40540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR questions concerning this notice to the precluded finding on a petition to list above address. means that listing is warranted, but that Fish and Wildlife Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the immediate proposal and timely Chief, Branch of Listing, Endangered promulgation of a final regulation is 50 CFR Part 17 Species Program, (see ADDRESSES); by precluded by higher priority listing [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0057] telephone at 703-358-2171; or by actions. In making a warranted-but [90100 16641FLA-B6] facsimile at 703-358-1735). Persons who precluded finding under the Act, the use a telecommunications device for the Service must demonstrate that Endangered and Threatened Wildlife deaf (TDD) may call the Federal expeditious progress is being made to and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- add and remove species from the lists of on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign 877-8339. endangered and threatened wildlife and Species; Annual Description of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: plants. Progress on Listing Actions Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Background Act, when, in response to a petition, we AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, find that listing a species is warranted Interior. but precluded, we must make a new 12– ACTION: Notice of review. as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for month finding annually until we SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we considering species for listing. First, we publish a proposed rule or make a announce our annual petition findings can identify and propose for listing determination that listing is not for foreign species, as required under those species that are endangered or warranted. These subsequent 12–month section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered threatened based on the factors findings are referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, contained in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. petition findings. This notice contains in response to a petition, we find that We implement this mechanism through our resubmitted petition findings for listing a species is warranted but the candidate program. Candidate taxa foreign species previously described in precluded by higher priority listing are those taxa for which we have the 2008 Notice of Review (73 FR 44062; actions, we must complete a new status sufficient information on file relating to July 29, 2008) and that are currently the review each year until we publish a biological vulnerability and threats to subject of outstanding petitions. proposed rule or make a determination support a proposal to list the taxa as Previous Notices that listing is not warranted. These endangered or threatened, but for which The species discussed in this notice subsequent status reviews and the preparation and publication of a were the result of three separate accompanying 12–month findings are proposed rule is precluded by higher petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition priority listing actions. The second Wildlife Service (Service) to list a findings. mechanism for considering species for Information contained in this notice number of foreign bird and butterfly listing is for the public to petition to add species as threatened or endangered describes our status review of 20 foreign species to the Lists of Endangered and taxa that were the subjects of previous under the Act. We received petitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). list foreign bird species on November warranted-but-precluded findings, most The species covered by this notice were recently summarized in our 2008 Notice 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 26464; assessed through the petition process. May 12, 1981, and 56 FR 65207; of Review. Based on our current review, Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that 20 species (see Table 1) December 16, 1991, respectively). On when we receive a listing petition, we January 10, 1994, we received a petition continue to warrant listing, but that must determine within 90 days, to the their listing remains precluded by to list 7 butterfly species as threatened maximum extent practicable, whether or endangered (59 FR 24117; May 10, higher priority listing actions. the petition presents substantial With this annual notice of review 1994). scientific or commercial information We took several actions on these (ANOR), we are requesting additional indicating that the petitioned action status information for the 20 taxa that petitions. To notify the public on these may be warranted (90–day finding). If actions, we published petition findings, remain warranted but precluded by we make a positive 90–day finding, we higher priority listing actions. We will listing rules, status reviews, and petition are required to promptly commence a finding reviews that included foreign consider this information in preparing review of the status of the species, listing documents and future species in the Federal Register on the whereby, in accordance with section following dates: resubmitted petition findings for these 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act we must make one Date FR Citation 20 taxa. This information will also help of three findings within 12 months of us to monitor the status of the taxa and May 12, 1981 ...... 46 FR 26464 the receipt of the petition (12–month January 20, 1984 ...... 49 FR 2485 in conserving them. finding). The first possible 12–month May 10, 1985 ...... 50 FR 19761 DATES: We will accept information on finding is that listing is not warranted, January 9, 1986 ...... 51 FR 996 these resubmitted petition findings at in which case we need not take any July 7, 1988 ...... 53 FR 25511 any time. further action on the petition. The December 29, 1988 .. 53 FR 52746 April 25, 1990 ...... 55 FR 17475 ADDRESSES: This notice is available on second possibility is that we may find September 28, 1990 55 FR 39858 the Internet at http:// that listing is warranted, in which case November 21, 1991 .. 56 FR 58664 www.regulations.gov, and http:// we must promptly publish a proposed December 16, 1991 .. 56 FR 65207 endangered.fws.gov/. Supporting rule to list the species. Once we publish March 28, 1994 ...... 59 FR 14496 information used in preparing this a proposed rule for a species, sections May 10, 1994 ...... 59 FR 24117 notice is available for public inspection, 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) govern further January 12, 1995 ...... 60 FR 2899 by appointment, during normal business procedures, regardless of whether or not May 21, 2004 ...... 69 FR 29354 hours at the Branch of Listing, 4401 N. we issued the proposal in response to April 23, 2007 ...... 72 FR 20184 Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, the petition. The third possibility is that Our most recent review of petition Virginia 22203. Please submit any new we may find that listing is warranted findings was published on July 29, 2008 information, materials, comments, or but precluded. A warranted-but- (73 FR 44062).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40541

Since our last review of petition referred to as ‘‘candidates’’ under the (Hennessey 2004a as cited in BirdLife findings in July 2008, we have taken Act. The column labeled ‘‘Priority’’ International 2009a8; Maccormack in four listing actions related to species indicates the LPN. Following the litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife previously included in this notice (see scientific name of each taxon (third International 2008; MacLeod in litt. Preclusion and Expeditious Progress column) is the family designation 2003 as cited in BirdLife International section for additional listing actions that (fourth column) and the common name, 2009a), on the eastern edge of the were not related to this notice). On if one exists (fifth column). The sixth Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba, December 8, 2008, we published two column provides the known historic and in the Rio Tambopata area near the proposed rules to list species under the range for the taxon. The avian species in Bolivia/Peru border. Act: One to list the medium tree finch Table 1 are listed taxonomically. In Peru, a subpopulation (Pauxi (73 FR 74434), and the other to list the unicornis koepckeae) is known only black-breasted puffleg (73 FR 74427). Findings on Species for Which Listing from the Sira Mountains in Huanuco On December 24, 2008, we published a Is Warranted but Precluded (Tobias and del Hoyo 2006). In 2005, a proposed rule to list the Andean We have found that, for the 20 taxa team from the Armonia Association flamingo, the Chilean woodstar, and the discussed below, publication of (BirdLife in Bolivia) saw one and heard St. Lucia forest thrush (73 FR 79226). proposed listing rules will continue to three southern helmeted curassow in On July 7, 2009, we published a be precluded over the next year due to the Sira’s: the first sighting of the proposed rule to list the blue-billed the need to complete pending, higher distinctive endemic Peruvian race since curassow, the brown-banded antpitta, priority listing actions. We will 1969 (BirdLife International 2008). the Cauca guan, the gorgeted wood- continue to monitor the status of these Limited reports suggest that the quail, and the Esmeraldas woodstar (74 species as new information becomes southern helmeted curassow is rare here FR 32307). available (see Monitoring, below). Our (MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BirdLife International 2008; Findings on Resubmitted Petitions review of new information will determine if a change in status is Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in This notice describes our resubmitted warranted, including the need to BirdLife International 2009a; Mee et al. petition findings for 20 foreign species emergency list any species or change the 2002), and evidence suggests the for which we had previously found LPN of any of the species. In the population is declining (Gastan˜ aga and proposed listing to be warranted but following section, we describe the status Hennessey 2005 as cited in BirdLife precluded. We have considered all of of and threats to the individual species. International 2009a). The southern the new information that we have helmeted curassow occurs at densities obtained since the previous findings, Birds up to 20 individuals/square kilometer and we have reviewed the listing Southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi (km2); however, in recent surveys only priority number (LPN) of each taxon for unicornis) 1 or 2 individuals have been observed which proposed listing continues to be (Macleod 2007 as cited in BirdLife warranted but precluded, in accordance The southern helmeted curassow is International 2008). with our Listing Priority Guidance one of the least frequently encountered According to the International Union published September 21, 1983 (48 FR South American bird species because of for Conservation of Nature and Natural 43098). Such a priority ranking the inaccessibility of its preferred Resources (IUCN) /Species Survival guidance system is required under habitat and its apparent intolerance of Commission (SSC) Cracid Specialist section 4(h)(3) of the Act. Using this human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler Group the southern helmeted curassow guidance, we assign each taxon an LPN 1998). The southern helmeted curassow is critically endangered and should be of 1 to 12, whereby we first categorize is known only from two distinct given immediate conservation attention based on the magnitude of the threat(s) populations in central Bolivia and (Brooks and Strahl 2000). (high versus moderate-to-low), then by central Peru (BirdLife International The southern helmeted curassow the immediacy of the threat(s) 2009a). inhabits dense, humid, lower montane (imminent versus nonimminent), and The Bolivian population of the forest and adjacent evergreen forest at finally by taxonomic status; the lower nominate species (Pauxi unicornis 450 to 1,200 meters (m) (Cordier 1971; the listing priority number, the higher unicornis) remained unknown to Herzog and Kessler 1998). It prefers the listing priority (i.e., a species with science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). eating nuts of the almendrillo tree an LPN of 1 would have the highest Subsequently, it has been observed in (Byrsonima wadsworthii (Cordier listing priority). the adjacent Amboro´ and Carrasco 1971)), but also consumes other nuts, As a result of our review, we find that National Parks (Brooks 2006; Herzog seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and warranted-but-precluded findings and Kessler 1998), and has recently insects (BirdLife International 2008). remain appropriate for these 20 species. been found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Clutch size of the southern helmeted We emphasize that we are not proposing Territory and National Park (TIPNIS), curassow is probably two, as in other these species for listing by this notice, along the western edge of the Mosetenes Cracidae. However, the only nest found but we do anticipate developing and Mountains, Cochabamba, Bolivia. contained only one egg (Banks 1998; publishing proposed listing rules for Recent surveys have located few Cox et al. 1997; Renjifo and Renjifo these species in the future, with an southern helmeted curassows across the 1997 as cited in BirdLife International objective of making expeditious northern boundary of Carrasco National 2008). progress in addressing all 20 of these Park, where it was historically found The southern helmeted curassow was foreign species within a reasonable (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BirdLife previously classified as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ on timeframe. International 2009a). In Amboro´ the IUCN Red List. In 2005, it was Table 1 (see end of this notice) National Park, the southern helmeted uplisted to its current status as provides a summary of all updated curassow is regularly sighted on the ‘‘Endangered’’ (BirdLife International determinations of the 20 taxa in our upper Rio Saguayo (Wege and Long 2009a; BirdLife International 2004). review. All taxa in Table 1 of this notice 1995). Extensive surveys over the last Southern helmeted curassow are ones for which we find that listing several years have failed to locate the populations are estimated to be is warranted but precluded and are species in Madidi National Park, La Paz declining very rapidly due to

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40543

Fossils indicate that this bird was once population was about 260 pairs (del 2008). In addition, severe weather is a widespread throughout the North and Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson natural limiting factor to this species South Islands. The Takahe was thought 1997). By the 1970s, Takahe populations (Bunin and Jamieson 1995). Weather to be extinct by the 1930s until its had declined dramatically, and it patterns in the Murchison Mountains rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison appeared that the species was at risk of vary from year to year. High chick and Mountains, Fjordland (South Island) extinction. In 1981, the population adult mortality may occur during (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. extraordinarily severe winters, and poor Zealand Department of Conservation Since then, the population has breeding may result from severe stormy (NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its fluctuated between 100 and 180 birds weather during spring breeding season rediscovery, a Takahe Special Area of (Crouchley 1994). At first, translocated (Crouchley 1994). Research confirms 193 square miles (mi2) (500 km2) was set populations increased only slowly, that severity of winter conditions aside in Fiordland National Park for the probably due to young pair-bonds and adversely affects survivorship of Takahe conservation of Takahe (Crouchley the quality of the founding population in the wild, particularly of young birds 1994; NZDOC 2009c). Today, the (Bunin et al. 1997). In recent years, the (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997). species is present in the Murchison and total Takahe population has had Since 1983, the NZDOC has been Stuart Mountains and has been significant growth; in 2004, there was a involved in managing a captive- introduced to four island reserves 13.6 percent increase in the number of breeding and release program to boost (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Mantangi, and adult birds, with the number of breeding Takahe recovery. Excess eggs from wild Maud) (Collar et al. 1994). The pairs up 7.9 percent (BirdLife nests are managed to produce birds population in the Murchison Mountains International 2005). As of August 2007, suitable for releasing back into the wild is important because it is the only birds in the Takahe Special Area had population in the Murchison mainland population that has the increased to 168, and the current Mountains. Some of these captive- potential for sustaining a large, viable national population was 297. However, reared birds have also been used to population (NZDOC 1997). this mainland population was thought establish four predator-free offshore Originally, the species occurred to be at carrying capacity (Greaves island reserves. Since 1984, these birds throughout forest and grass ecosystems. 2007), and Island reserves also appeared have increased the total population on Today, Takahe occupy alpine grasslands to be at carrying capacity (NZDOC islands to about 60 birds (NZDOC (BirdLife International 2007). They feed 2007). Thus, a high priority of the 2009a). Captive-breeding efforts have on tussock grasses during much of the recovery program is to establish a increased the rate of survival of chicks year, with snow tussocks (Chionochloa second viable mainland population to reaching 1 year of age from 50 to 90 pallens, C. flavescens, and C. further increase the total population size percent (NZDOC 1997). However, crassiuscula) being their preferred food (Greaves 2007). Overall, population Takahe that have been translocated to (Crouchley 1994). By June, the snow numbers are slowly increasing due to the islands have higher rates of egg cover usually prevents feeding above intensive management of the island infertility and low hatching success tree line, and birds move into forested reserve populations, but fluctuations in when they breed, contributing to the valleys in the winter and feed mainly on the remnant mainland population the rhizome of a fern (Hypolepis continue to occur (BirdLife International slow increase in the islands’ millefolium). Research by Mills et al. 2000). populations. Researchers postulated that (1980) suggested that Takahe require the The main cause of the species’ the difference in vegetation between the high-carbohydrate concentrations in the historical decline was competition for native mainland grassland tussocks and rhizomes of the fern to meet the tussock grasses by grazing red deer that found on the islands might be metabolic requirement of (Cervus elaphus), which were affecting reproductive success. After thermoregulation in the mid-winter, introduced after the 1940s (Mills and testing nutrients from all available food subfreezing temperatures. The island Mark 1977). The red deer overgrazed the sources, they concluded that there was populations eat introduced grasses Takahe’s habitat, eliminating nutritious no effect, and advised that a (BirdLife International 2007). Takahe plants and preventing some grasses from supplementary feeding program for the form pair bonds that persist throughout seeding (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The birds was not necessary or life and generally occupy the same NZDOC has controlled red deer through recommended (Jamieson 2003). Further territory throughout life (Reid 1967). an intensive hunting program in the research on Takahe established on Their territories are large, and Takahe Murchison Mountains since the 1960s, Tiritiri Matangi Island estimated that defend them aggressively against other and now the tussock grasses are close to the island can support up to 8 breeding Takahe, which means that they will not their original condition (BirdLife pairs, but suggested that the ability of form dense colonies even in very good International 2005). the island to support Takahe is likely to habitat. They are long-lived birds, Predation by introduced stoats decrease as the grass/shrub ecosystem probably between 14 and 20 years (Mustela erminea) is believed to be a reverts to forest. The researchers (Heather and Robertson 1997) and have current risk to the species (Bunin and concluded that, although the four island a low reproductive rate, with clutches Jamieson 1995; Bunin and Jamieson populations fulfilled their role as an consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. Only a few 1996; Crouchley 1994). The NZDOC is insurance against extinction on the pairs manage to consistently rear chicks running a trial stoat control program in mainland at the time of the study, given each year. Although under normal a portion of the Takahe Special Area to impending habitat changes on the conditions this is generally sufficient to measure the effect on Takahe survival islands, it is unclear whether these maintain the population, populations and productivity. Initial assessment island populations will continue to be recover slowly from catastrophic events indicates a positive influence (NZDOC viable in the future without an active (Crouchley 1994). 2007). Other potential competitors or management plan (Baber and Craig The Takahe is listed as ‘‘Endangered’’ predators include the introduced brush- 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). Maxwell on the IUCN Red List because it has an tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and Jamieson (1997) studied survival extremely small population (BirdLife and the threatened weka (Gallirallus and recruitment of captive-reared and International 2006). When rediscovered australis), a flightless woodhen endemic wild-reared Takahe on Fiordland. They in 1948, it was estimated that the to New Zealand (BirdLife International concluded that captive rearing of

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

Takahe for release into the wild Pairs of Chatham oystercatchers However, these species are not increases recruitment of juveniles into occupy their territory all year, while considered a serious threat because of the population. juveniles and subadults form small the large size of the oystercatcher eggs. There is growing evidence that flocks or occur alone on a vacant section Native predators include the red-billed inbreeding can negatively affect small, of the coast. The nest is a scrape usually gull (Larus scopulinus), and southern isolated populations. Jamieson et al. on a sandy beach just above spring-tide black-backed gull (L. dominicanus) (2006) suggested that limiting the and storm surge level or among rocks (Moore 2005b). Nest destruction and potential effects of inbreeding and loss above the shoreline and are often under disturbance is caused by people fishing, of genetic variation should be integral to the cover of small bushes or rock walking, or driving, and by livestock. any management plan for a small, overhangs (Heather and Robertson When a nesting area is disturbed, adult isolated, highly inbred island species, 1997). Chatham oystercatchers often abandon such as the Takahe. Failure to address Chatham oystercatcher is classified as their eggs for up to an hour or more, these concerns may result in reduced ‘Endangered’ on the IUCN Red List leaving the eggs vulnerable to fitness potential and much higher because it has an extremely small opportunistic predators. Eggs are also susceptibility to biotic and abiotic population (BirdLife International trampled by livestock (Moore 2005a). disturbances in the short term and an 2009). It is listed as ‘critically- Another obstacle to Chatham inability to adapt to environmental endangered’ by the New Zealand oystercatcher populations is marram change in the long term. Department of Conservation (DOC grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced 2008a), making it a high priority for to New Zealand from Europe to protect The Takahe does not represent a conservation management (DOC 2007). farmland from sand encroachment. It monotypic genus. The current wild In the early 1970s the Chatham has spread to the Chatham Islands population is small, and the species’ oystercatcher population was where it binds beach sands forming tall distribution is extremely limited. It approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 1996). dunes with steep fronts. In many faces threats that are moderate in In 1988, based on past productivity marram-infested areas, the strip between magnitude because the NZDOC has information, it was feared that the the high tide mark and the foredunes taken measures to aid the recovery of species was at risk of extinction within narrows as the marram advances the species. The NZDOC has 50 to 70 years (Davis 1988 as cited in seaward. Consequently, the Chatham implemented a successful deer control Schmechel and Paterson 2005). oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to program and implemented a captive- However, the population increased by shore where nests are vulnerable to breeding and release program to 30 percent overall between 1987 and tides and storm surges. The dense augment the mainland population and 1999, except trends varied in different marram grass is unsuitable for nesting establish four offshore island reserves. areas of the Chatham Islands (Moore et (Moore and Davis 2005). In a study done Predation by introduced species and al. 2001). Surveys taken over a 6–year by Moore and Williams (2005), the reduced survivorship resulting from period recorded an increase in Chatham authors found that, along the narrow severe winters, combined with the oystercatchers from approximately 100 shoreline, many eggs were washed away Takahe’s small population size and individuals in 1998 (Marchant and and the adults would not successfully naturally low reproductive rate are Higgins 1993) to 320 individuals breed without human intervention. threats to this species that are imminent (including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 Oystercatcher eggs could easily be and ongoing. Therefore, we have (Moore 2005a). Although the overall moved away from the shoreline by assigned this species a priority rank of population has significantly increased fieldworkers and placed in hand-dug 8. over the last 20 years, the population on scrapes surrounded by tidal debris and Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus South East Island (Rangatira), an island kelp. Video cameras placed to observe chathamensis) free of mammalian predators, has nests indicated that feral cats are a gradually declined since the 1970s. The major nest predator. After three Chatham oystercatcher is the rarest reason for the decline is unknown summers of video recording, 13 of the oystercatcher species in the world (DOC (Schmechel and O’Connor 1999). 19 nests recorded were predated by cats. 2001). It is endemic to the Chatham Predation, nest disturbance, invasive When a cat was present eggs usually Island group (Marchant and Higgins plants, and spring tides and storm lasted only one or two days. Of the 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), surges are factors threatening the remaining six nest failures, weka were which lies 534 mi (860 km) east of Chatham oystercatcher population (DOC responsible for three; red-billed gull, mainland New Zealand. The Chatham 2001, Moore 2005). Feral cats (Felis one; sheep-trampling, one; and sea Island group comprises two large, catus) have become established on two wash, one (Moore 2005b). inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) of the Chatham Islands after being The birds of the Chatham Island and numerous smaller islands. Two of introduced as pets. Severe reduction in group are protected. The NZDOC the smaller islands (Rangatira and Chatham oystercatcher numbers is focused conservation efforts in the early Mangere) are nature reserves, which attributed in part by heavy cat 1990s on predator trapping and fencing provide important habitat for the predation. Another predator, the weka to limit domestic stock access to nesting Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham (Gallirallus australis), an endemic New areas. In 2001, the NZDOC published Island group has a biota quite different Zealand rail, introduced to the Chatham the Chatham Island oystercatcher from the mainland. The remote marine Islands in the early 1900s, is not recovery plan 2001–2011 (DOC 2001), setting, distinct climate, and physical considered as much a threat to the which outlines actions such as makeup have led to a high degree of Chatham oystercatcher as feral cats translocation of nests away from the endemism (Aikman et al. 2001). The because they only prey on eggs when high tide mark and nest manipulation to southern part of the Chatham adult oystercatchers are not present. further the conservation of this species. oystercatcher range is dominated by Other potential predators include the These actions may have helped to rocky habitats with extensive rocky Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), the ship increase hatching success (DOC 2008b). platforms. The northern part of the rat (R. rattus), Australian brush-tailed Artificial incubation has been tried but range is a mix of sandy beach and rock possum (Trichsurus vulpeculs), and did not increase productivity. platforms (Aikman et al. 2001). hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). Additionally, livestock have been

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40545

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

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40546 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

treated as two species: E. cornutus and Grande Terre (Robinet and Salas 1996). death were starvation of the third chick E. uvaeensis (Boon et al. 2008; BirdLife Experimental egg predation rates were within the first week after hatching, International 2007). The Uvea parakeet four times higher on Lifu where R. raptor (presumably the native brown is found only on the small island of rattus occurs (Robinet et al. 1998). goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus) predation Uvea in the Loyalty Archipelago, New Preventive measures have been taken of fledglings, and human harvest for the Caledonia (Territory of France). The at the port and airport to prevent pet trade. island is only 42 mi2 (110 km2) (Juniper introduction of invasive rats and should Additionally, the invasion of bees into and Parr 1998). The Uvea parakeet is continue to be reinforced (Robinet and Uvea in 1996 has resulted in found primarily in old-growth forests, Salas 1996), but there is concern that competition with Uvea parakeet over notably, those dominated by the pine these rats may be introduced in the nesting sites. This has resulted in a tree Agathis australis (del Hoyo et al. future (CITES 2000b). However, as of reduction of known Uvea parakeet 1997). Most birds occur in about 7.7 mi2 2007, the island remained rat free nesting sites by 10 percent between (20 km2) of forest in the north, although (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in 2000 and 2002 (Barre´ in litt. 2003 as some individuals are found in strips of BirdLife International 2009). cited in BirdLife International 2009). forest on the northwest isthmus and in Introductions of Uvea parakeets to the Studies by Robinet et al. (2003) indicate the southern part of the island, with a adjacent island of Lifou (to establish a the density of breeding Uvea parakeet is total area of potential habitat of second population) in 1925 and 1963 positively related to the distribution of approximately 25.5 mi2 (66 km2) failed (Robinet et al. 1995 as cited in suitable trees. Consequently, the (BirdLife International 2009, CITES BirdLife International 2009), possibly number of suitable trees may limit the 2000b). Uvea parakeets feed on the because of the presence of ship rats and number of breeding pairs. In two cases, berries of vines and the flowers and Norwegian rats (Robinet in litt. 1997 as Robinet et al. (2003) observed successful seeds of native trees and shrubs (del cited in Snyder et al. 2000). Robinet et nesting after human restoration of Hoyo et al. 1997). They also feed on al. (1998) studied the impact of rats in former nest sites that had been limited crops in adjacent cultivated Uvea and Lifou on the Uvea parakeet destroyed by illegal collectors. This land. The greatest number of birds and concluded that Lifou is not a further indicates the deleterious effect of occurs close to gardens with papayas suitable place for translocating Uvea nest-site limitation. Additionally, forest (BirdLife International 2009). Uvea parakeet unless active habitat fragmentation as a result of increased parakeet nest in cavities of native trees, management is carried out to protect it numbers of coconut plantations acts as and have a clutch size of 2 to 3 eggs from invasive rats. They also suggested a barrier to dispersal. This could with some double clutches (Robinet and it would be valuable to apply low- possibly explain the lack of Salas 1999). intensity rat control of the Polynesian recolonization in southern Uvea rat (R. exulans) in Uvea immediately (Robinet et al. 2003). Uvea parakeet was Early population estimates of Uvea before the parakeet breeding season. uplisted from Appendix II to Appendix parakeet were alarmingly low—70 to 90 Uvea parakeet is threatened by habitat I of CITES in July 2000 because of its individuals (Hahn 1993). Surveys in loss, capture of juveniles for the pet small population size, restricted area of 1993 by Robinet et al. (1996) yielded trade, and predation (BirdLife distribution, loss of suitable habitat, and estimates of approximately 600 International 2009). The forest habitat of the illegal pet trade (CITES 2000b). individuals. In 1999, it was believed the Uvea parakeet is threatened by A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet that 742 individuals lived in northern clearance for agriculture and logging. In was prepared for the period 1997–2002, Uvea, and 82 in the south (Primot 1999 30 years, approximately 30 to 50 percent which included strong local as cited in BirdLife International 2009). of primary forest has been removed participation in population and habitat Six surveys conducted between 1993 (Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited and 2007 indicated a steady increase in young and increasing human population in Snyder et al. 2000). The species has population numbers in both areas of almost 4,000 inhabitants. The recently increased in popularity and is (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in increase in population will most celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet BirdLife International 2009). Even probably lead to more destruction of and Salas 1997, Primot in litt. 1999 as though populations are currently forest for housing, cultivated fields, and cited in BirdLife International 2009). increasing, any reduction in plantations, especially coconut palms, Conservation actions, including in situ conservation efforts or introduction of the island’s main source of income management (habitat protection and invasive species (particularly the ship (CITES 2000a). The species is also restoration), recovery efforts (providing rat, Rattus rattus and the Norway rat, R. threatened by the illegal pet trade, nest boxes and food), and public norvegicus) could lead to rapid declines mainly for the domestic market education on the protection of Uvea (Robinet et al. 1998, BirdLife (BirdLife International 2007). Nesting parakeet and its habitat are ongoing International 2009). Although the Uvea holes are cut open to extract nestlings, (Robinet et al. 1996). Increased parakeet has a number of predators, the which renders the holes unsuitable for awareness of the plight of the Uvea absence of the ship rat and Norwegian future nesting. The lack of nesting sites parakeet and improvements in law rat on Uvea is a major factor is believed to be a limiting factor for the enforcement capability are helping to contributing to its survival. Norway rats species (BirdLife International 2009). address illegal trade of the species. A are prolific invaders of islands and can Also, Robinet et al. (1996) suggested captive-breeding program has been rapidly establish large populations that the impact of capture of juveniles discussed but not begun (BirdLife (Russell 2007). Additionally, impacts of on the viability of populations is not International 2009). A translocation the rat appear to be more severe on obvious with long-lived species that are program to restock this species into the smaller islands (Martin et al. 2000). In capable of re-nesting, such as Uvea southern portion of Uvea was cancelled one study, it was determined that the parakeet. The current capture of 30 to 50 under a new recovery plan (2003) low rate of predation on nest sites of young Uvea parakeets each year for the because the population is considered Uvea parakeet was related to the pet trade may be unsustainable. In a viable and is expected to increase absence of ship rat and Norwegian rat. study of the reproductive biology of naturally (Barre´ in litt. 2003, Anon 2004 However, these rat species are present Uvea parakeet, Robinet and Salas (1999) as cited in BirdLife International 2009). on the other Loyalty Islands and on found that the main causes of chick Measures are now being taken to control

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40547

predators and prevent further and-yellow macaw (A. ararauna), but captivity, with over 1,000 registered in colonization by rats (BirdLife the two species are now known to occur the North American studbook. Because International 2009). Current Uvea sympatrically without interbreeding (del these birds are not too difficult to breed, parakeet numbers are increasing, but Hoyo et al. 1997). BirdLife International the supply of captive-bred birds has any relaxation of conservation efforts or (2008b) estimated the total wild increased (Waugh 2007), helping to introduction of nonnative rats or other population to be between 250 and 300 alleviate pressure on illegal collecting of predators could lead to a rapid decline and noted the population has some wild birds, but not completely (BirdLife International 2009). The fragmentation. Surveys indicate the eliminating illegal collection. Socie´te´ Cale´donienne d’Ornithologie population may now be slowly The blue-throated macaw is also at (SCO) received funding to test artificial increasing following dramatic declines risk from habitat loss and possible nests, and BirdLife Suisse (ASPO) is in the 1970s and 1980s. Biologists competition from other birds, such as continuing to destroy invasive bees surveying for this species in 2004 found other macaws, toucans, and large nests and is placing hives in forested more birds than in previous surveys by woodpeckers (BirdLife International areas to attract bees for removal searching specific habitat types – palm 2008b; World Parrot Trust 2008). Until (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in groves and forested islands – and recently, all known sites of the blue- BirdLife International 2009). predicted more birds would be found by throated macaw were on private cattle The Uvea parakeet does not represent concentrating searches in these areas ranches, where local ranchers typically a monotypic genus. The Uvea parakeet (Herrera et al. 2007). Through a burn the pasture annually (del Hoyo faces threats that are moderate because population viability analysis (PVA) of 1997). This results in almost no important management efforts have this species, Strem (2008) found that, recruitment of palm trees, which are been put in place to aid in the recovery while there was a low probability of central to the ecological needs of the of the species. However, all of these extinction over the next 50 years, the blue-throated macaw (Yamashita and de efforts must continue to function, small population size, as well as low Barros (1977)). In addition, in Beni because this species is an island population growth rates, makes this many palms are cut down by the local endemic with restricted habitat in one species very vulnerable to any threat. people for firewood (Brace et al. 1995). location. Threats to the species are The low probability of extinction is not Thus, although the palm groves are imminent because illegal trade still unexpected given that the blue-throated more than 500 years old, Yamashita and occurs and the removal of 30 to 50 macaw is a long-lived species and the de Barros (1977) concluded that the percent of the old-growth forest, which 50–year simulation timeframe is palm population structure suggests the birds depend on for nesting holes, relatively short for such species. long-term decline. negatively impacts the reproductive However, Strem (2008) found that Despite some recent surveys that indicate the population may be slowly requirements of the species. We have impacts such as habitat destruction and increasing, this species remains assigned this species a priority rank of harvesting had significant negative categorized as ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ 8. effects on the probabilities of extinction on the 2009 IUCN Red List, ‘‘because its (increasing the probability of Blue-throated macaw (Ara population is extremely small and each extinction), which reemphasizes the glaucogularis) isolated subpopulation is probably tiny importance of addressing these threats The blue-throated macaw is endemic and declining as a result of illegal trade’’ for this species. to forest islands in the seasonally (BirdLife International 2009). It is listed flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de The blue-throated macaw was in Appendix I of CITES (CITES 2006) Mojos) of Central Bolivia (Jordan and historically at risk from trapping for the and is legally protected in Bolivia Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros national and international cage-bird (Juniper and Parr 1998). The Eco Bolivia 1997). It inhabits a mosaic of seasonally trade, and some illegal trade may still be Foundation patrols existing macaw inundated savanna, palm groves, forest occurring. Between the early 1980s and habitat by foot and motorbike, and the islands, and humid lowlands. This early 1990s, an estimated 1,200 or more Armonia Association is searching the species is found in areas where palm- wild-caught individuals were exported Beni lowlands for more populations fruit food is available, especially motacu from Bolivia, and many are now in (Snyder et al. 2000). Additionally, the palm (Attalea phalerata) (Jordan and captivity in the European Union and in Armonia Association is building an Munn 1993; Yamashita and de Barros North America (BirdLife International awareness campaign aimed at the 1997), and it depends on motacu palms 2008b, World Parrot Trust 2003). In cattlemen’s association to ensure that for nesting (Birdlife International 1984, Bolivia outlawed the export of the protection and conservation of these 2008d). It inhabits elevations between live parrots (Brace et al. 1995). birds is at a local level (e.g., protection 656 and 984 ft (200 and 300 m) (BirdLife However, in 1993 (Jordan and Munn of macaws from trappers and the International 2008c; Brace et al. 1995; 1993) investigators reported that an sensible management of key habitats, Yamashita and de Barros 1997). These Argentinean bird dealer was offering such as palm groves and forest islands, macaws are not found to congregate in illegal Bolivian dealers a high price for on their property) (BirdLife large flocks, but are seen most blue-throated macaws. Armonia International 2008a; Llampa 2007; commonly traveling in pairs, and on Association (BirdLife in Bolivia) Snyder et al. 2000). In October 2008, rare occasions may be found in small monitored the wild birds that passed Armonia Association announced it had flocks (Collar et al. 1992). The blue- through a pet market in Santa Cruz from purchased a large 8,785-acre (3,555- throated macaw nests between August 2004 to July 2005. Although hectare) ranch for the purpose of November and March in large tree nearly 7,300 parrots were recorded in establishing a protected area for the cavities where one to two young are trade, the blue-throated macaw was blue-throated macaw (BirdLife raised (BirdLife International 2000). absent in the market during the International 2008d). The new Barba The taxonomic status of this species monitoring period, which may point to Azul Nature Reserve protects excellent was long disputed, primarily because the effectiveness of the ongoing savanna habitat and 20 blue-throated the species was unknown in the wild to conservation programs in Bolivia macaws are known to nest here. The biologists until 1992. Previously it was (BirdLife International 2007). There are organization has also been considered an aberrant form of the blue- a number of blue-throated macaws in experimenting with artificial nest boxes;

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40548 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40549

al. 2002). However, information from Deforestation has been widespread in Although the species was once the Japanese Ministry of Environment this region, but has largely occurred at considered rare (Sick and Texeira 1979, shows that the national park has not lower elevations than habitat occupied as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it is now been established (Japanese Ministry of by the yellow-browed toucanet (BirdLife found in reasonable numbers in certain Environment 2009), and International 2009; Barnes et al. 1995). areas of Brasilia (D. M. Teixeira, in litt. conservationists recommend that a However, coca growers have taken over 1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). major protected area be created to forests within its altitudinal range, Silviera (1998) found this species to be protect all the area’s remaining natural probably resulting in some reductions in very common in and around Serra da forest (BirdLife International 2003). this species’ range and population Canastra National Park in Minas Gerais. The Okinawa woodpecker faces (BirdLife International 2009; Plenge in The population is estimated at more threats that are moderate in magnitude litt. 1993, as cited in BirdLife than 10,000 birds, with a decreasing because the species is legally protected International 2009). Nevertheless, much population trend (BirdLife International in Japan and its range occurs in several forest remains, though forest at all 2008). The IUCN categorizes Brasilia protected areas. However, the threats to elevations has likely been affected tapaculo as ‘‘Near Threatened’’ (BirdLife the species are imminent because the (Plenge in litt. 1993, as cited in BirdLife International 2008). The species old-growth habitat, upon which the International 2009). Most of the area is occupies a very limited range and is species is dependent, continues to be only lightly settled by humans presumably losing habitat around removed, and preferable habitat (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). Brasilia. Its distribution now appears continues to be altered for agriculture However, the human population larger than initially believed, and the and golf courses. Therefore, we have surrounding the Rio Abiseo Park was swampy gallery forests where it is found assigned this species a priority rank of steadily increasing during the 15 years are not conducive for forest clearing, 8. prior to 2002, primarily because of the leaving the species’ habitat less Yellow-browed toucanet advent of mining operations in the area vulnerable to this threat than previously (Aulacorhynchus huallagae) (Obenson 2002). thought. However, dam building for The yellow-browed toucanet is listed irrigation on rivers that normally flood The yellow-browed toucanet is known gallery forests is an emerging threat from only two localities in north-central as ‘Endangered’ on the IUCN Red List because of its very small range and (Antas 2007; D. M. Teixeira in litt. 1987, Peru—La Libertad, where it is as cited in Collar et al. 1992). The uncommon, and Rio Abiseo National extant population records from only two locations (BirdLife International 2009). majority of locations of this species lie Park, San Martin, where it is very rare within established reserves, and both (BirdLife International 2009; del Hoyo et The current population size is unknown, but the population trend is fire risk and drainage impacts are al. 2002; Wege and Long 1995). Its reduced in these areas (Antas 2007). The estimated range is only 174 mi2 (450 believed to be decreasing (BirdLife International 2009). Brasilia tapaculo is currently protected km2) (BirdLife International 2009). by Brazilian law (Bernardes et al. 1990, The yellow-browed toucanet does not There have been recent reports of as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and it is yellow-browed toucanet from represent a monotypic genus. The found in six protected areas (Machado Leymebambe (T. Mark in litt. 2003, as magnitude of threat to the species is et al. 1998, as cited in BirdLife cited in BirdLife International 2009). It moderate and nonimminent given that International 2008; Wege and Long inhabits a narrow altitudinal range the majority of deforestation has not yet 1995). However, annual burning of between 6,970 and 8,232 ft (2,125 and occurred at the elevations occupied by adjacent grasslands limits the extent and 2,510 m), preferring the canopy of this species. Therefore, we have availability of suitable habitat, as does humid, epiphyte-laden montane cloud assigned this species a priority rank of wetland drainage and the sequestration forests, particularly areas that support 11. of water for irrigation (Machado et al. Clusia trees (del Hoyo et al. 2002; Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus 1998, as cited in BirdLife International Fjeldsa˚ and Krabbe 1990; Schulenberg novacapitalis) 2008). and Parker 1997). This narrow The Brasilia tapaculo does not distributional band may be related to The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird represent a monotypic genus. The the occurrence of the larger grey- found in swampy gallery forest, magnitude of threat to the species is breasted mountain toucan (Andigena disturbed areas of thick streamside moderate because the population is hypoglauca) above 7,544 ft (2,300 m) vegetation, and dense secondary growth much larger than previously believed and to the occurrence of the emerald of the bracken fern (Pteridium and preferred habitat is swampy and toucanet (Aulacorhynchus prasinus) aquilinum), from Goia´s, the Federal difficult to clear. Threats are imminent, below 6,888 ft (2,100 m) (Schulenberg District, and Minas Gerais, Brazil however, because habitat is being and Parker 1997). The restricted range of (Negret and Cavalcanti 1985, as cited in drained or dammed for agricultural yellow-browed toucanet remains Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1992; irrigation, and grassland burning limits unexplained, and recent information BirdLife International 2008). The the extent of suitable habitat. Therefore, indicates that both of the suggested Brasilia Tapaculo will occasionally we have assigned this species a priority competitors have wider altitudinal colonize disturbed areas near streams rank of 8. ranges that completely encompass that (BirdLife International 2003). This of yellow-browed toucanet (Clements species has only been recorded locally Codfish Island fernbird (Bowdleria and Shany 2001, as cited in BirdLife within Formas in Goia´s, around Brası´lia. punctata wilsoni) International 2008; Collar et al. 1992; Particular sites where the species has The Codfish Island fernbird is found del Hoyo et al. 2002; J. Hornbuckle in been located, at low densities, include only on Codfish Island—a Nature litt. 1999, as cited in BirdLife Serra Negra (on the upper Dourados Reserve of 3,448 acres (ac) (1,396 International 2009). The yellow-browed River) and the headwaters of the Sa˜o hectares (ha))—located 1.8 mi (3 km) off toucanet does not appear to occupy all Francisco, both in Minas Gerais; and the northwest coast of Stewart Island, potentially suitable forest available Serra do Cipo´ and Carac¸a in the hills New Zealand (IUCN 1979, McClelland within its range (Schulenberg and and tablelands of central Brazil (Collar 2007). There are five subspecies of Parker 1997). et al. 1992). Bowdleria punctata, each restricted to a

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40550 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

single island and its outlying islands. Putauhinu Island—a small 356-ac (144 suboptimal habitats for this species, are The North and South Islands’ ha), privately owned island located under considerable threat from subspecies are widespread and locally approximately 25 mi (40 km) south of clearance for agricultural land (BirdLife common. The Stewart Island and the Codfish Island. The Putauhinu International 2008). Snares’ subspecies are moderately population established rapidly, and The Ghizo white-eye does not abundant (Heather and Robertson 1997). McClelland (2007) reported that it is represent a monotypic genus. It faces In 1966, the status of the Codfish Island believed to be stable. While there are no threats that are moderate in magnitude subspecies (B. punctata wilsoni) was accurate data on the population size or because forest clearing, while a concern, considered relatively safe (Blackburn trends on Putauhinu, the numbers are does not appear to be proceeding at a 1967), but estimates dating from 1975 estimated to be 200 to 300 birds spread pace to rapidly denude the habitat. indicated a gradually declining over the island (McClelland 2007). Even Threats are imminent because the old- population numbering approximately with a second population, the fernbird growth forest which the species is 100 individuals (Bell 1975 as cited in remains vulnerable to naturally dependent upon, is still being cleared IUCN 1979). McClelland (2007) wrote occurring storm events because of its for local use, and secondary growth is that in the past the Codfish Island restricted range and small population being converted for agricultural fernbird was restricted to low shrubland size. purposes. Therefore, we have assigned on the top of Codfish Island with a few The Codfish Island fernbird is a this species a priority rank of 8. subspecies that is now facing threats individuals around the coastal Black-backed tanager (Tangara that are low to moderate in magnitude shrubland; the birds are thought to have peruviana) been eliminated from forest habitat by because the removal of invasive the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) predator species and the establishment The black-backed tanager is endemic (McClelland 2007). The IUCN (1979) of a second population have allowed for to the coastal Atlantic forest region of concluded that the absence of the a strong rebound in the subspecies’ southeastern Brazil, with records from fernbird from areas of Codfish Island population. Threats are nonimminent Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Parana, Santa that it had formerly occupied in the because the conservation measures to Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and mid-1970s evidenced a decline. prevent the invasion of predatory Espirito Santo (Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. Fernbirds are sedentary and their invasive species have proven to be very 2000, as cited in BirdLife International flight is weak. They are secretive and successful. We have, therefore, assigned 2008). It is largely restricted to coastal reluctant to leave cover. They feed in this subspecies a priority rank of 12. sand-plain forest and littoral scrub, or low vegetation or on the ground, eating restinga, and has also been located in Ghizo white-eye (Zosterops luteirostris) mainly caterpillars, spiders, grubs, secondary forests (BirdLife International beetles, flies, and moths (Heather and The Ghizo white-eye is endemic to 2008). The black-backed tanager is Robertson 1997). Ghizo, a very densely populated island generally not considered rare within Codfish Island’s native vegetation has in the Solomon Islands in the South suitable habitat (BirdLife International been modified by the introduced Pacific (BirdLife International 2008). 2008). It has a complex distribution Australian brush-tailed possum Birds are locally common in the with periodic local fluctuations in (Trichosurus vulpecula). Codfish Island remaining tall or old-growth forest, numbers owing to seasonal movements fernbird populations have also been which is very fragmented and comprises in response to the ripening of areoira reduced due to predation by weka less than 0.39 mi2 (1 km2). It is less Schinus fruit, at least in Rio de Janeiro (Gallirallus australis scotti) and common in scrub close to large trees and Sao Paulo (BirdLife International Polynesian rats (Merton 1974, personal and in plantations (Buckingham et al. 2008). This species is more common in communication, as cited in IUCN 1979). 1995 and Gibbs 1996, as cited in Sao Paulo during the winter and records Several conservation measures have BirdLife International 2008), and it is from Espirito Santo are only from the been undertaken by the New Zealand not known whether these two habitats winter season. Clarification of the DOC. The weka and possum were can support sustainable breeding species’ seasonal movements will eradicated from Codfish Island in 1984 populations (Buckingham et al. 1995, as provide an improved understanding of and 1987, respectively (McClelland cited in BirdLife International 2008). the species’ population status and 2007). The Polynesian rat was The IUCN Red List classifies this distribution, but currently populations eradicated in 1997 (Conservation News species as ‘‘Endangered,’’ because of its appear small and fragmented and are 2002, McClelland 2007). The Codfish very small population that is considered probably declining rapidly in response Island fernbird population has been to be declining due to habitat loss. It to extensive habitat loss (BirdLife rebounding strongly with the removal of further notes that the species would be International 2008). Population invasive predator species. Additionally, classified as ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ if estimates range from 2,500 to 10,000 it has successfully colonized the forest the species’ range was judged to be individuals (BirdLife International habitat, which greatly expanded its severely fragmented (BirdLife 2008), and it is considered ‘‘Vulnerable’’ range. Although there is no accurate International 2008). The population by the IUCN (BirdLife International estimate on the current size of the estimate for this species is 250 to 999 2008). The species is negatively Codfish Island fernbird population birds. Biologists recommended that impacted by the rapid and widespread (estimates are based on incidental systematic surveys be conducted for this loss of habitat for beachfront encounter rates in the various habitat species to verify its conservation status development and occasionally appears types on the island), the current (Sherley 2001). While there are no data in the illegal cage-bird trade (BirdLife population is believed to be several on population trends, the species is International 2008). Only small portions hundred. Thus, McClelland (2007) suspected to be declining due to habitat of the tanager’s range occur in six concluded that is it likely that the degradation (BirdLife International protected areas, none of which have population has peaked and is now 2008). The very tall old-growth forest on effective protection (BirdLife stable. Ghizo is still under some threat from International 2008). To safeguard the Codfish Island clearance for local use as timber, The black-backed tanager does not fernbird, the New Zealand DOC firewood, and gardens, and the areas of represent a monotypic genus. The threat established a second population on other secondary growth, which are to the species is low to moderate in

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40551

magnitude due to the species’ fairly and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 2007b). Close monitoring of the large population size and range. The 1999. These laws provide a legislative population is needed because this small, threat is, however, imminent because framework to protect and encourage the endemic population is susceptible to the species is put at risk by ongoing recovery of vulnerable species (DEC catastrophic events, such as disease or rapid and widespread loss of habitat 2006a). The Lord Howe Island Act of introduction of a new predator (Garnett due to beachfront development. 1953, as amended, established the LIHB, and Crowley 2000). Therefore, we have assigned this species made provisions for the LHIB to care, The Lord Howe pied currawong is a a priority rank of 8. control, and manage the island, and subspecies facing threats that are low in established 75 percent of the land area magnitude and nonimminent because of Lord Howe pied currawong (Strepera as a Permanent Park Preserve (DEC the conservation efforts taken for the graculina crissalis) 2007). In 1982, the island was inscribed island as a whole. Therefore, we have The Lord Howe pied currawong is a on the World Heritage List for its assigned this subspecies a priority rank separate subspecies from the five outstanding natural universal values of 12. mainland pied currawongs (Strepera (Department of the Environment and graculina spp.). It is endemic to the Water Resources 2007). Invertebrates Lord Howe Island, New South Wales, In the Action Plan for Australian Harris’ mimic swallowtail (Eurytides Australia. The Lord Howe pied Birds 2000 (Garnett and Crowley 2000), (syn. Mimoides) lysithous harrisianus) currawong can be found anywhere on the Lord Howe pied currawong Harris’ mimic swallowtail is a the 7.7-mi2 (20-km2) island (Hutton population was estimated at subspecies endemic to Brazil (Collins 1991), as well as on offshore islands approximately 80 mature individuals. In and Morris 1985). Although the species’ such as the Admiralty group (Garnett 2006, initial results from a color band range includes Paraguay, the subspecies and Crowley 2000). The Lord Howe survey suggested that the population has not been confirmed there (Collins pied currawong breeds in rainforests size was 180 to 200 in number (LHIB and palm forests, particularly along 2006). Complete results reported by the and Morris 1985; Finnish University streams. Its territories include sections Foundation for National Parks & and Research Network (Funet) 2004). of streams or gullies that are lined by Wildlife (2007) estimated the breeding Occupying the lowland swamps and tall timber (Garnett and Crowley 2000). population of the Lord Howe pied sandy flats above the tidal margins of The highest densities of Lord Howe pied currawong was 80 to 100 pairs, with a the coastal Atlantic Forest, the currawong nests are located on the nesting territory in the tall forest areas subspecies prefers alternating patches of slopes of Mt. Gower and in the Erskine of about 12 acres (ac) (5 hectares (ha)) strong sun and deep shade (Brown 1996; Valley, with smaller numbers on the per pair. The population size is limited Collins and Morris 1985). This lower land to the north (Knight 1987, as by the amount of available habitat and subspecies is polyphagous, meaning cited in Garnett and Crowley 2000). The the lack of food during the winter that its larvae feed on more than one nest is placed high in a tree and is made (Foundation for National Parks & plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). of a cup of sticks lined with grass and Wildlife 2007). Information on preferred hostplants and palm thatch (Department of The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity adult nectar-sources was published in Environment & Climate Change (DECC) Management Plan was finalized in 2007, the 12–month finding (69 FR 70580; 2005). Most of the island is still and is the formal National and NSW December 7, 2004). This subspecies forested, and the removal of feral Recovery Plan for threatened species mimics at least three Parides species, animals has resulted in the recovery of and communities of the Lord Howe including the fluminense swallowtail; the forest understory (World Wildlife Island Group (DEC 2007a). The main details on mimicry were provided in the Fund (WWF) 2001). threat identified for the Lord Howe pied 12–month finding (69 FR 70580; The Lord Howe pied currawong is currawong is habitat clearing and December 7, 2004) and in the 2007 omnivorous and eats a wide variety of modification (DEC 2007b). Lord Howe Notice of Review (72 FR 20184; April food, including native fruits and seeds Island is unique among inhabited 23, 2007). Researchers believe that this (Hutton 1991), and is the only Pacific Islands in that less than 10 mimicry system may cause problems in remaining native island vertebrate percent of the island has been cleared distinguishing this subspecies from the predator (DECC 2005). It has been (WWF 2001) and less than 24 percent species that it mimics (Brown, in litt. recorded taking seabird chicks, poultry, has been disturbed (DEC 2007a). 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004). and chicks of the Lord Howe woodhen Although large-scale clearing of native Harris’ mimic swallowtail was (Tricholimnas sylvestris) and white tern vegetation no longer occurs on Lord previously known in Espirito Santo and (Gygis alba). It also feeds on dead rats Howe Island, the impact of vegetation Rio de Janeiro (Collins and Morris 1985; and has been observed catching live rats clearing on a small scale needs to be New and Collins 1991). However, there to eat (Hutton 1991). A Department of assessed (DEC 2007a). A lesser threat to are no recent confirmations in Espirito Environmental Conservation (DEC) the Lord Howe pied currawong is Santo. In Rio de Janeiro, Harris’ mimic scientist observed that food brought to human interaction with the species. swallowtail has recently been confirmed Lord Howe pied currawong nestlings Prior to the 1970s, locals would shoot in three localities. Two colonies are was, in decreasing order: invertebrates, this currawong because it preys on located on the east coast of Rio de fruits, reptiles, and nestlings of other nestling birds (Hutton 1991). The Lord Janeiro, at Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o and Macae´, bird species (Lord Howe Island Board Howe pied currawong remains and the other in Poc¸o das Antas (LHIB) 2006). unpopular with some residents. It is Biological Reserve, further inland. The The Lord Howe pied currawong is unknown what effect this localized Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o colony is the best- listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the New killing has on the overall population studied. Since 1984, it has maintained South Wales Threatened Species size and distribution of the species a stable size, varying between 50 to 250 Conservation Act of 1995 because it has (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Also, the individuals (Brown 1996; K. Brown, Jr., a limited range, only occurring on Lord Lord Howe pied currawong often preys in litt. 2004; Collins and Morris 1985), Howe Island (DECC 2004). It also is on ship (black) rats (Rattus rattus) and and was reported to be viable, vigorous, listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the may be subject to nontarget poisoning and stable in 2004 (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. Commonwealth Environment Protection during rat-baiting programs (DEC 2004). There are no estimates of the size

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40552 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

of the colony in Poc¸o das Antas 1984 and 1991, Brown (1996) such destruction within those protected Biological Reserve, where it had not determined that Harris’ mimic areas is not ongoing at this time. been seen for 30 years prior to its swallowtails in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o flew Therefore, we have assigned the rediscovery there in 1997 (K. Brown, Jr., a maximum distance of 0.62 mi (1000 subspecies a priority rank of 12. in litt. 2004). Population estimates are m); it follows that the average flying Jamaican kite swallowtail (Eurytides lacking for the colony at Macae´, where distance would be less than this figure. marcellinus) the subspecies was netted in Jurubatiba Thus, the average (0.17 mi (276 m)) National Park in the year 2000, after distance between forest patches in the The Jamaican kite swallowtail is having not been seen in the area for 16 Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o River Basin is clearly endemic to Jamaica, preferring wooded, years (Monteiro et al. 2004). The within the flying distance of this undisturbed habitat containing the only Brazilian Institute of the Environment subspecies. The colony at Barra de Sa˜o known larval hostplant West Indian and Natural Resources (Instituto Joa˜o has maintained a stable population lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata); adult Brasileiro do a Meio Ambiente de do for 20 years, indicating that the preferences have not been reported Recursos Naturais Renova´veis; IBAMA) conditions available there remain (Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 1985). considers this subspecies to be critically suitable. Since the 1990s, adult Jamaican kite imperiled (MMA 2003; Portaria No. Harris’ mimic swallowtail ranges swallowtails have been observed in the 1,522 1989) and ‘‘strictly protected,’’ within two protected areas: Poc¸o das Parishes of St. Thomas and St. Andrew such that collection and trade of the Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba in the east; westward in St. Ann, subspecies are prohibited (Brown 1996). National Park. These protected areas are Trelawny, and St. Elizabeth; and, in the Harris’ mimic swallowtail was described in detail for the fluminense extreme western coast Parish of categorized on the IUCN Red List as swallowtail below. The Poc¸o das Antas Westmoreland (Bailey 1994; Harris ‘‘Endangered’’ in the 1988, 1990, and Biological Reserve (Reserve) was 2002; Mo¨hn 2002; Smith et al. 1994; 1994 IUCN Red Lists (IUCN 1996). established to protect the golden lion WRC 2001). There is only one known However, it has not been reevaluated tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia) (Decree breeding site in the eastern coast town using the 1997 IUCN Red List criteria, No. 73,791 1974), but the Harris’ mimic of Rozelle (St. Thomas Parish) (Bailey nor has it been incorporated into the swallowtail, which occupies the same 1994; Collins and Morris 1985; 2007 IUCN Red List database (IUCN range, may benefit indirectly by efforts Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al. 1994), 2007). to conserve golden-lion-tamarin habitat although it is possible that other sites Habitat destruction is the main threat (De Roy 2002; Teixeira 2007; WWF exist given the widely dispersed nature to this subspecies (Brown 1996; Collins 2003). Habitat destruction caused by of the larval food plant (R. Robbins, in and Morris 1985), especially fires in Poc¸o das Antas Biological litt. 2004). Rozelle may also be referred urbanization in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o, Reserve appears to have abated, and the to in the literature as Roselle (e.g., industrialization in Macae´ (Jurubatiba revised management plan indicates that Anderson et al. 2007). The Jamaican kite National Park), and previous fires in the the Reserve will be used for research swallowtail maintains a low population Poc¸o das Antas Biological Reserve. As and conservation, with limited public level. It occasionally becomes locally described in detail for the fluminense access (CEPF 2007a; IBAMA 2005). The abundant in Rozelle during the breeding swallowtail (below), Atlantic Forest Jurubatiba National Park (Park) is season in early summer and again in habitat has been reduced to 5 to 10 located in a region that is undergoing early fall (Bailey 1994; Brown and percent of its original cover. More than continuing development pressures from Heineman 1972; Collins and Morris 70 percent of the Brazilian population urbanization and industrialization 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Smith et al. lives in the Atlantic forest, and coastal (Brown 1996; CEPF 2007b; IFC 2002; 1994), and experiences episodic development is ongoing throughout the Khalip 2007; Otero and Brown 1984; population explosions, as described in Atlantic Forest region (Butler 2007; Savarese 2008), and there is no the 12–month finding (69 FR 70580; Conservation International 2007; management plan in place for the Park December 7, 2004) and in the 2007 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF 2007b). However, as discussed ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). (CEPF) 2007a; Ho¨fling 2007; Hughes et for the fluminense swallowtail, the Park The species is protected under Jamaica’s al. 2006; The Nature Conservancy 2009; is considered to be in a very good state Wildlife Protection Act of 1998 and is Peixoto and Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; of conservation (Rocha et al. 2007). included in Jamaica’s National Strategy World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007). Harris’ mimic swallowtail is a and Action Plan on Biological Diversity, Both Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o and the Poc¸o subspecies and does not represent a which has established specific goals and das Antas Biological Reserve, two of the monotypic genus. Based on the above priorities for the conservation of known Harris’ mimic swallowtail information, we have determined that Jamaica’s biological resources localities, lie within the Sa˜o Joa˜o River habitat destruction is a threat to the (Schedules of The Wildlife Protection Basin. The current conditions at Barra subspecies. The magnitude of the threat Act 1998). Since 1985, the Jamaican kite de Sa˜o Joa˜o appear to be suitable for is low because suitable habitat swallowtail was categorized on the long-term survival of this subspecies. continues to exist for this polyphagous IUCN Red List as ‘Vulnerable’ it has not The Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o River Basin subspecies; the best-studied colony has been reevaluated using the 1997 criteria encompasses a 535,240-ac (216,605-ha) maintained a stable and viable size for (IUCN 2008; Gimenez Dixon 1996). area, 372,286 ac (150,700 ha) of which nearly two decades; an additional Habitat destruction has been is managed as protected areas. The locality has been confirmed; the considered a primary threat to the preferred environment of open and subspecies is strictly protected by Jamaican kite swallowtail. In Rozelle, shady areas (Brown 1996; Collins and Brazilian law; and two colonies are there has been extensive habitat Morris 1985) continues to be present in located within protected areas. While modification for agricultural and the region, with approximately 541 the protected areas in which this industrial purposes, such as mining forest patches averaging 314 ac (127 ha) subspecies is found continue to be (Gimenez Dixon 1996; WWF 2001). The in size, covering nearly 68,873 ha threatened with potential habitat Jamaican kite’s larval food plant, West (170,188 ac), and a minimum distance destruction from urbanization and Indian lancewood, is threatened by between forest patches of 0.17 mi ( 276 industrialization, the threat of habitat clearing for cultivation and by felling for m) (Teixeira 2007). In studies between destruction is nonimminent because the commercial timber industry (Collins

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40553

and Morris 1985; Windsor Plywood inland portions of St. Thomas and St. Fluminense swallowtail (Parides 2004). Monophagous butterflies tend to Andrew and the southeast portion of St. ascanius) be more threatened than polyphagous Mary Parishes, is the only protected area The fluminense swallowtail is species, in part due to their specific in which adult Jamaican Kite endemic to Brazil’s ‘‘restinga’’ habitat habitat requirements (Kotiaho et al. swallowtails have been observed (Bailey within the Atlantic Forest region 2005), and harvest and clearing reduces 1994; Jamaica Conservation and (Thomas 2003). Restingas form on the availability of the only known larval Development Trust (JCDT) 2006). sandy, acidic, and nutrient-poor soils in food plant. Habitat modification poses Created in 1993, this Park encompasses the tropical and subtropical moist an additional threat because the 122,367 ac (49,520 ha) of mountainous, broadleaf forests of coastal Brazil. swallowtail does not thrive in disturbed forested terrain that ranges in elevation Restinga habitat, also referred to as habitats (Collins and Morris 1985). from 492 to 7,402 ft (150 m to 2,256 m) ‘‘fluminense vegetation,’’ is Rozelle is also subject to naturally and is considered one of the best- characterized by medium-sized trees occurring, high-impact stochastic managed protected areas in Jamaica and shrubs that are adapted to coastal events, such as regularly-occurring (JCDT 2006). Deforestation is currently a conditions (Kelecom 2002). The species hurricanes, as elaborated in the 2007 is monophagous (Otero and Brown ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). threat in the Blue Mountains (Tole 1984), meaning that its larvae feed only According to the Economic Commission 2006). In 2003, the Jamaican National on a single plant species (Kotiaho et al. for Latin America and the Caribbean Environment and Planning Agency 2005); information on larval hostplant (ECLAC), United Nations Development identified Rozelle and Cockpit Country preferences is provided in the April 23, Programme (UNDP), and Planning (which spans at least four Western 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184). Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) (2004), Parishes, including Trelawny and St. The historical range of this species hurricane-related weather damage in the Elizabeth, where adult Jamaican kites has probably always been limited to last two decades along the coastal zone have been observed) as priority coastal Rio de Janeiro State (Gelhaus et of Rozelle has resulted in the erosion locations to receive protected area status al. 2004), but it was historically and virtual disappearance of the once- within the next 5 to 7 years (NEPA reported in Rio de Janeiro, Espirito extensive recreational beach. Most 2003). The status of this proposal is not Santo, and Sao Paulo. However, there recently, Hurricane Ivan, a Category 5 included in the 2007 Environmental are no recent confirmations in Espirito hurricane that hit the island in 2004, Action Plan Status Report (NEPA 2007). Santo or Sao Paulo. In Rio de Janeiro, caused severe local damage to Rozelle The Jamaican kite swallowtail has the species is reported in five localities, Beach, including road collapse caused been collected for commercial trade ˜ ˜ ´ by the erosion of the cliff face and including: Barra de Sao Joao and Macae (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; shoreline. The estimated restoration cost (in the Restinga de Jurubatiba National Schu¨ tz 2000) and has been protected from Hurricane Ivan damage was $23 Park), along the coast; and, Poc¸o das under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection million U.S. Dollars (US$) ($1.6 million Antas Biological Reserve, further inland Jamaican Dollars (J$) (ECLAC et al. Act since 1998. This Act carries a (Keith S. Brown, Jr., Livre-Docent, 2004). Thus, while we do not consider maximum penalty of US$1439 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, stochastic events to be a primary threat (J$100,000) or 12 months imprisonment Brazil, in litt. 2004; Soler 2005). Uehara- factor for this species, we believe that for violating provisions of the Act, Prado and Fonseca (2007) recently which appears to be effectively reported a verified occurrence within the damage caused by hurricanes is ´ contributing to habitat loss. protecting this species from illegal trade Area de Tombamento do Mangue do rio Habitat destruction in western (NEPA 2005). This species is not listed Paraı´ba do Sul. Fluminense swallowtail Parishes also threatens adult Jamaican under CITES, nor is it listed on the has also been reported in Parque Natural kite swallowtails. Cockpit Country, European Commission’s Annex B (Eur- Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto encompassing 30,000 ha (74,131 ac) of Lex 2008), both of which regulate Iguacu 2008). rugged forest-karst (a specialized international trade in animals and The fluminense swallowtail is limestone habitat) terrain, spans four plants of conservation concern. sparsely distributed throughout its Western Parishes, including Trelawny However, we are not aware of any recent range, reflecting the patchy distribution and St. Elizabeth, where adult Jamaican seizures or smuggling in this species of its preferred habitat (Otero and kite swallowtails have been observed into or out of the United States (Office Brown 1984; Tyler et al. 1994; Uehara- (Gordon and Cambell 2006). Eighty-one of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Prado and Fonseca 2007). However, the percent of this region remains forested, Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia, in species can be seasonally common, with although fragmentation is occurring as a litt. 2008). Therefore, we believe that sightings of up to 50 individuals in one result of human-induced activities (Tole overutilization is not currently a morning in the Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o 2006). Current threats to Cockpit contributory threat factor for the location. The population estimate in ˜ ˜ Country include bauxite mining, Jamaican kite swallowtail. Barra de Sao Joao ranges from 20 to 100 unregulated plant collecting, extensive individuals (Otero and Brown 1984). logging, conversion of forest to The Jamaican kite swallowtail does The colony within Poc¸o das Antas agriculture, illegal drug cultivation, and not represent a monotypic genus. The Biological Reserve (Reserve) was expansion of human settlements. These current threat to the species is moderate rediscovered in 1997, after a nearly 30– activities contribute to threats to the in magnitude because habitat year absence from this locality (K. hydrology system from in-filling, destruction is occurring at the species’ Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). Researchers siltation, accumulation of solid waste, only known breeding site, but Jamaica noted only that ‘‘large numbers’’ of and invasion by nonnative, invasive has taken regulatory steps to preserve swallowtails were observed (K. Brown, species (Cockpit Country Stakeholders their native swallowtail species and Jr., in litt. 2004; Dr. Robert Robbins, Group and JEAN (Jamaica their habitat. The threat is imminent Research Entomologist, National Environmental Advocacy Network 2007; because habitat destruction is ongoing Museum of Natural History, Department Gordon and Cambell 2006; Tole 2006)). and stochastic events are unpredictable. of Entomology, Smithsonian Institution, Currently, the Blue and John Crow Therefore, we have assigned this species Washington, D.C., in litt. 2004). There Mountains National Park, located on the a priority rank of 8. are no population estimates for the other

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40554 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

colonies. However, individuals from the presence of a species, this research as being in a very good state of viable population in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o should facilitate more focused efforts to conservation, but lacking a formal migrate widely in some years, which is identify and confirm additional management plan. Threats to the Macae´ likely to enhance interpopulation gene localities and the conservation status of region include industrialization for oil flow among existing colonies (K. Brown, the fluminense swallowtail (Uehara- reserve and power development (IFC Jr., in litt. 2004). Prado and Fonseca 2007). Analyzing the 2002) and intense population pressures Brazil considers the fluminense correlation between the distribution of (including migration and infrastructural swallowtail to be ‘‘Imperiled’’ (MMA fluminense swallowtail and the existing development) (Brown 1996; CEPF 2003; Portaria No. 1,522 1989). protected areas within Rio de Janeiro, 2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; Otero According to the 2008 IUCN Red List Uehara-Prado and Fonseca (2007) found and Brown 1984; Savarese 2008). (Gimenez Dixon 1996), the fluminense that only two known occurrences of the Commercial exploitation has been swallowtail has been categorized as fluminense swallowtail correlated with identified as a potential threat to the ‘‘Vulnerable’’ since 1983, based on its protected areas, including the Poc¸o das fluminense swallowtail (Collins and small distribution and a decline in the Antas Biological Reserve. The Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Schu¨ tz number of populations caused by researchers concluded that the existing 2000). The species is easy to capture, habitat fragmentation and loss. protected area system may be and species with restricted distributions However, this species has not been inadequate for the conservation of this or localized populations, such as the reevaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red species. fluminense swallowtail, tend to be more List categorization criteria. The Poc¸o das Antas Biological vulnerable to overcollection than those Habitat destruction has been the main Reserve and the Jurubatiba National with a wider distribution (K. Brown, Jr., threat to this species (Brown 1996; Park are the only two protected areas in litt. 2004; R. Robbins, in litt. 2004). Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez considered large enough to support This species has not been formally Dixon 1996). Monophagous butterflies viable populations of the fluminense considered for listing in the Appendices tend to be more threatened than swallowtail (K. Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; of CITES (http://www.cites.org). polyphagous species (Kotiaho et al. Otero and Brown 1984; R. Robbins, in However, the European Commission 2005), and the restinga habitat preferred litt. 2004). The Poc¸o das Antas listed fluminense swallowtail on Annex by fluminense swallowtails is a highly Biological Reserve (Reserve), established B of Regulation 338/97 in 1997 (Dr. Ute specialized environment that is in 1974, encompasses 13,096 ac (5,300 Grimm, German Scientific Authority to restricted in distribution (K. Brown, Jr., ha) of inland Atlantic Forest habitat CITES (Fauna), Bonn, Germany, in litt. in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1986; (CEPF 2007a; Decree No. 73,791 1974). 2008), and the species continues to be Ueraha-Prado and Fonseca). Moreover, According to the 2005 revised listed on this Annex (Eur-Lex 2008). fluminense swallowtails require large management plan (IBAMA 2005), the This listing requires that imports from a areas to maintain viable populations (K. Reserve is used solely for protection, non-European Union country be Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004; Otero and research, and environmental education. accompanied by a permit that is only Brown 1986; Ueraha-Prado and Public access is restricted, and there is issued if the Scientific Authority has Fonseca). The Atlantic Forest habitat, an emphasis on habitat conservation, made a positive nondetriment finding, a which once covered 540,543 mi2 (1.4 including protection of the Rı´o Sa˜o Joa˜o. determination that trade in the species million km2), has been reduced 5 to 10 This river runs through the Reserve and will not be detrimental to the survival percent of its original cover and harbors is integral to creating the restinga of the species in the wild (U. Grimm, in more than 70 percent of the Brazilian conditions preferred by the fluminense litt. 2008). There has been no legal trade population (Butler 2007; Conservation swallowtail. The Reserve was plagued in this species into the European Union International 2007; Critical Ecosystem by fires in the late 1980s through the since its listing on Annex B (U. Grimm, Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2007a; Ho¨fling early 2000s, but there have been no in litt. 2008), and we are not aware of 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2009; recent reports of fires. Between 2001 any recent reports of seizures or World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007). The and 2006, there was an increase in the smuggling in this species into or out of restinga habitat upon which this species number of private protected areas near the United States (Office of Law depends has been reduced by 6.56 mi2 or adjacent to the Poc¸o das Antas Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife (17 km2) each year between 1984 and Biological Reserve and Barra de Sa˜o Service, Arlington, Virginia, in litt. 2001, equivalent to a loss of 40 percent Joa˜o (Critical Ecosystem Partnership 2008). The fluminense remains strictly of restinga vegetation over the 17–year Fund (CEPF) 2007a). Corridors are being protected from commerce in Brazil (K. period (Temer 2006). The major ongoing created between existing protected areas Brown, Jr., in litt. 2004). For the reasons human activities that have resulted in and 13 privately protected forests, by outlined above, we believe that habitat loss, degradation, and planting and restoring habitat overutilization is not currently a threat fragmentation include conversion for previously cleared for agriculture or by factor for the fluminense swallowtail. agriculture, plantations, livestock fires (De Roy 2002). Parasitism could be a factor pastures, human settlements, The Jurubatiba National Park (14,860 threatening the fluminense swallowtail. hydropower reservoirs, commercial ha; 36,720 mi2), located in Macae´ and Recently, Tavares et al. (2006) logging, subsistence activities, and established in 1998 (Decree of April 29 discovered four species of parasitic coastal development (Butler 2007; 1998), is one of the largest contiguous chalcid wasps (Brachymeria and Conura Hughes et al. 2006; Pivello 2007; The restingas (specialized sandy, coastal species; Hymenoptera family) associated Nature Conservancy 2007; Peixoto and habitats) under protection in Brazil with fluminense swallowtails. Silva 2007; World Food Prize 2007; (CEPF 2007b; Rocha et al. 2007). The Parasitoids are species whose immature WWF 2007). Macae´ River Basin forms the outer edge stages develop on or within an insect Uehara-Prado and Fonseca (2007) of the Jurubatiba National Park (Park) host of another species, ultimately estimated that Rio de Janeiro contains (International Finance Corporation (IFC) killing the host (Weeden et al. 1976). 4,140,127 ac (1,675,457 ha) of suitable 2002) and creates the restinga habitat This is the first report of parasitoid habitat (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca preferred by the fluminense swallowtail association with fluminense 2007). While the presence of suitable (Brown 1996; Otero and Brown 1984). swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006). To habitat should not be used to infer the Rocha et al. (2007) described the habitat date, there is no information as to the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40555

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

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40556 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

IUCN Red List as a species of ‘‘Lower Department of National Parks, Bangkok, Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is protected Risk/near threatened’’; it has not been Thailand, in litt. 2007). by the National Parks and Wildlife reevaluated using the 1997 criteria Vietnam: The species has been Conservation Act of 1973 (His Majesty’s (Gimenez Dixon 1996). The species is confirmed in three Nature Reserves Government of Nepal (HMGN) 2002). considered ‘‘Rare’’ by Collins and (Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and However, the Nepal Forestry Ministry Morris (1985). Despite its widespread Richardson 1999), and the species is determined in 2002 that the high distribution, local populations are not listed as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ in the 2007 commercial value of its ‘‘Endangered’’ abundant (Collins and Morris 1985). Vietnam Red Data Book, due to species on the local and international The known localities and conservation declining population sizes and area of market may result in local extinctions of status of the species within each range occupancy (Dr. Le Xuan Canh, Director species such as the Kaiser-I-Hind country follows: of the Institute of Ecology and Biological (HMGN 2002). Bhutan: The species was reported to Resources, CITES Scientific Authority, In Thailand, the Kaiser-I-Hind be extant in Bhutan (Gimenez Dixon Hanoi, Vietnam, in litt. 2007). swallowtail and 13 other invertebrates 1996; FRAP 1999), although details on Habitat destruction is the greatest are listed under Thailand’s Wild Animal localities or status information were not threat to this species, which prefers Reservation and Protection Act provided. undisturbed high-altitude habitat (WARPA) of 1992 (B.E. 2535 1992), China: The species has been reported (Collins and Morris 1985; Igarashi 2001; which makes it illegal to collect wildlife in Fuji, Guangxi, Hubei, Jiangsu, Tordoff et al. 1999). In China and India, (whether alive or dead) or to have the Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces (Collins the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail species in one’s possession (S. and Morris 1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996; populations are at risk from habitat Choldumrongkul, in litt. 2007; FAO Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; Sung and modification and destruction due to 2001; Hongthong 1998; Pornpitagpan Yan 2005; United Nations Environment commercial and illegal logging (Yen and 1999). In addition to prohibiting Programme – World Conservation Yang 2001; Maheshwari 2003). In Nepal, possession, WARPA prohibits hunting, Monitoring Center (UNEP – WCMC) the species is at risk from habitat breeding, and trading; import and 1999). The species is classified by the disturbance and destruction resulting export are only allowed for conservation from mining, fuel wood collection, 2005 China Species Red List as purposes (Jeerawat Jaisielthum, CITES agriculture, and grazing animals (Baral ‘‘Vulnerable’’ (China Red List 2006). Management Authority, Bangkok, et al. 2005; Collins and Morris 1985; India: Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Thailand, in litt. 2007). According to the Shrestha 1997). Nepal’s Forest Ministry Sikkim, and West Bengal (Bahuguna Thai Scientific Authority, there are no considered habitat destruction to be a captive breeding programs for this 1998; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez critical threat to all biodiversity, species; however, the species is offered Dixon 1996; Ministry of Environment including the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, for sale by the Lepidoptera Breeders and Forests 2005). There is no recent in the development of their biodiversity Association (2009), being marketed as status information on this species (N. strategy (HMGN 2002). Habitat derived from a captive breeding Chaturvedi, Curator, Bombay Natural degradation and loss caused by program in Thailand, although History Society, Mumbai, India, in litt. deforestation and land conversion for specimens were recently noted as being 2007). agricultural purposes is a primary threat ‘‘out of stock’’ (Lepidoptera Breeders Laos: The species has been reported to the species in Thailand (Hongthong Association 2009). (Osada et al. 1999), but no further 1998; FAO 2001). The species is In Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind information is available (Southiphong afforded some protection from habitat swallowtails are reported to be among Vonxaiya, CITES Coordinator, destruction in Vietnam, where it has the most valuable of all butterflies Vientiane, Lao, in litt. 2007). been confirmed in three Nature Reserves (World Bank 2005). In 2006, the species Myanmar: The species has been that have low levels of disturbance was listed on Schedule IIB of Decree No. reported in Shan, Kayah (Karen) and (Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and 32 on ‘‘Management of endangered, Thaninanthayi (Tenasserim) states Richardson 1999). precious and rare forest plants and (Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is animals.’’ A Schedule IIB-listing Dixon 1996). There is no status highly valued and has been collected for restricts the exploitation or commercial information. commercial trade, despite range country use of species with small populations or Nepal: The species has been reported regulations prohibiting or restricting considered by the country to be in in Nepal (Collins and Morris 1985; such activities (Collins and Morris 1985; danger of extinction (L.X. Canh, in litt. Gimenez Dixon 1996), in the Central Schu¨ tz 2000). In China, where the 2007). In a recent survey conducted by Administrative Region at two localities: species is protected by the Animals and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 2000 Phulchoki Mountain Forest (Baral et al. Plants (Protection of Endangered residents in Hanoi, Vietnam, the Kaiser- 2005; Collins and Morris 1985) and Species) Ordinance (1989), which I-Hind swallowtail was among 37 Shivapuri National Park (Nepali Times restricts import, export, and possession Schedule IIB-species that were actively 2002; Shrestha 1997). There is no status of the species, species purportedly being collected, and the majority of the information. derived from Sichuan were being survey respondents were unaware of Thailand: The species has been advertised for sale on the internet for 60 legislation prohibiting collection of reported in the northern province of U.S. Dollars (USD). In India, the Kaiser- Schedule IIB-species. Thus, Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The I-Hind swallowtail is listed on Schedule overutilization for illegal domestic and Scientific Authority of Thailand II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act possibly international trade via the recently confirmed that the species has of 1972, which prohibits hunting internet is a threat to this species, and limited distribution in the high without a license (Collins and Morris within-country protections are mountains (>1,500 m (4,921 ft)) of 1985; Indian Wildlife Protection Act inadequate to protect the species from northern Thailand and is found within 2006). However, between 1990 and illegal collection throughout its range. three national parks. However, no 1997, illegally collected specimens were The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has biological or status information was selling for 500 Rupees (12 USD) per been listed in CITES Appendix II since available (S. Choldumrongkul, Forest female and 30 Rupees (0.73 USD) per 1987 (UNEP-WCMC 2008a). Between Entomology and Microbiology Group, male (Bahuguna 1998). In Nepal, the 1991 and 2005, 160 Kaiser-I-Hind

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40557

swallowtail specimens were traded function of the listing priority of a ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING AC- internationally under CITES permits species in relation to the resources that TIONS FUNDED IN FY 2009 BUT NOT (UNEP WCMC 2006), and between 2000 are available and competing demands YET COMPLETED and 2008, 157 specimens were traded for those resources. Thus, in any given (UNEP WCMC 2009). The most recent fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate Species Action CITES trade data are available for the whether it will be possible to undertake year 2008. Reports that the Kaiser-I- work on a proposed listing regulation or Actions Subject to Court Order/ Hind swallowtail is being captive-bred whether promulgation of such a Settlement Agreement in Taiwan (Yen and Yang 2001) remain proposal is warranted but precluded by 3 species of Final listing deter- unconfirmed. Since 1993, there have higher priority listing actions.In FY been no reported seizures or smuggling Procellarids mination 2009, we have begun to transfer the of this species into or out of the United listing of foreign species under the Act States (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. 3 other species of Final listing deter- from the Division of Scientific Procellarids mination Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia, in litt. 2008). Therefore, on the Authority, within the Service’s International Affairs program, to the 7 bird species from Proposed listing de- basis of global trade data, we do not Brazil termination consider legal international trade to be domestic Endangered Species Program. a contributory threat factor to this In addition to the responsibility for Salmon crested Proposed listing de- species. development of listing proposals and cockatoo termination The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail does promulgation of final rules for domestic not represent a monotypic genus. The species, whether internally driven or as 6 bird species from Proposed listing de- current threats of habitat destruction the result of a petition, the Listing Peru termination and illegal collection are moderate to Branch within the Washington Office of the Endangered Species program will 6 bird species from Proposed listing de- low in magnitude due to the species’ Asia & Eurasia termination wide distribution, but imminent due to have responsibly for listing ongoing habitat destruction, high market determinations for foreign species as Actions with Statutory Deadlines value for specimens, and inadequate well. During this transition period (the domestic protections for the species or remainder of FY 2009) the DSA and WO 14 species of parrots 12–month petition its habitat. Therefore, we have assigned Endangered Species Program are sharing finding this species a priority rank of 8. the work on listing actions for foreign species. The work on foreign species is Morelet’s crocodile 12–month petition Preclusion and Expeditious Progress finding and Pro- being funded from a separate account This section describes the actions that posed delisting than the work on domestic species. determination continue to preclude the immediate Starting in FY 2010, the Service proposal of listing rules for the 20 anticipates that the WO Endangered species described above. In addition, we Despite the priorities that preclude Species program will have full summarize the expeditious progress we publishing proposed listing rules for responsibility for foreign species ESA are making, as required by section these 20 species described in this listing actions. In FY 2009, we have 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, to add notice, we are making expeditious limited funds to work on foreign species qualified species to the lists of progress in adding to and removing listing determinations. All funds endangered or threatened species and to species from the Federal lists of available are being used to complete the remove from these lists species for threatened and endangered species. Our which protections of the Act are no pending listing actions listed below. These actions are either the subject of a expeditious progress since publication longer necessary. of the 2008 Notice of Review, July 29, Section 4(b) of the Act states that the court-approved settlement agreement or subject to an absolute statutory deadline 2008, to the current date includes Service may make warranted-but- preparing and publishing the following: precluded findings only if it can and, thus, are higher priority than work demonstrate that (1) An immediate on proposed listing determinations for proposed rule is precluded by other the 20 species described above. pending proposals and that (2) Therefore, in the upcoming year, expeditious progress is being made on publication of proposed rules for the 20 other listing actions. Preclusion is a species described above is precluded.

ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS PUBLISHED IN FY 2009

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

8/19/2008 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the North- Notice 90–day petition finding; not substantial 73 FR 48359-48362 ern Snakehead Fish (Channa argus)

12/8/2008 Listing the Medium Tree Finch (Camarhynchus Proposed Listing, Endangered 73 FR 74434-74445 pauper) as Endangered Throughout Its Range

12/8/2008 Proposed Rule To List Black-Breasted Puffleg Proposed Listing, Endangered 73 FR 74427-74434 as Endangered Throughout Its Range

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS PUBLISHED IN FY 2009—Continued

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

12/18/2008 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List south- Notice 12–month petition finding, Not war- 73 FR 77264-77302 ern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes ranted; Proposed Listing, Threatened chrysocome), northern rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes moseleyi), macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus), and emperor pen- guin (Aptenodytes forsteri) and Proposed Rule To List southern rockhopper penguin as Threatened in the Campbell Plateau Portion of Its Range

12/18/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition and Proposed Notice 12–month petition finding, Warranted; 73 FR 77303-77332 Rule To List the yellow-eyed penguin Proposed Listing, Threatened (Megadyptes antipodes), white-flippered pen- guin (Eudyptula minor albosignata), Fiordland crested penguin (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus), Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti), and erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri) as Threatened Throughout Their Range

12/18/2008 12-Month Finding on a Petition and Proposed Notice 12–month petition finding, Warranted; 73 FR 77332-77341 Rule To List the African Penguin Proposed Listing, Threatened (Spheniscus demersus) as Endangered Throughout Its Range

12/24/2008 Listing Three Foreign Bird Species From Latin Proposed Listing, Endangered 73 FR 79226-79254 America and the Caribbean as Endangered Throughout Their Range

2/03/2009 Notice of 90–day petition finding and initiation Notice 90–day petition finding; substantial 73 FR 5908-5910 of status review of the wood bison to deter- mine if reclassification of this subspecies is warranted under the Act

7/ 07/2009 Proposed Rule to List Five Foreign Bird Spe- Proposed Listing, Endangered 74 FR 32307 32349 cies in Colombia and Ecuador, South Amer- ica, under the Endangered Species Act

7/14/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 14 Parrot Notice 90–day petition finding; substantial 74 FR 33957 33960 Species as Threatened or Endangered

Our expeditious progress also species’’ for which we have made a correspondence, from the peer-reviewed includes work on pending listing warranted-but-precluded 12–month scientific literature, unpublished actions described above in our finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the literature, scientific meeting ‘‘precluded finding,’’ but for which [emergency listing] authority [under proceedings, and CITES documents decisions had not been completed at the section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant (including species proposals and reports time of this publication. risk to the well being of any such from scientific committees). We also We have endeavored to make our species.’’ For foreign species, the obtain information through the permit listing actions as efficient and timely as Service’s ability to gather information to application processes under CITES, the possible, given the requirements of the monitor species is limited. The Service Act, and the Wild Bird Conservation relevant law and regulations and the welcomes all information relevant to the Act. We also consult with staff members constraints relating to workload and status of these species, because we have of the Service’s Division of International personnel. We are continually no ability to gather data in foreign Conservation and the IUCN species considering ways to streamline countries directly and cannot compel specialist groups, and we attend processes or achieve economies of scale, another country to provide information. scientific meetings to obtain current such as by batching related actions Thus, this ANOR plays a critical role in status information for relevant species. together. Despite higher listing priorities our monitoring efforts for foreign As previously stated, if we identify any that preclude us from issuing listing species. With each ANOR, we request species for which emergency listing is proposals for the 20 species described in information on the status of the species appropriate, we will make prompt use this Notice of Review, the actions included in the notice. Information and of the emergency listing authority under described above collectively constitute comments on the annual findings can be section 4(b)(7) of the Act. expeditious progress. submitted at any time. We review all Request for Information Monitoring new information received through this process as well as any other new We request the submission of any Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act information we obtain using a variety of further information on the species in requires us to ‘‘implement a system to methods. We collect information this notice as soon as possible, or monitor effectively the status of all directly from range countries by whenever it becomes available. We

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40559

especially seek information: (1) mistakes, such as errors in the indicated Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicating that we should remove a historic ranges. (see ADDRESSES section). taxon from consideration for listing; (2) References Cited Authority documenting threats to any of the included taxa; (3) describing the A list of the references used to This Notice of Review is published immediacy or magnitude of threats develop this notice is available upon under the authority of the Endangered facing these taxa; (4) identifying request (see ADDRESSES section). Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). taxonomic or nomenclatural changes for Authors Date: July 29, 2009. any of the taxa; or (5) noting any This Notice of Review was authored James J. Slack by the staff of the Endangered Species Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

TABLE 1. – ANNUAL NOTICE OF REVIEW (C = listing warranted but precluded)

Status Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority

BIRDS

C ...... 8 ...... Pauxi unicornis ...... Craciidae ...... southern helmeted curassow ...... Bolivia, Peru C ...... 8 ...... Rallus semiplumbeus ...... Rallidae ...... Bogota rail ...... Colombia C 8 ...... Porphyrio hochstetteri ...... Rallidae ...... Takahe ...... New Zealand C 8 ...... Haematopus chathamensis ...... Haematopodidae .. Chatham oystercatcher ...... Chatham Islands, New Zealand C ...... 8 ...... Cyanoramphus malherbi ...... Psittacidae ...... orange-fronted parakeet .... New Zealand C ...... 8 ...... Eunymphicus uvaeensis ...... Psittacidae ...... Uvea parakeet ...... Uvea, New Caledonia C ...... 8 ...... Ara glaucogularis ...... Psittacidae ...... blue-throated macaw ...... Bolivia C ...... 8 ...... Dryocopus galeatus ...... Picidae ...... helmeted woodpecker ...... Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay C ...... 8 ...... Dendrocopus noguchii ...... Picidae ...... Okinawa woodpecker ...... Okinawa Island, Japan C ...... 11 ...... Aulacorhynchus huallagae ...... Ramphastidae ...... yellow-browed toucanet ..... Peru C ...... 8 ...... Scytalopus novacapitalis ...... Conopophagidae .. Brasilia tapaculo ...... Brazil C ...... 12 ...... Bowdleria punctata wilsoni ...... Sylviidae ...... Codfish Island fernbird ...... Codfish Island, New Zea- land C ...... 8 ...... Zosterops luteirostris ...... Zosteropidae ...... Ghizo white-eye ...... Solomon Islands C ...... 8 ...... Tangara peruviana ...... Thraupidae ...... black-backed tanager ...... Brazil C ...... 12 ...... Strepera graculina crissalis ...... Cracticidae ...... Lord Howe pied currawong Lord Howe Islands, New South Wales

INVERTEBRATES

C ...... 12 ...... Eurytides (= Graphium or Mimoides)lysithous harrisianus Paplionidae ...... Harris’ mimic swallowtail .... Brazil, Paraguay C ...... 8 ...... Eurytides (= Graphium or Neographium or Protographium or Protesilaus) marcellinus ...... Paplionidae ...... Jamaican kite swallowtail .. Jamaica C ...... 5 ...... Parides ascanius ...... Paplionidae ...... Fluminense swallowtail ...... Brazil C ...... 8 ...... Parides hahneli ...... Paplionidae ...... Hahnel’s Amazonian swal- lowtail ...... Brazil C ...... 8 ...... Teinopalpus imperialis ...... Paplionidae ...... Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail .... Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thai- land, Vietnam

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 40560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. E9–18842 Filed 8–7– 09; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, compliance and will provide an BILLING CODE 4310–55–S identified by 0648–AX88, by any one of additional seven days for public the following methods: comment. Further postponement of the • Electronic Submissions: Submit all MMPA authorization process and the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE electronic public comments via the establishment of the necessary Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// protective measures would risk a delay National Oceanic and Atmospheric www.regulations.gov in the Navy’s critical military readiness Administration • Hand delivery or mailing of paper, training. disk, or CD-ROM comments should be Moreover, the public has had 50 CFR Part 218 addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, numerous opportunities to comment on Permits, Conservation and Education [Docket No. 0906101030–91038–01] the Navy’s proposed action and Division, Office of Protected Resources, potential environmental consequences National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 RIN 0648–AX88 through the National Environmental East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD Policy Act process [Northwest Training Taking and Importing Marine 20910–3225. Range Complex Draft Environmental Instructions: All comments received Mammals; Navy Training Activities Impact Statement/Overseas are a part of the public record and will Conducted within the Northwest Environmental Impact Statement, generally be posted to http:// Training Range Complex December 2008 (DEIS)]. The activities www.regulations.gov without change. and potential environmental effects AGENCY: All Personal Identifying Information National Marine Fisheries described in NMFS’ NWTRC proposed (e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and rule are similar to, if not identical to, submitted by the commenter may be Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), those considered in the Navy’s DEIS. In publicly accessible. Do not submit Commerce. particular, the public comment period Confidential Business Information or ACTION: Notice; proposed rule; for the DEIS was extended twice, otherwise sensitive or protected extension of comment period. providing a total of 105 days for public information. review, and several public meetings SUMMARY: On July 13, 2009, the NMFS NMFS will accept anonymous were added. published its proposed regulations to comments (enter N/A in the required govern the take marine mammals fields if you wish to remain Background information concerning incidental to training activities anonymous). Attachments to electronic the proposed regulations can be found conducted within the U.S. Navy’s comments will be accepted in Microsoft in the July 13, 2009 Federal Register Northwest Training Range Complex Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe notice (74 FR 33828), and is not (NWTRC) for the period of February PDF file formats only. repeated here. For additional 2010 through February 2015. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie information regarding the proposed Federal Register notice indicated Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, regulations and the Navy’s associated written comments were due by August NMFS, 301–713–2289. Environmental Impact Statement, please visit NMFS’ website at: http:// 12, 2009, allowing 30 days for public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ input. In response to a request from a 3, 2009, NMFS received a request from incidental.htm#applications public interest organization, NMFS is Friends of the Earth, a non-profit extending the public comment period environmental advocacy organization, Dated: August 6, 2009. by 7 days, to August 19, 2009. requesting a 30–day extension of the P. Michael Payne, DATES: The public comment period for comment period on the NWTRC Chief, Division of Permits, Conservation, and this action has been extended from proposed rule. NMFS has considered Education, Office of Protected Resources, August 12 to August 19, 2009. Written this request along with the critical National Marine Fisheries Service. comments and information must be military readiness training needs of the [FR Doc. E9–19334 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] received no later than August 19, 2009. Navy and the need for timely MMPA BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:38 Aug 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS