25150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR any new information, materials, in response to the petition. The third comments, or questions concerning this possibility is that we may find that Fish and Wildlife Service notice to the above street address. listing is warranted but precluded. A FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: warranted but-precluded finding on a 50 CFR Part 17 Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, petition to list means that listing is [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2010–0053; MO Endangered Species Program, (see warranted, but that the immediate 92210–0–0010 B6] ADDRESSES); by telephone at 703–358– proposal and timely promulgation of a 2171; or by facsimile at 703–358–1735. final regulation is precluded by higher Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Persons who use a telecommunications priority listing actions. In making a and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings device for the deaf (TDD) may call the warranted-but-precluded finding under on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Federal Information Relay Service the Act, the Service must demonstrate Species; Annual Description of (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. that expeditious progress is being made Progress on Listing Actions to add and remove species from the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Lists. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Background Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Interior. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Act, when, in response to a petition, we ACTION: Notice of review. find that listing a species is warranted as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et but precluded, we must make a new SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we seq.), provides two mechanisms for 12-month finding annually until we announce our annual petition findings considering species for listing. First, we publish a proposed rule or make a for foreign species, as required under can identify and propose for listing determination that listing is not section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered those species that are endangered or warranted. These subsequent Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, threatened based on the factors 12-month findings are referred to as in response to a petition, we find that contained in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition findings. This listing a species is warranted but We implement this mechanism through notice contains our resubmitted petition precluded by higher priority listing the candidate program. Candidate taxa actions, we must review the status of the findings for foreign species previously are those taxa for which we have described in the 2009 Notice of Review species each year until we publish a sufficient information on file relating to (August 12, 2009, 74 FR 40540). proposed rule or make a determination biological vulnerability and threats to We maintain this list of candidates for that listing is not warranted. These support a proposal to list the taxa as a variety of reasons: To notify the public subsequent status reviews and the endangered or threatened, but for which that these species are facing threats to accompanying 12-month findings are preparation and publication of a their survival; to provide advance ‘‘ ’’ referred to as resubmitted petition proposed rule is precluded by higher knowledge of potential listings; to findings. priority listing actions. The second provide information that may stimulate Information contained in this notice mechanism for considering species for and guide conservation efforts that will describes our status review of 20 foreign listing is when the public petitions us remove or reduce threats to these taxa that were the subject of previous to add species to the Lists of species and possibly make listing warranted-but-precluded findings, most Endangered and Threatened Wildlife unnecessary; to request input from recently summarized in our 2009 Notice and Plants (Lists). The species covered interested parties to help us identify of Review published on August 12, 2009 by this notice were assessed through the those candidate species that may not (74 FR 40540). Based on our current petition process. require protection under the Act or review, we find that 20 species continue Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, additional species that may require the to warrant listing, but their listing when we receive a listing petition, we Act’s protections; and to request remains precluded by higher priority must determine within 90 days, to the necessary information for setting listing actions. maximum extent practicable, whether priorities for preparing listing proposals. With this annual notice of review the petition presents substantial On September 21, 1983, we published (ANOR), we are requesting additional scientific or commercial information guidance for assigning a listing priority information for the 20 taxa whose indicating that the petitioned action number (LPN) for each candidate listings that remain warranted but may be warranted (90-day finding). If species (48 FR 43098). Using this precluded by higher priority listing we make a positive 90-day finding, we guidance, we assign each candidate an actions. We will consider this are required to promptly commence a LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the information in preparing listing review of the status of the species. Using magnitude of threats, immediacy of documents and future resubmitted the information from the status review, threats, and taxonomic status; the lower petition findings for these 20 taxa. This in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the LPN, the higher the listing priority information will also help us to monitor the Act, we must make one of three (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 the status of the taxa and conserve them. findings within 12 months of the receipt would have the highest listing priority). DATES: We will accept information on of the petition (12-month finding). The Guidelines for such a priority-ranking these resubmitted petition findings at first possible 12-month finding is that guidance system are required under any time. listing is not warranted, in which case section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. ADDRESSES: This notice is available on we need not take any further action on 1533(h)(3)). As explained below, in the Internet at http:// the petition. The second possibility is using this system we first categorize www.regulations.gov, and http:// that we may find that listing is based on the magnitude of the threat(s), endangered.fws.gov/. Supporting warranted, in which case we must then by the immediacy of the threat(s), information used in preparing this promptly publish a proposed rule to list and finally by taxonomic status. notice is available for public inspection, the species. Once we publish a Under this priority-ranking system, by appointment, during normal business proposed rule for a species, sections magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ hours at the Branch of Foreign Species, 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, further procedures, regardless of helps ensure that the species facing the Arlington, Virginia 22203. Please submit whether or not we issued the proposal greatest threats to their continued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25151

existence receive the highest listing priority for preparing a proposed rule to review ensures that we focus priority. It is important to recognize that list a given species. Each species conservation efforts on those species at all candidate species face threats to their included in this notice is one for which greatest risk first. In addition to continued existence, so the magnitude we have sufficient information to reviewing foreign candidate species of threats is in relative terms. When prepare a proposed rule to list, because since publication of the last ANOR, we evaluating the magnitude of the threat(s) it is in danger of extinction or likely to have worked on numerous findings in facing the species, we consider become endangered within the response to petitions to list species and information such as: the number of foreseeable future throughout all or a on proposed and final determinations populations and/or extent of range of significant portion of its range. for rules to list species under the Act. the species affected by the threat(s); the For more information on the process Some of these findings and biological significance of the affected and standards used in assigning LPNs, determinations have been completed population(s), the life-history a copy of the guidance is available on and published in the Federal Register, characteristics of the species and its our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ while work on others is still under way current abundance and distribution; and endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098- (see Preclusion and Expeditious whether the threats affect the species in 43105.pdf. For more information on the Progress, below, for details). only a portion of its range. We also LPN assigned to a particular species, the Based on our review of the best consider the likelihood of persistence of species assessment for each candidate available scientific and commercial the species in the unaffected portions contains the LPN and a rationale for the information, with this ANOR, we have and whether the effects are likely to be determination of the magnitude and changed the LPN for several candidates. permanent. imminence of threat(s) and assignment The review of these 20 species is As used in our priority ranking of the LPN; that information is summarized in Table 1. system, immediacy of threat is presented in this ANOR. categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or Findings on Resubmitted Petitions ‘‘nonimminent.’’ It is not a measure of Previous Notices This notice describes our resubmitted how quickly the species is likely to This revised notice supersedes all petition findings for 20 foreign species become extinct if the threats are not previous annual notices of review for for which we had previously found addressed; rather, immediacy is based foreign species. The species discussed proposed listing to be warranted but on when the threats will begin. If a in this notice were the result of three precluded. We have considered all of threat is currently occurring or likely to separate petitions submitted to the U.S. the new information that we have occur in the very near future, we Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to obtained since the previous finding, and classify the threat as imminent. list a number of foreign and we have reviewed in accordance with Determining the immediacy of threats butterfly species as endangered or our Listing Priority Guidance the listing helps ensure that species facing actual, threatened under the Act. We received priority number (LPN) of each taxon for identifiable threats are given priority for petitions to list foreign bird species on which proposed listing continues to be listing proposals over those for which November 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 warranted but precluded. threats are only potential or species that (46 FR 26464, May 12, 1981; and 56 FR are intrinsically vulnerable to certain 65207, December 16, 1991, As a result of our review, we find that types of threats, but are not known to be respectively). On January 10, 1994, we warranted-but-precluded findings presently facing such threats. received a petition to list seven butterfly remain appropriate for these 20 species. Our priority ranking system has three species as endangered or threatened We emphasize that we are not proposing categories for taxonomic status: species (59 FR 24117; May 10, 1994). these species for listing by this notice, that are the sole members of a genus; We took several actions on these but we do anticipate developing and full species (in genera that have more petitions. Our most recent review of publishing proposed listing rules for than one species); and subspecies and petition findings was published on these species in the future, with an distinct population segments of August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540). objective of making expeditious vertebrate species (DPS). Previously published petition findings, progress in addressing all 20 of these The result of the ranking system listing rules, status reviews, and petition foreign species within a reasonable entails assigning each candidate a finding reviews that included foreign timeframe. listing priority number of 1 to 12. For species are also listed in the 2009 Table 1 provides a summary of all example, if the threat(s) is/are of high ANOR. updated determinations of the 20 taxa in magnitude, with immediacy classified our review. All taxa in Table 1 of this as imminent, the listable entity is Summary of This ANOR notice are ones for which we find that assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on Since publication of the previous listing is warranted but precluded and its taxonomic status (i.e., a species that ANOR on August 12, 2009 (74 FR are referred to as ‘‘candidates’’ under the is the only member of its genus would 40540), we reviewed the available Act. The column labeled ‘‘Priority’’ be assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full information on candidate species to indicates the LPN. Following the species would be assigned to LPN 2, and ensure that listing is warranted for each scientific name of each taxon (third a subspecies, DPS, or a species that is species, and reevaluated the relative column) is the family designation endangered or threatened in only a LPN assigned to each species. We also (fourth column) and the common name, significant portion of its range would be evaluated the need to emergency list if one exists (fifth column). The sixth assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the any of these species, particularly species column provides the known historic LPN ranking system provides a basis for with high listing priority numbers (i.e., range for the taxon. The avian species in making decisions about the relative species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This Table 1 are listed taxonomically.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—ANNUAL NOTICE OF REVIEW [C = listing warranted-but-precluded]

Status Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority

Birds

C ...... 2 unicornis ...... Craciidae ...... southern helmeted Bolivia, Peru. . C ...... 2 Rallus semiplumbeus ...... Rallidae ...... Bogota rail ...... Colombia. C ...... 8 Porphyrio hochstetteri ...... Rallidae ...... takahe ...... New Zealand. C ...... 8 Haematopus chathamensis Haematopodidae ...... Chatham ...... Chatham Islands, New Zea- land. C ...... 8 Cyanoramphus malherbi .... Psittacidae ...... orange-fronted parakeet ..... New Zealand. C ...... 2 Eunymphicus uvaeensis .... Psittacidae ...... Uvea parakeet ...... Uvea, New Caledonia. C ...... 2 Ara glaucogularis ...... Psittacidae ...... blue-throated macaw ...... Bolivia. C ...... 8 Dryocopus galeatus ...... Picidae ...... helmeted woodpecker ...... Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay. C ...... 2 Dendrocopus noguchii ...... Picidae ...... Okinawa woodpecker ...... Okinawa Island, Japan. C ...... 2 Aulacorhynchus huallagae Ramphastidae ...... yellow-browed toucanet ...... Peru. C ...... 8 Scytalopus novacapitalis .... Conopophagidae ...... Brasilia ...... Brazil. C ...... 12 Bowdleria punctata wilsoni Sylviidae ...... Codfish Island fernbird ...... Codfish Island, New Zea- land. C ...... 2 Zosterops luteirostris ...... Zosteropidae ...... Ghizo white-eye ...... Solomon Islands. C ...... 8 Tangara peruviana ...... Thraupidae ...... black-backed tanager ...... Brazil. C ...... 6 Strepera graculina crissalis Cracticidae ...... Lord Howe pied currawong Lord Howe Islands, New South Wales.

Invertebrates

C ...... 6 Eurytides (= Graphium or Paplionidae ...... Harris’ mimic swallowtail .... Brazil. Mimoides) lysithous harrisianus. C ...... 2 Eurytides (= Graphium or Paplionidae ...... Jamaican kite swallowtail ... Jamaica. Neographium or Protographium or Protesilaus) marcellinus. C ...... 5 Parides ascanius ...... Paplionidae ...... Fluminense swallowtail ...... Brazil. C ...... 2 Parides hahneli ...... Paplionidae ...... Hahnel’s Amazonian swal- Brazil. lowtail. C ...... 8 Teinopalpus imperialis ...... Paplionidae ...... Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail .... Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thai- land, Vietnam.

Findings on Species for Which Listing South American bird species. This may separated by more than 1,000 km (621 Is Warranted but Precluded be due to the inaccessibility of its mi), and have a multitude of distinct preferred habitat and its apparent characteristics (Gastan˜ aga in prep. in We have found that, for the 20 taxa intolerance of human disturbance BLI 2010a). Currently, both BLI and the discussed below, publication of (Herzog and Kessler 1998; Macleod et International Union for Conservation of proposed listing rules continues to be al. 2009, p. 15). The southern helmeted Nature (IUCN) recognize the southern warranted but precluded due to the curassow is only known to occur in as Pauxi unicornis need to complete pending, higher central Bolivia and central Peru and do not specifically address either priority listing actions. We will (BirdLife International (BLI) 2010a). The subspecies. The Integrated Taxonomic continue to monitor the status of these Bolivian population of the nominate (a Information System (ITIS) recognizes species as new information becomes subspecies with the same name as the Pauxi unicornis as a full species as well available (see Monitoring, below). Our species) species (Pauxi unicornis as both subspecies (ITIS 2010, accessed review of new information will unicornis) remained unknown to July 16, 2010). For the purpose of this determine if a change in status is science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). The ANOR, we are reviewing the petitioned warranted, including the need to Peruvian population is known as Pauxi entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes emergency list any species or change the unicornis koepckeae. all subspecies. LPN of any of the species. In the following section, we describe the status What is now recognized as the In many cases, of species of and threats to the individual species. southern helmeted curassow may in fact can be unclear. There is substantial comprise two separate species that are discussion in scientific literature that currently recognized as two subspecies debates the classification of species and A. Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi (Pauxi unicornis unicornis, and Pauxi whether various entities deserve species unicornis), LPN = 2 unicornis koepckeae). It has been status rather than subspecies status proposed that these populations of (Phillimore 2010, pp. 42–53; James The southern helmeted curassow, also Pauxi unicornis that are currently 2010, pp. 1–5; Pratt 2010, pp. 79–89). known as the horned curassow, is one treated as subspecies may represent two This is sometimes significant with of the least frequently encountered different species because they are respect to conservation measures,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25153

particularly when considering the or in the Rı´o Tambopata area near the mitigated, this trend will probably criteria used by organizations such as Bolivia-Peru border (MacLeod in litt. continue for the next several years the IUCN. These two subspecies may in 2003 as cited in BLI 2010a; Hennessey (Macleod in litt. 2005). fact be species, but for the purpose of 2004a as cited in BLI 2009a; In Bolivia, forests within the range of this review, these two subspecies Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI the southern helmeted curassow are essentially face the same threats, are 2008). being cleared for crop cultivation by generally in the same region of South In Peru, Pauxi unicornis koepckeae is colonists from the altiplano (Maillard America, and they both have quite small known only from the Sira Mountains 2006, pp. 95–98). Rural development, populations. Absent peer-reviewed (known as the Reserva Comunal El Sira), including road building, inhibits its information to the contrary and based in Huanuco (Tobias and del Hoyo 2006). dispersal (Herzog and Kessler 1998; on the best available information, we In 2005, a team from the Armonia Fjeldsa˚ in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI recognize both subspecies as being Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) saw 2010). In Peru, southern helmeted valid. For the purpose of this review, we one and heard three southern helmeted curassow habitat is threatened by are reviewing the petitioned entity, curassow in the Sira Mountains: The subsistence agriculture (MacLeod in litt. Pauxi unicornis, which includes all first sighting of the distinctive endemic 2000 as cited in BLI 2010a), forest subspecies. We welcome comments on Peruvian subspecies since 1969 (BLI clearing by colonists, illegal logging, the classification of the southern 2008). Limited reports suggest that the mining, and oil exploration (BLI 2010a). helmeted curassow. southern helmeted curassow is rare here . According to The southern helmeted curassow (Mee et al. 2002; MacLeod in litt. 2004 IUCN’s Species Survival Commission inhabits dense, humid, lower montane as cited in BLI 2008; Maccormack in litt. (SSC) Cracid Specialist Group, the forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Gastan˜ aga southern helmeted curassow is critically 450 to 1,200 meters (m) (1,476 to 3,937 and Hennessey 2005 as cited in BLI endangered and should be given feet) (Cordier 1971; Herzog and Kessler 2009a). immediate conservation attention 1998). It prefers eating nuts of the The total population of southern (Brooks and Strahl 2000). The southern almendrillo tree (Byrsonima helmeted curassow is estimated to be helmeted curassow was previously wadsworthii (Cordier 1971)), but also between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals classified as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ on the IUCN consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft (BLI 2010a). The population in Peru is Red List. In 2005, it was uplisted to its plants, larvae, and insects (BLI 2008). estimated to have fewer than 400 current status as ‘‘Endangered’’ (BLI Clutch size of the southern helmeted individuals (Gastan˜ aga in litt. 2007, as 2009a). It is not listed in any appendices curassow is probably two, as in other cited in BLI 2010a). The estimated of the Convention on International . However, the only nest found decline in the overall population over Trade in Endangered Species of Wild contained only one egg (Banks 1998; 10 years has been 50 to 79 percent (BLI Fauna and Flora (CITES; Cox et al. 1997; Renjifo and Renjifo 2009b). www.cites.org), which regulates 1997 as cited in BLI 2010a). The Southern helmeted curassow international trade in and southern helmeted curassow typically populations are estimated to be plants of conservation concern. occurs at densities up to 20 individuals declining very rapidly due to The southern helmeted curassow is per square kilometer (km2) (Macleod uncontrolled hunting and habitat dependent upon pristine habitat. In 2007 as cited in BLI 2008). destruction. This species has a small Bolivia, large parts of southern helmeted In Amboro´ National Park (Yungas range and is known only from a few curassow habitat are ostensibly Inferiores de Amboro´), the southern locations, which continue to be subject protected by inclusion in the Amboro helmeted curassow was regularly to habitat loss and hunting pressure. and Carrasco National Parks and in the sighted on the upper Saguayo river Hunting was indicated to be the biggest Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and (Saguayo Rı´o; Wege and Long 1995). threat to southern helmeted curassow in National Park. However, pressures on Subsequently, it has been observed in all parts of its range (Gastan˜ aga 2006). the species’ populations continue (BLI the adjacent Amboro´ and Carrasco The species was often hunted for meat 2010a). In recent years, extensive field National Parks (Herzog and Kessler due to its large size and for its unique surveys of southern helmeted curassow 1998; Brooks 2006). It was also found in blue casque, or horn, which the local habitat have resulted in little success in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and people used to make cigarette lighters locating the species (Mee et al. 2002; National Park (TIPNIS), and along the (Cordier 1971; Collar et al. 1992). In the Hennessey 2004a; MacLeod in litt. 2004 western edge of the Cordillera Amboro´ region of Bolivia, the bird’s as cited in BLI 2009a; Maccormack in Mosetenes (Mosetenes Mountains), head was purportedly used in folk litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2010a; Cochabamba, Bolivia. A recent survey dances (Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar MacLeod in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI located a few southern helmeted 1992). It is unclear whether this practice 2010a). The Armonia Association has across the northern boundary still occurs. been attempting to estimate southern of Carrasco National Park (Yungas The Rı´o Leche area in Peru helmeted curassow population numbers Inferiores de Carrasco), where it was experienced a 100 percent population to identify its most important historically found (MacLeod 2007 as decline in less than 5 years likely due populations, and is evaluating human cited in BLI 2009a). Surveys conducted to hunting or other pressures (Macleod impact on the species’ natural habitat. between 2004 and 2005 found no et al. 2009, p. 16). In Carrasco National In addition, Armonia is carrying out an evidence of the species anywhere north Park, the species had been abundant environmental awareness project to or east of Amboro, Carrasco, and during surveys in 2001 but in 2004 there inform local people about the threats to Isiboro-Secure National Parks in central were no visual or auditory sightings southern helmeted curassow Bolivia (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). It (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). This may (Asociacio´n Armonı´a 2010) and is was found only in five locations during be due to illegal human encroachment. conducting training workshops with the survey period. Extensive surveys Similar human pressures are ongoing park guards to help improve chances for over the last several years have failed to throughout the species’ range. The its survival. locate the species in Madidi National observed decline infers that a 50-percent In our 2009 ANOR, the southern Park, La Paz, on the eastern edge of the population loss likely occurred between helmeted curassow received an LPN of Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba, 1995 and 2005. Unless threats are 8. After reevaluating the threats to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25154 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

species, we have determined that a is still uncommon to fairly common, C. Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, change in the listing priority number with a few notable populations, Previously Known as P. mantelli), LPN representing the magnitude of threats to including nearly 400 birds at Laguna de = 8 the species is warranted. The southern Tota, approximately 50 bird territories The takahe, a flightless rail endemic helmeted curassow does not represent a at Laguna de la Herrera, approximately to New Zealand, is the world’s largest monotypic genus. It faces threats that 100 birds at Parque La Florida, and extant (living) member of the rail family are high in magnitude based on its populations at La Conejera marsh and (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The species, small, limited range; and these few Laguna de Fuquene (BLI 2010b). Porphyrio mantelli, was split into P. locations where it is believed to exist mantelli (extinct) and P. hochstetteri continue to be subject to habitat Its suitable habitat has become widely fragmented (BLI 2010b). Wetland (extant) (Trewick 1996). BLI (2000) destruction and loss from agricultural incorrectly assigned the name P. development, road building, and drainage, pollution, and siltation on the Ubate´-Bogota´ plateau have resulted in mantelli to the extant form, while the hunting. Although the population is name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly major habitat loss and few suitably estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999 assigned to the extinct form. Fossils vegetated marshes remain. All major individuals, the population trend is indicate that this species was once believed to be rapidly declining. In the savanna wetlands are threatened, widespread throughout New Zealand’s past ten years, the species’ population is predominately due to draining, but also North and South Islands. The takahe believed to have declined between 50 due to agricultural runoff, erosion, was thought to be extinct by the 1930s and 79 percent (BLI 2009b). The best dyking, eutrophication caused by until its rediscovery in 1948 in the scientific information available suggests untreated sewage effluent, insecticides, Murchison Mountains, Fiordland (South that these significant declines will tourism, hunting, burning, reed Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New continue in the future. The threats to the harvesting, fluctuating water levels, and Zealand Department of Conservation species are occurring now and are increasing water demand. Additionally, (NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its ongoing, and are therefore imminent. road construction may result in rediscovery, a takahe Special Area of Because the species is experiencing colonization and human interference, 500 km2 (193 mi2) was set aside in the such a significant population decline, including introduction of exotic species Murchison Mountains of Fiordland we have changed the LPN from an 8 to in previously stable wetland National Park for the conservation of the a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude. environments (Cortes in litt. 2007 as takahe (Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2009c). cited in BLI 2010b). Today, the species is present in the B. Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus), Conservation Status. The Bogota rail Murchison and Stuart Mountains and LPN = 2 is listed as ‘‘Endangered’’ by IUCN was introduced to five island reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri, Mantangi, Maud) The Bogota rail is found in the East primarily because its range is very small and one privately owned island (Collar Andes of Colombia on the Ubate´-Bogota´ and is contracting due to widespread et al. 1994; NZDOC 2009d, p. 10). The Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyaca´. It habitat loss and degradation. It is not occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500– population in the Murchison Mountains listed in any appendices of CITES. Some is important because it is the only 4,000 m (occasionally as low as 2,100 Bogota rails occur in protected areas m) (6,890 ft) in savanna and pa´ramo mainland population and has the such as Chingaza National Park and marshes (BLI 2010b). Bogota rail inhabit potential for sustaining a large, viable wetland habitats with vegetation-rich Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, population (NZDOC 1997). shallows that are surrounded by tall, most savanna wetlands are virtually When rediscovered in 1948, it was dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles in litt. unprotected (BLI 2009). estimated that the takahe population 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). It inhabits In our 2009 ANOR, the Bogota rail was about 260 pairs (del Hoyo 1996; the water’s edge, in flooded pasture and received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating Heather and Robertson 1997). By the along small overgrown dykes and ponds the threats to this species, we have 1970s, takahe populations had declined (Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 2010b; determined that a change in the listing dramatically, and it appeared that the Fjeldsa˚ 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; priority number for the species is species was at risk of extinction. In Fjeldsa˚ and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BLI appropriate. The Bogota rail does not 1981, the population reached a low at 2010b; Salaman in litt. 1999 as cited in represent a monotypic genus. It faces an estimated 120 birds. Since then, the population has fluctuated between 100 BLI 2010b). Nests have been recorded threats that are high in magnitude due and 160 birds (Crouchley 1994; Maxwell adjoining shallow water in beds of to the pressures on the population’s 2001). At first, translocated populations Scirpus (bulrush or sedge) and Typha habitat. Its range is very small and is (cat tail) species. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as increased only slowly, possibly in part rapidly contracting because of cited in BLI 2010b). The Bogota rail is due to young pair-bonds and the quality omnivorous, consuming a diet that widespread habitat loss and degradation of the founding population (Bunin et al. includes aquatic invertebrates, insect (agricultural encroachment, erosion, 1997). In recent years, the total takahe larvae, worms, mollusks, dead fish, dyking, and eutrophication). The population has experienced significant frogs, tadpoles, and plant material (BLI population is believed to be between growth; in 2004, there was a 13.6 2010b; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the percent increase in the number of adult 2010b). population trend is believed to be birds, with the number of breeding pairs The current population is estimated to rapidly declining. Based on new up 7.9 percent (BLI 2005). As of June range between 1,000 and 2,499 information regarding threats to this 2008, the estimated population of individuals, although numbers are species, we find that the threats to the takahe was approximately 93 in the expected to decline over the next 10 species are occurring now, are ongoing, Core Census Area; 91 on islands and at years by 10 to 19 percent (BLI 2009). and are therefore imminent. Thus, we Maungatautari (the mainland Although the Bogota rail has been have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 sanctuary); 36 at the Burwood Breeding observed in at least 21 locations in to reflect imminent threats of high Center; and 5 birds on public display at Cundinamarca, the Bogota rail magnitude. Wildlife Centers. The Core Census Area population is thought to be declining. It consists of suitable habitat east of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25155

Esk Burn and Woodrow Burn streams in size. To increase the population, (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39–40). There are the Murchison Mountains (NZDOC NZDOC has been removing some eggs no known diseases that pose threats to 2009d, pp. 9–10). from the wild, captive rearing them, and the takahe. C. conspicua is less common This species experienced a loss of reintroducing them back into the wild in the forest understory in the takahe fitness as a result of recent inbreeding. (NZDOC 2009, p. 26). Special Area than it previously was, in Relative to other species, it has low Originally, the species occurred part due to overgrazing by deer. NZDOC genetic diversity (Grueber et al. 2010, throughout forest and grass ecosystems. is conducting research and trying to pp. 7–9). Research reported in 2010 that Now takahe occupy alpine grasslands reintroduce and increase the prevalence the true level of inbreeding may be (BLI 2010c). They feed on tussock of this plant species in the Murchison underestimated for this species (Grueber grasses during much of the year; snow Mountains Reserve (NZDOC 2009d, pp. et al. 2010, pp. 7–9). Failure to address tussocks (Chionochloa pallens, 39–40). The island populations now these concerns could result in reduced Chionochloa conspicua, Chionochloa primarily consume introduced grasses fitness potential and much higher flavescens, and Chionochloa (BLI 2010c). Some researchers have susceptibility to biotic and abiotic crassiuscula) are their preferred food theorized that consumption of these disturbances in the short term, and an (Mills and Mark 1977, p. 951; Mills et nonnative species may contribute to inability to adapt to environmental al., 1980, Crouchley 1994, NZDOC 2009, inadequate nutrition and subsequently change in the long term. There is pp. 39–40). These grasses are high in nest failure (Jamieson 2003, p. 708); growing evidence that inbreeding can nutritional content. C. flavescens is high however this has not been confirmed. negatively affect small, isolated in phosphorus; C. pallens is high in Several factors have led to the decline populations. Jamieson et al. (2006) starch; and C. crassiuscula is high in in the species’ population. The main suggested that limiting the potential sulphur, starch, and sodium (Mills and cause of the species’ historical decline effects of inbreeding and loss of genetic Mark 1977, pp. 951, 953). takahe also was competition for tussock grasses by variation should be integral to any forage on Carex coriacea, which is also grazing red deer (Cervus elaphus), management plan for a small, isolated, high in nutrients. During some seasons, which were introduced after the 1940s inbred island species such as the takahe. takahe prefer plants with high (Mills and Mark 1977). The red deer As of 2009, the current total phosphorus content; for example, overgrazed the takahe’s habitat, population estimate is 227 adults during spring and autumn, they prefer eliminating nutritious plants and (NZDOC 2009d, p. 11; NZDOC 2009e). C. crassiuscula. From October to preventing some grasses from seeding Birds under 1 year of age were not December, when they lay eggs, they (del Hoyo et al. 1996; NZDOC 2009, p. counted in these totals. As of 2007, the prefer mountain daisy (Celmisia petriei), 39). The NZDOC has controlled red deer mainland population, as well as island which has high levels of calcium and through an intensive hunting program reserves, were thought to be at carrying sugar (Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 952– in the Murchison Mountains since the capacity (Greaves 2007, p. 17), (NZDOC 953). By June, the snow cover usually 1960s. Predation by introduced stoats 2009, p. 29), however a Recovery Plan prevents feeding above tree line, and (Mustela erminea) is still a threat to the is underway to address conservation birds move into forested valleys in the species (Crouchley 1994; Bunin and priorities and needs for this species winter and feed mainly on the rhizome Jamieson 1995; Bunin and Jamieson (NZDOC 2009d, entire). Overall, of a fern (Hypolepis millefolium) which 1996; NZDOC 2009, pp. 34–36). The population numbers are slowly has a high carbohydrate content (Mills NZDOC is running a trial stoat control increasing due to intensive management et al. 1980, p. 136). program in a portion of the takahe of the island reserve populations, but Research by Mills et al. (1980) Special Area to measure the effect on fluctuations in the remnant mainland suggested that takahe require the high- takahe survival and productivity. Initial population continue to occur (NZDOC carbohydrate concentrations in the assessment indicates that the control 2009d; BLI 2010c). rhizomes of the fern to meet the program has had a positive influence Takahe territories historically have metabolic requirement of (NZDOC 2009, pp. 35–36). been large; they have been known to be thermoregulation in the mid-winter Other potential threats include a between several hectares (ha) to more subfreezing temperatures. Chionochloa competitor, the introduced brush-tailed than 100 ha (247 acres (ac)) depending conspicua (bush snow-grass) is the possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and the on the availability of their preferred takahe’s preferred winter food in the predator, the threatened food sources (Lee and Jamieson 2001, p. Murchison Mountains, although new (Gallirallus australis), a flightless 57). Takahe defend them aggressively information indicates that it is currently woodhen endemic to New Zealand (BLI against other takahe, which means that uncommon due to overgrazing by deer 2010c). Severe weather may also be a they will not form dense colonies even (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39–40). C. limiting factor to this species (Bunin in very good habitat. They are long-lived conspicua has higher levels of and Jamieson 1995; BLI 2010c). Weather birds, probably living between 14 and phosphorus, potassium and magnesium patterns in the Murchison Mountains 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997) (Mills et al. 1980, p. 136) than vary from year to year. High chick and and have a low reproductive rate, with Hypolepis spp., which is currently the adult mortality may occur during clutches consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. They primary plant in the winter takahe diet. extraordinarily severe winters, and poor form life-long pair bonds and generally Although Hypolepis rhizomes may breeding may result from severe stormy occupy the same territory throughout not be sufficient for a balanced winter weather during spring breeding season life (Reid 1967). Generally pairs in the diet, they are a valuable source of (Crouchley 1994). Research has wild only rear one chick. Only a few starch, nitrogen and phosphorus (Mills confirmed that severity of winter pairs manage to consistently rear more et al. 1980, p. 136). Because foraging on conditions adversely affects than one chick each year. Although Hypolepis is a learned behavior, it is survivorship of takahe in the wild, under normal conditions this is being taught at the Burwood Captive particularly of young birds (Maxwell generally sufficient to maintain the Rearing Center to chicks by adult birds and Jamieson 1997). population, populations recover slowly (NZDOC 2009d, p. 27). Lead exposure may affect this species from catastrophic events (Crouchley Rareness of C. conspicua may be a on some of the islands (Youl 2009, pp. 1994); and this is a concern because this contributing factor to the lack of 79–83). Lead levels in the island species has such a small population viability of the takahe population populations were found to be higher

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

than those on the mainland. Older given impending habitat changes on the setting, distinct climate, and physical buildings on some of the island contain islands, it is unclear whether these makeup have led to a high degree of lead paint. One or more takahe breeding island populations will continue to be endemism (Aikman et al. 2001). The pairs were located near buildings viable in the future without an active southern part of the Chatham containing lead-based paint. A family management plan (Baber and Craig oystercatcher range is dominated by group on one island that was close to a 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). Maxwell rocky habitats with extensive rocky building containing lead paint was and Jamieson (1997) studied survival platforms. The northern part of the found to have significantly higher lead and recruitment of captive-reared and range is a mix of sandy beach and rock levels than a family group located away wild-reared takahe on Fiordland. They platforms (Aikman et al. 2001). from buildings (Youl 2009, p. 80). Lead concluded that captive rearing of takahe Pairs of Chatham has been found to affect the learning for release into the wild increases occupy their territory all year, while capacity of avian species (Youl 2009, recruitment of juveniles into the juveniles and subadults form small pp. 11–13). This exposure to lead may population. flocks or occur alone on vacant sections lead to decreased fitness of takahe. In our 2009 ANOR, the takahe of the coast. Their scrape nests (shallow- Conservation Status. The takahe is received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating rimmed depressions in soil or listed as ‘‘Endangered’’ on the IUCN Red the threats to the takahe, we have vegetation) are usually on sandy List because it has an extremely small determined that no change in the beaches just above spring-tide and storm population (BLI 2010c). It is not listed classification of the magnitude and surge level or among rocks above the in any appendices of CITES. New imminence of threats to the species is shoreline and are often under the cover Zealand considers the takahe to be an warranted at this time. The takahe does of small bushes or rock overhangs endangered species and it is classified not represent a monotypic genus. The (Heather and Robertson 1997). as ‘‘Nationally Critical’’ under the New current population is small (between In the early 1970s, the Chatham Zealand Threat Classification System. 150–220 individuals), and the species’ oystercatcher population was The NZDOC, through its 2007–2012 distribution is extremely limited. It approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 1996). takahe Recovery Plan, is managing the faces threats that are moderate in The population increased by 30 percent populations of the species through magnitude (extremely small population, overall between 1987 and 1999, except various conservation efforts such as limited suitable habitat, inbreeding trends varied in different areas of the captive breeding, population depression, and to some extent Chatham Islands (Moore et al. 2001). management, eradication of predators, predation) because the NZDOC has Surveys taken over a 6-year period and management of grasslands. taken measures to aid the recovery of recorded an increase in Chatham Since 1983, the NZDOC has been the species (NZDOC 2009d, 58 pp.; oystercatchers from approximately 100 involved in managing a captive- NZDOC 2009e, 3 pp.) and is active in individuals in 1998 to 320 individuals breeding and release program to boost the species conservation and recovery. (including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 takahe recovery (NZDOC 2009, p. 29). The NZDOC has implemented a (Moore 2005a; Moore 2009b, p. 32). Excess eggs from wild nests are successful deer control program, Although the overall population has managed to produce birds suitable for implemented a captive-breeding and significantly increased over the last 20 releasing back into the wild population release program to augment the years, the population on South East in the Murchison Mountains. Some of mainland population, and established Island (Rangatira), an island free of these captive-reared birds were used to four offshore island reserves. However, mammalian predators, has gradually establish five predator-free, offshore we find that the threats are on-going and declined since the 1970s. The reason for island reserves. These captive-breeding therefore, imminent. Predation by the decline is unknown (Schmechel and efforts have increased the rate of introduced species and reduced O’Connor 1999) but is likely due to large survival of chicks reaching one year of survivorship resulting from severe waves during sea storms which destroy age from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997; winters, combined with the takahe’s the nests (Moore 2009a, p. 9). NZDOC 2009d). Takahe that have been small population size and naturally low Predation, nest disturbance, invasive translocated to the islands have higher reproductive rate are threats to this plants, and spring tides and storm rates of egg infertility and low hatching species that are moderate in magnitude. surges are factors threatening the success when they breed (Jamieson & Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect Chatham oystercatcher population Ryan 2000). Researchers postulated that imminent threats of moderate (NZDOC 2001, Moore 2005; Moore the difference in vegetation between the magnitude. 2009a, pp. 8–9). Feral cats (Felis catus) native mainland grassland tussocks and have become established on two of the the grasses found on the islands might D. Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus Chatham Islands after being introduced affect reproductive success. After testing chathamensis), LPN = 8 as pets. Severe reduction in Chatham nutrients from available food sources, it The Chatham oystercatcher is the oystercatcher numbers is attributed in remains unclear whether the islands most rare oystercatcher species in the part to heavy cat predation. Video contain adequate nutrients in the world (NZDOC 2001). It is endemic to cameras placed to observe nests available food sources (James et al. the Chatham Island group (Marchant indicated that feral cats are a major nest 2004, pp. 342–344). Research on takahe and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and predator. After three summers of video that are established on Tiritiri Matangi Paterson 2005), which lies 860 km (534 recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded Island estimated that the island can mi) east of mainland New Zealand. The were predated by cats. When a cat was currently support up to 8 breeding pairs, Chatham Island group consists of two present eggs usually lasted only 1 or 2 but suggested that the ability of the large, inhabited islands (Chatham and days. island to support takahe is likely to Pitt) and numerous smaller islands. Two Another predator, the weka decrease as the grass and shrub of the smaller islands (Rangatira and (Gallirallus australis), an endemic New ecosystem reverts to forest. The Mangere) are nature reserves, which Zealand rail was introduced to the researchers concluded that, although the provide vitally needed habitat for the Chatham Islands in the early 1900s. four island populations fulfilled their Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham Weka was observed preying upon this role as insurance against extinction on Island group has a biota quite different species three times through camera the mainland at the time of the study, from the mainland. The remote marine trapping between 1999 and 2001 (Moore

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25157

2009a, p. 8). It is not considered as It is not listed in any appendices of we consider the orange-fronted parakeet severe a threat to the Chatham CITES. to be a valid species. oystercatcher as feral cats because weka The birds of the Chatham Island At one time, the orange-fronted only prey on eggs when adult group are protected. The NZDOC parakeet was scattered throughout most oystercatchers are not present. focused conservation efforts in the early of New Zealand (Harrison 1970). This Other potential predators include the 1990s on predator trapping and fencing species has been described as never Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), ship rat to limit domestic stock access to nesting being common (Mills and Williams (R. rattus), Australian brush-tailed areas. In 2001, the NZDOC published 1979). During the 19th century, the possum (Trichsurus vulpeculs), and the Chatham Island Oystercatcher species’ distribution included South hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). Recovery Plan 2001–2011 (NZDOC Island, Stewart Island, and a few other However, these predators are not 2001, 24 pp.), which outlines actions offshore islands of New Zealand considered serious threats because of such as translocation of nests away from (NZDOC 2009a). Currently, there are the large size of the oystercatcher eggs. the high tide mark and nest three known remaining populations. Native predators include the red-billed manipulation to further the The South Island populations are gull (Larus scopulinus), and southern conservation of this species. These managed and located within a 30-km black-backed gull (L. dominicanus) actions may have helped to increase (18.6-mi) radius in beech (Nothofagus (Moore 2005b). Nest destruction and hatching success (NZDOC 2008b). spp.) forests of upland valleys (Hawdon disturbance is caused by people fishing, Artificial incubation has been attempted and Poulter valleys). These valleys are walking, or driving on or near nests. but has not increased productivity. within Arthur’s Pass National Park and When a nesting area is disturbed, adult Additionally, livestock have been the Hurunui South Branch in Lake Chatham oystercatchers often abandon fenced and signs erected to reduce Sumner Forest Park in Canterbury, their eggs for up to an hour or more, human and dog disturbance. Marram South Island (NZDOC 2009a). Two leaving the eggs vulnerable to grass control has been successful in populations of this species have also opportunistic predators. Eggs are also some areas. Intensive predator control been established on Chalky and Maud trampled by livestock (Moore 2005a). In combined with nest manipulation has Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007; Ortiz- one case, a sheep was observed to lie on resulted in a high number of fledglings Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). a nest (Moore 2009b, p. 21). (BLI 2009). Between 2007 and 2009, 62 birds were introduced to Maud Island. Another obstacle to Chatham In our 2009 ANOR, the Chatham This species inhabits southern beech oystercatcher populations is marram oystercatcher received an LPN of 8. forests, with a preference for locales grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced After reevaluating the threats to this bordering stands of N. solandri to New Zealand from Europe to protect species, we have determined that no (mountain beech) (del Hoyo 1997; farmland from sand encroachment. change in the classification of the Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). The Marram grass has spread to the Chatham magnitude and imminence of threats to species is reliant on old mature beech Islands where it binds beach sands the species is warranted at this time. trees with natural cavities or hollows for forming tall dunes with steep fronts. In The Chatham oystercatcher does not nesting. Breeding is linked with the many marram-infested areas, the strip represent a monotypic genus. The irregular seed production by between the high tide mark and the fore current population estimate is very Nothofagus; in mast years (years dunes narrows as the marram advances small—between 50 and 300 yielding a high abundance of seeds), seaward. Consequently, the Chatham individuals—and the species only parakeet numbers can increase oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to occurs in a small area. Although it faces substantially. On South Island, shore where nests are vulnerable to threats that are moderate in magnitude Nothofagus species were observed to be tides and storm surges. The dense (predation, low population numbers, a major component of its diet (Kearvall marram grass is unsuitable for nesting and potential loss due to storm surges); et al. 2002, pp. 140–145). On Maud (Moore and Davis 2005). In a study done the NZDOC has taken measures to aid Island, a primary component of its diet by Moore and Williams (2005), the the recovery of the species that appear was Melicytus ramiflorus (mahoe) authors found that, along the narrow to be effective (the species’ population (Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. shoreline, many eggs were washed away is increasing), However, we find that the 385). In addition to eating seeds, the and the adults would not successfully threats are still on-going and therefore, orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits, breed without human intervention. imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to leaves, flowers, buds, and small Oystercatcher eggs could easily be reflect imminent threats of moderate invertebrates (BLI 2009). moved away from the shoreline by magnitude. The orange-fronted parakeet has an fieldworkers and placed in hand-dug extremely small, fragmented population scrapes surrounded by tidal debris and E. Orange-Fronted Parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi), LPN = 8 and limited range, and its population kelp. After three summers of video has declined during the past 10 years recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded The orange-fronted parakeet, also (BLI 2010e). Currently, BLI estimates its were predated by cats, but of the known as Malherbe’s parakeet is population in the wild to be between 50 remaining six nest failures, weka were endemic to New Zealand. It was treated and 249 individuals (BLI 2010e, p. 1). responsible for three; red-billed gull, as an individual species until it was NZDOC’s population estimate is one; sheep-trampling, one; and sea proposed to be a color morph of the between 100 to 200 individuals in the wash, one (Moore 2005b). yellow-crowned parakeet, C. auriceps, wild and they also believe the Conservation Status. Chatham in 1974 (Holyoak 1974). Further population is declining (NZDOC 2009a). oystercatcher is listed as critically taxonomic analysis suggested that it There are several reasons for the endangered by the NZDOC (2010d), should once again be considered a species’ continuing decline; one of the making it a high priority for distinct species (Kearvell et al. 2003). most prominent risks to the species is conservation management (NZDOC ITIS recognizes Cyanoramphus believed to be predation by introduced 2007). It is classified as ‘‘Endangered’’ on malherbi as a full species (ITIS 2010, species, such as stoats (Mustela the IUCN Red List because it has an accessed July 16, 2010). Absent peer- erminea) and rats (Rattus spp.) (BLI extremely small population (BLI 2010d). reviewed information to the contrary, 2009). Large numbers of stoats and rats

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

in beech forests cause large losses of look for evidence of other populations. 2010e) but it is being closely monitored parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Stoats and For example, the surveys successfully and may slowly be increasing (van Hal rats are excellent hunters on the ground located another orange-fronted parakeet in litt, in BLI 2010e). The species faces and in trees. They are able to exploit population in May 2003 (NZDOC threats that are moderate in magnitude parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes, 2009d). A new population was (competition for food and suitable which impacts primarily females, established in 2006 on the predator-free nesting habitat within highly altered chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2009c). Chalky Island. Eggs were removed from habitat, predation, and habitat In 2007, habitat loss and degradation nests in the wild, and foster parakeet degradation) because the NZDOC has were considered threats to the orange- parents incubated the eggs and cared for taken measures to aid the recovery of fronted parakeet (BLI 2007b). Large the hatchlings until they fledged and the species. However, because the areas of native forest have been felled or were transferred to the island. threats are on-going, we find that the burnt, decreasing the habitat available Monitoring later in the year (2006) threats to this species are still imminent. for parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). indicated that the birds had successfully Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect Silviculture of beech forests aims to nested and reared chicks. Additional imminent threats of moderate harvest trees at an age when few will birds will be added to the Chalky Island magnitude. become mature enough to develop population in an effort to increase the F. Uvea Parakeet (Eunymphicus suitable cavities for orange-fronted genetic diversity of the population uvaeensis), LPN = 2 parakeets (Kearvell 2002). The habitat is (NZDOC 2009d). A second self- also degraded by brush-tailed possum sustaining population has been The Uvea parakeet, previously known (Trichosurus vulpecula), cattle, and established on Maud Island (NZDOC as Eunymphicus cornutus, is currently deer, which browse on plants, changing 2008). known as both E. uvaeensis and E. c. the forest structure (NZDOC 2009c). Because the NZDOC determined that cornutus (Boon et al. 2008, p 251; BLI This is problematic for the orange- the species’ largest threat is predation, 2010f). BLI recognizes the Uvea parakeet fronted parakeet, which utilizes the they initiated a program to remove as E. uvaeensis. ITIS considers the Uvea ground and low-growing shrubs while predators in some parts of the species’ parakeet to be a subspecies, feeding (Kearvell et al. 2002). range. ‘‘Operation ARK’’ is their Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis (ITIS Other risks to this species’ viability initiative to respond to predator 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). Research exist. Some of these other potential problems in beech forests to prevent presented in 2008 indicates that the threats include increased competition species’ extinctions, including orange- Uvea parakeet, based on genetic, between the orange-fronted parakeet fronted parakeets. Predators are ecological, behavioral, and and the yellow-crowned parakeet for methodically controlled with traps, biogeographical evidence, is so nest sites and food in a habitat toxins in bait stations, bait bags, and markedly distinct that it warrants status substantially modified by humans; aerial spraying, when necessary as its own species (Boon 2008 et al., p. competition with introduced finch (NZDOC 2009d). The NZDOC also 259). Thus, in this ANOR, based on the species; and competition with implemented a captive-breeding best scientific and commercial data introduced wasps (Vespula vulgaris and program for the orange-fronted parakeet. available, we consider the Uvea V. germanica) which compete with Using captive-bred birds from the parakeet to be the species E. uvaeensis. parakeets for invertebrates as a dietary program, NZDOC established two self- We are evaluating the threats to the source (Kearvell et al. 2002). sustaining populations of the orange- Uvea parakeet at the taxonomic level of Hybridization is also a concern. The fronted parakeet on predator-free a species. orange-fronted parakeet may hybridize islands. The NZDOC monitors wild nest The Uvea parakeet is found only on with other species. Snyder et al. sites and is actively managing the the small island of Uvea (also known as reported that hybridization with yellow- conservation of the species, as both Ouve´a Island and Wallis Island) in crowned parakeets (C. auriceps) had evidenced by the 2003 discovery of a the Loyalty Archipelago, New Caledonia been observed at Lake Sumner (2000). In new population. Despite these controls, (a territory of France) in the South some cases, we are not able to predation by introduced species is still Pacific Ocean. The island is distinguish between hybridized birds a threat because predators have not been approximately 1,500 km (932 mi) east of and full species due to similarities in eradicated from this species’ range. Australia. Uvea Island is 110 km2 (42 color (Chan 2006, p. 5). In our 2009 ANOR, the orange-fronted mi2) in size (Juniper and Parr 1998). The Conservation Status. The NZDOC parakeet received an LPN of 8. After Uvea parakeet is found primarily in old- (2009b) considers the orange-fronted reevaluating the threats to the orange- growth forests, specifically those parakeet, or ka¨ka¨riki, to be the rarest fronted parakeet, we have determined dominated by the pine tree Agathis parakeet in New Zealand. Because it is that no change in the classification of australis (del Hoyo et al. 1997). The classified as ‘‘Nationally Critical’’ with a the magnitude of threats to the species island is predominantly limestone and high risk of extinction, the NZDOC has is warranted because NZDOC is actively lacks deep soil layers (Boon et al. 2008, been working intensively on the species managing the species. The orange- p. 257). Most birds occur in about 20 to ensure its survival. The species is fronted parakeet does not represent a km2 (7.7 mi2) of forest in the north, listed as ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ on the monotypic genus. Although the species’ although some individuals are found in IUCN Red List, ‘‘because it underwent a available suitable nesting habitat in strips of forest on the northwest isthmus population crash following rat invasions beech forests is extremely restricted, and in the southern part of the island, between 1990–2000.’’ It is listed in translocations have taken place and with a total area of potential habitat of Appendix II of CITES as part of a seem to be successful (BLI 2010e, p. 2). approximately 66 km2 (25.5 mi2) (BLI general listing for all parrots (CITES Although the current population is 2010f). 2010). small and declining (between 50 and Uvea parakeets feed on fruit, the The NZDOC closely monitors all 249 individuals), and the species’ berries of vines, and the flowers and known populations of the orange- distribution is extremely limited, threats seeds of native trees and shrubs (del fronted parakeet. Nest searches are are being mitigated. It has a very small Hoyo et al. 1997; Robinet and Salas conducted, nest holes are inspected, and and severely fragmented population that 2003, p. 71). They also feed on a few surveys are carried out in other areas to has declined over the past 10 years (BLI types of crops in cultivated land

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25159

adjacent to their habitat. The greatest It is unknown if capture of young and habitat monitoring (Robinet in litt. number of birds occurs close to gardens Uvea parakeets for the pet trade is still 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). A with papayas (BLI 2010f). A significant occurring, and if so, to what extent. second recovery plan was initiated in characteristic is that Uvea parakeet nest Capture of juvenile parakeets involves 2003. The species increased in in cavities of native trees; the absence of cutting open nesting cavities to extract popularity and is celebrated as an island suitable trees and nesting cavities may nestlings, which renders the holes emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; Primot be a limiting factor (Robinet and Salas unsuitable for future nesting. Robinet et in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2009). 2003, p. 71). Their clutch size is al. (1996) suggested that the impact of Conservation actions, including in situ generally 2 to 3 eggs; and they are capture of juveniles on the viability of management (habitat protection and known to have another clutch if the first populations is not obvious in long-lived restoration), recovery efforts (providing set of eggs is destroyed (termed ‘‘double- species that are capable of re-nesting, nest boxes and food), and public clutch’’) (BLI 2010f). such as Uvea parakeet. education on the protection of Uvea One survey of Uvea parakeet in the In 1999, a study of the reproductive parakeet and its habitat have occurred early 1990s estimated that the biology of Uvea parakeet found that the (Robinet et al. 1996), however the population was between 70 and 90 main cause of chick death was success of current conservation efforts is individuals (Hahn 1993). However, starvation of the third chick within the unknown. Increased awareness of the another survey in 1993 (Robinet et al. first week after hatching (Robinet and plight of the Uvea parakeet and 1996) yielded an estimate of between Salas). However, the reason underlying improvements in law enforcement 270 and 617 individuals. In 1999, it was the starvation is unknown. capability are helping to address illegal believed that 742 individuals lived in Norway rats are prolific invaders of trade of the species. northern Uvea, and 82 in the south islands and can rapidly establish large Preventive measures have been taken populations (Russell 2007). (Primot 1999 as cited in BLI 2010f). Six at the port and airport to prevent Additionally, impacts of the rat appear surveys conducted between 1993 and introduction of invasive rats and should to be more severe on smaller islands 2007 indicated a steady increase in continue to be reinforced, but there is (Martin et al. 2000). In one study, it was population numbers in both areas concern that these rats may be determined that the low rate of (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI introduced in the future (BLI 2010, p. 3). predation on nest sites of Uvea parakeet 2010f). The current population estimate As of 2007, the island remained rat-free was related to the absence of the ship rat is 750 individuals (BLI 2010f). (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI and Norway rat. However, these rat 2010). Introductions of Uvea parakeets Various threats to this species exist. species are present on the other nearby to the adjacent island of Lifou (to The Uvea parakeet is primarily Loyalty Islands and on Grande Terre establish a second population) in 1925 threatened by lack of nesting sites due (Robinet and Salas 1996); precautions and 1963 failed (Robinet et al. 1995 as to competition from bees and historic need to be taken to ensure that rats do cited in BLI 2009), possibly because of habitat loss, and to lesser extents not reach Uvea Island. Egg predation the presence of ship rats and Norway predation and possibly capture of rates were four times higher on Lifou rats (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in juveniles for the pet trade (Robinet et al. (also known as Lifu Island) where R. Snyder et al. 2000). Robinet et al. (1998) 2003, pp. 73, 78; BLI 2010f, p. 2). rattus occurs (Robinet et al. 1998). studied the impact of rats in Uvea and Although the forest habitat of the Uvea In 30 years, approximately 30 to 50 Lifou on the Uvea parakeet and parakeet has been threatened by percent of primary forest was removed concluded that Lifou is not a suitable clearance for agriculture and logging in (Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a place for translocating Uvea parakeet the past, the primary threats now appear young and increasing human unless active habitat management is to be competition by bees for nests and population. A 2000 population estimate carried out to protect it from invasive predation by goshawk (Accipiter was 4,000 inhabitants; and the 2008 rats. As a preventative measure in case fasciatus) (Robinet et al. 2003, p. 73). population census for Wallis (Uvea) was rats reach the island, they also suggested The invasion of bees into Uvea in 1996 9,731 (www.insee.gov.fr, accessed March it would be valuable to implement low- resulted in competition with Uvea 19, 2011). The increase in human intensity rat control of the Polynesian parakeet over nesting sites. This population may lead to more rat (R. exulans) in Uvea immediately decreased known Uvea parakeet nesting destruction of forest for housing, before the parakeet breeding season. sites by 10 percent between 2000 and cultivated fields, and plantations. As of Lifou may also lack suitable nesting 2002 (Barre´ in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2000, coconut palms plantations were sites (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78). 2010f). Studies by Robinet et al. (2003) the island’s main source of income A captive-breeding program has been indicate the density of breeding Uvea (CITES 2000a). As indicated earlier, the discussed but not begun (BLI 2010f). A parakeet is positively related to the lack of nesting sites is believed to be the translocation program to restock this distribution of suitable trees. most significant limiting factor for the species into the southern portion of Consequently, the limited number of species (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78; Uvea was cancelled under the new suitable trees limits the number of BLI 2010, p. 2). recovery plan (2003) because the breeding pairs. In two other cases, Conservation Status. Various population was considered viable and Robinet et al. (2003) observed successful conservation measures are in place for was expected to increase naturally nesting after human restoration of this species. This species is listed as (Barre´ in litt. 2003; Anon 2004 as cited former nest sites that had been ‘‘Endangered’’ on the 2010 IUCN Red in BLI 2010f). Measures are being taken destroyed by illegal collectors. This List (BLI 2010f). It was uplisted from to control predators and prevent further indicates the deleterious effect of Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES in colonization by rats (BLI 2010f). Current nest-site limitation. Another limiting July 2000, due to its small population Uvea parakeet numbers appear to be factor is forest fragmentation as a result size, restricted area of distribution, loss slowly increasing, but any relaxation of of increased numbers of coconut of suitable habitat, and the illegal pet conservation efforts or introduction of plantations which acts as a barrier to trade (CITES 2000b). A recovery plan for nonnative rats or other predators could dispersal. This could possibly explain the Uvea parakeet was prepared for the lead to a rapid decline (BLI 2010f). The the lack of recolonization in southern period 1997–2002, which included Socie´te´ Cale´donienne d’Ornithologie Uvea (Robinet et al. 2003). strong local participation in population (SCO) received funding to test artificial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25160 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

nests, and BirdLife Suisse (ASPO) is The species inhabits a mosaic of However, Strem found that impacts continuing to destroy invasive bees’ seasonally inundated savanna, palm such as and nests and is placing hives in forested groves, forest islands, and humid harvesting had significantly increased areas to attract bees for removal lowlands. This macaw species is found the probability of extinction, which (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI in areas where palm-fruit food and reemphasizes the importance of 2010f). suitable nesting cavities are available addressing these threats for this species Even though populations appear to be (Herrera et al. 2007, pp. 18–24). They (2008). currently increasing, any reduction in particularly like fruit mesocarp of palm The blue-throated macaw was conservation efforts or introduction of trees (Jordan and Munn 1993; historically at risk from trapping for the invasive species (particularly cavity- Yamashita and de Barros 1997; Bueno national and international bird trade, nesting bees, the ship rat, and the 2000; Herrera 2007, p. 20) such as and some illegal trade may still be Norway rat) could lead to rapid declines Attalea phalerata (motacu palm), occurring. Between the early 1980s and (Robinet et al. 1998; BLI 2010f). Mauritia flexuosa (common names: early 1990s, an estimated 1,200 or more Although the Uvea parakeet is affected aguaje, it palm, buriti palm, moriche wild-caught individuals were exported by other threats, the absence of the ship palm), and Acrocomia aculeata from Bolivia, and many are now in rat and Norway rat on Uvea is a major (common names include: coyoli palm, captivity in the European Union and in factor contributing to its survival. gru-gru palm, macaw palm, Paraguay North America (World Parrot Trust In our 2009 ANOR, the Uvea parakeet palm, acrocome, gru-gru, noix de Coyol, 2003; BLI 2008b). Although Bolivia received an LPN of 8. We reevaluated Coyolipalme, amankayo, corojo, corozo, outlawed the export of live parrots in the threats to the Uvea parakeet and coyol, baboso, tucuma, and totai) 1984 (Brace et al. 1995), illegal trade did determined that a change in the LPN for (http://www.ars-grin.gov, http:// occur after that. In 1993, investigators the species is warranted. The Uvea www.pacsoa.org.au). reported that an Argentinean bird dealer parakeet does not represent a monotypic The blue-throated macaw also was offering illegal Bolivian dealers a genus. Its population is estimated to be depends on motacu palms for nesting ‘‘high price’’ for blue-throated macaws approximately 750 individuals, and it is (BLI 2008d). In 2005, this species was (Jordan and Munn 1993, p. 695). an island endemic in limited locations found nesting in an area dominated by Armonia Association (a nonprofit with restricted and declining habitat. the Curupau tree (Anadenanthera organization in Bolivia) monitored the The Uvea parakeet faces threats that are colubrina) (also known as Vilca, Huilco, wild birds that passed through a pet high in magnitude primarily due to nest Wilco, Cebil, or Angico) (Kyle 2005, p. market in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, from competition by bees, predation by 7). The species inhabits elevations August 2004 to July 2005. Although goshawk, and the lack of the old-growth between 200 and 300 m (656 and 984 ft) nearly 7,300 parrots were recorded in forest, on which the birds depend for (Brace et al. 1995; Yamashita and de trade, the blue-throated macaw was nesting holes. The birds only occur in Barros 1997; BLI 2008c). These macaws absent in the market during the an area about 20 km2 (7.7 mi2) of forest are seen most commonly traveling in monitoring period, which may point to with a total area of potential habitat of pairs, and have been seen in flocks of 7 the effectiveness of the ongoing approximately 66 km2 (25.5 mi2) (BLI to 9 birds, and on rare occasions may be conservation programs in Bolivia (BLI 2010f). Because the human population found in small flocks (Macleod et al. 2007), or it may be indicative of the on the island is increasing, there is 2009, p. 15). One flock of 70 birds was scarcity of blue-throated macaws in the likely an increase occurring in the found in 2007 near the Rio Mamore´ by wild. There are a number of blue- magnitude of threats to this species. the Armonia Association (Waugh 2007a, throated macaws in captivity, with over Management efforts have been put in p. 53). The blue-throated macaw nests 1,000 registered in the North American place to aid in the recovery of the between November and March in large studbook (Waugh 2007c). Because these species, however, the threats to the tree cavities where one to three young birds are not difficult to breed, the species identified here continue. Based are raised (BLI 2010g). supply of captive-bred birds has on new information, we find that the BLI (2010g) estimates the total wild increased (Waugh 2007a), helping to threats to this species are occurring population to be between 50 and 300 alleviate pressure on, but not now, ongoing, and are imminent. Thus, birds and noted the population has completely eliminating illegal collection we have changed the LPN from an 8 to some fragmentation. Surveys indicate of wild birds. However, United Nations a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high the population may have slowly Environment Programme—World magnitude. increased following dramatic declines Conservation Monitoring Center in the 1970s and 1980s, but now the (UNEP–WCMC) trade data indicates that G. Blue-Throated Macaw (Ara population is believed to be decreasing no birds of wild origin of this species glaucogularis), LPN = 2 (BLI 2010g). Biologists surveying for this have been exported from Bolivia since The blue-throated macaw is endemic species in 2004 found more birds than 1993 (UNEP–WCMC, accessed to forest islands in the seasonally in previous surveys by searching September 3, 2010). A current internet flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de specific habitat types (palm groves and search indicated that captive-bred Mojos, also known as Lanos de Moxos) forested islands) (Herrera et al. 2007). A specimens of this species sell for of central Bolivia (Jordan and Munn population viability analysis (PVA) of between $1,500 and $3,000 in the 1993; Yamashita and de Barros 1997; this species found that it had a low United States (www.hoobly.com, BLI 2010g). The taxonomic status of this probability of extinction over the next accessed September 13, 2010). One species was long disputed, primarily 50 years (Strem 2008). However, its search advertised that this is a ‘‘very rare because the species was unknown in the small population size and its low species and there are only 300 left in the wild to biologists until fairly recently. population growth rate makes this wild.’’ The high value of this species Previously, it was considered an species very vulnerable to any threat. could lead to continued illegal trade. aberrant form of the blue-and-yellow The low probability of extinction may Other threats to the blue-throated macaw (A. ararauna), but the two be reasonable given that the blue- macaw include habitat loss, botfly species are now known to occur throated macaw is a long-lived species, parasites, and competition from other sympatrically without interbreeding (del and the 50-year simulation timeframe is birds, such as other macaws, toucans, Hoyo et al. 1997). relatively short for such species. and large woodpeckers (Kyle 2005, pp.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25161

6–10; World Parrot Trust 2008; BLI boost breeding success while habitat census of this species was conducted. 2010g). An early researcher noted that restoration is under way in the new Because the helmeted woodpecker is all known sites of the blue-throated reserve. Despite these efforts, only difficult to locate except when macaw were on private cattle ranches, between 50 and 300 remain in the wild. vocalizing and it is silent most of the where local ranchers typically burn the In our 2009 ANOR, the blue-throated year, its numbers may be pasture annually (del Hoyo 1997). This macaw received an LPN of 8. After underestimated. Between 1997 and type of burning resulted in almost no reevaluating the available information, 2006, it was observed in the San Rafael recruitment of native palm trees, which we find that a change in the LPN is National Park, Paraguay, although are vital to the ecological needs of the warranted for this species. The blue- infrequently (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. blue-throated macaw (Yamashita and de throated macaw does not represent a 310). The overall conservation status of Barros 1977). The blue-throated macaw monotypic genus. It faces threats that the helmeted woodpecker’s population requires suitable nesting cavities for are high in magnitude such as limited is unclear; however, it is not common raising their young. The loss of suitable and decreasing habitat suitability anywhere it is known to exist (BLI trees has resulted in increased (nesting cavities), competition for 2010h). competition from other species for these nesting cavities from other species The greatest threat to the helmeted nesting cavities as well. In fact, recent (toucans in particular and other more woodpecker is widespread deforestation research found that some parrot species aggressive macaws), and parasitism by (Cockle 2008 as cited in BLI 2009; BLI have been using termite mounds as botflies. Wildlife managers in Bolivia 2010h). Other threats may be nesting cavities (Sanchez-Martinez and are actively protecting the species and competition from other species, Renton 2009). In Beni, many palms are searching for additional populations, particularly more competitive cut down by the local people for and the species is now protected in one woodpeckers, which may use firewood (Brace et al. 1995). Although nature reserve. Although wild birds may fragmented and ‘‘edge’’ habitat more palm groves are more than 500 years no longer be imported for commercial effectively (BLI 2010h). old, Yamashita and de Barros (1977) purposes as a result of the species’ The Atlantic Forest, habitat in which concluded that the palm population CITES listing, and it is legally protected the helmeted woodpecker resides, structure suggests long-term decline. In in Bolivia, there are only between 50 extends along the Atlantic coast of 2004–2005, of 13 potential blue-throated and 300 of these birds left in the wild, Brazil from Rio Grande do Norte in the macaw nests, researchers observed and the population is decreasing north to Rio Grande do Sul in the south, several of the threats identified above rapidly, despite conservation efforts. and inland as far as Paraguay and over the course of the survey. At the end The threats to the species identified are Misiones Province of northeastern of the survey, only two chicks had of high magnitude, ongoing, and Argentina (Morellato and Haddad 2000, fledged (Kyle 2005, p. 9). imminent. Based on the rapidly pp. 786–787; Conservation International Conservation Status. This species is declining population, we have changed 2007a, p. 1; Ho¨fling 2007, p. 1). The listed in Appendix I of CITES (CITES the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 km 2010) and is legally protected in Bolivia imminent threats of high magnitude. (373 mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. It (Juniper and Parr 1998). Although consists of tropical and subtropical H. Helmeted Woodpecker (Dryocopus conservation of this species is occurring, moist forests, tropical dry forests, and galeatus), LPN = 8 this species remains categorized as mangrove forests at mostly low-to- ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ on the 2010 The helmeted woodpecker is endemic medium elevations less than 1,000 m IUCN Red List (BLI 2010g). The Eco to the southern Atlantic forest region of (3,281 ft); however, altitude can reach as Bolivia Foundation patrols existing southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea macaw habitat by foot and motorbike, and northeastern Argentina (BLI 2010h). level. It is likely that only between 7 and the Armonia Association monitors Its estimated range spans 24,000 km2 and 10 percent of this habitat remains the Beni lowlands for additional (9,266 mi2). It is found in tall lowland intact (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. populations (Snyder et al. 2000). Atlantic and primary and mature 786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p. Additionally, the Armonia Association montane forest, and has been recorded 794). Between 92 to 95 percent of the is building an awareness campaign in degraded and small forest patches. area historically covered by tropical aimed at the cattlemen’s association to However, it is usually found near large forests within the Atlantic Forest biome ensure that the protection and forest tracts (Chebez 1995b as cited in has been converted or severely degraded conservation of these birds is at a local BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in as a result of various human activities level (e.g., protection of macaws from BLI 2010h). Helmeted woodpeckers (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; trappers and the sensible management forage primarily in the middle story of Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; Saatchi of key habitats, such as palm groves and the forest interior (Brooks et al. 1993 et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2; forest islands, on their property) cited in BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; (Snyder et al. 2000; Llampa 2007; BLI cited in BLI 2010h). Ho¨fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature 2008a). Field work on the helmeted Conservancy (TNC) 2007, p. 1; World In October 2008, Armonia Association woodpecker indicated that the species is Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007, pp. 2–41). announced it had purchased a large, less rare than once thought (BLI 2010h), In addition to the overall loss and 3,555-ha (8,785-ac) reserve for the although its range is restricted (Mattsson degradation of native habitats within purpose of establishing a protected area et al. 2008) by its habitat requirements. this biome, the remaining tracts of for the blue-throated macaw (BLI 2008d; Numerous sightings since the mid-1980s habitat are severely fragmented. The Worldland Trust 2010, accessed July 16, include one pair in the Brazilian State current rate of habitat decline is 2010). The Barba Azul Nature Reserve of Santa Catarina in 1998, where the unknown. protects savanna habitat, and 20 blue- species had not been seen since 1946 A significant portion of Atlantic throated macaws have been observed to (del Hoyo et al. 2002). Forest habitat has been, and continues nest here. The organization has also The most recent population estimate to be, lost and degraded by various been experimenting with artificial nest is between 10,000 and 19,999 ongoing human activities, including boxes; the macaws have been using individuals and decreasing (BLI 2010h); logging, establishment and expansion of these, and this promises to be a way to however it is unclear when the last plantations and livestock pastures,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25162 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

urban and industrial developments I. Okinawa Woodpecker (Dendrocopos also observed just south of the Mt. Tano- (including many new hydroelectric noguchii), LPN = 2 dake in an area of entirely secondary dams), slash-and-burn clearing, and The Okinawa woodpecker (also forest that was too immature for use by intentional and accidental ignition of known as Pryer’s woodpecker) woodpeckers to excavate nest cavities, fires (Critical Ecosystem Partnership (Dendrocopos noguchii, synonym but these may have involved birds Fund (CEPF) 2001, pp. 9–15). Even with Sapheopipo noguchii) is endemic to displaced by the clearing of mature the passage of a national forest policy Okinawa Island, Japan. ITIS recognizes forests (Brazil 1991). The Okinawa woodpecker feeds on and in light of many other legal the Okinawa woodpecker as belonging large arthropods, notably beetle larvae, protections in Brazil, the rate of habitat to the monotypic genus Sapheopipo spiders, moths, and centipedes, fruit, loss throughout the Atlantic Forest (ITIS 2010i, accessed September 7, berries, seeds, acorns, and other nuts biome has increased since the mid- 2010). Winkler et al. (2005, pp. 103– (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002; Winkler et 1990s (Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF 109) analyzed partial nucleotide al. 2005). They forage in old-growth 2001, p. 10; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270). sequences of mitochondrial genes and Native habitats at many of the remaining forests with large, often moribund trees, concluded that this woodpecker belongs sites where the helmeted woodpecker accumulated fallen trees, rotting in the genus Dendrocopos. IUCN and currently exists may be lost over the stumps, debris, and undergrowth (Short BLI both recognize this species as next several years (Rocha et al. 2005, p. 1973; Brazil 1991). This species has Dendrocopos noguchii. Japan references 263). Furthermore, the helmeted been observed to nest in holes excavated it as Sapheopipo noguchii (http:// woodpecker’s population is already in large, old growth trees such as www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/ highly fragmented, and its population Castanopsis cuspidate (Japanese reddata.html, accessed September 30, believed to be declining (BLI 2010h). chinquapin) and Machilus thunbergii 2010). For the purpose of this finding Any further loss or degradation of its (Tabu-no-ki tree) (Ogasawara and and absent peer-reviewed information to remaining suitable habitat represents a Ikehara 1977; Short 1982; del Hoyo significant threat to the species. Further the contrary, we recognize it as 2002). Both of these tree species grow to studies are needed to clarify this Dendrocopos noguchii. We welcome approximately 20 meters (66 ft) in species’ distribution and status. comments on the classification of this height. It is thought that Castanopsis is In Paraguay, some viable, although species. the preferred tree species for nesting fragmented habitat for this species Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyu because it tends to be hollow with hard remains in San Rafael National Park Islands, a small island chain located wood, so that the nesting cavities are (Esquivel et al. 2007, pp. 301–302). The between Japan and Taiwan (Brazil 1991; more secure (Kiyosu 1965 in BLI 2001, park has undergone logging and Stattersfield et al. 1998; Winkler et al. p. 1880). The number of fledglings per clearance, and is extremely isolated 2005). Okinawa is approximately 646 season range between one and three from other mature forested areas that km (401 mi) from Taiwan and 1,539 km birds (BLI 2001, p. 1880). might be suitable for the helmeted (956 mi) from Tokyo, Japan. The island This species is considered one of the woodpecker (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. is 108 km (67 miles) in length and its world’s most rare extant woodpecker 302). width varies between 3 and 27 km (2 to species (Winkler et al. 2005). During the Conservation Status. The helmeted 17 mi). Okinawa’s highest point is Mt. 1930s, the Okinawa woodpecker was woodpecker is listed as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ by Yonaha at 455 m (1,494 ft). The considered nearly extinct. In the early the IUCN (IUCN 2010). It is not listed Okinawa woodpecker is confined to 1970s, it was observed to be scattered in any appendices of CITES (CITES forested areas in the northern part of the among small colonies and isolated pairs 2010). In one of the few remaining large island, generally in the Yambaru (also (Short 1973). By the early 1990s, the fragments of Atlantic Forest in known as Yanbaru) area, particularly in breeding population was estimated to be Paraguay, it is considered to be near the Yonaha-dake Prefecture Protection about 75 birds (BLI 2008a). In 2008, its threatened (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 301). Area. Yambaru refers to the projected 10-year decline was between It is protected by Brazilian law, and mountainous areas of Kunigami County 30 to 49 percent (BLI 2008b). The populations occur in numerous in northern Okinawa. current population estimate ranges protected areas throughout its range This species of woodpecker prefers between 146 and 584 individuals (BLI (Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BLI 2009; undisturbed, mature, subtropical 2010i). Chebez et al. 1998 as cited in BLI 2009). evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall Deforestation and the fragmented In our 2009 ANOR, the helmeted trees greater than 20 cm (7.9 in) in nature of its habitat due to logging, dam woodpecker received an LPN of 8. After diameter (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002). construction, road-building, agricultural reevaluating the available information, Trees of this size are generally more development, and golf course we find that a change in the LPN for the than 30 years old and as of 1991 were construction are cited to be the main helmeted woodpecker is not warranted. confined to hilltops (Brazil 1991). The causes of its small population size (BLI The helmeted woodpecker does not species’ main breeding areas are located 2010i). Between 1979 and 1991, 2,443 represent a monotypic genus. The along the mountain ridges between Mt. ha (6,037 ac) of forest were destroyed in magnitude of threat to the species is Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-take, although the Yanbaru area (Department of moderate because the species’ range it has been observed nesting in well- Agriculture, Okinawa Prefectural (24,000 km2 (9,266 mi2)) and population forested coastal areas (Research Center, Government 1992, in Ito et al. 2000, p. (between 10,000 and 19,999 Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as 311). As of 2001, there was only 40 km2 individuals) is believed to be much cited in BLI 2001). The majority of the (15 mi2) of suitable habitat available for larger than previously thought. The broadleaf trees in the Yanbaru area are this species (BLI 2001, p. 1882). threats are imminent because the forest oak and chinquapin (Distylium The limited range and tiny population habitat upon which the species depends racemosum and Schefflera octophylla) make this species vulnerable to is constantly being altered and (Ito et al. 2000, p. 305). Areas with extinction from disease and natural destroyed by humans. We will continue conifers (Coniferae, cone-bearing trees disasters such as typhoons (BLI 2008). to monitor the status of this species, such as pines and firs) appear to be Feral dogs and cats, the introduced however, a priority rank of 8 remains avoided (Short 1973; Winkler et al. Javan mongoose (Herpestes javanicus), valid for this species. 1995). The Okinawa woodpecker was and weasel (Mustela itatsi) are possible

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25163

predators of the woodpecker. Rio Abiseo National Park, San Martin, secondary impacts associated with those Additionally, feral pigs damage where it is thought to be very rare (Wege activities. Deforestation has been potential ground-foraging sites (BLI and Long 1995; del Hoyo et al. 2002; BLI widespread in this region, but has 2003). 2009). There was also a report of yellow- largely occurred at lower elevations Conservation Status. Various browed toucanets seen in the than habitat occupied by the yellow- protections and conservation measures Leymebamba area (Mark in litt. 2003, as browed toucanet (Barnes et al. 1995; BLI are in place for this species. The species cited in BLI 2010j) of Peru, although 2009). However, coca growers have is categorized on the IUCN Red List as there are no available photos of this taken over forests within its altitudinal ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ because it species. The current population size is range, probably resulting in some consists of a small, declining population believed to be between 1,000 and 2,499 reductions in this species’ range and estimated to be between 150 and 584 with a decreasing population trend (BLI population (BLI 2009; Plenge in litt. individuals (BLI 2010i). The species is 2010j). 1993, as cited in BLI 2009). Most of the legally protected in Japan and it occurs The yellow-browed toucanet’s area in 1997 was described as being in small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and estimated range is 450 km2 (174 mi2) only lightly settled by humans Mt. Nishime (BLI 2008a). The Yambaru, (BLI 2010j). The species inhabits a (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). a forested area in the Okinawa narrow altitudinal range between 2,125 However, the human population Prefecture, was designated as a national and 2,510 m (6,970 and 8,232 ft). It surrounding the Rio Abiseo Park was park in 1996 (BLI 2010i). Additionally, prefers the canopy of humid, epiphyte- steadily increasing during the 15 years conservation organizations have laden montane cloud forests, prior to 2002, primarily because of the purchased sites where the woodpecker particularly areas that support Clusia advent of mining operations in the area occurred in order to establish private trees (sometimes known as autograph (Obenson 2002). Pressures in and wildlife preserves (del Hoyo et al. 2002; trees) (Fjeldsa˚ and Krabbe 1990; around the park exist due to mining and BLI 2008). It is not listed in any Schulenberg and Parker 1997, pp. 717– those secondary impacts associated with appendices of CITES. 718; del Hoyo et al. 2002). Within the mining (Vehkama¨ki and Ba¨ckman, 2006, In our 2009 ANOR, the Okinawa Clusia genus, there are about 20 species. pp. 1–2). woodpecker received an LPN of 8. After The yellow-browed toucanet does not Conservation Status. Protections for reevaluating the available information, appear to occupy all potentially suitable this species are minimal. The yellow- we find that a change in the LPN for the forest available within its range browed toucanet is listed as Okinawa woodpecker is warranted. The (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). Its ‘‘Endangered’’ on the IUCN Red List due Okinawa woodpecker does not restricted range remains unexplained. to its very small range and population represent a monotypic genus. It is The narrow distributional band in records from only two locations (BLI considered one of the world’s most rare which yellow-browed toucanets are extant woodpecker species and faces found may be related to the occurrence 2010j). It occurs in at least one protected threats that are high in magnitude even of other avian species that may out- area, the Rio Abiseo National Park, a though the species is legally protected compete the yellow-browed toucanet. World Heritage Site which was in Japan. The best available information Recent information indicates that both established to protect fauna (UNEP– does not indicate that this species is of the suggested competitors have wider WCMC 2008, p. 1). It is not listed in any being actively managed. The threats to altitudinal ranges that completely appendices of CITES (CITES 2010). the species are of high magnitude due encompass that of the yellow-browed In our 2009 ANOR, the yellow- to the scarcity of old-growth habitat toucanet (Collar et al. 1992; Hornbuckle browed toucanet received an LPN of 11. (only 40 km2 (15 mi2)) upon which the in litt. 1999, as cited in BLI 2009; After reevaluating the available species is dependent. Its very small Clements and Shany 2001, as cited in information, we find that a change in population is believed to be continually BLI 2008; del Hoyo et al. 2002). The the LPN for the yellow-browed toucanet declining; and species with fragmented larger grey-breasted mountain toucan is warranted. The yellow-browed habitat in combination with small (Andigena hypoglauca) occurs above toucanet does not represent a monotypic population sizes may be at greater risk 2,300 m (7,544 ft), and the emerald genus. Although the species is believed of extinction due to synergistic effects toucanet (Aulacorhynchus prasinus) to exist in the protected Rio Abiseo (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265–271). occurs below 2,100 m (6,888 ft) National Park, there have been no Although it exists in areas with (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The documented sightings since 2003. As of protected status, the best available yellow-browed toucanet may occur to 2010, BLI reported that coca-growers information indicates that the threats to the north and south of its known range, have taken over forest within its the species are ongoing and imminent. but the area between the Cordillera de altitudinal range (BLI 2010j). The Because its projected 10-year decline Cola´n, Amazonas, and the Carpish magnitude of threats to the species is was between 30 to 49 percent in 2008, region, Hua´nuco, is inaccessible, and its high given that the species has a small (BLI 2008b), and because the current existence in other areas has not been range and rapidly declining population; population estimate ranges between 146 confirmed. and may be in competition for habitat and 584 individuals, we have changed Distinguishing features of the yellow- with more competitive avian species. the LPN for this species from an 8 to a browed toucanet include a bright yellow Further, pressures in and around the 2 to reflect imminent threats of high vent or cloaca, a blackish bill, and a park exist due to mining and secondary magnitude. generally green face, (Schulenberg and impacts associated with mining. Parker 1997, p. 719). Its call has been Additionally, the only records of this J. Yellow-Browed Toucanet described as a series of 20 to 30 frog-like species are from two small locations and (Aulacorhynchus huallagae), LPN = 2 ‘‘krik’’ notes, delivered at a rate of they have not been verified in several There is very little information slightly more than one note per second years. Based on these factors, we find available regarding the yellow-browed (recordings housed in Cornell that the threats are imminent and of toucanet. This species is endemic to Laboratory of Ornithology, Schulenberg high magnitude. Thus, we have Peru and is known from only two and Parker 1997, p. 717). reassessed and changed the LPN for this localities in north-central Peru—La Human-related threats to the species species from an 11 to a 2 to reflect Libertad, where it is uncommon, and include deforestation, mining, and imminent threats of high magnitude.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

K. Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus (Machado et al. 1998, as cited in BLI individuals (Bell 1975 as cited in IUCN novacapitalis), LPN = 8 2008). 1979). McClelland (2007) indicated that The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird Conservation Status. The IUCN in the past, the Codfish Island fernbird categorizes the Brasilia tapaculo as endemic to Brazil, specifically in the was restricted to low shrubland in the ‘‘Near Threatened’’ (BLI 2010j). It is not central to southern-central region of the higher areas of Codfish Island. Few listed in any appendices of CITES country. It is found in swampy gallery individuals were seen around the (CITES 2010). The Brasilia tapaculo is forests, which are forests that grow coastal shrubland; and a significant protected by Brazilian law (Bernardes et along streams and rivers in regions predator was the Polynesian rat (Rattus al. 1990, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), otherwise devoid of trees, within exulans) (McClelland 2007). In 1979, and some of the areas where this species disturbed areas of thick streamside the IUCN (1979) concluded that the occurs are protected. Three Important absence of the fernbird from formerly vegetation and dense secondary growth Bird Areas (IBAs) have been identified occupied areas of Codfish Island of Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern). for this species: Parque Nacional de evidenced a decline. The Brasilia tapaculo is also strongly Brası´lia, Cerrados ao Sul de Brası´lia, Although there is no accurate estimate associated with two other plant species: and the Serra da Canastra National Park. of the current size of the Codfish Island ferns and Euterpe palms (del A site is recognized as an IBA when it fernbird population (estimates are based Hoyo et al. 2003, in BLI 2010k). meets criteria ‘‘ * * * based on the on incidental encounter rates in the The species has been documented in occurrence of key bird species that are various habitat types on the island), the ´ Goias and Serra da Canastra National vulnerable to global extinction or whose population as of 2007 was believed to be Park, Minas Gerais (Negret and populations are otherwise several hundred. McClelland (2007) Cavalcanti 1985, as cited in Collar et al. irreplaceable.’’ These key sites for concluded that is it likely that the 1992; Collar et al. 1992; BLI 2008). In conservation are small enough to be population peaked and is stable. ´ Serra do Cipo and Carac¸a, which are in conserved in their entirety, but large Fernbirds are sedentary and are not the hills and plateaus of central Brazil, enough to support self-sustaining strong fliers. They are secretive and this species was located at low densities populations of the key bird species. reluctant to leave cover. They feed in (Collar et al. 1992). In and around the IBAs are a way to identify conservation low vegetation or on the ground, eating Serra da Canastra National Park, this priorities (BLI 2010). mainly caterpillars, spiders, grubs, species was reported to be very common In our 2009 ANOR, the Brasilia beetles, flies, and moths (Heather and (Silveira 1998, p. 3). Again in the Minas tapaculo received an LPN of 8. After Robertson 1997). Codfish Island’s native Gerais area, the species was located at reevaluating the available information, vegetation has been modified by the low densities at Serra Negra (on the we find that a change in the LPN for the introduced Australian brush-tailed upper Dourados River) and the Brasilia tapaculo is not warranted. The possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). headwaters of the Sa˜o Francisco river, Brasilia tapaculo does not represent a Codfish Island fernbird populations in the early 1990s (Collar et al. 1992). monotypic genus. The magnitude of have also been reduced due to predation Although the species was once threat to the species is moderate because by weka (Gallirallus australis scotti) and considered rare (Sick and Texeira 1979, in 2008, their population was estimated Polynesian rats (Merton 1974, pers. as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it has been at approximately 10,000 birds; at least comm., as cited in IUCN 1979; found in reasonable numbers in areas of two of the populations are in protected McClelland 2002, pp. 1–9). Brasilia noted above (D. M. Teixeira in habitat; and their preferred habitat is IUCN and BLI only recognize the litt. 1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). swampy and difficult to clear. Threats species Bowdleria punctata; it is not There is no current population estimate are imminent, because habitat is still addressed at subspecies levels. Neither other than that the population is being drained or dammed for the species nor the subspecies is decreasing (BLI 2010j). However, in agricultural irrigation, and grassland addressed by ITIS (www.itis.gov/, 2008 the population was estimated at burning limits the extent of suitable accessed September 9, 2010). The New approximately 10,000 birds, with a habitat. Therefore, a priority rank of 8 Zealand Department of Conservation decreasing population trend (BLI 2008). remains valid for this species. (NZDOC) recognizes the Codfish Island The species occupies a limited area fernbird as a valid subspecies, however. L. Codfish Island Fernbird (Bowdleria within a range of 109,000 km2 (42,085 Because New Zealand recognizes the punctata wilsoni), LPN = 12 mi2) and is likely losing habitat (BLI subspecies, and absent peer-reviewed 2010j). Its distribution now appears The Codfish Island fernbird is found information to the contrary, we larger than initially estimated, and the only on Codfish Island, New Zealand. currently consider Bowdleria punctata swampy gallery forests where it is found Codfish Island is a nature reserve of wilsoni to be a valid subspecies within are not conducive to forest clearing, 1,396 ha (3,448 ac) located 3 km (1.8 mi) a multi-species genus. leaving the species’ habitat less off the northwest coast of Stewart Island Conservation Status. Varying levels of vulnerable to this threat than previously (IUCN 1979; McClelland 2007). There conservation status and protections are thought. The majority of locations are five subspecies of Bowdleria in place for this species. IUCN where this species is found are within punctata, each restricted to a single categorizes Bowdleria punctata as ‘‘Least established protected nature reserves. island and its outlying islets. The North concern’’ (BLI 2010k). The 2008 New Both fire risk and drainage impacts are and South Islands’ subspecies are Zealand Threat Classification System reduced in these areas (Antas 2007). widespread and locally common. The manual indicates that the two ‘‘at risk’’ However, dam building for irrigation on Stewart Island and the Snares’ categories, ‘‘range restricted’’ and rivers that normally flood gallery forests subspecies are moderately abundant ‘‘sparse,’’ have been replaced by a single was identified as an emerging threat (Heather and Robertson 1997). In 1966, category called ‘‘naturally uncommon’’ (Teixeira in litt. 1987, as cited in Collar the status of the Codfish Island (p. 10). The NZDOC categorizes this et al. 1992; Antas 2007). Further, annual subspecies (B. punctata wilsoni) was subspecies as ‘‘naturally uncommon.’’ It burning of adjacent grasslands limits the considered relatively safe (Blackburn is not listed in any appendices of CITES extent and availability of suitable 1967), but estimates dating from 1975 (CITES 2010). habitat, as does wetland drainage and indicated a gradually declining Several specific conservation the sequestration of water for irrigation population to approximately 100 measures have been undertaken by the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25165

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

duller and greener. It has a complex increased demand by humans to utilize currawong is limited to a 12-km2 (4.6 distribution with seasonal fluctuations land for housing. The black-backed mi2) area on the 20-km2 (7.7-mi2) island in response to the ripening of areoira tanager may attempt to move inland in (Hutton 1991; Garnett and Crowley Schinus fruit, at least in Rio de Janeiro search of new suitable habitat as its 2000). It has been recorded to a limited and Sao Paulo (BLI 2010n). It has been current habitat disappears, however, extent on small nearby islets of the observed visiting gardens and orchards there may not be suitable habitat Admiralty group (Garnett and Crowley of houses close to forested areas. Its diet remaining for the species. Although 2000; New South Wales Department of consists primarily of fruit, and to a Brazil has several laws requiring Environment & Climate Change (NSW smaller extent, insects (Moraes and Krul resource protection for species such as DECC) 2010). Lord Howe Island is 1997). the black-backed tanager, its habitat is unique among inhabited Pacific Islands The black-backed tanager is generally under pressure from the intense in that less than 10 percent of the island not considered rare within suitable development that occurs in coastal has been cleared (WWF 2001) and less habitat (BLI 2010n). This species is areas, particularly south of Rio de than 24 percent has been disturbed more common in Sao Paulo during the Janeiro. Threats to the black-backed (NSW Department of Environment and winter, and records from Espirito Santo tanager’s remaining habitat are ongoing Conservation (DEC) 2007a). In 1982, the are only from the winter season. due to the challenges that Brazil faces to island was added to the World Heritage Clarification of the species’ seasonal balance its competing development and List (NSW Department of the movements would provide an improved environmental priorities. Environment and Water Resources understanding of the species’ Conservation Status. The species is 2007). population status and distribution, but considered ‘‘Vulnerable’’ by the IUCN The Lord Howe pied currawong currently populations appear small and (BLI 2010n). The black-backed tanager is breeds in rainforests and palm forests, fragmented and are declining rapidly; not listed in any appendices of CITES particularly along streams. Its territories likely in response to extensive habitat (CITES 2010). Portions of the tanager’s include sections of streams or gullies loss (BLI 2010n). Population estimates range are in six protected areas, that are lined by tall timber (Garnett and range from 2,500 to 10,000 individuals although the protections are not always Crowley 2000). The highest densities of (BLI 2010n). effective (BLI 2010n). Lord Howe pied currawong nests have The primary threat impacting this In our 2009 ANOR, the black-backed been located on the slopes of Mount species is the rapid and widespread loss tanager received an LPN of 8. After Gower and in the Erskine Valley, with of habitat for beachfront development. A reevaluating the available information, smaller numbers on the lower land to minor threat may be that it occasionally we find that a change in the LPN for this the north (Knight 1987, as cited in appears in the illegal bird trade (BLI species is not warranted at this time. Garnett and Crowley 2000). The nests 2010n). The remaining tracts of suitable The black-backed tanager does not are typically situated high in trees and habitat in Rio de Janeiro and Sa˜o Paulo represent a monotypic genus. Threats are made in a cup shape with sticks and are threatened by ongoing development (primarily habitat loss) to the species are lined with grass and palm thatch (NSW of coastal areas, primarily for tourism moderate in magnitude due to the DECC 2005). As of 2001, most of Lord enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes, species’ fairly large range, population Howe Island was still forested, and the beachside housing) and associated size, and apparent flexibility in diet and removal of feral animals resulted in the infrastructure support (del Hoyo 2003, habitat suitability. Threats are however, recovery of the forest understory p. 616; WWF 2007, pp. 7 and 36–37). imminent because the species is at risk (WWF 2001). These activities have drastically by ongoing and widespread loss of The Lord Howe pied currawong is reduced the species’ abundance and habitat due to beachfront and related omnivorous and eats a wide variety of extent of its occupied range. These development. Therefore, a priority rank food, including native fruits and seeds activities are currently a risk to the of 8 remains valid for this species. (Hutton 1991). It is the only remaining species’ continued existence because native island vertebrate predator (NSW O. Lord Howe Pied Currawong (Strepera populations are being limited to highly DECC 2010). It has been recorded eating graculina crissalis), LPN = 6 fragmented patches of habitat (BLI seabird chicks, poultry, and chicks of 2010n). Although this species seems to The Lord Howe pied currawong is a the Lord Howe woodhen (Tricholimnas tolerate some environmental subspecies separate from the five sylvestris) and white tern (Gygis alba). It degradation if there are well preserved mainland pied currawongs (Strepera also feeds on both live and dead rats stretches in its territory in which the graculina spp.). In 2004, it was (Hutton 1991). Food brought to Lord birds can seek shelter, we expect the suggested that its taxonomy be reviewed Howe pied currawong nestlings was degree of these threats will continue and to determine if it warrants recognition observed to be, in decreasing order: likely increase within the foreseeable as a distinct species (McAllan et al. Invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, and future. 2004). ITIS recognizes the species as S. nestlings of other bird species (Lord Because this species inhabits coastal graculina (ITIS 2010, accessed Howe Island Board (LHIB) 2006). areas, sea level rise may also affect this September 13, 2010). Because Australia In the 2000 Action Plan for Australian species (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377– recognizes the subspecies, and absent Birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000), the 379). In Santos Bay on the coast, sea peer-reviewed information to the Lord Howe pied currawong population level rise scenarios were conducted contrary, we consider S. graculina was estimated at approximately 80 based on predictions of increases crissalis to be a valid subspecies within mature individuals. In 2007, the between 0.5 and 1.5 m (1.6 and 4.9 ft) a multi-species genus. Foundation for National Parks & by the year 2100 (Alfredini et al. 2008, This subspecies is endemic to Lord Wildlife (FNPW 2007) estimated the pp. 378). Even small increases in sea Howe Island, New South Wales, breeding population of the Lord Howe level could cause flooding, cause Australia. Lord Howe Island is 600 km pied currawong was 80 to 100 pairs, erosion, and change salt marsh zones (373 mi) northeast of Sydney, Australia. with a nesting territory in the tall forest (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377–379) This is also the distance to the areas of about 5 ha (12 ac) per pair. The within this species’ habitat. As sea level subspecies’ closest relative, the population size is limited by the amount rises, habitat will be less available for mainland Pied Currawong (S. of available habitat and the lack of food this species, compounded by an graculina). The Lord Howe pied during the winter (FNPW 2007). The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25167

most recent population estimate is 100 imminence of threats to the subspecies Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o colony is the best- to 200 individuals (from surveys in is warranted. The Lord Howe pied studied. Between 1984 and 2004, it 2005–2006) (NSW DECC 2010, p. 3). currawong does not represent a maintained a stable size, varying The main threat identified for the monotypic genus. It faces threats that between 50 to 250 individuals (Brown Lord Howe pied currawong is habitat are high in magnitude due to its 1996; Collins and Morris 1985; Brown clearing and modification. Other threats extremely small population size, non- in litt. 2004), and was reported to be include non-target poisoning, and target poisoning, and habitat clearing viable, vigorous, and stable in 2004 effects associated with extremely small and modification. Despite conservation (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004). There are no population sizes (NSW DECC 2010). A efforts, the population of the Lord Howe estimates of the size of the colony in lesser threat to the Lord Howe pied pied currawong has remained around Poc¸o das Antas Biological Reserve currawong is human interaction with 100 to 200 individuals. Species with where it had not been seen for 30 years the species. Prior to the 1970s, locals small, declining population sizes such prior to its rediscovery there in 1997 would shoot this currawong because it as these may be at greater risk of (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004). Population preys on nestling birds (Hutton 1991). extinction due to synergistic effects estimates are lacking for the colony at The Lord Howe pied currawong remains (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265–271). Macae´, where the subspecies was netted unpopular with some residents, likely Because conservation efforts for the in Jurubatiba National Park in the year because of its predatory nature on species have been implemented, we find 2000, after having not been seen in the nestlings. It is unclear what effect this that the threats are non-imminent. Thus, area for 16 years (Monteiro et al. 2004). localized killing has on the overall based on the best available information, Both Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o and the Poc¸o population size and distribution of the the LPN has been changed from 12 to 6 das Antas Biological Reserve lie within species (Garnett and Crowley 2000). to reflect non-imminent threats of high the Sa˜o Joa˜o River Basin. Conditions at Also, because the Lord Howe pied magnitude. Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o appear to be suitable currawong often preys on ship (black) for long-term survival of this subspecies. rats, it may be subject to nontarget Invertebrates The Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o River Basin poisoning during rat-baiting programs P. Harris’ Mimic Swallowtail (Mimoides encompasses a 216,605-ha (535,240-ac) (DEC 2007b). Close monitoring of the (syn. Eurytides) lysithous harrisianus), area, 150,700 ha (372,286 ac) of which population is needed because this small, LPN = 6 is managed as protected area. The endemic population is highly Harris’ mimic swallowtail’s preferred susceptible to catastrophic events, such Harris’ mimic swallowtail butterfly is environment of open and shady areas as disease or introduction of a new a subspecies endemic to Brazil (Collins continues to be present in the region, predator (Garnett and Crowley 2000). and Morris 1985). Although the species’ with approximately 541 forest patches Conservation Status. Various levels of range includes Paraguay, the subspecies averaging 127 ha (314 ac) in size, conservation and protections exist for has not been confirmed in Paraguay covering nearly 68,873 ha (170,188 ac), this species. The Lord Howe Island (Collins and Morris 1985; Finnish and a minimum distance between forest Biodiversity Management Plan was University and Research Network 2004). patches of 276 meters (m) (0.17 mi) finalized in 2007, and is the formal Occupying the lowland swamps and (Teixeira 2007). In studies between 1984 National and NSW Recovery Plan for sandy flats above the tidal margins of and 1991, Brown (1996) determined that threatened species and communities of the coastal Atlantic Forest, the Harris’ mimic swallowtails in Barra de the Lord Howe Island Group (DEC subspecies prefers alternating patches of Sa˜o Joa˜o flew a maximum distance of 2007a). The NSW Threatened Species strong sun and deep shade (Collins and 1000 m (0.62 mi). It follows that the Conservation Act of 1995 lists the Lord Morris 1985; Brown 1996). This average flying distance would be less Howe pied currawong as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ subspecies is polyphagous, meaning than this figure. Thus, the average because it has a limited range, only that its larvae feed on more than one 276 m (0.17 mi) distance between forest occurring on Lord Howe Island (NSW plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). patches in the Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o River DECC 2010). It also is listed as Information on its preferred host plants Basin is clearly within the flying vulnerable under the Australian and adult nectar-sources was published distance of this subspecies. Because the Commonwealth Environment Protection in the status review (also known as a colony at Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o has and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 12-month finding) on December 7, 2004 maintained a stable population for 1999. These laws provide a legislative (69 FR 70580). The Harris’ mimic 20 years, it is probable that the framework to protect and encourage the swallowtail butterfly mimics at least conditions available there remain recovery of vulnerable species (NSW three butterfly species in the Parides suitable. DEC 2006a). The Lord Howe Island Act genus, including the fluminense Habitat destruction has been the main of 1953, as amended, established the swallowtail (described below). This threat to this subspecies (Collins and Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB), made mimicry system may cause problems in Morris 1985; Brown 1996), especially provisions for the LHIB to care, control, distinguishing this subspecies from the urbanization in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o, and manage the island; and established species that it mimics (Brown in litt. industrialization in Macae´ (Jurubatiba 75 percent of the land area as a 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004). National Park), and previous fires that permanent park preserve (NSW DEC The Harris’ mimic swallowtail was occurred in the Poc¸o das Antas 2007). Although the subspecies is not previously known in Espirito Santo, Biological Reserve. As described in specifically addressed by BLI or IUCN, however, there are no recent detail for the fluminense swallowtail the species is considered ‘‘Least confirmations of its occurrence there (below), Atlantic Forest habitat has been Concern’’ by the IUCN (BLI 2010o). It is (Collins and Morris 1985; New and reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original not listed in any appendices of CITES. Collins 1991). In Rio de Janeiro, Harris’ cover. More than 70 percent of the In our 2009 ANOR, the Lord Howe mimic swallowtail has been confirmed Brazilian population lives in the pied currawong received an LPN of 12. in three localities. Two colonies were Atlantic forest, and coastal development After re-evaluating the threats to the identified on the east coast of Rio de is ongoing throughout the Atlantic Lord Howe pied currawong, we have Janeiro, at Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o and Macae´, Forest region (Hughes et al. 2006; Butler determined that a change in the LPN and the other in Poc¸o das Antas 2007; Conservation International 2007; representing the magnitude and Biological Reserve, farther inland. The CEPF 2007a; Ho¨fling 2007; Peixoto and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; World Food Natureza—Law no 9.605/98, which disease or predator. The only known Prize 2007; WWF 2007; TNC 2009). addresses environmental crimes and populations are within close proximity Another factor affecting many sets forth penal and administrative to a major, expanding city in Brazil— butterfly species is illegal collection. penalties resulting from activities that Rio de Janiero, the second largest city in The wildlife trade is extremely lucrative are harmful to the environment (IBAMA Brazil. As this species becomes rarer, it and as wildlife becomes rarer; it is 2011). This law addresses the integrity becomes even more desirable to worth more. Although there are laws on of air, water bodies, forests and collectors (Traffic 2010, pp. 52, 122, illegal wildlife trade, in some countries, biodiversity; and assesses civil, 179). Although the species exists in a many times laws are rarely enforced due administrative, and criminal penalties protected area, collectors will take risks to inadequate resources; and only a to private individuals, corporations, and to obtain these rare and desirable fraction of smuggled wildlife is caught business. Harris’ mimic swallowtail was species. Because the population is very (http://www.traffic.org). For example, in categorized on the IUCN Red List as small and limited to only two small 1998, in the United States 100 Golden ‘‘Endangered’’ in the 1988, 1990, and areas, we find the threats are of high Birdwing (Troides aeacus, CITES 1994 IUCN Red Lists (IUCN 1996). magnitude. However, we do not find Appendix II) butterflies were seized; no However, it currently is not included in that these threats are imminent because permit had been issued for the the current IUCN Redlist (IUCN 2010; the subspecies is protected by Brazilian specimens which had been falsely Xerces Society 2010a). This species is law; and the two colonies are located labeled before being exported from not listed on any appendices of CITES. within protected areas. Based on the Thailand (TRAFFIC 2010, p. 28). In Harris’ mimic swallowtail ranges best available information, we have 2001, two Russian insect collectors were within two protected areas: Poc¸o das changed the LPN from a 12 to a 6 to arrested in India and were found to have Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba reflect non-imminent threats of high approximately 2000 butterflies in their National Park. These protected areas are magnitude. possession (p. 52). In 2007, a Japanese described in detail for the fluminense individual was convicted for illegal sale swallowtail below. The Poc¸o das Antas Q. Jamaican Kite Swallowtail of $38,831 U.S. dollars (USD) worth of Biological Reserve (Reserve) was (Protographium marcellinus, syn. protected butterfly species. This established to protect the golden lion Eurytides), LPN = 2 individual is apparently known as the tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia) (Decree The Jamaican kite swallowtail is world’s top smuggler of protected No. 73,791, 1974), but the Harris’ mimic endemic to Jamaica, preferring wooded, butterflies. One of the smuggled swallowtail, which occupies the same undisturbed habitat containing its only butterfly species was Homerus range, likely benefits as a result of known larval host plant West Indian Swallowtail (Papilio homerus, CITES efforts to conserve golden-lion-tamarin lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata). The Appendix I). During this investigation, habitat (De Roy 2002; WWF 2003; food preferences of adults have not been 43 butterflies were sold to undercover Teixeira 2007). Habitat destruction reported (Collins and Morris 1985; agents, including 2 Alexandra’s caused by fires in Poc¸o das Antas Bailey 1994). Since the 1990s, adult birdwings (Ornithoptera alexandrae, Biological Reserve appears to have Jamaican kite swallowtails have been CITES Appendix I), 2 Luzon Peacock abated. The revised management plan observed in the parishes of St. Thomas swallowtails (Papilio chikae, CITES indicates that the Reserve will be used and St. Andrew in the east; westward in Appendix I), and 6 Corsican for research and conservation, with St. Ann, Trelawny, and St. Elizabeth; swallowtails (Papilio hospiton, CITES limited public access (IBAMA 2005; and in the extreme western coast Parish Appendix I) (p. 122). In 2009, in Japan CEPF 2007a). The Jurubatiba National of Westmoreland (Bailey 1994; Smith et an individual was sentenced to one year Park (Park) is located in a region that is al. 1994; WRC 2001; Harris 2002; Mo¨hn and six months’ imprisonment and undergoing continuing development 2002). fined one million yen ($10,750 USD) pressures from urbanization and The Jamaican kite swallowtail due to illegally importing and selling industrialization (Otero and Brown maintains a low population level. It rare butterfly species. He was found to 1984; Brown 1996; IFC 2002; CEPF occasionally becomes locally abundant have illegally imported 145 butterflies 2007b; Khalip 2007; Savarese 2008), and in Rozelle during the breeding season in from France. Among the specimens there is no management plan in place early summer and again in early fall were 3 Queen Alexandra’s Birdwings for the Park (CEPF 2007b). However, as (Brown and Heineman 1972; Collins (Ornithoptera alexandrae, CITES discussed for the fluminense and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Appendix I) and 1 Apollo Butterfly swallowtail, the Park, as of 2007, was Bailey 1994; Smith et al. 1994), and (Parnassius apollo, CITES Appendix II) considered to be in a very good state of experiences episodic population (p. 179). Although we do not know the conservation (Rocha et al. 2007). explosions, as described in the full extent of illegal trade, according to In our 2009 ANOR, the Harris’ mimic December 7, 2004, 12-month finding (69 the 2010 TRAFFIC report, this swallowtail received an LPN of 12. After FR 70580) and in the 2007 ANOR (72 FR represents only a small fraction of the reevaluating the threats to this species, 20184; April 23, 2007). There is only illegal collection of butterfly species we have determined that a change in the one known breeding site in the eastern that occurs. listing prioritization number is coast town of Rozelle (also known as Conservation Status. The Brazilian warranted. Harris’ mimic swallowtail is Roselle), St. Thomas Parish, although it Institute of the Environment and a subspecies and is not within a is possible that other sites exist given Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro monotypic genus. Although the best- the widely dispersed nature of the larval do a Meio Ambiente de do Recursos studied colony has maintained a stable food plant (Collins and Morris 1985; Naturais Renova´veis; IBAMA) considers and viable size for nearly two decades, Garraway et al. 1993; Bailey 1994; this subspecies to be critically imperiled there is limited suitable habitat Smith et al. 1994; Robbins in litt. 2004). (Portaria No. 1,522 1989; Ministerio de remaining for this subspecies. Habitat Habitat destruction has been Meio Ambiente 2003). As of 1996, destruction remains a threat. These considered a primary threat to the collection and trade of the subspecies threats are high in magnitude due to its Jamaican kite swallowtail. was prohibited (Brown 1996). In 1998, small endemic population and potential Monophagous butterflies (meaning that Brazil enacted a more effective law, Lei catastrophic events such as severe their larvae feed only on a single plant de Crimes Ambientais ou Lei da tropical storms or introduction of a new species) such as the Jamaican kite

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25169

swallowtail tend to be more threatened of human settlements. These activities the species are high in magnitude than polyphagous species. This is in contribute to threats to the hydrology particularly since it only has one known part due to their specific habitat system from in-filling, siltation, larval host plant. Slash-and-burn requirements (Kotiaho et al. 2005). accumulation of solid waste, and agriculture and illegal timber harvesting Harvest and clearing reduces the invasion by nonnative, invasive species continues to occur within this species’ availability of the only known larval (Cockpit Country Stakeholders Group habitat (TNC 2010). These threats are food plant. Habitat modification poses and JEAN (Gordon and Cambell 2006; occurring at the species’ only known an additional threat because the Tole 2006; Jamaica Environmental breeding site and they are exacerbated swallowtail does not thrive in disturbed Advocacy Network 2007)). by the species’ restricted distribution of habitats (Collins and Morris 1985). In The Blue and John Crow Mountains its larval food plant and range. In Rozelle, extensive habitat modification National Park, located on the inland addition, stochastic events such as for agricultural and industrial purposes portions of St. Thomas and St. Andrew hurricanes, tropical storms, and such as mining has occurred (Gimenez and the southeast portion of St. Mary introduction of a new disease are Dixon 1996; WWF 2001). West Indian Parishes, is the only protected area in unpredictable. Illegal collection of lancewood, the Jamaican kite which adult Jamaican Kite swallowtails butterfly species (refer to discussion swallowtail’s larval food plant, is have been observed (Bailey 1994; under Harris’ mimic swallowtail) threatened by clearing for cultivation Jamaica Conservation and Development continues to occur which further adds and by felling for the commercial timber Trust (JCDT) 2006). Established in 1990, to the pressures affecting this species. industry (Collins and Morris 1985; this Park encompasses 49,520 ha Although Jamaica has taken regulatory Windsor Plywood 2004). (122,367 ac) of mountainous, forested steps to preserve native swallowtail Rozelle is also subject to naturally terrain that ranges in elevation from 150 habitat, the threats affecting this species occurring, high-impact stochastic to 2,256 m (492 to 7,402 ft) and is are imminent; its habitat is decreasing; events, such as regularly-occurring considered one of the best-managed and this loss of habitat is ongoing. Based hurricanes, as described in the 2007 protected areas in Jamaica (JCDT 2006). on a reevaluation of the threats to this ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). However, deforestation consisting of species, we have changed the LPN from Hurricane-related weather damage in slash-and-burn agriculture and illegal an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats the last two decades along the coastal timber harvesting continues to be a of high magnitude. zone of Rozelle has resulted in the threat in the Blue Mountains (Tole 2006; erosion and virtual disappearance of the TNC 2010). R. Fluminense Swallowtail (Parides once-extensive recreational beach The Jamaican kite swallowtail has ascanius), LPN = 5 (Economic Commission for Latin been collected for commercial trade in The fluminense swallowtail is America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the past (Collins and Morris 1985; endemic to Brazil’s restinga habitat United Nations Development Melisch 2000; Schu¨ tz 2000). The within the Atlantic Forest region in the Programme (UNDP), and the Planning Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act of tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) (2004)). 1998 carries a maximum penalty of U.S. forests of coastal Brazil (Thomas 2003). Hurricane Ivan, a category 5 hurricane, $1,439 (J $100,000) or 12 months of Its habitat is characterized by medium- caused severe local damage to Rozelle imprisonment for violating its sized trees and shrubs that are adapted Beach in 2004, including road collapse provisions. This deterrent appears to be to coastal conditions (Kelecom 2002). caused by the erosion of the cliff face effectively protecting this species from During the caterpillar stage of its and shoreline. The estimated restoration illegal trade (NEPA 2005). As of 2008, lifecycle, it feeds on a species in the cost from Hurricane Ivan damage was we were unaware of any recent seizures Dutchman’s pipe genus (Aristolochia $23 million USD ($1.6 million Jamaican or smuggling in this species into or out macroura) and is believed to be dollars (J$) (ECLAC et al. 2004), of the United States (Office of Law monophagous (Otero and Brown 1984). indicating the severity of the damage Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife The fluminense swallowtail is inflicted by these hurricanes. While we Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt.). sparsely distributed throughout its do not consider stochastic events to be Conservation Status. Various levels of range, reflecting the patchy distribution a primary threat factor for this species, conservation exist for the species. In of its preferred habitat (Otero and we believe that the damage caused by addition to being protected under Brown 1984; Tyler et al. 1994; Uehara- hurricanes is contributing to habitat Jamaica’s Wildlife Protection Act of Prado and Fonseca 2007). The species loss. 1998, it is also included in Jamaica’s can be seasonally common, with In western parishes, habitat National Strategy and Action Plan on sightings of up to 50 individuals seen in destruction also threatens adult Biological Diversity. This strategy one morning in the Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o Jamaican kite swallowtails. Cockpit established specific goals and priorities area. It was historically seen in Rio de Country, encompassing 30,000 ha for the conservation of Jamaica’s Janeiro, Espirito Santo, and Sao Paulo (74,131 ac) of rugged forest-karst (a biological resources (Schedules of The (Gelhaus et al. 2004). However, there are specialized limestone habitat) terrain, Wildlife Protection Act 1998). Since no recent confirmations of this species spans four western parishes, including 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has in either Espirito Santo or Sao Paulo. In Trelawny and St. Elizabeth, where adult been categorized on the IUCN Red List Rio de Janeiro, the species has been Jamaican kite swallowtails have been as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ (IUCN 2010). This documented in five localities including: observed (Gordon and Cambell 2006). species is not listed in any of the Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o and Macae´ (in the As of 2006, 81 percent of this region appendices of CITES. Restinga de Jurubatiba National Park) remained forested, although In our 2009 ANOR, the Jamaican kite along the coast; and Poc¸o das Antas fragmentation was occurring as a result swallowtail received an LPN of 8. After Biological Reserve, farther inland of human-induced activities (Tole reevaluating the threats to the Jamaican (Brown in litt. 2004; Soler 2005). 2006). Threats to Cockpit Country kite swallowtail, we have determined Another verified occurrence was in the include bauxite mining, unregulated that a change in the listing priority A´ rea de Tombamento do Mangue do Rio plant collecting, extensive logging, number is warranted. The Jamaican kite Paraı´ba do Sul (Uehara-Prado and conversion of forest to agriculture, swallowtail does not represent a Fonseca 2007). Additionally, the illegal drug cultivation, and expansion monotypic genus. The current threats to fluminense swallowtail has been

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

documented in Parque Natural facilitate more focused efforts to identify (including migration and infrastructural Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto and confirm additional localities and development) (Brown 1996; CEPF Iguacu 2008). the conservation status of the 2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; Otero A population estimate reported in fluminense swallowtail. Evaluating the and Brown 1984; Savarese 2008). The 1984 in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o was between correlation between the distribution of researchers concluded that the existing 20 and 100 individuals (Otero and fluminense swallowtail and the existing protected area system may be Brown 1984). The colony within the protected areas within Rio de Janeiro inadequate for the conservation of this Poc¸o das Antas Biological Reserve was revealed that only two known species. rediscovered in 1997, after a nearly 30- occurrences of the fluminense Commercial exploitation has been year absence from this locality (Brown, swallowtail correlated with protected identified as a potential threat to the Jr. in litt. 2004). Researchers noted only areas, including the Poc¸o das Antas fluminense swallowtail (Collins and that ‘‘large numbers’’ of swallowtails Biological Reserve (Uehara-Prado and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schu¨ tz were observed (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Fonseca 2007). The Poc¸o das Antas 2000). The species is easy to capture, Robbins in litt. 2004). There are no Biological Reserve and the Jurubatiba and species with restricted distributions population estimates for the other National Park are the only two protected or localized populations, such as the colonies. However, individuals from the areas considered large enough to fluminense swallowtail, tend to be more viable population in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o support viable populations of the vulnerable to overcollection than those migrate widely in some years, and this fluminense swallowtail (Otero and with a wider distribution (Brown, Jr. in is likely to enhance interpopulation Brown 1984; Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; litt. 2004; Robbins in litt. 2004). gene flow among existing colonies Robbins in litt. 2004). The Poc¸o das However, based on the conservation (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004). Antas Biological Reserve, established in measures in place, we believe that Habitat destruction has been the main 1974, encompasses 13,096 ac (5,300 ha) overutilization is not currently a threat threat to this species (Collins and Morris of inland Atlantic Forest habitat (CEPF to the fluminense swallowtail. 1985; Brown 1996; Gimenez Dixon 2007a; Decree No. 73,791, 1974). Parasitism has been indicated to be a 1996). Monophagous butterflies tend to According to the 2005 revised factor affecting the fluminense be more threatened than polyphagous management plan (IBAMA 2005), the swallowtail. Recently, Tavares et al. species (Kotiaho et al. 2005), and the Reserve is used solely for protection, (2006) discovered four species of restinga habitat preferred by fluminense research, and environmental education. parasitic chalcid wasps (Brachymeria swallowtails is a highly specialized Public access is restricted, and there is and Conura species; Hymenoptera environment that is restricted in an emphasis on habitat conservation, family) associated with fluminense distribution (Otero and Brown 1986; including protection of the Rı´o Sa˜o Joa˜o. swallowtails. Parasitoids are species Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Ueraha-Prado This river runs through the Reserve and whose immature stages develop on or and Fonseca 2007). Moreover, is integral to creating the restinga within an insect host of another species, fluminense swallowtails require large conditions preferred by the fluminense ultimately killing the host (Weeden et areas to maintain viable populations swallowtail. The Reserve was plagued al. 1976). This is the first report of (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Otero and by fires in the late 1980s through the parasitoid association with fluminense Brown 1986; Ueraha-Prado and early 2000s, but fire is not currently swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006). To Fonseca). The Atlantic Forest habitat, thought to be a threat. Between 2001 date, there is no information regarding which once covered 1.4 million km2 and 2006, there was an increase in the the magnitude of effect these parasites (540,543 mi2), has been reduced to 5 to number of private protected areas near are having on the fluminense 10 percent of its original cover. It or adjacent to the Poc¸o das Antas swallowtail. At this time, we do not find harbors more than 70 percent of the Biological Reserve and Barra de Sa˜o that it affects the species to the extent Brazilian human population (Butler Joa˜o (Critical Ecosystem Partnership that it is a threat to the species. 2007; Conservation International 2007; Fund (CEPF) 2007a). Corridors are being Although Harris’ mimic swallowtail CEPF 2007a; Ho¨fling 2007; WWF 2007; created between existing protected areas and the fluminense swallowtail face TNC 2009). The restinga habitat upon and 13 privately protected forests, by similar threats, there are several which this species depends has been planting and restoring habitat dissimilarities that influence the reduced by 17 km2 (6.56 mi2) each year previously cleared for agriculture or by magnitude of these threats. Fluminense between 1984 and 2001, equivalent to a fires (De Roy 2002). swallowtails are monophagous (Otero loss of 40 percent of restinga vegetation The Jurubatiba National Park (14,860 and Brown 1984; Kotiaho et al. 2005). In over the 17-year period (Temer 2006). ha; 36,720 mi2), located in Macae´ and contrast, Harris’ mimic swallowtail is The major ongoing human activities that established in 1998 (Decree of April 29 polyphagous (Collins and Morse 1985; have resulted in habitat loss, 1998), is one of the largest contiguous Brown 1996); its larvae feed on more degradation, and fragmentation include: restingas (specialized sandy, coastal than one species of plant (Kotiaho et al. Conversion to agriculture, plantations, habitats) under protection in Brazil 2005). In addition, although their ranges livestock pastures, human settlements, (CEPF 2007b; Rocha et al. 2007). The overlap, Harris’ mimic swallowtails hydropower reservoirs, commercial Macae´ River Basin forms the outer edge tolerate a wider range of habitat than the logging, subsistence activities, and of the Jurubatiba National Park (Park) highly specialized restinga habitat coastal development (Hughes et al. (International Finance Corporation (IFC) preferred by fluminense swallowtail. 2006; Butler 2007; Pivello 2007; TNC 2002) and consists of the habitat Also unlike the Harris’ mimic 2007; Peixoto and Silva 2007; World preferred by the fluminense swallowtail swallowtail, fluminense swallowtails Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007). (Brown 1996; Otero and Brown 1984). require a large area to maintain a viable One estimate concluded that Rio de Rocha et al. (2007) described the habitat population (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Janeiro contains 1,675,457 ha (4,140,127 as being in a very good state of Monteiro et al. 2004); in part because ac) of suitable habitat (Uehara-Prado conservation, but lacking a formal they are known to only feed on one food and Fonseca 2007). While the presence management plan. Threats to the Macae´ source. of suitable habitat should not be used to region include industrialization for oil Conservation Status. Brazil infer the presence of a species (Uehara- reserve and power development (IFC categorizes the fluminense swallowtail Prado and Fonseca 2007), it should 2002) and intense population pressures to be ‘‘Imperiled’’ (Portaria No. 1,522

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25171

1989; MMA 2003). It is strictly protected resulted in fragmentation of the current 2000). Species with restricted from commerce (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004). landscape; however, the potential for distributions or localized populations, According to the 2010 IUCN Red List, continued habitat modification exists, such as the Hahnel’s Amazonian the fluminense swallowtail has been and we will continue to monitor the swallowtail, are more vulnerable to classified as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ since 1983, situation. On the basis of this overcollection than those with a wider based on its small distribution and a information, the fluminense swallowtail distribution (Brown in litt. 2004; decline in the number of populations retains a priority rank of 5. Robbins in litt. 2004). Although not strictly protected from collection caused by habitat fragmentation and S. Hahnel’s Amazonian Swallowtail throughout Brazil, the state of Para´ loss. However, this species has not been (Parides hahneli), LPN = 2 reevaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red recently declared the capture of List categorization criteria. This species Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail for has not been formally considered for endemic to Brazil and is found only on purposes other than research to be listing in the Appendices of CITES sandy beaches where the habitat is forbidden (Decreto No. 802, 2008). It is (www.cites.org). However, the European overgrown with dense scrub vegetation not listed in any appendices of CITES. Commission listed fluminense (Collins and Morris 1985; New and As of 2008, seizures of Hahnel’s swallowtail on Annex B of Regulation Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 1994). Amazonian swallowtail into or out of 338/97 in 1997 (Grimm in litt. 2008), Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is the United States had not been reported and the species continues to be listed on likely to be monophagous. The (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish this Annex (Eur-Lex 2008). This listing swallowtail depends upon highly and Wildlife Service, Arlington, requires that imports from a non- specialized habitat—stranded beaches of Virginia in litt. 2008). The best available European Union country be river drainage areas. Wells et al. (1983) information does not indicate that accompanied by a permit that is only describes the habitat as ancient sandy overutilization is a threat to the species. issued if the CITES Scientific Authority beaches covered by scrubby or dense Competition for host plants has been has made a finding that trade in the vegetation that is not floristically identified as a potential threat to species will not be detrimental to the diverse. The larval host-plant is Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail. survival of the species in the wild believed to be a species in the Researchers in the past believed that (Grimm in litt. 2008). There would be Dutchman’s pipe genus, either this species might suffer from host plant no requirement that the non-European Aristolochia lanceolato-lorato or A. competition with other butterfly species acutifolia (69 FR 70580; December 7, Union exporting country make such a in the region (Wells 1983; Collins and 2004). finding or issue a document if the Morris 1985; Brown 1996); however, Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is this competition has not been species is not CITES-listed. There has known in three localities along the been no legal trade in this species into confirmed. It occupies the same range tributaries of the middle and lower with another swallowtail butterfly, the European Union since its listing on Amazon River basin in the states of Annex B (Grimm in litt. 2008), and we Parides chabrias ygdrasilla, and mimics Amazonas and Para´ (Collins and Morris at least two other genera that occupy the are not aware of any recent reports of 1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al. seizures or smuggling in this species same area, Methona and Thyrides 1994; Brown 1996). Two of these (Brown 1996). At this time, there is into or out of the United States (Office colonies were rediscovered in the 1970s of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and insufficient information to conclude (Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996). that competition is a threat affecting this Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia in Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is species. litt. 2008). highly localized, reflecting the Conservation Status. Hahnel’s In our 2009 ANOR, the fluminense distribution of its highly specialized Amazonian swallowtail is not nationally swallowtail received an LPN of 5. After preferred habitat (Brown in litt. 2004). protected (Portaria No. 1522 1989; MMA reevaluating the threats to the The population size of Hahnel’s 2003), although the state of Para´ listed fluminense swallowtail, we have Amazonian swallowtail is not known. it as endangered on its list of threatened determined that a change in the listing However, within the area of its range, species (Resoluc¸a˜o 054 2007; Decreto priority number is not warranted. The Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail No. 802 2008; Secco and Santos 2008). fluminense swallowtail does not populations are small (Brown in litt. Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail represent a monotypic genus. The 2004). continues to be listed as ‘‘Data Deficient’’ species is currently at risk from habitat Habitat alteration (e.g., for dam by the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010). destruction; however, we have construction and waterway crop Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail has determined that overutilization and transport) and destruction (e.g., clearing not been formally considered for listing parasitism are not currently occurring for agriculture and cattle grazing) are in the Appendices of CITES (CITES such that they are threats to the ongoing in Para´ and Amazonas, where 2009). Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail fluminense swallowtail. The current this species is found (Fearnside 2006; is listed on Annex B of Regulation 338/ threat of habitat destruction is of high Hurwitz 2007). Current research on 97 (Eur-Lex 2008), and there has been magnitude because the species: population trends is lacking. However, no legal trade in this species into the (1) Occupies highly specialized habitat; researchers believe that, because European Union since its listing on (2) requires large areas to maintain a Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail has Annex B in 1997 (Grimm in litt. 2008). viable colony; and (3) is only found extremely limited habitat preferences, After reevaluating the threats to the within two protected areas considered any sort of river modification such as Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail, we to be large enough to support viable impoundment, channelization, or levee have determined that a change in listing colonies. However, additional construction would have an immediate priority number is warranted. Hahnel’s populations have been reported, and highly negative impact on the Amazonian swallowtail does not increasing previously known population species (Wells et al. 1983; New and represent a monotypic genus. It faces numbers and distribution. The threat of Collins 1991). threats that are high in magnitude and habitat destruction is nonimminent This species of swallowtail has been imminent due to its small endemic because most habitat modification is the collected for commercial trade (Collins population, and limited and decreasing result of historical destruction that has and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schu¨ tz availability of its highly specialized

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

habitat (stranded beaches of river strategy (HMGN 2002). Habitat Thailand: The species has been drainage area) and food sources. The degradation and loss caused by reported in the northern province of primary threats of dam construction, deforestation and land conversion for Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The waterway crop transport, clearing for agricultural purposes is a primary threat CITES Scientific Authority of Thailand agriculture and cattle grazing are to the species in Thailand (Hongthong recently confirmed that the species has ongoing in Para´ and Amazonas. These 1998; FAO 2001). The species is limited distribution in the high threats are imminent due to the species’ afforded some protection from habitat mountains (>1,500 m (4,921 ft)) of highly localized and specialized habitat destruction in Vietnam, where it has northern Thailand and is found within requirements. Secondary concerns are been confirmed in three nature reserves three national parks. However, no possible illegal collection, competition that have low levels of disturbance biological or status information was with other species, and potential (Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and available (Choldumrongkul in litt. catastrophic events such as severe Richardson 1999). 2007). tropical storms or introduction of a new Vietnam: The species has been disease or predator. Based on a Conservation Status confirmed in three Nature Reserves reevaluation of the threats, we have Since 1996, the Kaiser-I-Hind (Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to swallowtail has been categorized on the Richardson 1999), and the species is reflect imminent threats of high IUCN Red List as a species of ‘‘Lower listed as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ in the 2007 magnitude. Risk/near threatened’’; it has not been Vietnam Red Data Book, due to reevaluated using the 1997 criteria declining population sizes and area of T. Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail occupancy (Canh in litt. 2007). (Teinopalpus imperialis), LPN = 8 (Gimenez Dixon 1996; IUCN 2010). The species was considered ‘‘Rare’’ by The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is Collins and Morris (1985). Despite its highly valued and has been collected for native to the Himalayan regions of widespread distribution, local commercial trade, despite range country Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, populations are not abundant (Collins regulations prohibiting or restricting Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam (Shrestha and Morris 1985). The known localities such activities (Collins and Morris 1985; 1997; FRAP 1999; Osada et al. 1999; and conservation status of the species Schu¨ tz 2000). In China, where the Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson within each range country follows: species is protected by the Animals and 1999; Masui and Uehara 2000; Food and Bhutan: The species was reported to Plants (Protection of Endangered Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2001; be extant in Bhutan (Gimenez Dixon Species) Ordinance (1989), which Igarashi 2001; Baral et al. 2005; 1996; FRAP 1999), although details on restricts import, export, and possession TRAFFIC 2007). This species prefers localities or status information were not of the species, species purportedly undisturbed (primary), heterogeneous, derived from Sichuan were being provided. broad-leaved-evergreen forests or advertised for sale on the Internet for 60 China: The species has been reported montane deciduous forests, and flies at U.S. Dollars (US$). In India, the Kaiser- in Fuji, Guangxi, Hubei, Jiangsu, altitudes of 1,500 to 3,050 m (4,921 to I-Hind swallowtail is listed on Schedule Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces (Collins 10,000 ft) (Collins and Morris 1985; II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act and Morris 1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996; Tordoff et al. 1999; Igarashi 2001). This of 1972, which prohibits hunting species is polyphagous. Larval host- UNEP–WCMC 1999; Igarashi and without a license (Collins and Morris plants may differ across the species’ Fukuda 2000; Sung and Yan 2005). The 1985; Indian Wildlife Protection Act range, and include: Magnolia campbellii species is classified by the 2005 China 2006). However, between 1990 and ‘‘ ’’ in China (Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; Species Red List as Vulnerable (China 1997, illegally collected specimens were Sung and Yan 2005; Yen and Yang Red List 2006). selling for 500 Rupees (12 US$) per 2001); Magnolia spp. in Vietnam (Funet India: Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, female and 30 Rupees (0.73 US$) per 2004); Daphne spp. in India, Nepal, and Sikkim, and West Bengal (Bahuguna male (Bahuguna 1998). In Nepal, the Myanmar (Funet 2004); and Daphne 1998; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is protected nipalensis also in India (Robinson et al. Dixon 1996; Ministry of Environment by the National Parks and Wildlife 2004). It has been reported that the adult and Forests 2005). There is no recent Conservation Act of 1973 (His Majesty’s Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails do not feed status information on this species Government of Nepal (HMGN) 2002). (Collins and Morris 1985). (Bombay Natural History Society in litt. However, the Nepal Forestry Ministry Habitat destruction is the greatest 2007). determined in 2002 that the high threat to this species, which prefers Laos: The species has been reported commercial value of its ‘‘Endangered’’ undisturbed high-altitude habitat (Osada et al. 1999), but no further species on the local and international (Collins and Morris 1985; Tordoff et al. information is available (Vonxaiya in market may result in local extinctions of 1999; Igarashi 2001). In China and India, litt. 2007). species such as the Kaiser-I-Hind the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail Myanmar: The species has been (HMGN 2002). populations are at risk from habitat reported in Shan, Kayah (Karen) and In Thailand, the Kaiser-I-Hind modification and destruction due to Thaninanthayi (Tenasserim) states swallowtail and 13 other invertebrates commercial and illegal logging (Yen and (Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez are listed under Thailand’s Wild Yang 2001; Maheshwari 2003). In Nepal, Dixon 1996). There is no status Reservation and Protection Act the species is at risk from habitat information. (WARPA) of 1992 (B.E. 2535 1992), disturbance and destruction resulting Nepal: The species has been reported which makes it illegal to collect wildlife from mining, fuel wood collection, in Nepal (Collins and Morris 1985; (whether alive or dead) or to have the agriculture, and grazing animals (Collins Gimenez Dixon 1996), in the Central species in one’s possession (Hongthong and Morris 1985; Shrestha 1997; Baral et Administrative Region at two localities: 1998; Pornpitagpan 1999; FAO 2001; al. 2005). Nepal’s Forest Ministry Phulchoki Mountain Forest (Baral et al. Choldumrongkul in litt. 2007). In considered habitat destruction to be a 2005; Collins and Morris 1985) and addition to prohibiting possession, critical threat to all biodiversity, Shivapuri National Park (Nepali Times WARPA prohibits hunting, breeding, including the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, 2002; Shrestha 1997). There is no status and trading. Import and export are only in the development of their biodiversity information. allowed for conservation purposes

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25173

(Jaisielthum in litt. 2007). According to After reevaluating the threats to this and program-management functions the Thai Scientific Authority, there are species, we have determined that a (including preparing and allocating no captive breeding programs for this change in listing priority number is not budgets, responding to Congressional species; however, the species is offered warranted. The Kaiser-I-Hind and public inquiries, and conducting for sale by the Lepidoptera Breeders swallowtail does not represent a public outreach regarding listing and Association (2009). It was marketed as monotypic genus. The current threats of critical habitat). derived from a captive breeding habitat destruction and illegal collection The work involved in preparing program in Thailand, although are moderate in magnitude due to the various listing documents can be specimens were recently noted as being species’ wide distribution and to the extensive and may include, but is not ‘‘out of stock’’ (Lepidoptera Breeders protections in place. We find that the limited to: Gathering and assessing the Association 2009). threats are imminent due to ongoing best scientific and commercial data In Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind habitat destruction, high market value available and conducting analyses used swallowtails are reported to be among for specimens, and inadequate domestic as the basis for our decisions; writing the most valuable of all butterflies protections for the species or its habitat. and publishing documents; and (World Bank 2005). In 2006, the species Based on our reassessment of the obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating was listed on Schedule IIB of Decree No. threats, we have retained an LPN of 8 public comments and peer review 32 on ‘‘Management of endangered, to reflect imminent threats of moderate comments on proposed rules and precious and rare forest plants and magnitude. incorporating relevant information into animals.’’ A Schedule IIB-listing restricts final rules. The number of listing the exploitation or commercial use of Preclusion and Expeditious Progress actions that we can undertake in a given species with small populations or that This section describes the actions that year also is influenced by the are considered by the country to be in continue to preclude the immediate complexity of those listing actions; that danger of extinction (Canh in litt. 2007). proposal of listing rules for the 20 is, more complex actions generally are In a recent survey conducted by species described above. In addition, we more costly. The median cost for TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 2000 summarize the expeditious progress we preparing and publishing a 90-day residents in Ha Noi, Vietnam, the are making, as required by section finding is $39,276; for a 12-month Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail was among 37 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, to add finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule Schedule IIB-species that were actively qualified species to the lists of with critical habitat, $345,000; and for being collected (p. 36). The majority of endangered or threatened species and to a final listing rule with critical habitat, the survey respondents were unaware of remove from these lists species for the median cost is $305,000. legislation prohibiting collection of which protections of the Act are no We cannot spend more than is Schedule IIB-species (p. 7). This is a longer necessary. appropriated for the Listing Program highly desirable species, and there is a Section 4(b) of the Act states that the without violating the Anti-Deficiency culture within Vietnam of consuming Service may make warranted-but- Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In rare and expensive wild animal dishes, precluded findings only if it can addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal particularly in Ha Noi among the elite demonstrate that (1) An immediate year since then, Congress has placed a (TRAFFIC 2007, p. 9). This practice proposed rule is precluded by other statutory cap on funds which may be does not seem to be decreasing; rather pending proposals and that (2) expended for the Listing Program, equal it appears to be increasing. Thus, we expeditious progress is being made on to the amount expressly appropriated find that overutilization for illegal other listing actions. Preclusion is a for that purpose in that fiscal year. This domestic use is a threat to this species. function of the listing priority of a cap was designed to prevent funds Although Vietnam has implemented species in relation to the resources that appropriated for other functions under several action plans to strengthen are available and competing demands the Act (for example, recovery funds for control of trade in wild fauna and flora for those resources. Thus, in any given removing species from the Lists), or for (TRAFFIC 2007, p. 9), within-country fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate other Service programs, from being used protections are inadequate to protect the whether it will be possible to undertake for Listing Program actions (see House species from illegal collection work on a proposed listing regulation or Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st throughout its range. whether promulgation of such a Session, July 1, 1997). The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has proposal is warranted-but-precluded by Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget been listed in CITES Appendix II since higher priority listing actions. has included a critical habitat subcap to 1987 (UNEP–WCMC 2008a). Between The resources available for listing ensure that some funds are available for 1991 and 2005, 160 Kaiser-I-Hind actions are determined through the other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The swallowtail specimens were traded annual Congressional appropriations critical habitat designation subcap will internationally under CITES permits process. The appropriation for the ensure that some funding is available to (UNEP WCMC 2006), and between 2000 Listing Program is available to support address other listing activities’’ (House and 2008, 157 specimens were traded work involving the following listing Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st (UNEP WCMC 2009). Reports that the actions: Proposed and final listing rules; Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2010, we Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is being 90-day and 12-month findings on are using some of the critical habitat captive-bred in Taiwan (Yen and Yang petitions to add species to the Lists of subcap funds to fund actions with 2001) remain unconfirmed. Since 1993, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife statutory deadlines. there have been no reported seizures or and Plants (Lists) or to change the status Thus, through the listing cap, the smuggling of this species into or out of of a species from threatened to critical habitat subcap, and the amount the United States (Office of Law endangered; annual determinations on of funds needed to address court- Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife prior ‘‘warranted-but-precluded’’ mandated critical habitat designations, Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt. petition findings as required under Congress and the courts have in effect 2008). Therefore, on the basis of global section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical determined the amount of money trade data, we do not consider legal habitat petition findings; proposed and available for other listing activities. international trade to be a threat to this final rules designating critical habitat; Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, species. and litigation-related, administrative, other than those needed to address

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

court-mandated critical habitat for candidate species. In 2009, the in the top section of the table are being already listed species, set the limits on responsibility for listing foreign species conducted under a deadline set by a our determinations of preclusion and under the Act was transferred from the court. Actions in the bottom section of expeditious progress. Division of Scientific Authority (DSA), the table are being conducted to meet In FY 2010, expeditious progress is International Affairs Program, to the statutory timelines, that is, timelines that amount of work that can be Endangered Species Program. Starting required under the Act. The funding for achieved with $10,471,000, which is the in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is domestic and foreign species was not amount of money that Congress being used to work on the actions appropriated separately in FY 2010. In appropriated for the Listing Program described above as they apply to listing addition to the actions demonstrating (that is, the portion of the Listing actions for foreign species. expeditious progress mentioned above, Program funding not related to critical For FY 2011, on September 29, 2010, we list the progress in adding qualified habitat designations for species that are Congress passed a continuing resolution species to the Federal List of already listed). However, these funds which provides funding at the FY 2010 Endangered and Threatened Species for were not enough to fully fund all our enacted level. Until Congress domestic species in the 2010 Candidate court-ordered and statutory listing appropriates funds for FY 2011, we will Notice of Review (75 FR 69822, actions in FY 2010, so we used fund listing work based on the FY 2010 published November 10, 2010). $1,114,417 of our critical habitat subcap amount. BFS may, based on available staff funds in order to work on all of our In addition, available staff resources resources, work on species described required petition findings and listing are also a factor in determining high- within this ANOR with an LPN of 2 or determinations. This brings the total priority species provided with funding. 3, and when appropriate, species with a amount of funds we had for listing Finally, proposed rules for lower priority if they overlap actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our reclassification of threatened species to geographically or have the same threats process is to make our determinations of endangered are lower priority, because as the species with the high priority. preclusion on a nationwide basis to as listed species, they are already Including these species together in the ensure that the species most in need of afforded the protection of the Act and same proposed rule results in listing will be addressed first and also implementing regulations. considerable savings in time and because we allocate our listing budget Starting in FY 2010, the Washington funding, when compared to preparing on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 Office (WO) Endangered Species separate proposed rules for each of them is being used to fund work in the Program has full responsibility for in the future. Because the actions below following categories: Compliance with foreign species’ listing actions under the are either the subject of a court- court orders and court-approved Act. The Branch of Foreign Species approved settlement agreement or settlement agreements requiring that (BFS) was established in June 2010 to subject to an absolute statutory deadline petition findings or listing specifically work on petitions and other and, thus, are higher priority than work determinations be completed by a actions under Section 4 of the Act for on proposed listing determinations for specific date; section 4 (of the Act) foreign species. the 20 species described above, listing actions with absolute statutory Our expeditious progress also publication of proposed rules for these deadlines; essential litigation-related, includes work on listing actions that we 20 species is precluded. For expeditious administrative, and listing program- funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but progress on domestic actions, see the management functions; and high- have not yet been completed to date. Candidate Notice of Review, published priority listing actions for some of our These actions are listed below. Actions 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 progress in adding to and removing since publication of the 2009 Notice of publishing proposed listing rules for species from the Federal lists of Review, August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540) these 20 species described in this threatened and endangered species. Our to the current date includes preparing notice, we are making expeditious expeditious progress for foreign species and publishing the following:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25175

ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS PUBLISHED IN FY 2010

Publication date Title Action FR pages

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

As explained above, a determination Monitoring and staff members of the U.S. CITES that listing is warranted-but-precluded Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act Scientific and Management Authorities, must also demonstrate that expeditious requires us to ‘‘implement a system to and the Division of International progress is being made to add or remove monitor effectively the status of all Conservation; and we attend scientific qualified species to and from the Lists species’’ for which we have made a meetings to obtain current status of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife warranted-but-precluded 12-month information for relevant species. As and Plants. (Although we do not discuss finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the previously stated, if we identify any it in detail here, we are also making [emergency listing] authority [under species for which emergency listing is expeditious progress in removing section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant appropriate, we will make prompt use species from the Lists under the risk to the well being of any such of the emergency listing authority under Recovery program, which is funded by species.’’ For foreign species, the section 4(b)(7) of the Act. a separate line item in the budget of the Service’s ability to gather information to Request for Information Endangered Species Program. As with monitor species is limited. The Service our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, expeditious welcomes all information relevant to the We request the submission of any progress in adding qualified species to status of these species, because we have further information on the species in the Lists is a function of the resources no ability to gather data in foreign this notice as soon as possible, or available and the competing demands countries directly and cannot compel whenever it becomes available. We for those funds. Given that limitation, another country to provide information. especially seek information: (1) we find that we are making progress in Thus, this ANOR plays a critical role in Indicating that we should remove a FY 2010 in the Listing Program. our monitoring efforts for foreign taxon from consideration for listing; species. With each ANOR, we request We have endeavored to make our (2) documenting threats to any of the information on the status of the species included taxa; (3) describing the listing actions as efficient and timely as included in the notice. Information and immediacy or magnitude of threats possible, given the requirements of the comments on the annual findings can be facing these taxa; (4) identifying relevant law and regulations, and submitted at any time. We review all taxonomic or nomenclatural changes for constraints relating to workload and new information received through this any of the taxa; or (5) noting any personnel. We are continually process as well as any other new mistakes, such as errors in the indicated considering ways to streamline information we obtain using a variety of historic ranges. processes or achieve economies of scale, methods. We collect information such as by batching related actions directly from range countries by References Cited together. Given our limited budget for correspondence, from peer-reviewed A list of the references used to implementing section 4 of the Act, these scientific literature, unpublished develop this notice is available upon actions described above collectively literature, scientific meeting request (see ADDRESSES section). constitute expeditious progress. proceedings, and CITES documents (including species proposals and reports Our expeditious progress also Authors from scientific committees). We also includes work on pending listing obtain information through the permit This Notice of Review was authored actions described above in our application processes under CITES, the by the staff of the Branch of Foreign ‘‘precluded finding,’’ but for which Act, and the Wild Bird Conservation Act Species, Endangered Species Program, decisions had not been completed at the (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.). We also consult U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see time of this publication. with the IUCN species specialist groups ADDRESSES section).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 25176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Authority Species Act of 1973, as amended Dated: April 15, 2011. (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Rowan W. Gould, This Notice of Review is published Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. under the authority of the Endangered [FR Doc. 2011–10286 Filed 5–2–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:20 May 02, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03MYP3.SGM 03MYP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3