[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25150-25176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10286]



[[Page 25149]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 85

May 3, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 25150]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0053; MO 92210-0-0010 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 review the status of the 
species 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 subject of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2009 Notice of 
Review published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540). Based on our current 
review, we find that 20 species continue to warrant listing, but their 
listing remains precluded by higher priority listing actions.
    With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting 
additional information for the 20 taxa whose listings 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 conserve 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 Foreign Species, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, 
Virginia 22203. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, 
or questions concerning this notice to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, 
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 when the public 
petitions us 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. Using the information from the status review, 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) of the Act 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.
    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 2009 Notice of 
Review (August 12, 2009, 74 FR 40540).
    We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: To 
notify the public that these species are facing threats to their 
survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings; to 
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts 
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make 
listing unnecessary; to request input from interested parties to help 
us identify those candidate species that may not require protection 
under the Act or additional species that may require the Act's 
protections; and to request necessary information for setting 
priorities for preparing listing proposals.
    On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a 
listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). 
Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, 
depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and 
taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority 
(that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 
priority). Guidelines for such a priority-ranking guidance system are 
required under section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)). As 
explained below, in using this system we first categorize based on the 
magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and 
finally by taxonomic status.
    Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be 
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure 
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued

[[Page 25151]]

existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to 
recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued 
existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. When 
evaluating the magnitude of the threat(s) facing the species, we 
consider information such as: the number of populations and/or extent 
of range of the species affected by the threat(s); the biological 
significance of the affected population(s), the life-history 
characteristics of the species and its current abundance and 
distribution; and whether the threats affect the species in only a 
portion of its range. We also consider the likelihood of persistence of 
the species in the unaffected portions and whether the effects are 
likely to be permanent.
    As used in our priority ranking system, immediacy of threat is 
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent.'' It is not a 
measure of how quickly the species is likely to become extinct if the 
threats are not addressed; rather, immediacy is based on when the 
threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to 
occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. 
Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing 
actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals 
over those for which threats are only potential or species that are 
intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats, but are not known 
to be presently facing such threats.
    Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic 
status: species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in 
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct 
population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
    The result of the ranking system entails assigning each candidate a 
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threat(s) is/
are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the 
listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic 
status (i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be 
assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species would be assigned to LPN 
2, and a subspecies, DPS, or a species that is endangered or threatened 
in only a significant portion of its range would be assigned to LPN 3). 
In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making 
decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to 
list a given species. Each species included in this notice is one for 
which we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule to 
list, because it is in danger of extinction or likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.
    For more information on the process and standards used in assigning 
LPNs, a copy of the guidance is available on our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. For more 
information on the LPN assigned to a particular species, the species 
assessment for each candidate contains the LPN and a rationale for the 
determination of the magnitude and imminence of threat(s) and 
assignment of the LPN; that information is presented in this ANOR.

Previous Notices

    This revised notice supersedes all previous annual notices of 
review for foreign species. 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 endangered or threatened 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 seven butterfly species as endangered or threatened (59 FR 24117; 
May 10, 1994).
    We took several actions on these petitions. Our most recent review 
of petition findings was published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540). 
Previously published petition findings, listing rules, status reviews, 
and petition finding reviews that included foreign species are also 
listed in the 2009 ANOR.

Summary of This ANOR

    Since publication of the previous ANOR on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 
40540), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to 
ensure that listing is warranted for each species, and reevaluated the 
relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to 
emergency list any of these species, particularly species with high 
listing priority numbers (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This 
review ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at 
greatest risk first. In addition to reviewing foreign candidate species 
since publication of the last ANOR, we have worked on numerous findings 
in response to petitions to list species and on proposed and final 
determinations for rules to list species under the Act. Some of these 
findings and determinations have been completed and published in the 
Federal Register, while work on others is still under way (see 
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details).
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, with this ANOR, we have changed the LPN for several 
candidates. The review of these 20 species is summarized in Table 1.

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 finding, and we 
have reviewed in accordance with our Listing Priority Guidance the 
listing priority number (LPN) of each taxon for which proposed listing 
continues to be warranted but precluded.
    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 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.

[[Page 25152]]



                                        Table 1--Annual Notice of Review
                                      [C = listing warranted-but-precluded]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Status
-----------------------------   Scientific name           Family            Common name         Historic range
    Category       Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C..............            2  Pauxi unicornis....  Craciidae..........  southern helmeted    Bolivia, Peru.
                                                                         curassow.
C..............            2  Rallus semiplumbeus  Rallidae...........  Bogota rail........  Colombia.
C..............            8  Porphyrio            Rallidae...........  takahe.............  New Zealand.
                               hochstetteri.
C..............            8  Haematopus           Haematopodidae.....  Chatham              Chatham Islands,
                               chathamensis.                             oystercatcher.       New Zealand.
C..............            8  Cyanoramphus         Psittacidae........  orange-fronted       New Zealand.
                               malherbi.                                 parakeet.
C..............            2  Eunymphicus          Psittacidae........  Uvea parakeet......  Uvea, New
                               uvaeensis.                                                     Caledonia.
C..............            2  Ara glaucogularis..  Psittacidae........  blue-throated macaw  Bolivia.
C..............            8  Dryocopus galeatus.  Picidae............  helmeted woodpecker  Argentina, Brazil,
                                                                                              Paraguay.
C..............            2  Dendrocopus          Picidae............  Okinawa woodpecker.  Okinawa Island,
                               noguchii.                                                      Japan.
C..............            2  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..............            2  Zosterops            Zosteropidae.......  Ghizo white-eye....  Solomon Islands.
                               luteirostris.
C..............            8  Tangara peruviana..  Thraupidae.........  black-backed         Brazil.
                                                                         tanager.
C..............            6  Strepera graculina   Cracticidae........  Lord Howe pied       Lord Howe Islands,
                               crissalis.                                currawong.           New South Wales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Invertebrates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C..............            6  Eurytides (=         Paplionidae........  Harris' mimic        Brazil.
                               Graphium or                               swallowtail.
                               Mimoides)
                               lysithous
                               harrisianus.
C..............            2  Eurytides (=         Paplionidae........  Jamaican kite        Jamaica.
                               Graphium or                               swallowtail.
                               Neographium or
                               Protographium or
                               Protesilaus)
                               marcellinus.
C..............            5  Parides ascanius...  Paplionidae........  Fluminense           Brazil.
                                                                         swallowtail.
C..............            2  Parides hahneli....  Paplionidae........  Hahnel's Amazonian   Brazil.
                                                                         swallowtail.
C..............            8  Teinopalpus          Paplionidae........  Kaiser-I-Hind        Bhutan, China,
                               imperialis.                               swallowtail.         India, Laos,
                                                                                              Myanmar, Nepal,
                                                                                              Thailand, Vietnam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 continues to be warranted but precluded 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

A. Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi unicornis), LPN = 2
    The southern helmeted curassow, also known as the horned curassow, 
is one of the least frequently encountered South American bird species. 
This may be due to the inaccessibility of its preferred habitat and its 
apparent intolerance of human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998; 
Macleod et al. 2009, p. 15). The southern helmeted curassow is only 
known to occur in central Bolivia and central Peru (BirdLife 
International (BLI) 2010a). The Bolivian population of the nominate (a 
subspecies with the same name as the species) species (Pauxi unicornis 
unicornis) remained unknown to science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). The 
Peruvian population is known as Pauxi unicornis koepckeae.
    What is now recognized as the southern helmeted curassow may in 
fact comprise two separate species that are currently recognized as two 
subspecies (Pauxi unicornis unicornis, and Pauxi unicornis koepckeae). 
It has been proposed that these populations of Pauxi unicornis that are 
currently treated as subspecies may represent two different species 
because they are separated by more than 1,000 km (621 mi), and have a 
multitude of distinct characteristics (Gasta[ntilde]aga in prep. in BLI 
2010a). Currently, both BLI and the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognize the southern helmeted curassow 
as Pauxi unicornis and do not specifically address either subspecies. 
The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) recognizes Pauxi 
unicornis as a full species as well as both subspecies (ITIS 2010, 
accessed July 16, 2010). For the purpose of this ANOR, we are reviewing 
the petitioned entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all subspecies.
    In many cases, taxonomy of species can be unclear. There is 
substantial discussion in scientific literature that debates the 
classification of species and whether various entities deserve species 
status rather than subspecies status (Phillimore 2010, pp. 42-53; James 
2010, pp. 1-5; Pratt 2010, pp. 79-89). This is sometimes significant 
with respect to conservation measures,

[[Page 25153]]

particularly when considering the criteria used by organizations such 
as the IUCN. These two subspecies may in fact be species, but for the 
purpose of this review, these two subspecies essentially face the same 
threats, are generally in the same region of South America, and they 
both have quite small populations. Absent peer-reviewed information to 
the contrary and based on the best available information, we recognize 
both subspecies as being valid. For the purpose of this review, we are 
reviewing the petitioned entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all 
subspecies. We welcome comments on the classification of the southern 
helmeted curassow.
    The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane 
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450 to 1,200 meters (m) (1,476 
to 3,937 feet) (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 (BLI 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 BLI 2010a). The southern helmeted curassow 
typically occurs at densities up to 20 individuals per square kilometer 
(km\2\) (Macleod 2007 as cited in BLI 2008).
    In Ambor[oacute] National Park (Yungas Inferiores de 
Ambor[oacute]), the southern helmeted curassow was regularly sighted on 
the upper Saguayo river (Saguayo R[iacute]o; Wege and Long 1995). 
Subsequently, it has been observed in the adjacent Ambor[oacute] and 
Carrasco National Parks (Herzog and Kessler 1998; Brooks 2006). It was 
also found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park 
(TIPNIS), and along the western edge of the Cordillera Mosetenes 
(Mosetenes Mountains), Cochabamba, Bolivia. A recent survey located a 
few southern helmeted curassows across the northern boundary of 
Carrasco National Park (Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco), where it was 
historically found (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BLI 2009a). Surveys 
conducted between 2004 and 2005 found no evidence of the species 
anywhere north or east of Amboro, Carrasco, and Isiboro-Secure National 
Parks in central Bolivia (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). It was found 
only in five locations during the survey period. Extensive surveys over 
the last several years have failed to locate the species in Madidi 
National Park, La Paz, on the eastern edge of the Mosetenes Mountains 
in Cochabamba, or in the R[iacute]o Tambopata area near the Bolivia-
Peru border (MacLeod in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2010a; Hennessey 
2004a as cited in BLI 2009a; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 
2008).
    In Peru, Pauxi unicornis koepckeae is known only from the Sira 
Mountains (known as the Reserva Comunal El Sira), 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 Mountains: The first sighting of the distinctive 
endemic Peruvian subspecies since 1969 (BLI 2008). Limited reports 
suggest that the southern helmeted curassow is rare here (Mee et al. 
2002; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2008; Maccormack in litt. 
2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Gasta[ntilde]aga and Hennessey 2005 as 
cited in BLI 2009a).
    The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to 
be between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals (BLI 2010a). The population in 
Peru is estimated to have fewer than 400 individuals (Gasta[ntilde]aga 
in litt. 2007, as cited in BLI 2010a). The estimated decline in the 
overall population over 10 years has been 50 to 79 percent (BLI 2009b).
    Southern helmeted curassow populations are estimated to be 
declining very rapidly due to 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 
pressure. Hunting was indicated to be the biggest threat to southern 
helmeted curassow in all parts of its range (Gasta[ntilde]aga 2006). 
The species was often hunted for meat due to its large size and for its 
unique blue casque, or horn, which the local people used to make 
cigarette lighters (Cordier 1971; Collar et al. 1992). In the 
Ambor[oacute] region of Bolivia, the bird's head was purportedly used 
in folk dances (Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar 1992). It is unclear 
whether this practice still occurs.
    The R[iacute]o Leche area in Peru experienced a 100 percent 
population decline in less than 5 years likely due to hunting or other 
pressures (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). In Carrasco National Park, the 
species had been abundant during surveys in 2001 but in 2004 there were 
no visual or auditory sightings (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). This may 
be due to illegal human encroachment. Similar human pressures are 
ongoing throughout the species' range. The observed decline infers that 
a 50-percent population loss likely occurred between 1995 and 2005. 
Unless threats are mitigated, this trend will probably continue for the 
next several years (Macleod in litt. 2005).
    In Bolivia, forests within the range of the southern helmeted 
curassow are being cleared for crop cultivation by colonists from the 
altiplano (Maillard 2006, pp. 95-98). Rural development, including road 
building, inhibits its dispersal (Herzog and Kessler 1998; 
Fjelds[aring] in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010). In Peru, southern 
helmeted curassow habitat is threatened by subsistence agriculture 
(MacLeod in litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010a), forest clearing by 
colonists, illegal logging, mining, and oil exploration (BLI 2010a).
    Conservation Status. According to IUCN's 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 was previously classified as ``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red 
List. In 2005, it was uplisted to its current status as ``Endangered'' 
(BLI 2009a). It is not listed in any appendices of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES; www.cites.org), which regulates international trade in animals 
and plants of conservation concern.
    The southern helmeted curassow is dependent upon pristine habitat. 
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 (BLI 2010a). In 
recent years, extensive field surveys of southern helmeted curassow 
habitat have resulted in little success in locating the species (Mee et 
al. 2002; Hennessey 2004a; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; 
Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2010a; MacLeod in litt. 2003 
as cited in BLI 2010a). The Armonia Association 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 
threats to southern helmeted curassow (Asociaci[oacute]n Armon[iacute]a 
2010) and is conducting training workshops with park guards to help 
improve chances for its survival.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the southern helmeted curassow received an LPN of 
8. After reevaluating the threats to the

[[Page 25154]]

species, we have determined that a change in the listing priority 
number representing the magnitude of threats to the species is 
warranted. The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a 
monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on 
its small, limited range; and these few locations where it is believed 
to exist continue to be subject to habitat destruction and loss from 
agricultural development, road building, and hunting. Although the 
population is estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals, the 
population trend is believed to be rapidly declining. In the past ten 
years, the species' population is believed to have declined between 50 
and 79 percent (BLI 2009b). The best scientific information available 
suggests that these significant declines will continue in the future. 
The threats to the species are occurring now and are ongoing, and are 
therefore imminent. Because the species is experiencing such a 
significant population decline, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 
2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
B. Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus), LPN = 2
    The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the 
Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyac[aacute]. 
It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (occasionally as low 
as 2,100 m) (6,890 ft) in savanna and p[aacute]ramo marshes (BLI 
2010b). Bogota rail inhabit wetland habitats with vegetation-rich 
shallows that are surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles 
in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). It inhabits the water's edge, in 
flooded pasture and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Varty et al. 
1986 as cited in BLI 2010b; Fjelds[aring] 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; 
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; Salaman in litt. 
1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). Nests have been recorded adjoining shallow 
water in beds of Scirpus (bulrush or sedge) and Typha (cat tail) 
species. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). The Bogota rail 
is omnivorous, consuming a diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, 
insect larvae, worms, mollusks, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant 
material (BLI 2010b; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 2010b).
    The current population is estimated to range between 1,000 and 
2,499 individuals, although numbers are expected to decline over the 
next 10 years by 10 to 19 percent (BLI 2009). Although the Bogota rail 
has been observed in at least 21 locations in Cundinamarca, the Bogota 
rail population is thought to be 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 100 birds at Parque La Florida, and 
populations at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BLI 2010b).
    Its suitable habitat has become widely fragmented (BLI 2010b). 
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 due to draining, but also due to 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 BLI 2010b).
    Conservation Status. The Bogota rail is listed as ``Endangered'' by 
IUCN primarily because its range is very small and is contracting due 
to widespread habitat loss and degradation. It is not listed in any 
appendices of CITES. Some Bogota rails occur in protected areas such as 
Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most 
savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected (BLI 2009).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Bogota rail received an LPN of 8. After 
reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that a 
change in the listing priority number for the species is appropriate. 
The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats 
that are high in magnitude due to the pressures on the population's 
habitat. Its range is very small and is rapidly contracting because of 
widespread habitat loss and degradation (agricultural encroachment, 
erosion, dyking, and eutrophication). The population is believed to be 
between 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the population trend is 
believed to be rapidly declining. Based on new information regarding 
threats to this species, we find that the threats to the species are 
occurring now, are ongoing, and are therefore imminent. Thus, we have 
changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high 
magnitude.
C. Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, Previously Known as P. mantelli), 
LPN = 8
    The takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the 
world's largest extant (living) member of the rail family (del Hoyo et 
al. 1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, was split into P. mantelli 
(extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). BLI (2000) 
incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the extant form, while the 
name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to the extinct form. 
Fossils indicate that this species was once widespread throughout New 
Zealand's North and South Islands. The takahe was thought to be extinct 
by the 1930s until its rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison Mountains, 
Fiordland (South Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New Zealand 
Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its rediscovery, 
a takahe Special Area of 500 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) was set aside in the 
Murchison Mountains of Fiordland National Park for the conservation of 
the takahe (Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2009c). Today, the species is present 
in the Murchison and Stuart Mountains and was introduced to five island 
reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri, Mantangi, Maud) and one privately 
owned island (Collar et al. 1994; NZDOC 2009d, p. 10). The population 
in the Murchison Mountains is important because it is the only mainland 
population and has the potential for sustaining a large, viable 
population (NZDOC 1997).
    When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the takahe 
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 160 birds (Crouchley 1994; 
Maxwell 2001). At first, translocated populations increased only 
slowly, possibly in part due to young pair-bonds and the quality of the 
founding population (Bunin et al. 1997). In recent years, the total 
takahe population has experienced 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 (BLI 2005). As of June 2008, 
the estimated population of takahe was approximately 93 in the Core 
Census Area; 91 on islands and at Maungatautari (the mainland 
sanctuary); 36 at the Burwood Breeding Center; and 5 birds on public 
display at Wildlife Centers. The Core Census Area consists of suitable 
habitat east of the

[[Page 25155]]

Esk Burn and Woodrow Burn streams in the Murchison Mountains (NZDOC 
2009d, pp. 9-10).
    This species experienced a loss of fitness as a result of recent 
inbreeding. Relative to other species, it has low genetic diversity 
(Grueber et al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Research reported in 2010 that the true 
level of inbreeding may be underestimated for this species (Grueber et 
al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Failure to address these concerns could 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. 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, inbred island species such as 
the takahe.
    As of 2009, the current total population estimate is 227 adults 
(NZDOC 2009d, p. 11; NZDOC 2009e). Birds under 1 year of age were not 
counted in these totals. As of 2007, the mainland population, as well 
as island reserves, were thought to be at carrying capacity (Greaves 
2007, p. 17), (NZDOC 2009, p. 29), however a Recovery Plan is underway 
to address conservation priorities and needs for this species (NZDOC 
2009d, entire). 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 
(NZDOC 2009d; BLI 2010c).
    Takahe territories historically have been large; they have been 
known to be between several hectares (ha) to more than 100 ha (247 
acres (ac)) depending on the availability of their preferred food 
sources (Lee and Jamieson 2001, p. 57). 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 
living between 14 and 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997) and have a 
low reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. They 
form life-long pair bonds and generally occupy the same territory 
throughout life (Reid 1967). Generally pairs in the wild only rear one 
chick. Only a few pairs manage to consistently rear more than one chick 
each year. Although under normal conditions this is generally 
sufficient to maintain the population, populations recover slowly from 
catastrophic events (Crouchley 1994); and this is a concern because 
this species has such a small population size. To increase the 
population, NZDOC has been removing some eggs from the wild, captive 
rearing them, and reintroducing them back into the wild (NZDOC 2009, p. 
26).
    Originally, the species occurred throughout forest and grass 
ecosystems. Now takahe occupy alpine grasslands (BLI 2010c). They feed 
on tussock grasses during much of the year; snow tussocks (Chionochloa 
pallens, Chionochloa conspicua, Chionochloa flavescens, and Chionochloa 
crassiuscula) are their preferred food (Mills and Mark 1977, p. 951; 
Mills et al., 1980, Crouchley 1994, NZDOC 2009, pp. 39-40). These 
grasses are high in nutritional content. C. flavescens is high in 
phosphorus; C. pallens is high in starch; and C. crassiuscula is high 
in sulphur, starch, and sodium (Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 951, 953). 
takahe also forage on Carex coriacea, which is also high in nutrients. 
During some seasons, takahe prefer plants with high phosphorus content; 
for example, during spring and autumn, they prefer C. crassiuscula. 
From October to December, when they lay eggs, they prefer mountain 
daisy (Celmisia petriei), which has high levels of calcium and sugar 
(Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 952-953). 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) which has a high carbohydrate content (Mills et al. 1980, 
p. 136).
    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. Chionochloa conspicua (bush snow-grass) is 
the takahe's preferred winter food in the Murchison Mountains, although 
new information indicates that it is currently uncommon due to 
overgrazing by deer (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). C. conspicua has higher 
levels of phosphorus, potassium and magnesium (Mills et al. 1980, p. 
136) than Hypolepis spp., which is currently the primary plant in the 
winter takahe diet.
    Although Hypolepis rhizomes may not be sufficient for a balanced 
winter diet, they are a valuable source of starch, nitrogen and 
phosphorus (Mills et al. 1980, p. 136). Because foraging on Hypolepis 
is a learned behavior, it is being taught at the Burwood Captive 
Rearing Center to chicks by adult birds (NZDOC 2009d, p. 27).
    Rareness of C. conspicua may be a contributing factor to the lack 
of viability of the takahe population (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). There 
are no known diseases that pose threats to the takahe. C. conspicua is 
less common in the forest understory in the takahe Special Area than it 
previously was, in part due to overgrazing by deer. NZDOC is conducting 
research and trying to reintroduce and increase the prevalence of this 
plant species in the Murchison Mountains Reserve (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-
40). The island populations now primarily consume introduced grasses 
(BLI 2010c). Some researchers have theorized that consumption of these 
nonnative species may contribute to inadequate nutrition and 
subsequently nest failure (Jamieson 2003, p. 708); however this has not 
been confirmed.
    Several factors have led to the decline in the species' population. 
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; NZDOC 2009, 
p. 39). The NZDOC has controlled red deer through an intensive hunting 
program in the Murchison Mountains since the 1960s. Predation by 
introduced stoats (Mustela erminea) is still a threat to the species 
(Crouchley 1994; Bunin and Jamieson 1995; Bunin and Jamieson 1996; 
NZDOC 2009, pp. 34-36). 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 that 
the control program has had a positive influence (NZDOC 2009, pp. 35-
36).
    Other potential threats include a competitor, the introduced brush-
tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and the predator, the threatened 
weka (Gallirallus australis), a flightless woodhen endemic to New 
Zealand (BLI 2010c). Severe weather may also be a limiting factor to 
this species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995; BLI 2010c). 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 has confirmed that severity of winter 
conditions adversely affects survivorship of takahe in the wild, 
particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
    Lead exposure may affect this species on some of the islands (Youl 
2009, pp. 79-83). Lead levels in the island populations were found to 
be higher

[[Page 25156]]

than those on the mainland. Older buildings on some of the island 
contain lead paint. One or more takahe breeding pairs were located near 
buildings containing lead-based paint. A family group on one island 
that was close to a building containing lead paint was found to have 
significantly higher lead levels than a family group located away from 
buildings (Youl 2009, p. 80). Lead has been found to affect the 
learning capacity of avian species (Youl 2009, pp. 11-13). This 
exposure to lead may lead to decreased fitness of takahe.
    Conservation Status. The takahe is listed as ``Endangered'' on the 
IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small population (BLI 2010c). 
It is not listed in any appendices of CITES. New Zealand considers the 
takahe to be an endangered species and it is classified as ``Nationally 
Critical'' under the New Zealand Threat Classification System. The 
NZDOC, through its 2007-2012 takahe Recovery Plan, is managing the 
populations of the species through various conservation efforts such as 
captive breeding, population management, eradication of predators, and 
management of grasslands.
    Since 1983, the NZDOC has been involved in managing a captive-
breeding and release program to boost takahe recovery (NZDOC 2009, p. 
29). 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 were used to establish five 
predator-free, offshore island reserves. These captive-breeding efforts 
have increased the rate of survival of chicks reaching one year of age 
from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997; NZDOC 2009d). Takahe that have been 
translocated to the islands have higher rates of egg infertility and 
low hatching success when they breed (Jamieson & Ryan 2000). 
Researchers postulated that the difference in vegetation between the 
native mainland grassland tussocks and the grasses found on the islands 
might affect reproductive success. After testing nutrients from 
available food sources, it remains unclear whether the islands contain 
adequate nutrients in the available food sources (James et al. 2004, 
pp. 342-344). Research on takahe that are established on Tiritiri 
Matangi Island estimated that the island can currently support up to 8 
breeding pairs, but suggested that the ability of the island to support 
takahe is likely to decrease as the grass and shrub ecosystem reverts 
to forest. The researchers concluded that, although the four island 
populations fulfilled their role as insurance against extinction on the 
mainland at the time of the study, given impending habitat changes on 
the islands, it is unclear whether these island populations will 
continue to be viable in the future without an active management plan 
(Baber and Craig 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). Maxwell and Jamieson 
(1997) studied survival and recruitment of captive-reared and wild-
reared takahe on Fiordland. They concluded that captive rearing of 
takahe for release into the wild increases recruitment of juveniles 
into the population.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the takahe received an LPN of 8. After 
reevaluating the threats to the takahe, we have determined that no 
change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats 
to the species is warranted at this time. The takahe does not represent 
a monotypic genus. The current population is small (between 150-220 
individuals), and the species' distribution is extremely limited. It 
faces threats that are moderate in magnitude (extremely small 
population, limited suitable habitat, inbreeding depression, and to 
some extent predation) because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the 
recovery of the species (NZDOC 2009d, 58 pp.; NZDOC 2009e, 3 pp.) and 
is active in the species conservation and recovery. The NZDOC has 
implemented a successful deer control program, implemented a captive-
breeding and release program to augment the mainland population, and 
established four offshore island reserves. However, we find that the 
threats are on-going and therefore, imminent. 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 moderate in 
magnitude. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of 
moderate magnitude.
D. Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis), LPN = 8
    The Chatham oystercatcher is the most rare oystercatcher species in 
the world (NZDOC 2001). It is endemic to the Chatham Island group 
(Marchant and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), which lies 
860 km (534 mi) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group 
consists of two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and 
numerous smaller islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira and 
Mangere) are nature reserves, which provide vitally needed 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 
vacant sections of the coast. Their scrape nests (shallow-rimmed 
depressions in soil or vegetation) are usually on sandy beaches 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).
    In the early 1970s, the Chatham oystercatcher population was 
approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 1996). 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 to 320 
individuals (including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 (Moore 2005a; Moore 
2009b, p. 32). 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) but is likely due to large waves during 
sea storms which destroy the nests (Moore 2009a, p. 9).
    Predation, nest disturbance, invasive plants, and spring tides and 
storm surges are factors threatening the Chatham oystercatcher 
population (NZDOC 2001, Moore 2005; Moore 2009a, pp. 8-9). 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 to heavy cat predation. 
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 1 or 2 days.
    Another predator, the weka (Gallirallus australis), an endemic New 
Zealand rail was introduced to the Chatham Islands in the early 1900s. 
Weka was observed preying upon this species three times through camera 
trapping between 1999 and 2001 (Moore

[[Page 25157]]

2009a, p. 8). It is not considered as severe a threat to the Chatham 
oystercatcher as feral cats because weka only prey on eggs when adult 
oystercatchers are not present.
    Other potential predators include the Norway rat (Rattus 
norvegicus), ship rat (R. rattus), Australian brush-tailed possum 
(Trichsurus vulpeculs), and hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). However, 
these predators are not considered serious threats 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 on or near nests. 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). In one case, a sheep was observed to lie on a nest (Moore 
2009b, p. 21).
    Another obstacle to Chatham oystercatcher populations is marram 
grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced to New Zealand from Europe to 
protect farmland from sand encroachment. Marram grass 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 fore dunes 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. After 
three summers of video recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded were 
predated by cats, but of the remaining six nest failures, weka were 
responsible for three; red-billed gull, one; sheep-trampling, one; and 
sea wash, one (Moore 2005b).
    Conservation Status. Chatham oystercatcher is listed as critically 
endangered by the NZDOC (2010d), making it a high priority for 
conservation management (NZDOC 2007). It is classified as 
``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small 
population (BLI 2010d). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
    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 (NZDOC 2001, 24 pp.), 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 (NZDOC 2008b). Artificial 
incubation has been attempted but has not increased productivity. 
Additionally, livestock have been 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 (BLI 2009).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Chatham oystercatcher received an LPN of 8. 
After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that 
no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of 
threats to the species is warranted at this time. The Chatham 
oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The current 
population estimate is very small--between 50 and 300 individuals--and 
the species only occurs in a small area. Although it faces threats that 
are moderate in magnitude (predation, low population numbers, and 
potential loss due to storm surges); the NZDOC has taken measures to 
aid the recovery of the species that appear to be effective (the 
species' population is increasing), However, we find that the threats 
are still on-going and therefore, imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to 
reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
E. Orange-Fronted Parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi), LPN = 8
    The orange-fronted parakeet, also known as Malherbe's parakeet is 
endemic to New Zealand. It 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 recognizes Cyanoramphus malherbi as a full species 
(ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). Absent peer-reviewed information 
to the contrary, we consider the orange-fronted parakeet to be a valid 
species.
    At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout 
most of New Zealand (Harrison 1970). This species has been described as 
never being common (Mills and Williams 1979). During the 19th century, 
the species' distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a 
few other offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a). Currently, 
there are three known remaining populations. The South Island 
populations are managed and located within a 30-km (18.6-mi) radius in 
beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys (Hawdon and Poulter 
valleys). These valleys are within Arthur's Pass National Park and the 
Hurunui South Branch in Lake Sumner Forest Park in Canterbury, South 
Island (NZDOC 2009a). Two populations of this species have also been 
established on Chalky and Maud Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007; 
Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). Between 2007 and 2009, 62 
birds were introduced to Maud Island.
    This species inhabits southern beech forests, with a preference for 
locales bordering stands of N. solandri (mountain beech) (del Hoyo 
1997; Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). The species 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 (years yielding a high abundance of seeds), parakeet numbers 
can increase substantially. On South Island, Nothofagus species were 
observed to be a major component of its diet (Kearvall et al. 2002, pp. 
140-145). On Maud Island, a primary component of its diet was Melicytus 
ramiflorus (mahoe) (Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). In 
addition to eating seeds, the orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits, 
leaves, flowers, buds, and small invertebrates (BLI 2009).
    The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small, fragmented 
population and limited range, and its population has declined during 
the past 10 years (BLI 2010e). Currently, BLI estimates its population 
in the wild to be between 50 and 249 individuals (BLI 2010e, p. 1). 
NZDOC's population estimate is between 100 to 200 individuals in the 
wild and they also believe the population is 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.) (BLI 2009). Large numbers of stoats and rats

[[Page 25158]]

in beech forests cause large losses of parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Stoats 
and rats are excellent hunters on the ground and in trees. They are 
able to exploit parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes, which impacts 
primarily females, chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2009c).
    In 2007, habitat loss and degradation were considered threats to 
the orange-fronted parakeet (BLI 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, which browse on plants, changing the forest structure (NZDOC 
2009c). This is problematic for the orange-fronted parakeet, which 
utilizes the ground and low-growing shrubs while feeding (Kearvell et 
al. 2002).
    Other risks to this species' viability exist. Some of these other 
potential threats 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) which compete with parakeets for 
invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002). Hybridization 
is also a concern. The orange-fronted parakeet may hybridize with other 
species. Snyder et al. reported that hybridization with yellow-crowned 
parakeets (C. auriceps) had been observed at Lake Sumner (2000). In 
some cases, we are not able to distinguish between hybridized birds and 
full species due to similarities in color (Chan 2006, p. 5).
    Conservation Status. The NZDOC (2009b) considers the orange-fronted 
parakeet, or k[auml]k[auml]riki, 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 on the 
species to ensure its survival. The species is listed as ``Critically 
Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List, ``because it underwent a population 
crash following rat invasions between 1990-2000.'' It is listed in 
Appendix II of CITES as part of a general listing for all parrots 
(CITES 2010).
    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. For example, 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).
    Because the NZDOC determined that the species' largest threat is 
predation, they initiated a program to remove predators in some parts 
of the species' range. ``Operation ARK'' is their 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). The NZDOC also implemented a 
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 actively managing 
the conservation of the species, as evidenced by the 2003 discovery of 
a new population. Despite these controls, predation by introduced 
species is still a threat because predators have not been eradicated 
from this species' range.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the orange-fronted parakeet received an LPN of 8. 
After reevaluating the threats to the orange-fronted parakeet, we have 
determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude of 
threats to the species is warranted because NZDOC is actively managing 
the species. The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic 
genus. Although the species' available suitable nesting habitat in 
beech forests is extremely restricted, translocations have taken place 
and seem to be successful (BLI 2010e, p. 2). Although the current 
population is small and declining (between 50 and 249 individuals), and 
the species' distribution is extremely limited, threats are being 
mitigated. It has a very small and severely fragmented population that 
has declined over the past 10 years (BLI 2010e) but it is being closely 
monitored and may slowly be increasing (van Hal in litt, in BLI 2010e). 
The species faces threats that are moderate in magnitude (competition 
for food and suitable nesting habitat within highly altered habitat, 
predation, and habitat degradation) because the NZDOC has taken 
measures to aid the recovery of the species. However, because the 
threats are on-going, we find that the threats to this species are 
still imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats 
of moderate magnitude.
F. Uvea Parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis), LPN = 2
    The Uvea parakeet, previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus, is 
currently known as both E. uvaeensis and E. c. cornutus (Boon et al. 
2008, p 251; BLI 2010f). BLI recognizes the Uvea parakeet as E. 
uvaeensis. ITIS considers the Uvea parakeet to be a subspecies, 
Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis (ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). 
Research presented in 2008 indicates that the Uvea parakeet, based on 
genetic, ecological, behavioral, and biogeographical evidence, is so 
markedly distinct that it warrants status as its own species (Boon 2008 
et al., p. 259). Thus, in this ANOR, based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, we consider the Uvea parakeet to be the 
species E. uvaeensis. We are evaluating the threats to the Uvea 
parakeet at the taxonomic level of a species.
    The Uvea parakeet is found only on the small island of Uvea (also 
known as both Ouv[eacute]a Island and Wallis Island) in the Loyalty 
Archipelago, New Caledonia (a territory of France) in the South Pacific 
Ocean. The island is approximately 1,500 km (932 mi) east of Australia. 
Uvea Island is 110 km\2\ (42 mi\2\) in size (Juniper and Parr 1998). 
The Uvea parakeet is found primarily in old-growth forests, 
specifically those dominated by the pine tree Agathis australis (del 
Hoyo et al. 1997). The island is predominantly limestone and lacks deep 
soil layers (Boon et al. 2008, p. 257). Most birds occur in about 20 
km\2\ (7.7 mi\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 66 km\2\ (25.5 mi\2\) (BLI 2010f).
    Uvea parakeets feed on fruit, the berries of vines, and the flowers 
and seeds of native trees and shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997; Robinet and 
Salas 2003, p. 71). They also feed on a few types of crops in 
cultivated land

[[Page 25159]]

adjacent to their habitat. The greatest number of birds occurs close to 
gardens with papayas (BLI 2010f). A significant characteristic is that 
Uvea parakeet nest in cavities of native trees; the absence of suitable 
trees and nesting cavities may be a limiting factor (Robinet and Salas 
2003, p. 71). Their clutch size is generally 2 to 3 eggs; and they are 
known to have another clutch if the first set of eggs is destroyed 
(termed ``double-clutch'') (BLI 2010f).
    One survey of Uvea parakeet in the early 1990s estimated that the 
population was between 70 and 90 individuals (Hahn 1993). However, 
another survey in 1993 (Robinet et al. 1996) yielded an estimate of 
between 270 and 617 individuals. In 1999, it was believed that 742 
individuals lived in northern Uvea, and 82 in the south (Primot 1999 as 
cited in BLI 2010f). Six surveys conducted between 1993 and 2007 
indicated a steady increase in population numbers in both areas 
(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010f). The current population 
estimate is 750 individuals (BLI 2010f).
    Various threats to this species exist. The Uvea parakeet is 
primarily threatened by lack of nesting sites due to competition from 
bees and historic habitat loss, and to lesser extents predation and 
possibly capture of juveniles for the pet trade (Robinet et al. 2003, 
pp. 73, 78; BLI 2010f, p. 2). Although the forest habitat of the Uvea 
parakeet has been threatened by clearance for agriculture and logging 
in the past, the primary threats now appear to be competition by bees 
for nests and predation by goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus) (Robinet et 
al. 2003, p. 73). The invasion of bees into Uvea in 1996 resulted in 
competition with Uvea parakeet over nesting sites. This decreased known 
Uvea parakeet nesting sites by 10 percent between 2000 and 2002 
(Barr[eacute] in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2010f). Studies by Robinet 
et al. (2003) indicate the density of breeding Uvea parakeet is 
positively related to the distribution of suitable trees. Consequently, 
the limited number of suitable trees limits the number of breeding 
pairs. In two other 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. Another limiting factor is forest 
fragmentation as a result of increased numbers of coconut plantations 
which acts as a barrier to dispersal. This could possibly explain the 
lack of recolonization in southern Uvea (Robinet et al. 2003).
    It is unknown if capture of young Uvea parakeets for the pet trade 
is still occurring, and if so, to what extent. Capture of juvenile 
parakeets involves cutting open nesting cavities to extract nestlings, 
which renders the holes unsuitable for future nesting. Robinet et al. 
(1996) suggested that the impact of capture of juveniles on the 
viability of populations is not obvious in long-lived species that are 
capable of re-nesting, such as Uvea parakeet.
    In 1999, a study of the reproductive biology of Uvea parakeet found 
that the main cause of chick death was starvation of the third chick 
within the first week after hatching (Robinet and Salas). However, the 
reason underlying the starvation is unknown.
    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 the ship 
rat and Norway rat. However, these rat species are present on the other 
nearby Loyalty Islands and on Grande Terre (Robinet and Salas 1996); 
precautions need to be taken to ensure that rats do not reach Uvea 
Island. Egg predation rates were four times higher on Lifou (also known 
as Lifu Island) where R. rattus occurs (Robinet et al. 1998).
    In 30 years, approximately 30 to 50 percent of primary forest was 
removed (Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a young and increasing 
human population. A 2000 population estimate was 4,000 inhabitants; and 
the 2008 population census for Wallis (Uvea) was 9,731 
(www.insee.gov.fr, accessed March 19, 2011). The increase in human 
population may lead to more destruction of forest for housing, 
cultivated fields, and plantations. As of 2000, coconut palms 
plantations were the island's main source of income (CITES 2000a). As 
indicated earlier, the lack of nesting sites is believed to be the most 
significant limiting factor for the species (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 
73, 78; BLI 2010, p. 2).
    Conservation Status. Various conservation measures are in place for 
this species. This species is listed as ``Endangered'' on the 2010 IUCN 
Red List (BLI 2010f). It was uplisted from Appendix II to Appendix I of 
CITES in July 2000, due to its small population size, restricted area 
of distribution, loss of suitable habitat, and 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). A second recovery plan was initiated in 2003. The 
species increased in popularity and is celebrated as an island emblem 
(Robinet and Salas 1997; Primot in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 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 
have occurred (Robinet et al. 1996), however the success of current 
conservation efforts is unknown. Increased awareness of the plight of 
the Uvea parakeet and improvements in law enforcement capability are 
helping to address illegal trade of the species.
    Preventive measures have been taken at the port and airport to 
prevent introduction of invasive rats and should continue to be 
reinforced, but there is concern that these rats may be introduced in 
the future (BLI 2010, p. 3). As of 2007, the island remained rat-free 
(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010). 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 
BLI 2009), possibly because of the presence of ship rats and Norway 
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. As a preventative measure in case 
rats reach the island, they also suggested it would be valuable to 
implement low-intensity rat control of the Polynesian rat (R. exulans) 
in Uvea immediately before the parakeet breeding season. Lifou may also 
lack suitable nesting sites (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78).
    A captive-breeding program has been discussed but not begun (BLI 
2010f). A translocation program to restock this species into the 
southern portion of Uvea was cancelled under the new recovery plan 
(2003) because the population was considered viable and was expected to 
increase naturally (Barr[eacute] in litt. 2003; Anon 2004 as cited in 
BLI 2010f). Measures are being taken to control predators and prevent 
colonization by rats (BLI 2010f). Current Uvea parakeet numbers appear 
to be slowly increasing, but any relaxation of conservation efforts or 
introduction of nonnative rats or other predators could lead to a rapid 
decline (BLI 2010f). The Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Cal[eacute]donienne 
d'Ornithologie (SCO) received funding to test artificial

[[Page 25160]]

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 BLI 2010f).
    Even though populations appear to be currently increasing, any 
reduction in conservation efforts or introduction of invasive species 
(particularly cavity-nesting bees, the ship rat, and the Norway rat) 
could lead to rapid declines (Robinet et al. 1998; BLI 2010f). Although 
the Uvea parakeet is affected by other threats, the absence of the ship 
rat and Norway rat on Uvea is a major factor contributing to its 
survival.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Uvea parakeet received an LPN of 8. We 
reevaluated the threats to the Uvea parakeet and determined that a 
change in the LPN for the species is warranted. The Uvea parakeet does 
not represent a monotypic genus. Its population is estimated to be 
approximately 750 individuals, and it is an island endemic in limited 
locations with restricted and declining habitat. The Uvea parakeet 
faces threats that are high in magnitude primarily due to nest 
competition by bees, predation by goshawk, and the lack of the old-
growth forest, on which the birds depend for nesting holes. The birds 
only occur in an area about 20 km\2\ (7.7 mi\2\) of forest with a total 
area of potential habitat of approximately 66 km\2\ (25.5 mi\2\) (BLI 
2010f). Because the human population on the island is increasing, there 
is likely an increase occurring in the magnitude of threats to this 
species. Management efforts have been put in place to aid in the 
recovery of the species, however, the threats to the species identified 
here continue. Based on new information, we find that the threats to 
this species are occurring now, ongoing, and are imminent. Thus, we 
have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of 
high magnitude.
G. Blue-Throated Macaw (Ara glaucogularis), LPN = 2
    The blue-throated macaw is endemic to forest islands in the 
seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de Mojos, also known as Lanos 
de Moxos) of central Bolivia (Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de 
Barros 1997; BLI 2010g). The taxonomic status of this species was long 
disputed, primarily because the species was unknown in the wild to 
biologists until fairly recently. 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).
    The species inhabits a mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm 
groves, forest islands, and humid lowlands. This macaw species is found 
in areas where palm-fruit food and suitable nesting cavities are 
available (Herrera et al. 2007, pp. 18-24). They particularly like 
fruit mesocarp of palm trees (Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de 
Barros 1997; Bueno 2000; Herrera 2007, p. 20) such as Attalea phalerata 
(motacu palm), Mauritia flexuosa (common names: aguaje, it palm, buriti 
palm, moriche palm), and Acrocomia aculeata (common names include: 
coyoli palm, gru-gru palm, macaw palm, Paraguay palm, acrocome, gru-
gru, noix de Coyol, Coyolipalme, amankayo, corojo, corozo, coyol, 
baboso, tucuma, and totai) (http://www.ars-grin.gov, http://www.pacsoa.org.au).
    The blue-throated macaw also depends on motacu palms for nesting 
(BLI 2008d). In 2005, this species was found nesting in an area 
dominated by the Curupau tree (Anadenanthera colubrina) (also known as 
Vilca, Huilco, Wilco, Cebil, or Angico) (Kyle 2005, p. 7). The species 
inhabits elevations between 200 and 300 m (656 and 984 ft) (Brace et 
al. 1995; Yamashita and de Barros 1997; BLI 2008c). These macaws are 
seen most commonly traveling in pairs, and have been seen in flocks of 
7 to 9 birds, and on rare occasions may be found in small flocks 
(Macleod et al. 2009, p. 15). One flock of 70 birds was found in 2007 
near the Rio Mamor[eacute] by the Armonia Association (Waugh 2007a, p. 
53). The blue-throated macaw nests between November and March in large 
tree cavities where one to three young are raised (BLI 2010g).
    BLI (2010g) estimates the total wild population to be between 50 
and 300 birds and noted the population has some fragmentation. Surveys 
indicate the population may have slowly increased following dramatic 
declines in the 1970s and 1980s, but now the population is believed to 
be decreasing (BLI 2010g). Biologists surveying for this species in 
2004 found more birds than in previous surveys by searching specific 
habitat types (palm groves and forested islands) (Herrera et al. 2007). 
A population viability analysis (PVA) of this species found that it had 
a low probability of extinction over the next 50 years (Strem 2008). 
However, its small population size and its low population growth rate 
makes this species very vulnerable to any threat. The low probability 
of extinction may be reasonable 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 found that impacts such as 
habitat destruction and harvesting had significantly increased the 
probability of extinction, which reemphasizes the importance of 
addressing these threats for this species (2008).
    The blue-throated macaw was historically at risk from trapping for 
the national and international 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 (World Parrot Trust 2003; BLI 2008b). Although Bolivia 
outlawed the export of live parrots in 1984 (Brace et al. 1995), 
illegal trade did occur after that. In 1993, investigators reported 
that an Argentinean bird dealer was offering illegal Bolivian dealers a 
``high price'' for blue-throated macaws (Jordan and Munn 1993, p. 695).
    Armonia Association (a nonprofit organization in Bolivia) monitored 
the wild birds that passed through a pet market in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 
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 (BLI 2007), or it may be 
indicative of the scarcity of blue-throated macaws in the wild. There 
are a number of blue-throated macaws in captivity, with over 1,000 
registered in the North American studbook (Waugh 2007c). Because these 
birds are not difficult to breed, the supply of captive-bred birds has 
increased (Waugh 2007a), helping to alleviate pressure on, but not 
completely eliminating illegal collection of wild birds. However, 
United Nations Environment Programme--World Conservation Monitoring 
Center (UNEP-WCMC) trade data indicates that no birds of wild origin of 
this species have been exported from Bolivia since 1993 (UNEP-WCMC, 
accessed September 3, 2010). A current internet search indicated that 
captive-bred specimens of this species sell for between $1,500 and 
$3,000 in the United States (www.hoobly.com, accessed September 13, 
2010). One search advertised that this is a ``very rare species and 
there are only 300 left in the wild.'' The high value of this species 
could lead to continued illegal trade.
    Other threats to the blue-throated macaw include habitat loss, 
botfly parasites, and competition from other birds, such as other 
macaws, toucans, and large woodpeckers (Kyle 2005, pp.

[[Page 25161]]

6-10; World Parrot Trust 2008; BLI 2010g). An early researcher noted 
that 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 type of burning resulted in almost no recruitment of 
native palm trees, which are vital to the ecological needs of the blue-
throated macaw (Yamashita and de Barros 1977). The blue-throated macaw 
requires suitable nesting cavities for raising their young. The loss of 
suitable trees has resulted in increased competition from other species 
for these nesting cavities as well. In fact, recent research found that 
some parrot species have been using termite mounds as nesting cavities 
(Sanchez-Martinez and Renton 2009). In Beni, many palms are cut down by 
the local people for firewood (Brace et al. 1995). Although palm groves 
are more than 500 years old, Yamashita and de Barros (1977) concluded 
that the palm population structure suggests long-term decline. In 2004-
2005, of 13 potential blue-throated macaw nests, researchers observed 
several of the threats identified above over the course of the survey. 
At the end of the survey, only two chicks had fledged (Kyle 2005, p. 
9).
    Conservation Status. This species is listed in Appendix I of CITES 
(CITES 2010) and is legally protected in Bolivia (Juniper and Parr 
1998). Although conservation of this species is occurring, this species 
remains categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' on the 2010 IUCN Red 
List (BLI 2010g). The Eco Bolivia Foundation patrols existing macaw 
habitat by foot and motorbike, and the Armonia Association monitors the 
Beni lowlands for additional 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) (Snyder et al. 
2000; Llampa 2007; BLI 2008a).
    In October 2008, Armonia Association announced it had purchased a 
large, 3,555-ha (8,785-ac) reserve for the purpose of establishing a 
protected area for the blue-throated macaw (BLI 2008d; Worldland Trust 
2010, accessed July 16, 2010). The Barba Azul Nature Reserve protects 
savanna habitat, and 20 blue-throated macaws have been observed to nest 
here. The organization has also been experimenting with artificial nest 
boxes; 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. Despite these efforts, only between 50 and 300 remain in 
the wild.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the blue-throated macaw received an LPN of 8. 
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in 
the LPN is warranted for this species. The blue-throated macaw does not 
represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in 
magnitude such as limited and decreasing habitat suitability (nesting 
cavities), competition for nesting cavities from other species (toucans 
in particular and other more aggressive macaws), and parasitism by 
botflies. Wildlife managers in Bolivia are actively protecting the 
species and searching for additional populations, and the species is 
now protected in one nature reserve. Although wild birds may no longer 
be imported for commercial purposes as a result of the species' CITES 
listing, and it is legally protected in Bolivia, there are only between 
50 and 300 of these birds left in the wild, and the population is 
decreasing rapidly, despite conservation efforts. The threats to the 
species identified are of high magnitude, ongoing, and imminent. Based 
on the rapidly declining population, we have changed the LPN from an 8 
to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

H. Helmeted Woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus), LPN = 8

    The helmeted woodpecker is endemic to the southern Atlantic forest 
region of southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern 
Argentina (BLI 2010h). Its estimated range spans 24,000 km\2\ (9,266 
mi\2\). 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 BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010h). 
Helmeted woodpeckers forage primarily in the middle story of the forest 
interior (Brooks et al. 1993 cited in BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as 
cited in BLI 2010h).
    Field work on the helmeted woodpecker indicated that the species is 
less rare than once thought (BLI 2010h), although its range is 
restricted (Mattsson et al. 2008) by its habitat requirements. 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 most recent population estimate is between 10,000 and 19,999 
individuals and decreasing (BLI 2010h); however it is unclear when the 
last census of this species was conducted. Because the helmeted 
woodpecker is difficult to locate except when vocalizing and it is 
silent most of the year, its numbers may be underestimated. Between 
1997 and 2006, it was observed in the San Rafael National Park, 
Paraguay, although infrequently (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 310). The 
overall conservation status of the helmeted woodpecker's population is 
unclear; however, it is not common anywhere it is known to exist (BLI 
2010h).
    The greatest threat to the helmeted woodpecker is widespread 
deforestation (Cockle 2008 as cited in BLI 2009; BLI 2010h). Other 
threats may be competition from other species, particularly more 
competitive woodpeckers, which may use fragmented and ``edge'' habitat 
more effectively (BLI 2010h).
    The Atlantic Forest, habitat in which the helmeted woodpecker 
resides, extends along the Atlantic coast of Brazil from Rio Grande do 
Norte in the north to Rio Grande do Sul in the south, and inland as far 
as Paraguay and Misiones Province of northeastern Argentina (Morellato 
and Haddad 2000, pp. 786-787; Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; 
H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1). The Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 km (373 
mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. It consists of tropical and subtropical 
moist forests, tropical dry forests, and mangrove forests at mostly 
low-to-medium elevations less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft); however, 
altitude can reach as high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea level. It is 
likely that only between 7 and 10 percent of this habitat remains 
intact (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 
2000, p. 794). Between 92 to 95 percent of the area historically 
covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been 
converted or severely degraded as a result of various human activities 
(Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853-854; 
Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation 
International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature 
Conservancy (TNC) 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007, pp. 2-
41). In addition to the overall loss and degradation of native habitats 
within this biome, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely 
fragmented. The current rate of habitat decline is unknown.
    A significant portion of Atlantic Forest habitat has been, and 
continues to be, lost and degraded by various ongoing human activities, 
including logging, establishment and expansion of plantations and 
livestock pastures,

[[Page 25162]]

urban and industrial developments (including many new hydroelectric 
dams), slash-and-burn clearing, and intentional and accidental ignition 
of fires (Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2001, pp. 9-15). 
Even with the passage of a national forest policy and in light of many 
other legal protections in Brazil, the rate of habitat loss throughout 
the Atlantic Forest biome has increased since the mid-1990s (Hodge et 
al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF 2001, p. 10; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270). Native 
habitats at many of the remaining sites where the helmeted woodpecker 
currently exists may be lost over the next several years (Rocha et al. 
2005, p. 263). Furthermore, the helmeted woodpecker's population is 
already highly fragmented, and its population believed to be declining 
(BLI 2010h). Any further loss or degradation of its remaining suitable 
habitat represents a significant threat to the species. Further studies 
are needed to clarify this species' distribution and status.
    In Paraguay, some viable, although fragmented habitat for this 
species remains in San Rafael National Park (Esquivel et al. 2007, pp. 
301-302). The park has undergone logging and clearance, and is 
extremely isolated from other mature forested areas that might be 
suitable for the helmeted woodpecker (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 302).
    Conservation Status. The helmeted woodpecker is listed as 
``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN (IUCN 2010). It is not listed in any 
appendices of CITES (CITES 2010). In one of the few remaining large 
fragments of Atlantic Forest in Paraguay, it is considered to be near 
threatened (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 301). It is protected by Brazilian 
law, and populations occur in numerous protected areas throughout its 
range (Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BLI 2009; Chebez et al. 1998 as 
cited in BLI 2009).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the helmeted woodpecker received an LPN of 8. 
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in 
the LPN for the helmeted woodpecker is not warranted. The helmeted 
woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of 
threat to the species is moderate because the species' range (24,000 
km\2\ (9,266 mi\2\)) and population (between 10,000 and 19,999 
individuals) is believed to be much larger than previously thought. The 
threats are imminent because the forest habitat upon which the species 
depends is constantly being altered and destroyed by humans. We will 
continue to monitor the status of this species, however, a priority 
rank of 8 remains valid for this species.

I. Okinawa Woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii), LPN = 2

    The Okinawa woodpecker (also known as Pryer's woodpecker) 
(Dendrocopos noguchii, synonym Sapheopipo noguchii) is endemic to 
Okinawa Island, Japan. ITIS recognizes the Okinawa woodpecker as 
belonging to the monotypic genus Sapheopipo (ITIS 2010i, accessed 
September 7, 2010). Winkler et al. (2005, pp. 103-109) analyzed partial 
nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial genes and concluded that this 
woodpecker belongs in the genus Dendrocopos. IUCN and BLI both 
recognize this species as Dendrocopos noguchii. Japan references it as 
Sapheopipo noguchii (http://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/reddata.html, accessed September 30, 2010). For the purpose of this 
finding and absent peer-reviewed information to the contrary, we 
recognize it as Dendrocopos noguchii. We welcome comments on the 
classification of this species.
    Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, a small island chain 
located between Japan and Taiwan (Brazil 1991; Stattersfield et al. 
1998; Winkler et al. 2005). Okinawa is approximately 646 km (401 mi) 
from Taiwan and 1,539 km (956 mi) from Tokyo, Japan. The island is 108 
km (67 miles) in length and its width varies between 3 and 27 km (2 to 
17 mi). Okinawa's highest point is Mt. Yonaha at 455 m (1,494 ft). The 
Okinawa woodpecker is confined to forested areas in the northern part 
of the island, generally in the Yambaru (also known as Yanbaru) area, 
particularly in the Yonaha-dake Prefecture Protection Area. Yambaru 
refers to the mountainous areas of Kunigami County in northern Okinawa.
    This species of woodpecker prefers undisturbed, mature, subtropical 
evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall trees greater than 20 cm (7.9 
in) in diameter (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002). Trees of this size are 
generally more than 30 years old and as of 1991 were confined to 
hilltops (Brazil 1991). The species' main breeding areas are located 
along the mountain ridges between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-take, 
although it has been observed nesting in well-forested coastal areas 
(Research Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as cited in BLI 
2001). The majority of the broadleaf trees in the Yanbaru area are oak 
and chinquapin (Distylium racemosum and Schefflera octophylla) (Ito et 
al. 2000, p. 305). Areas with conifers (Coniferae, cone-bearing trees 
such as pines and firs) appear to be avoided (Short 1973; Winkler et 
al. 1995). The Okinawa woodpecker was also observed just south of the 
Mt. Tano-dake in an area of entirely secondary forest that was too 
immature for use by woodpeckers to excavate nest cavities, but these 
may have involved birds displaced by the clearing of mature forests 
(Brazil 1991).
    The Okinawa woodpecker feeds on large arthropods, notably beetle 
larvae, spiders, moths, and centipedes, fruit, berries, seeds, acorns, 
and other nuts (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002; Winkler et al. 2005). They 
forage in old-growth forests with large, often moribund trees, 
accumulated fallen trees, rotting stumps, debris, and undergrowth 
(Short 1973; Brazil 1991). This species has been observed to nest in 
holes excavated in large, old growth trees such as Castanopsis 
cuspidate (Japanese chinquapin) and Machilus thunbergii (Tabu-no-ki 
tree) (Ogasawara and Ikehara 1977; Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002). Both of 
these tree species grow to approximately 20 meters (66 ft) in height. 
It is thought that Castanopsis is the preferred tree species for 
nesting because it tends to be hollow with hard wood, so that the 
nesting cavities are more secure (Kiyosu 1965 in BLI 2001, p. 1880). 
The number of fledglings per season range between one and three birds 
(BLI 2001, p. 1880).
    This species is considered one of the world's most rare extant 
woodpecker species (Winkler et al. 2005). During the 1930s, the Okinawa 
woodpecker was considered nearly extinct. In the early 1970s, it was 
observed to be scattered among small colonies and isolated pairs (Short 
1973). By the early 1990s, the breeding population was estimated to be 
about 75 birds (BLI 2008a). In 2008, its projected 10-year decline was 
between 30 to 49 percent (BLI 2008b). The current population estimate 
ranges between 146 and 584 individuals (BLI 2010i).
    Deforestation and the fragmented nature of its habitat due to 
logging, dam construction, road-building, agricultural development, and 
golf course construction are cited to be the main causes of its small 
population size (BLI 2010i). Between 1979 and 1991, 2,443 ha (6,037 ac) 
of forest were destroyed in the Yanbaru area (Department of 
Agriculture, Okinawa Prefectural Government 1992, in Ito et al. 2000, 
p. 311). As of 2001, there was only 40 km\2\ (15 mi\2\) of suitable 
habitat available for this species (BLI 2001, p. 1882).
    The limited range and tiny population make this species vulnerable 
to extinction from disease and natural disasters such as typhoons (BLI 
2008). Feral dogs and cats, the introduced Javan mongoose (Herpestes 
javanicus), and weasel (Mustela itatsi) are possible

[[Page 25163]]

predators of the woodpecker. Additionally, feral pigs damage potential 
ground-foraging sites (BLI 2003).
    Conservation Status. Various protections and conservation measures 
are in place for this species. The species is categorized on the IUCN 
Red List as ``Critically Endangered'' because it consists of a small, 
declining population estimated to be between 150 and 584 individuals 
(BLI 2010i). The species is legally protected in Japan and it occurs in 
small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and Mt. Nishime (BLI 2008a). The 
Yambaru, a forested area in the Okinawa Prefecture, was designated as a 
national park in 1996 (BLI 2010i). Additionally, conservation 
organizations have purchased sites where the woodpecker occurred in 
order to establish private wildlife preserves (del Hoyo et al. 2002; 
BLI 2008). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Okinawa woodpecker received an LPN of 8. 
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in 
the LPN for the Okinawa woodpecker is warranted. The Okinawa woodpecker 
does not represent a monotypic genus. It is considered one of the 
world's most rare extant woodpecker species and faces threats that are 
high in magnitude even though the species is legally protected in 
Japan. The best available information does not indicate that this 
species is being actively managed. The threats to the species are of 
high magnitude due to the scarcity of old-growth habitat (only 40 km\2\ 
(15 mi\2\)) upon which the species is dependent. Its very small 
population is believed to be continually declining; and species with 
fragmented habitat in combination with small population sizes may be at 
greater risk of extinction due to synergistic effects (Davies et al. 
2004, pp. 265-271). Although it exists in areas with protected status, 
the best available information indicates that the threats to the 
species are ongoing and imminent. Because its projected 10-year decline 
was between 30 to 49 percent in 2008, (BLI 2008b), and because the 
current population estimate ranges between 146 and 584 individuals, we 
have changed the LPN for this species from an 8 to a 2 to reflect 
imminent threats of high magnitude.
J. Yellow-Browed Toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae), LPN = 2
    There is very little information available regarding the yellow-
browed toucanet. This species is endemic to Peru and 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 thought 
to be very rare (Wege and Long 1995; del Hoyo et al. 2002; BLI 2009). 
There was also a report of yellow-browed toucanets seen in the 
Leymebamba area (Mark in litt. 2003, as cited in BLI 2010j) of Peru, 
although there are no available photos of this species. The current 
population size is believed to be between 1,000 and 2,499 with a 
decreasing population trend (BLI 2010j).
    The yellow-browed toucanet's estimated range is 450 km\2\ (174 
mi\2\) (BLI 2010j). The species inhabits a narrow altitudinal range 
between 2,125 and 2,510 m (6,970 and 8,232 ft). It prefers the canopy 
of humid, epiphyte-laden montane cloud forests, particularly areas that 
support Clusia trees (sometimes known as autograph trees) 
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990; Schulenberg and Parker 1997, pp. 717-
718; del Hoyo et al. 2002). Within the Clusia genus, there are about 20 
species. The yellow-browed toucanet does not appear to occupy all 
potentially suitable forest available within its range (Schulenberg and 
Parker 1997). Its restricted range remains unexplained.
    The narrow distributional band in which yellow-browed toucanets are 
found may be related to the occurrence of other avian species that may 
out-compete the yellow-browed toucanet. Recent information indicates 
that both of the suggested competitors have wider altitudinal ranges 
that completely encompass that of the yellow-browed toucanet (Collar et 
al. 1992; Hornbuckle in litt. 1999, as cited in BLI 2009; Clements and 
Shany 2001, as cited in BLI 2008; del Hoyo et al. 2002). The larger 
grey-breasted mountain toucan (Andigena hypoglauca) occurs above 2,300 
m (7,544 ft), and the emerald toucanet (Aulacorhynchus prasinus) occurs 
below 2,100 m (6,888 ft) (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The yellow-
browed toucanet may occur to the north and south of its known range, 
but the area between the Cordillera de Col[aacute]n, Amazonas, and the 
Carpish region, Hu[aacute]nuco, is inaccessible, and its existence in 
other areas has not been confirmed.
    Distinguishing features of the yellow-browed toucanet include a 
bright yellow vent or cloaca, a blackish bill, and a generally green 
face, (Schulenberg and Parker 1997, p. 719). Its call has been 
described as a series of 20 to 30 frog-like ``krik'' notes, delivered 
at a rate of slightly more than one note per second (recordings housed 
in Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Schulenberg and Parker 1997, p. 
717).
    Human-related threats to the species include deforestation, mining, 
and secondary impacts associated with those activities. Deforestation 
has been widespread in this region, but has largely occurred at lower 
elevations than habitat occupied by the yellow-browed toucanet (Barnes 
et al. 1995; BLI 2009). However, coca growers have taken over forests 
within its altitudinal range, probably resulting in some reductions in 
this species' range and population (BLI 2009; Plenge in litt. 1993, as 
cited in BLI 2009). Most of the area in 1997 was described as being 
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). Pressures in 
and around the park exist due to mining and those secondary impacts 
associated with mining (Vehkam[auml]ki and B[auml]ckman, 2006, pp. 1-
2).
    Conservation Status. Protections for this species are minimal. The 
yellow-browed toucanet is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List 
due to its very small range and population records from only two 
locations (BLI 2010j). It occurs in at least one protected area, the 
Rio Abiseo National Park, a World Heritage Site which was established 
to protect fauna (UNEP-WCMC 2008, p. 1). It is not listed in any 
appendices of CITES (CITES 2010).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the yellow-browed toucanet received an LPN of 11. 
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in 
the LPN for the yellow-browed toucanet is warranted. The yellow-browed 
toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species is 
believed to exist in the protected Rio Abiseo National Park, there have 
been no documented sightings since 2003. As of 2010, BLI reported that 
coca-growers have taken over forest within its altitudinal range (BLI 
2010j). The magnitude of threats to the species is high given that the 
species has a small range and rapidly declining population; and may be 
in competition for habitat with more competitive avian species. 
Further, pressures in and around the park exist due to mining and 
secondary impacts associated with mining. Additionally, the only 
records of this species are from two small locations and they have not 
been verified in several years. Based on these factors, we find that 
the threats are imminent and of high magnitude. Thus, we have 
reassessed and changed the LPN for this species from an 11 to a 2 to 
reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

[[Page 25164]]

K. Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis), LPN = 8
    The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird endemic to Brazil, 
specifically in the central to southern-central region of the country. 
It is found in swampy gallery forests, which are forests that grow 
along streams and rivers in regions otherwise devoid of trees, within 
disturbed areas of thick streamside vegetation and dense secondary 
growth of Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern). The Brasilia tapaculo is 
also strongly associated with two other plant species: Blechnum ferns 
and Euterpe palms (del Hoyo et al. 2003, in BLI 2010k).
    The species has been documented in Goi[aacute]s and Serra da 
Canastra National Park, Minas Gerais (Negret and Cavalcanti 1985, as 
cited in Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1992; BLI 2008). In Serra do 
Cip[oacute] and Cara[ccedil]a, which are in the hills and plateaus of 
central Brazil, this species was located at low densities (Collar et 
al. 1992). In and around the Serra da Canastra National Park, this 
species was reported to be very common (Silveira 1998, p. 3). Again in 
the Minas Gerais area, the species was located at low densities at 
Serra Negra (on the upper Dourados River) and the headwaters of the 
S[atilde]o Francisco river, in the early 1990s (Collar et al. 1992).
    Although the species was once considered rare (Sick and Texeira 
1979, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it has been found in reasonable 
numbers in areas of Brasilia noted above (D. M. Teixeira in litt. 1987, 
as cited in Collar et al. 1992). There is no current population 
estimate other than that the population is decreasing (BLI 2010j). 
However, in 2008 the population was estimated at approximately 10,000 
birds, with a decreasing population trend (BLI 2008).
    The species occupies a limited area within a range of 109,000 km\2\ 
(42,085 mi\2\) and is likely losing habitat (BLI 2010j). Its 
distribution now appears larger than initially estimated, and the 
swampy gallery forests where it is found are not conducive to forest 
clearing, leaving the species' habitat less vulnerable to this threat 
than previously thought. The majority of locations where this species 
is found are within established protected nature reserves. Both fire 
risk and drainage impacts are reduced in these areas (Antas 2007). 
However, dam building for irrigation on rivers that normally flood 
gallery forests was identified as an emerging threat (Teixeira in litt. 
1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992; Antas 2007). Further, 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 BLI 2008).
    Conservation Status. The IUCN categorizes the Brasilia tapaculo as 
``Near Threatened'' (BLI 2010j). It is not listed in any appendices of 
CITES (CITES 2010). The Brasilia tapaculo is protected by Brazilian law 
(Bernardes et al. 1990, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and some of 
the areas where this species occurs are protected. Three Important Bird 
Areas (IBAs) have been identified for this species: Parque Nacional de 
Bras[iacute]lia, Cerrados ao Sul de Bras[iacute]lia, and the Serra da 
Canastra National Park. A site is recognized as an IBA when it meets 
criteria `` * * * based on the occurrence of key bird species that are 
vulnerable to global extinction or whose populations are otherwise 
irreplaceable.'' These key sites for conservation are small enough to 
be conserved in their entirety, but large enough to support self-
sustaining populations of the key bird species. IBAs are a way to 
identify conservation priorities (BLI 2010).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Brasilia tapaculo received an LPN of 8. After 
reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the 
LPN for the Brasilia tapaculo is not warranted. The Brasilia tapaculo 
does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threat to the 
species is moderate because in 2008, their population was estimated at 
approximately 10,000 birds; at least two of the populations are in 
protected habitat; and their preferred habitat is swampy and difficult 
to clear. Threats are imminent, because habitat is still being drained 
or dammed for agricultural irrigation, and grassland burning limits the 
extent of suitable habitat. Therefore, a priority rank of 8 remains 
valid for this species.
L. Codfish Island Fernbird (Bowdleria punctata wilsoni), LPN = 12
    The Codfish Island fernbird is found only on Codfish Island, New 
Zealand. Codfish Island is a nature reserve of 1,396 ha (3,448 ac) 
located 3 km (1.8 mi) off the northwest coast of Stewart Island (IUCN 
1979; McClelland 2007). There are five subspecies of Bowdleria 
punctata, each restricted to a single island and its outlying islets. 
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 to approximately 100 
individuals (Bell 1975 as cited in IUCN 1979). McClelland (2007) 
indicated that in the past, the Codfish Island fernbird was restricted 
to low shrubland in the higher areas of Codfish Island. Few individuals 
were seen around the coastal shrubland; and a significant predator was 
the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) (McClelland 2007). In 1979, the 
IUCN (1979) concluded that the absence of the fernbird from formerly 
occupied areas of Codfish Island evidenced a decline.
    Although there is no accurate estimate of 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 
population as of 2007 was believed to be several hundred. McClelland 
(2007) concluded that is it likely that the population peaked and is 
stable.
    Fernbirds are sedentary and are not strong fliers. 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, pers. comm., as cited in IUCN 
1979; McClelland 2002, pp. 1-9).
    IUCN and BLI only recognize the species Bowdleria punctata; it is 
not addressed at subspecies levels. Neither the species nor the 
subspecies is addressed by ITIS (www.itis.gov/, accessed September 9, 
2010). The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) recognizes 
the Codfish Island fernbird as a valid subspecies, however. Because New 
Zealand recognizes the subspecies, and absent peer-reviewed information 
to the contrary, we currently consider Bowdleria punctata wilsoni to be 
a valid subspecies within a multi-species genus.
    Conservation Status. Varying levels of conservation status and 
protections are in place for this species. IUCN categorizes Bowdleria 
punctata as ``Least concern'' (BLI 2010k). The 2008 New Zealand Threat 
Classification System manual indicates that the two ``at risk'' 
categories, ``range restricted'' and ``sparse,'' have been replaced by 
a single category called ``naturally uncommon'' (p. 10). The NZDOC 
categorizes this subspecies as ``naturally uncommon.'' It is not listed 
in any appendices of CITES (CITES 2010).
    Several specific conservation measures have been undertaken by the

[[Page 25165]]

NZ DOC with respect to Bowdleria punctata wilsoni as well as Bowdleria 
punctata; however the current population size of the subspecies is 
unclear. The weka and possum were eradicated from Codfish Island in 
1984 and 1987, respectively (McClelland 2007). The Polynesian rat was 
believed to have been eradicated in 1997 (Conservation News 2002; 
McClelland 2007). The Codfish Island fernbird population was reported 
to have rebounded strongly with the removal of invasive predator 
species. Additionally, it successfully colonized the forest habitat, 
which greatly expanded its range. However, because there is always the 
chance that rats could reestablish a population on the island, the 
island is being monitored for rats.
    To safeguard the Codfish Island fernbird, the NZ DOC established a 
second population on Putauhinu Island, a small 144-ha (356-ac), 
privately owned island located approximately 40 km (25 mi) south of 
Codfish Island. The Putauhinu population established rapidly, and 
McClelland (2007) reported that it is also believed to be stable. While 
there are no accurate data on the population size or trends on 
Putauhinu, as of 2007, the numbers were estimated to be 200 to 300 
birds spread over the island (McClelland 2007). Even with a second 
population, the Codfish Island fernbird still remains vulnerable to 
naturally occurring storm events due to its restricted range and small 
population size.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Codfish Island fernbird received an LPN of 
12. After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change 
in the LPN for this subspecies is not warranted. The information 
available indicates that the subspecies faces threats that are low to 
moderate in magnitude because: (1) It exists on an island that is a 
nature reserve and (2) the removal of invasive predator species and the 
establishment of a second population have allowed for a rebound in the 
subspecies' population. Although the actual population numbers for this 
subspecies are unknown (possibly around 500 individuals), threats are 
nonimminent because the conservation measures to prevent the invasion 
of predatory invasive species indicate that they have been successful; 
the subspecies is being actively managed. Therefore, a priority rank of 
12 remains valid for this subspecies. However, we will continue to 
monitor the status of this subspecies.
M. Ghizo White-Eye (Zosterops luteirostris), LPN = 2
    The Ghizo white-eye (also known as the splendid white-eye) is 
endemic to the island of Ghizo. Ghizo is a very densely populated 
island in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific ocean, east of Papua 
New Guinea (BLI 2010m). The Ghizo white-eye is described as a 
``warbler-like'' bird. The island of Ghizo is 11 km long and 5 km wide 
(7 by 3 mi), and the human population is estimated to be approximately 
6,670 as of 2005 (http://www.adb.org, accessed September 9, 2010.)
    This species was characterized as being locally common in the 1990s 
in the remaining tall or old-growth forest, which is very fragmented 
and is now less than 1 km2 (0.39 mi2). It has 
been reported to be less common in scrub close to large trees and in 
plantations (Buckingham et al. 1995 and Gibbs 1996, as cited in BLI 
2008). It is unclear whether these remaining habitats can support 
sustainable breeding populations (Buckingham et al. 1995, as cited in 
BLI 2008).
    The most recent population estimate for this species is 250 to 999 
birds (BLI 2010m). Biologists have 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 very likely declining due to habitat loss and degradation 
(BLI 2010m).
    The very tall old-growth forest on Ghizo is still under threat from 
clearance for local use as timber, firewood, and gardens, as are the 
areas of other secondary growth, which are suboptimal habitats for this 
species. The species is also under considerable threat from 
deforestation for agricultural land (BLI 2008).
    Conservation Status. Few, if any, protections are in place for this 
species. 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 (BLI 2010m). It is not listed in any appendices of 
CITES (CITES 2010).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Ghizo white-eye received an LPN of 8. After 
reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the 
LPN for this species is warranted. The Ghizo white-eye does not 
represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in 
magnitude due to declining suitable habitat; its range is estimated to 
be less than 35 km2 (13.5 mi2); of which less 
than 1 km2 (0.39 mi2) is old growth forest. The 
best available information indicates that forest clearing is proceeding 
at a pace that is rapidly denuding the habitat; secondary growth is 
being converted for agricultural purposes. Further, the human 
population on the small island is increasing, which is likely 
contributing to the reduction in old-growth forest for local uses such 
as gardens and timber. Additionally, the last estimate of the Ghizo 
white-eye population was believed to be between 250 and 999 
individuals, but its population trend is believed to be declining. 
These threats to the species are ongoing, of high magnitude, and 
imminent. Thus, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2.
N. Black-Backed Tanager (Tangara peruviana), LPN = 8
    The black-backed tanager is endemic to the coastal Atlantic forest 
region of southeastern Brazil. The species has been documented in Rio 
de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and 
Espirito Santo (Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 2000, as cited in BLI 2008; 
BLI 2010n). The species is generally restricted to coastal sand-plain 
forest and restinga, but has also been located in secondary forests 
(BLI 2008). Restinga is a Brazilian term that describes white sand 
forest habitat consisting of a patchwork of vegetation types, such as 
beach vegetation; open shrubby vegetation; herbaceous, shrubby coastal 
sand dune habitat; and dry and swamp forests distributed over coastal 
plains from northeastern to southeastern Brazil (Rocha et al. 2005, p. 
263; McGinley 2007, pp. 1-2).
    The Atlantic Forest, on which this species depends, extends up to 
600 km (373 mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. It consists of tropical and 
subtropical moist forests, tropical dry forests, and mangrove forests 
at mostly low-to-medium elevations less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft); 
however, altitude can reach as high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea 
level. Between 7 and 10 percent of this habitat remains intact 
(Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p. 
794). Based on a number of other estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the 
area historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic 
Forest biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of 
various human activities (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et 
al. 2000, pp. 853-854; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2; 
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; TNC 
2007, p. 1; WWF 2007, pp. 2-41). In addition to the overall loss and 
degradation of habitat, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely 
fragmented.
    This species' physical characteristics include an underbody color 
of blue-turquoise and a pale red-brown vent or cloaca. The male has a 
chestnut colored head and black back. The female is

[[Page 25166]]

duller and greener. It has a complex distribution with seasonal 
fluctuations in response to the ripening of areoira Schinus fruit, at 
least in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo (BLI 2010n). It has been observed 
visiting gardens and orchards of houses close to forested areas. Its 
diet consists primarily of fruit, and to a smaller extent, insects 
(Moraes and Krul 1997).
    The black-backed tanager is generally not considered rare within 
suitable habitat (BLI 2010n). 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 would 
provide an improved understanding of the species' population status and 
distribution, but currently populations appear small and fragmented and 
are declining rapidly; likely in response to extensive habitat loss 
(BLI 2010n). Population estimates range from 2,500 to 10,000 
individuals (BLI 2010n).
    The primary threat impacting this species is the rapid and 
widespread loss of habitat for beachfront development. A minor threat 
may be that it occasionally appears in the illegal bird trade (BLI 
2010n). The remaining tracts of suitable habitat in Rio de Janeiro and 
S[atilde]o Paulo are threatened by ongoing development of coastal 
areas, primarily for tourism enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes, 
beachside housing) and associated infrastructure support (del Hoyo 
2003, p. 616; WWF 2007, pp. 7 and 36-37). These activities have 
drastically reduced the species' abundance and extent of its occupied 
range. These activities are currently a risk to the species' continued 
existence because populations are being limited to highly fragmented 
patches of habitat (BLI 2010n). Although this species seems to tolerate 
some environmental degradation if there are well preserved stretches in 
its territory in which the birds can seek shelter, we expect the degree 
of these threats will continue and likely increase within the 
foreseeable future.
    Because this species inhabits coastal areas, sea level rise may 
also affect this species (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377-379). In 
Santos Bay on the coast, sea level rise scenarios were conducted based 
on predictions of increases between 0.5 and 1.5 m (1.6 and 4.9 ft) by 
the year 2100 (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 378). Even small increases in 
sea level could cause flooding, cause erosion, and change salt marsh 
zones (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377-379) within this species' 
habitat. As sea level rises, habitat will be less available for this 
species, compounded by an increased demand by humans to utilize land 
for housing. The black-backed tanager may attempt to move inland in 
search of new suitable habitat as its current habitat disappears, 
however, there may not be suitable habitat remaining for the species. 
Although Brazil has several laws requiring resource protection for 
species such as the black-backed tanager, its habitat is under pressure 
from the intense development that occurs in coastal areas, particularly 
south of Rio de Janeiro. Threats to the black-backed tanager's 
remaining habitat are ongoing due to the challenges that Brazil faces 
to balance its competing development and environmental priorities.
    Conservation Status. The species is considered ``Vulnerable'' by 
the IUCN (BLI 2010n). The black-backed tanager is not listed in any 
appendices of CITES (CITES 2010). Portions of the tanager's range are 
in six protected areas, although the protections are not always 
effective (BLI 2010n).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the black-backed tanager received an LPN of 8. 
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in 
the LPN for this species is not warranted at this time. The black-
backed tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats (primarily 
habitat loss) to the species are moderate in magnitude due to the 
species' fairly large range, population size, and apparent flexibility 
in diet and habitat suitability. Threats are however, imminent because 
the species is at risk by ongoing and widespread loss of habitat due to 
beachfront and related development. Therefore, a priority rank of 8 
remains valid for this species.
O. Lord Howe Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis), LPN = 6
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is a subspecies separate from the five 
mainland pied currawongs (Strepera graculina spp.). In 2004, it was 
suggested that its taxonomy be reviewed to determine if it warrants 
recognition as a distinct species (McAllan et al. 2004). ITIS 
recognizes the species as S. graculina (ITIS 2010, accessed September 
13, 2010). Because Australia recognizes the subspecies, and absent 
peer-reviewed information to the contrary, we consider S. graculina 
crissalis to be a valid subspecies within a multi-species genus.
    This subspecies is endemic to Lord Howe Island, New South Wales, 
Australia. Lord Howe Island is 600 km (373 mi) northeast of Sydney, 
Australia. This is also the distance to the subspecies' closest 
relative, the mainland Pied Currawong (S. graculina). The Lord Howe 
pied currawong is limited to a 12-km\2\ (4.6 mi2) area on 
the 20-km2 (7.7-mi2) island (Hutton 1991; Garnett 
and Crowley 2000). It has been recorded to a limited extent on small 
nearby islets of the Admiralty group (Garnett and Crowley 2000; New 
South Wales Department of Environment & Climate Change (NSW DECC) 
2010). 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 (NSW Department of Environment 
and Conservation (DEC) 2007a). In 1982, the island was added to the 
World Heritage List (NSW Department of the Environment and Water 
Resources 2007).
    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 
have been located on the slopes of Mount 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 nests are typically 
situated high in trees and are made in a cup shape with sticks and 
lined with grass and palm thatch (NSW DECC 2005). As of 2001, most of 
Lord Howe Island was still forested, and the removal of feral animals 
resulted in the recovery of the forest understory (WWF 2001).
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is omnivorous and eats a wide variety 
of food, including native fruits and seeds (Hutton 1991). It is the 
only remaining native island vertebrate predator (NSW DECC 2010). It 
has been recorded eating seabird chicks, poultry, and chicks of the 
Lord Howe woodhen (Tricholimnas sylvestris) and white tern (Gygis 
alba). It also feeds on both live and dead rats (Hutton 1991). Food 
brought to Lord Howe pied currawong nestlings was observed to be, in 
decreasing order: Invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, and nestlings of 
other bird species (Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB) 2006).
    In the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett and Crowley 
2000), the Lord Howe pied currawong population was estimated at 
approximately 80 mature individuals. In 2007, the Foundation for 
National Parks & Wildlife (FNPW 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 5 ha (12 ac) per pair. The 
population size is limited by the amount of available habitat and the 
lack of food during the winter (FNPW 2007). The

[[Page 25167]]

most recent population estimate is 100 to 200 individuals (from surveys 
in 2005-2006) (NSW DECC 2010, p. 3).
    The main threat identified for the Lord Howe pied currawong is 
habitat clearing and modification. Other threats include non-target 
poisoning, and effects associated with extremely small population sizes 
(NSW DECC 2010). 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, 
likely because of its predatory nature on nestlings. It is unclear what 
effect this localized killing has on the overall population size and 
distribution of the species (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Also, because 
the Lord Howe pied currawong often preys on ship (black) rats, it 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 highly susceptible to catastrophic events, 
such as disease or introduction of a new predator (Garnett and Crowley 
2000).
    Conservation Status. Various levels of conservation and protections 
exist for this species. 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 NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995 
lists the Lord Howe pied currawong as ``Vulnerable'' because it has a 
limited range, only occurring on Lord Howe Island (NSW DECC 2010). It 
also is listed as vulnerable under the Australian Commonwealth 
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. These 
laws provide a legislative framework to protect and encourage the 
recovery of vulnerable species (NSW DEC 2006a). The Lord Howe Island 
Act of 1953, as amended, established the Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB), 
made provisions for the LHIB to care, control, and manage the island; 
and established 75 percent of the land area as a permanent park 
preserve (NSW DEC 2007). Although the subspecies is not specifically 
addressed by BLI or IUCN, the species is considered ``Least Concern'' 
by the IUCN (BLI 2010o). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Lord Howe pied currawong received an LPN of 
12. After re-evaluating the threats to the Lord Howe pied currawong, we 
have determined that a change in the LPN representing the magnitude and 
imminence of threats to the subspecies is warranted. The Lord Howe pied 
currawong does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that 
are high in magnitude due to its extremely small population size, non-
target poisoning, and habitat clearing and modification. Despite 
conservation efforts, the population of the Lord Howe pied currawong 
has remained around 100 to 200 individuals. Species with small, 
declining population sizes such as these may be at greater risk of 
extinction due to synergistic effects (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265-
271). Because conservation efforts for the species have been 
implemented, we find that the threats are non-imminent. Thus, based on 
the best available information, the LPN has been changed from 12 to 6 
to reflect non-imminent threats of high magnitude.

Invertebrates

P. Harris' Mimic Swallowtail (Mimoides (syn. Eurytides) lysithous 
harrisianus), LPN = 6
    Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly is a subspecies endemic to 
Brazil (Collins and Morris 1985). Although the species' range includes 
Paraguay, the subspecies has not been confirmed in Paraguay (Collins 
and Morris 1985; Finnish University and Research Network 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 (Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996). 
This subspecies is polyphagous, meaning that its larvae feed on more 
than one plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). Information on its 
preferred host plants and adult nectar-sources was published in the 
status review (also known as a 12-month finding) on December 7, 2004 
(69 FR 70580). The Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly mimics at least 
three butterfly species in the Parides genus, including the fluminense 
swallowtail (described below). This mimicry system may cause problems 
in distinguishing this subspecies from the species that it mimics 
(Brown in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
    The Harris' mimic swallowtail was previously known in Espirito 
Santo, however, there are no recent confirmations of its occurrence 
there (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991). In Rio de 
Janeiro, Harris' mimic swallowtail has been confirmed in three 
localities. Two colonies were identified on the east coast of Rio de 
Janeiro, at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and Maca[eacute], and the 
other in Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve, farther inland. The 
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o colony is the best-studied. Between 
1984 and 2004, it maintained a stable size, varying between 50 to 250 
individuals (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985; Brown in litt. 2004), 
and was reported to be viable, vigorous, and stable in 2004 (Brown, Jr. 
in litt. 2004). There are no estimates of the size of the colony in 
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve where it had not been seen for 
30 years prior to its rediscovery there in 1997 (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).
    Both Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and the Po[ccedil]o das Antas 
Biological Reserve lie within the S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin. 
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 216,605-ha (535,240-ac) area, 
150,700 ha (372,286 ac) of which is managed as protected area. The 
Harris' mimic swallowtail's preferred environment of open and shady 
areas continues to be present in the region, with approximately 541 
forest patches averaging 127 ha (314 ac) in size, covering nearly 
68,873 ha (170,188 ac), and a minimum distance between forest patches 
of 276 meters (m) (0.17 mi) (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 1000 m (0.62 
mi). It follows that the average flying distance would be less than 
this figure. Thus, the average 276 m (0.17 mi) 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. Because the colony at 
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o has maintained a stable population for 
20 years, it is probable that the conditions available there remain 
suitable.
    Habitat destruction has been the main threat to this subspecies 
(Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996), especially urbanization in Barra 
de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o, industrialization in Maca[eacute] 
(Jurubatiba National Park), and previous fires that occurred in the 
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve. As described in detail for 
the fluminense swallowtail (below), Atlantic Forest habitat has been 
reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original cover. More than 70 percent 
of the Brazilian population lives in the Atlantic forest, and coastal 
development is ongoing throughout the Atlantic Forest region (Hughes et 
al. 2006; Butler 2007; Conservation International 2007; CEPF 2007a; 
H[ouml]fling 2007; Peixoto and

[[Page 25168]]

Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007; TNC 2009).
    Another factor affecting many butterfly species is illegal 
collection. The wildlife trade is extremely lucrative and as wildlife 
becomes rarer; it is worth more. Although there are laws on illegal 
wildlife trade, in some countries, many times laws are rarely enforced 
due to inadequate resources; and only a fraction of smuggled wildlife 
is caught (http://www.traffic.org). For example, in 1998, in the United 
States 100 Golden Birdwing (Troides aeacus, CITES Appendix II) 
butterflies were seized; no permit had been issued for the specimens 
which had been falsely labeled before being exported from Thailand 
(TRAFFIC 2010, p. 28). In 2001, two Russian insect collectors were 
arrested in India and were found to have approximately 2000 butterflies 
in their possession (p. 52). In 2007, a Japanese individual was 
convicted for illegal sale of $38,831 U.S. dollars (USD) worth of 
protected butterfly species. This individual is apparently known as the 
world's top smuggler of protected butterflies. One of the smuggled 
butterfly species was Homerus Swallowtail (Papilio homerus, CITES 
Appendix I). During this investigation, 43 butterflies were sold to 
undercover agents, including 2 Alexandra's birdwings (Ornithoptera 
alexandrae, CITES Appendix I), 2 Luzon Peacock swallowtails (Papilio 
chikae, CITES Appendix I), and 6 Corsican swallowtails (Papilio 
hospiton, CITES Appendix I) (p. 122). In 2009, in Japan an individual 
was sentenced to one year and six months' imprisonment and fined one 
million yen ($10,750 USD) due to illegally importing and selling rare 
butterfly species. He was found to have illegally imported 145 
butterflies from France. Among the specimens were 3 Queen Alexandra's 
Birdwings (Ornithoptera alexandrae, CITES Appendix I) and 1 Apollo 
Butterfly (Parnassius apollo, CITES Appendix II) (p. 179). Although we 
do not know the full extent of illegal trade, according to the 2010 
TRAFFIC report, this represents only a small fraction of the illegal 
collection of butterfly species that occurs.
    Conservation Status. 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 (Portaria No. 1,522 1989; Ministerio de Meio 
Ambiente 2003). As of 1996, collection and trade of the subspecies was 
prohibited (Brown 1996). In 1998, Brazil enacted a more effective law, 
Lei de Crimes Ambientais ou Lei da Natureza--Law no 9.605/98, which 
addresses environmental crimes and sets forth penal and administrative 
penalties resulting from activities that are harmful to the environment 
(IBAMA 2011). This law addresses the integrity of air, water bodies, 
forests and biodiversity; and assesses civil, administrative, and 
criminal penalties to private individuals, corporations, and business. 
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 currently is not included in the current IUCN Redlist (IUCN 
2010; Xerces Society 2010a). This species is not listed on any 
appendices of CITES.
    Harris' mimic swallowtail ranges within two protected areas: 
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba National Park. 
These protected areas are described in detail for the fluminense 
swallowtail below. The Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve 
(Reserve) was established to protect the golden lion tamarin 
(Leontopithecus rosalia) (Decree No. 73,791, 1974), but the Harris' 
mimic swallowtail, which occupies the same range, likely benefits as a 
result of efforts to conserve golden-lion-tamarin habitat (De Roy 2002; 
WWF 2003; Teixeira 2007). Habitat destruction caused by fires in 
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve appears to have abated. The 
revised management plan indicates that the Reserve will be used for 
research and conservation, with limited public access (IBAMA 2005; CEPF 
2007a). The Jurubatiba National Park (Park) is located in a region that 
is undergoing continuing development pressures from urbanization and 
industrialization (Otero and Brown 1984; Brown 1996; IFC 2002; CEPF 
2007b; Khalip 2007; Savarese 2008), and there is no management plan in 
place for the Park (CEPF 2007b). However, as discussed for the 
fluminense swallowtail, the Park, as of 2007, was considered to be in a 
very good state of conservation (Rocha et al. 2007).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Harris' mimic swallowtail received an LPN of 
12. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined 
that a change in the listing prioritization number is warranted. 
Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies and is not within a monotypic 
genus. Although the best-studied colony has maintained a stable and 
viable size for nearly two decades, there is limited suitable habitat 
remaining for this subspecies. Habitat destruction remains a threat. 
These threats are high in magnitude due to its small endemic population 
and potential catastrophic events such as severe tropical storms or 
introduction of a new disease or predator. The only known populations 
are within close proximity to a major, expanding city in Brazil--Rio de 
Janiero, the second largest city in Brazil. As this species becomes 
rarer, it becomes even more desirable to collectors (Traffic 2010, pp. 
52, 122, 179). Although the species exists in a protected area, 
collectors will take risks to obtain these rare and desirable species. 
Because the population is very small and limited to only two small 
areas, we find the threats are of high magnitude. However, we do not 
find that these threats are imminent because the subspecies is 
protected by Brazilian law; and the two colonies are located within 
protected areas. Based on the best available information, we have 
changed the LPN from a 12 to a 6 to reflect non-imminent threats of 
high magnitude.
Q. Jamaican Kite Swallowtail (Protographium marcellinus, syn. 
Eurytides), LPN = 2
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail is endemic to Jamaica, preferring 
wooded, undisturbed habitat containing its only known larval host plant 
West Indian lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata). The food preferences of 
adults have not been reported (Collins and Morris 1985; Bailey 1994). 
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; Smith et al. 1994; WRC 2001; 
Harris 2002; M[ouml]hn 2002).
    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 (Brown and Heineman 
1972; Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Bailey 1994; Smith 
et al. 1994), and experiences episodic population explosions, as 
described in the December 7, 2004, 12-month finding (69 FR 70580) and 
in the 2007 ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). There is only one known 
breeding site in the eastern coast town of Rozelle (also known as 
Roselle), St. Thomas Parish, although it is possible that other sites 
exist given the widely dispersed nature of the larval food plant 
(Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Bailey 1994; Smith et 
al. 1994; Robbins in litt. 2004).
    Habitat destruction has been considered a primary threat to the 
Jamaican kite swallowtail. Monophagous butterflies (meaning that their 
larvae feed only on a single plant species) such as the Jamaican kite

[[Page 25169]]

swallowtail tend to be more threatened than polyphagous species. This 
is in part due to their specific habitat requirements (Kotiaho et al. 
2005). 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). In Rozelle, extensive habitat modification for 
agricultural and industrial purposes such as mining has occurred 
(Gimenez Dixon 1996; WWF 2001). West Indian lancewood, the Jamaican 
kite swallowtail's larval food plant, is threatened by clearing for 
cultivation and by felling for the commercial timber industry (Collins 
and Morris 1985; Windsor Plywood 2004).
    Rozelle is also subject to naturally occurring, high-impact 
stochastic events, such as regularly-occurring hurricanes, as described 
in the 2007 ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). 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 (Economic Commission for Latin 
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), United Nations Development Programme 
(UNDP), and the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) (2004)). Hurricane 
Ivan, a category 5 hurricane, caused severe local damage to Rozelle 
Beach in 2004, including road collapse caused by the erosion of the 
cliff face and shoreline. The estimated restoration cost from Hurricane 
Ivan damage was $23 million USD ($1.6 million Jamaican dollars (J$) 
(ECLAC et al. 2004), indicating the severity of the damage inflicted by 
these hurricanes. 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.
    In western parishes, habitat destruction 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). As of 2006, 81 percent of this region 
remained forested, although fragmentation was occurring as a result of 
human-induced activities (Tole 2006). 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 (Gordon and 
Cambell 2006; Tole 2006; Jamaica Environmental Advocacy Network 2007)).
    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). Established in 1990, 
this Park encompasses 49,520 ha (122,367 ac) of mountainous, forested 
terrain that ranges in elevation from 150 to 2,256 m (492 to 7,402 ft) 
and is considered one of the best-managed protected areas in Jamaica 
(JCDT 2006). However, deforestation consisting of slash-and-burn 
agriculture and illegal timber harvesting continues to be a threat in 
the Blue Mountains (Tole 2006; TNC 2010).
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail has been collected for commercial 
trade in the past (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Sch[uuml]tz 
2000). The Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act of 1998 carries a maximum 
penalty of U.S. $1,439 (J $100,000) or 12 months of imprisonment for 
violating its provisions. This deterrent appears to be effectively 
protecting this species from illegal trade (NEPA 2005). As of 2008, we 
were unaware 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.).
    Conservation Status. Various levels of conservation exist for the 
species. In addition to being protected under Jamaica's Wildlife 
Protection Act of 1998, it is also included in Jamaica's National 
Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity. This strategy 
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 has been 
categorized on the IUCN Red List as ``Vulnerable'' (IUCN 2010). This 
species is not listed in any of the appendices of CITES.
    In our 2009 ANOR, the Jamaican kite swallowtail received an LPN of 
8. After reevaluating the threats to the Jamaican kite swallowtail, we 
have determined that a change in the listing priority number is 
warranted. The Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a monotypic 
genus. The current threats to the species are high in magnitude 
particularly since it only has one known larval host plant. Slash-and-
burn agriculture and illegal timber harvesting continues to occur 
within this species' habitat (TNC 2010). These threats are occurring at 
the species' only known breeding site and they are exacerbated by the 
species' restricted distribution of its larval food plant and range. In 
addition, stochastic events such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and 
introduction of a new disease are unpredictable. Illegal collection of 
butterfly species (refer to discussion under Harris' mimic swallowtail) 
continues to occur which further adds to the pressures affecting this 
species. Although Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to preserve native 
swallowtail habitat, the threats affecting this species are imminent; 
its habitat is decreasing; and this loss of habitat is ongoing. Based 
on a reevaluation of the threats to this species, we have changed the 
LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
R. Fluminense Swallowtail (Parides ascanius), LPN = 5
    The fluminense swallowtail is endemic to Brazil's restinga habitat 
within the Atlantic Forest region in the tropical and subtropical moist 
broadleaf forests of coastal Brazil (Thomas 2003). Its habitat is 
characterized by medium-sized trees and shrubs that are adapted to 
coastal conditions (Kelecom 2002). During the caterpillar stage of its 
lifecycle, it feeds on a species in the Dutchman's pipe genus 
(Aristolochia macroura) and is believed to be monophagous (Otero and 
Brown 1984).
    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). The species can be seasonally common, with sightings of up to 50 
individuals seen in one morning in the Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o 
area. It was historically seen in Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo, and 
Sao Paulo (Gelhaus et al. 2004). However, there are no recent 
confirmations of this species in either Espirito Santo or Sao Paulo. In 
Rio de Janeiro, the species has been documented 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 Po[ccedil]o 
das Antas Biological Reserve, farther inland (Brown in litt. 2004; 
Soler 2005). Another verified occurrence was in the [Aacute]rea de 
Tombamento do Mangue do Rio Para[iacute]ba do Sul (Uehara-Prado and 
Fonseca 2007). Additionally, the fluminense swallowtail has been

[[Page 25170]]

documented in Parque Natural Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto 
Iguacu 2008).
    A population estimate reported in 1984 in Barra de S[atilde]o 
Jo[atilde]o was between 20 and 100 individuals (Otero and Brown 1984). 
The colony within the Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve was 
rediscovered in 1997, after a nearly 30-year absence from this locality 
(Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004). Researchers noted only that ``large 
numbers'' of swallowtails were observed (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; 
Robbins in litt. 2004). There are no population estimates for the other 
colonies. However, individuals from the viable population in Barra de 
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o migrate widely in some years, and this is likely 
to enhance interpopulation gene flow among existing colonies (Brown, 
Jr. in litt. 2004).
    Habitat destruction has been the main threat to this species 
(Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996; 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 (Otero and Brown 1986; Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Ueraha-
Prado and Fonseca 2007). Moreover, fluminense swallowtails require 
large areas to maintain viable populations (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; 
Otero and Brown 1986; Ueraha-Prado and Fonseca). The Atlantic Forest 
habitat, which once covered 1.4 million km\2\ (540,543 mi\2\), has been 
reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original cover. It harbors more than 
70 percent of the Brazilian human population (Butler 2007; Conservation 
International 2007; CEPF 2007a; H[ouml]fling 2007; WWF 2007; TNC 2009). 
The restinga habitat upon which this species depends has been reduced 
by 17 km\2\ (6.56 mi\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 to 
agriculture, plantations, livestock pastures, human settlements, 
hydropower reservoirs, commercial logging, subsistence activities, and 
coastal development (Hughes et al. 2006; Butler 2007; Pivello 2007; TNC 
2007; Peixoto and Silva 2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007).
    One estimate concluded that Rio de Janeiro contains 1,675,457 ha 
(4,140,127 ac) 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 (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007), it should 
facilitate more focused efforts to identify and confirm additional 
localities and the conservation status of the fluminense swallowtail. 
Evaluating the correlation between the distribution of fluminense 
swallowtail and the existing protected areas within Rio de Janeiro 
revealed that only two known occurrences of the fluminense swallowtail 
correlated with protected areas, including the Po[ccedil]o das Antas 
Biological Reserve (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007). The Po[ccedil]o 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 (Otero and Brown 1984; Brown, 
Jr. in litt. 2004; Robbins in litt. 2004). The Po[ccedil]o das Antas 
Biological 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 fire is not currently thought to be a threat. 
Between 2001 and 2006, there was an increase in the number of private 
protected areas near or adjacent to the Po[ccedil]o 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 
consists of the 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). The researchers concluded that the existing 
protected area system may be inadequate for the conservation of this 
species.
    Commercial exploitation has been identified as a potential threat 
to the fluminense swallowtail (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; 
Sch[uuml]tz 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 (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Robbins 
in litt. 2004). However, based on the conservation measures in place, 
we believe that overutilization is not currently a threat to the 
fluminense swallowtail.
    Parasitism has been indicated to be a factor affecting 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 regarding the magnitude of effect these parasites are 
having on the fluminense swallowtail. At this time, we do not find that 
it affects the species to the extent that it is a threat to the 
species.
    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; Kotiaho et al. 2005). In contrast, Harris' mimic 
swallowtail is polyphagous (Collins and Morse 1985; Brown 1996); 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 (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 
2004); in part because they are known to only feed on one food source.
    Conservation Status. Brazil categorizes the fluminense swallowtail 
to be ``Imperiled'' (Portaria No. 1,522

[[Page 25171]]

1989; MMA 2003). It is strictly protected from commerce (Brown, Jr. in 
litt. 2004). According to the 2010 IUCN Red List, the fluminense 
swallowtail has been classified 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. 
This species has not been formally considered for listing in the 
Appendices of CITES (www.cites.org). However, the European Commission 
listed fluminense swallowtail on Annex B of Regulation 338/97 in 1997 
(Grimm 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 CITES Scientific Authority has made a finding that trade in the 
species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the 
wild (Grimm in litt. 2008). There would be no requirement that the non-
European Union exporting country make such a finding or issue a 
document if the species is not CITES-listed. There has been no legal 
trade in this species into the European Union since its listing on 
Annex B (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).
    In our 2009 ANOR, the fluminense swallowtail received an LPN of 5. 
After reevaluating the threats to the fluminense swallowtail, we have 
determined that a change in the listing priority number is not 
warranted. The fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic 
genus. The species is currently at risk from habitat destruction; 
however, we have determined that overutilization and parasitism are not 
currently occurring such that they are threats to 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, 
the fluminense swallowtail retains a priority rank of 5.
S. Hahnel's Amazonian Swallowtail (Parides hahneli), LPN = 2
    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. The 
swallowtail depends upon highly specialized habitat--stranded beaches 
of river drainage areas. Wells et al. (1983) describes the habitat as 
ancient sandy beaches covered by scrubby or dense vegetation that is 
not floristically diverse. The larval host-plant is believed to be a 
species in the Dutchman's pipe genus, either Aristolochia lanceolato-
lorato or A. acutifolia (69 FR 70580; December 7, 2004).
    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).
    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 
trends is lacking. However, researchers believe that, because Hahnel's 
Amazonian swallowtail has extremely limited habitat preferences, any 
sort of river modification such as impoundment, channelization, or 
levee construction would have an immediate and highly negative impact 
on the species (Wells et al. 1983; New and Collins 1991).
    This species of swallowtail has been collected for commercial trade 
(Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Sch[uuml]tz 2000). Species with 
restricted distributions or localized populations, such as the Hahnel's 
Amazonian swallowtail, are more vulnerable to overcollection than those 
with a wider distribution (Brown in litt. 2004; Robbins in litt. 2004). 
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). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES. 
As of 2008, seizures of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail into or out of 
the United States had not been reported (Office of Law Enforcement, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt. 2008). The 
best available information does not indicate that overutilization is a 
threat to the species.
    Competition for host plants has been identified as a potential 
threat to Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail. Researchers in the past 
believed that this species might suffer from host plant competition 
with other butterfly species in the region (Wells 1983; Collins and 
Morris 1985; Brown 1996); however, this competition has not been 
confirmed. It occupies the same range with another swallowtail 
butterfly, Parides chabrias ygdrasilla, and mimics at least two other 
genera that occupy the same area, Methona and Thyrides (Brown 1996). At 
this time, there is insufficient information to conclude that 
competition is a threat affecting this species.
    Conservation Status. Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is not 
nationally protected (Portaria No. 1522 1989; MMA 2003), although the 
state of Par[aacute] listed it as endangered on its list of threatened 
species (Resolu[ccedil][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 (IUCN 2010). Hahnel's 
Amazonian swallowtail has not been formally considered for listing in 
the Appendices of CITES (CITES 2009). 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).
    After reevaluating the threats to the Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail, we have determined that a change in listing priority 
number is warranted. Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail does not represent 
a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude and 
imminent due to its small endemic population, and limited and 
decreasing availability of its highly specialized

[[Page 25172]]

habitat (stranded beaches of river drainage area) and food sources. The 
primary threats of dam construction, waterway crop transport, clearing 
for agriculture and cattle grazing are ongoing in Par[aacute] and 
Amazonas. These threats are imminent due to the species' highly 
localized and specialized habitat requirements. Secondary concerns are 
possible illegal collection, competition with other species, and 
potential catastrophic events such as severe tropical storms or 
introduction of a new disease or predator. Based on a reevaluation of 
the threats, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect 
imminent threats of high magnitude.
T. Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis), LPN = 8
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is native to the Himalayan regions of 
Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam 
(Shrestha 1997; FRAP 1999; Osada et al. 1999; Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai 
and Richardson 1999; Masui and Uehara 2000; Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) 2001; Igarashi 2001; Baral et al. 2005; TRAFFIC 
2007). This species prefers undisturbed (primary), heterogeneous, 
broad-leaved-evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests, and flies 
at altitudes of 1,500 to 3,050 m (4,921 to 10,000 ft) (Collins and 
Morris 1985; Tordoff et al. 1999; Igarashi 2001). This species is 
polyphagous. Larval host-plants may differ across the species' range, 
and include: Magnolia campbellii in China (Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; 
Sung and Yan 2005; Yen and Yang 2001); Magnolia spp. in Vietnam (Funet 
2004); Daphne spp. in India, Nepal, and Myanmar (Funet 2004); and 
Daphne nipalensis also in India (Robinson et al. 2004). It has been 
reported that the adult Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails do not feed (Collins 
and Morris 1985).
    Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to this species, which 
prefers undisturbed high-altitude habitat (Collins and Morris 1985; 
Tordoff et al. 1999; Igarashi 2001). 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 (Collins and Morris 1985; 
Shrestha 1997; Baral et al. 2005). 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).

Conservation Status

    Since 1996, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been categorized on 
the IUCN Red List as a species of ``Lower Risk/near threatened''; it 
has not been reevaluated using the 1997 criteria (Gimenez Dixon 1996; 
IUCN 2010). The species was 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; UNEP-WCMC 1999; Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; Sung and 
Yan 2005). The species is classified by the 2005 China Species Red List 
as ``Vulnerable'' (China Red List 2006).
    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 (Bombay Natural History Society in litt. 2007).
    Laos: The species has been reported (Osada et al. 1999), but no 
further information is available (Vonxaiya 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 CITES 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 (Choldumrongkul 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 (Canh in litt. 2007).
    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; 
Sch[uuml]tz 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 (US$). In India, the Kaiser-I-Hind 
swallowtail is listed on Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife Protection 
Act of 1972, which prohibits hunting without a license (Collins and 
Morris 1985; Indian Wildlife Protection Act 2006). However, between 
1990 and 1997, illegally collected specimens were selling for 500 
Rupees (12 US$) per female and 30 Rupees (0.73 US$) 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 (Hongthong 1998; Pornpitagpan 1999; FAO 2001; 
Choldumrongkul in litt. 2007). In addition to prohibiting possession, 
WARPA prohibits hunting, breeding, and trading. Import and export are 
only allowed for conservation purposes

[[Page 25173]]

(Jaisielthum 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). It was 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 that are considered by the country to be in 
danger of extinction (Canh in litt. 2007). In a recent survey conducted 
by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 2000 residents in Ha Noi, Vietnam, 
the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail was among 37 Schedule IIB-species that 
were actively being collected (p. 36). The majority of the survey 
respondents were unaware of legislation prohibiting collection of 
Schedule IIB-species (p. 7). This is a highly desirable species, and 
there is a culture within Vietnam of consuming rare and expensive wild 
animal dishes, particularly in Ha Noi among the elite (TRAFFIC 2007, p. 
9). This practice does not seem to be decreasing; rather it appears to 
be increasing. Thus, we find that overutilization for illegal domestic 
use is a threat to this species. Although Vietnam has implemented 
several action plans to strengthen control of trade in wild fauna and 
flora (TRAFFIC 2007, p. 9), within-country protections are inadequate 
to protect the species from illegal collection throughout its range.
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been listed in CITES Appendix II 
since 1987 (UNEP-WCMC 2008a). Between 1991 and 2005, 160 Kaiser-I-Hind 
swallowtail specimens were traded internationally under CITES permits 
(UNEP WCMC 2006), and between 2000 and 2008, 157 specimens were traded 
(UNEP WCMC 2009). 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 threat to this species.
    After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined 
that a change in listing priority number is not warranted. The Kaiser-
I-Hind swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. The current 
threats of habitat destruction and illegal collection are moderate in 
magnitude due to the species' wide distribution and to the protections 
in place. We find that the threats are imminent due to ongoing habitat 
destruction, high market value for specimens, and inadequate domestic 
protections for the species or its habitat. Based on our reassessment 
of the threats, we have retained an LPN of 8 to reflect imminent 
threats of moderate magnitude.

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.
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for 
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the 
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the 
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
determinations on prior ``warranted-but-precluded'' petition findings 
as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat 
petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical 
habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management 
functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to 
Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach 
regarding listing and critical habitat).
    The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be 
extensive and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and 
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and 
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and 
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public 
comments and peer review comments on proposed rules and incorporating 
relevant information into final rules. The number of listing actions 
that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the 
complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions 
generally are more costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing 
a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a 
proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing 
rule with critical habitat, the median cost is $305,000.
    We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program 
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since 
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds which may be 
expended for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly 
appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was 
designed to prevent funds appropriated for other functions under the 
Act (for example, recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), 
or for other Service programs, from being used for Listing Program 
actions (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 
1997).
    Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat 
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the 
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure 
that some funding is available to address other listing activities'' 
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 
2001)). In FY 2010, we are using some of the critical habitat subcap 
funds to fund actions with statutory deadlines.
    Thus, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the 
amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat 
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the 
amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the 
funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address

[[Page 25174]]

court-mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the 
limits on our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    In FY 2010, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be 
achieved with $10,471,000, which is the amount of money that Congress 
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the 
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations 
for species that are already listed). However, these funds were not 
enough to fully fund all our court-ordered and statutory listing 
actions in FY 2010, so we used $1,114,417 of our critical habitat 
subcap funds in order to work on all of our required petition findings 
and listing determinations. This brings the total amount of funds we 
had for listing actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our process is to 
make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure 
that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and 
also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. The 
$11,585,417 is being used to fund work in the following categories: 
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements 
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed 
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with 
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, 
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In 2009, 
the responsibility for listing foreign species under the Act was 
transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority (DSA), 
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. 
Starting in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is being used to work on 
the actions described above as they apply to listing actions for 
foreign species.
    For FY 2011, on September 29, 2010, Congress passed a continuing 
resolution which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level. Until 
Congress appropriates funds for FY 2011, we will fund listing work 
based on the FY 2010 amount.
    In addition, available staff resources are also a factor in 
determining high-priority species provided with funding. Finally, 
proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered 
are lower priority, because as listed species, they are already 
afforded the protection of the Act and implementing regulations.
    Starting in FY 2010, the Washington Office (WO) Endangered Species 
Program has full responsibility for foreign species' listing actions 
under the Act. The Branch of Foreign Species (BFS) was established in 
June 2010 to specifically work on petitions and other actions under 
Section 4 of the Act for foreign species.
    Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that 
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to 
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the 
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in 
the bottom section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory 
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. The funding for 
domestic and foreign species was not appropriated separately in FY 
2010. In addition to the actions demonstrating expeditious progress 
mentioned above, we list the progress in adding qualified species to 
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species for domestic 
species in the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review (75 FR 69822, published 
November 10, 2010).
    BFS may, based on available staff resources, work on species 
described within this ANOR with an LPN of 2 or 3, and when appropriate, 
species with a lower priority if they overlap geographically or have 
the same threats as the species with the high priority. Including these 
species together in the same proposed rule results in considerable 
savings in time and funding, when compared to preparing separate 
proposed rules for each of them in the future. Because the actions 
below 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, publication of proposed rules for these 20 
species is precluded. For expeditious progress on domestic actions, see 
the Candidate Notice of Review, published November 10, 2010.

                   ESA Foreign Species Listing Actions Funded in FY 2010 But Not Yet Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Species                                                   Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 parrots \1\.............................  12-month status determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Actions with Statutory Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Bird species in Colombia and Ecuador.....  Final listing determination.
6 Bird species in Europe and Asia \1\......  Final listing determination.
6 Bird species in Peru and Bolivia \1\.....  Final listing determination.
7 Bird species in Brazil...................  Final listing determination.
Peary and Dolphin-Union caribou............  90-day petition finding.
Queen charlotte goshawk....................  Final listing determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds; also will be funded with FY 2011 funds.

    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 
for foreign species since publication of the 2009 Notice of Review, 
August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540) to the current date includes preparing 
and publishing the following:

[[Page 25175]]



                            ESA Foreign Species Listing Actions Published in FY 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Publication date                   Title                 Action                     FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/03/2009......................  Listing the Salmon-      Proposed Listing    74 FR 56770-56791
                                   Crested Cockatoo as      Threatened.
                                   Threatened Throughout
                                   its Range with Special
                                   Rule.
1/05/2010.......................  Listing Foreign Bird     Proposed Listing    75 FR 605-649
                                   Species in Peru and      Endangered.
                                   Bolivia as Endangered
                                   Throughout Their Range.
1/05/2010.......................  Listing Six Foreign      Proposed Listing    75 FR 286-310
                                   Birds as Endangered      Endangered.
                                   Throughout Their Range.
1/05/2010.......................  Withdrawal of Proposed   Proposed rule,      75 FR 310-316
                                   Rule to List Cook's      withdrawal.
                                   Petrel.
1/05/2010.......................  Final Rule to List the   Final Listing       75 FR 235-250
                                   Galapagos Petrel and     Threatened.
                                   Heinroth's Shearwater
                                   as Threatened
                                   Throughout Their
                                   Ranges.
6/23/2010.......................  90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day    75 FR 35746-35751
                                   Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                   Honduran Emerald         Substantial.
                                   Hummingbird as
                                   Endangered.
7/27/2010.......................  Determination on         Final Listing       75 FR 43844-43853
                                   Listing the Black-       Endangered.
                                   Breasted Puffleg as
                                   Endangered Throughout
                                   its Range; Final Rule.
7/27/2010.......................  Final Rule to List the   Final Listing       75 FR 43853-43864
                                   Medium Tree-Finch        Endangered.
                                   (Camarhynchus pauper)
                                   as Endangered
                                   Throughout its Range.
8/3/2010........................  Determination of         Final Listing       75 FR 45497-45527
                                   Threatened Status for    Threatened.
                                   Five Penguin Species.
8/17/2010.......................  Listing Three Foreign    Final Listing       75 FR 50813-50842
                                   Bird Species from        Endangered.
                                   Latin America and the
                                   Caribbean as
                                   Endangered Throughout
                                   Their Range.
9/28/2010.......................  Determination of         Final Listing       75 FR 59645-59656
                                   Endangered Status for    Endangered.
                                   the African Penguin.
02/22/2011......................  Determination of         Final Listing       76 FR 9681-9692
                                   Threatened Status for    Endangered.
                                   Southern rockhopper
                                   penguin--Campbell
                                   Plateau population.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted-but-
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add or remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (Although we do not discuss it in 
detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing 
species from the Lists under the Recovery program, which is funded by a 
separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. As 
with our ``precluded'' finding, expeditious progress in adding 
qualified species to the Lists is a function of the resources available 
and the competing demands for those funds. Given that limitation, we 
find that we are making progress in FY 2010 in the Listing Program.
    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations, and 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. Given 
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions 
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
    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.

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 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 (16 
U.S.C. 4901 et seq.). We also consult with the IUCN species specialist 
groups and staff members of the U.S. CITES Scientific and Management 
Authorities, and the Division of International Conservation; and we 
attend scientific meetings to obtain current status information for 
relevant species. As previously stated, if we identify any species for 
which emergency listing is appropriate, we will make prompt use of the 
emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.

Request for Information

    We request the submission of any further information on the species 
in this notice as soon as possible, or whenever it becomes available. 
We especially seek information: (1) Indicating that we should remove a 
taxon from 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 Branch of 
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (see ADDRESSES section).

[[Page 25176]]

Authority

    This Notice of Review is published under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 15, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-10286 Filed 5-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P