centipedes, spiders, small frogs, lizards, and occasionally seeds and 
fruit (del Hoyo et al. 1997). It is a solitary subspecies that is 
dependent upon large blocks of undisturbed tropical lowland forest 
within the Atlantic Forest biome (del Hoyo et al. 1997; IUCN 1981; 
Payne 2005; Sick 1993). These birds can run and can flutter to an 
elevated perch to lookout and to roost, but they are not capable of 
sustained flight (Payne 2005). Therefore, major rivers and other 
extensive areas of non-habitat are thought to impede their movements.
    Since 1981, the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo, has been 
categorized as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 1981). It is 
formally recognized as ``Endangered'' in Brazil, and is directly 
protected by legislation promulgated by the Brazilian government 
(ECOLEX 2007; IUCN 1981). These protections prohibit the following 
activities with regard to this species: export and international trade, 
collection, research, and captive propagation. They also provide 
measures which help to protect

[[Page 44072]]

remaining suitable habitat, such as prohibition of exploitation of the 
remaining primary forests within the Atlantic forest biome and 
management of various practices in primary and secondary forests, such 
as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, recreation, and water 
resources (ECOLEX 2007). The existing regulatory mechanisms that apply 
to the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo would appear to be 
largely adequate if fully enforced; however, there is currently a lack 
of enforcement of them (BirdLife International 2003a; Conservation 
International 2007c; Costa 2007; Neotropical News 1997b; Peixoto and 
Silva 2007; Scott and Brooke 1985; The Nature Conservancy 2007; 
Venturini et al. 2005). As a result, significant threats to the 
subspecies' remaining habitats are ongoing.
    Based on a number of recent estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 
historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest 
biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various 
human activities (H[ouml]fling 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2007). In 
addition to the overall loss and degradation of native habitat within 
this biome, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. 
Most of the tropical forest habitats believed to have been used 
historically by the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo have been 
converted or severely degraded by human activities (del Hoyo et al. 
1997; IUCN 1981; Payne 2005; Scott and Brooke 1985; Sick 1993). 
Terrestrial insectivorous birds, such as the southeastern rufous-vented 
ground-cuckoo, are especially vulnerable to habitat modifications which 
increase the variability of insect food supplies (Goerck 1997), and the 
subspecies cannot occupy these extensively altered habitats. The 
subspecies is dependent upon large blocks of undisturbed forest habitat 
for its life-cycle requirements, and habitat destruction within the 
ground-cuckoo's range results in a patchy landscape, reducing the 
availability of the type of forest habitat necessary for the 
subspecies. Threats to the southeastern rufous-vented ground cuckoo and 
its habitat continue, and we find that proposing this subspecies for 
listing under the Act is warranted.
Margaretta's Hermit (Phaethornis malaris margarettae, previously known 
as Phaethornis margarettae)
    Margaretta's hermit was first described as a new species in 1972 by 
A. Ruschi (Sibley and Monroe 1990). Current taxonomic studies place 
Margaretta's hermit as a subspecies of the great-billed hermit 
(Phaethornis malaris) (Sick 1993).
    Margaretta's hermit is found in coastal east Brazil and inhabits 
the understory of inundated lowland forest, secondary growth, bamboo 
thickets, and shrubbery. This subspecies is currently limited to forest 
remnants; consequently, further habitat destruction could be 
detrimental to this subspecies (del Hoyo et al. 1999). The Margaretta's 
hermit is listed in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2006).
    The last confirmed occurrence of the Margaretta's hermit is from a 
relatively old (ca. 1978) sighting of the subspecies on a privately-
owned remnant forest called Klabin Farm, which at the time was 
approximately 15.4 mi2 (40 km2) in Espiritu 
Santo, and the subspecies likely occurred at the Sooretama Biological 
Reserve in Espiritu Santo until around 1977 (IUCN 1981).
    Most of the tropical forest habitats believed to have been used 
historically by the Margaretta's hermit have been converted or are 
severely degraded due to human activities related to land clearing and 
urban and agricultural development in coastal east Brazil, and the 
subspecies cannot occupy these extensively altered areas (del Hoyo et 
al. 1999; H[ouml]fling 2007; IUCN 1981; Sick 1993; The Nature 
Conservancy 2007). While the Margaretta's hermit is not strictly tied 
to primary forest habitats and can make use of secondary-growth 
forests, this does not lessen the risk to the subspecies from the 
effects of deforestation and habitat degradation. This is because 
Atlantic Forest birds that are tolerant of secondary-growth forests, 
yet that are also rare or have restricted ranges (i.e., less than 
21,000 square km (8,100 square mi)), are threatened by these impacts 
equally as primary forest-obligate species (Harris and Pimm 2004). The 
last site known to be occupied by the Margaretta's hermit totaled only 
about 40 square km (15 square mi) (IUCN 1981). The susceptibility of 
rare, limited-range species that are tolerant of secondary-growth 
forests occurs for a variety of reasons. For example, many hummingbird 
species are susceptible to excessive sun and readily abandon their 
nests at altered forested sites with too much exposure (Sick 1993), as 
can occur with various human activities that result in partial clearing 
(e.g., selective logging). In addition, management of plantations often 
involves intensive control of the site's understory cover (Rolim and 
Chiarello 2004; Saatchi et al. 2001). Even if the forest canopy 
structure remains largely intact, such management practices eventually 
result in loss of native understory plant species and severely alter 
understory structure and dynamics, which can be especially detrimental 
to pollinator species such as the Margaretta's hermit. Furthermore, 
even when forested lands are formally protected, the remaining 
fragments of habitat where the subspecies may still occur will likely 
continue to undergo degradation due to their altered dynamics and 
isolation (Tabanez and Viana 2000). Finally, secondary impacts that are 
associated with the above activities include severe fragmentation of 
the remaining tracts of forested habitat potentially used by the 
subspecies, and the potential introduction of disease vectors or exotic 
predators within the subspecies' historic range. As a result of the 
above influences, there is often a time lag between the initial 
conversion or degradation of suitable habitats and the extinction of 
endemic bird populations (Brooks et al. 1999a; Brooks et al. 1999b). 
Therefore, even without further habitat loss or degradation, the 
Margaretta's hermit remains at risk from past impacts to its suitable 
forested habitats.
    Loss of this species' habitat is likely to continue due to the high 
pressure for coastal development. Threats to the Margaretta's hermit 
and its habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing this subspecies 
for listing under the Act is warranted.
Black-Breasted Puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis)
    The black-breasted puffleg, endemic to Ecuador, is a member of the 
hummingbird family (Trochilidae). It is confined to the northern ridge 
crests of Volc[aacute]n Pichincha near Quito, Ecuador (Fjelds[aring] 
and Krabbe 1990; Ridgely and Greenfield 1986a; Ridgely and Greenfield 
1986b). Volc[aacute]n Pichincha reaches peaks at 15,699 ft (4,785 m) 
(Phillips 1998). The species has not been confirmed in the only other 
known sighting locality, the Volc[aacute]n Atacazo, since 1902 (Collar 
et al. 1992; BirdLife International 2007).
    This species prefers temperate elfin forests (comprised primarily 
of Polyepsis spp. trees) between 9,350 and 11,483 ft (2,850 and 3,500 
m) (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990; Ridgely and Greenfield 1986a; 
Ridgely and Greenfield 1986b). It is an altitudinal migrant, spending 
the breeding season (November to February) in the humid elfin forest 
and the rest of the year at lower elevations, as determined by 
flowering of certain plants (Bleiweiss and Olalla 1983; Collar et al. 
1992; del Hoyo et al. 1999).
    Habitat loss, specifically the felling of Polylepis spp. wood for 
conversion to

[[Page 44073]]

charcoal, was the primary cause of historical black-breasted puffleg 
declines (Phillips 1998). Following more than 13 years without any 
observation of the species, the black-breasted puffleg was rediscovered 
on Volc[aacute]n Pichincha in 1993 (Phillips 1998). The number of 
specimens in museum collections taken in the nineteenth century up 
until 1950 is over 100, suggesting the species was once more common 
(Collar et al. 1992).
    The black-breasted puffleg is classified as ``Critically 
Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small 
range, and the population is restricted to one location (BirdLife 
International 2007). Its single population is estimated at 50 to 250 
adult individuals, with a declining trend (BirdLife International 2007; 
del Hoyo et al. 1999). The population is believed to have declined by 
50 to 79 percent in the past 10 years, or 3 generations, with more than 
20 percent of this loss having occurred within the past 5 years. This 
rate of decline is predicted to continue (BirdLife International 2007). 
The species is also classified as ``Critically Endangered'' under 
Ecuadorian law (ECOLEX 2007).
    Within the current range of the black-breasted puffleg (33 mi\2\ 
(88 km\2\)), approximately 93 percent of its habitat has been lost 
(BirdLife International 2007; Hirchfeld 2007). The ridge-crests within 
the range of the black-breasted puffleg are relatively level, and local 
settlers have cleared the majority of forested habitat within the 
species' range and converted it to potato cultivation and grazing 
(Bleiweiss and Olalla 1983; del Hoyo 1999). Some ridges are almost 
completely devoid of natural vegetation, and even if black-breasted 
pufflegs still occur in these areas, their numbers are most likely 
quite low (BirdLife International 2007).
    In 2001, the area around the Volc[aacute]ns Pichincha and Atacazo 
was established as the Yanacocha Reserve, and charcoal production 
within the reserve, which was considered the primary cause for the 
species' historical decline, was restricted (Bird Conservation 2005; 
Phillips 1998). The Yanacocha Reserve totals approximately 3,100 ac 
(1,250 ha) and contains approximately 2,372 ac (960 ha) of Polylepis 
forest (Hirchfeld 2007; World Land Trust 2007).
    In 2001, the Ecuadorian government agreed to construct a pipeline 
to transport heavy oil from the Amazon basin to Esmaraldas on the 
Pacific Coast (Mindo Working Group 2001). The environmental impact 
study revealed that the proposed route went through black-breasted 
puffleg habitat (Mindo Working Group 2001). Satellite mapping showed 
that much of the area in puffleg habitat was already destroyed, with 
little remaining habitat above 9,186 ft (2,800 m). The black-breasted 
puffleg had previously been found at 10,171 ft (3,100 m) in an upper 
extension from the likely unsuitable forested zone lower down. The 
pipeline was proposed to pass through pasture slightly above this 
patch, risking further habitat destruction with the building of a road 
(Mindo Working Group 2001). The pipeline was recently constructed, 
transecting every major ecosystem on the Volc[aacute]n Pichinche, 
including black-breasted puffleg habitat. The pipeline also deforested 
pristine habitat, making these areas more accessible and opening them 
up to further human infiltration (BirdLife International 2007). Threats 
to the black-breasted puffleg and its habitat are ongoing, and we find 
that proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Chilean Woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii)
    The Chilean woodstar is endemic to several river valleys from 
Tacna, Peru, to northern Antofagasta, Chile, close to the Pacific 
Coast. This area lies at the northern edge of the Atacama Desert, one 
of the driest places on Earth (Collar et al. 1992). Breeding 
populations are only known to occur in the Vitor and Azapa Valleys in 
extreme northern Chile (BirdLife International 2000; Estades et al. 
2007). In the past, there were a few observations of the species in 
Tacna, Peru, close to the border of Chile, but the observations were 
infrequent, and there have been no confirmed observations in the last 2 
decades (Collar et al. 1992; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990).
    The Chilean woodstar was described as a species of extremely 
limited range and very small total population size over 40 years ago 
(Johnson 1967). In September 2003, while using fixed-radius point 
counts to sample an area larger than the species' presumed range, 
Estades et al. (2007) found that the Chilean woodstar was restricted to 
the Azapa and Vitor Valleys of northern Chile, and that it was the 
rarest hummingbird in the Azapa Valley (Estades et al. 2007). Despite 
repeated searches, the species was not located in the Lluta Valley, 
where a breeding colony had been previously reported (Fjelds[aring] and 
Krabbe 1990). The population was estimated to be about 1,539 
individuals. In April 2004, the population was estimated at 758 
individuals. The authors warned against interpreting their results as a 
population crash from 2003 to 2004, because the surveys in 2004 were 
conducted in April when food resources and woodstar populations are 
generally more widely dispersed than they are in September (Estades et 
al. 2007).
    The Chilean woodstar inhabits riparian thickets, secondary growth, 
desert river valleys, arid scrub, agricultural lands, and gardens 
(Stattersfield et al. 1998). It relies on nectar-producing flowers for 
food, but also relies on insects for a source of protein (del Hoyo et 
al. 1999; Estades et al. 2007). The Chilean woodstar drinks nectar from 
the flowers of a variety of native and ornamental plants, as well as 
crops--including alfalfa, garlic, onion, and tomatoes (Estades et al. 
2007).
    The IUCN Red List categorizes the Chilean woodstar as 
``Endangered'' because it inhabits a very small range, with all viable 
populations apparently confined to remnant patches in two desert river 
valleys. These valleys are heavily cultivated, and the extent, area, 
and quality of suitable habitat are likely declining (BirdLife 
International 2007). The Chilean woodstar is listed as an ``Endangered 
and Rare'' species in Chile and was also designated as a ``National 
Monument'' under Diario Oficial No. 38.501, which prohibits all hunting 
and capture of the species. These regulations do not, however, address 
the current and ongoing destruction and degradation of this species' 
habitat. The Chilean woodstar is listed in Appendix II of CITES (UNEP-
WCMC 2008).
    The historic range of the Chilean woodstar has been severely 
altered by extensive planting of olive and citrus groves in the valleys 
of northern Chile and southern Peru. The indigenous food plants of the 
species may have been seriously reduced when habitat for the species 
was converted to agriculture, but the woodstar apparently adapted to 
survive on introduced garden flowers (del Hoyo et al. 1999; Estades et 
al. 2007). However, loss of some native plant species may be a limiting 
factor for the survival of the species. Estades et al. (2007) reported 
that one of the reasons the Chilean woodstar disappeared from the Lluta 
Valley is likely due to the destruction of almost all of the 
cha[ntilde]ares (Geoffrea dicorticans), which is considered one of the 
most important food resources for the species, but is unpopular with 
farmers who consider it undesirable and an attractant to mice. In 
addition, the use of insecticides to control the Mediterranean fruit 
fly (Ceratitis capitata) in the 1960s and early 1970s correlates with 
declines in Chilean woodstar abundance (Estades et al. 2007). The use 
of such pesticides has been reduced since the 1970s; however, Estades 
et al. (2007) reported that other insecticides that may harm the 
woodstar

[[Page 44074]]

are still being used for some applications.
    Chilean woodstars appear to rely primarily on introduced olive 
trees for nesting. Although olive trees are not exposed to as many 
pesticides as other fruit trees in the region, the use of high-pressure 
water spraying to control mold threatens nests, eggs, and chicks 
(Estades et al. 2007).
    Future land-cover projections from the Millennium Ecosystem 
Assessment indicate that by 2050, 18 to 24 percent of the Chilean 
woodstar's range is likely to be unsuitable for the species (Jetz et 
al. 2007).
    Estades et al. (2007) hypothesized that rapid population increases 
of the Peruvian sheartail hummingbird (Thaumastura cora), which shares 
the range of the Chilean woodstar, is a strong competitor for food or 
space (Estades et al. 2007). The sheartail is more aggressive than the 
Chilean woodstar; therefore, it is believed to displace the woodstar 
within its range. In Azapa, Peruvian sheartails occupy the lower parts 
of the valley where there is an ample supply of flowers in residential 
areas year-round. Chilean woodstars, on the other hand, are generally 
located in mid-valley agricultural areas, where there is a much higher 
risk of pesticide exposure. Threats to the Chilean woodstar and its 
habitat continue, and we find that proposing this species for listing 
under the Act is warranted.
Esmeraldas Woodstar (Chaetocercus berlepschi, previously known as 
Acestrura berlepschi)
    The Esmeraldas woodstar was first taxonomically described by Simon 
in 1889, who placed the species in the Trochilidae family, under the 
name Chaetocercus berlepschi (BirdLife International 2007). The species 
is also known by the synonym Acestrura berlepschi. CITES, BirdLife 
International (BirdLife International 2007), and the Integrated 
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2008) recognize the species as 
Chaetocercus berlepschi. We accept the species as Chaetocercus 
berlepschi, and change our reference to this species from our 2007 
Notice of Review.
    The Esmeraldas woodstar is restricted to a small area on the 
Pacific slope of the Andes of western Ecuador (Esmeraldas, Manabi, and 
Guayas), where only very rare and localized populations are found 
(BirdLife International 2007).
    It ranges along the slopes of the coastal cordillera up to 1,640 ft 
(500 m) (del Hoyo et al. 1999; Ridgely and Greenfield 1986b; Williams 
and Tobias 1991). The current extent of the species' range is 
approximately 446 mi\2\ (1,155 km\2\) in 3 disjunct and isolated areas 
(BirdLife International 2007; Dodson and Gentry 1991).
    The Esmeraldas woodstar generally prefers lowland, moist forest 
habitat (del Hoyo et al. 1999). It has also been recorded in the canopy 
of semi-humid secondary growth at 164 to 492 ft (50 to 150 m) in 
December through March, when it is believed to breed (Becker et al. 
2000). The species has not been recorded in this habitat type at other 
times of year, and there is no evidence concerning its long-term 
ability to survive in this type of forest habitat (BirdLife 
International 2007).
    The Esmeraldas woodstar is considered a rare, range-restricted 
species with highly localized populations in three general areas 
(BirdLife International 2007; del Hoyo et al. 1999). There have been no 
population surveys of this species. BirdLife International estimated 
that the population includes between 186 and 373 individuals, based on 
density estimates using similar species of hummingbirds (BirdLife 
International 2007).
    This species is classified as ``Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List 
on the basis of occupying a small and severely fragmented range with 
ongoing and very rapid declines in range and, presumably, population 
(BirdLife International 2007). The species is listed in Appendix II of 
CITES (UNEP-WCMC 2008b). It is identified as an ``Endangered'' species 
under Ecuadorian law (ECOLEX 2007f). As such, hunting for sport or 
commercial purposes is prohibited (ECOLEX 2007g; ECOLEX 2007h). 
However, we do not consider hunting to be a risk to the Esmeraldas 
woodstar, so this law does not reduce any threats to the species.
    The Esmeraldas woodstar inhabits one of the most threatened forest 
habitats within the Neotropics (del Hoyo et al. 1999). All forest types 
within the species' range have diminished rapidly due to logging and 
clearing for agriculture (Dodson and Gentry 1991). The woodstar 
inhabits a very small and severely fragmented range, which is 
decreasing rapidly in size. Ongoing declines in the bird's population 
are linked to persistent habitat destruction which destroys nesting, 
breeding, and feeding habitat (BirdLife International 2007). Persistent 
grazing by goats and cattle damages the understory and prevents 
regeneration of the forest that the woodstar utilizes (Dodson and 
Gentry 1991). Dodson and Gentry (1991) indicated that rapid habitat 
loss is continuing, at least in unprotected areas, and extant forests 
will soon be eliminated. In Manabi Province, the Esmeraldas woodstar 
may occur in Machalilla National Park (Collar et al. 1992), but it does 
not receive adequate protection because its habitat is threatened by 
illegal settlement, deforestation, livestock-grazing, and habitat 
clearance by people with land rights (BirdLife International 2007). 
Threats to the Esmeraldas woodstar and its habitat are ongoing, and we 
find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is 
warranted.
Royal Cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae)
    The royal cinclodes occurs in the Andes of southeastern Peru 
(Cuzco, Apurimac, and Puno) and adjacent Bolivia (La Paz) (BirdLife 
International 2007). The species appears to be restricted to mature, 
humid Polylepis spp. woodlands that can sustain mossy ground-cover 
(Collar et al. 1992). Its diet consists primarily of invertebrates, 
small vertebrates (small frogs), and occasionally seeds (del Hoyo et 
al. 2003). It seeks food by probing through moss and debris on the 
forest floor (Collar et al. 1992; Fjelds[aring] 2002b; del Hoyo et al. 
2003), and likely requires territories as large as 5 to 7 ac (2 to 3 
ha) due to its feeding strategy (Engblom et al. 2002).
    The total royal cinclodes population was estimated to range between 
100 and 150 individuals in 1990 (Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990). 
BirdLife International (2007) estimates the population size to be 
between 50 and 249 individuals. Detailed surveys of suitable habitat in 
Peru revealed only 189 individuals that were restricted to 1,554 ac 
(629 ha) (Chutas 2007). In Bolivia, the population is estimated at 30 
individuals that are located on 1,236 ac (500 ha) of fragmented habitat 
(Purcell and Brelsford 2004). However, the royal cinclodes does not 
always respond to the tape-playback method that was used to census the 
population; therefore, the population estimate may not be indicative of 
the actual population size (Gomez in litt. 2007).
    The IUCN Red List categorizes the royal cinclodes as ``Critically 
Endangered'' due to its extremely small population, which consists of 
tiny subpopulations that are severely fragmented and dependent upon a 
rapidly declining habitat (BirdLife International 2007). The royal 
cinclodes is completely dependent upon high-elevation humid Polylepis 
forests for its survival, and the ongoing loss of this habitat poses 
the greatest risk to this species. Based on comprehensive surveys and 
analyses of maps and satellite images, Fjelds[aring] and Kessler

[[Page 44075]]

(1996, as cited in Fjelds[aring] 2002a) estimated that Polylepis 
forests now cover less than 247,105 ac (100,000 ha) in Peru and 
1,235,527 ac (500,000 ha) in Bolivia, and the majority of the forest is 
very dispersed with extensive bushy growth. Less than 1 percent of the 
Polylepis forest remains in the humid highlands, where Polylepis 
forests are able to grow tall and dense (Fjelds[aring] 2002a). The 
royal cinclodes is particularly sensitive to reduced forest density, 
because decreased canopy cover permits desiccation of the mosses 
growing within humid Polylepis forests, which reduces foraging 
microhabitats for the species (Engblom et al. 2002).
    Fire and livestock grazing are the important factors affecting the 
distribution of Polylepis forests. The vegetation is restricted to 
stream ravines, loose rocks, rock ledges, and sandy ridges--all places 
where fires cannot spread and livestock does not normally roam 
(Fjelds[aring] 2002a; Fjelds[aring] 2002b). Burning land between 
patches of Polylepis forests to stimulate the growth of grasses 
(chaqueo) for grazing prevents regeneration of native forests and is 
considered the key factor limiting the distribution of Polylepis 
forests (Fjelds[aring] 2002b). Trampling and grazing by sheep and 
cattle further limit forest regeneration (Fjelds[aring] 2002a) and can 
contribute to the degradation of remaining forest patches. Sheep and 
cattle have solid, sharp hooves that churn up the earth, damaging 
vegetation and triggering erosion (Purcell et al. 2004). The loss of 
nutrient-rich soils can also cause degradation and ultimate destruction 
of Polylepis forests (Fjelds[aring] 2002b; Purcell et al. 2004).
    As human populations increase in the high-Andes of Bolivia, many 
farmers burn patches of Polylepis forests to make agricultural fields 
for crops. The scarcity of arable land has even caused some farmers to 
burn Polylepis on steep hillsides that would not normally be considered 
suitable for cultivation (Hensen 2002). These farming practices 
continue to result in the rapid loss of Polylepis forests and amplified 
soil erosion. Firewood harvest is another significant threat to 
remaining patches of Polylepis forests. Road building and mining 
projects for the expanding human population around Bolivia's largest 
city, La Paz, have increased accessibility to remaining Polylepis 
forest fragments, further threatening the continued existence of the 
forests upon which the royal cinclodes depends (Purcell et al. 2004; 
Purcell and Brelsford 2004). Threats to the royal cinclodes and its 
habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for 
listing under the Act is warranted.
White-Browed Tit-Spinetail (Leptasthenura xenothorax)
    The white-browed tit-spinetail is restricted to high-elevation--
12,139 to 14,928 ft (3,700 to 4,550 m) above sea level--semi-humid 
Polylepis and Polylepis-Gynoxys woodlands (Collar et al. 1992). This 
species forages in pairs or small family groups, often in mixed species 
flocks, gleaning insects from bark crevices and moss and lichens on 
twigs, branches, and trunks (BirdLife International 2007; Engblom et 
al. 2002; Parker and O'Neill 1980).
    Historically, the white-browed tit-spinetail may have occupied the 
once large and contiguous expanses of Polylepis forests of the high-
Andes of Peru and Bolivia (Fjelds[aring] 2002a), but it is now limited 
to remnant Polylepis forests in the Andes mountains of southeast Peru 
around Cuzco (Birdlife International 2007; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 
1990; InfoNatura 2007).
    Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe (1990) described the white-browed tit-
spinetail as common in suitable habitat and numbering ``probably some 
hundreds,'' yet quite vulnerable to loss of its already restricted 
habitat. Other estimates of the species' total population size range 
from 250 to 1,000 (Fjelds[aring] 2002b) to 500 to 1,500 (BirdLife 
International 2007; Engblom et al. 2002). Recently, only 305 
individuals were reported, based on detailed surveys of suitable 
Polylepis forest habitat (Chutas 2007).
    The IUCN categorizes the white-browed tit-spinetail as 
``Endangered'' due to its very small and severely fragmented range and 
population, which continue to decline with habitat loss and lack of 
habitat regeneration (BirdLife International 2007). The white-browed 
tit-spinetail is listed as an ``Endangered'' species by the Peruvian 
government under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG, which prohibits 
hunting, taking, transport, or trade of this species, except as 
permitted by regulation. However, the species' habitat is not protected 
by this law.
    The principal factor affecting the distribution of Polylepis 
forests, the species' habitat, is the intensity of burning and grazing, 
which restricts vegetation growth to locations where fires cannot 
spread and cattle and sheep do not normally roam, such as ravines, 
boulders, rock ledges, and sandy ridges (Fjelds[aring] 2002a and b). 
Many farmers, however, destroy Polylepis spp. by planting crops on 
steep hillsides unsuitable for cultivation (Hensen 2002). Harvesting of 
firewood from Polylepis forests is also a significant threat to the 
white-browed tit-spinetail's habitat (Aucca and Ramsay 2005; Engblom in 
litt. 2000). Trampling and grazing by sheep and cattle limit forest 
regeneration and can contribute to degradation of remaining forest 
patches (Fjelds[aring] 2002a; Purcell et al. 2004). Remaining forest 
fragments are becoming more accessible to the expanding population 
around Bolivia's largest city through road building and mining 
projects, further threatening the survival of Polylepis forests upon 
which the white-browed tit-spinetail depends (Purcell et al. 2004).
    Ongoing loss of the Polylepis habitat is considered the primary 
threat to this species' continued existence. Based on comprehensive 
surveys and analyses of maps and satellite images, Fjelds[aring] and 
Kessler (1996, as cited in Fjelds[aring] 2002a) estimated that 
Polylepis forests now cover less than 247,105 ac (100,000 ha) in Peru. 
In Bolivia, 1,235,527 ac (500,000 ha) of Polylepis forest remain, but 
most of it is very dispersed and bushy. However, less than 1 percent 
persists in the humid highland habitat for the white-browed tit-
spinetail, where Polylepis forests can grow to be tall and dense 
(Fjelds[aring] 2002a). According to Chutas (2007), the species is now 
confined to about 1,532 ac (620 ha) of habitat. From 1956 to 2005, the 
rate of forest patch habitat decline to the north of Cuzco, Peru, was 
only about 1 percent; however, the remaining habitat patches in this 
area are very small (mean patch size of 6.2 ac (2.5 ha)). During this 
same time-period, 10 percent of existing forest patches showed a 
decline in density, indicating that degradation might be a more serious 
threat than outright destruction in this area (Jameson and Ramsay 
2007). Threats to the white-browed tit-spinetail and its habitat are 
ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under the 
Act is warranted.
Black-Hooded Antwren (Formicivora erythronotos, previously known as 
Myrmotherula erythronotos)
    The black-hooded antwren inhabits early successional secondary 
growth habitats and the understory of remnant old-growth secondary 
forests in coastal southeastern Brazil (BirdLife International 2007; 
Harris and Pimm 2004). This antwren species was previously known only 
from 20 skins that were collected during the nineteenth century (E. 
Mendon[ccedil]a and L.P. Gonzaga in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2007; Buzzetti 1998), and was believed to be extinct 
until it was rediscovered in 1987 (Harris and Pimm 2004). There have 
been recent reports that the species has been seen with increased 
frequency at a coastal reserve near Rio de Janeiro, the

[[Page 44076]]

Reserva Ecol[oacute]gica de Jacarepi[aacute] (Worldtwitch 2007).
    The IUCN Red List classifies the species as ``Endangered,'' because 
it has a very small and highly fragmented range. The black-hooded 
antwren appears to be declining rapidly in response to continuing 
habitat loss. Currently, it is known to inhabit 7 sites, and the 
population is estimated at 1,000 to 2,499 birds with a decreasing 
population trend (BirdLife International 2007). The IUCN Red List 
notes, however, that data quality is poor for these estimates and that 
there is a serious need for new population demographic information on 
the species' current population size (BirdLife International 2007). 
This species is also formally recognized as ``Endangered'' under 
Brazilian law (Order No. 1.522) (ECOLEX 2007).
    The black-hooded antwren resides in one of the most densely 
populated regions of Brazil, where deforestation has been occurring for 
more than 400 years (BirdLife International 2003). The species' habitat 
is currently threatened by ongoing urbanization, industrialization, and 
agricultural expansion. The antwren's habitat has been reduced to less 
than 10 percent of its original extent (Brown and Brown 1992, as cited 
in BirdLife International 2003; H[ouml]fling 2007; The Nature 
Conservancy 2007). Remaining tracts of suitable habitat near Rio de 
Janeiro and Sao Paulo are threatened by ongoing development of coastal 
areas, primarily for tourism enterprises (e.g., hotel complexes, 
beachside housing) and associated infrastructure, as well as widespread 
clearing for expansion of livestock pastures and plantations (Birdlife 
International 2007). Threats to the black-hooded antwen and its habitat 
are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under 
the Act is warranted.
Fringe-Backed Fire-Eye (Pyriglena atra)
    The fringe-backed fire-eye is known from the narrow coastal belt of 
Atlantic forest in the vicinity of Salvador, coastal Bahia (west of the 
town of Santo Amaro), forest patches along the Linha Verde highway, and 
north to southern Sergipe (in the vicinity of Crasto and Santa Luzia de 
Itanhia), Brazil (Pacheco and Whitney 1995, J. Minns in litt. 1998, 
B.M. Whitney in litt. 1999, and J. Mazar Barnett in litt. 2000; all as 
cited in BirdLife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; del Hoyo et 
al. 2003). Recent fieldwork indicates that the species' distribution is 
not as disjunct as previously considered because it has been found in 
remnant forest and secondary-growth patches along the northern coast of 
Bahia at Conde and Janda[iacute]ra (Souza 2002, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2007). Although populations may have been vastly reduced 
over time, the species' preference for early successional secondary-
growth habitat means its range is likely to have been underestimated 
(BirdLife International 2007). The fringe-backed fire-eye also favors 
the tangled, dense undergrowth of lowland forests as well as other 
semi-open habitats where horizontal perches are located close to the 
ground (BirdLife International 2007).
    Currently, the population is estimated at 1,000 to 2,499 
individuals (BirdLife International 2007), an increase from the 
population estimate in 2000, which indicated that between 250 and 999 
individuals remained in the wild (BirdLife International 2000). The 
increase in the population estimate results from extension of the 
species' known range (del Hoyo et al. 2003), as well as indications 
that the distribution was not as disjunct as previously thought (Souza 
2002, as cited in BirdLife International 2007). From 2000 to 2004, the 
fringe-backed fire-eye was categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' by 
the IUCN Red List, because of its extremely small range and declining 
habitat and because it was known from a few, highly-fragmented 
localities (IUCN 2002). While the fringe-backed fire-eye is now 
classified as ``Endangered'' by the IUCN Red List because the species' 
range is more extensive than previously known (BirdLife International 
2007), it does still have a very small, fragmented range, within which 
the extent and quality of its habitat are continuing to decline and 
where it is only known from a few localities (BirdLife International 
2007). The entire range of the fringe-backed fire-eye encompasses only 
about 1,924 mi\2\ (4,990 km\2\), with only 20 percent of this area 
considered occupied (BirdLife International 2007). Furthermore, the 
fringe-backed fire-eye has not been located at several sites from where 
it was previously known in Bahia (del Hoyo et al. 2003). The fringe-
backed fire-eye is formally recognized as ``Endangered'' in Brazil and 
is directly protected by legislation (Collar et al. 1992; BirdLife 
International 2007; ECOLEX 2007), which prohibits or regulates 
international trade, hunting, collection, research, captive 
propagation, and general harm to the species. However, the greatest 
threat to the species continues to be habitat loss (BirdLife 
International 2007). Threats to the fringe-backed fire-eye and its 
habitat are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for 
listing under the Act is warranted.
Brown-Banded Antpitta (Grallaria milleri)
    The brown-banded antpitta is endemic to the Volcan Ru[iacute]z-
Tolima massif of the central Andes (Caldas, Risaralda, Quind[iacute]o, 
and Tolima), Colombia (BirdLife International 2007). The species 
inhabits humid understory and forest floors of mid-montane and cloud 
forests between 5,905 and 8,530 ft (1,800 and 2,600 m) in areas with a 
high density of herbs and shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 2003; Kattan and 
Beltr[aacute]n 1999). The species' current range is estimated to be 116 
mi\2\ (300 km\2\) (BirdLife International 2007g). The species is known 
today in three areas in the upper R[iacute]o Magdalena Valley: (1) The 
humid forests in the Central Andes of Colombia's Ucumar[iacute] 
Regional Park (Risaralda Department); the site is approximately 17 
mi\2\ (44 km\2\) in the Ot[uacute]n River watershed (Kattan and 
Beltr[aacute]n 1999); (2) the south-east slope of Volc[aacute]n Tolima 
in the R[iacute]o Toche Valley on private land (Tolima Department); 
this location is 0.02 mi\2\ (0.05 km\2\) in size at elevations ranging 
from 9,022 to 9,514 ft (2,750 to 2,900 m) (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 
2002); and (3) the R[iacute]o Blanco river basin (Caldas Department); 
the site is a strip of land less than 124 linear mi (200 linear km) on 
the Central Cordilla, between 7,546 and 10,171 ft (2,300 and 3,100 m) 
in elevation (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002).
    Between the years 1911 and 1942, only 10 specimens were collected 
at elevations of 9,004 to 10,299 ft (2,745 to 3,140 m) in Caldas and 
Quind[iacute]o (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 1997). The species was not 
seen for more than 50 years, until it was rediscovered in May 1994, in 
Ucumar[iacute] Regional Park, Risaralda (Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 
1997). Surveys conducted between 1994 and 1997 estimated that 106 
individuals were present in a 0.24 mi\2\ (0.63 km\2\) area (Kattan and 
Beltr[aacute]n 1997, 1999). Further observations of the species were 
made during 1998-2000 on the southeast slope of Volc[aacute]n Tolima in 
the R[iacute]o Toche Valley, where it is considered uncommon and local 
(L[oacute]pez-Lan[uacute]s et al. 2000, L[oacute]pez-Lan[uacute]s in 
litt. 2000, and P.G.W. Salaman in litt. 1999, 2000, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2007; Renjifo et al. 2002). A census of the 
population in the R[iacute]o Blanco river basin was undertaken in June 
2000. Researchers estimated the presence of at least 30 individuals, 
based on vocalizations they elicited in response to recordings of the 
species' alarm call (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002).
    The population of brown-banded antpitta is estimated by the IUCN to 
be

[[Page 44077]]

between 250 and 999 birds (BirdLife International 2007). It is 
estimated that the species has lost up to 9 percent of its population 
in the last 10 years, or 3 generations, and that this rate of decline 
will continue over the next 10 years (BirdLife International 2007).
    The IUCN has classified the brown-banded antpitta as ``Endangered'' 
since 1994, because it is known from very few locations, occupies a 
very small range, and habitat loss and degradation are continuing 
(BirdLife International 2007). It is identified as an ``Endangered'' 
species under Colombian law pursuant to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of 
the Law 99 of 1993 as outlined in Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (ECOLEX 
2007).
    Deforestation has greatly affected the current population size and 
distributional range of the brown-banded antpitta. Nearly all the other 
forested habitat below 10,827 ft (3,300 m) in the Central Andes, where 
the brown-banded antpitta occurred historically, has been deforested 
and cleared for agricultural land use (BirdLife International 2007). 
The remaining forests providing suitable habitat for the brown-banded 
antpitta have become fragmented and isolated and are either surrounded 
by, or being converted to, pasture and agricultural crops (e.g. , 
coffee plantations, potatoes, beans) (Beltr[aacute]n and Kattan 2002; 
BirdLife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; Kattan and 
Beltr[aacute]n 1997; Kattan and Beltr[aacute]n 2002). By 1998, 
approximately 85 percent of forested habitat at altitudes between 6,234 
ft (1,900 m) and 10,499 ft (3,200 m), where the species is most likely 
to be found, had been converted to other land uses (BirdLife 
International 2007; Cuervo 2002; Stattersfield et al. 1998), and forest 
conversion has continued. Cuervo (2002) estimated that the available 
suitable habitat for this species totals no more than 310 mi\2\ (500 
km\2\), although the species is estimated to only occupy an area 116 
mi\2\ (300 km\2\) in size (BirdLife International 2007). Threats to the 
brown-banded antpitta and its habitat continue, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
Kaempfer's Tody-Tyrant (Hemitriccus kaempferi, previously known as 
Idioptilon kaempferi)
    The Kaempfer's tody-tyrant is very rare and has a very small, 
extremely fragmented range in Brazil which is estimated to be about 7.3 
mi\2\ (19 km\2\) (BirdLife International 2007). The species is only 
known from three localities in Santa Catarina, Brazil (with recent 
records from just two): one record at Salto do Pira[iacute] near Villa 
Nova in 1929, one specimen that was collected at Brusque in 1950, and 
another in Reserva Particular do Patrim[ocirc]nio Natural de Volta 
Velha, near Itapo[aacute] in 1998 (Barnett et al. 2000; L.N. Naka in 
litt. 1999; as cited in BirdLife International 2007). It inhabits humid 
lowland Atlantic forest. At one of these localities, Salto do 
Pira[iacute], the species has typically been found in habitats which 
include forest edge, well-shaded secondary growth, and sections of low, 
epiphyte-laden open woodland near watercourses (Barnett et al. 2000). 
It feeds predominantly in the midstory of medium-sized trees, and mated 
pairs appear to remain within small, well-defined areas (Barnett et al. 
2000).
    In 2004, the IUCN changed the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant's decade-long 
classification on the Red List from ``Endangered'' to ``Critically 
Endangered,'' because the species has an extremely small and fragmented 
range, with recent records from only two locations, and ongoing 
deforestation is occurring in the vicinity of these sites (Birdlife 
International 2007). The population estimate is 1,000 to 2,499 
individuals and declining (BirdLife International 2007). The Atlantic 
forest has been extensively deforested, and the lowland forest 
continues to be cleared in the vicinity of the two remaining sites 
(BirdLife International 2007; H[ouml]fling 2007; The Nature Conservancy 
2007). The Kaempfer's tody-tyrant is protected by Brazilian law. These 
protections prohibit the following activities with regard to this 
species: export and international trade, collection and research, 
captive propagation, and also provide measures which help to protect 
remaining suitable habitat, such as prohibition of exploitation of the 
remaining primary forests within the Atlantic forest biome and 
management of various practices in primary and secondary forests, such 
as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, recreation, and water 
resources (ECOLEX 2007). The species is restricted to one 15 km\2\ (6 
mi\2\) protected area and in adjacent forest (Barnett et al. 2000; 
BirdLife International 2007). This habitat area is insufficient for the 
long-term survival of the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, particularly since, 
for various reasons (e.g., lack of funding, personnel, or local 
management commitment), Brazil's current capacity to achieve its stated 
natural resource objectives in protected areas is limited (ADEJA 2007; 
Bruner et al. 2001; Costa 2007; IUCN 1999; Neotropical News 1996; 
Neotropical News 1999). Therefore, even with the expansion or further 
designation of protected areas, it is likely that not all of the 
identified resource concerns for the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (e.g., 
residential and agricultural encroachment, resource extraction, 
unregulated tourism, grazing) would be sufficiently addressed at these 
sites.
    Threats to the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant and its habitat are ongoing, 
and we find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is 
warranted.
Ash-Breasted Tit-Tyrant (Anairetes alpinus)
    The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is a small New World flycatcher (family 
Tyrannidae) (del Hoyo et al. 2004), confined to humid Polylepis forests 
in the Andes Mountains of Peru and Bolivia (BirdLife International 
2007; Collar et al. 1992; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990; InfoNatura 
2007). A. alpinus consists of two subspecies, the nominate subspecies, 
A. alpinus alpinus, which occurs on the west Andean slope in northern 
Peru (Ancash, La Libertad), and A. alpinus bolivianus, which occurs in 
southeast Peru (Cuzco, Apurimac) and northwest Bolivia (La Paz) 
(BirdLife International 2007; del Hoyo et al. 2004).
    Historically, the ash-breasted tit-tyrant may have been well-
distributed in the previously large, contiguous expanses of Polylepis 
forest of the high-Andes of Peru and Bolivia (Fjelds[aring] 2002a); 
however, it is now restricted to remnant patches of these forests in 
Peru (Cuzco, Apurimac, and Corredor Conchucos) and Bolivia (La Paz) 
(Birdlife International 2007; Collar et al. 1992; Fjelds[aring] and 
Krabbe 1990; InfoNatura 2007).
    The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is restricted to high-elevations--
12,139 to 15,092 ft above sea level (3,700 to 4,600 m) (del Hoyo et al. 
2004). Individuals forage alone, in pairs, groups of three, and 
occasionally in mixed-species flocks, making short trips to hover-glean 
or perch-glean near the tops and outer edges of Polylepis spp. shrubs 
and trees (del Hoyo et al. 2004; Engblom et al. 2002). We are unaware 
of any information that is available on the breeding behavior of the 
species. Juveniles have been observed in March and July around Cuzco, 
Peru (del Hoyo et al. 2004).
    The ash-breasted tit-tyrant has been described as generally quite 
rare and local, with one to two pairs per occupied woodland 
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990). BirdLife International (2007) and 
Fjelds[aring] (2002b) placed the population somewhere between 250 to 
1,000 individuals. Gomez (2005, in litt. 2007) conducted intensive 
searches using song

[[Page 44078]]

playback within 80 percent of the suitable habitat in Bolivia and found 
180 individuals distributed within 14 forest patches. Chutas (2007) 
reported only 461 individuals, based on detailed surveys of suitable 
habitat, which contained the highest concentration of Polylepis forest 
in southeastern Peru.
    The IUCN categorizes the ash-breasted tit-tyrant as ``Endangered'' 
because of its very small population, which is confined to a severely 
fragmented habitat undergoing a continuing decline in extent, area, and 
quality (BirdLife International 2007). The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is 
considered an ``Endangered'' species by the Peruvian government under 
Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG which prohibits hunting, taking, 
transport, or trade of this species, except as permitted by regulation. 
However, the species' habitat is not protected by this law. We are not 
aware of any regulations in Bolivia that are effective at protecting 
the habitat of the ash-breasted tit-tyrant.
    The principal factor affecting the distribution of Polylepis 
forests, the species' habitat, is the intensity of burning and grazing, 
which restrict vegetation growth to locations where fires cannot 
spread, and cattle and sheep do not normally roam, such as ravines, 
boulders, rock ledges, and sandy ridges (Fjelds[aring] 2002a and b). 
Many farmers, however, destroy Polylepis forests to plant crops, even 
on steep hillsides unsuitable for cultivation (Hensen 2002). Harvesting 
of firewood from Polylepis forests is also a significant threat to the 
ash-breasted tit-tyrant's habitat (Aucca and Ramsay 2005; Engblom in 
litt. 2000). Trampling and grazing by sheep and cattle limit forest 
regeneration and can contribute to degradation of remaining forest 
patches (Fjelds[aring] 2002a). Remaining forest fragments are becoming 
more accessible to the expanding population around Bolivia's largest 
city through road building and mining projects, further threatening the 
survival of Polylepis forests upon which the ash-breasted tit-tyrant 
depends (Purcell et al. 2004; Purcell and Brelsford 2004).
    The ash-breasted tit-tyrant is completely dependent upon high-
elevation humid Polylepis forest for survival, and the ongoing loss of 
this habitat is believed to be the primary threat to this species. Less 
than 1 percent of this forest habitat remains in the humid highlands, 
where Polylepis forests can grow to be tall and dense (Fjelds[aring] 
2002a), providing habitat for the ash-breasted tit-tyrant. Only about 
1,554 ac (629 ha) of habitat remain for the ash-breasted tit-tyrant in 
Cuzco and Apurimac, Peru (Chutas 2007), and 1,245 ac (504 ha) of 
Polylepis forest remains in La Paz, Bolivia (Purcell and Brelsford 
2004). Habitat estimates for Corredor Conchucos (Peru), the area 
occupied by the northern ash-breasted tit-tyrant subspecies (A. alpinus 
alpinus), are not available, but Chutas (2007) reported only 30 
individuals from this area. In Bolivia, approximately 507 ac (205 ha) 
of habitat have been destroyed by clear-cutting since the early 1990s; 
if the current rate of deforestation continues, projections indicate 
that all of the Polylepis forest in Bolivia will be destroyed within 
the next 3 decades (Purcell and Brelsford 2004). The rate of habitat 
decline is lower north of Cuzco, Peru (Cordillera de Vilcanota), with 
the loss of only 1 percent of forest patches from 1956 to 2005; 
however, the remaining habitat patches in this area were already quite 
small (mean patch size is 6.2 ac (2.5 ha)), and 10 percent of forest 
patches showed a decline in forest density over this time period, 
indicating that habitat degradation might be more problematic to the 
species than total destruction of forests in this area (Jameson and 
Ramsay 2007). Threats to the ash-breasted tit-tyrant and its habitat 
are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under 
the Act is warranted.
Peruvian Plantcutter (Phytotoma raimondii)
    The Peruvian plantcutter is endemic to the coastal desert of 
northwestern Peru, from sea level to 1,640 ft (500 m) (del Hoyo et al. 
2004). The species is restricted to Peru's Talara region, which 
contains 60 to 80 percent of the population and highly fragmented 
forest patches around the Chiclayo area of Lambayeque (del Hoyo et al. 
2004). BirdLife International (2007) estimates the total population to 
range between 500 and 1,000 individuals.
    Peruvian plantcutters inhabit sparse desert scrub and coastal dunes 
scattered with large shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 2004). They also occupy 
riparian thickets and woodlands dominated by Prosopis spp. and Acacia 
spp. (del Hoyo et al. 2004). This species appears to prefer a high 
diversity of plant species, including specific shrubs and trees with 
low-hanging branches (Elton 2004; Williams 2005). Plantcutters are the 
only passerines with a predominantly leaf-eating diet (Bucher et al. 
2003).
    The Peruvian plantcutter is categorized as ``Endangered'' by the 
IUCN Red List due to ongoing habitat destruction and continuing 
degradation of its small and severely fragmented range (BirdLife 
International 2000; BirdLife International 2007). The Peruvian 
plantcutter is listed as ``Endangered'' by the Peruvian government 
under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG which prohibits hunting, taking, 
transport, or trade of endangered species, except as permitted by 
regulation. However, the species' habitat is not protected by this law.
    The major threat to the Peruvian plantcutter is believed to be loss 
of habitat due to agriculture, burning, grazing, timber cutting, and 
human use. Extirpation of the species from many sites occurred as 
conversion of heavily wooded coastal river valleys to irrigated 
agriculture took place (Lanyon 1975; Collar et al. 1992). Extensive 
stands of small- to medium-size trees, such as mesquite (Prosopis 
spp.), acacia (Acacia spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and Capparis spp., 
previously occupied the river valleys, but wooded areas are now 
confined to land where the lack of irrigation discourages cultivation 
(del Hoyo et al. 2004; Williams 2005). The remaining forest fragments 
are threatened by burning, grazing, timber cutting, firewood and 
charcoal production, and ongoing conversion for cultivation, primarily 
sugarcane. These factors are believed to have contributed to the 
destruction of previously occupied plantcutter habitat, which reduced 
or eliminated forage and nesting sites necessary for the species to 
thrive (BirdLife International 2000; del Hoyo et al. 2004).
    Talara, owned by PetroPeru, the State-owned petroleum company, 
retains the largest contiguous area of intact habitat currently 
occupied by the Peruvian plantcutter. PetroPeru strictly bans 
trespassing; therefore, the population in this area has not been 
exposed to the same risk factors that it is subject to in the other 
forested areas. Estimates of the amount of habitat suitable for the 
plantcutter at Talara vary widely, from 123,553 ac (50,000 ha) (del 
Hoyo et al. 2004) to 4,942 ac (2,000 ha) (Williams 2005). Talara 
supports approximately 400 to 600 individuals or 60 to 80 percent of 
the global population of Peruvian plantcutters (del Hoyo et al. 2004; 
Williams 2005). Although PetroPeru historically held the land rights to 
the whole province of Talara, the land is now reverting to the Peruvian 
government, which is selling it to buyers who are likely to develop the 
beachfront property (Elton 2004). Attempts to create a protected 
reserve for the plantcutter on approximately 12,000 ac (4,860 ha) 
around Talara are reportedly not progressing as originally proposed 
(Elton 2004; Williams 2005). Future land-cover projections from the 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment indicate that by 2050, 11 to 16 percent 
of the Peruvian plantcutter's range is

[[Page 44079]]

likely to be unsuitable for the species (Jetz et al. 2007). Threats to 
the Peruvian plantcutter and its habitat continue, and we find that 
proposing this species for listing under the Act is warranted.
St. Lucia Forest Thrush (Cichlhermina lherminieri sanctaeluciae)
    The St. Lucia forest thrush is endemic to the island of St. Lucia 
in the West Indies (Raffaele et al. 1998). This subspecies occupies 
mid- and high-altitude primary and secondary moist forest habitat in 
the coastal areas of the island. The St. Lucia forest thrush feeds on 
insects and berries that are found from ground level all the way up 
into the forest canopy (Raffaele 1998). The island of St. Lucia 
encompasses 151,905 ac (61,500 ha). Of this area, 31,048 ac (12,570 ha) 
are natural forest, 56 percent of which is located in Forest Reserves 
and the remaining 43 percent of forest is situated on private lands 
(Delegation of the European Commission 2004). Commercial harvest of 
timber is allowed on private land, but it is strictly prohibited within 
the Forest Reserves (Forestry Department Proceedings 2000).
    Although the St. Lucia forest thrush's population was considered 
numerous in the late-1800s (Keith 1997), the subspecies' current 
population status is unknown. Recent sightings are rare, with only six 
confirmed sightings during the last few years (Dornelly 2007). The 
entire species of forest thrush (Cichlhermina lherminieri) is 
classified as ``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN Red List due to human-induced 
deforestation and introduced predators (IUCN 2006). The St. Lucia 
forest thrush is a fully protected species under St. Lucia's Wildlife 
Protection Act (WPA) of 1980 (Schedule 1), which has prohibited hunting 
of the subspecies since 1980. In addition, the WPA prohibits taking, 
damaging or destroying nests, eggs, or offspring of a fully protected 
species.
    Identified risks to this species include habitat loss, competition 
with the bare-eyed robin (Turdus nudigenis), brood parasitism by the 
invasive shiny cowbird (Molothrus bonarientsis), hunting by humans for 
food, and predation by mongoose and other introduced predators 
(Raffaele et al. 1998). The demand for agricultural land on St. Lucia 
has resulted in deforestation; approximately 33.7 percent of the island 
is under agricultural production (GOSL 2000). Another contributing 
factor to habitat loss is soil erosion. Approximately 80 percent of the 
island is composed of steep terrain, and poor agricultural practices 
have resulted in excessive soil erosion and loss of soil productivity, 
two factors which contribute to destruction of forest habitat in some 
areas and degradation of forest habitat in other locations (Bond 1990). 
Traditionally, forest resources have been used for many household 
products in daily use on St. Lucia. Currently, heating and cooking in 
the homes of island residents utilize forest resources; charcoal and 
firewood use combined account for 83 percent of St. Lucia's fuel supply 
(Forestry Department Proceedings, 2000).
    Tropical storms and hurricanes frequently occur in the Caribbean 
Sea, and can have severe, widespread impacts on the terrestrial 
ecosystems of small islands. High winds are a primary threat to forest 
habitats due to the damage caused to the trees. They are often blown 
over or sustain severe damage to trunks and limbs, which can result in 
critical habitat loss to the St. Lucia forest thrush. During the last 
three decades, there has been an increase in the number of hurricanes 
and severe tropical storms experienced by St Lucia. After hurricane 
Allen in 1980, at least 55 percent of all dominant tree species had 
broken branches and many trees lost large portions of their crowns 
(Whitman 1980, as reported in GOSL 1993). Threats to the St. Lucia 
forest thrush are ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for 
listing under the Act is warranted.
Eiao Polynesian Warbler (Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis, previously 
known as Acrocephalus mendanae aquilonis and Acrocephalus caffer 
aquilonis)
    The reed warblers of Polynesia have been divided into two species, 
the Tahiti reed-warbler (Acrocephalus caffer) and the Marquesas-reed 
warbler (Acrocephalus mendanae) (Birdlife International 2007a and b). 
However, new genetic research using mitochondrial DNA markers to 
develop a phylogeny of the eastern Polynesian taxa of reed-warblers of 
the Marquesas Archipelago has led to further proposed taxonomic changes 
for the reed-warblers on these islands. This proposed change separates 
the reed-warblers on the four northernmost islands in the Marquesas 
Archipelago into a separate species (Acrocephalus percernis) from those 
on the southern islands (Acrocephalus mendanae). The proposed taxonomic 
change maintains the subspecies delineations between the islands; the 
reed-warblers on Eiao Island remain a subspecies, now renamed 
Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis (Cibois et al. 2007).
    The Eiao Polynesian warbler is endemic to a single island (Eiao) in 
the Marquesas Archipelago of French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean. The 
Marquesas Archipelago is one of the most remote island chains in the 
world, lying between 404 and 600 mi (650 and 965 km) south of the 
equator and approximately 994 mi (1,600 km) northeast of Tahiti. Eiao 
Island is one of the northernmost islands in the Archipelago, 
encompassing 17 mi\2\ (43.8 km\2\) in area, and ranging in altitude 
from sea level to 1,890 ft (576 m) (Wikipedia 2007). The Eiao 
Polynesian warbler's preferred habitat is dry forest (Raust 2007).
    Population densities of the Eiao Polynesian warbler are thought to 
be high within remaining suitable habitat, based on a recent study 
which found individual singing birds approximately every 130 to 165 ft 
(40 to 50 m). Total numbers are estimated to be greater than 2,000 
birds (Dr. P. Raust, pers. comm. to Amedee Brickey, USFWS 2007). This 
estimate is much higher than the 100 to 200 individuals estimated in 
1987 by Thibault (as previously cited in USFWS 2007). It is not clear 
if the subspecies' population actually increased from 1987 to 2007, or 
if the different population estimates can be attributed to the use of 
different survey methodologies. We have no reliable information on the 
population trend of this subspecies. The Eiao Polynesian warbler is a 
protected subspecies in French Polynesia. The conservation status of 
this newly designated subspecies has not been categorized on the IUCN 
Red List.
    Although currently uninhabited by humans, Eiao Island's natural 
vegetation has been heavily impacted by introduced domestic livestock 
(sheep and swine); part of the island has even been denuded of all 
vegetation. As a result, only 10 to 20 percent of the island contains 
the Eiao Polynesian warbler's preferred dry forest habitat (Raust 
2007). Suitable subspecies' habitat is limited to steep slopes that are 
inaccessible to domestic livestock. While Eiao Island was declared a 
Nature Reserve by French Polynesia in 1992, we are not aware of any 
plans to protect the habitat of the Eiao Polynesian warbler.
    Introduced mammals and birds have been implicated in loss of 
endemic birds in the Marquesas and may impact the Eiao Polynesian 
warbler. Two species of nonnative rats, the Polynesian rat (Rattus 
excluans) and the black rat, were introduced to Eiao Island during the 
late nineteenth century (Thibault and Myers 2000, as reported in 
Thibault et al. 2002) and are thought to have contributed to the 
decline of the Eiao Polynesian warbler. However, recent research 
indicates that reed-warblers in the Marquesas Archipelago nest 
sufficiently

[[Page 44080]]

high in trees to avoid significant predation from rats (Thibault et al. 
2002). The most destructive introduced avian predator in the Marquesas, 
the common myna (Acridotheres tristis), has not been found on Eiao 
Island. If the myna expands its range and colonizes Eiao Island, there 
is a chance it could impact the Eiao Polynesian warbler (Thibault et 
al. 2002).
    Another potential risk to the Eiao Polynesian warbler is 
destruction of habitat by tsunamis and cyclones. French Polynesia, and 
in particular the Marquesas Archipelago, are frequently affected by 
tsunamis; the waves observed in the Marquesas are generally 2 to 10 
times higher than waves recorded in Tahiti (Hebert et al. 2001). The 
Eiao Polynesian warbler is also exposed to high winds during tropical 
cyclones, which often displace individuals. Indirect effects occur 
during the aftermath of a storm when subspecies are impacted by the 
loss of food supplies, foraging substrates, and roost sites, increasing 
their vulnerability to predators and disease. Large-scale climate 
models predict increased intensity of tropical cyclones impacting 
island chains in the Pacific, including the Marquesas Archipelago 
(Meehl et al. 2007). Threats to this subspecies and its habitat are 
ongoing, and we find that proposing this species for listing under the 
Act is warranted.
Medium Tree-Finch (Camarhynchus pauper)
    The medium tree-finch is endemic to Floreana in the Galapagos 
Islands, Ecuador (BirdLife International 2007). Its habitat is montane 
evergreen and tropical deciduous forest (Stotz et al. 1996), primarily 
above 328 ft (100 m). Population numbers of this species are poorly 
known, with indirect estimations at 1,000 to 2,499 birds (BirdLife 
International 2007). However, Stotz et al. (1996) consider the relative 
abundance of the species to be ``common.'' Population trends are 
unknown.
    This poorly known species is considered ``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN 
because it has a very small range and is restricted to a single island 
where introduced species are a potential threat (BirdLife International 
2004) due to herbivore degradation and loss of habitat and possibly 
predator-caused mortality (BirdLife International 2007; Jackson 1985). 
In addition, agricultural activities (Cruz and Cruz 1996) and free-
ranging domestic livestock continue to destroy and degrade the habitat 
of the medium tree-finch (BirdLife International 2007). The recent 
discovery of an introduced parasitic fly (Philornis downsi) on Floreana 
Island (Kleindorfer et al. MS, as cited in Grant et al. 2005) has 
raised concerns about the impact this parasite might be having on the 
medium tree-finch (Fessl et al. 2006). In an experimental study 
conducted on nearby Santa Cruz Island, Fessl et al. (2006) found that 
high mortality of nestlings was directly attributable to parasitism by 
P. downsi, as evidenced by a near threefold increase in fledgling 
success in a parasite-reduced group versus a parasite-infested control 
group. Further, because species with small broods have been found to 
suffer higher parasite loads and therefore higher nestling mortality 
(Fessl and Tebbich 2002), infestation of P. downsi on species with 
naturally low clutch sizes, such as the medium tree-finch, is of 
particular concern (Fessl et al. 2006).
    In 1959, Ecuador designated 97 percent of the Galapagos land area 
as a National Park, leaving 3 percent of the remaining land area 
distributed between Santa Cruz, San Crist[oacute]bal, Isabela, and 
Floreana Islands. National Park protection, however, does not mean the 
area is to be maintained in a pristine condition. The park land area is 
divided into various zones signifying the level of human use (Parque 
Nacional Galapagos Ecuador n.d.). Although Floreana Island includes a 
large ``conservation and restoration'' zone, it does include a 
significant sized ``farming'' zone (Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador 
n.d.), where agricultural and grazing activities may continue to impact 
the habitat.
    The Galapagos Islands were declared a World Heritage Site in 1979, 
as they were recognized to be ``cultural and natural heritage of 
outstanding universal value.'' The aim of establishment as a WHS is 
conservation of the site for future generations (UNESCO World Heritage 
Centre 2008). However, due to threats to this site posed by invasive 
species, increasing tourism, and immigration, in June, 2007, the World 
Heritage Committee placed the Galapagos on the ``List of World Heritage 
in Danger,'' with the intent of increasing support for their 
conservation (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2007). In March 2008, 
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre/United Nations Foundation project for 
invasive species management provided funding of 2.19 million U.S. 
dollars (USD) to the Ecuadorian National Environmental Fund's 
``Galapagos Invasive Species'' account to support invasive species 
control and eradication on the islands. In addition, the Ecuador 
government previously had contributed 1 million USD to this fund 
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2008), demonstrating the government 
of Ecuador's commitment to reducing the threat of invasive species to 
the islands. At the present time, however, threats to the medium tree-
finch and its habitat caused by introduced species continue, and we 
find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is 
warranted.
Cherry-Throated Tanager (Nemosia rourei)
    The cherry-throated tanager inhabits primary forest habitats in 
Esp[iacute]rito Santo and, possibly, Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro, 
Brazil (Bauer et al. 2000; BirdLife International 2007; Venturini et 
al. 2005). Because the cherry-throated tanager was only known from a 
single specimen collected in the 1800s and a reliable sighting of eight 
individuals from 1941, the species was presumed to be extinct (Collar 
et al. 1992; Ridgely and Tudor 1989; Scott and Brooke 1985). However, 
the species was rediscovered in 1998 (Bauer et al. 2000; Venturini et 
al. 2005). Since then, the cherry-throated tanager has been documented 
at three sites of remnant primary forest in south-central 
Esp[iacute]rito Santo (Bauer et al. 2000; Scott 1997; Venturini et al. 
2005). Two of the currently occupied sites are in private ownership and 
the third, which is believed to be used only sporadically by the 
species, is within the Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve (Venturini et 
al. 2005).
    The cherry-throated tanager is endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome 
and inhabits the upper canopies of trees within humid, montane, primary 
forests (Bauer et al. 2000; BirdLife International 2007; Venturini et 
al. 2005). It is a primary forest-obligate species that typically 
forages for insects within the interior crowns of tall, epiphyte-laden 
trees and occasionally lower down--ca. 6.6 ft (2 m)--at the forest edge 
(Bauer et al. 2000; BirdLife International 2007; Venturini et al. 
2005). Cherry-throated tanagers can be found in mixed-species flocks 
and appear to require relatively large territories--ca. 1.544 mi\2\ 
(3.99 km\2\) (Venturini et al. 2005). Within its current distribution, 
the species makes sporadic use of coffee (Coffea spp.), pine (Pinus 
spp.), and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) plantations, presumably as 
travel corridors between remaining patches of primary forest (Venturini 
et al. 2005). Little is known about the breeding behavior of the 
cherry-throated tanager (Venturini et al. 2002).
    The IUCN categorizes the species as ``Critically Endangered'' 
because its extant population is estimated to be between 50 and 249 
individuals. The population is extremely small and

[[Page 44081]]

highly fragmented, and presumed to be declining (BirdLife International 
2007). There is even speculation that the IUCN population estimate is 
too high, considering that the maximum number of individuals recorded 
in the only 2 confirmed populations is 19 (Venturini et al. 2005).
    Based on a number of recent estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 
historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest 
biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various 
human activities (The Nature Conservancy 2007; H[ouml]fling 2007). In 
addition to the overall loss and degradation of native habitat within 
this biome, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. 
Most of the tropical forest habitats believed to have been used 
historically by the cherry-throated tanager have been converted or 
severely degraded by human activities (Bauer et al. 2000; BirdLife 
International 2007; Ridgely and Tudor 1989). Even when they are 
formally protected, the remaining fragments of primary forest habitat 
where the species may still occur will likely undergo further 
degradation due to their altered dynamics and isolation between forest 
fragments (Tabanez and Viana 2000).
    The cherry-throated tanager is formally recognized as 
``Endangered'' in Brazil and is directly protected by legislation 
promulgated by the Brazilian government (BirdLife International 2007; 
ECOLEX 2007). These protections prohibit the following activities with 
regard to this species: Export and international trade, collection and 
research, captive propagation, and also provide measures which help to 
protect remaining suitable habitat, such as prohibition of exploitation 
of the remaining primary forests within the Atlantic forest biome and 
management of various practices in primary and secondary forests, such 
as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, recreation, and water 
resources (ECOLEX 2007). The owners of Fazenda Pindobas IV and Caetes, 
two sighting areas, have cooperated in protecting cherry-throated 
tanager habitat in these areas, and efforts are underway to solidify 
protection of these privately owned areas (BirdLife International 2007; 
Venturini et al. 2005). Elsewhere, for various reasons (e.g., lack of 
funding, personnel, or local management commitment), Brazil's current 
capacity to achieve its stated natural resource objectives in protected 
areas is limited (ADEJA 2007; Bruner et al. 2001; Costa 2007; IUCN 
1999; Neotropical News 1996; Neotropical News 1999). Therefore, even 
with the further designation of protected areas, it is likely that not 
all of the identified resource concerns for the cherry-throated tanager 
(e.g., residential and agricultural encroachment, resource extraction, 
unregulated tourism, grazing) would be sufficiently addressed.
    Threats to the cherry-throated tanager and its habitat are ongoing, 
and we find that proposing this species for listing under the Act is 
warranted.

Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted but Precluded

    We have found that, for the 20 taxa discussed below, publication of 
proposed listing rules will continue to be precluded over the next year 
due to the need to complete pending, higher-priority listing actions. 
We will continue to monitor the status of these species as new 
information becomes available (see Monitoring, below). Our review of 
new information will determine if a change in status is warranted, 
including the need to emergency list any species or change the LPN of 
any of the species.

Birds

Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi unicornis)
    The southern helmeted curassow is known from central Bolivia and 
central and eastern Peru (Collar et al. 1992). In Bolivia, the 
subspecies (P. unicornis unicornis) is known from the adjacent 
Ambor[oacute] and Carrasco National Parks (Herzog and Kessler 1998). 
The southern helmeted curassow is one of the least frequently 
encountered bird species in South America because of the 
inaccessibility of its preferred habitat and its apparent intolerance 
of human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998). It has been reported 
from only two Peruvian and three Bolivian localities, which are fairly 
close together (Collar et al. 1992; Cox et al., as cited in Herzog and 
Kessler 1998). In Bolivia, it remained unknown to science until 1937 
(Cordier 1971). In Amboro National Park, the curassows are sighted 
regularly on the upper Rio Saguayo (Wege and Long 1995). Field surveys 
on the Peru-Bolivia border, including one in 2004, have failed to 
locate any birds (BirdLife International 2007a; Herzog et al. 1999; 
Herzog and Kessler 1998; Mee et al. 2000), and limited local reports 
suggest that the bird is rare (Herzog et al. 1999; Herzog and Kessler 
1998). In 2005, a team from Armonia Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) 
saw one and heard three southern helmeted curassows (P. unicornis 
koepckeae) in the Sira Mountains of central Peru--this is the first 
sighting of the distinctive endemic Peruvian race since 1969 (BirdLife 
International 2008).
    The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane 
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 1,476 to 3,936 ft (450 to 1,200 
m) (Cordier 1971; Herzog and Kessler 1998). This species prefers nuts 
of the almendrillo tree (Byrsonima wadsworthii) as its major source of 
food (Cordier 1971). It also consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft 
plants, larvae, and insects (BirdLife International 2000).
    The southern helmeted curassow was previously classified as 
``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red List. After further assessment, it was 
uplisted in 2005 to ``Endangered'' because the species is estimated to 
be declining very rapidly due to uncontrolled hunting and habitat 
destruction. It has a small range and is known from few locations in a 
narrow elevational band, which continues to be subject to habitat loss 
(BirdLife International 2004). The population is estimated at 10,000 to 
19,999 birds, with a future projected decline over the next 10 years or 
3 generations of 50 to 79 percent (BirdLife International 2007b). 
Professional hunters have caused a decline in this species in Bolivia; 
the species is often hunted for meat and its casque, or horn (Collar et 
al. 1992), which the local people use to fashion cigarette-lighters 
(Cordier 1971). Other risks to the species include forest clearing for 
staple and export crops, road building, and rural development 
(Dinerstein et al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a; 
Fjelds[aring] in litt. 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a; 
Herzog and Kessler 1998). In Peru, potential oil exploration threatens 
the species' habitat (MacLeod in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2007a) and is opening the foothills to colonization and 
additional hunting (BirdLife International 2007a).
    Large parts of the southern helmeted curassow's range are 
protected, at least on paper, by inclusion in the Amboro and Carrasco 
National Parks (300,000 ha (750,000 ac) and 616,413 ha (1,175,000 ac), 
respectively), which nominally protect the species from hunting and 
declining habitat resulting from development and road-building, 
although hunting of the curassow for meat is still reported throughout 
its range (BirdLife International 2000). The Association Armonia has 
being conducting field surveys to estimate the population and identify 
the most important sites for this species, and are evaluating human 
impact on the species' natural habitat (Llampa 2007). In addition, 
Armonia is carrying out an environmental awareness project to inform 
local people about this unique

[[Page 44082]]

bird (BirdLife Intenational 2008) and training workshops with the park 
guards (Llampa 2007).
    The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic 
genus. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude as the 
population is fairly large; however, the population trend has been 
declining rapidly. The threats to the species are imminent and ongoing. 
Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus)
    The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the 
Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyac[aacute]. 
It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (8,202-13,123 ft) 
(occasionally as low as 2,100 m (6,890 ft)) in savanna and 
p[aacute]ramo marshes (BirdLife International 2007). This rail 
frequents wetland habitats with vegetation-rich shallows that are 
surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes. It feeds along the 
water's edge, in flooded pasture land, and along small overgrown dikes 
and ponds (Varty et al. 1986; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990 as cited in 
BirdLife International 2006). This species is omnivorous, consuming a 
diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, insect larvae, worms, 
molluscs, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant material (Varty et al. 
1986; BirdLife International 2006).
    The Bogota rail is listed as ``Endangered'' by IUCN, primarily 
because its range is very small and is contracting due to widespread 
habitat loss and degradation. Furthermore, available habitat has become 
widely fragmented (BirdLife International 2007). The Ubat[eacute]-
Bogot[aacute] Plateau formerly held enormous marshes and swamps, but 
few lakes with suitable habitat now remain. All major savanna wetlands 
are seriously threatened, mainly by drainage, but also by agricultural 
encroachment, erosion, diking, eutrophication, insecticides, tourism 
and hunting activities, burning, trampling by cattle, harvesting of 
reeds, fluctuating water levels, and increased water demand (BirdLife 
International 2007). The current population is estimated to range 
between 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the trend is decreasing 
(BirdLife International 2007). Although the Bogota rail is declining, 
it is still uncommon to fairly common, with some notable populations, 
including nearly 400 birds at Laguna de Tota, some 50 territories at 
Laguna de la Herrera, approximately 110 birds at Parque La Florida, and 
other populations at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BirdLife 
International 2007). Some of the birds occur in protected areas such as 
Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most 
savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected.
    The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. Because there 
are still a number of substantial subpopulations and the species has 
been recorded at over 21 localities, we find it is subject to threats 
that are moderate in magnitude. We find that the threats are imminent 
due to the ongoing degradation of the species' wetland habitat. 
Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, previously known as P. mantelli)
    The Takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the 
world's largest extant member of the rail family (del Hoyo et al. 
1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, has been split into P. mantelli 
(extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). BirdLife 
International (2000) incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the 
extant form, while the name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to 
the extinct form. Fossils indicate that this bird was once widespread 
throughout the North and South Islands. The Takahe was thought to be 
extinct by the 1930s until its rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison 
Mountains, Fjordland (South Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New 
Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2008b). Soon after its 
rediscovery, a Takahe Special Area of 193 mi\2\ (500 km\2\) was set 
aside in Fiordland National Park for the conservation of Takahe 
(Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2008c). Today, the species is present in the 
Murchison and Stuart Mountains and has been introduced to four island 
reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Mantangi, and Maud) (Collar et al. 
1994). The population in the Murchison Mountains is important because 
it is the only mainland population that has the potential for 
sustaining a large, viable population (NZDOC 1997).
    Originally, the species occurred throughout forest and grass 
ecosystems. Today, Takahe occupy alpine grasslands (BirdLife 
International 2007). They feed on tussock grasses during much of the 
year, with snow tussocks (Chionochloa pallens, C. flavescens, and C. 
crassiuscula) being their preferred food (Crouchley 1994). By June, the 
snow cover usually prevents feeding above tree line, and birds move 
into forested valleys in the winter and feed mainly on the rhizome of a 
fern (Hypolepis millefolium). Research by Mills et al. (1980) suggested 
that Takahe require the high carbohydrate concentrations in the 
rhizomes of the fern to meet the metabolic requirement of 
thermoregulation in the mid-winter, subfreezing temperatures. The 
island populations eat introduced grasses (BirdLife International 
2007). Takahe form pair bonds that persist throughout life and 
generally occupy the same territory throughout life (Reid 1967). Their 
territories are large, and Takahe defend them aggressively against 
other Takahe, which means that they will not form dense colonies even 
in very good habitat. They are long-lived birds, probably between 14 
and 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997), which have a low 
reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of 1-3 eggs. Only a few 
pairs manage to consistently rear chicks each year. Although under 
normal conditions this is generally sufficient to maintain the 
population, populations recover slowly from catastrophic events 
(Crouchley 1994).
    The Takahe is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List, 
because it has an extremely small population (BirdLife International 
2006). When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the population 
was about 260 pairs (del Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson 1997). By the 
1970s, Takahe populations had declined dramatically and it appeared 
that the species was at risk of extinction. In 1981, the population 
reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. Since then, the population has 
fluctuated between 100 and 180 birds (Crouchley 1994). At first, 
translocated populations increased only slowly, probably due to young 
pair-bonds and the quality of the founding population (Bunin et al. 
1997). In recent years, the total Takahe population has had significant 
growth; in 2004, there was a 13.6 percent increase in the number of 
adult birds, with the number of breeding pairs up 7.9 percent (BirdLife 
International 2005). As of August 2007, birds in the Takahe Special 
Area had increased to 168, and the current national population was 297. 
Island reserves appeared to be at carrying capacity (NZDOC 2007). 
Overall, population numbers are slowly increasing due to intensive 
management of the island reserve populations, but fluctuations in the 
remnant mainland population continue to occur (BirdLife International 
2000).
    The main cause of the species' historical decline was competition 
for tussock grasses by grazing red deer (Cervus elaphus), which were 
introduced after the 1940s (Mills and Mark 1977). The red deer 
overgrazed the Takahe's habitat, eliminating nutritious plants and 
preventing some grasses from

[[Page 44083]]

seeding (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The NZDOC has controlled red deer 
through an intensive hunting program in the Murchison Mountains since 
the 1960s, and now the tussock grasses are close to their original 
condition (BirdLife International 2005).
    Predation by introduced stoats (Mustela erminea) is believed to be 
a current risk to the species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995; Bunin and 
Jamieson 1996; Crouchley 1994). The NZDOC is running a trial stoat 
control program in a portion of the Takahe Special Area to measure the 
effect on Takahe survival and productivity. Initial assessment 
indicates a positive influence (NZDOC 2007). Other potential 
competitors or predators include the introduced brush-tailed possum 
(Trichosurus vulpecula) and the threatened weka (Gallirallus 
australis), a flightless woodhen endemic to New Zealand (BirdLife 
International 2007). In addition, severe weather is a natural limiting 
factor to this species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995). Weather patterns in 
the Murchison Mountains vary from year to year. High chick and adult 
mortality may occur during extraordinarily severe winters, and poor 
breeding may result from severe stormy weather during spring breeding 
season (Crouchley 1994). Research confirms that severity of winter 
conditions adversely affects survivorship of Takahe in the wild, 
particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
    Since 1983, the NZDOC has been involved in managing a captive-
breeding and release program to boost Takahe recovery. Excess eggs from 
wild nests are managed to produce birds suitable for releasing back 
into the wild population in the Murchison Mountains. Some of these 
captive-reared birds have also been used to establish four predator-
free offshore island reserves. Since 1984, these birds have increased 
the total population on islands to about 60 birds (NZDOC 2008a). 
Captive-breeding efforts have increased the rate of survival of chicks 
reaching 1 year of age from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997). However, 
Takahe that have been translocated to the islands have higher rates of 
egg infertility and low hatching success when they breed, contributing 
to the slow increase in the islands' populations. Researchers 
postulated that the difference in vegetation between the native 
mainland grassland tussocks and that found on the islands might be 
affecting reproductive success. After testing nutrients from all 
available food sources, they concluded that there was no effect, and 
advised that a supplementary feeding program for the birds was not 
necessary or recommended (Jamieson 2003). Further research on Takahe 
established on Tiritiri Matangi Island estimated that the island can 
support up to 8 breeding pairs, but suggested that the ability of the 
island to support Takahe is likely to decrease as the grass/shrub 
ecosystem reverts to forest. The researchers concluded that although 
the four island populations fulfilled their role as an insurance 
against extinction on the mainland at the time of the study, given 
impending habitat changes on the islands, it is unclear whether these 
island populations will continue to be viable in the future without an 
active management plan (Baber and Craig 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). 
Maxwell and Jamieson (1997) studied survival and recruitment of 
captive-reared and wild-reared Takahe on Fiordland. They concluded that 
captive rearing of Takahe for release into the wild increases 
recruitment of juveniles into the population.
    There is growing evidence that inbreeding can negatively affect 
small, isolated populations. Jamieson et al. (2006) suggested that 
limiting the potential effects of inbreeding and loss of genetic 
variation should be integral to any management plan for a small, 
isolated, highly-inbred island species, such as the Takahe. Failure to 
address these concerns may result in reduced fitness potential and much 
higher susceptibility to biotic and abiotic disturbances in the short 
term and an inability to adapt to environmental change in the long 
term.
    The Takahe does not represent a monotypic genus. The current wild 
population is small and the species' distribution is extremely limited. 
It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC has 
taken measures to aid the recovery of the species. The NZDOC has 
implemented a successful deer control program and implemented a 
captive-breeding and release program to augment the mainland population 
and establish four offshore island reserves. Predation by introduced 
species and reduced survivorship resulting from severe winters, 
combined with the Takahe's small population size and naturally low 
reproductive rate are threats to this species that are imminent and 
ongoing. Therefore, this species is assigned a priority rank of 8.
Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis)
    The Chatham oystercatcher is endemic to the Chatham Island group 
(Marchant and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), which lies 
534 mi (860 km) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group 
comprises two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and numerous 
smaller islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira (also referred 
to as South East) and Mangere) are nature reserves, which provide 
important habitat for the Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham Island 
group has a biota (i.e., plants and animals in a particular area) quite 
different from the mainland. The remote marine setting, distinct 
climate, and physical makeup have led to a high degree of endemism 
(i.e., the occurrence of species in a limited area) (Aikman et al. 
2001). The southern part of the oystercatcher's range is dominated by 
rocky habitats with extensive rocky platforms. The northern part of the 
range is a mix of sandy beach and rock platforms (Aikman et al. 2001).
    Pairs of oystercatchers occupy their territory all year, while 
juveniles and subadults form small flocks or occur alone on a vacant 
section of the coast. The nest is a scrape usually on a sandy beach 
just above spring-tide level or among rocks above the shoreline. On 
offshore islands, nests are usually well away from the territories of 
brown skua (Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi) and are often under the 
cover of small bushes or rock overhangs (Heather and Robertson 1997).
    This species is classified as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List, 
because it has an extremely small population (BirdLife International 
2006). It is listed as ``Critically Endangered'' by the NZDOC (2008a), 
making it a high priority for conservation management (NZDOC 2007). In 
the early 1970s the population was approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 
1996). In 1988, based on past productivity information, it was feared 
that the species was at risk of extinction within 50-70 years (Davis 
1988, as cited in Schmechel and Paterson 2005). However, the population 
increased by 30 percent overall between 1987 and 1999, except trends 
varied in different areas--increasing (northern Chatham Island, eastern 
Pitt Island), stable (Mangere Island), or decreasing (south Chatham 
Island, Rangatira) (Moore et al. 2001). A survey during the summer of 
1987-88 recorded 100 to 110 birds (Marchant and Higgins 1993). A census 
conducted in 1998 revealed 142 birds, with 34 to 41 breeding pairs 
(Schmechel and O'Connor 1999). A survey undertaken in the breeding 
season 1999-2000 counted 125 to 126 birds, with 50 pairs (at least 40 
breeding pairs). By 2004, the oystercatcher population included 88 
breeding pairs and 311 birds, more than double the number of birds 
counted in 1998, when

[[Page 44084]]

the intensive management program began (NZDOC 2008c). Although the 
population has significantly increased over the last 20 years, the 
population on Rangatira, an island free of mammalian predators, has 
gradually declined since the 1970s. The reason for the decline is 
unknown (Schmechel and O'Connor 1999), but population sizes can 
fluctuate even on islands free from predators (BirdLife International 
2006).
    Predation, habitat modification, natural disasters, and disturbance 
are factors that negatively impact the Chatham oystercatcher population 
(NZDOC 2001). Domestic cats (Felis domesticus), weka (Gallirallus 
australis), possum (Trichosurus vulpecuta), hedgehog (Erinaceus 
eropaeus), pigs (Sus domestica), black-backed gulls (Larus 
dominicanus), and harriers (Circus approximans) are potential predators 
of the Chatham oystercatcher eggs and young chicks, with cats possibly 
also preying on adults. Of these potential predators, cats and weka 
have been recorded on film predating on the species (NZDOC 2001). 
Rangatira and Mangere Islands are free of mammalian predators. Habitat 
modification by coastal vegetation--marram (European beachgrass) 
(Ammophila arenaria)--appears to have adversely affected oystercatcher 
breeding in northern locations on Chatham Island. At sites where marram 
has become established, the beach profile becomes steeper and the dune 
face moves closer to the high-water mark. Since oystercatchers prefer 
to nest in more open areas, the occurrence of marram appears to have 
forced the oystercatchers to nest further down the beach, where the 
spring tides or storm surges are more likely to destroy nests. The 
vegetation also creates a relatively dense cover that can conceal 
predators. During nesting, Chatham oystercatchers are sensitive to 
disturbance by people, farm stock, and dogs. Also, vehicles run over 
nests, and domestic sheep and cattle, which regularly use the beaches 
in northern Chatham Island, trample nests (NZDOC 2001).
    The birds of the Chatham Island group are protected due to human 
intervention and management. The NZDOC focused conservation efforts in 
the early 1990s on predator trapping and fencing to limit domestic 
stock access to nesting areas. Some nests were moved away from the high 
tide mark, and nest manipulation may have helped to increase hatching 
success (NZDOC 2008b). In 2001, the NZDOC published a Chatham Island 
oystercatcher recovery plan covering the period 2001 through 2011. Nest 
manipulation, fencing, signage, intensive predator control, and a 
research program aimed at assessing the effects of predators, flooding, 
and management on breeding success have been underway for several years 
(BirdLife International 2006).
    The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
current population has 311 individuals and the species only occurs on 
the small Chatham Island group. It faces threats that are moderate in 
magnitude because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the recovery of 
the species. Threats are imminent and ongoing. Therefore, it receives a 
priority rank of 8.
Orange-Fronted Parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi)
    The orange-fronted parakeet, also known as Malherbe's parakeet, was 
treated as an individual species until it was proposed to be a color 
morph of the yellow-crowned parakeet, C. auriceps, in 1974 (Holyoak 
1974). Further taxonomic analysis suggested that it should once again 
be considered a distinct species (Kearvell et al. 2003; ITIS 2008).
    At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout 
most of New Zealand, although the two records from the North Island are 
thought dubious (Harrison 1970). This species has never been common 
(Mills and Williams 1979). During the nineteenth century, the species' 
distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a few other 
offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2008c). Currently, there are 
four known remaining populations, all located within an 18.6-mi (30-km) 
radius in beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys within 
Arthur's Pass National Park and Lake Sumner Forest Park in Canterbury, 
South Island (NZDOC 2008b) and two populations established on Chalky 
and Maud Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007). This species inhabits 
southern beech forests, with a preference for locales bordering stands 
of mountain beech (N. solandri) (del Hoyo 1997; Snyder et al. 2000; 
Kearvell 2002). It is reliant on old mature beech trees with natural 
cavities or hollows for nesting. Breeding is linked with the irregular 
seed production by Nothofagus; in mast years with a high abundance of 
seeds, parakeet numbers can increase substantially. In addition to 
eating seeds, the orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits, leaves, 
flowers, buds, and invertebrates (BirdLife International 2000).
    The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small population and 
limited range. The species is listed as ``Critically Endangered'' on 
the IUCN Red List, ``because it underwent a population crash following 
rat invasions in 1990-2000, and it now has a tiny, severely fragmented, 
and declining population'' (BirdLife International 2006). It is listed 
in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2008). The NZDOC (2008c) considers the 
orange-fronted parakeet, or kekeriki, to be the rarest parakeet in New 
Zealand. Because it is classified as ``Nationally Critical'' with a 
high risk of extinction, the NZDOC has been working intensively with 
the species to ensure its survival. The population is estimated at 100 
to 200 individuals in the wild and declining (NZDOC 2008c).
    There are several reasons for the species' continuing decline; one 
of the most prominent risks to the species is believed to be predation 
by introduced species, such as stoats (Mustela erminea) and rats 
(Rattus spp.) (BirdLife International 2007a). Large numbers of stoats 
and rats in beech forests cause large losses of parakeets. Stoats and 
rats are excellent hunters on the ground and in trees. When they 
exploit parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes, they particularly 
impact females, chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2008d). The NZDOC introduced 
``Operation ARK,'' an initiative to respond to predator problems in 
beech forests to prevent species' extinctions, including orange-fronted 
parakeets. Predators are methodically controlled with traps, toxins in 
bait stations, bait bags, and aerial spraying, when necessary (NZDOC 
2008e). Despite these controls, predation by introduced species is 
still a threat because they have not been eradicated from this species' 
range.
    Habitat loss and degradation are also considered threats to the 
orange-fronted parakeet (BirdLife International 2007b). Large areas of 
native forest have been felled or burnt, decreasing the habitat 
available for parakeets (NZDOC 2008d). Silviculture of beech forests 
aims to harvest trees at an age when few will become mature enough to 
develop suitable cavities for orange-fronted parakeets (Kearvell 2002). 
The habitat is also degraded by brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus 
vulpecula), cattle, and deer browsing on plants and changing the forest 
structure (NZDOC 2008d). This is a problem for the orange-fronted 
parakeet which uses ground and low growing shrubs while feeding 
(Kearvell et al. 2002).
    Snyder et al. (2000) reported that hybridization with yellow-
crowned parakeets had been observed at Lake Sumner. Other risks include 
increased competition between the orange-fronted parakeet and the 
yellow-crowned parakeet in a habitat substantially modified by humans, 
competition with introduced finch species, and

[[Page 44085]]

competition with introduced wasps (Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica) 
for invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002).
    The NZDOC closely monitors all known populations of the orange-
fronted parakeet. Nest searches are conducted, nest holes are 
inspected, and surveys are carried out in other areas to look for 
evidence of other populations. In fact, the surveys successfully 
located another orange-fronted parakeet population in May 2003 (NZDOC 
2008e). A new population was established in 2006 on the predator-free 
Chalky Island. Eggs were removed from nests in the wild and foster 
parakeet parents incubated the eggs and cared for the hatchlings until 
they fledged and were transferred to the island. Monitoring later in 
the year (2006) indicated that the birds had successfully nested and 
reared chicks. Additional birds will be added to the Chalky Island 
population, in an effort to increase the genetic diversity of the 
population (NZDOC 2008e). A second self-sustaining population has been 
established on Maud Island (NZDOC 2008a).
    The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The current wild population ranges between 100 and 200 individuals, and 
the species' distribution is extremely limited. It faces threats that 
are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC has taken important 
measures to aid in the recovery of the species. The NZDOC implemented a 
successful captive-breeding program for the orange-fronted parakeet. 
Using captive-bred birds from the program, NZDOC established two self-
sustaining populations of the orange-fronted parakeet on predator-free 
islands. The NZDOC monitors wild nest sites and is constantly looking 
for new nests and new populations, as evidenced by the 2003 discovery 
of a new population. Finally, the NZDOC determined that the species' 
largest threat is predation and initiated a successful program to 
remove predators. The threats of competition for food and highly 
altered habitat are imminent and ongoing. Therefore, this species is 
assigned a priority rank of 8 (Note: the priority rank was mistakenly 
listed as 4 in the 2007 Notice of Review; a species that has imminent 
threats of moderate to low magnitude is assigned a priority ranking of 
8, as per the Service's 1983 Listing Priority Guidance (48 FR 43098)).
Uvea Parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis)
    This species, previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus, is 
currently treated as two species, E. cornutus and E. uvaeensis 
(BirdLife International 2007a). The Uvea parakeet is found only on the 
small island of Uvea in the Loyalty Archipelago, New Caledonia 
(Territory of France); the island is only 42 mi\2\ (110 km\2\) (Juniper 
and Parr 1998). The Uvea parakeet is found primarily in old-growth 
forests, notably, those dominated by Agathis australis pines (del Hoyo 
et al. 1997). Most birds occur in about 7.7 mi\2\ (20 km\2\) of forest 
in the north, although some individuals are found in strips of forest 
on the northwest isthmus and in the southern part of the island, with a 
total area of potential habitat of approximately 25.5 mi\2\ (66 km\2\) 
(BirdLife International 2007a; CITES 2000b). The Uvea parakeet feeds on 
the berries of vines and the flowers and seeds of native trees and 
shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997). It also feeds on crops in adjacent 
cultivated land, and the greatest number of birds occurs close to 
gardens with papayas, which they utilize as food (BirdLife 
International 2007a). The species nests in cavities of native trees, 
and has a clutch size of 2 to 3 eggs with some double clutches (Robinet 
and Salas 1999).
    Early population estimates were alarmingly low--70 to 90 birds and 
declining (Hahn 1993). Surveys by Robinet et al. (1996) in 1993 yielded 
estimates of approximately 600 birds. In 1999, it was believed that 742 
individuals lived in northern Uvea, with 82 birds living in the south 
(Primot 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a).
    The species is listed as ``Endangered'' in the IUCN Red List, 
because it occupies a very small, declining area of forest on one small 
island (BirdLife International 2004). The species was uplisted from 
Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES in July 2000, due to its small 
population size, restricted area of distribution, loss of suitable 
habitat, and unsustainable trade of the species (CITES 2000b).
    Identified risks to the Uvea parakeet include habitat loss, capture 
of juveniles for the pet trade, and predation (BirdLife International 
2007b). The forest habitat of the Uvea parakeet is threatened by 
clearance for agriculture and logging. In 30 years, approximately 30 to 
50 percent of primary forest has been destroyed (Robinet et al. 1996). 
The island has a young and increasing human population of almost 4,000 
inhabitants. The increase in population will most probably lead to more 
destruction of forest for housing, cultivated fields, and plantations, 
especially coconut palms, the island's main source of income (CITES 
2000a). The species is also put at risk by the illegal pet trade, 
mainly for the domestic market (BirdLife International 2007a). Nesting 
holes are cut open to extract nestlings, rendering the holes unsuitable 
for future nesting. The increasing lack of nesting sites is believed to 
be a limiting factor for the species (BirdLife International 2007a). 
Also, Robinet et al. (1996) suggested that although the impact of 
capture of juveniles on the viability of populations is not obvious 
with long-lived species that are capable of re-nesting, such as the 
Uvea parakeet, the current capture of 30 to 50 young Uvea parakeets 
each year by humans for pets may be unsustainable. In a study of the 
reproductive biology of the Uvea parakeet, Robinet and Salas (1999) 
found that the main causes of chick death were starvation of the third 
chick during the first week, raptor (presumably the native brown 
goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus)) predation of fledglings, and human 
harvest for the pet trade.
    Although the Uvea parakeet has a number of predators, the absence 
of the ship rat (Rattus rattus) and Norwegian rat (R. norvegicus) on 
Uvea is a major factor contributing to its survival. There is concern 
that these rats may be introduced in the future (CITES 2000b). 
Introductions of Uvea parakeets to the adjacent island of Lifou (to 
establish a second population) in 1925 and 1963 failed (BirdLife 
International 2007a), possibly due to the presence of ship rats and 
Norwegian rats (Robinet in litt. 1997, as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). 
Robinet et al. (1998) studied the impact of rats in Uvea and Lifou on 
the Uvea parakeet. They concluded that Lifou is not a suitable place 
for translocating Uvea parakeets unless active habitat management is 
carried out to protect it from ship rats. They also suggested that it 
would be valuable to apply low intensity rat control of the Pacific rat 
(R. exulans) in Uvea immediately before the parakeet breeding season.
    A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet was prepared for the period 
1997-2002, which included strong local participation in population and 
habitat monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997, as cited in Snyder et al. 
2000). The species has recently increased in popularity and is 
celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; Primot in litt. 
1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a). Conservation actions, 
including in-situ management (habitat protection and restoration), 
recovery efforts (providing nest boxes and food), and public education 
on the protection of the parakeet and its habitat, are underway 
(Robinet et al. 1996). Increased awareness of the plight of the species 
and improvements in law

[[Page 44086]]

enforcement capability are helping to address illegal trade of the 
species. In 1998, a captive-breeding program was initiated to restock 
the southern portion of Uvea. Measures are now being taken to control 
predators and prevent further colonization by rats (BirdLife 
International 2007a). Current Uvea parakeet numbers are increasing, but 
any relaxation of conservation efforts or introduction of nonnative 
rats or other predators could lead to a rapid decline of the species 
(BirdLife International 2007a).
    The Uvea parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces 
threats that are moderate in magnitude because important management 
efforts have been put in place to aid in the recovery of the species. 
However, all of these efforts must continue to function, because this 
species is an island endemic with restricted habitat in one location. 
Threats to the species are imminent because illegal trade still occurs 
and the removal of 30 to 50 percent of the old-growth forest, which the 
birds are dependent upon for nesting holes, negatively impacts the 
reproductive requirements of the species. We assign this species a 
priority rank of 8.
Blue-Throated Macaw (Ara glaucogularis)
    The blue-throated macaw is endemic to forest islands in the 
seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de Mojos) of Central Bolivia 
(Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997). It inhabits a 
mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm groves, forest islands, 
and humid lowlands. This species is found in areas where palm-fruit 
food is available, especially Attalea phalerata (Jordan and Munn 1993; 
Yamashita and de Barros 1997). It inhabits elevations between 656 and 
984 ft (200 and 300 m) (BirdLife International 2008c; Brace et al. 
1995; Yamashita and de Barros 1997). These macaws are not found to 
congregate in large flocks; but are seen most commonly traveling in 
pairs, and on rare occasions may be found in small flocks (Collar et 
al. 1992). The blue-throated macaw nests between November and March in 
large tree cavities where one to two young are raised (BirdLife 
International 2000).
    The taxonomic status of this species was long disputed, primarily 
because the species was unknown in the wild to biologists until 1992. 
Previously it was considered an aberrant form of the blue-and-yellow 
macaw (A. ararauna), but the two species are now known to occur 
sympatrically without interbreeding (del Hoyo et al. 1997). BirdLife 
International (2008c) estimated there are between 50 and 249 mature 
individuals in the wild, and the population has some fragmentation and 
is decreasing.
    This species was historically at risk from trapping for the 
national and international cage-bird trade, and some illegal trade may 
still be occurring. Between the early 1980s and early 1990s, 
approximately 400 to 1,200 birds were exported from Bolivia, and many 
are now in captivity in the European Union and in North America (World 
Parrot Trust 2003). In 1984, Bolivia outlawed the export of live 
parrots (Brace et al. 1995). However, in 1993 (Jordan and Munn 1993) it 
was reported that an Argentinian bird dealer was offering illegal 
Bolivian dealers a high price for blue-throated macaws. Armonia 
Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) monitored the wild birds that passed 
through a pet market in Santa Cruz from August 2004 to July 2005. 
Although nearly 7,300 parrots were recorded in trade, the blue-throated 
macaw was absent in the market during the monitoring period, which may 
point to the effectiveness of the ongoing conservation programs in 
Bolivia (BirdLife International 2007). There are a number of blue-
throated macaws in captivity, with over 1,000 registered in the North 
American studbook. Because these birds are not too difficult to breed, 
the supply of captive-bred birds has increased (Waugh 2007), helping to 
alleviate pressure on illegal collecting of wild birds, but not 
completely eliminating illegal collection.
    The blue-throated macaw is also at risk from habitat loss and 
possible competition from other birds, such as other macaws, toucans, 
and large woodpeckers (BirdLife International 2008b; World Parrot Trust 
2008). All known sites of the blue-throated macaw are on private cattle 
ranches, where local ranchers typically burn the pasture annually (del 
Hoyo 1997). This results in almost no recruitment of palm trees, which 
are central to the ecological needs of the blue-throated macaw 
(Yamashita and de Barros (1977)). In addition, in Beni many palms are 
cut down by the local people for firewood (Brace et al. 1995). Thus, 
although the palm groves are more than 500 years old, Yamashita and de 
Barros (1977) concluded that the palm population structure suggests 
long-term decline.
    This species is categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' on the 
IUCN Red List, ``because its population is extremely small and each 
isolated subpopulation is probably tiny and declining as a result of 
illegal trade'' (BirdLife International 2004). It is listed in Appendix 
I of CITES (CITES 2006) and is legally protected in Bolivia (Juniper 
and Parr 1998). The Eco Bolivia Foundation patrols existing macaw 
habitat by foot and motorbike, and the Armonia Association is searching 
the Beni lowlands for more populations (Snyder et al. 2000). 
Additionally, the Armonia Association is building an awareness campaign 
aimed at the cattlemen's association to ensure that the protection and 
conservation of these birds is at a local level (e.g., protection of 
macaws from trappers and the sensible management of key habitats, such 
as palm groves and forest islands, on their property) (BirdLife 
International 2008a; Llampa 2007; Snyder et al. 2000).
    The blue-throated macaw does not represent a monotypic genus. It 
faces threats that are moderate in magnitude because wild birds are no 
longer taken for the legal wild-bird trade as a result of the species' 
CITES listing, and it is also legally protected in Bolivia. Wildlife 
managers in Bolivia are actively protecting the species and searching 
for additional populations. Threats to the species are imminent and 
ongoing because hunters still trap the birds for the illegal bird trade 
and annual burning on private ranches continues. Therefore, we assigned 
this species a priority rank of 8.
Helmeted Woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus)
    The helmeted woodpecker is endemic to the southern Atlantic forest 
region of southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern 
Argentina (BirdLife International 2007). It is found in tall lowland 
and montane primary forest, in forest that has been selectively logged, 
and generally near large tracts of intact forest (BirdLife 
International 2007). This woodpecker feeds on beetle larvae which live 
beneath tree bark. The species forages primarily in the middle canopy 
of the forest interior (del Hoyo et al. 2002).
    Recent field work on the helmeted woodpecker revealed that the 
species is less rare than once thought (BirdLife International 2007). 
It is listed as ``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN (BirdLife International 
2007). The current population is estimated at between 10,000 and 19,999 
individuals and decreasing (BirdLife International 2000). This estimate 
has a wide range, because the species is almost certainly underreported 
due to the difficulty of locating birds except when vocalizing, and 
since they are silent for much of the year. Numerous sightings since 
the mid-1980s include a pair in the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina 
in 1998, where the species had not been seen since

[[Page 44087]]

1946 (del Hoyo et al. 2002). Research is needed to clarify the species' 
current distribution and status (del Hoyo et al. 2002).
    The greatest threat to the species is widespread deforestation, and 
the species is not common at any known site (BirdLife International 
2007; Cockle 2008). In the Atlantic forest, more than 90% of the forest 
has been replaced by crops and pastures, and nearly all remaining 
forest has been subject to selective logging of large trees, with 
potentially severe consequences for cavity nesting birds such as 
woodpeckers; selectively logged forest contains significantly fewer 
nesting cavities than primary forest (Cockle 2008).
    The helmeted woodpecker is protected by Brazilian law and 
populations occur in numerous protected areas throughout its range 
(BirdLife International 2007). These protections prohibit the following 
activities with regard to this species: export and international trade, 
collection and research, captive propagation, and also provide measures 
which help to protect remaining suitable habitat, such as prohibition 
of exploitation of the remaining primary forests within the Atlantic 
forest biome and management of various practices in primary and 
secondary forests, such as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, 
recreation, and water resources (ECOLEX 2007). However, for various 
reasons (e.g., lack of funding, personnel, or local management 
commitment), Brazil's current capacity to achieve its stated natural 
resource objectives in protected areas is limited (ADEJA 2007; Bruner 
et al. 2001; Costa 2007; IUCN 1999; Neotropical News 1996; Neotropical 
News 1999). Therefore, it is likely that not all of the habitat 
protections for the helmeted woodpecker would be sufficiently addressed 
at these sites. The helmeted woodpecker does not represent a monotypic 
genus. The magnitude of threat to the species is moderate because the 
population is much larger than previously thought; however, the threat 
is imminent because the forest habitat, in particular, the availability 
of nesting cavities upon which the species depends, is being reduced by 
human activities. It therefore, receives a priority rank of 8.
Okinawa Woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii, previously known as 
Sapheopipo noguchii)
    The Okinawa woodpecker lives in the northern hills of Okinawa 
Island, Japan. Okinawa is the largest island of the Ryukyus Islands, a 
small island chain located between Japan and Taiwan (Brazil, 1991; 
Stattersfield et al. 1998; Winkler et al. 2005). This species is 
confined to Kunigami-gun, or Yambaru, with its main breeding areas 
located along the mountain ridges between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-
take, although it also nests in well-forested coastal areas (Research 
Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2001). It prefers undisturbed, mature, subtropical 
evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall trees greater than 7.9 in (20 
cm) in diameter (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982). Trees of this size are 
generally more than 30 years old and are confined to hilltops (Brazil 
1991). Places with conifers appear to be avoided (Short 1973; Winkler 
et al. 1995). The Okinawa woodpecker has been sighted just south of 
Tanodake in an area of entirely secondary forest that was too young for 
nest building, but Brazil (1991) thought this may have involved birds 
displaced by the clearing of mature forests. The Okinawa woodpecker 
feeds on large arthropods, notably beetle larvae, spiders, moths, and 
centipedes, fruit, berries, seeds, acorns, and other nuts (del Hoyo 
2002; Short 1982; Winkler et al. 2005). They forage in old-growth 
forests with large, often moribund trees, accumulated fallen trees, 
rotting stumps, debris, and undergrowth (Brazil 1991; Short 1973). This 
woodpecker nests in holes excavated in large old trees, often a hollow 
in Castanopsis cuspidata trees (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982).
    Until recently the Okinawa woodpecker was considered to belong to 
the monotypic genus Sapheopipo. This view was based on similarities in 
color patterns, external morphology, and foraging behavior. Winkler et 
al. (2005) analyzed partial nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial genes 
and concluded that this woodpecker belongs in the genus Dendrocopos. 
Given the other species in this genus, the Okinawa woodpecker is no 
longer considered to belong to a monotypic genus.
    The Okinawa woodpecker is considered one of the world's rarest 
extant woodpecker species (Winkler et al. 2005). The elimination of 
forests by logging and the cutting and gathering of wood for firewood 
are the main causes of its small and lessening numbers (Short 1982), 
but the greatest danger to this woodpecker is the fragmentation of its 
population into scattered tiny colonies and isolated pairs (Short 
1973). The species is categorized on the IUCN Red List as ``Critically 
Endangered,'' because it is comprised of a single diminutive, declining 
population, which is put at risk by the continued loss of old-growth 
and mature forest to logging, dam construction, agricultural clearing, 
and golf course construction. Its limited range and tiny population 
make it vulnerable to extinction from disease and natural disasters 
such as typhoons (BirdLife International 2004). During the 1930s, the 
Okinawa woodpecker was considered nearly extinct. By the early 1990s, 
the breeding population was estimated to be about 75 birds (BirdLife 
International 2008a). The current population estimate ranges between 
146 and 584 individuals, with a projected future 10-year decline of 30 
to 49 percent (BirdLife International 2008b). The species is legally 
protected in Japan and occurs in small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and 
Mt. Nishime (BirdLife International 2008a). The Yambaru, a forest area 
in the Okinawa Prefecture, was designated as a national park in 1996, 
and conservation organizations have purchased sites where the 
woodpecker occurs to establish private wildlife preserves (del Hoyo et 
al. 2002).
    The Okinawa woodpecker faces threats that are moderate in magnitude 
because the species is legally protected in Japan and its range occurs 
in several protected areas. However, the threats to the species are 
imminent because the old-growth habitat, upon which the species is 
dependent, continues to be removed, and preferable habitat continues to 
be altered for agriculture and golf courses. It therefore receives a 
priority rank of 8 (Note: The priority number was changed from 7 to 8 
because of the recent research showing that the Okinawa woodpecker 
belongs to a different genus and is no longer considered a monotypic 
species).
Yellow-Browed Toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae)
    The yellow-browed toucanet is known from only two localities in 
north-central Peru--La Libertad, where it is uncommon, and Rio Abiseo 
National Park, San Martin, where it is very rare (BirdLife 
International 2008; del Hoyo et al. 2002; Wege and Long 1995). Its 
estimated range is only 174 mi2 (450 km2) 
(BirdLife International 2008). There have been recent reports of the 
species from Leymebambe (T. Mark in litt. 2003, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2008). It inhabits a narrow altitudinal range between 
6,970 and 8,232 ft (2,125 and 2,510 m), preferring the canopy of humid, 
ephiphyte-laden montane cloud forests, particularly areas that support 
Clusia trees (del Hoyo et al. 2002; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990; 
Schulenberg and Parker 1997). This narrow distributional band may be 
related to the occurrence of the larger

[[Page 44088]]

grey-breasted mountain toucan (Andigena hypoglauca) above 7,544 ft 
(2,300 m) and to the occurrence of the emerald toucanet (Aulacorhynchus 
prasinus) below 6,888 ft (2,100 m) (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The 
species' restricted range remains unexplained, and recent information 
indicates that both of the suggested competitors have wider altitudinal 
ranges which completely encompass the range of the yellow-browed 
toucanet (Clements and Shany 2001, as cited in BirdLife International 
2008; Collar et al. 1992; del Hoyo et al. 2002; J. Hornbuckle in litt. 
1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2008). The yellow-browed 
toucanet does not appear to occupy all potentially suitable forest 
available within its range (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). Although it 
occurs within the large Rio Abiseo National Park, the population in the 
reserve is thought to be small (BirdLife International 2004; del Hoyo 
2002).
    Deforestation has been widespread in this region, but has largely 
occurred below the toucanet's altitudinal range (BirdLife International 
2008; Barnes et al. 1995). However, coca growers have taken over 
forests within its altitudinal range, probably resulting in some 
reductions in the species' range and population (BirdLife International 
2004; Plenge in litt. 1993, as cited in BirdLife International 2008). 
Nevertheless, much forest remains within the range of the yellow-browed 
toucanet, and most of the area is only lightly settled by humans; the 
limited range of this species is not well explained relative to the 
threats reported (BirdLife International 2008; Schulenberg and Parker 
1997).
    It is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List, because of its 
very small range and extant population records from only two locations 
(BirdLife International 2004). The current population size is unknown, 
but the population trend is believed to be decreasing (BirdLife 
International 2008).
    The yellow-browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The magnitude of threat to the species is moderate, since habitat loss 
is largely recorded outside its range, and non-imminent due to the 
uncertainty of ongoing habitat loss from cocoa growers. Therefore, it 
receives a priority rank of 11.
Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis)
    The Brasilia tapaculo is found in swampy gallery forest, disturbed 
areas of thick streamside vegetation, and dense secondary growth of the 
bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum, from Goi[aacute]s, the Federal 
District, and Minas Gerais, Brazil (Negret and Cavalcanti 1985, as 
cited in Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1992; BirdLife International 
2007). The Brasilia Tapaculo will occasionally colonize disturbed areas 
near streams (BirdLife International 2003). This species has only been 
recorded locally within Formas in Goi[aacute]s, around Bras[iacute]lia. 
Particular sites where the species has been located, at low densities, 
include Serra Negra (on the upper Dourados River) and the headwaters of 
the S[atilde]o Francisco, both in Minas Gerais; and Serra do 
Cip[oacute] and Cara[ccedil]a in the hills and tablelands of central 
Brazil (BirdLife International 2003).
    Although the species was once considered rare (Sick and Texeira 
1979, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it is now found in reasonable 
numbers in certain areas of Brasilia (D. M. Teixeira, in litt. 1987, as 
cited in Collar et al. 1992). The population is estimated at more than 
10,000 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife 
International 2007). The IUCN categorizes Scytalopus novacapitalis as 
``Near Threatened'' (BirdLife International 2007). The species occupies 
a very limited range and is presumably losing habitat around Brasilia. 
However, its distribution now appears larger than initially believed, 
and the swampy gallery forests where it is found are not conducive for 
forest clearing, leaving the species' habitat less vulnerable to this 
threat than previously thought. However, dam building for irrigation on 
rivers which normally flood gallery forests is an emerging threat 
(Antas 2007; D. M. Teixeira in litt. 1987, as cited in Collar et al. 
1992). The majority of locations of this species lie within established 
reserves, and both fire risk and drainage impacts are reduced in these 
areas (Antas 2007). The Brasilia tapaculo is currently protected by 
Brazilian law (Bernardes et al. 1990, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), 
and it is found in six protected areas (Machado et al. 1998, Wege and 
Long 1995; as cited in BirdLife International 2007). Annual burning of 
adjacent grasslands limits the extent and availability of suitable 
habitat, as does wetland drainage and the sequestration of water for 
irrigation (Machado et al. 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 
2007).
    The Brasilia tapaculo does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
magnitude of threat to the species is moderate because the population 
is much larger than previously believed and preferred habitat is swampy 
and difficult to clear. Threats are imminent, however, because habitat 
is being drained or dammed for agricultural irrigation, and grassland 
burning limits the extent of suitable habitat. Therefore, it receives a 
priority rank of 8.
Codfish Island Fernbird (Bowdleria punctata wilsoni)
    The Codfish Island fernbird is found only on Codfish Island--a 
Nature Reserve of 3,448 ac (1,396 ha)--located 1.8 mi (3 km) off the 
northwest coast of Stewart Island, New Zealand (IUCN 1979; McClelland 
2007). There are five subspecies of fernbirds, each restricted to a 
single island and its outlying islands. The North and South Islands' 
subspecies are widespread and locally common. The Stewart Island and 
Snares' subspecies are moderately abundant (Heather and Robertson, 
1997). In 1966, the status of the Codfish Island subspecies was 
considered relatively safe (Blackburn 1967), but estimates dating from 
1975 indicated a gradually declining population numbering approximately 
100 individuals (Bell 1975, as cited in IUCN 1979). McClelland (2007) 
wrote that in the past the subspecies was restricted to low shrubland 
on the top of Codfish Island with a few individuals around the coastal 
shrubland; the birds are thought to have been eliminated from forest 
habitat by the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) (McClelland 2007). The 
IUCN (1979) concluded that the subspecies' absence from areas of 
Codfish Island that it had formerly occupied in the mid-1970s evidenced 
a decline.
    Fernbirds are sedentary, and their flight is weak. They are 
secretive and reluctant to leave cover. They feed in low vegetation or 
on the ground, eating mainly caterpillars, spiders, grubs, beetles, 
flies, and moths (Heather and Robertson, 1997).
    Codfish Island's native vegetation has been modified by the 
introduced herbivore, the Australian brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus 
vulpecula). Fernbird populations have also been reduced due to 
predation by weka (Gallirallus australis scotti) and Polynesian rats 
(Merton 1974, pers. comm., as cited in IUCN 1979). Several conservation 
measures have been undertaken by the New Zealand DOC. The weka and 
possum were eradicated from Codfish Island in 1984 and 1987, 
respectively (McClelland 2007). The Polynesian rat was eradicated in 
1997 (Conservation News 2002; McClelland 2007). The Codfish Island 
fernbird population is rebounding strongly with the removal of invasive 
predator species. The fernbird invaded the forest habitat, which 
greatly expanded the species' available habitat. Although there is no 
accurate estimate on the current size of the population (estimates

[[Page 44089]]

are based on incidental encounter rates in the various habitat types on 
the island), the current population is believed to be several hundred. 
Thus, McClelland (2007) concluded that it is likely that the population 
has peaked and is now stable.
    To safeguard the Codfish Island fernbird, the NZDOC established a 
second population on Putauhinu Island--a small (356-ac (144-ha)), 
privately owned island located approximately 25 mi (40 km) south of 
Codfish Island. The Putauhinu population established rapidly, and 
McClelland (2007) reported it is believed to be stable. While there are 
no accurate data on the population size or trends, the population is 
estimated to be 200 to 300 birds spread over the island (McClelland 
2007).
    The Codfish Island fernbird is a subspecies that is now facing 
threats that are low to moderate in magnitude because the removal of 
invasive predator species and the establishment of a second population 
have allowed for a strong rebound in the subspecies' population. 
Threats are non-imminent because conservation measures have eradicated 
nonnative predatory species from Codfish Island. However, even though 
efforts to remove nonnative predators have been successful, there is a 
continued risk that predators will be re-introduced to the island by 
boats transporting conservation and research staff to the islands. 
Given continued low numbers, with two populations in the low hundreds, 
we find that introduced predators remain a threat to this subspecies, 
though non-imminent.
    The subspecies, therefore, receives a priority rank of 12 (Note: 
the priority rank was mistakenly listed as 9 in the 2007 Notice of 
Review; a subspecies that has non-imminent threats of moderate to low 
magnitude is assigned a priority ranking of 12, as per the Service's 
1983 Listing Priority Guidance (48 FR 43098)).
Ghizo White-Eye (Zosterops luteirostris)
    The Ghizo white-eye is endemic to Ghizo, a very densely populated 
island in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific (BirdLife 
International 2007a). Birds are locally common in the remaining tall or 
old-growth forest, which is very fragmented and comprises less than 
0.39 mi\2\ (1 km\2\). It is less common in scrub close to large trees 
and in plantations (Buckingham et al. 1995 and Gibbs 1996, as cited in 
BirdLife International 2007a), and it is not known whether these two 
habitats can support sustainable breeding populations (Buckingham et 
al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2007a). The IUCN Red List 
classifies this species as ``Endangered,'' because of its very small 
population that is considered to be declining due to habitat loss. It 
further notes that the species would be classified as ``Critically 
Endangered'' if the species' range was judged to be severely fragmented 
(BirdLife International 2007c). The population estimate for this 
species is 250 to 999 birds. While there are no data on population 
trends, the species is suspected to be declining due to habitat 
degradation (BirdLife International 2007b). The very tall old-growth 
forest on Ghizo is still under some threat from clearance for local use 
as timber, firewood, and gardens, and the areas of other secondary 
growth, which are suboptimal habitats for this species, are under 
considerable threat from clearance for agricultural land (BirdLife 
International 2007a).
    The Ghizo white-eye does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces 
threats that are moderate in magnitude because forest clearing, while a 
concern, does not appear to be proceeding at a pace to rapidly denude 
the habitat. Threats are imminent because the old-growth forest which 
the species is dependent upon is still being cleared for local use, and 
secondary growth is being converted for agricultural purposes. 
Therefore, we assign the species a priority rank of 8.
Black-Backed Tanager (Tangara peruviana)
    The black-backed tanager is endemic to the coastal Atlantic forest 
region of southeastern Brazil, with records from Rio de Janeiro, Sao 
Paolo, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and Espirito Santo 
(Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife International 
2006). It is largely restricted to coastal sand-plain forest and 
littoral scrub, or restinga, and has also been located in secondary 
forests (BirdLife International 2007). The black-backed tanager is 
generally not considered rare within suitable habitat (BirdLife 
International 2007). It has a complex distribution with periodic local 
fluctuations in numbers owing to seasonal movements, at least in Rio de 
Janeiro and Sao Paolo (BirdLife International 2007). Clarification of 
the species' seasonal movements will provide an improved understanding 
of the species' population status and distribution (BirdLife 
International 2007). Population estimates range from 2,500 to 10,000 
individuals (BirdLife International 2007), and it is considered 
``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN (BirdLife International 2007). The species 
is negatively impacted by the rapid and widespread loss of habitat for 
beachfront development and occasionally appears in the illegal cage-
bird trade (BirdLife International 2006).
    The black-backed tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
threat to the species is low to moderate in magnitude due to the 
species' fairly large population size and range. The threat is, 
however, imminent because the species is put at risk by ongoing rapid 
and widespread loss of habitat due to beachfront development. 
Therefore, we give this species a priority rank of 8 (Note: the 
priority rank was mistakenly listed as 9 in the 2007 Notice of Review; 
a species that has imminent threats of moderate to low magnitude is 
assigned a priority ranking of 8, as per the Service's 1983 Listing 
Priority Guidance (48 FR 43098)).
Lord Howe Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis)
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is a separate subspecies from the five 
Australian mainland pied currawongs. It is endemic to the Lord Howe 
Island, New South Wales, Australia. The highly mobile birds can be 
found anywhere on the 7.7-mi\2\ (20-km\2\) island (Hutton 1991), as 
well as on offshore islands such as the Admiralty group (Garnett and 
Crowley 2000). The Lord Howe pied currawong breeds in rainforests and 
palm forests, particularly along streams. Their territories include 
sections of streams or gullies that are lined by tall timber (Garnett 
and Crowley 2000). The highest densities of nests are located on the 
slopes of Mt. Gower and in the Erskine Valley, with smaller numbers on 
the lower land to the north (Knight 1987, as cited in Garnett and 
Crowley 2000). The nest is placed high in a tree and is made of a cup 
of sticks lined with grass and palm thatch (Department of Environment & 
Climate Change (DECC) 2005). Most of the island is still forested, and 
the removal of introduced feral animals has resulted in the recovery of 
the forest understory (World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2001).
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is omnivorous and eats a wide variety 
of food, including native fruits and seeds (Hutton 1991), and is the 
only remaining native island vertebrate predator (DECC 2005). It has 
been recorded taking seabird chicks, poultry, and chicks of the Lord 
Howe woodhen (Tricholimnas sylvestris) and white tern (Gygis alba). 
Currawongs also feed on dead rats and have been observed to catch live 
rats and eat them (Hutton 1991). A Department of Environmental 
Conservation (DEC) scientist observed that food brought to nestlings 
was, in

[[Page 44090]]

decreasing order, invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, and nestlings of 
other bird species (Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB) 2006).
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is listed as ``Vulnerable'' under the 
New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995, because it 
has a limited range, only occurring on Lord Howe Island (DECC 2004). It 
also is listed as ``Vulnerable'' under the Commonwealth Environment 
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. These laws 
provide a legislative framework to protect and encourage the recovery 
of vulnerable species (DEC 2006a). The Lord Howe Island Act of 1953, as 
amended, established the Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB); made provisions 
for the LHIB to care for, control, and manage the island; and 
established 75 percent of the land area as a Permanent Park Preserve 
(DEC 2006a). In 1982, the island was inscribed on the World Heritage 
List for its outstanding natural universal values (Department of the 
Environment and Water Resources 2007).
    In the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000 (Garnett and Crowley 
2000), the population was estimated at approximately 80 mature 
individuals. In 2006, initial results from a color band survey 
suggested that the population size was about 180 to 200 individual 
birds (LHIB 2006). Complete results reported by the Foundation for 
National Parks & Wildlife (2007) estimated the breeding population to 
be 80 to 100 pairs, with a nesting territory in the tall forest areas 
of about 12 ac (5 ha) per pair. The population size is limited by the 
amount of available habitat and the lack of food during the winter 
(Foundation for National Parks & Wildlife 2007).
    The Lord Howe Island draft Biodiversity Management Plan, which was 
out for comment in 2006, will become the formal National and NSW 
Recovery Plan (Plan) for threatened species and communities of the Lord 
Howe Island Group (DEC 2006a). The main current threat identified for 
the Lord Howe Island currawong is habitat clearing and modification 
(DEC 2006b). Lord Howe Island is unique among inhabited Pacific Islands 
in that less than 10 percent of the island has been cleared (WWF 2001) 
and less than 24 percent has been disturbed (DEC 2006a). Although 
large-scale clearing of native vegetation no longer occurs on Lord Howe 
Island, the impact of vegetation clearing on a small scale needs to be 
assessed (DEC 2006a). A lesser current risk to the species, but one 
which may account for its historical decline and continued low numbers, 
is human interactions (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Prior to the 1970s, 
locals would shoot currawongs due to the bird's habit of preying on 
nestling birds (Hutton 1991), and the currawongs remain unpopular with 
some residents. It is unknown what effect this localized killing has on 
the overall population size and distribution of this species (Garnett 
and Crowley 2000). Also, currawongs often prey on ship (black) rats and 
consequently may suffer mortality from non-target poisoning during rat-
baiting programs (DEC 2006b). Close monitoring of the population is 
needed because this small, endemic population is susceptible to the 
introduction of avian disease or of new predators (Garnett and Crowley 
2000). There is a long history of introduction of nonnative fauna 
(e.g., 18 introduced land birds, and 3 mammals now resident), and the 
introduction to Lord Howe Island of new exotic fauna and flora 
(including disease), by air or ship, is considered a major ongoing 
threat to endemic species, including the Lord Howe pied currawong (DEC 
2006a).
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is a subspecies facing threats that 
are low in magnitude and non-imminent. Therefore, it receives a 
priority rank of 12.

Invertebrates

Harris' Mimic Swallowtail (Eurytides (syn. Mimoides) lysithous 
harrisianus)
    Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies endemic to Brazil 
(Collins and Morris 1985). Although the species' range includes 
Paraguay, the subspecies has not been confirmed there (Collins and 
Morris 1985; Finnish University and Research Network (Funet) 2004). 
Occupying the lowland swamps and sandy flats above the tidal margins of 
the coastal Atlantic Forest, the subspecies prefers alternating patches 
of strong sun and deep shade (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985). 
This subspecies is polyphagous, meaning that its larvae feed on more 
than one plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). Information on preferred 
hostplants and adult nectar-sources was published in the 12-month 
finding (69 FR 70580). This subspecies mimics at least three Parides 
species, including the fluminense swallowtail; details on mimicry were 
provided in the 12-month finding (69 FR 70580) and in the 2007 Notice 
of Review (72 FR 20184). Researchers believe that this mimicry system 
may cause problems in distinguishing this subspecies from the species 
that it mimics (Brown, in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
    Harris' mimic swallowtail was previously known in Espirito Santo 
and Rio de Janeiro (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991). 
However, there are no recent confirmations in Espirito Santo. In Rio de 
Janeiro, Harris' mimic swallowtail has recently been confirmed in three 
localities. Two colonies are located on the east coast of Rio de 
Janeiro, at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and Maca[eacute], and the 
other in Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve, further inland. The 
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o colony is the best-studied colony. 
Since 1984, it has maintained a stable size, varying between 50 to 250 
individuals (Brown 1996; K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Collins and 
Morris 1985), and was reported to be viable, vigorous, and stable in 
2004 (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). There are no estimates of the size 
of the colony in Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve, where it had 
not been seen for 30 years prior to its rediscovery there in 1997 (K. 
Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). Population estimates are lacking for the 
colony at Maca[eacute], where the subspecies was netted in Jurubatiba 
National Park in the year 2000, after having not been seen in the area 
for 16 years (Monteiro et al. 2004). The Brazilian Institute of the 
Environment and Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro do a Meio 
Ambiente de do Recursos Naturais Renov[aacute]veis; IBAMA) considers 
this subspecies to be critically imperiled (MMA 2003; Portaria No. 
1,522 1989) and ``strictly protected,'' such that collection and trade 
of the subspecies are prohibited (Brown 1996). Harris' mimic 
swallowtail was categorized on the IUCN Red List as ``Endangered'' in 
the 1988, 1990, and 1994 IUCN Red Lists (IUCN 1996). However, it has 
not been re-evaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red List criteria, nor has it 
been incorporated into the 2007 IUCN Red List database (IUCN 2007).
    Habitat destruction is the main threat to this subspecies (Brown 
1996; Collins and Morris 1985), especially urbanization in Barra de 
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o, industrialization in Maca[eacute] (Jurubatiba 
National Park), and previous fires in the Po[ccedil]o das Antas 
Biological Reserve. As described in detail for the fluminense 
swallowtail (below), Atlantic forest habitat has been reduced to 5 to 
10 percent of its original cover. More than 70 percent of the Brazilian 
population lives in the Atlantic forest, and coastal development is 
ongoing throughout the Atlantic forest region (Butler 2007; 
Conservation International 2007; Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund 
(CEPF) 2007a; H[ouml]fling 2007; Hughes et al. 2006; The Nature 
Conservancy 2007;

[[Page 44091]]

Peixoto and Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007).
    Both Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and the Po[ccedil]o das Antas 
Biological Reserve, two of the known Harris' mimic swallowtail 
localities, lie within the S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin. The 
current conditions at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o appear to be 
suitable for long-term survival of this subspecies. The Barra de 
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin encompasses a 535,240-ac (216,605-
ha) area, 372,286 ac (150,700 ha) of which is managed as protected 
areas. The preferred landscape of open and shady areas (Brown 1996; 
Collins and Morris 1985) continues to be present in the region, with 
approximately 541 forest patches averaging 314 ac (127 ha) in size, 
covering nearly 68,873 ha (170,188 ac), and a minimum distance between 
forest patches of 0.17 mi ( 276 m) (Teixeira 2007). In studies between 
1984 and 1991, Brown (1996) determined that Harris' mimic swallowtails 
in Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o flew a maximum distance of 0.62 mi 
(1000 m); it follows that the average flying distance would be less 
than this figure. Thus, the average (0.17 mi (276 m)) distance between 
forest patches in the Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin is 
clearly within the flying distance of this subspecies. The colony at 
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o has maintained a stable population size 
for 20 years, indicating that the conditions available there remain 
suitable.
    Harris' mimic swallowtail ranges within two protected areas: 
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba National Park. 
These protected areas are described in detail for the fluminense 
swallowtail. In summary, the Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve 
(Reserve) was established to protect the golden lion tamarin 
(Leontopithecus rosalia) (Decree No. 73,791 1974), but the Harris' 
mimic swallowtail, which occupies the same range, may benefit 
indirectly by efforts to conserve golden lion tamarin habitat (De Roy 
2002; Teixeira 2007; WWF 2003). Habitat destruction caused by fires in 
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve appears to have abated, and 
the revised management plan indicates that the Reserve will be used for 
research and conservation, with limited public access (CEPF 2007a; 
IBAMA 2005). The Jurubatiba National Park (Park) is located in a region 
that is undergoing continuing development pressures from urbanization 
and industrialization (Brown 1996; CEPF 2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; 
Otero and Brown 1984; Savarese 2008), and there is no management plan 
in place for the Park (CEPF 2007b). However, as discussed for the 
fluminense swallowtail, the Park is considered to be in a very good 
state of conservation (Rocha et al. 2007).
    Harris' mimic swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus, but 
it is a subspecies. Based on the above information, we have determined 
that habitat destruction is a threat to the subspecies. The magnitude 
of the threat is low because suitable habitat continues to exist for 
this polyphagous subspecies; the best-studied colony has maintained a 
stable and viable size for nearly 2 decades; an additional locality has 
been confirmed; the subspecies is strictly protected by Brazilian law; 
and two colonies are located within protected areas. While the 
protected areas in which this subspecies is found continue to be 
threatened with potential habitat destruction from urbanization and 
industrialization, the threat of habitat destruction is non-imminent 
because such destruction within those protected areas is not ongoing at 
this time. Therefore, the subspecies is designated a priority rank of 
12.
Jamaican Kite Swallowtail (Eurytides marcellinus)
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail is endemic to Jamaica, preferring 
wooded, undisturbed habitat containing the West Indian lancewood 
(Oxandra lanceolata), the only known larval hostplant for this 
monophagous species (Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 1985), meaning 
that its larvae feed only on a single plant species (Kotiaho et al. 
2005). Adult plant preferences have not been reported. Since the 1990s, 
adult Jamaican kite swallowtails have been observed in the Parishes of 
St. Thomas and St. Andrew in the east; westward in St. Ann, Trelawny, 
and St. Elizabeth; and in the extreme western coast Parish of 
Westmoreland (Bailey 1994; Harris 2002; M[ouml]hn 2002; Smith et al. 
1994; WRC 2001). The species was most recently sighted in mid-2007 in 
the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park (see description below), 
where 4 individuals were observed (Jamaica Conservation and Development 
Trust (JCDT) and Green Jamaica 2007a). There is only one known breeding 
site in the eastern coast town of Rozelle (St. Thomas Parish) (Bailey 
1994; Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al. 
1994). Rozelle may also be referred to in the literature as Roselle 
(e.g., Anderson et al. 2007). According to Dr. Robert Robbins (in litt. 
2004), it is possible that other breeding sites exist given the widely 
dispersed nature of the larval food plant. The Jamaican kite 
swallowtail maintains a low population level and occasionally becomes 
locally abundant in Rozelle during the breeding season in early summer 
and occasionally again in early fall (Bailey 1994; Brown and Heineman 
1972; Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al. 
1994). It experiences episodic population explosions, as described in 
the 12-month finding (69 FR 70580) and in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 
FR 20184). The species is protected under Jamaica's Wildlife Protection 
Act of 1998 and is included in Jamaica's National Strategy and Action 
Plan on Biological Diversity, which has established specific goals and 
priorities for the conservation of Jamaica's biological resources 
(Schedules of The Wildlife Protection Act 1998). Beginning in 1985, the 
Jamaican kite swallowtail was categorized on the IUCN Red List as 
``Vulnerable;'' it has not been re-evaluated using the 1997 criteria 
(Gimenez Dixon 1996).
    Habitat modification is the primary threat to the Jamaican kite 
swallowtail. Monophagous butterflies tend to be more threatened than 
polyphagous species, in part due to their specific habitat requirements 
(Kotiaho et al. 2005). West Indian lancewood, the Jamaican kite's only 
known larval food plant, has been cleared for cultivation and felled 
for the commercial timber industry (Collins and Morris 1985; Windsor 
Plywood 2004). Although West Indian lancewood remains widely dispersed 
throughout the island (R. Robbins, in litt. 2004), the harvest and 
clearing of West Indian lancewood habitat reduces the availability of 
the plant (Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 1985).
    In Rozelle, the only known breeding site for this species (Bailey 
1994; Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al. 
1994), there has been extensive habitat modification for agricultural 
and industrial purposes, such as mining (Gimenez Dixon 1996; WWF 2001). 
The effect of historical habitat modification negatively impacts the 
swallowtail today, because the Jamaican kite does not thrive in 
disturbed habitats (Collins and Morris 1985). Rozelle is also subject 
to naturally occurring, high impact stochastic events, such as 
regularly-occurring hurricanes, as elaborated in the 2007 Notice of 
Review (72 FR 20184). According to the Economic Commission for Latin 
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), United Nations Development Programme 
(UNDP), and Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) (2004), hurricane-
related weather damage in the last 2 decades along the coastal zone of 
Rozelle has been more intense than in previous decades, resulting in 
the erosion and virtual disappearance of this once-extensive 
recreational beach. In 1988, it was estimated that Hurricane Gilbert 
caused

[[Page 44092]]

a 75 percent reduction of Rozelle Beach due to erosion (UNEP-CEP 1989). 
Most recently, Hurricane Ivan, a Category 5 hurricane that hit the 
island in 2004, caused severe local damage to Rozelle Beach, including 
erosion of the cliff face and shoreline (ECLAC et al. 2004). Thus, 
while we do not consider stochastic events to be a primary threat 
factor for this species, the damage caused by hurricanes that have been 
increasing in severity and frequency within the past two decades is an 
unpredictable contributor to habitat loss.
    Habitat destruction occurs in western Parishes, where adult 
Jamaican kite swallowtails have been observed. Cockpit Country, 
encompassing 30,000 ha (74,131 ac) of rugged forest-karst (a 
specialized limestone habitat) terrain, spans four western Parishes, 
including Trelawny and St. Elizabeth, where adult Jamaican kite 
swallowtails have been observed (Gordon and Cambell 2006). Although 
eighty-one percent of Cockpit Country remains forested (Tole 2006), 
fragmentation is occurring as a result of human-induced activities. 
Current threats to Cockpit Country include bauxite mining, unregulated 
plant collecting, extensive logging, conversion of forest to 
agriculture, illegal drug cultivation, and expansion of human 
settlements. These activities contribute to degradation of the 
hydrology system from in-filling, siltation, accumulation of solid 
waste, and invasion by nonnative, invasive species (Cockpit Country 
Stakeholders Group and JEAN (Gordon and Cambell 2006; Jamaica 
Environmental Advocacy Network 2007; Tole 2006). In 2003, the Jamaican 
National Environment and Planning Agency identified Rozelle and Cockpit 
Country (which spans at least four western Parishes, including Trelawny 
and St. Elizabeth, where adult Jamaican kites have been observed) as 
priority locations to receive protected area status within the next 5 
to 7 years (NEPA 2003). The status of this proposal is not included in 
the 2007 Environmental Action Plan Status Report (NEPA 2007).
    Currently, the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park is the 
only protected area in which adult Jamaican kite swallowtails have been 
observed, including the most recent observation in mid-2007 (Bailey 
1994; JCDT 2006; JCDT and Green Jamaica 2007a). Located on the inland 
portions of St. Thomas and St. Andrew and the southeast portion of St. 
Mary Parishes, the Park was created in 1993, encompassing 122,367 ac 
(49,520 ha) of mountainous, forested terrain that ranges in elevation 
from 492 to 7,402 ft (150 m to 2,256 m). The Park is considered one of 
the best-managed protected areas in Jamaica (JCDT 2006). Since 2006, 
regular patrols by Park Rangers have averaged 11 per month, resulting 
in interdiction of illegal activities including hunting, logging, and 
dumping (JCDT and Green Jamaica 2007b). Moreover, since December 2006, 
the Park has instituted ``Kite butterfly patrols'' to locate the 
Jamaican kite swallowtail, which resulted in the most recent 
observation of 4 individuals in mid-2007 (JCDT and Green Jamaica 
2007a). However, deforestation is currently a threat to the species' 
habitat in the Blue Mountains (Tole 2006), and enforcement within the 
Park is hampered by lack of vehicles, limited computer access, and a 
lack of clearly defined Park boundaries.
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail has been collected for commercial 
trade (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schutz 2000) and has been 
protected under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act since 1998. This 
Act carries a maximum penalty of 1,439 USD (100,000 Jamaican dollars 
(J$)) or 12 months imprisonment and appears to be effectively 
protecting this species from illegal trade (NEPA 2005). This species is 
not listed under CITES, nor is it listed on the European Commission's 
Annex B (Eur-Lex 2008), both of which regulate international trade in 
animals and plants of conservation concern. However, we are not aware 
of any recent seizures or smuggling of this species into or out of the 
United States (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Arlington, Virginia, in litt. 2008) and we are unaware of any 
ongoing trade in this species. Therefore, we believe that 
overutilization is not currently a contributory risk factor to the 
Jamaican kite swallowtail.
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. 
Habitat modification is the primary threat to this species and we have 
determined that overutilization is not currently a contributory risk 
factor. The current threat from habitat modification includes: (1) 
Historical habitat modification at the species' only known breeding 
site, which has lasting impacts on this species given that the species 
does not thrive in disturbed habitats; (2) ongoing habitat alteration 
throughout its adult range (including the felling of this species' 
larval plant food); and (3) the potential for stochastic events, such 
as hurricanes, to contribute to habitat loss. However, this threat is 
moderate in magnitude because Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to 
preserve the species and its habitat, and adults are being regularly 
observed within at least one protected area, indicating that the 
species continues to be viable. The threat from habitat modification is 
imminent because habitat destruction is ongoing. Therefore, it receives 
a priority rank of 8.
Fluminense Swallowtail (Parides ascanius)
    The fluminense swallowtail is endemic to Brazil's ``restinga'' 
habitat within the Atlantic Forest region (Thomas 2003). Restingas form 
on sandy, acidic, and nutrient-poor soils in the tropical and 
subtropical moist broadleaf forests of coastal Brazil. Restinga 
habitat, also referred to as ``fluminense vegetation,'' is 
characterized by medium-sized trees and shrubs that are adapted to 
coastal conditions (Kelecom 2002). The species is monophagous (Otero 
and Brown 1984), meaning that its larvae feed only on a single plant 
species (Kotiaho et al. 2005); information on larval hostplant 
preferences is provided in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184).
    The species was historically reported in Rio de Janeiro, Espirito 
Santo, and Sao Paulo. However, there are no recent confirmations in 
Espirito Santo or Sao Paulo. In Rio de Janeiro, the species is reported 
in five localities, including: Barra de Sao Joao and Macae (in the 
Restinga de Jurubatiba National Park), along the coast; and, Poco das 
Antas Biological Reserve, further inland (Keith S. Brown, Jr., Livre-
Docent, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil, in litt. 2004; Soler 
2005). Uehara-Prado and Fonseca (2007) recently reported a verified 
occurrence within Area de Tombamento do Mangue do rio Paraiba do Sul. 
Fluminense swallowtail has also been reported in Parque Natural 
Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto Iguacu 2008).
    The fluminense swallowtail is sparsely distributed throughout its 
range, reflecting the patchy distribution of its preferred habitat 
(Otero and Brown 1984; Tyler et al. 1994; Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 
2007). However, the species can be seasonally common, with sightings of 
up to 50 individuals in one morning in the Barra de Sao Joao location. 
The population estimate in Barra de Sao Joao ranges from 20 to 100 
individuals (Otero and Brown 1984). The colony within Poco das Antas 
Biological Reserve (Reserve) was rediscovered in 1997, after a nearly 
30-year absence from this locality (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). 
Researchers noted only that ``large numbers'' of swallowtails were 
observed (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Dr. Robert Robbins, Research 
Entomologist, National Museum of Natural History, Department of 
Entomology, Smithsonian Institution,

[[Page 44093]]

Washington, D.C., in litt. 2004). There are no population estimates for 
the other colonies. However, individuals from the viable population in 
Barra de Sao Joao migrate widely in some years, which is likely to 
enhance inter-population gene flow among existing colonies (K. Brown, 
Jr., in litt. 2004).
    Brazil considers the fluminense swallowtail to be ``Imperiled'' 
(MMA 2003; Portaria No. 1,522 1989). According to the 2007 IUCN Red 
List (Gimenez Dixon 1996), the fluminense swallowtail has been 
categorized as ``Vulnerable'' since 1983, based on its small 
distribution and a decline in the number of populations caused by 
habitat fragmentation and loss. However, this species has not been re-
evaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red List categorization criteria.
    Habitat destruction has been the main threat to this species (Brown 
1996; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996). Monophagous 
butterflies tend to be more threatened than polyphagous species 
(Kotiaho et al. 2005), and the restinga habitat preferred by fluminense 
swallowtails is a highly specialized environment that is restricted in 
distribution (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1986; 
Uehara-Prado and Fonseca). Moreover, fluminense swallowtails require 
large areas to maintain viable populations (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 
2004; Otero and Brown 1986; Uehara-Prado and Fonseca). The Atlantic 
Forest habitat, which once covered 540,543 mi\2\(1.4 million km\2\), 
has been reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original cover and harbors 
more than 70 percent of the Brazilian population (Butler 2007; 
Conservation International 2007; Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund 
(CEPF) 2007a; Hfling 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2007; World Wildlife 
Fund (WWF) 2007). The restinga habitat upon which this species depends, 
has been reduced by 6.56 mi\2\ (17 km\2\2) each year between 1984 and 
2001, equivalent to a loss of 40 percent of restinga vegetation over 
the 17-year period (Temer 2006). The major ongoing human activities 
that have resulted in habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation 
include conversion for agriculture, plantations, livestock pastures, 
human settlements, hydropower reservoirs, commercial logging, 
subsistence activities, and coastal development (Butler 2007; Hughes et 
al. 2006; Pivello 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2007; Peixoto and Silva 
2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007).
    Uehara-Prado and Fonseca (2007) estimated that Rio de Janeiro 
contains 4,140,127 ac (1,675,457 ha) of suitable habitat (Uehara-Prado 
and Fonseca 2007). While the presence of suitable habitat should not be 
used to infer the presence of a species, this research should 
facilitate more focused efforts to identify and confirm additional 
localities and conservation status of the fluminense swallowtail 
(Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007). Analyzing the correlation between the 
distribution of fluminense swallowtail and the existing protected areas 
within Rio de Janeiro, Uehara-Prado and Fonseca (2007) found that only 
two known occurrences of the fluminense swallowtail correlated with 
protected areas, including the Poco das Antas Biological Reserve. The 
researchers concluded that the existing protected area system may be 
inadequate for the conservation of this species.
    The Poco das Antas Biological Reserve and the Jurubatiba National 
Park are the only two protected areas considered large enough to 
support viable populations of the fluminense swallowtail (K. Brown, 
Jr., in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1984; R. Robbins, in litt. 2004). 
The Poco das Antas Biological Reserve (Reserve), established in 1974, 
encompasses 13,096 ac (5,300 ha) of inland Atlantic Forest habitat 
(CEPF 2007a; Decree No. 73,791 1974). According to the 2005 revised 
management plan (IBAMA 2005), the Reserve is used solely for 
protection, research, and environmental education. Public access is 
restricted, and there is an emphasis on habitat conservation, including 
protection of the Ro Sao Joao. This river runs through the Reserve and 
is integral to creating the restinga conditions preferred by the 
fluminense swallowtail. The Reserve was plagued by fires in the late 
1980s through the early 2000s, but there have been no recent reports of 
fires. Between 2001 and 2006, there was an increase in the number of 
private protected areas near or adjacent to the Poco das Antas 
Biological Reserve and Barra de Sao Joao (Critical Ecosystem 
Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2007a). Corridors are being created between 
existing protected areas and 13 privately protected forests, by 
planting and restoring habitat previously cleared for agriculture or by 
fires (De Roy 2002).
    The Jurubatiba National Park (14,860 ha; 36,720 mi), located in 
Macae and established in 1998 (Decree of April 29 1998), is one of the 
largest contiguous restingas (specialized sandy, coastal habitats) 
under protection in Brazil (CEPF 2007b; Rocha et al. 2007). The Macae 
River Basin forms the outer edge of the Jurubatiba National Park (Park) 
(International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2002) and creates the restinga 
habitat preferred by the fluminense swallowtail (Brown 1996; Otero and 
Brown 1984). Rocha et al. (2007) described the habitat as being in a 
very good state of conservation, but lacking a formal management plan 
(Rocha et al. 2007). Threats to the Macae region include 
industrialization for oil reserve and power development (IFC 2002) and 
intense population pressures (including migration and infrastructural 
development) (Brown 1996; CEPF 2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; Otero and 
Brown 1984; Savarese 2008).
    Commercial exploitation has been identified as a potential threat 
to the fluminense swallowtail (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; 
Schutz 2000). The species is easy to capture, and species with 
restricted distributions or localized populations, such as the 
fluminense swallowtail, tend to be more vulnerable to over-collection 
than those with a wider distribution (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; R. 
Robbins, in litt. 2004). This species has not been formally considered 
for listing in the Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org). However, 
the European Commission listed fluminense swallowtail on Annex B of 
Regulation 338/97 in 1997. (Dr. Ute Grimm, German Scientific Authority 
to CITES (Fauna), Bonn, Germany, in litt. 2008), and the species 
continues to be listed on this Annex (Eur-Lex 2008). This listing 
requires that imports from a non-European Union country be accompanied 
by a permit that is only issued if the Scientific Authority has made a 
positive non-detriment finding, a determination that trade in the 
species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the 
wild (U. Grimm, in litt. 2008). There has been no legal trade in this 
species into the European Union since its listing on Annex B (U. Grimm, 
in litt. 2008), and we are not aware of any recent reports of seizures 
or smuggling in this species into or out of the United States (Office 
of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, 
Virginia, in litt. 2008). The fluminense remains strictly protected 
from commerce in Brazil (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). For the reasons 
outlined above, we believe that overutilization is not currently a 
contributory threat factor for the fluminense swallowtail.
    Parasitism could be a factor threatening the fluminense 
swallowtail. Recently, Tavares et al. (2006) discovered four species of 
parasitic chalcid wasps (Brachymeria and Conura species; Hymenoptera 
family) associated with fluminense swallowtails. Parasitoids are 
species whose immature stages develop on or within an insect host of 
another species, ultimately killing the host (Weeden et al. 1976).

[[Page 44094]]

This is the first report of parasitoid association with fluminense 
swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006). To date, there is no information as 
to the extent and effect that these parasites are having on the 
fluminense swallowtail.
    Although Harris' mimic swallowtail and the fluminense swallowtail 
face similar threats, there are several dissimilarities that influence 
the magnitude of these threats. Fluminense swallowtails are monophagous 
(Otero and Brown 1984), meaning that its larvae feed only on a single 
plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). In contrast, Harris' mimic 
swallowtail is polyphagous (Brown 1996; Collins and Morse 1985), such 
that its larvae feed on more than one species of plant (Kotiaho et al. 
2005). In addition, although their ranges overlap, Harris' mimic 
swallowtails tolerate a wider range of habitat than the highly 
specialized restinga habitat preferred by fluminense swallowtail. Also 
unlike the Harris' mimic swallowtail, fluminense swallowtails require a 
large area to maintain a viable population (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 
2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
    The fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The species is currently at risk from habitat destruction and 
potentially from parasitism; however, we have determined that 
overutilization is not currently a contributory threat factor for the 
fluminense swallowtail. The current threat of habitat destruction is of 
high magnitude because the species: (1) Occupies highly specialized 
habitat; (2) requires large areas to maintain a viable colony; and (3) 
is only found within two protected areas considered to be large enough 
to support viable colonies. However additional populations have been 
reported, increasing previously known population numbers and 
distribution. The threat of habitat destruction is non-imminent because 
most habitat modification is the result of historical destruction that 
has resulted in fragmentation of the current landscape; however, the 
potential for continued habitat modification exists, and we will 
continue to monitor the situation. On the basis of this information, 
the fluminense swallowtail receives a priority rank of 5.
Hahnel's Amazonian Swallowtail (Parides hahneli)
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is endemic to Brazil, found only on 
ancient sandy beaches, where the habitat is overgrown with dense scrub 
vegetation (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 
1994). The species is likely to be monophagous; information on larval 
and adult hostplant preferences was provided in the 12-month finding 
(69 FR 70580) and in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184).
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is known in three localities along 
the tributaries of the middle and lower Amazon River basin in the 
states of Amazonas and Para (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985; New 
and Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 1994). Two of these colonies were 
rediscovered in the 1970s (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985). The 
species is highly localized, reflecting the localized distribution of 
its highly specialized preferred habitat (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 
2004). We are unaware of any population estimates for this species, 
other than the fact that ``the area of its range is very lightly 
populated'' (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). This species is not 
nationally protected (MMA 2003; Portaria No. 1,522 1989), although Para 
has included this species as ``Endangered'' on its newly created list 
of threatened species (Decreto No. 802 2008; Resolucao 054 2007; Secco 
and Santos 2008). This listing requires the Para government to monitor, 
protect, conserve, and restore the species and its habitat within the 
state, which will add to our understanding of the species' ecology 
(Resolucao 054 2007). This species continues to be listed as ``Data 
Deficient'' by the IUCN Red List (Gimenez Dixon 1996).
    Habitat alteration (e.g., for dam construction and waterway crop 
transport) and destruction (e.g., clearing for agriculture and cattle 
grazing) are ongoing in the states of Para and Amazonas, where this 
species is found (Fearnside 2006; Hurwitz 2007). Because of this 
species' dependence on highly localized and extremely limited habitat, 
habitat alteration could be deleterious to the species (New and Collins 
1991; Wells et al. 1983). However, because this species' ecological 
requirements continue to be poorly understood, we are unable to 
determine whether this species is currently being threatened by habitat 
alteration.
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is collected for commercial trade 
(Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Sch[uuml]tz 2000), as described 
in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184). In the United States, there 
continues to be limited trade in the species over the internet, 
although it is unclear whether the specimens were recently collected. 
It is not illegal to trade this species in the United States, but 
possession of wildlife must be declared upon crossing U.S. borders. We 
are not aware of any recent seizures or smuggling of this species into 
or out of the United States (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia, in litt. 2008). This species has 
not been formally considered for listing in the Appendices of CITES 
(www.cites.org), but has been listed on Annex B of the European Union's 
(EU) Regulation 338/97 since 1997 (Eur-Lex 2008); Annex B listings are 
described under the fluminense swallowtail, above. According to Dr. Ute 
Grimm (German Scientific Authority to CITES (Fauna), Bonn, Germany, in 
litt. 2008), there has been no legal trade in this species in the EU 
since its listing. However, a French importer of exotic specimens is 
selling Amazonian swallowtail on the internet; multiple specimens of 
males, females and pairs are available for 18 Euros (28 USD); 20 Euros 
(32 USD); and 35 Euros (55 USD), respectively. This species is not 
nationally protected in Brazil (MMA 2003; Portaria No. 1,522 1989). 
Although the state of Para recently prohibited capture of this species 
for purposes other than research (Decreto No. 802 2008), insufficient 
time has elapsed to determine how effectively this will prevent any 
wild collection of the species. There have been no recent discoveries 
of additional populations of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail (K.S. 
Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004) and, of the three known localities, two 
populations are in the State of Amazonas (Brown 1996; Collins and 
Morris 1985). Thus, of the populations, two-thirds are not protected 
from collection. According to experts, species with restricted 
distributions or localized populations, such as the Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail, are more vulnerable to over-collection than those with a 
wider distribution (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; R. Robbins, in litt. 
2004). Therefore, we believe that overutilization for commercial 
purposes, combined with insufficient regulatory mechanisms, constitute 
a threat to the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail.
    Competition has been identified as a potential threat to this 
species. Researchers have posited that the Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail might suffer from host-plant competition with any of three 
other butterfly species that occupy a similar range (Brown 1996; 
Collins and Morris 1985; Wells 1983) (See 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 
20184)). Therefore, competition may be a contributory threat factor for 
the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail.
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail does not represent a monotypic 
genus. The main threat to this species is overcollection combined with 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms to mitigate this threat. Habitat 
destruction and host-plant competition may be

[[Page 44095]]

contributory threats. We are currently aware of only a small amount of 
trade in this species, so we rank the threat of overutilization as low 
to moderate and non-imminent. Thus, this species receives a priority 
rank of 11.
Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis)
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is native to the Himalayan regions of 
Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam 
(Baral et al. 2005; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2001; FRAP 
1999; Igarashi 2001; Masui and Uehara 2000; Osada et al. 1999; Shrestha 
1997; TRAFFIC 2007; Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999). 
This species prefers undisturbed (primary), heterogeneous broad-leaved 
evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests, and flies at altitudes 
of 4,921 to 10,000 ft (1,500 to 3,050 m) (Collins and Morris 1985; 
Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999). Information on this polyphagous 
species' biology and food plant preferences is provided in the 2007 
Notice of Review (72 FR 20184). It should be noted that Collins and 
Morris (1985) reported that the adult Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails do not 
feed. This is a correction to the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184), 
which stated that the adult food plant preferences were unknown. Since 
1996, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been categorized on the IUCN 
Red List as a species of ``Least Concern''; it has not been re-
evaluated using the 1997 criteria (Gimenez Dixon 1996). The species is 
considered ``Rare'' by Collins and Morris (1985). Despite its 
widespread distribution, local populations are not abundant (Collins 
and Morris 1985). The known localities and conservation status of the 
species within each range country follows:
    Bhutan: The species was reported to be extant in Bhutan (Gimenez 
Dixon 1996; FRAP 1999), although details on localities or status 
information were not provided.
    China: The species has been reported in Fuji, Guangxi, Hubei, 
Jiangsu, Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces (Collins and Morris 1985; 
Gimenez Dixon 1996; Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; Sung and Yan 2005; United 
Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Center 
(UNEP-WCMC) 1999). The species is classified by the 2005 China Species 
Red List as ``Vulnerable'' (China Red List 2006).
    India: Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and West Bengal (Bahuguna 
1998; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996; Ministry of 
Environment and Forests 2005). There is no recent status information on 
this species (N. Chaturvedi, Curator, Bombay Natural History Society, 
Mumbai, India, in litt. 2007).
    Laos: The species has been reported (Osada et al. 1999), but no 
further information is available (Southiphong Vonxaiya, CITES 
Coordinator, Vientiane, Lao, in litt. 2007).
    Myanmar: The species has been reported in Shan, Kayah (Karen) and 
Thaninanthayi (Tenasserim) states (Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez 
Dixon 1996). There is no status information.
    Nepal: The species has been reported in Nepal (Collins and Morris 
1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996), in the Central Administrative Region at two 
localities: Phulchoki Mountain Forest (Baral et al. 2005; Collins and 
Morris 1985) and Shivapuri National Park (Nepali Times 2002; Shrestha 
1997). There is no status information.
    Thailand: The species has been reported in the northern province of 
Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The Scientific Authority of Thailand 
recently confirmed that the species has limited distribution in the 
high mountains (>1,500 m (4,921 ft)) of northern Thailand and is found 
within three national parks. However, no biological or status 
information was available (S. Choldumrongkul, Forest Entomology and 
Microbiology Group, Department of National Parks, Bangkok, Thailand, in 
litt. 2007).
    Vietnam: The species has been confirmed in three Nature Reserves 
(Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999), and the species is 
listed as ``Vulnerable'' in the 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book, due to 
declining population sizes and area of occupancy (Dr. Le Xuan Canh, 
Director of the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, CITES 
Scientific Authority, Hanoi, Vietnam, in litt. 2007).
    Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to this species, which 
prefers undisturbed high altitude habitat (Collins and Morris 1985; 
Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999). In China and India, the Kaiser-I-
Hind swallowtail populations are at risk from habitat modification and 
destruction due to commercial and illegal logging (Yen and Yang 2001; 
Maheshwari 2003). In Nepal, the species is at risk from habitat 
disturbance and destruction resulting from mining, fuel wood 
collection, agriculture, and grazing animals (Baral et al. 2005; 
Collins and Morris 1985; Shrestha 1997). Nepal's Forest Ministry 
considered habitat destruction to be a critical threat to all 
biodiversity, including the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, in the 
development of their biodiversity strategy (HMGN 2002). Habitat 
degradation and loss caused by deforestation and land conversion for 
agricultural purposes is a primary threat to the species in Thailand 
(Hongthong 1998; FAO 2001). The species is afforded some protection 
from habitat destruction in Vietnam, where it has been confirmed in 
three Nature Reserves that have low levels of disturbance (Tordoff et 
al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999).
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has been 
collected for commercial trade, despite range country regulations 
prohibiting or restricting such activities (Collins and Morris 1985; 
Schutz 2000). In China, where the species is protected by the Animals 
and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance (1989), which 
restricts import, export and possession of the species, species 
purportedly derived from Sichuan were being advertised for sale on the 
internet for 60 USD. In India, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is listed 
on Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, which 
prohibits hunting without a license (Collins and Morris 1985; Indian 
Wildlife Protection Act 2006). However, between 1990 and 1997, 
illegally collected specimens were selling for 500 Rupees (12 USD) per 
female and 30 Rupees (0.73 USD) per male (Bahuguna 1998). In Nepal, the 
Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is protected by the National Parks and 
Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973 (His Majesty's Government of Nepal 
(HMGN) 2002). However, the Nepal Forestry Ministry determined in 2002 
that the high commercial value of its ``Endangered'' species on the 
local and international market may result in local extinctions of 
species such as the Kaiser-I-Hind (HMGN 2002). In Thailand, the Kaiser-
I-Hind swallowtail and 13 other invertebrates are listed under 
Thailand's Wildlife Reservation and Protection Act (WARPA) of 1992 
(B.E. 2535 1992), which makes it illegal to collect wildlife (whether 
alive or dead) or to have the species in one's possession (S. 
Choldumrongkul, in litt. 2007; FAO 2001; Hongthong 1998; Pornpitagpan 
1999). In addition to prohibiting possession, WARPA prohibits hunting, 
breeding, and trading; import and export are only allowed for 
conservation purposes (Jeerawat Jaisielthum, CITES Management 
Authority, Bangkok, Thailand, in litt. 2007). According to the Thai 
Scientific Authority, there are no captive breeding programs for this 
species; however, the species is offered for sale by the Lepidoptera 
Breeders Association (2008), being marketed as derived from a captive 
breeding

[[Page 44096]]

program in Thailand. In Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails are 
reported to be among the most valuable of all butterflies (World Bank 
2005). The species was recently listed on Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32 
(2006) on ``Management of endangered, precious and rare forest plants 
and animals.'' A Schedule IIB-listing restricts the exploitation or 
commercial use of species with small populations or considered by the 
country to be in danger of extinction (L.X. Canh, in litt. 2007). In a 
recent survey conducted by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 2000 
residents in Hanoi, Vietnam, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail was among 37 
Schedule IIB-species that were actively being collected, and the 
majority of the survey respondents were unaware of legislation 
prohibiting collection of Schedule IIB-species. Thus, overutilization 
for illegal domestic and possibly international trade via the internet 
is a threat to this species, and within-country protections are 
inadequate to protect the species from illegal collection throughout 
its range.
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been listed in CITES Appendix II 
since 1987 (UNEP-WCMC 2008a). Between 1991 and 2005, 160 Kaiser-I-Hind 
swallowtail specimens were traded internationally under CITES permits 
(UNEP WCMC 2006). The most recent CITES trade data are available for 
the year 2006. The only recorded international trade in this year was 
one shipment of two specimens, imported as personal effects into the 
United States from Vietnam (UNEP WCMC 2008b). Reports that the Kaiser-
I-Hind swallowtail is being captive-bred in Taiwan (Yen and Yang 2001) 
remain unconfirmed. Since 1993, there have been no reported seizures or 
smuggling of this species into or out of the United States (Office of 
Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia, 
in litt. 2008). Therefore, on the basis of global trade data, we do not 
consider legal international trade to be a contributory threat factor 
to this species.
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The current threats of habitat destruction and collection are moderate 
to low in magnitude due to the species' wide distribution, but imminent 
due to ongoing habitat destruction, high market value for specimens, 
and inadequate domestic protections for the species or its habitat. 
Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the 
immediate proposal of listing rules for the 20 species described above. 
In addition, we summarize the expeditious progress we are making, as 
required by section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, to add qualified 
species to the lists of endangered or threatened species and to remove 
from these lists species for which protections of the Act are no longer 
necessary.
    Section 4(b) of the Act states that the Service may make warranted-
but-precluded findings only if it can demonstrate that (1) An immediate 
proposed rule is precluded by other pending proposals and that (2) 
expeditious progress is being made on other listing actions. Preclusion 
is a function of the listing priority of a species in relation to the 
resources that are available and competing demands for those resources. 
Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether 
it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation 
or whether promulgation of such a proposal is warranted but precluded 
by higher priority listing actions.
    The listing of foreign species under the Act is carried out by a 
different Service program than the domestic Endangered Species Program. 
The Division of Scientific Authority (DSA), within the Service's 
International Affairs program, is solely responsible for the 
development of all listing proposals for foreign species and 
promulgation of final rules, whether internally driven or as the result 
of a petition.
    In the upcoming year, publication of proposed rules for the 20 
species described above is precluded by the need to complete pending 
listing actions as described below. Of the actions listed below, 
preparation of a final listing rule for the six species of 
Procellariids is DSA's highest priority.
    DSA will be working on a final listing determination for six 
species of foreign Procellariids that we proposed for listing on 
December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298). Reaching a final decision on this 
proposed rule is consistent with the statutory deadlines under sections 
4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act and takes precedence over proposed 
listings that are warranted but precluded by higher priorities.
    On January 23, 2008, the United States District Court ordered the 
Service to propose listing rules for five foreign bird species, actions 
which we previously considered to be warranted but precluded. These 
species are: the Chilean woodstar (Eulidia yarrellii), Andean flamingo 
(Phoenicoparrus andinus), medium tree-finch (Camarhynchus pauper), 
black-breasted puffleg (Eriocnemis nigrivestis), and the St. Lucia 
forest thrush (Cichlherminia herminieri sanctaeluciae). We, therefore, 
have a court-ordered responsibility to publish proposed listing rules 
for these five species by December 31, 2008.
    The government of Mexico, through the National Commission for the 
Understanding and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), has petitioned us to 
delist the Morelet's crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii), a species that 
is under its jurisdiction and is listed under the Act. The petition was 
received by the Service on May 26, 2005. A 90-day finding was published 
on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36743), indicating that the petitioned action 
may be warranted. The status review is currently in progress, and we 
must complete work on the 12-month finding on this petition, consistent 
with our responsibilities under section 4(b)(3) of the Act.
    The government of Argentina has petitioned us to reclassify the 
broad-snouted caiman (Caiman latirostris) in Argentina from endangered 
to threatened under the Act. The petition was dated November 5, 2007. A 
90-day finding was published on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 33968), indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted. The status review is 
currently in progress, and we must complete work on the 12-month 
finding on this petition, consistent with our responsibilities under 
section 4(b)(3) of the Act.
    We are also in the process of making a final determination on 
whether to delist the Mexican bobcat (Lynx rufus escuinapae). The 
United States, with support from Mexico and other countries, proposed 
to transfer the Mexican bobcat from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II, 
based on the Mexican bobcat's widespread and stable status in Mexico 
and the questionable taxonomy of the subspecies. The U.S. proposal was 
accepted and the change went into effect on November 6, 1992. On July 
8, 1996, we received a petition from the National Trappers Association, 
Inc. to delist the Mexican bobcat. Our 12-month finding and proposed 
rule were published on May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28895). Under section 
4(b)(6) of the Act, we have a statutory responsibility to make a final 
determination.
    We are also making a final determination on whether to delist the 
scarlet-chested parakeet (Neophema splendida) and the turquoise 
parakeet (Neophema pulchella). On September 22, 2000, we announced a 
review of all endangered and threatened foreign species in the Order 
Psittaciformes as part of a 5-year review under section 4(c)(2) of the 
Act (65 FR 57363). One commenter suggested we consider these

[[Page 44097]]

two species for delisting. The individual provided substantial 
scientific information, including information and correspondence with 
the government of Australia (the range country of these species) 
regarding the status of both species. Under section 4(b)(6) of the Act, 
we have a statutory responsibility to complete this rulemaking process.
    On January 4, 2005, we received a petition from 14 county officials 
representing 13 western States to list the Northern snakehead fish 
(Channa argus) as threatened or endangered under the Act, and further, 
to designate the Chesapeake Bay region as critical habitat. On March 5, 
2005, we received a petition from a private individual to delist the 
tiger (Panthera tigris). On December 3, 2007, we received a petition 
from Canada's wood bison recovery team to reclassify the wood bison 
(Bison bison athabascae) under the Act. On January 31, 2008, we 
received a petition from the Environmental Law Clinic at the University 
of Denver on behalf of Friends of Animals to list 14 species of foreign 
parrots as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petitioned 
species include: Blue-throated macaw (Ara glaucogularis), blue-headed 
macaw (Propyrrhura couloni), crimson shining parrot (Prosopeia 
splendens), great green macaw (Ara ambiguous), grey-cheecked parakeet 
(Brotogeris pyrrhoptera), hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), 
military macaw (Ara militaris), Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua 
haematuropygia), red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis), scarlet 
macaw (Ara macao), thick-billed parrot (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha), 
white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria), 
and yellow-crested cockatoo (Cacatua sulphurea). We have a statutory 
responsibility under section 4(b)(3) of the Act to process these 
petitions.
    At the current time, we are also preparing proposed listing rules 
for 25 additional species, petitioned actions that have been determined 
to be warranted in this Notice of Review. Finally, during the upcoming 
year, we will be preparing the 2009 Notice of Review, which will set 
priorities for the next set of listing actions. Using our best efforts 
to meet our statutory responsibilities under the Act is a high 
priority.
    Despite the priorities which preclude publishing proposed listing 
rules, we are making expeditious progress in adding to and removing 
species from the Federal lists of threatened and endangered species. 
Our expeditious progress since publication of the 2007 Notice of 
Review, April 23, 2007, to the current date includes preparing and 
publishing the following: (1) Final rule listing the black stilt 
(Himantopus novaezelandiae), caerulean paradise-flycatcher 
(Eutrichomyias rowleyi), giant ibis (Pseudibis gigantea), Gurney's 
pitta (Pitta gurneyi), long-legged thicketbird (Trichocichla rufa), and 
Socorro mockingbird (Mimus graysoni) as endangered under the Act, 
published January 16, 2008 (73 FR 3146); (2) Proposed rule to list the 
Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), Fiji petrel (Pterodroma 
macgillivrayi), and the magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae) as 
endangered, and the Cook's petrel (Pterodroma cookii), Galapagos petrel 
(Pterodroma phaeopygia), and the Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus 
heinrothi) as threatened under the Act, published December 17, 2007 (72 
FR 71298); (3) Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of 
status review of the broad-snouted caiman to determine if 
reclassification of the population in Argentina, as petitioned, is 
warranted under the Act, published June 16, 2008 (73 FR 33968); and (4) 
Notice of 90-day finding on a petition submitted by the Center for 
Biological Diversity (CBD) to list 12 species of penguin as threatened 
or endangered under the Act, published July 11, 2007 (72 FR 37695). The 
12 penguin species in the CBD petition include: Emperor penguin 
(Aptenodytes forsteri), southern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes 
chrysocome), northern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi), fiordland 
crested penguin (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus), snares crested penguin 
(Eudyptes robustus), erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri), 
macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus), royal penguin (Eudyptes 
schlegeli), white-flippered penguin (Eudyptula albosignata), yellow-
eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes), African penguin (Spheniscus 
demersus), and Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti). In our 90-day 
finding on this petition, we found that listing 10 of the 12 penguin 
species may be warranted, and we initiated a status review of these 10 
species. We found that the petition did not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing of either 
the snares crested penguin or royal penguin may be warranted. The 12-
month petition finding addressing the other 10 species listed above is 
pending Departmental review.
    Our expeditious progress also includes work on pending listing 
actions described above in our ``precluded finding,'' but for which 
decisions had not been completed at the time of this publication, 
including: (1) Final listing determination for six species of foreign 
Procellariids; (2) proposed listing rules for five foreign bird species 
that were court-ordered for publication; (3) proposed listing rules for 
25 additional foreign bird species that were the subjects of listing 
petitions determined to be warranted in this Notice of Review; (4) 90-
day finding on a petition to list the Northern snakehead fish as 
threatened or endangered under the Act; and (5) 90-day finding on a 
petition to list 14 species of foreign parrots as endangered or 
threatened under the Act.
    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations and the constraints relating to workload and personnel. We 
are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. 
Despite higher listing priorities that preclude us from issuing listing 
proposals for the 20 species mentioned in this Notice of Review, the 
actions described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.

Monitoring

    Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to ``implement a 
system to monitor effectively the status of all species'' for which we 
have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to ``make 
prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)] 
to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.'' 
For foreign species, the Service's ability to gather information to 
monitor species is limited. The Service welcomes all information 
relevant to the status of these species, because we have no ability to 
gather data in foreign countries directly and cannot compel another 
country to provide information. Thus, this ANOR plays a critical role 
in our monitoring efforts for foreign species. With each ANOR, we 
request information on the status of the species included in the 
notice. Information and comments on the annual findings can be 
submitted at any time. We review all new information received through 
this process as well as any other new information we obtain using a 
variety of methods. We collect information directly from range 
countries by correspondence, from the peer-reviewed scientific 
literature, unpublished literature, scientific meeting proceedings, and 
CITES documents (including species proposals and reports from 
scientific committees). We also obtain information through the permit

[[Page 44098]]

application processes under CITES, the Act, and the Wild Bird 
Conservation Act. We also consult with staff members of the Service's 
Division of International Conservation and the IUCN species specialist 
groups, and we attend scientific meetings to obtain current status 
information for relevant species. As previously stated, if we identify 
any species for which emergency listing is appropriate, we will make 
prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of 
the Act.

Request for Information

    We request the submission of any further information on the species 
in this notice as soon as possible, or whenever it becomes available. 
We especially seek information: (1) Indicating that we should remove a 
taxon from warranted status; (2) documenting threats to any of the 
included taxa; (3) describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats 
facing these taxa; (4) pointing out taxonomic or nomenclatural changes 
for any of the taxa; (5) suggesting appropriate common names; or (6) 
noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historic ranges.

References Cited

    A list of the references used to develop this notice is available 
upon request (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    This Notice of Review was authored by the staff of the Division of 
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authority

    This Notice of Review is published under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

                                           Table 1.--Candidate Review
                      [C = listing warranted by precluded; P = to be proposed to be listed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Status
----------------------------------   Scientific name         Family            Common name       Historic range
   Birds Category       Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P...................          N/A  Podiceps            Podicipedidae.....  Junin flightless    Peru.
                                    taczanowskii.                           grebe.
P...................          N/A  Leptoptilos dubius  Ciconiidae........  greater adjutant    South Asia.
                                                                            stork.
P...................          N/A  Phoenicopterus      Phoenicopteridae..  Andean flamingo...  Argentina,
                                    andinus.                                                    Bolivia, Chile,
                                                                                                Peru.
P...................          N/A  Mergus              Anatidae..........  Brazilian           Brazil.
                                    octosetaceus.                           merganser.
P...................          N/A  Penelope perspicax  Craciidae.........  Cauca guan........  Colombia.
C...................            8  Pauxi unicornis...  Craciidae.........  southern helmeted   Bolivia, Peru.
                                                                            curassow.
P...................          N/A  Crax alberti......  Craciidae.........  blue-billed         Colombia.
                                                                            curassow.
P...................          N/A  Tetrao urogallus    Tetraonidae.......  Cantabrian          Spain.
                                    cantabricus.                            capercaillie.
P...................          N/A  Odontophorus        Odontophoridae....  gorgeted wood-      Colombia.
                                    strophium.                              quail.
P...................          N/A  Laterallus tuerosi  Rallidae..........  Junin rail........  Peru.
C...................            8  Rallus              Rallidae..........  Bogota rail.......  Colombia.
                                    semiplumbeus.
C...................            8  Porphyrio           Rallidae..........  Takahe............  New Zealand.
                                    hochstetteri.
C...................            8  Haematopus          Haematopodidae....  Chatham             Chatham Islands,
                                    chathamensis.                           oystercatcher.      New Zealand.
P...................          N/A  Rhinoptilus         Glareolidae.......  Jerdon's courser..  India.
                                    bitorquatus.
P...................          N/A  Numenius            Scolopacidae......  slender-billed      Africa, Algeria,
                                    tenuirostris.                           curlew.             Bulgaria,
                                                                                                southern Europe,
                                                                                                Greece, Hungary,
                                                                                                Italy,
                                                                                                Kazakhstan,
                                                                                                Morocco,
                                                                                                Romania, Russia,
                                                                                                Tunisia, Turkey,
                                                                                                Ukraine, and
                                                                                                Yugoslavia.
P...................          N/A  Ducula galeata....  Columbidae........  Marquesan imperial- Marquesas
                                                                            pigeon.             Islands, French
                                                                                                Polynesia.
P...................          N/A  Cacatua             Cacatuidae........  salmon-crested      South Moluccas,
                                    moluccensis.                            cockatoo.           Indonesia.
C...................            8  Cyanoramphus        Psittacidae.......  orange-fronted      New Zealand.
                                    malherbi.                               parakeet.
C...................            8  Eunymphicus         Psittacidae.......  Uvea parakeet.....  Uvea, New
                                    uvaeensis.                                                  Caledonia.
C...................            8  Ara glaucogularis.  Psittacidae.......  blue-throated       Bolivia.
                                                                            macaw.
P...................          N/A  Neomorphus          Cuculidae.........  southeastern        Brazil.
                                    geoffroyi dulcis.                       rufous-vented
                                                                            ground cuckoo.
P...................          N/A  Phaethornis         Trochilidae.......  Margaretta's        Brazil.
                                    malaris                                 hermit.
                                    margarettae.
P...................          N/A  Eriocnemis          Trochilidae.......  black-breasted      Ecuador.
                                    nigrivestis.                            puffleg.
P...................          N/A  Eulidia yarrellii.  Trochilidae.......  Chilean woodstar..  Chile, Peru.
P...................          N/A  Acestrura           Trochilidae.......  Esmeraldas          Equador.
                                    berlepschi.                             woodstar.
C...................            8  Dryocopus galeatus  Picidae...........  helmeted            Argentina,
                                                                            woodpecker.         Brazil,
                                                                                                Paraguay.
C...................            8  Dendrocopus         Picidae...........  Okinawa woodpecker  Okinawa Island,
                                    noguchii.                                                   Japan.
C...................           11  Aulacorhynchus      Ramphastidae......  yellow-browed       Peru.
                                    huallagae.                              toucanet.
P...................          N/A  Cinclodes aricomae  Furnariidae.......  royal cinclodes...  Bolivia, Peru.
P...................          N/A  Leptasthenura       Furnariidae.......  white-browed tit-   Peru.
                                    xenothorax.                             spinetail.
P...................          N/A  Formicivora         Thamnophilidae....  black-hooded        Brazil.
                                    erythronotos.                           antwren.
P...................          N/A  Pyriglena atra....  Thamnophilidae....  fringe-backed fire- Brazil.
                                                                            eye.
P...................          N/A  Grallaria milleri.  Formicariidae.....  brown-banded        Colombia.
                                                                            antpitta.

[[Page 44099]]

 
C...................            8  Scytalopus          Conopophagidae....  Brasilia tapaculo.  Brazil.
                                    novacapitalis.
P...................          N/A  Hemitriccus         Tyrannidae........  Kaempfer's tody-    Brazil.
                                    kaempferi.                              tyrant.
P...................          N/A  Anairetes alpinus.  Tyrannidae........  ash-breasted tit-   Bolivia, Peru.
                                                                            tyrant.
P...................          N/A  Phytotoma           Phytotomidae......  Peruvian            Peru.
                                    raimondii.                              plantcutter.
P...................          N/A  Cichlherminia       Turdidae..........  St. Lucia forest    St. Lucia Island,
                                    iherminieri                             thrush.             West Indies.
                                    sanctaeluciae.
P...................          N/A  Acrocephalus        Sylviidae.........  Eiao Polynesian     Marquesas
                                    caffer aquilonis.                       warbler.            Islands, French
                                                                                                Polynesia.
C...................           12  Bowdleria punctata  Sylviidae.........  Codfish Island      Codfish Island,
                                    wilsoni.                                fernbird.           New Zealand.
C...................            8  Zosterops           Zosteropidae......  Ghizo white-eye...  Solomon Islands.
                                    luteirostris.
P...................          N/A  Camarhynchus        Thraupidae........  medium tree-finch.  Floreana Island,
                                    pauper.                                                     Galapagos
                                                                                                Islands,
                                                                                                Ecuador.
P...................          N/A  Nemosia rourei....  Thraupidae........  cherry-throated     Brazil.
                                                                            tanager.
C...................            8  Tangara peruviana.  Thraupidae........  black-backed        Brazil.
                                                                            tanager.
C...................           12  Strepera graculina  Cracticidae.......  Lord Howe pied      Lord Howe
                                    crissalis.                              currawong.          Islands, New
                                                                                                South Wales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


    Dated: July 18, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-17215 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P