[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40540-40560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18842]



[[Page 40540]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0057] [90100 16641FLA-B6]


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we announce our annual petition 
findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) 
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to 
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded 
by higher priority listing actions, we must complete a new status 
review each year until we publish a proposed rule or make a 
determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent status 
reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings are referred to as 
``resubmitted'' petition findings.
    Information contained in this notice describes our status review of 
20 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2008 Notice of 
Review. Based on our current review, we find that 20 species (see Table 
1) continue to warrant listing, but that their listing remains 
precluded by higher priority listing actions.
    With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting 
additional status information for the 20 taxa that remain warranted but 
precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will consider this 
information in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted 
petition findings for these 20 taxa. This information will also help us 
to monitor the status of the taxa and in conserving them.

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

ADDRESSES: This notice is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, and http://endangered.fws.gov/. Supporting 
information used in preparing this notice is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Branch 
of Listing, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203. 
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions 
concerning this notice to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Listing, Endangered 
Species Program, (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 703-358-2171; or by 
facsimile at 703-358-1735). Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. First, we can identify and propose for listing those species 
that are endangered or threatened based on the factors contained in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We implement this mechanism through the 
candidate program. Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have 
sufficient information on file relating to biological vulnerability and 
threats to support a proposal to list the taxa as endangered or 
threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposed 
rule is precluded by higher priority listing actions. The second 
mechanism for considering species for listing is for the public to 
petition to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The species covered by this notice were 
assessed through the petition process.
    Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a listing 
petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent 
practicable, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted (90-day finding). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we 
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the 
species, whereby, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act we 
must make one of three findings within 12 months of the receipt of the 
petition (12-month finding). The first possible 12-month finding is 
that listing is not warranted, in which case we need not take any 
further action on the petition. The second possibility is that we may 
find that listing is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish 
a proposed rule to list the species. Once we publish a proposed rule 
for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further procedures, 
regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to the 
petition. The third possibility is that we may find that listing is 
warranted but precluded. A warranted-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 foreign species previously described in the 2008 Notice of 
Review (73 FR 44062; July 29, 2008) and that are currently the subject 
of outstanding petitions.

Previous Notices

    The species discussed in this notice were the result of three 
separate petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) to list a number of foreign bird and butterfly species as 
threatened or endangered under the Act. We received petitions to list 
foreign bird species on November 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 
26464; May 12, 1981, and 56 FR 65207; December 16, 1991, respectively). 
On January 10, 1994, we received a petition to list 7 butterfly species 
as threatened or endangered (59 FR 24117; May 10, 1994).
    We took several actions on these petitions. To notify the public on 
these actions, we published petition findings, listing rules, status 
reviews, and petition finding reviews that included foreign species in 
the Federal Register on the following dates:

Date                                        FR Citation
May 12, 1981..............................  46 FR 26464
January 20, 1984..........................  49 FR 2485
May 10, 1985..............................  50 FR 19761
January 9, 1986...........................  51 FR 996
July 7, 1988..............................  53 FR 25511
December 29, 1988.........................  53 FR 52746
April 25, 1990............................  55 FR 17475
September 28, 1990........................  55 FR 39858
November 21, 1991.........................  56 FR 58664
December 16, 1991.........................  56 FR 65207
March 28, 1994............................  59 FR 14496
May 10, 1994..............................  59 FR 24117
January 12, 1995..........................  60 FR 2899
May 21, 2004..............................  69 FR 29354
April 23, 2007............................  72 FR 20184
 

    Our most recent review of petition findings was published on July 
29, 2008 (73 FR 44062).

[[Page 40541]]

    Since our last review of petition findings in July 2008, we have 
taken four listing actions related to species previously included in 
this notice (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress section for 
additional listing actions that were not related to this notice). On 
December 8, 2008, we published two proposed rules to list species under 
the Act: One to list the medium tree finch (73 FR 74434), and the other 
to list the black-breasted puffleg (73 FR 74427). On December 24, 2008, 
we published a proposed rule to list the Andean flamingo, the Chilean 
woodstar, and the St. Lucia forest thrush (73 FR 79226). On July 7, 
2009, we published a proposed rule to list the blue-billed curassow, 
the brown-banded antpitta, the Cauca guan, the gorgeted wood-quail, and 
the Esmeraldas woodstar (74 FR 32307).

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions

    This notice describes our resubmitted petition findings for 20 
foreign species for which we had previously found proposed listing to 
be warranted but precluded. We have considered all of the new 
information that we have obtained since the previous findings, and we 
have reviewed the listing priority number (LPN) of each taxon for which 
proposed listing continues to be warranted but precluded, in accordance 
with our Listing Priority Guidance published September 21, 1983 (48 FR 
43098). Such a priority ranking guidance system is required under 
section 4(h)(3) of the Act. Using this guidance, we assign each taxon 
an LPN of 1 to 12, whereby we first categorize based on the magnitude 
of the threat(s) (high versus moderate-to-low), then by the immediacy 
of the threat(s) (imminent versus nonimminent), and finally by 
taxonomic status; the lower the listing priority number, the higher the 
listing priority (i.e., a species with an LPN of 1 would have the 
highest listing priority).
    As a result of our review, we find that warranted-but-precluded 
findings remain appropriate for these 20 species. We emphasize that we 
are not proposing these species for listing by this notice, but we do 
anticipate developing and publishing proposed listing rules for these 
species in the future, with an objective of making expeditious progress 
in addressing all 20 of these foreign species within a reasonable 
timeframe.
    Table 1 (see end of this notice) provides a summary of all updated 
determinations of the 20 taxa in our review. All taxa in Table 1 of 
this notice are ones for which we find that listing is warranted but 
precluded and are referred to as ``candidates'' under the Act. The 
column labeled ``Priority'' indicates the LPN. Following the scientific 
name of each taxon (third column) is the family designation (fourth 
column) and the common name, if one exists (fifth column). The sixth 
column provides the known historic range for the taxon. The avian 
species in Table 1 are listed taxonomically.

Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted but Precluded

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

Birds

Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi unicornis)
    The southern helmeted curassow is one of the least frequently 
encountered South American bird species because of the inaccessibility 
of its preferred habitat and its apparent intolerance of human 
disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998). The southern helmeted curassow 
is known only from two distinct populations in central Bolivia and 
central Peru (BirdLife International 2009a).
    The Bolivian population of the nominate species (Pauxi unicornis 
unicornis) remained unknown to science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). 
Subsequently, it has been observed in the adjacent Ambor[oacute] and 
Carrasco National Parks (Brooks 2006; Herzog and Kessler 1998), and has 
recently been found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National 
Park (TIPNIS), along the western edge of the Mosetenes Mountains, 
Cochabamba, Bolivia. Recent surveys have located few southern helmeted 
curassows across the northern boundary of Carrasco National Park, where 
it was historically found (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009a). In Ambor[oacute] National Park, the southern 
helmeted curassow is regularly sighted on the upper Rio Saguayo (Wege 
and Long 1995). Extensive surveys over the last several years have 
failed to locate the species in Madidi National Park, La Paz (Hennessey 
2004a as cited in BirdLife International 2009a8; Maccormack in litt. 
2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2008; MacLeod in litt. 2003 as 
cited in BirdLife International 2009a), on the eastern edge of the 
Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba, and in the Rio Tambopata area near 
the Bolivia/Peru border.
    In Peru, a subpopulation (Pauxi unicornis koepckeae) is known only 
from the Sira Mountains in Huanuco (Tobias and del Hoyo 2006). In 2005, 
a team from the Armonia Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) saw one and 
heard three southern helmeted curassow in the Sira's: the first 
sighting of the distinctive endemic Peruvian race since 1969 (BirdLife 
International 2008). Limited reports suggest that the southern helmeted 
curassow is rare here (MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2008; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009a; Mee et al. 2002), and evidence suggests the 
population is declining (Gasta[ntilde]aga and Hennessey 2005 as cited 
in BirdLife International 2009a). The southern helmeted curassow occurs 
at densities up to 20 individuals/square kilometer (km\2\); however, in 
recent surveys only 1 or 2 individuals have been observed (Macleod 2007 
as cited in BirdLife International 2008).
    According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources (IUCN) /Species Survival Commission (SSC) Cracid 
Specialist Group the southern helmeted curassow is critically 
endangered and should be given immediate conservation attention (Brooks 
and Strahl 2000).
    The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane 
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450 to 1,200 meters (m) 
(Cordier 1971; Herzog and Kessler 1998). It prefers eating nuts of the 
almendrillo tree (Byrsonima wadsworthii (Cordier 1971)), but also 
consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and insects 
(BirdLife International 2008). Clutch size of the southern helmeted 
curassow is probably two, as in other Cracidae. However, the only nest 
found contained only one egg (Banks 1998; Cox et al. 1997; Renjifo and 
Renjifo 1997 as cited in BirdLife International 2008).
    The southern helmeted curassow was previously classified as 
``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red List. In 2005, it was uplisted to its 
current status as ``Endangered'' (BirdLife International 2009a; 
BirdLife International 2004). Southern helmeted curassow populations 
are estimated to be declining very rapidly due to

[[Page 40542]]

uncontrolled hunting and habitat destruction; this species has a small 
range and is known only from a few locations, which continue to be 
subject to habitat loss and hunting pressures. The total population of 
mature southern helmeted curassow is estimated to be between 1,000 and 
4,999 individuals (BirdLife International 2009a). The subspecies in 
Peru is estimated to have fewer than 400 individuals (Gasta[ntilde]aga 
in litt. 2007 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a). Estimated 
decline in the overall population over 10 years or 3 generations past 
is 50 to 79 percent. However, the quality of this estimate is poor 
(BirdLife International 2009b). The Rio Leche area in Peru experienced 
a 100 percent population decline in less than 5 years because of 
hunting pressures. Similar human pressures are ongoing throughout the 
species' range. The observed decline likely infers that a 50-percent 
population loss occurred between 1995 and 2005. Unless threats are 
mitigated this trend will probably continue for the next several years 
(Macleod in litt. 2005). Hunting is probably the biggest threat to 
southern helmeted curassow in all parts of its range (Gasta[ntilde]aga 
2006 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a). The species is often 
hunted for meat and its casque, or horn (Collar et al. 1992), which the 
local people use to fashion cigarette-lighters (Cordier 1971). In the 
Ambor[oacute] region of Bolivia, the bird's head is purportedly used in 
folk dances (Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar 1992).
    In Bolivia, forests within the range of the southern helmeted 
curassow are being cleared for crop cultivation by colonists from the 
altiplano (Maillard 2006 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a). 
Rural development, including road building, inhibits its dispersal 
(Fjeldsa in litt. 1999 as cited in BirdLife International 2008; Herzog 
and Kessler 1998). In Peru, in addition to hunting, southern helmeted 
curassow habitat is threatened by subsistence agriculture (MacLeod in 
litt. 2000 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a), forest clearing 
by colonists, illegal logging, mining, and oil exploration (BirdLife 
International 2009a). The southern helmeted curassow is dependent upon 
pristine habitat. Therefore, its presence is critical for determining 
priorities for conservation (Brooks 2006).
    In Bolivia, large parts of southern helmeted curassow habitat are 
ostensibly protected by inclusion in the Amboro and Carrasco National 
Parks and in the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park. 
However, pressures on the species' populations continue (BirdLife 
International 2009a; BirdLife International 2000). In recent years, 
extensive field surveys of southern helmeted curassow habitat have 
resulted in little success in locating the species (Hennessey 2004a; 
MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a; 
Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a; 
MacLeod in litt 2003 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a; Mee et 
al. 2002). The Association Armonia has been attempting to estimate 
southern helmeted curassow population numbers to identify its most 
important populations, and is evaluating human impact on the species' 
natural habitat. In addition, Armonia is carrying out an environmental 
awareness project to inform local people about the threat to southern 
helmeted curassow (BirdLife International 2009a) and is conducting 
training workshops with park guards to help improve chances for its 
survival (Llampa 2007 as cited in BirdLife International 2009a).
    The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic 
genus. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude as the 
population is fairly large; however, the population trend has been 
declining rapidly. The threats to the species are ongoing and, 
therefore, imminent. Thus, we have assigned this species a priority 
rank of 8.
Bogota rail (Rallus semiplumbeus)
    The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the 
Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyac[aacute]. 
In Cundinamarca, the Bogota rail has been observed in at least 21 
locations. It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m 
(occasionally as low as 2,100 m) in savanna and p[aacute]ramo marshes 
(BirdLife International 2008; BirdLife International 2007). Bogota rail 
frequent wetland habitats with vegetation-rich shallows that are 
surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles in litt. 1999 as 
cited in BirdLife International 2009). It inhabits the water's edge, in 
flooded pasture and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Salaman in 
litt.1999 as cited in BirdLife International 2009; Fjeldsa 1990 as 
cited in BirdLife International 2009; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990 as cited 
in BirdLife International 2009; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009). Nests have been recorded adjoining shallow water 
in beds of Scirpus and Typha spp. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited in 
BirdLife International 2009). The Bogota rail is omnivorous, consuming 
a diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, insect larvae, worms, 
mollusks, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant material (BirdLife 
International 2009; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009; BirdLife International 2006).
    The Bogota rail is listed as endangered by IUCN primarily because 
its range is very small and is contracting because of widespread 
habitat loss and degradation. Furthermore, available habitat has become 
widely fragmented (BirdLife International 2007). Wetland drainage, 
pollution, and siltation on the Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] plateau have 
resulted in major habitat loss and few suitably vegetated marshes 
remain. All major savanna wetlands are threatened, predominately 
because of draining, but also by agricultural runoff, erosion, dyking, 
eutrophication caused by untreated sewage effluent, insecticides, 
tourism, hunting, burning, reed harvesting, fluctuating water levels, 
and increasing water demand. Additionally, road construction may result 
in colonization and human interference, including introduction of 
exotic species in previously stable wetland environments (Cortes in 
litt. 2007 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). The current 
population is estimated to range between 1,000-2,499 individuals, 
though numbers are expected to decline over the next 10 years or 3 
generations by 10 to 19 percent (BirdLife International 2009). Although 
the Bogota rail population is declining, it is still uncommon to fairly 
common, with a few notable populations, including nearly 400 birds at 
Laguna de Tota, approximately 50 bird territories at Laguna de la 
Herrera, approximately 110 birds at Parque La Florida, and populations 
at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BirdLife International 
2009). Some Bogota rails occur in protected areas such as Chingaza 
National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most savanna 
wetlands are virtually unprotected (BirdLife International 2009).
    The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It is subject 
to threats that are moderate in magnitude and ongoing and, therefore, 
imminent. We have assigned a priority rank of 8 to this species.
Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, previously known as P. mantelli)
    The Takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the 
world's largest extant member of the rail family (del Hoyo et al. 
1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, has been split into P. mantelli 
(extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). BirdLife 
International (2000) incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the 
extant form, while the name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to 
the extinct form.

[[Page 40543]]

Fossils indicate that this bird was once widespread throughout the 
North and South Islands. The Takahe was thought to be extinct by the 
1930s until its rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison Mountains, 
Fjordland (South Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New Zealand 
Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its rediscovery, 
a Takahe Special Area of 193 square miles (mi\2\) (500 km\2\) was set 
aside in Fiordland National Park for the conservation of Takahe 
(Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2009c). Today, the species is present in the 
Murchison and Stuart Mountains and has been introduced to four island 
reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Mantangi, and Maud) (Collar et al. 
1994). The population in the Murchison Mountains is important because 
it is the only mainland population that has the potential for 
sustaining a large, viable population (NZDOC 1997).
    Originally, the species occurred throughout forest and grass 
ecosystems. Today, Takahe occupy alpine grasslands (BirdLife 
International 2007). They feed on tussock grasses during much of the 
year, with snow tussocks (Chionochloa pallens, C. flavescens, and C. 
crassiuscula) being their preferred food (Crouchley 1994). By June, the 
snow cover usually prevents feeding above tree line, and birds move 
into forested valleys in the winter and feed mainly on the rhizome of a 
fern (Hypolepis millefolium). Research by Mills et al. (1980) suggested 
that Takahe require the high-carbohydrate concentrations in the 
rhizomes of the fern to meet the metabolic requirement of 
thermoregulation in the mid-winter, subfreezing temperatures. The 
island populations eat introduced grasses (BirdLife International 
2007). Takahe form pair bonds that persist throughout life and 
generally occupy the same territory throughout life (Reid 1967). Their 
territories are large, and Takahe defend them aggressively against 
other Takahe, which means that they will not form dense colonies even 
in very good habitat. They are long-lived birds, probably between 14 
and 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997) and have a low reproductive 
rate, with clutches consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. Only a few pairs manage 
to consistently rear chicks each year. Although under normal conditions 
this is generally sufficient to maintain the population, populations 
recover slowly from catastrophic events (Crouchley 1994).
    The Takahe is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List because 
it has an extremely small population (BirdLife International 2006). 
When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the population was 
about 260 pairs (del Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson 1997). By the 
1970s, Takahe populations had declined dramatically, and it appeared 
that the species was at risk of extinction. In 1981, the population 
reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. Since then, the population has 
fluctuated between 100 and 180 birds (Crouchley 1994). At first, 
translocated populations increased only slowly, probably due to young 
pair-bonds and the quality of the founding population (Bunin et al. 
1997). In recent years, the total Takahe population has had significant 
growth; in 2004, there was a 13.6 percent increase in the number of 
adult birds, with the number of breeding pairs up 7.9 percent (BirdLife 
International 2005). As of August 2007, birds in the Takahe Special 
Area had increased to 168, and the current national population was 297. 
However, this mainland population was thought to be at carrying 
capacity (Greaves 2007), and Island reserves also appeared to be at 
carrying capacity (NZDOC 2007). Thus, a high priority of the recovery 
program is to establish a second viable mainland population to further 
increase the total population size (Greaves 2007). Overall, population 
numbers are slowly increasing due to intensive management of the island 
reserve populations, but fluctuations in the remnant mainland 
population continue to occur (BirdLife International 2000).
    The main cause of the species' historical decline was competition 
for tussock grasses by grazing red deer (Cervus elaphus), which were 
introduced after the 1940s (Mills and Mark 1977). The red deer 
overgrazed the Takahe's habitat, eliminating nutritious plants and 
preventing some grasses from seeding (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The NZDOC 
has controlled red deer through an intensive hunting program in the 
Murchison Mountains since the 1960s, and now the tussock grasses are 
close to their original condition (BirdLife International 2005).
    Predation by introduced stoats (Mustela erminea) is believed to be 
a current risk to the species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995; Bunin and 
Jamieson 1996; Crouchley 1994). The NZDOC is running a trial stoat 
control program in a portion of the Takahe Special Area to measure the 
effect on Takahe survival and productivity. Initial assessment 
indicates a positive influence (NZDOC 2007). Other potential 
competitors or predators include the introduced brush-tailed possum 
(Trichosurus vulpecula) and the threatened weka (Gallirallus 
australis), a flightless woodhen endemic to New Zealand (BirdLife 
International 2008). In addition, severe weather is a natural limiting 
factor to this species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995). Weather patterns in 
the Murchison Mountains vary from year to year. High chick and adult 
mortality may occur during extraordinarily severe winters, and poor 
breeding may result from severe stormy weather during spring breeding 
season (Crouchley 1994). Research confirms that severity of winter 
conditions adversely affects survivorship of Takahe in the wild, 
particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
    Since 1983, the NZDOC has been involved in managing a 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 2009a). 
Captive-breeding efforts have increased the rate of survival of chicks 
reaching 1 year of age from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997). However, 
Takahe that have been translocated to the islands have higher rates of 
egg infertility and low hatching success when they breed, contributing 
to the slow increase in the islands' populations. Researchers 
postulated that the difference in vegetation between the native 
mainland grassland tussocks and that found on the islands might be 
affecting reproductive success. After testing nutrients from all 
available food sources, they concluded that there was no effect, and 
advised that a supplementary feeding program for the birds was not 
necessary or recommended (Jamieson 2003). Further research on Takahe 
established on Tiritiri Matangi Island estimated that the island can 
support up to 8 breeding pairs, but suggested that the ability of the 
island to support Takahe is likely to decrease as the grass/shrub 
ecosystem reverts to forest. The researchers concluded that, although 
the four island populations fulfilled their role as an insurance 
against extinction on the mainland at the time of the study, given 
impending habitat changes on the islands, it is unclear whether these 
island populations will continue to be viable in the future without an 
active management plan (Baber and Craig 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). 
Maxwell and Jamieson (1997) studied survival and recruitment of 
captive-reared and wild-reared Takahe on Fiordland. They concluded that 
captive rearing of

[[Page 40544]]

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, we have assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis)
    Chatham oystercatcher is the rarest oystercatcher species in the 
world (DOC 2001). It is endemic to the Chatham Island group (Marchant 
and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), which lies 534 mi (860 
km) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group comprises 
two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and numerous smaller 
islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira and Mangere) are nature 
reserves, which provide important habitat for the Chatham 
oystercatcher. The Chatham Island group has a biota quite different 
from the mainland. The remote marine setting, distinct climate, and 
physical makeup have led to a high degree of endemism (Aikman et al. 
2001). The southern part of the Chatham oystercatcher range is 
dominated by rocky habitats with extensive rocky platforms. The 
northern part of the range is a mix of sandy beach and rock platforms 
(Aikman et al. 2001).
    Pairs of Chatham oystercatchers occupy their territory all year, 
while juveniles and subadults form small flocks or occur alone on a 
vacant section of the coast. The nest is a scrape usually on a sandy 
beach just above spring-tide and storm surge level or among rocks above 
the shoreline and are often under the cover of small bushes or rock 
overhangs (Heather and Robertson 1997).
    Chatham oystercatcher is classified as `Endangered' on the IUCN Red 
List because it has an extremely small population (BirdLife 
International 2009). It is listed as `critically-endangered' by the New 
Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC 2008a), making it a high 
priority for conservation management (DOC 2007). In the early 1970s the 
Chatham oystercatcher population was approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 
1996). In 1988, based on past productivity information, it was feared 
that the species was at risk of extinction within 50 to 70 years (Davis 
1988 as cited in Schmechel and Paterson 2005). However, the population 
increased by 30 percent overall between 1987 and 1999, except trends 
varied in different areas of the Chatham Islands (Moore et al. 2001). 
Surveys taken over a 6-year period recorded an increase in Chatham 
oystercatchers from approximately 100 individuals in 1998 (Marchant and 
Higgins 1993) to 320 individuals (including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 
(Moore 2005a). Although the overall population has significantly 
increased over the last 20 years, the population on South East Island 
(Rangatira), an island free of mammalian predators, has gradually 
declined since the 1970s. The reason for the decline is unknown 
(Schmechel and O'Connor 1999).
    Predation, nest disturbance, invasive plants, and spring tides and 
storm surges are factors threatening the Chatham oystercatcher 
population (DOC 2001, Moore 2005). Feral cats (Felis catus) have become 
established on two of the Chatham Islands after being introduced as 
pets. Severe reduction in Chatham oystercatcher numbers is attributed 
in part by heavy cat predation. Another predator, the weka (Gallirallus 
australis), an endemic New Zealand rail, introduced to the Chatham 
Islands in the early 1900s, is not considered as much a threat to the 
Chatham oystercatcher as feral cats because they only prey on eggs when 
adult oystercatchers are not present. Other potential predators include 
the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), the ship rat (R. rattus), 
Australian brush-tailed possum (Trichsurus vulpeculs), and hedgehog 
(Erinaceus europaeus). However, these species are not considered a 
serious threat because of the large size of the oystercatcher eggs. 
Native predators include the red-billed gull (Larus scopulinus), and 
southern black-backed gull (L. dominicanus) (Moore 2005b). Nest 
destruction and disturbance is caused by people fishing, walking, or 
driving, and by livestock. When a nesting area is disturbed, adult 
Chatham oystercatchers often abandon their eggs for up to an hour or 
more, leaving the eggs vulnerable to opportunistic predators. Eggs are 
also trampled by livestock (Moore 2005a).
    Another obstacle to Chatham oystercatcher populations is marram 
grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced to New Zealand from Europe to 
protect farmland from sand encroachment. It has spread to the Chatham 
Islands where it binds beach sands forming tall dunes with steep 
fronts. In many marram-infested areas, the strip between the high tide 
mark and the foredunes narrows as the marram advances seaward. 
Consequently, the Chatham oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to 
shore where nests are vulnerable to tides and storm surges. The dense 
marram grass is unsuitable for nesting (Moore and Davis 2005). In a 
study done by Moore and Williams (2005), the authors found that, along 
the narrow shoreline, many eggs were washed away and the adults would 
not successfully breed without human intervention. Oystercatcher eggs 
could easily be moved away from the shoreline by fieldworkers and 
placed in hand-dug scrapes surrounded by tidal debris and kelp. Video 
cameras placed to observe nests indicated that feral cats are a major 
nest predator. After three summers of video recording, 13 of the 19 
nests recorded were predated by cats. When a cat was present eggs 
usually lasted only one or two days. Of the remaining six nest 
failures, weka were responsible for three; red-billed gull, one; sheep-
trampling, one; and sea wash, one (Moore 2005b).
    The birds of the Chatham Island group are protected. The NZDOC 
focused conservation efforts in the early 1990s on predator trapping 
and fencing to limit domestic stock access to nesting areas. In 2001, 
the NZDOC published the Chatham Island oystercatcher recovery plan 
2001-2011 (DOC 2001), which outlines actions such as translocation of 
nests away from the high tide mark and nest manipulation to further the 
conservation of this species. These actions may have helped to increase 
hatching success (DOC 2008b). Artificial incubation has been tried but 
did not increase productivity. Additionally, livestock have been

[[Page 40545]]

fenced and signs erected to reduce human and dog disturbance. Marram 
grass control has been successful in some areas. Intensive predator 
control combined with nest manipulation has resulted in a high number 
of fledglings (BirdLife International 2009).
    The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
current population has 311 individuals, and the species only occurs on 
the small Chatham Island group. It faces threats that are moderate in 
magnitude because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the recovery of 
the species. Threats are ongoing and, therefore, imminent. We have 
assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Orange-fronted parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi)
    The orange-fronted parakeet, also known as Malherbe's parakeet, was 
treated as an individual species until it was proposed to be a color 
morph of the yellow-crowned parakeet, C. auriceps, in 1974 (Holyoak 
1974). Further taxonomic analysis suggested that it should once again 
be considered a distinct species (Kearvell et al. 2003; ITIS 2008).
    At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout 
most of New Zealand, although the two records from the North Island are 
thought to be dubious (Harrison 1970). This species has never been 
common (Mills and Williams 1979). During the nineteenth century, the 
species' distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a few 
other offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a). Currently, there 
are four known remaining populations, all located within an 18.6-mi 
(30-km) radius in beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys 
within Arthur's Pass National Park and Lake Sumner Forest Park in 
Canterbury, South Island (NZDOC 2009a), and two populations established 
on Chalky and Maud Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007). This species 
inhabits southern beech forests, with a preference for locales 
bordering stands of mountain beech (N. solandri) (del Hoyo 1997; Snyder 
et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). It is reliant on old mature beech trees 
with natural cavities or hollows for nesting. Breeding is linked with 
the irregular seed production by Nothofagus; in mast years with a high 
abundance of seeds, parakeet numbers can increase substantially. In 
addition to eating seeds, the orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits, 
leaves, flowers, buds, and invertebrates (BirdLife International 2009).
    The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small population and 
limited range. The species is listed as ``Critically Endangered'' on 
the IUCN Red List, ``because it underwent a population crash following 
rat invasions in 1990-2000, and it now has a very small and severely 
fragmented population that has declined during the past ten years'' 
(BirdLife International 2009). It is listed in Appendix II of the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as part 
of a general listing for all parrots (CITES 2008). The NZDOC (2009b) 
considers the orange-fronted parakeet, or kakariki, to be the rarest 
parakeet in New Zealand. Because it is classified as ``Nationally 
Critical'' with a high risk of extinction, the NZDOC has been working 
intensively with the species to ensure its survival. The population is 
estimated at 100 to 200 individuals in the wild and declining (NZDOC 
2009a).
    There are several reasons for the species' continuing decline; one 
of the most prominent risks to the species is believed to be predation 
by introduced species, such as stoats (Mustela erminea) and rats 
(Rattus spp.) (BirdLife International 2009). Large numbers of stoats 
and rats in beech forests cause large losses of parakeets. Stoats and 
rats are excellent hunters on the ground and in trees. When they 
exploit parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes, they particularly 
impact females, chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2009c). The NZDOC introduced 
``Operation ARK,'' an initiative to respond to predator problems in 
beech forests to prevent species' extinctions, including orange-fronted 
parakeets. Predators are methodically controlled with traps, toxins in 
bait stations, bait bags, and aerial spraying, when necessary (NZDOC 
2009d). Despite these controls, predation by introduced species is 
still a threat because they have not been eradicated from this species' 
range.
    Habitat loss and degradation are also considered threats to the 
orange-fronted parakeet (BirdLife International 2007b). Large areas of 
native forest have been felled or burnt, decreasing the habitat 
available for parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Silviculture of beech forests 
aims to harvest trees at an age when few will become mature enough to 
develop suitable cavities for orange-fronted parakeets (Kearvell 2002). 
The habitat is also degraded by brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus 
vulpecula), cattle, and deer browsing on plants, which changes the 
forest structure (NZDOC 2009c). This is a problem for the orange-
fronted parakeet, which uses the ground and low-growing shrubs while 
feeding (Kearvell et al. 2002).
    Snyder et al. (2000) reported that hybridization with yellow-
crowned parakeets had been observed at Lake Sumner. Other risks include 
increased competition between the orange-fronted parakeet and the 
yellow-crowned parakeet for nest sites and food in a habitat 
substantially modified by humans, competition with introduced finch 
species, and competition with introduced wasps (Vespula vulgaris and V. 
germanica) for invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 
2002).
    The NZDOC closely monitors all known populations of the 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 
2009d). A new population was established in 2006 on the predator-free 
Chalky Island. Eggs were removed from nests in the wild, and foster 
parakeet parents incubated the eggs and cared for the hatchlings until 
they fledged and were transferred to the island. Monitoring later in 
the year (2006) indicated that the birds had successfully nested and 
reared chicks. Additional birds will be added to the Chalky Island 
population, in an effort to increase the genetic diversity of the 
population (NZDOC 2009d). A second self-sustaining population has been 
established on Maud Island (NZDOC 2008).
    The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The current wild population ranges between 100 and 200 individuals, and 
the species' distribution is extremely limited. It faces threats that 
are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC has taken important 
measures to aid in the recovery of the species. The NZDOC implemented a 
successful captive-breeding program for the orange-fronted parakeet. 
Using 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 ongoing and, therefore, imminent. Thus, we have 
assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis)
    The Uvea parakeet, previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus, is 
currently

[[Page 40546]]

treated as two species: E. cornutus and E. uvaeensis (Boon et al. 2008; 
BirdLife International 2007). The Uvea parakeet is found only on the 
small island of Uvea in the Loyalty Archipelago, New Caledonia 
(Territory of France). The island is only 42 mi\2\ (110 km\2\) (Juniper 
and Parr 1998). The Uvea parakeet is found primarily in old-growth 
forests, notably, those dominated by the pine tree Agathis australis 
(del Hoyo et al. 1997). Most birds occur in about 7.7 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 2009, CITES 2000b). Uvea 
parakeets feed on the berries of vines and the flowers and seeds of 
native trees and shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997). They also feed on 
limited crops in adjacent cultivated land. The greatest number of birds 
occurs close to gardens with papayas (BirdLife International 2009). 
Uvea parakeet nest in cavities of native trees, and have a clutch size 
of 2 to 3 eggs with some double clutches (Robinet and Salas 1999).
    Early population estimates of Uvea parakeet were alarmingly low--70 
to 90 individuals (Hahn 1993). Surveys in 1993 by Robinet et al. (1996) 
yielded estimates of approximately 600 individuals. In 1999, it was 
believed that 742 individuals lived in northern Uvea, and 82 in the 
south (Primot 1999 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). Six 
surveys conducted between 1993 and 2007 indicated a steady increase in 
population numbers in both areas (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in 
BirdLife International 2009). Even though populations are currently 
increasing, any reduction in conservation efforts or introduction of 
invasive species (particularly the ship rat, Rattus rattus and the 
Norway rat, R. norvegicus) could lead to rapid declines (Robinet et al. 
1998, BirdLife International 2009). Although the Uvea parakeet has a 
number of predators, the absence of the ship rat and Norwegian rat on 
Uvea is a major factor contributing to its survival. Norway rats are 
prolific invaders of islands and can rapidly establish large 
populations (Russell 2007). Additionally, impacts of the rat appear to 
be more severe on smaller islands (Martin et al. 2000). In one study, 
it was determined that the low rate of predation on nest sites of Uvea 
parakeet was related to the absence of ship rat and Norwegian rat. 
However, these rat species are present on the other Loyalty Islands and 
on Grande Terre (Robinet and Salas 1996). Experimental egg predation 
rates were four times higher on Lifu where R. rattus occurs (Robinet et 
al. 1998).
    Preventive measures have been taken at the port and airport to 
prevent introduction of invasive rats and should continue to be 
reinforced (Robinet and Salas 1996), but there is concern that these 
rats may be introduced in the future (CITES 2000b). However, as of 
2007, the island remained rat free (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in 
BirdLife International 2009). Introductions of Uvea parakeets to the 
adjacent island of Lifou (to establish a second population) in 1925 and 
1963 failed (Robinet et al. 1995 as cited in BirdLife International 
2009), possibly because of the presence of ship rats and Norwegian rats 
(Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). Robinet et al. 
(1998) studied the impact of rats in Uvea and Lifou on the Uvea 
parakeet and concluded that Lifou is not a suitable place for 
translocating Uvea parakeet unless active habitat management is carried 
out to protect it from invasive rats. They also suggested it would be 
valuable to apply low-intensity rat control of the Polynesian rat (R. 
exulans) in Uvea immediately before the parakeet breeding season.
    Uvea parakeet is threatened by habitat loss, capture of juveniles 
for the pet trade, and predation (BirdLife International 2009). The 
forest habitat of the Uvea parakeet is threatened by clearance for 
agriculture and logging. In 30 years, approximately 30 to 50 percent of 
primary forest has been removed (Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a 
young and increasing human population of almost 4,000 inhabitants. The 
increase in population will most probably lead to more destruction of 
forest for housing, cultivated fields, and plantations, especially 
coconut palms, the island's main source of income (CITES 2000a). The 
species is also threatened by the illegal pet trade, mainly for the 
domestic market (BirdLife International 2007). Nesting holes are cut 
open to extract nestlings, which renders the holes unsuitable for 
future nesting. The lack of nesting sites is believed to be a limiting 
factor for the species (BirdLife International 2009). Also, Robinet et 
al. (1996) suggested that the impact of capture of juveniles on the 
viability of populations is not obvious with long-lived species that 
are capable of re-nesting, such as Uvea parakeet. The current capture 
of 30 to 50 young Uvea parakeets each year for the pet trade may be 
unsustainable. In a study of the reproductive biology of Uvea parakeet, 
Robinet and Salas (1999) found that the main causes of chick death were 
starvation of the third chick within the first week after hatching, 
raptor (presumably the native brown goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus) 
predation of fledglings, and human harvest for the pet trade.
    Additionally, the invasion of bees into Uvea in 1996 has resulted 
in competition with Uvea parakeet over nesting sites. This has resulted 
in a reduction of known Uvea parakeet nesting sites by 10 percent 
between 2000 and 2002 (Barr[eacute] in litt. 2003 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009). Studies by Robinet et al. (2003) indicate the 
density of breeding Uvea parakeet is positively related to the 
distribution of suitable trees. Consequently, the number of suitable 
trees may limit the number of breeding pairs. In two cases, Robinet et 
al. (2003) observed successful nesting after human restoration of 
former nest sites that had been destroyed by illegal collectors. This 
further indicates the deleterious effect of nest-site limitation. 
Additionally, forest fragmentation as a result of increased numbers of 
coconut plantations acts as a barrier to dispersal. This could possibly 
explain the lack of recolonization in southern Uvea (Robinet et al. 
2003). Uvea parakeet was uplisted from Appendix II to Appendix I of 
CITES in July 2000 because of its small population size, restricted 
area of distribution, loss of suitable habitat, and the illegal pet 
trade (CITES 2000b).
    A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet was prepared for the period 
1997-2002, which included strong local participation in population and 
habitat monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 
2000). The species has recently increased in popularity and is 
celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997, Primot in litt. 
1999 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). Conservation actions, 
including in situ management (habitat protection and restoration), 
recovery efforts (providing nest boxes and food), and public education 
on the protection of Uvea parakeet and its habitat are ongoing (Robinet 
et al. 1996). Increased awareness of the plight of the Uvea parakeet 
and improvements in law enforcement capability are helping to address 
illegal trade of the species. A captive-breeding program has been 
discussed but not begun (BirdLife International 2009). A translocation 
program to restock this species into the southern portion of Uvea was 
cancelled under a new recovery plan (2003) because the population is 
considered viable and is expected to increase naturally (Barr[eacute] 
in litt. 2003, Anon 2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). 
Measures are now being taken to control

[[Page 40547]]

predators and prevent further colonization by rats (BirdLife 
International 2009). Current Uvea parakeet numbers are increasing, but 
any relaxation of conservation efforts or introduction of nonnative 
rats or other predators could lead to a rapid decline (BirdLife 
International 2009). The Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Cal[eacute]donienne 
d'Ornithologie (SCO) received funding to test artificial nests, and 
BirdLife Suisse (ASPO) is continuing to destroy invasive bees nests and 
is placing hives in forested areas to attract bees for removal 
(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BirdLife International 2009).
    The Uvea parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. The Uvea 
parakeet faces threats that are moderate because important management 
efforts have been put in place to aid in the recovery of the species. 
However, all of these efforts must continue to function, because this 
species is an island endemic with restricted habitat in one location. 
Threats to the species are imminent because illegal trade still occurs 
and the removal of 30 to 50 percent of the old-growth forest, which the 
birds depend on for nesting holes, negatively impacts the reproductive 
requirements of the species. We have assigned this species a priority 
rank of 8.
Blue-throated macaw (Ara glaucogularis)
    The blue-throated macaw is endemic to forest islands in the 
seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de Mojos) of Central Bolivia 
(Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997). It inhabits a 
mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm groves, forest islands, 
and humid lowlands. This species is found in areas where palm-fruit 
food is available, especially motacu palm (Attalea phalerata) (Jordan 
and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997), and it depends on motacu 
palms for nesting (Birdlife International 2008d). It inhabits 
elevations between 656 and 984 ft (200 and 300 m) (BirdLife 
International 2008c; Brace et al. 1995; Yamashita and de Barros 1997). 
These macaws are not found to congregate in large flocks, but are seen 
most commonly traveling in pairs, and on rare occasions may be found in 
small flocks (Collar et al. 1992). The 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 (2008b) estimated the total wild population to be between 
250 and 300 and noted the population has some fragmentation. Surveys 
indicate the population may now be slowly increasing following dramatic 
declines in the 1970s and 1980s. Biologists surveying for this species 
in 2004 found more birds than in previous surveys by searching specific 
habitat types - palm groves and forested islands - and predicted more 
birds would be found by concentrating searches in these areas (Herrera 
et al. 2007). Through a population viability analysis (PVA) of this 
species, Strem (2008) found that, while there was a low probability of 
extinction over the next 50 years, the small population size, as well 
as low population growth rates, makes this species very vulnerable to 
any threat. The low probability of extinction is not unexpected given 
that the blue-throated macaw is a long-lived species and the 50-year 
simulation timeframe is relatively short for such species. However, 
Strem (2008) found that impacts such as habitat destruction and 
harvesting had significant negative effects on the probabilities of 
extinction (increasing the probability of extinction), which 
reemphasizes the importance of addressing these threats for this 
species.
    The blue-throated macaw was historically at risk from trapping for 
the national and international cage-bird trade, and some illegal trade 
may still be occurring. Between the early 1980s and early 1990s, an 
estimated 1,200 or more wild-caught individuals were exported from 
Bolivia, and many are now in captivity in the European Union and in 
North America (BirdLife International 2008b, World Parrot Trust 2003). 
In 1984, Bolivia outlawed the export of live parrots (Brace et al. 
1995). However, in 1993 (Jordan and Munn 1993) investigators reported 
that an Argentinean bird dealer was offering illegal Bolivian dealers a 
high price for blue-throated macaws. Armonia Association (BirdLife in 
Bolivia) monitored the wild birds that passed through a pet market in 
Santa Cruz from August 2004 to July 2005. Although nearly 7,300 parrots 
were recorded in trade, the blue-throated macaw was absent in the 
market during the monitoring period, which may point to the 
effectiveness of the ongoing conservation programs in Bolivia (BirdLife 
International 2007). There are a number of blue-throated macaws in 
captivity, with over 1,000 registered in the North American studbook. 
Because these birds are not too difficult to breed, the supply of 
captive-bred birds has increased (Waugh 2007), helping to alleviate 
pressure on illegal collecting of wild birds, but not completely 
eliminating illegal collection.
    The blue-throated macaw is also at risk from habitat loss and 
possible competition from other birds, such as other macaws, toucans, 
and large woodpeckers (BirdLife International 2008b; World Parrot Trust 
2008). Until recently, all known sites of the blue-throated macaw were 
on private cattle ranches, where local ranchers typically burn the 
pasture annually (del Hoyo 1997). This results in almost no recruitment 
of palm trees, which are central to the ecological needs of the blue-
throated macaw (Yamashita and de Barros (1977)). In addition, in Beni 
many palms are cut down by the local people for firewood (Brace et al. 
1995). Thus, although the palm groves are more than 500 years old, 
Yamashita and de Barros (1977) concluded that the palm population 
structure suggests long-term decline.
    Despite some recent surveys that indicate the population may be 
slowly increasing, this species remains categorized as ``Critically 
Endangered'' on the 2009 IUCN Red List, ``because its population is 
extremely small and each isolated subpopulation is probably tiny and 
declining as a result of illegal trade'' (BirdLife International 2009). 
It is listed in Appendix I of CITES (CITES 2006) and is legally 
protected in Bolivia (Juniper and Parr 1998). The Eco Bolivia 
Foundation patrols existing macaw habitat by foot and motorbike, and 
the Armonia Association is searching the Beni lowlands for more 
populations (Snyder et al. 2000). Additionally, the Armonia Association 
is building an awareness campaign aimed at the cattlemen's association 
to ensure that the protection and conservation of these birds is at a 
local level (e.g., protection of macaws from trappers and the sensible 
management of key habitats, such as palm groves and forest islands, on 
their property) (BirdLife International 2008a; Llampa 2007; Snyder et 
al. 2000). In October 2008, Armonia Association announced it had 
purchased a large 8,785-acre (3,555-hectare) ranch for the purpose of 
establishing a protected area for the blue-throated macaw (BirdLife 
International 2008d). The new Barba Azul Nature Reserve protects 
excellent savanna habitat and 20 blue-throated macaws are known to nest 
here. The organization has also been experimenting with artificial nest 
boxes;

[[Page 40548]]

the macaws have been using these, and this promises to be a way to 
boost breeding success while habitat restoration is under way in the 
new reserve.
    The blue-throated macaw does not represent a monotypic genus. It 
faces threats that are moderate in magnitude because wild birds are no 
longer taken for the legal wild-bird trade as a result of the species' 
CITES listing, and it is also legally protected in Bolivia. Wildlife 
managers in Bolivia are actively protecting the species and searching 
for additional populations, and the species is now protected in one 
nature reserve. Threats to the species are ongoing and, therefore, 
imminent because hunters still trap the birds for the illegal bird 
trade and annual burning on private ranches continues. Therefore, we 
have assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus)
    The helmeted woodpecker is endemic to the southern Atlantic forest 
region of southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern 
Argentina (BirdLife International 2009). It is found in tall lowland 
Atlantic and primary and mature montane forest and has been recorded in 
degraded and small forest patches. However, it is usually found near 
large forest tracts (Chebez 1995b as cited in BirdLife International 
2009; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). 
Helmeted woodpecker forage primarily in the middle story of the forest 
interior (Brooks et al. 1993 cited in BirdLife International 2009; Clay 
in litt. 2000 as cited in BirdLife International 2009).
    Recent field work on the helmeted woodpecker revealed that the 
species is less rare than once thought (BirdLife International 2009), 
although its range is highly restricted (Mattsson et al. 2008). It is 
listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 2008). The current population is 
estimated at between 10,000 and 19,999 individuals and decreasing. 
Because the helmeted woodpecker is difficult to locate except when 
vocalizing and is silent most of the year, its numbers are probably 
underestimated. The overall status of the helmeted woodpecker is 
unclear. However, it is not common anywhere it is known to exist 
(BirdLife International 2009), and in one of the few remaining large 
fragments of Atlantic forest in Paraguay it is considered to be near 
threatened (Alberto et al. 2007). The greatest threat to the helmeted 
woodpecker is widespread deforestation (BirdLife International 2009; 
Cockle 2008 as cited in BirdLife International 2009). Numerous 
sightings since the mid-1980s include one pair in the Brazilian State 
of Santa Catarina in 1998, where the species had not been seen since 
1946 (del Hoyo et al. 2002). The helmeted woodpecker is protected by 
Brazilian law, and populations occur in numerous protected areas 
throughout its range (Chebez et al. 1998 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009; Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009; Wege and Long 1995 as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009). Further studies are needed to clarify species 
distribution and status (del Hoyo et al. 2002).
    The helmeted woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
magnitude of threat to the species is moderate because the population 
is much larger than previously thought and imminent because the forest 
habitat upon which the species is dependent is constantly being altered 
by humans. We, therefore, have assigned this species a priority rank of 
8.
Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii, previously known as 
Sapheopipo noguchii)
    The Okinawa woodpecker lives in the northern hills of Okinawa 
Island, Japan. Okinawa is the largest island of the Ryukyus Islands, a 
small island chain located between Japan and Taiwan (Brazil, 1991; 
Stattersfield et al. 1998; Winkler et al. 2005). This species is 
confined to Kunigami-gun, or Yambaru, with its main breeding areas 
located along the mountain ridges between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-
take, although it also nests in well-forested coastal areas (Research 
Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2001). It prefers undisturbed, mature, subtropical 
evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall trees greater than 7.9 in (20 
cm) in diameter (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982). Trees of this size are 
generally more than 30 years old and are confined to hilltops (Brazil 
1991). Places with conifers appear to be avoided (Short 1973; Winkler 
et al. 1995). The Okinawa woodpecker has been sighted just south of 
Tanodake in an area of entirely secondary forest that was too immature 
for use by woodpeckers to excavate nest cavities, but Brazil (1991) 
thought this may have involved birds displaced by the clearing of 
mature forests. The Okinawa woodpecker feeds on large arthropods, 
notably beetle larvae, spiders, moths, and centipedes, fruit, berries, 
seeds, acorns, and other nuts (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982; Winkler et 
al. 2005). They forage in old-growth forests with large, often moribund 
trees, accumulated fallen trees, rotting stumps, debris, and 
undergrowth (Brazil 1991; Short 1973). This woodpecker nests in holes 
excavated in large old trees, often a hollow in Castanopsis cuspidate 
and Machilus thunbergii trees (del Hoyo 2002; Ogasawara and Ikehara 
1977; Short 1982).
    Until recently the Okinawa woodpecker was considered to belong to 
the monotypic genus Sapheopipo. This view was based on similarities in 
color patterns, external morphology, and foraging behavior. Winkler et 
al. (2005) analyzed partial nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial genes 
and concluded that this woodpecker belongs in the genus Dendrocopos. 
Given the other species in this genus, scientists no longer consider 
the Okinawa woodpecker to belong to a monotypic genus.
    The Okinawa woodpecker is considered one of the world's rarest 
extant woodpecker species (Winkler et al. 2005). The elimination of 
forests by logging and the cutting and gathering of wood for firewood 
are the main causes of its small and lessening numbers (Short 1982), 
but the greatest danger to this woodpecker is the fragmentation of its 
population into scattered tiny colonies and isolated pairs (Short 
1973). The species is categorized on the IUCN Red List as ``Critically 
Endangered,'' because it comprises a single diminutive, declining 
population, which is put at risk by the continued loss of old-growth 
and mature forest to logging, dam construction, agricultural clearing, 
and golf course construction. Its limited range and tiny population 
make it vulnerable to extinction from disease and natural disasters 
such as typhoons (BirdLife International 2008). Feral dogs and cats and 
the introduced Javan mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) and weasel (Mustela 
itatsi) are possible predators of the woodpecker. Additionally, feral 
pigs damage potential ground-foraging sites (BirdLife International 
2003). During the 1930s, the Okinawa woodpecker was considered nearly 
extinct. By the early 1990s, the breeding population was estimated to 
be about 75 birds (BirdLife International 2008a). The current 
population estimate ranges between 146 and 584 individuals, with a 
projected future 10-year decline of 30 to 49 percent (BirdLife 
International 2008b). The species is legally protected in Japan and 
occurs in small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and Mt. Nishime (BirdLife 
International 2008a). The Yambaru, a forest area in the Okinawa 
Prefecture, was proposed to be designated as a national park in 1996, 
and conservation organizations have purchased sites where the 
woodpecker occurs to establish private wildlife preserves (BirdLife 
International 2008; del Hoyo et

[[Page 40549]]

al. 2002). However, information from the Japanese Ministry of 
Environment shows that the national park has not been established 
(Japanese Ministry of Environment 2009), and conservationists recommend 
that a major protected area be created to protect all the area's 
remaining natural forest (BirdLife International 2003).
    The Okinawa woodpecker faces threats that are moderate in magnitude 
because the species is legally protected in Japan and its range occurs 
in several protected areas. However, the threats to the species are 
imminent because the old-growth habitat, upon which the species is 
dependent, continues to be removed, and preferable habitat continues to 
be altered for agriculture and golf courses. Therefore, we have 
assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Yellow-browed toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae)
    The yellow-browed toucanet is known from only two localities in 
north-central Peru--La Libertad, where it is uncommon, and Rio Abiseo 
National Park, San Martin, where it is very rare (BirdLife 
International 2009; del Hoyo et al. 2002; Wege and Long 1995). Its 
estimated range is only 174 mi\2\ (450 km\2\) (BirdLife International 
2009). There have been recent reports of yellow-browed toucanet from 
Leymebambe (T. Mark in litt. 2003, as cited in BirdLife International 
2009). It inhabits a narrow altitudinal range between 6,970 and 8,232 
ft (2,125 and 2,510 m), preferring the canopy of humid, epiphyte-laden 
montane cloud forests, particularly areas that support Clusia trees 
(del Hoyo et al. 2002; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990; Schulenberg and Parker 
1997). This narrow distributional band may be related to the occurrence 
of the larger 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 restricted range of yellow-browed toucanet remains 
unexplained, and recent information indicates that both of the 
suggested competitors have wider altitudinal ranges that completely 
encompass that of yellow-browed toucanet (Clements and Shany 2001, as 
cited in BirdLife International 2008; Collar et al. 1992; del Hoyo et 
al. 2002; J. Hornbuckle in litt. 1999, as cited in BirdLife 
International 2009). The yellow-browed toucanet does not appear to 
occupy all potentially suitable forest available within its range 
(Schulenberg and Parker 1997).
    Deforestation has been widespread in this region, but has largely 
occurred at lower elevations than habitat occupied by the yellow-browed 
toucanet (BirdLife International 2009; Barnes et al. 1995). However, 
coca growers have taken over forests within its altitudinal range, 
probably resulting in some reductions in this species' range and 
population (BirdLife International 2009; Plenge in litt. 1993, as cited 
in BirdLife International 2009). Nevertheless, much forest remains, 
though forest at all elevations has likely been affected (Plenge in 
litt. 1993, as cited in BirdLife International 2009). Most of the area 
is only lightly settled by humans (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). 
However, the human population surrounding the Rio Abiseo Park was 
steadily increasing during the 15 years prior to 2002, primarily 
because of the advent of mining operations in the area (Obenson 2002).
    The yellow-browed toucanet is listed as `Endangered' on the IUCN 
Red List because of its very small range and extant population records 
from only two locations (BirdLife International 2009). The current 
population size is unknown, but the population trend is believed to be 
decreasing (BirdLife International 2009).
    The yellow-browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The magnitude of threat to the species is moderate and nonimminent 
given that the majority of deforestation has not yet occurred at the 
elevations occupied by this species. Therefore, we have assigned this 
species a priority rank of 11.
Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis)
    The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird found in swampy gallery 
forest, disturbed areas of thick streamside vegetation, and dense 
secondary growth of the bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), from 
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 2008). 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 Caraca in 
the hills and tablelands of central Brazil (Collar et al. 1992).
    Although the species was once considered rare (Sick and Texeira 
1979, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it is now found in reasonable 
numbers in certain areas of Brasilia (D. M. Teixeira, in litt. 1987, as 
cited in Collar et al. 1992). Silviera (1998) found this species to be 
very common in and around Serra da Canastra National Park in Minas 
Gerais. The population is estimated at more than 10,000 birds, with a 
decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2008). The IUCN 
categorizes Brasilia tapaculo as ``Near Threatened'' (BirdLife 
International 2008). The species occupies a very limited range and is 
presumably losing habitat around Brasilia. Its distribution now appears 
larger than initially believed, and the swampy gallery forests where it 
is found are not conducive for forest clearing, leaving the species' 
habitat less vulnerable to this threat than previously thought. 
However, dam building for irrigation on rivers that normally flood 
gallery forests is an emerging threat (Antas 2007; D. M. Teixeira in 
litt. 1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). The majority of locations 
of this species lie within established reserves, and both fire risk and 
drainage impacts are reduced in these areas (Antas 2007). The Brasilia 
tapaculo is currently protected by Brazilian law (Bernardes et al. 
1990, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and it is found in six protected 
areas (Machado et al. 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2008; 
Wege and Long 1995). However, annual burning of adjacent grasslands 
limits the extent and availability of suitable habitat, as does wetland 
drainage and the sequestration of water for irrigation (Machado et al. 
1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2008).
    The Brasilia tapaculo does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
magnitude of threat to the species is moderate because the population 
is much larger than previously believed and preferred habitat is swampy 
and difficult to clear. Threats are imminent, however, because habitat 
is being drained or dammed for agricultural irrigation, and grassland 
burning limits the extent of suitable habitat. Therefore, we have 
assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Codfish Island fernbird (Bowdleria punctata wilsoni)
    The Codfish Island fernbird is found only on Codfish Island--a 
Nature Reserve of 3,448 acres (ac) (1,396 hectares (ha))--located 1.8 
mi (3 km) off the northwest coast of Stewart Island, New Zealand (IUCN 
1979, McClelland 2007). There are five subspecies of Bowdleria 
punctata, each restricted to a

[[Page 40550]]

single island and its outlying islands. The North and South Islands' 
subspecies are widespread and locally common. The Stewart Island and 
the Snares' subspecies are moderately abundant (Heather and Robertson 
1997). In 1966, the status of the Codfish Island subspecies (B. 
punctata wilsoni) was considered relatively safe (Blackburn 1967), but 
estimates dating from 1975 indicated a gradually declining population 
numbering approximately 100 individuals (Bell 1975 as cited in IUCN 
1979). McClelland (2007) wrote that in the past the Codfish Island 
fernbird was restricted to low shrubland on the top of Codfish Island 
with a few individuals around the coastal shrubland; the birds are 
thought to have been eliminated from forest habitat by the Polynesian 
rat (Rattus exulans) (McClelland 2007). The IUCN (1979) concluded that 
the absence of the fernbird from areas of Codfish Island that it had 
formerly occupied in the mid-1970s evidenced a decline.
    Fernbirds are sedentary and their flight is weak. They are 
secretive and reluctant to leave cover. They feed in low vegetation or 
on the ground, eating mainly caterpillars, spiders, grubs, beetles, 
flies, and moths (Heather and Robertson 1997).
    Codfish Island's native vegetation has been modified by the 
introduced Australian brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). 
Codfish Island fernbird populations have also been reduced due to 
predation by weka (Gallirallus australis scotti) and Polynesian rats 
(Merton 1974, personal communication, as cited in IUCN 1979). Several 
conservation measures have been undertaken by the New Zealand DOC. The 
weka and possum were eradicated from Codfish Island in 1984 and 1987, 
respectively (McClelland 2007). The Polynesian rat was eradicated in 
1997 (Conservation News 2002, McClelland 2007). The Codfish Island 
fernbird population has been rebounding strongly with the removal of 
invasive predator species. Additionally, it has successfully colonized 
the forest habitat, which greatly expanded its range. Although there is 
no accurate estimate on the current size of the Codfish Island fernbird 
population (estimates are based on incidental encounter rates in the 
various habitat types on the island), the current population is 
believed to be several hundred. Thus, McClelland (2007) concluded that 
is it likely that the population has peaked and is now stable.
    To safeguard the Codfish Island fernbird, the New Zealand DOC 
established a second population on Putauhinu Island--a small 356-ac 
(144 ha), privately owned island located approximately 25 mi (40 km) 
south of Codfish Island. The Putauhinu population established rapidly, 
and McClelland (2007) reported that it is believed to be stable. While 
there are no accurate data on the population size or trends on 
Putauhinu, the numbers are estimated to be 200 to 300 birds spread over 
the island (McClelland 2007). Even with a second population, the 
fernbird remains vulnerable to naturally occurring storm events because 
of its restricted range and small population size.
    The Codfish Island fernbird is a subspecies that is now facing 
threats that are low to moderate in magnitude because the removal of 
invasive predator species and the establishment of a second population 
have allowed for a strong rebound in the subspecies' population. 
Threats are nonimminent because the conservation measures to prevent 
the invasion of predatory invasive species have proven to be very 
successful. We have, therefore, assigned this subspecies a priority 
rank of 12.
Ghizo white-eye (Zosterops luteirostris)
    The Ghizo white-eye is endemic to Ghizo, a very densely populated 
island in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific (BirdLife 
International 2008). Birds are locally common in the remaining tall or 
old-growth forest, which is very fragmented and comprises less than 
0.39 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 2008), and it is not known whether these two 
habitats can support sustainable breeding populations (Buckingham et 
al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2008). The IUCN Red List 
classifies this species as ``Endangered,'' because of its very small 
population that is considered to be declining due to habitat loss. It 
further notes that the species would be classified as ``Critically 
Endangered'' if the species' range was judged to be severely fragmented 
(BirdLife International 2008). The population estimate for this species 
is 250 to 999 birds. Biologists recommended that systematic surveys be 
conducted for this species to verify its conservation status (Sherley 
2001). While there are no data on population trends, the species is 
suspected to be declining due to habitat degradation (BirdLife 
International 2008). The very tall old-growth forest on Ghizo is still 
under some threat from clearance for local use as timber, firewood, and 
gardens, and the areas of other secondary growth, which are suboptimal 
habitats for this species, are under considerable threat from clearance 
for agricultural land (BirdLife International 2008).
    The Ghizo white-eye does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces 
threats that are moderate in magnitude because forest clearing, while a 
concern, does not appear to be proceeding at a pace to rapidly denude 
the habitat. Threats are imminent because the 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 have assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Black-backed tanager (Tangara peruviana)
    The black-backed tanager is endemic to the coastal Atlantic forest 
region of southeastern Brazil, with records from Rio de Janeiro, Sao 
Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and Espirito Santo 
(Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife International 
2008). It is largely restricted to coastal sand-plain forest and 
littoral scrub, or restinga, and has also been located in secondary 
forests (BirdLife International 2008). The black-backed tanager is 
generally not considered rare within suitable habitat (BirdLife 
International 2008). It has a complex distribution with periodic local 
fluctuations in numbers owing to seasonal movements in response to the 
ripening of areoira Schinus fruit, at least in Rio de Janeiro and Sao 
Paulo (BirdLife International 2008). This species is more common in Sao 
Paulo during the winter and records from Espirito Santo are only from 
the winter season. Clarification of the species' seasonal movements 
will provide an improved understanding of the species' population 
status and distribution, but currently populations appear small and 
fragmented and are probably declining rapidly in response to extensive 
habitat loss (BirdLife International 2008). Population estimates range 
from 2,500 to 10,000 individuals (BirdLife International 2008), and it 
is considered ``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN (BirdLife International 2008). 
The species is negatively impacted by the rapid and widespread loss of 
habitat for beachfront development and occasionally appears in the 
illegal cage-bird trade (BirdLife International 2008). Only small 
portions of the tanager's range occur in six protected areas, none of 
which have effective protection (BirdLife International 2008).
    The black-backed tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. The 
threat to the species is low to moderate in

[[Page 40551]]

magnitude due to the species' fairly large population size and range. 
The threat is, however, imminent because the species is put at risk by 
ongoing rapid and widespread loss of habitat due to beachfront 
development. Therefore, we have assigned this species a priority rank 
of 8.
Lord Howe pied currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis)
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is a separate subspecies from the five 
mainland pied currawongs (Strepera graculina spp.). It is endemic to 
the Lord Howe Island, New South Wales, Australia. The Lord Howe pied 
currawong can be found anywhere on the 7.7-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. Its 
territories include sections of streams or gullies that are lined by 
tall timber (Garnett and Crowley 2000). The highest densities of Lord 
Howe pied currawong nests are located on the slopes of Mt. Gower and in 
the Erskine Valley, with smaller numbers on the lower land to the north 
(Knight 1987, as cited in Garnett and Crowley 2000). The nest is placed 
high in a tree and is made of a cup of sticks lined with grass and palm 
thatch (Department of Environment & Climate Change (DECC) 2005). Most 
of the island is still forested, and the removal of feral animals has 
resulted in the recovery of the forest understory (World Wildlife Fund 
(WWF) 2001).
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is omnivorous and eats a wide variety 
of food, including native fruits and seeds (Hutton 1991), and is the 
only remaining native island vertebrate predator (DECC 2005). It has 
been recorded taking seabird chicks, poultry, and chicks of the Lord 
Howe woodhen (Tricholimnas sylvestris) and white tern (Gygis alba). It 
also feeds on dead rats and has been observed catching live rats to eat 
(Hutton 1991). A Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 
scientist observed that food brought to Lord Howe pied currawong 
nestlings was, in decreasing order: invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, 
and nestlings of other bird species (Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB) 
2006).
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is listed as `Vulnerable' under the 
New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995 because it 
has a limited range, only occurring on Lord Howe Island (DECC 2004). It 
also is listed as `Vulnerable' under the Commonwealth Environment 
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. These laws 
provide a legislative framework to protect and encourage the recovery 
of vulnerable species (DEC 2006a). The Lord Howe Island Act of 1953, as 
amended, established the LIHB, made provisions for the LHIB to care, 
control, and manage the island, and established 75 percent of the land 
area as a Permanent Park Preserve (DEC 2007). In 1982, the island was 
inscribed on the World Heritage List for its outstanding natural 
universal values (Department of the Environment and Water Resources 
2007).
    In the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000 (Garnett and Crowley 
2000), the Lord Howe pied currawong population was estimated at 
approximately 80 mature individuals. In 2006, initial results from a 
color band survey suggested that the population size was 180 to 200 in 
number (LHIB 2006). Complete results reported by the Foundation for 
National Parks & Wildlife (2007) estimated the breeding population of 
the Lord Howe pied currawong was 80 to 100 pairs, with a nesting 
territory in the tall forest areas of about 12 acres (ac) (5 hectares 
(ha)) per pair. The population size is limited by the amount of 
available habitat and the lack of food during the winter (Foundation 
for National Parks & Wildlife 2007).
    The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan was finalized in 
2007, and is the formal National and NSW Recovery Plan for threatened 
species and communities of the Lord Howe Island Group (DEC 2007a). The 
main threat identified for the Lord Howe pied currawong is habitat 
clearing and modification (DEC 2007b). Lord Howe Island is unique among 
inhabited Pacific Islands in that less than 10 percent of the island 
has been cleared (WWF 2001) and less than 24 percent has been disturbed 
(DEC 2007a). Although large-scale clearing of native vegetation no 
longer occurs on Lord Howe Island, the impact of vegetation clearing on 
a small scale needs to be assessed (DEC 2007a). A lesser threat to the 
Lord Howe pied currawong is human interaction with the species. Prior 
to the 1970s, locals would shoot this currawong because it preys on 
nestling birds (Hutton 1991). The Lord Howe pied currawong remains 
unpopular with some residents. It is unknown what effect this localized 
killing has on the overall population size and distribution of the 
species (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Also, the Lord Howe pied currawong 
often preys on ship (black) rats (Rattus rattus) and may be subject to 
nontarget poisoning during rat-baiting programs (DEC 2007b). Close 
monitoring of the population is needed because this small, endemic 
population is susceptible to catastrophic events, such as disease or 
introduction of a new predator (Garnett and Crowley 2000).
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is a subspecies facing threats that 
are low in magnitude and nonimminent because of the conservation 
efforts taken for the island as a whole. Therefore, we have assigned 
this subspecies a priority rank of 12.

Invertebrates

Harris' mimic swallowtail (Eurytides (syn. Mimoides) lysithous 
harrisianus)
    Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies endemic to Brazil 
(Collins and Morris 1985). Although the species' range includes 
Paraguay, the subspecies has not been confirmed there (Collins and 
Morris 1985; Finnish University and Research Network (Funet) 2004). 
Occupying the lowland swamps and sandy flats above the tidal margins of 
the coastal Atlantic Forest, the subspecies prefers alternating patches 
of strong sun and deep shade (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985). 
This subspecies is polyphagous, meaning that its larvae feed on more 
than one plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). Information on preferred 
hostplants and adult nectar-sources was published in the 12-month 
finding (69 FR 70580; December 7, 2004). This subspecies mimics at 
least three Parides species, including the fluminense swallowtail; 
details on mimicry were provided in the 12-month finding (69 FR 70580; 
December 7, 2004) and in the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184; April 
23, 2007). Researchers believe that this mimicry system may cause 
problems in distinguishing this subspecies from the species that it 
mimics (Brown, in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
    Harris' mimic swallowtail was previously known in Espirito Santo 
and Rio de Janeiro (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991). 
However, there are no recent confirmations in Espirito Santo. In Rio de 
Janeiro, Harris' mimic swallowtail has recently been confirmed in three 
localities. Two colonies are located on the east coast of Rio de 
Janeiro, at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and Maca[eacute], and the 
other in Poco das Antas Biological Reserve, further inland. The Barra 
de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o colony is the best-studied. 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

[[Page 40552]]

of the colony in Poco 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 reevaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red List criteria, nor has it 
been incorporated into the 2007 IUCN Red List database (IUCN 2007).
    Habitat destruction is the main threat to this subspecies (Brown 
1996; Collins and Morris 1985), especially urbanization in Barra de 
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o, industrialization in Maca[eacute] (Jurubatiba 
National Park), and previous fires in the Poco 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; Hofling 2007; 
Hughes et al. 2006; The Nature Conservancy 2009; Peixoto and Silva 
2007; Pivello 2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007).
    Both Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and the Poco 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 environment of open and shady areas (Brown 1996; 
Collins and Morris 1985) continues to be present in the region, with 
approximately 541 forest patches averaging 314 ac (127 ha) in size, 
covering nearly 68,873 ha (170,188 ac), and a minimum distance between 
forest patches of 0.17 mi ( 276 m) (Teixeira 2007). In studies between 
1984 and 1991, Brown (1996) determined that Harris' mimic swallowtails 
in Barra de 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 for 
20 years, indicating that the conditions available there remain 
suitable.
    Harris' mimic swallowtail ranges within two protected areas: Poco 
das Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba National Park. These 
protected areas are described in detail for the fluminense swallowtail 
below. The Poco 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 Poco das Antas Biological Reserve 
appears to have abated, and the revised management plan indicates that 
the Reserve will be used for research and conservation, with limited 
public access (CEPF 2007a; IBAMA 2005). The Jurubatiba National Park 
(Park) is located in a region that is undergoing continuing development 
pressures from urbanization and industrialization (Brown 1996; CEPF 
2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; Otero and Brown 1984; Savarese 2008), and 
there is no management plan in place for the Park (CEPF 2007b). 
However, as discussed for the fluminense swallowtail, the Park is 
considered to be in a very good state of conservation (Rocha et al. 
2007).
    Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies and does not represent a 
monotypic genus. Based on the above information, we have determined 
that habitat destruction is a threat to the subspecies. The magnitude 
of the threat is low because suitable habitat continues to exist for 
this polyphagous subspecies; the best-studied colony has maintained a 
stable and viable size for nearly two decades; an additional locality 
has been confirmed; the subspecies is strictly protected by Brazilian 
law; and two colonies are located within protected areas. While the 
protected areas in which this subspecies is found continue to be 
threatened with potential habitat destruction from urbanization and 
industrialization, the threat of habitat destruction is nonimminent 
because such destruction within those protected areas is not ongoing at 
this time. Therefore, we have assigned the subspecies a priority rank 
of 12.
Jamaican kite swallowtail (Eurytides marcellinus)
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail is endemic to Jamaica, preferring 
wooded, undisturbed habitat containing the only known larval hostplant 
West Indian lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata); adult preferences have not 
been reported (Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 1985). Since the 1990s, 
adult Jamaican kite swallowtails have been observed in the Parishes of 
St. Thomas and St. Andrew in the east; westward in St. Ann, Trelawny, 
and St. Elizabeth; and, in the extreme western coast Parish of 
Westmoreland (Bailey 1994; Harris 2002; Mohn 2002; Smith et al. 1994; 
WRC 2001). There is only one known breeding site in the eastern coast 
town of Rozelle (St. Thomas Parish) (Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 
1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al. 1994), although it is possible 
that other sites exist given the widely dispersed nature of the larval 
food plant (R. Robbins, in litt. 2004). Rozelle may also be referred to 
in the literature as Roselle (e.g., Anderson et al. 2007). The Jamaican 
kite swallowtail maintains a low population level. It occasionally 
becomes locally abundant in Rozelle during the breeding season in early 
summer and again in early fall (Bailey 1994; Brown and Heineman 1972; 
Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al. 1994), and 
experiences episodic population explosions, as described in the 12-
month finding (69 FR 70580; December 7, 2004) and in the 2007 ANOR (72 
FR 20184; April 23, 2007). The species is protected under Jamaica's 
Wildlife Protection Act of 1998 and is included in Jamaica's National 
Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity, which has established 
specific goals and priorities for the conservation of Jamaica's 
biological resources (Schedules of The Wildlife Protection Act 1998). 
Since 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail was categorized on the IUCN 
Red List as `Vulnerable' it has not been reevaluated using the 1997 
criteria (IUCN 2008; Gimenez Dixon 1996).
    Habitat destruction has been considered a primary threat to the 
Jamaican kite swallowtail. In Rozelle, there has been extensive habitat 
modification for agricultural and industrial purposes, such as mining 
(Gimenez Dixon 1996; WWF 2001). The Jamaican kite's larval food plant, 
West Indian lancewood, is threatened by clearing for cultivation and by 
felling for the commercial timber industry (Collins

[[Page 40553]]

and Morris 1985; Windsor Plywood 2004). Monophagous butterflies tend to 
be more threatened than polyphagous species, in part due to their 
specific habitat requirements (Kotiaho et al. 2005), and harvest and 
clearing reduces the availability of the only known larval food plant. 
Habitat modification poses an additional threat because the swallowtail 
does not thrive in disturbed habitats (Collins and Morris 1985). 
Rozelle is also subject to naturally occurring, high-impact stochastic 
events, such as regularly-occurring hurricanes, as elaborated in the 
2007 ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). According to the Economic 
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), United Nations 
Development Programme (UNDP), and Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) 
(2004), hurricane-related weather damage in the last two decades along 
the coastal zone of Rozelle has resulted in the erosion and virtual 
disappearance of the once-extensive recreational beach. Most recently, 
Hurricane Ivan, a Category 5 hurricane that hit the island in 2004, 
caused severe local damage to Rozelle Beach, including road collapse 
caused by the erosion of the cliff face and shoreline. The estimated 
restoration cost from Hurricane Ivan damage was $23 million U.S. 
Dollars (US$) ($1.6 million Jamaican Dollars (J$) (ECLAC et al. 2004). 
Thus, while we do not consider stochastic events to be a primary threat 
factor for this species, we believe that the damage caused by 
hurricanes is contributing to habitat loss.
    Habitat destruction in western Parishes also threatens adult 
Jamaican kite swallowtails. Cockpit Country, encompassing 30,000 ha 
(74,131 ac) of rugged forest-karst (a specialized limestone habitat) 
terrain, spans four Western Parishes, including Trelawny and St. 
Elizabeth, where adult Jamaican kite swallowtails have been observed 
(Gordon and Cambell 2006). Eighty-one percent of this region remains 
forested, although fragmentation is occurring as a result of human-
induced activities (Tole 2006). Current threats to Cockpit Country 
include bauxite mining, unregulated plant collecting, extensive 
logging, conversion of forest to agriculture, illegal drug cultivation, 
and expansion of human settlements. These activities contribute to 
threats to the hydrology system from in-filling, siltation, 
accumulation of solid waste, and invasion by nonnative, invasive 
species (Cockpit Country Stakeholders Group and JEAN (Jamaica 
Environmental Advocacy Network 2007; Gordon and Cambell 2006; Tole 
2006)).
    Currently, the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park, located 
on the inland portions of St. Thomas and St. Andrew and the southeast 
portion of St. Mary Parishes, is the only protected area in which adult 
Jamaican Kite swallowtails have been observed (Bailey 1994; Jamaica 
Conservation and Development Trust (JCDT) 2006). Created in 1993, this 
Park encompasses 122,367 ac (49,520 ha) of mountainous, forested 
terrain that ranges in elevation from 492 to 7,402 ft (150 m to 2,256 
m) and is considered one of the best-managed protected areas in Jamaica 
(JCDT 2006). Deforestation is currently a threat in the Blue Mountains 
(Tole 2006). In 2003, the Jamaican National Environment and Planning 
Agency identified Rozelle and Cockpit Country (which spans at least 
four Western Parishes, including Trelawny and St. Elizabeth, where 
adult Jamaican kites have been observed) as priority locations to 
receive protected area status within the next 5 to 7 years (NEPA 2003). 
The status of this proposal is not included in the 2007 Environmental 
Action Plan Status Report (NEPA 2007).
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail has been collected for commercial 
trade (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schutz 2000) and has been 
protected under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act since 1998. This 
Act carries a maximum penalty of US$1439 (J$100,000) or 12 months 
imprisonment for violating provisions of the Act, which appears to be 
effectively protecting this species from illegal trade (NEPA 2005). 
This species is not listed under CITES, nor is it listed on the 
European Commission's Annex B (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 in this 
species into or out of the United States (Office of Law Enforcement, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia, in litt. 2008). 
Therefore, we believe that overutilization is not currently a 
contributory threat factor for the Jamaican kite swallowtail.
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The current threat to the species is moderate in magnitude because 
habitat destruction is occurring at the species' only known breeding 
site, but Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to preserve their native 
swallowtail species and their habitat. The threat is imminent because 
habitat destruction is ongoing and stochastic events are unpredictable. 
Therefore, we have assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Fluminense swallowtail (Parides ascanius)
    The fluminense swallowtail is endemic to Brazil's ``restinga'' 
habitat within the Atlantic Forest region (Thomas 2003). Restingas form 
on sandy, acidic, and nutrient-poor soils in the tropical and 
subtropical moist broadleaf forests of coastal Brazil. Restinga 
habitat, also referred to as ``fluminense vegetation,'' is 
characterized by medium-sized trees and shrubs that are adapted to 
coastal conditions (Kelecom 2002). The species is monophagous (Otero 
and Brown 1984), meaning that its larvae feed only on a single plant 
species (Kotiaho et al. 2005); information on larval hostplant 
preferences is provided in the April 23, 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 
20184).
    The historical range of this species has probably always been 
limited to coastal Rio de Janeiro State (Gelhaus et al. 2004), but it 
was historically reported in Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo, and Sao 
Paulo. However, there are no recent confirmations in Espirito Santo or 
Sao Paulo. In Rio de Janeiro, the species is reported in five 
localities, including: Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and Maca[eacute] 
(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 [Aacute]rea de Tombamento do Mangue do rio 
Para[iacute]ba do Sul. Fluminense swallowtail has also been reported in 
Parque Natural Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto Iguacu 2008).
    The fluminense swallowtail is sparsely distributed throughout its 
range, reflecting the patchy distribution of its preferred habitat 
(Otero and Brown 1984; Tyler et al. 1994; 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 S[atilde]o 
Jo[atilde]o location. The population estimate in Barra de S[atilde]o 
Jo[atilde]o 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, Washington, 
D.C., in litt. 2004). There are no population estimates for the other

[[Page 40554]]

colonies. However, individuals from the viable population in Barra de 
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o migrate widely in some years, which is likely to 
enhance interpopulation gene flow among existing colonies (K. Brown, 
Jr., in litt. 2004).
    Brazil considers the fluminense swallowtail to be ``Imperiled'' 
(MMA 2003; Portaria No. 1,522 1989). According to the 2008 IUCN Red 
List (Gimenez Dixon 1996), the fluminense swallowtail has been 
categorized as ``Vulnerable'' since 1983, based on its small 
distribution and a decline in the number of populations caused by 
habitat fragmentation and loss. However, this species has not been 
reevaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red List categorization criteria.
    Habitat destruction has been the main threat to this species (Brown 
1996; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996). Monophagous 
butterflies tend to be more threatened than polyphagous species 
(Kotiaho et al. 2005), and the restinga habitat preferred by fluminense 
swallowtails is a highly specialized environment that is restricted in 
distribution (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1986; 
Ueraha-Prado and Fonseca). Moreover, fluminense swallowtails require 
large areas to maintain viable populations (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 
2004; Otero and Brown 1986; Ueraha-Prado and Fonseca). The Atlantic 
Forest habitat, which once covered 540,543 mi\2\ (1.4 million km\2\), 
has been reduced 5 to 10 percent of its original cover and harbors more 
than 70 percent of the Brazilian population (Butler 2007; Conservation 
International 2007; Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2007a; 
Hofling 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2009; World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 
2007). The restinga habitat upon which this species depends has been 
reduced by 6.56 mi\2\ (17 km\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 the 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 R[iacute]o S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o. This river runs 
through the Reserve and is integral to creating the restinga conditions 
preferred by the fluminense swallowtail. The Reserve was plagued by 
fires in the late 1980s through the early 2000s, but there have been no 
recent reports of fires. Between 2001 and 2006, there was an increase 
in the number of private protected areas near or adjacent to the Poco 
das Antas Biological Reserve and Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o 
(Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2007a). Corridors are being 
created between existing protected areas and 13 privately protected 
forests, by planting and restoring habitat previously cleared for 
agriculture or by fires (De Roy 2002).
    The Jurubatiba National Park (14,860 ha; 36,720 mi\2\), located in 
Maca[eacute] 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 Maca[eacute] River Basin forms the outer edge of the Jurubatiba 
National Park (Park) (International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2002) and 
creates the restinga habitat preferred by the fluminense swallowtail 
(Brown 1996; Otero and Brown 1984). Rocha et al. (2007) described the 
habitat as being in a very good state of conservation, but lacking a 
formal management plan. Threats to the Maca[eacute] 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 overcollection 
than those with a wider distribution (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; R. 
Robbins, in litt. 2004). This species has not been formally considered 
for listing in the Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org). However, 
the European Commission listed fluminense swallowtail on Annex B of 
Regulation 338/97 in 1997 (Dr. Ute Grimm, German Scientific Authority 
to CITES (Fauna), Bonn, Germany, in litt. 2008), and the species 
continues to be listed on this Annex (Eur-Lex 2008). This listing 
requires that imports from a non-European Union country be accompanied 
by a permit that is only issued if the Scientific Authority has made a 
positive nondetriment finding, a determination that trade in the 
species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the 
wild (U. Grimm, in litt. 2008). There has been no legal trade in this 
species into the European Union since its listing on Annex B (U. Grimm, 
in litt. 2008), and we are not aware of any recent reports of seizures 
or smuggling in this species into or out of the United States (Office 
of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, 
Virginia, in litt. 2008). The fluminense remains strictly protected 
from commerce in Brazil (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). For the reasons 
outlined above, we believe that overutilization is not currently a 
threat factor for the fluminense swallowtail.
    Parasitism could be a factor threatening the fluminense 
swallowtail. Recently, Tavares et al. (2006) discovered four species of 
parasitic chalcid wasps (Brachymeria and Conura species; Hymenoptera 
family) associated with fluminense swallowtails. Parasitoids are 
species whose immature stages develop on or within an insect host of 
another species, ultimately killing the host (Weeden et al. 1976). This 
is the first report of parasitoid association with fluminense 
swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006). To date, there is no information as 
to the

[[Page 40555]]

extent and effect that these parasites are having on the fluminense 
swallowtail.
    Although Harris' mimic swallowtail and the fluminense swallowtail 
face similar threats, there are several dissimilarities that influence 
the magnitude of these threats. Fluminense swallowtails are monophagous 
(Otero and Brown 1984), meaning that its larvae feed only on a single 
plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). In contrast, Harris' mimic 
swallowtail is polyphagous (Brown 1996; Collins and Morse 1985), such 
that its larvae feed on more than one species of plant (Kotiaho et al. 
2005). In addition, although their ranges overlap, Harris' mimic 
swallowtails tolerate a wider range of habitat than the highly 
specialized restinga habitat preferred by fluminense swallowtail. Also 
unlike the Harris' mimic swallowtail, fluminense swallowtails require a 
large area to maintain a viable population (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 
2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
    The fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. 
The species is currently at risk from habitat destruction and 
potentially from parasitism; however, we have determined that 
overutilization is not currently a threat factor for the fluminense 
swallowtail. The current threat of habitat destruction is of high 
magnitude because the species: (1) occupies highly specialized habitat; 
(2) requires large areas to maintain a viable colony; and (3) is only 
found within two protected areas considered to be large enough to 
support viable colonies. However, additional populations have been 
reported, increasing previously known population numbers and 
distribution. The threat of habitat destruction is nonimminent because 
most habitat modification is the result of historical destruction that 
has resulted in fragmentation of the current landscape; however, the 
potential for continued habitat modification exists, and we will 
continue to monitor the situation. On the basis of this information, we 
have assigned the fluminense swallowtail a priority rank of 5.
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail (Parides hahneli)
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is endemic to Brazil and is found 
only on sandy beaches where the habitat is overgrown with dense scrub 
vegetation (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 
1994). Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is likely to be monophagous. 
Information on larval and adult hostplant preferences was provided in 
the Federal Register 12-month finding (69 FR 70580; December 7, 2004) 
and in the 2007 ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007).
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is known in three localities along 
the tributaries of the middle and lower Amazon River basin in the 
states of Amazonas and Par[aacute] (Collins and Morris 1985; New and 
Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 1994; Brown 1996). Two of these colonies 
were rediscovered in the 1970s (Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996). 
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is highly localized, reflecting the 
distribution of its highly specialized preferred habitat (Brown in 
litt. 2004). The population size of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is 
not known. However, within the area of its range, Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail populations are small (Brown in litt. 2004). Hahnel's 
Amazonian swallowtail is not nationally protected (MMA 2003; Portaria 
No. 1522 1989), although Par[aacute] has listed it as endangered on its 
newly created list of threatened species (Resoluc[atilde]o 054 2007; 
Decreto No. 802 2008; Secco and Santos 2008). Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail continues to be listed as `Data Deficient' by the IUCN Red 
List (Gimenez Dixon 1996).
    Competition is a potential threat to Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail. Researchers have posited that it might suffer from host-
plant competition with any of three other butterfly species that occupy 
a similar range (Collins and Morris 1985, Wells 1983, Brown 1996, ANOR 
2007, 72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). However, there is insufficient 
information to conclude that competition is a factor affecting this 
species.
    Habitat alteration (e.g., for dam construction and waterway crop 
transport) and destruction (e.g., clearing for agriculture and cattle 
grazing) are ongoing in Par[aacute] and Amazonas, where this species is 
found (Fearnside 2006; Hurwitz 2007). Current research on population 
declines is lacking. However, researchers believe that, because 
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail has extremely limited habitat 
preferences, any sort of river modification would have an immediate and 
highly negative impact on the species (Wells et al. 1983; New and 
Collins 1991).
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail has been collected for commercial 
trade (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schutz 2000). Although 
not strictly protected from collection throughout Brazil, the state of 
Par[aacute] recently declared the capture of Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail for purposes other than research to be forbidden (Decreto 
No. 802 2008). There continues to be limited trade in the species over 
the internet. However, it has not been ascertained whether this trade 
represents new collections or older, established ones (DSA 2008). 
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is listed on Annex B of Regulation 338/
97 (Eur-Lex 2008), and there has been no legal trade in this species 
into the European Union since its listing on Annex B in 1997 (Grimm in 
litt. 2008). Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail has not been formally 
considered for listing in the Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org). Additionally, recent seizures or smuggling of Hahnel's 
Amazonian swallowtail into or out of the United States have not been 
reported (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Arlington, Virginia in litt. 2008). Species with restricted 
distributions or localized populations, like Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail, are more vulnerable to overcollection than those with a 
wider distribution (Brown in litt. 2004; Robbins in litt. 2004).
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail does not represent a monotypic 
genus. The primary threat of habitat destruction is moderate because of 
the species' specialized habitat requirements. However, the threat is 
imminent because habitat alteration is ongoing. Illegal collection and 
trade have not been reported. Therefore, we have assigned this species 
a priority rank of 8.
Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis)
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is native to the Himalayan regions of 
Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam 
(Baral et al. 2005; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2001; FRAP 
1999; Igarashi 2001; Masui and Uehara 2000; Osada et al. 1999; Shrestha 
1997; TRAFFIC 2007; Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999). 
This species prefers undisturbed (primary), heterogeneous, broad-
leaved-evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests, and flies at 
altitudes of 4,921 to 10,000 ft (1,500 to 3,050 m) (Collins and Morris 
1985; Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999). Information on this 
polyphagous species' biology and food plant preferences is provided in 
the 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184). It should be noted that 
Collins and Morris (1985) reported that the adult Kaiser-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

[[Page 40556]]

IUCN Red List as a species of ``Lower Risk/near threatened''; it has 
not been reevaluated using the 1997 criteria (Gimenez Dixon 1996). The 
species is considered ``Rare'' by Collins and Morris (1985). Despite 
its widespread distribution, local populations are not abundant 
(Collins and Morris 1985). The known localities and conservation status 
of the species within each range country follows:
    Bhutan: The species was reported to be extant in Bhutan (Gimenez 
Dixon 1996; FRAP 1999), although details on localities or status 
information were not provided.
    China: The species has been reported in Fuji, Guangxi, Hubei, 
Jiangsu, Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces (Collins and Morris 1985; 
Gimenez Dixon 1996; Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; Sung and Yan 2005; United 
Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Center 
(UNEP - WCMC) 1999). The species is classified by the 2005 China 
Species Red List as ``Vulnerable'' (China Red List 2006).
    India: Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and West Bengal (Bahuguna 
1998; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996; Ministry of 
Environment and Forests 2005). There is no recent status information on 
this species (N. Chaturvedi, Curator, Bombay Natural History Society, 
Mumbai, India, in litt. 2007).
    Laos: The species has been reported (Osada et al. 1999), but no 
further information is available (Southiphong Vonxaiya, CITES 
Coordinator, Vientiane, Lao, in litt. 2007).
    Myanmar: The species has been reported in Shan, Kayah (Karen) and 
Thaninanthayi (Tenasserim) states (Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez 
Dixon 1996). There is no status information.
    Nepal: The species has been reported in Nepal (Collins and Morris 
1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996), in the Central Administrative Region at two 
localities: Phulchoki Mountain Forest (Baral et al. 2005; Collins and 
Morris 1985) and Shivapuri National Park (Nepali Times 2002; Shrestha 
1997). There is no status information.
    Thailand: The species has been reported in the northern province of 
Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The Scientific Authority of Thailand 
recently confirmed that the species has limited distribution in the 
high mountains (>1,500 m (4,921 ft)) of northern Thailand and is found 
within three national parks. However, no biological or status 
information was available (S. Choldumrongkul, Forest Entomology and 
Microbiology Group, Department of National Parks, Bangkok, Thailand, in 
litt. 2007).
    Vietnam: The species has been confirmed in three Nature Reserves 
(Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999), and the species is 
listed as ``Vulnerable'' in the 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book, due to 
declining population sizes and area of occupancy (Dr. Le Xuan Canh, 
Director of the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, CITES 
Scientific Authority, Hanoi, Vietnam, in litt. 2007).
    Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to this species, which 
prefers undisturbed high-altitude habitat (Collins and Morris 1985; 
Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999). In China and India, the Kaiser-I-
Hind swallowtail populations are at risk from habitat modification and 
destruction due to commercial and illegal logging (Yen and Yang 2001; 
Maheshwari 2003). In Nepal, the species is at risk from habitat 
disturbance and destruction resulting from mining, fuel wood 
collection, agriculture, and grazing animals (Baral et al. 2005; 
Collins and Morris 1985; Shrestha 1997). Nepal's Forest Ministry 
considered habitat destruction to be a critical threat to all 
biodiversity, including the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, in the 
development of their biodiversity strategy (HMGN 2002). Habitat 
degradation and loss caused by deforestation and land conversion for 
agricultural purposes is a primary threat to the species in Thailand 
(Hongthong 1998; FAO 2001). The species is afforded some protection 
from habitat destruction in Vietnam, where it has been confirmed in 
three Nature Reserves that have low levels of disturbance (Tordoff et 
al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999).
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has been 
collected for commercial trade, despite range country regulations 
prohibiting or restricting such activities (Collins and Morris 1985; 
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 U.S. Dollars (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 Wild Animal Reservation and 
Protection Act (WARPA) of 1992 (B.E. 2535 1992), which makes it illegal 
to collect wildlife (whether alive or dead) or to have the species in 
one's possession (S. Choldumrongkul, in litt. 2007; FAO 2001; Hongthong 
1998; Pornpitagpan 1999). In addition to prohibiting possession, WARPA 
prohibits hunting, breeding, and trading; import and export are only 
allowed for conservation purposes (Jeerawat Jaisielthum, CITES 
Management Authority, Bangkok, Thailand, in litt. 2007). According to 
the Thai Scientific Authority, there are no captive breeding programs 
for this species; however, the species is offered for sale by the 
Lepidoptera Breeders Association (2009), being marketed as derived from 
a captive breeding program in Thailand, although specimens were 
recently noted as being ``out of stock'' (Lepidoptera Breeders 
Association 2009).
    In Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails are reported to be among the 
most valuable of all butterflies (World Bank 2005). In 2006, the 
species was listed on Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32 on ``Management of 
endangered, precious and rare forest plants and animals.'' A Schedule 
IIB-listing restricts the exploitation or commercial use of species 
with small populations or considered by the country to be in danger of 
extinction (L.X. Canh, in litt. 2007). In a recent survey conducted by 
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 2000 residents in Hanoi, Vietnam, the 
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

[[Page 40557]]

swallowtail specimens were traded internationally under CITES permits 
(UNEP WCMC 2006), and between 2000 and 2008, 157 specimens were traded 
(UNEP WCMC 2009). The most recent CITES trade data are available for 
the year 2008. Reports that the Kaiser-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 illegal collection are 
moderate to low in magnitude due to the species' wide distribution, but 
imminent due to ongoing habitat destruction, high market value for 
specimens, and inadequate domestic protections for the species or its 
habitat. Therefore, we have assigned this species a priority rank of 8.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    This section describes the actions that continue to preclude the 
immediate proposal of listing rules for the 20 species described above. 
In addition, we summarize the expeditious progress we are making, as 
required by section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, to add qualified 
species to the lists of endangered or threatened species and to remove 
from these lists species for which protections of the Act are no longer 
necessary.
    Section 4(b) of the Act states that the Service may make warranted-
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.In FY 2009, we have begun to 
transfer the listing of foreign species under the Act from the Division 
of Scientific Authority, within the Service's International Affairs 
program, to the domestic Endangered Species Program. In addition to the 
responsibility for development of listing proposals and promulgation of 
final rules for domestic species, whether internally driven or as the 
result of a petition, the Listing Branch within the Washington Office 
of the Endangered Species program will have responsibly for listing 
determinations for foreign species as well. During this transition 
period (the remainder of FY 2009) the DSA and WO Endangered Species 
Program are sharing the work on listing actions for foreign species. 
The work on foreign species is being funded from a separate account 
than the work on domestic species. Starting in FY 2010, the Service 
anticipates that the WO Endangered Species program will have full 
responsibility for foreign species ESA listing actions. In FY 2009, we 
have limited funds to work on foreign species listing determinations. 
All funds available are being used to complete the pending listing 
actions listed below. These actions are either the subject of a court-
approved settlement agreement or subject to an absolute statutory 
deadline and, thus, are higher priority than work on proposed listing 
determinations for the 20 species described above. Therefore, in the 
upcoming year, publication of proposed rules for the 20 species 
described above is precluded.

    ESA foreign species listing actions funded in FY 2009 but not yet
                                completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Species                              Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 species of Procellarids                   Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 other species of Procellarids             Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 bird species from Brazil                  Proposed listing
                                             determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmon crested cockatoo                     Proposed listing
                                             determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 bird species from Peru                    Proposed listing
                                             determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 bird species from Asia & Eurasia          Proposed listing
                                             determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 species of parrots                       12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morelet's crocodile                         12-month petition finding
                                             and Proposed delisting
                                             determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the priorities that preclude publishing proposed listing 
rules for these 20 species described in this notice, we are making 
expeditious progress in adding to and removing species from the Federal 
lists of threatened and endangered species. Our expeditious progress 
since publication of the 2008 Notice of Review, July 29, 2008, to the 
current date includes preparing and publishing the following:

                            ESA foreign species listing actions published in FY 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Publication Date                     Title                   Actions                  FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/19/2008                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice 90-day petition   73 FR 48359-48362
                                        Petition To List the     finding; not
                                        Northern Snakehead       substantial
                                        Fish (Channa argus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/8/2008                              Listing the Medium Tree  Proposed Listing,        73 FR 74434-74445
                                        Finch (Camarhynchus      Endangered
                                        pauper) as Endangered
                                        Throughout Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/8/2008                              Proposed Rule To List    Proposed Listing,        73 FR 74427-74434
                                        Black-Breasted Puffleg   Endangered
                                        as Endangered
                                        Throughout Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 40558]]

 
12/18/2008                             12-Month Finding on a    Notice 12-month          73 FR 77264-77302
                                        Petition To List         petition finding, Not
                                        southern rockhopper      warranted; Proposed
                                        penguin (Eudyptes        Listing, Threatened
                                        chrysocome), northern
                                        rockhopper penguin
                                        (Eudyptes moseleyi),
                                        macaroni penguin
                                        (Eudyptes
                                        chrysolophus), and
                                        emperor penguin
                                        (Aptenodytes forsteri)
                                        and Proposed Rule To
                                        List southern
                                        rockhopper penguin as
                                        Threatened in the
                                        Campbell Plateau
                                        Portion of Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2009                             12-Month Finding on a    Notice 12-month          73 FR 77303-77332
                                        Petition and Proposed    petition finding,
                                        Rule To List the         Warranted; Proposed
                                        yellow-eyed penguin      Listing, Threatened
                                        (Megadyptes
                                        antipodes), white-
                                        flippered penguin
                                        (Eudyptula minor
                                        albosignata),
                                        Fiordland crested
                                        penguin (Eudyptes
                                        pachyrhynchus),
                                        Humboldt penguin
                                        (Spheniscus
                                        humboldti), and erect-
                                        crested penguin
                                        (Eudyptes sclateri) as
                                        Threatened Throughout
                                        Their Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2008                             12-Month Finding on a    Notice 12-month          73 FR 77332-77341
                                        Petition and Proposed    petition finding,
                                        Rule To List the         Warranted; Proposed
                                        African Penguin          Listing, Threatened
                                        (Spheniscus demersus)
                                        as Endangered
                                        Throughout Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/24/2008                             Listing Three Foreign    Proposed Listing,        73 FR 79226-79254
                                        Bird Species From        Endangered
                                        Latin America and the
                                        Caribbean as
                                        Endangered Throughout
                                        Their Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/03/2009                              Notice of 90-day         Notice 90-day petition   73 FR 5908-5910
                                        petition finding and     finding; substantial
                                        initiation of status
                                        review of the wood
                                        bison to determine if
                                        reclassification of
                                        this subspecies is
                                        warranted under the
                                        Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/ 07/2009                             Proposed Rule to List    Proposed Listing,        74 FR 32307 32349
                                        Five Foreign Bird        Endangered
                                        Species in Colombia
                                        and Ecuador, South
                                        America, under the
                                        Endangered Species Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/14/2009                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice 90-day petition   74 FR 33957 33960
                                        Petition to List 14      finding; substantial
                                        Parrot Species as
                                        Threatened or
                                        Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .Our expeditious progress also includes work on pending listing 
actions described above in our ``precluded finding,'' but for which 
decisions had not been completed at the time of this publication.
    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations and the constraints relating to workload and personnel. We 
are continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. 
Despite higher listing priorities that preclude us from issuing listing 
proposals for the 20 species described in this Notice of Review, the 
actions described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.

Monitoring

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

Request for Information

    We request the submission of any further information on the species 
in this notice as soon as possible, or whenever it becomes available. 
We

[[Page 40559]]

especially seek information: (1) indicating that we should remove a 
taxon from consideration for listing; (2) documenting threats to any of 
the included taxa; (3) describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats 
facing these taxa; (4) identifying taxonomic or nomenclatural changes 
for any of the taxa; or (5) noting any mistakes, such as errors in the 
indicated historic ranges.

References Cited

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

Authors

    This Notice of Review was authored by the staff of the Endangered 
Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authority

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

    Date: July 29, 2009.
James J. Slack
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

                                                           Table 1. - Annual Notice of Review
                                                          (C = listing warranted but precluded)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Status
------------------------------------------------------------     Scientific name             Family              Common name           Historic range
              Category                      Priority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          BIRDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C..................................  8.....................  Pauxi unicornis.......  Craciidae............  southern helmeted      Bolivia, Peru
                                                                                                             curassow............
C..................................  8.....................  Rallus semiplumbeus...  Rallidae.............  Bogota rail..........  Colombia
C                                    8.....................  Porphyrio hochstetteri  Rallidae.............  Takahe...............  New Zealand
C                                    8.....................  Haematopus              Haematopodidae.......  Chatham oystercatcher  Chatham Islands, New
                                                              chathamensis.........                                                 Zealand
C..................................  8.....................  Cyanoramphus malherbi.  Psittacidae..........  orange-fronted         New Zealand
                                                                                                             parakeet............
C..................................  8.....................  Eunymphicus uvaeensis.  Psittacidae..........  Uvea parakeet........  Uvea, New Caledonia
C..................................  8.....................  Ara glaucogularis.....  Psittacidae..........  blue-throated macaw..  Bolivia
C..................................  8.....................  Dryocopus galeatus....  Picidae..............  helmeted woodpecker..  Argentina, Brazil,
                                                                                                                                    Paraguay
C..................................  8.....................  Dendrocopus noguchii..  Picidae..............  Okinawa woodpecker...  Okinawa Island, Japan
C..................................  11....................  Aulacorhynchus          Ramphastidae.........  yellow-browed          Peru
                                                              huallagae............                          toucanet............
C..................................  8.....................  Scytalopus              Conopophagidae.......  Brasilia tapaculo....  Brazil
                                                              novacapitalis........
C..................................  12....................  Bowdleria punctata      Sylviidae............  Codfish Island         Codfish Island, New
                                                              wilsoni..............                          fernbird............   Zealand
C..................................  8.....................  Zosterops luteirostris  Zosteropidae.........  Ghizo white-eye......  Solomon Islands
C..................................  8.....................  Tangara peruviana.....  Thraupidae...........  black-backed tanager.  Brazil
C..................................  12....................  Strepera graculina      Cracticidae..........  Lord Howe pied         Lord Howe Islands,
                                                              crissalis............                          currawong...........   New South Wales
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      INVERTEBRATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C..................................  12....................  Eurytides (= Graphium   Paplionidae..........  Harris' mimic          Brazil, Paraguay
                                                              or Mimoides)lysithous                          swallowtail.........
                                                              harrisianus..........
C..................................  8.....................  Eurytides (= Graphium   Paplionidae..........  Jamaican kite          Jamaica
                                                              or Neographium or                              swallowtail.........
                                                              Protographium or
                                                              Protesilaus)
                                                              marcellinus..........
C..................................  5.....................  Parides ascanius......  Paplionidae..........  Fluminense             Brazil
                                                                                                             swallowtail.........
C..................................  8.....................  Parides hahneli.......  Paplionidae..........  Hahnel's Amazonian     Brazil
                                                                                                             swallowtail.........
C..................................  8.....................  Teinopalpus imperialis  Paplionidae..........  Kaiser-I-Hind          Bhutan, China, India,
                                                                                                             swallowtail.........   Laos, Myanmar,
                                                                                                                                    Nepal, Thailand,
                                                                                                                                    Vietnam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40560]]

[FR Doc. E9-18842 Filed 8-7- 09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S