Vol. 78 Thursday, No. 80 April 25, 2013

Part V

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and ; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24604 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the Lists of Endangered and Threatened whose listings are warranted but Wildlife and Plants under the precluded by higher priority proposals Fish and Wildlife Service Act of 1973, as to determine whether any species is an amended. When, in response to a endangered or threatened species. We 50 CFR Part 17 petition, we find that listing a species is will consider this information in [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2012–0044; 450 warranted but precluded by higher preparing listing documents and future 003 0115] priority proposals to determine whether resubmitted petition findings for these any species is an endangered species or 20 taxa. This information will also help Endangered and Threatened Wildlife a threatened species, we must review us to monitor the status of the taxa and and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings the status of the species each year until conserve them. We request the on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign we publish a proposed rule or make a submission of any further information Species; Annual Description of determination that listing is not on the species in this notice as soon as Progress on Listing Actions warranted. These subsequent status possible, or whenever it becomes reviews and the accompanying 12- available. We especially seek AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, month findings are referred to as information: Interior. ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition findings. (1) Indicating that we should remove ACTION: Notice of review. Since publication of the previous a taxon from consideration for listing; ANOR on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 25150), (2) Documenting threats to any of the SUMMARY: In this Annual Notice of we reviewed the available information included taxa; Review (ANOR) of foreign species, we on candidate species to ensure that (3) Describing the immediacy or present an updated list of and listing is warranted for each species and magnitude of threats facing these taxa; species foreign to the United reevaluated the relative listing priority (4) Identifying taxonomic or States that we regard as candidates for number (LPN) assigned to each species. nomenclatural changes for any of the addition to the Lists of Endangered and We also evaluated the need to taxa; or Threatened Wildlife and Plants under emergency list any of these species, (5) Noting any mistakes, such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as particularly species with high listing errors in the indicated historic ranges. amended. This review ensures that we priority numbers (i.e., species with You may submit your information focus conservation efforts on those LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review ensures concerning this notice in general or for species at greatest risk first. Overall, this that we focus conservation efforts on any of the species included in this ANOR recognizes one new candidate those species at greatest risk first. In notice by one of the methods listed in and removes one species from candidate addition to reviewing foreign candidate the ADDRESSES section. status. The current number of foreign species since publication of the last Background species that are candidates for listing is ANOR, we have worked on numerous 20. Based on our current review, we findings in response to petitions to list The Endangered Species Act of 1973, find that 20 species continue to warrant species and on proposed and final as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et listing, but their listing remains determinations for rules to list, delist, or seq.), provides two mechanisms for precluded by higher priority proposals downlist species under the Act. Some of considering species for listing. First, we, to determine whether any species is an these findings and determinations have upon our own initiative, can identify endangered species or a threatened been completed and published in the and propose for listing those species species. Federal Register, while work on others that are endangered or threatened based on the factors contained in section DATES: We will accept information on is still under way (see Preclusion and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We implement this these resubmitted petition findings at Expeditious Progress section, below, for mechanism through the candidate any time. details). Overall, this ANOR recognizes one program. Candidate taxa are those taxa ADDRESSES: This notice is available on new candidate and removes one species for which we have sufficient the Internet at http:// from candidate status. The current information on file relating to biological www.regulations.gov. Please submit any number of foreign species that are vulnerability and threats to support a new information, materials, comments, candidates for listing is 20. Based on our proposal to list the taxa as endangered or questions of a general nature on this current review, we find that 20 species or threatened, but for which preparation notice to the Arlington, VA, address continue to warrant listing, but their and publication of a proposed rule is listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION listing remains precluded by higher precluded by higher priority proposals CONTACT section below. priority proposals to determine whether to determine whether any species is an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: any species is an endangered species or endangered species or a threatened Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, a threatened species. species. The second mechanism for Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish considering species for listing is when and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Request for Information the public petitions us to add species to Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; This ANOR summarizes the status the Lists of Endangered and Threatened telephone 703–358–2171. If you use a and threats that we evaluated in order Wildlife and Plants (Lists). Nineteen of telecommunications device for the deaf to determine that species qualify as these species covered by this notice (TDD), call the Federal Information candidates and to assign an LPN to each were assessed through the petition Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. species or to determine that species process. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: should be removed from candidate Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, status. This document also describes our when we receive a listing petition we Executive Summary progress in revising the Lists of must determine within 90 days, to the In this Annual Notice of Review Endangered and Threatened Wildlife maximum extent practicable, whether (ANOR) of foreign species, we present and Plants (Lists) during the period May the petition presents substantial an updated list of plant and animal 3, 2011, through September 30, 2012. scientific or commercial information species foreign to the United States that With this ANOR, we request indicating that the petitioned action we regard as candidates for addition to additional information for the 20 taxa may be warranted (90-day finding). If

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24605

we make a positive 90-day finding, we species, and offer technical and distinct population segments of are required to promptly commence a financial assistance to facilitate such vertebrate species (DPS). In summary, review of the status of the species. Using efforts. For additional information the LPN ranking system provides a basis the information from the status review, regarding such assistance, see FOR for making decisions about the relative in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. priority for preparing a proposed rule to the Act, we must make one of three On September 21, 1983, we published list a given species. Each species findings within 12 months of the receipt guidance for assigning a listing priority included in this notice is one for which of the petition (12-month finding). The number (LPN) for each candidate we have sufficient information to first possible 12-month finding is that species (48 FR 43098). Using this prepare a proposed rule to list, because listing is not warranted, in which case guidance, we assign each candidate an it is in danger of or likely to we need not take any further action on LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the become endangered within the the petition. The second possibility is magnitude of threats, immediacy of foreseeable future throughout all or a that we may find that listing is threats, and taxonomic status; the lower significant portion of its range. warranted, in which case we must the LPN, the higher the listing priority For more information on the process promptly publish a proposed rule to list (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 and standards used in assigning LPNs, the species. Once we publish a would have the highest listing priority). a copy of the guidance is available on proposed rule for a species, sections Guidelines for such a priority-ranking our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/ 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern guidance system are required under endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098– further procedures, regardless of section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 43105.pdf. For more information on the whether or not we issued the proposal 1533(h)(3)). As explained below, in LPN assigned to a particular species, the in response to the petition. The third using this system we first categorize species assessment for each candidate possibility is that we may find that based on the magnitude of the threat(s), contains the LPN and a rationale for the listing is warranted but precluded. A then by the immediacy of the threat(s), determination of the magnitude and warranted-but-precluded finding on a and finally by taxonomic status. imminence of threat(s) and assignment petition to list means that listing is Under this priority-ranking system, of the LPN; that information is warranted, but that the immediate magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ presented in this ANOR. or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion proposal and timely promulgation of a Previous Notices final regulation is precluded by higher helps ensure that the species facing the priority listing actions. In making a greatest threats to their continued This revised notice supersedes all warranted-but-precluded finding under existence receive the highest listing previous annual notices of review for the Act, the Service must demonstrate priority. It is important to recognize that foreign species. The species discussed that expeditious progress is being made all candidate species face threats to their in this notice are in part the result of to add and remove species from the continued existence, so the magnitude three separate petitions submitted to the Lists (See Preclusion and Expeditious of threats is in relative terms. When U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Progress section). evaluating the magnitude of the threat(s) to list a number of foreign and In accordance with section facing the species, we consider species as endangered or 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in information such as: the number of threatened under the Act. We received response to a petition, we find that populations and/or extent of range of petitions to list foreign bird species on listing a species is warranted but the species affected by the threat(s); the November 24, 1980, and May 6, 1991 precluded, we must make a new 12- biological significance of the affected (46 FR 26464, May 12, 1981; and 56 FR month finding annually until we population(s), the life-history 65207, December 16, 1991, publish a proposed rule or make a characteristics of the species and its respectively). On January 10, 1994, we determination that listing is not current abundance and distribution; and received a petition to list seven butterfly warranted. These subsequent 12-month whether the threats affect the species in species as endangered or threatened (59 findings are referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ only a portion of its range. FR 24117; May 10, 1994). petition findings. This notice contains As used in our priority ranking We took several actions on these our resubmitted petition findings for system, immediacy of threat is petitions. Our most recent review of foreign species previously described in categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or petition findings was published on May the Notice of Review published May 3, ‘‘nonimminent.’’ It is not a measure of 3, 2011 (76 FR 25150). Since our last 2011 (76 FR 25150). how quickly the species is likely to review of petition findings in May 2011, We maintain this list of candidates for become extinct if the threats are not we have issued a proposed rule to list a variety of reasons: To notify the public addressed; rather, immediacy is based one species previously included in the that these species are facing threats to on when the threats will begin. If a ANOR (see the Preclusion and their survival; to provide advance threat is currently occurring or likely to Expeditious Progress section for knowledge of potential listings; to occur in the very near future, we additional listing actions that were not provide information that may stimulate classify the threat as imminent. related to this notice). On January 10, and guide conservation efforts that will Determining the immediacy of threats 2013, we published a proposed rule to remove or reduce threats to these helps ensure that species facing actual, list the blue throated macaw under the species and possibly make listing identifiable threats are given priority for Act (78 FR 2239). unnecessary; to request input from listing proposals over those for which interested parties to help us identify threats are only potential or species that Findings on Resubmitted Petitions those candidate species that may not are intrinsically vulnerable to certain This notice describes our resubmitted require protection under the Act or types of threats, but are not known to be petition findings for 19 foreign species additional species that may require the presently facing such threats. for which we had previously found Act’s protections; and to request Our priority-ranking system has three listing to be warranted but precluded. necessary information for setting categories for taxonomic status: species We have considered all of the new priorities for preparing listing proposals. that are the sole members of a genus; information that we have obtained since We strongly encourage collaborative full species (in genera that have more the previous finding, and we have conservation efforts for candidate than one species); and subspecies and reviewed in accordance with our Listing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24606 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Priority Guidance the LPN of each taxon endangered or threatened, but Table 1 provides a summary of all for which proposed listing continues to preparation and publication of a updated determinations of the 20 taxa in be warranted but precluded. Based on proposal is precluded by higher priority our review. All taxa in Table 1 of this our review of the best available listing actions (i.e., it met our definition notice are ones for which we find that scientific and commercial information, of a candidate species). listing is warranted but precluded and with this ANOR, we have changed the As a result of our review, we find that are referred to as ‘‘candidates’’ under LPN for two candidate species. warranted-but-precluded findings is the Act. The column labeled ‘‘Priority’’ appropriate for the below 20 species, indicates the LPN. Following the New Candidate Species including 1 new candidate species. We scientific name of each taxon (third Below we present a summary of one emphasize that we are not proposing column) is the family designation new species Colorado delta clam these species for listing, but we do (fourth column) and the common name, ( coloradoensis), which is an anticipate developing and publishing addition to this year’s ANOR. Based proposed listing rules for these species if one exists (fifth column). The sixth upon our own initiative, we find that we in the future, with an objective of column provides the known historic have sufficient information on its making expeditious progress in range for the taxon. The avian species in biological vulnerability and threats to addressing all 20 of these foreign Table 1 are listed taxonomically. support a proposal to list it as species within a reasonable timeframe.

TABLE 1—SPECIES IN 2012 ANNUAL NOTICE OF REVIEW [C = listing is warranted but precluded]

Status Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority

Birds

C ...... 2 ...... unicornis ...... Craciidae ...... southern helmeted Bolivia, Peru. . C ...... 2 ...... Rallus semiplumbeus ...... Rallidae ...... Bogota ...... Colombia. C ...... 8 ...... Porphyrio hochstetteri ...... Rallidae ...... takahe ...... New Zealand. C ...... 8 ...... Haematopus chathamensis .... Haematopodidae ...... Chatham .. 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 ...... Dryocopus galeatus ...... Picidae ...... helmeted .... Argentina, , Para- guay. C ...... 2 ...... Dendrocopus noguchii ...... Picidae ...... ..... , . C ...... 2 ...... Aulacorhynchus huallagae ...... Ramphastidae ...... yellow-browed toucanet .. Peru. C ...... 11 ...... Scytalopus novacapitalis ...... Conopophagidae ...... Brasilia ...... Brazil. C ...... 12 ...... Bowdleria punctata wilsoni ..... Sylviidae ...... Codfish Island fernbird ... Codfish Island, New Zea- land. C ...... 2 ...... Zosterops luteirostris ...... Zosteropidae ...... Ghizo white-eye ...... Solomon Islands. C ...... 8 ...... Tangara peruviana ...... Thraupidae ...... black-backed tanager ..... Brazil. C ...... 6 ...... Strepera graculina crissalis ..... Cracticidae ...... Lord Howe pied Lord Howe Islands, New currawong. South Wales.

Invertebrates ()

C ...... 6 ...... Eurytides (= Graphium or Paplionidae ...... Harris’ mimic swallowtail Brazil. Mimoides) lysithous harrisianus. C ...... 2 ...... Eurytides (= Graphium or Paplionidae ...... Jamaican kite swallowtail Jamaica. Neographium or Protographium or Protesilaus) marcellinus. C ...... 5 ...... ascanius ...... Paplionidae ...... Fluminense swallowtail ... Brazil. C ...... 2 ...... Parides hahneli ...... Paplionidae ...... Hahnel’s Amazonian Brazil. swallowtail. C ...... 8 ...... ...... Paplionidae ...... Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail Bhutan, , India, Laos, , , Thailand, .

Mollusc

C ...... 2 ...... Mulinia coloradoensis ...... ...... Colorado delta clam ...... Mexico.

Findings on Species for Which Listing proposed listing rules is warranted but species. We will continue to monitor the Is Warranted But Precluded precluded due to the need to complete status of these species as new pending, higher priority proposals to information becomes available (see We have found that, for the 20 taxa determine whether any species is an Monitoring, below). Our review of new discussed below, publication of endangered species or a threatened information will determine if a change

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24607

in status is warranted, including the Species Description Rı´o) (Wege and Long 1995). More need to emergency list any species or The southern , also recently, it has been observed in the ´ change the LPN of any of the species. In known as the helmeted or horned adjacent Amboro and Carrasco National the following section, we describe the curassow or the unicorn bird, is one of Parks (Maillard 2006, p. 95; Brooks status of and threats to the individual the least frequently encountered South 2006; Herzog and Kessler 1998). It was species. American bird species (Tobias and del also found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park (TIPNIS), Hoyo 2006, p. 61; Maillard 2006, p. 95; and along the western edge of the Cox et al. 1997, p. 199). This may be due Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi Cordillera Mosetenes, Cochabamba. A to the inaccessibility of its preferred unicornis), LPN = 2 recent survey located a few southern and its apparent intolerance of helmeted across the northern human disturbance (Macleod et al. boundary of Carrasco National Park, 2009, pp. 15–16; Herzog and Kessler The Bolivian population of the where it was historically found 1998). nominate (a subspecies with the same (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BLI 2009a). This species of curassow inhabits name as the species) species (Pauxi Some surveys conducted between 2004 dense, humid, lower montane forest and unicornis unicornis) remained unknown and 2005 found no evidence of the adjacent evergreen forest at altitudes of to science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). species anywhere north or east of between 450 and 1,200 meters (m) The Peruvian subspecies is Pauxi Amboro´, Carrasco, and Isiboro-Secure (1,476 to 3,937 feet) (Cordier 1971; unicornis koepckeae (Gastan˜ aga et al. National Parks in central Bolivia 2011, p. 267). What is now recognized Herzog and Kessler 1998). It prefers (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). However, as the southern helmeted curassow may eating nuts of the almendrillo one survey in 2005 found it in fact be two separate species that are (Byrsonima wadsworthii (Cordier approximately 8 km (5 mi) northeast of currently recognized as two subspecies 1971)), but also consumes other nuts, Palmasola in the Integrated Management (Pauxi unicornis unicornis and Pauxi seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and Natural Area, Amboro´, Santa Cruz unicornis koepckeae). It has been (BLI 2008). Clutch size of the Department (Maillard 2006, p. 95). It proposed that these subspecies of Pauxi southern helmeted curassow is probably was found only in six locations during unicornis may represent two different two, as in other . However, the the surveys. Extensive surveys over the species because they are separated by only nest found contained only one egg last several years have failed to locate more than 1,000 km (621 mi), and have (Banks 1998; Cox et al. 1997; Renjifo the species in Madidi National Park, La distinct characteristics (Gastan˜ aga et al. and Renjifo 1997 as cited in BLI 2010a). Paz, on the eastern edge of the 2011, p. 267). Currently, both BirdLife Range Mosetenes Mountains in Cochabamba, International (BLI) and the International or in the Rı´o Tambopata area near the Union for Conservation of Nature The southern helmeted curassow is Bolivia-Peru border (MacLeod in litt. (IUCN) recognize the southern helmeted only known to occur in central Bolivia 2003 as cited in BLI 2010a; Hennessey curassow as Pauxi unicornis and do not and central Peru (BirdLife International 2004a as cited in BLI 2009a; specifically address either subspecies. (BLI) 2012). One of the locations where Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI The Integrated Taxonomic Information it has been found is Valle de la Luna, 2008). System (ITIS) recognizes Pauxi on the east side of the Rı´o Leche, 0.5– In Peru, Pauxi u. koepckeae is known unicornis as a full species as well as 1.0 km (0.3–0.6 miles) north of Parque only from the Sira Mountains (known as both subspecies (ITIS 2012, accessed Nacional Carrasco, in the Department of the Reserva Comunal El Sira), in the June 11, 2012). Cochabamba, Bolivia. The Valley is an Department of Hua´nuco (Gastan˜ aga et In many cases, taxonomy of species extensive, flat, largely unvegetated area al. 2011, pp. 267, 269; Tobias and del can be unclear. There is substantial at 450 m (1,476 ft) above sea level, Hoyo 2006). Surveys suggest that the discussion in scientific literature that bounded by the Rı´o Leche to the west southern helmeted curassow is debates the classification of species and and by steep cliffs and primary forest to extremely rare here (Gastan˜ aga et al. whether various entities deserve species the east. It has also been located in 2011, p. 267; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as status rather than subspecies status Amboro´ (Macleod et al. 2009, pp. 15– cited in BLI 2008; Maccormack in litt. (Phillimore 2010, pp. 42–53; James 16). 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Gastan˜ aga 2010, pp. 1–5; Pratt 2010, pp. 79–89). Research indicates that the species and Hennessey 2005; Mee et al. 2002). This is sometimes significant with once inhabited a contiguous area along Pauxi u. koepckeae occurs in an area respect to conservation measures, the Peruvian-Bolivian Andean mountain that is isolated from the Andes particularly when considering the cloud forest chain, and now has become Mountains. criteria used by organizations such as two isolated populations or subspecies the IUCN. These two subspecies may in (see Appendix A in Docket FWS–R9– Population fact be species, but for the purpose of ES–2012–0044 for a map) that are at the The total population of southern this review, these two subspecies peripheries of its former range helmeted curassow is estimated to be essentially face the same threats, are (Gastan˜ aga et al. 2011, p. 273). In between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals generally in the same region of South Bolivia, the horned curassow is found (BLI 2012). Within its limited range, the America, and both have quite small only in the departments of Cochabamba southern helmeted curassow typically populations. Absent peer-reviewed and Santa Cruz (BLI 2012; Maillard occurs at densities of up to 20 information to the contrary and based 2006, p. 95). All current records are individuals per square kilometer (km2) on the best available information, we from in or near three protected areas— (Macleod 2007 as cited in BLI 2008). recognize both subspecies as being Amboro´, Carrasco, and Isiboro-Se´core Within Peru, the population is valid. For the purpose of this review, we (Asociacio´n Armonı´a 2012; Maillard estimated to have fewer than 400 are reviewing the petitioned entity, 2006, p. 95). individuals (Gastan˜ aga in litt. 2007, as Pauxi unicornis, which includes all In Amboro´ National Park (Yungas cited in BLI 2010a). In recent years, subspecies. We welcome comments on Inferiores de Amboro´), the southern extensive field surveys of southern the classification of the southern helmeted curassow was regularly seen helmeted curassow habitat have helmeted curassow. on the upper Saguayo River (Saguayo resulted in little success in locating the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24608 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

species (Hennessey 2004a; MacLeod in building inhibits its dispersal (Fjeldsa˚ in encroachment and concomitant litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010; Herzog increased pressure on natural resources. Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI and Kessler 1998). Historically, the Despite the recent improvements in 2010a; MacLeod in litt. 2003 as cited in species was often hunted for meat due laws in Peru and Bolivia, destructive BLI 2010a; Mee et al. 2002). As of 2009, to its large size and for its unique blue activities are ongoing within protected the estimated decline in the overall casque, or horn, which the local people areas and in these species’ habitat, population over 10 years was 50 to 79 used to make cigarette lighters (Collar et indicating that the laws governing percent (BLI 2009b). al. 1992; Cordier 1971). In the Amboro´ wildlife and habitat protection in both region of Bolivia, the bird’s head was countries are either inadequate or Factors Affecting the Species purportedly used in folk dances (Hardy inadequately enforced to protect the The southern helmeted curassow is 1984 as cited in Collar 1992). It is species or to mitigate ongoing habitat dependent upon particular unclear whether this practice still loss and population declines. environmental conditions that have occurs. The FAO conducted a review of forest been altered over the past few centuries. In Peru, the main factor affecting P. u. policies and laws in 2010, and a Southern helmeted curassow koepckeae is hunting by local summary for Peru and Bolivia is in populations are estimated to be communities (Gastan˜ aga et al. 2011, p. Table 2. The study found that, although declining very rapidly (Gastan˜ aga et al. 277), but the species is also impacted by Peru does not have a national forest 2011, p. 277; Gastan˜ aga 2006, p. 15). subsistence agriculture forest clearing policy, it does have both a national This species has a small range and is by colonists, mining, oil exploration, forest program and law in place. Bolivia known only from a few locations, and and illegal logging (MacLeod in litt. has a national forest policy, national continues to be subject to habitat loss 2000 as cited in BLI 2010a). The Rı´o forest program, and law program in and hunting pressure. The species was Leche area experienced a 100 percent place. No forest laws at the subnational observed in a forested area population decline in less than 5 years level (such as jurisdictions equivalent to approximately 5 km (3 mi) from the likely due to hunting or other pressures states in the United States) exist in these Valle de la Luna clay lick site where (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). In Carrasco countries. FAO reported that Peru and parrots forage for nutrients (Mee et al. National Park, the species had been Bolivia reported a significant loss of 2005, p. 4), but it had apparently been abundant during surveys in 2001, but in primary forests; this loss peaked in the exterminated by hunting within 5 years 2004, there were no visual or auditory period 2000–2005 in Peru and increased (McLeod in litt. in Mee et al. 2005, p. sightings (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). in Bolivia in the last decade compared 4). The disappearance may be due to illegal with the 1990s (p. 56). FAO also In Bolivia, large parts of southern human encroachment. Unless threats reported that, at a regional level, South helmeted curassow habitat are are mitigated, this trend will probably America suffered the largest net loss of ostensibly protected by inclusion in the continue for the next several years forests between 2000 and 2010; at a rate Amboro´ and Carrasco National Parks (Macleod in litt. 2005). of approximately 4.0 million ha (9.9 and in the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Peru and Bolivia have enacted various million ac) per year (p. xvi). In Bolivia, Territory and National Park. However, laws and regulatory mechanisms to habitat is protected either on the pressures on the species’ populations protect and manage wildlife and their national or departmental level. continue (BLI 2010a). Forests within the . However, the remaining Recently, Bolivia passed the ‘‘Law of range of the southern helmeted suitable habitat for this species is Rights of Mother Earth’’ to add strength curassow in Bolivia are being cleared for fragmented and degraded. Habitat to its existing environmental protection crop cultivation by colonists from the throughout the species’ range has been laws. This law has the objective of altiplano (Maillard 2006, pp. 95–98). and continues to be altered as a result recognizing the rights of the planet Rural development including road of human activities, particularly human (Government of Bolivia, 2010).

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF FOREST POLICIES AND LAWS IN BOLIVIA AND PERU (ADAPTED FROM FAO GLOBAL FOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 2010, P. 303)

National forest National forest program Forest law national Country policy Exists Year Exists Year Status National—type Year Subnational exists

Bolivia ...... Yes ...... 2008 Yes ...... 2008 In implementation ...... Specific forest law ..... 1996 No Peru ...... No ...... — Yes ...... 2004 In implementation ...... Specific forest law ..... 2000 No

Conservation Status Mountains), but hunting still likely human impact on the species’ natural occurs in this area. The Armonı´a habitat. The southern helmeted curassow is Association is carrying out an In the previous ANOR, the southern classified as endangered on the IUCN environmental awareness project to helmeted curassow received an LPN of Red List (BLI 2012; BLI 2009a). It is not inform local people about the threats to 2. After reevaluating the threats to the listed in any appendices of the the southern helmeted curassow species, we have determined that no Convention on International Trade in (Asociacio´n Armonı´a 2010) and is change in the LPN is warranted. The Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and conducting training workshops with southern helmeted curassow does not Flora (CITES; www.cites.org), which park guards to help improve chances for represent a monotypic genus. It faces regulates international trade in its survival. Armonı´a is also attempting threats that are high in magnitude based and plants of conservation concern. to estimate southern helmeted curassow on its small, limited range. The few It is legally protected in the El Sira population numbers to identify its most locations where it is believed to exist Communal Reserve (most of the Sira important populations and is evaluating continue to be subject to habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24609

destruction and loss from agricultural Factors Affecting the Species 100 ha (247 acres) depending on the development, road building, and Its suitable habitat has become widely availability of their preferred food hunting. Although the population is fragmented (BLI 2012; BLI 2010b). sources (Lee and Jamieson 2001, p. 57). estimated to be between 1,500 and 7,500 Wetland drainage, pollution, and Takahe defend their territories individuals, this may be an overestimate siltation on the Ubate´-Bogota´ plateau aggressively against other takahe, which because it has such a limited range and have resulted in major habitat loss and means that they will not form dense the population trend is believed to be few suitably vegetated marshes remain. colonies even in optimal habitat. They rapidly declining (Jetz et al. 2007, p. 1). All major savanna wetlands are are long-lived birds, probably living The best scientific information available threatened, predominately due to between 14 and 20 years (Heather and suggests that the population decline will draining, but also due to agricultural Robertson 1997) and have a low continue in the future. Because the runoff, erosion, dyking, eutrophication reproductive rate, with clutches species is experiencing such a caused by untreated sewage effluent, consisting of one to three eggs. The significant population decline and is insecticides, tourism, hunting, burning, species forms life-long pair bonds and still experiencing significant pressures, reed harvesting, fluctuating water levels, generally occupy the same territory this species has an LPN of 2 to reflect and increasing water demand. throughout life (Reid 1967). Generally, only a few pairs in the wild manage to imminent threats of high magnitude. Additionally, road construction may result in colonization and human consistently rear more than one chick Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus), interference, including introduction of each year. LPN = 2 exotic species in previously stable Population and Range Species and Habitat Description wetland environments (Cortes in litt. Historically, takahe were common 2007 as cited in BLI 2010b). throughout most coastal and eastern The Bogota rail is found in the East parts of the South Island of New Andes of Colombia on the Ubate´-Bogota´ The Bogota rail is listed as Zealand (Grueber and Jamieson 2011, p. Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyaca´. It 384; Grueber and Jamieson 2008, p. occurs in the temperate zone at 2,500– endangered by IUCN primarily because its range is very small and is contracting 384). Today, the species is present in 4,000 m (8,202–13,123 ft and the Murchison and Stuart Mountains occasionally as low as 2,100 m) (6,890 due to widespread habitat loss and degradation. It is not listed in any and was introduced to five island ft) in savanna and pa´ramo marshes (BLI reserves and one privately owned island appendices of CITES. Some Bogota rails 2010b). Bogota rails inhabit wetland (Wickes et al. 2009, p. 10; Collar et al. occur in protected areas such as habitats with vegetation-rich shallows 1994). Small groups of takahe were Chingaza National Park and Carpanta that are surrounded by tall, dense reeds introduced to Maud Island in the Biological Reserve. However, most and bulrushes (Stiles in litt. 1999 as Marlborough Sounds, Mana and Kapiti savanna wetlands are virtually cited in BLI 2010b). The species Islands north of Wellington, Tiritiri inhabits the water’s edge, in flooded unprotected (BLI 2012). In the previous ANOR, the Bogota rail Matangi Island in the Hauraki Gulf pasture and along small overgrown received an LPN of 2. After reevaluating northeast of Auckland, and dykes and ponds (Varty et al. 1986 as the threats to this species, we have Maungatautari Ecological Island, ˚ cited in BLI 2010b; Fjeldsa 1990 as cited determined that no change in the listing Waikato. The population in the in BLI 2010b; Fjeldsa˚ and Krabbe 1990 priority number for the species is Murchison Mountains of Fiordland as cited in BLI 2010b; Salaman in litt. appropriate. The Bogota rail does not National Park, South Island, is the only 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). Nests have represent a monotypic genus. It faces mainland population and that has the been recorded adjoining shallow water threats that are high in magnitude due potential for sustaining a large, viable in beds of Scirpus (bulrush or sedge) to the pressures on the species’ habitat. population (New Zealand Department of and Typha (cat tail) species (Stiles in Its range is very small and is rapidly Conservation (NZDOC) 2010; 2009b; litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). The contracting because of widespread 2007; Bunin and Jamieson 1996). When rediscovered in 1948, it was Bogota rail is omnivorous, consuming a habitat loss and degradation estimated that the takahe population diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, (agricultural encroachment, erosion, consisted of about 260 pairs (Heather larvae, worms, mollusks, dead dyking, and eutrophication). The and Robertson 1997; del Hoyo 1996). In fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant material population is believed to be between 1981, the population reached a low of (BLI 2012; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the an estimated 120 birds. As of 2010, it BLI 2010b). population trend is believed to be was estimated that there were about 100 rapidly declining. The factors affecting Population and Range birds in the wild in the Murchison the species are occurring now, are Mountains (NZDOC 2010), but there ongoing, and are therefore imminent. The current population is estimated to may be up to 300 in this area (http:// Thus, the LPN remains at 2 to reflect be between 1,000 and 2,499 individuals www.mitre10takaherescue.co.nz, imminent threats of high magnitude. (BLI 2012). Although the Bogota rail has accessed July 17, 2012). Currently, there been observed in at least 21 locations in Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri), are approximately 350 individuals that Cundinamarca, the Bogota rail LPN = 8 are receiving conservation efforts population is thought to be declining. It (Grueber et al. 2012, p. 4; Wickes et al. Species Description is still described as being uncommon to 2009). fairly common, with a few notable The takahe, a flightless rail endemic populations, including nearly 400 birds to New Zealand, is the world’s largest Factors Affecting the Species at Laguna de Tota, approximately 50 extant (living) member of the rail family Several factors have led to the decline bird territories at Laguna de la Herrera, (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Porphyrio in the species’ population. Factors that approximately 100 birds at Parque La mantelli was split into P. mantelli had affected this species in the past Florida, and populations at La Conejera (extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) included hunting, a competitor (the marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BLI (Trewick 1996). Takahe territories are introduced brush-tailed possum 2010b). between several hectares to more than (Trichosurus vulpecula)), and predators

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24610 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

such as stoats (Mustela erminea) and the from buildings (Youl 2009, p. 80). Lead birds to the Fiordland population threatened (Gallirallus australis), a has been found to affect the learning (Grueber et al. 2012, p. 4). The NZDOC flightless woodhen that is endemic to capacity of avian species (Youl 2009, has been involved in a captive-breeding New Zealand (BLI 2010c). The NZDOC pp. 11–13). This exposure to lead may and release program to improve takahe ran a trial stoat control program in a cause decreased fitness of takahe. recovery since 1983 (NZDOC 2009, p. portion of the takahe Special Area to Severe weather may also be a limiting 29). Excess eggs from wild nests are measure the effect on takahe survival factor to the takahe (BLI 2010c; Bunin managed to produce birds suitable for and productivity. Initial assessment and Jamieson 1995). Weather patterns in releasing back into the wild population indicated that the control program had the Murchison Mountains vary from in the Murchison Mountains. a positive influence (NZDOC 2009, pp. year to year. High chick and adult Some of these captive-reared birds 35–36); however, occasionally, stoat mortality may occur during have been used to establish five eradication still occurs as needed. extraordinarily severe winters, and poor predator-free, offshore island reserves. Now the primary factors affecting the breeding may result from severe stormy Overall, this species’ population species are limited suitable habitat and weather during spring breeding season numbers fluctuate annually, but appear a very small population size (Grueber et (Crouchley 1994). The severity of winter to be slowly increasing due to intensive al. 2012, pp. 1–5); however, other conditions adversely affects management of the island reserve factors that likely affect this species are survivorship of takahe in the wild, populations (Grueber et al. 2012, pp. 1– discussed in this section. Although particularly of young birds (Maxwell 5; Wickes et al. 2009). Pest eradication there are no known diseases that are and Jamieson 1997). on Motutapu Island (1,500 ha) (3,707 ac) currently a concern in the takahe, Another factor of concern is that the may provide suitable habitat for this diseases in avian species are currently a mainland population and the species (Grueber et al. 2012, p. 4). These concern in New Zealand and are being populations on the island reserves may captive-breeding efforts have increased monitored (McLelland et al. 2011, pp. be at carrying capacity (Grueber et al. the rate of survival of chicks reaching 1 163–164). 2012, p. 1; Jamieson 2010, p. 122; year of age from 50 to 90 percent Studies suggest the level of inbreeding Wickes et al. 2009, p. 29; Greaves 2007, (Wickes et al. 2009). Although takahe may be underestimated for this species p. 17). Rareness of a vital component of that were translocated to the islands had because this species has persisted at a its diet, C. conspicua, may be a limiting higher rates of egg infertility and low small population size for over 150 years factor affecting the lack of viability of hatching success when they breed (Grueber and Jamieson 2011, p. 392; the takahe population (Wickes et al. (Jamieson & Ryan 2000), there has been Grueber et al. 2010, pp. 7–9). Relative to 2009, pp. 39–40). C. conspicua is less recent breeding success. In 2010, other species, the takahe has low genetic common in the forest understory in the NZDOC reported that at least 21 chicks diversity (Grueber et al. 2010, pp. 7–9). Takahe Special Area than it was hatched on predator-free islands, and, There is growing evidence that historically. NZDOC has conducted for the first time, the mainland inbreeding can negatively affect small, research and has attempted to population on Maungatautari Ecological isolated populations. Inbreeding can reintroduce and increase the prevalence Island, Waikato, produced a chick, result in reduced fitness potential and of this plant species in the Murchison indicating an improvement in higher susceptibility to biotic and Mountains Reserve (Wickes et al. 2009, conservation efforts. abiotic disturbances in the short term, pp. 39–40). The island populations now In the previous ANOR, the takahe and an inability to adapt to primarily consume introduced grasses received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating environmental change in the long term. (BLI 2010c). Some researchers have the threats to the takahe, we have After substantially decreasing in theorized that consumption of these determined that no change in the numbers, the species experienced a loss nonnative species may contribute to classification of the magnitude and of fitness as a result of recent inbreeding inadequate nutrition and subsequent imminence of threats to the species is (Grueber et al. 2011; Grueber and nest failure (Jamieson 2003, p. 708); warranted at this time. The takahe does Jamieson 2008, p. 649). Small however, this theory has not been not represent a monotypic genus. The populations generally recover slowly confirmed. current population is small from catastrophic events (Crouchley (approximately 350 individuals), and Conservation Status 1994); this is a concern because this the species’ distribution is extremely species has such a small population size The takahe is listed as endangered on limited. Although it has a small (approximately 350 individuals). To the IUCN Red List because it has an population, limited suitable habitat, and increase the population, NZDOC has extremely small population (BLI 2012). may experience inbreeding depression, been removing some eggs from the wild, It is not listed in any appendices of because the NZDOC is actively involved captive rearing them, and reintroducing CITES; international trade is not a in measures to aid the recovery of the them back into the wild (also refer to concern. New Zealand considers the species (Grueber et al. 2012; Wickes et Conservation Status, below) (Grueber et takahe to be an endangered species, and al. 2009, 58 pp.; NZDOC 2009e, 3 pp.), al. 2012, p. 1; NZDOC 2009, p. 26). it is classified as nationally critical we find the threats that are moderate in Lead exposure may affect this species under the New Zealand Threat magnitude. The NZDOC has on some of the islands (Youl 2009, pp. Classification System. The NZDOC, implemented a captive breeding and 79–83). Lead levels in the island through its 2007–2012 Takahe Recovery release program to supplement the populations were found to be higher Plan, is managing the populations of the mainland population, and established than those on the mainland. Older species through various conservation several offshore island reserves. buildings on some of the island contain efforts such as captive breeding, However, despite conservation efforts, lead paint. One or more takahe breeding population management, eradication of the threats are ongoing and, therefore, pairs were located near buildings predators, and management of imminent. Lack of suitable habitat and containing lead-based paint. A family grasslands (Wickes et al. 2009, p. 9). The predation, combined with the takahe’s group on one island that was close to a Takahe Recovery Group has explored small population size and naturally low building containing lead paint was strategies to increase the productivity of reproductive rate, are threats to this found to have significantly higher lead the island populations by establishing species that are moderate in magnitude. levels than a family group located away new island sites or relocating some Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24611

imminent threats of moderate the Chatham oystercatcher population Video cameras placed to observe nests magnitude. has not done well on those islands indicated that feral cats are a major nest (Moore 2008, p. 29). Over the last 20 predator. Other predators include the Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus years, the population on South East native red-billed gull (Larus scopulinus) chathamensis), LPN = 8 Island (Rangatira), an island free of and southern black-backed gull (L. Species and Habitat Description mammalian predators, has gradually dominicanus) (Moore 2005b). Nest destruction and disturbance is The Chatham oystercatcher is the declined since the 1970s for unknown caused by people fishing, walking, or most rare oystercatcher species in the reasons (Moore 2009a, p. 9; Schmechel and O’Connor 1999). The decline is driving on or near nests. When a nesting world (NZDOC 2001). It is endemic to likely due to large waves during sea area is disturbed, adult Chatham the Chatham Island group (Schmechel storms, which have destroyed the nests often abandon their eggs and Paterson 2005; Marchant and (Moore 2009a, p. 9). The distribution of for up to an hour or more, leaving the Higgins 1993), which is 860 km (534 mi) oystercatchers in the Chatham Islands eggs vulnerable to opportunistic east of mainland New Zealand. The has changed from a southern to a predators. Eggs are also trampled by Chatham Island group consists of two northern dominance since 1970 (Moore livestock (Moore 2005a), and, in one large, inhabited islands (Chatham and 2008, p. 25). In the 1970s, 65 percent of case, a sheep was observed lying on a Pitt) and numerous smaller islands. Two the population was found on the nest (Moore 2009b, p. 21). of the smaller islands (Rangatira and southern three islands (Pitt, Mangere Another obstacle to Chatham Mangere) are nature reserves. The and Rangatira) and 35 percent on oystercatcher populations is habitat Chatham Island group has an ecosystem Chatham Island. As of 2006, 81 percent degradation. Marram grass (Ammophila that consists of biota that is quite of the population was on Chatham arenaria) introduced to New Zealand different from New Zealand’s mainland. Island (62 percent in northern core from Europe to protect farmland from The remote marine setting, distinct census areas) and 19 percent was on the sand encroachment (Moore 2008, p. 28) climate, and physical makeup have led southern islands (Moore 2008, p. 25). has spread to the Chatham Islands to a high degree of endemism (Aikman where it binds beach sands forming tall et al. 2001). The southern part of the Factors Affecting the Species dunes with steep fronts. In many Chatham oystercatcher range is Historically, cattle and sheep grazing, marram-infested areas, the strip between dominated by rocky habitats with which began in the 1840s–1850s, the high-tide mark and the fore dunes extensive rocky platforms. The northern affected this species and its habitat narrows as the marram advances part of the range is a mix of sandy beach (Moore 2008, p. 28). On Chatham Island, seaward. The dense marram grass is and rock platforms (Aikman et al. 2001); by 1901 there were 60,000 sheep, unsuitable for nesting (Moore 2008, p. however, the species exhibits preference although they have since been removed. 28; Moore and Davis 2005). for intertidal rock platforms and wide Much of the forest had been burned and Consequently, the Chatham sandy beaches (Schmechel and Paterson cleared (Butler & Merton 1992 in Moore oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to 2005, p. 5). 2008, p. 28), particularly in coastal areas shore where nests are vulnerable to Pairs of Chatham oystercatchers (Bell & Robertson 1994 in Moore 2008, tides and storm surges. In a study done occupy their territory all year, while p. 28). by Moore and Williams (2005), the juveniles and subadults form small Predation, nest disturbance, invasive authors found that, along the narrow flocks or occur alone on vacant sections plants, and spring tides and storm shoreline, many eggs were washed away of the coast. Their scrape nests (shallow- surges are factors that significantly and the adults would not successfully rimmed depressions in soil or impact the Chatham oystercatcher breed without human intervention. vegetation) are usually formed on sandy population (NZDOC 2012, p. 2; Moore Oystercatcher eggs were moved away beaches just above spring-tide and 2009a, pp. 8–9; Moore 2005; NZDOC from the shoreline by fieldworkers and storm-surge level or among rocks above 2001). After three summers of video placed in hand-dug scrapes surrounded the shoreline and are often under the recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded by tidal debris and kelp. cover of small bushes or rock overhangs were predated by cats, but of the (Heather and Robertson 1997). remaining six nest failures, weka were Conservation Status responsible for three; red-billed gull, The Chatham oystercatcher is listed as Population and Range one; sheep-trampling, one; and sea critically endangered by the NZDOC Records of the Chatham Island wash, one (Moore 2005b). When a cat (2010d), making it a high priority for oystercatcher indicate that, historically, was present, eggs usually lasted only 1 conservation management (NZDOC this species has likely always existed as or 2 days. The weka, although endemic 2007). It is classified as ‘‘Endangered’’ a sparse and small population (Moore to New Zealand, is not endemic to the on the IUCN Red List because it has an 2008, p. 27). Although the population of Chatham Islands, and was introduced in extremely small population (BLI 2012). this species has never likely been very the early 1900s. Weka were observed It is not listed in any appendices of large (Moore 2008, p. 27), the preying upon this species three times CITES. population has increased since the through camera trapping between 1999 The birds of the Chatham Island 1970s to approximately 300 birds due to and 2001 (Moore 2009a, p. 8). Weka is group receive limited protection in part predator control and habitat protection not considered as severe a threat to the due to their remote location and (NZ DOC 2012; Moore 2009b, p. 32; Chatham oystercatcher as feral cats subsequent inaccessibility (McBride Moore 2005a). In the early 1970s, the because weka only prey on eggs when 2011, p. 108). The NZDOC focused Chatham oystercatcher population was adult oystercatchers are not present. conservation efforts in the early 1990s approximately 50 birds (Moore 2008, p. Severe reduction in Chatham on predator trapping and fencing to 20; del Hoyo 1996). oystercatcher numbers is attributed limit domestic stock access to nesting The islands of Mangere and Rangatira primarily to heavy predation by cats areas. In 2001, the NZDOC published were designated as Nature Reserves in (Felis catus) and weka (Moore 2009a, p. the Chatham Island Oystercatcher the 1950s, and efforts began to save the 8) (NZ 2012). Feral cats have become Recovery Plan 2001–2011 (NZDOC native bird species including the established on two of the Chatham 2001, 24 pp.), which prescribed actions removal of sheep in the 1960s. However, Islands after being introduced as pets. such as translocation of nests away from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24612 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

the high-tide mark and nest Cyanoramphus malherbi to be a valid forest-birds/10). This species manipulation to further the species. historically inhabited southern beech conservation of this species. These forests, with a preference for areas Species Description actions may have helped to increase bordering stands of N. solandri hatching success (NZDOC 2008b). This species, also known as (mountain beech) (del Hoyo 1997; Artificial incubation has been attempted Malherbe’s Parakeet or the ka¨ka¨riki, is Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). but has not increased productivity. primarily green with yellow and orange The South Island populations are Additionally, livestock have been coloring on its head above its bill with located within a 30-km (18.6-mi) radius fenced and signs erected to reduce some blue wing feathers. The female in beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of human and dog disturbance. Control of lays between five and eight eggs and the upland valleys (Hawdon and Poulter the invasive Marram grass has been eggs take 21–26 days to incubate. During valleys). These valleys are within successful in some areas. Intensive mast years (a year in which vegetation Arthur’s Pass National Park and the predator control combined with nest produces a significant abundance of Hurunui South Branch in Lake Sumner manipulation has resulted in a high mast, or fruit), when there is a high Forest Park in Canterbury, South Island number of fledglings (BLI 2009; NZDOC abundance of seed production by (NZDOC 2009a). Orange-fronted 2008). Nothofagus species (beech ), parakeets have been relocated to parakeet numbers can increase predator-free Chalky Island in In the previous ANOR, the Chatham substantially; breeding has been linked Fiordland, Maud Island, Tuhua Island oystercatcher received an LPN of 8. with food availability. off Tauranga, and in 2011, Blumine After reevaluating the threats to this On South Island, seeds of Nothofagus Island (Butterfield 2011; Elliott and species, we have determined that no species were observed to be a major Suggate 2007; Ortiz-Catedral and change in the classification of the component of its diet (Kearvall et al. Brunton 2009, p. 385). It is unclear magnitude and imminence of threats to 2002, pp. 140–145). On the mainland, whether the population trend is the species is warranted at this time. the species is reliant on old mature declining or stable (Fauna Recovery NZ The Chatham oystercatcher does not beech trees with natural cavities for 2012; NZDOC 2009a). represent a monotypic genus. The nesting, but on the islands where it has current population estimate is very been introduced, it is less selective in its Factors Affecting the Species small (approximately 350 individuals), nest sites (Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton There are several reasons for the and the species has a limited range. 2009, p. 153). In other areas where it has species’ continuing decline; one of the Although the NZDOC has taken been introduced, it feeds on a variety of most prominent factors affecting the measures to aid the recovery of the other food sources. On Maud Island, a species is believed to be predation by species (the species’ population is primary component of its diet was species that are not native to the island slowly increasing on some islands), the Melicytus ramiflorus (mahoe) (Ortiz- such as stoats (Mustela erminea) and species continues to face threats Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). In rats (Rattus spp.) (NZ 2012, p. 1). Large (predation, trampling, low population addition to eating seeds, the orange- numbers of stoats and rats in beech numbers, and potential loss due to fronted parakeet feeds on fruits, , forests have caused large losses of storm surges) that are moderate in , buds, and small invertebrates parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Both species magnitude (McBride 2011, pp. 108, 110; (NZ DOC 2012, p. 1). of predators are excellent hunters on the Moore 2008, p. 30). However, the threats ground and in trees. They predate are still ongoing and, therefore, Population and Range parakeet nests in tree cavities, which imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to This species is described as never impacts primarily females, chicks, and reflect imminent threats of moderate having been common (Mills and eggs (NZDOC 2009c). magnitude. Williams 1979). The orange-fronted Habitat loss and degradation are two parakeet has an extremely small and other factors that have affected the Orange-Fronted Parakeet fragmented population in addition to a orange-fronted parakeet’s suitable (Cyanoramphus malherbi), LPN = 8 limited range (BLI 2012). BLI estimates habitat (NZDOC 2006, p. 2). Large areas Taxonomy its population in the wild is between 50 of native forest have been felled or and 249 individuals (BLI 2012). burned, decreasing the habitat available The orange-fronted parakeet, endemic NZDOC’s population estimate as of 2009 for parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). to New Zealand, was treated as an was between 100 and 200 individuals Silviculture of beech forests in the past individual species until it was proposed remaining in the wild. Between 2007 had removed trees at an age when few to be a color morph of the yellow- and 2009, researchers introduced 62 would become mature enough to crowned parakeet, C. auriceps, in 1974 birds to Maud Island, which has been develop suitable cavities for species (Holyoak 1974). Further taxonomic designated as a scientific reserve and such as the orange-fronted parakeet analysis indicated that it is a distinct consists of 296 hectares (731 ac). (Kearvell et al. 2002, p. 261). The species (Kearvell et al. 2003). IUCN, Seventy-one birds have been relocated species’ habitat is also degraded by BLI, and ITIS all recognize to Tuhua Island, and these birds appear brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus Cyanoramphus malherbi as a full to be breeding successfully (Fauna vulpecula), cattle, and deer, which all species (ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, Recovery NZ 2012, p. 1). browse on plants, subsequently 2010). The common name ‘‘orange- At one time, the orange-fronted changing the forest structure (NZDOC fronted parakeet’’ is used by BirdLife parakeet was scattered throughout most 2009c). This is problematic for the International (2000, 2004) as the of New Zealand (Harrison 1970). During orange-fronted parakeet, which feeds on common name for Aratinga canicularis, the 19th century, the species’ seeds and insects on the ground and which is native to Costa Rica. Because distribution included South Island, low-growing shrubs (Kearvell et al. New Zealand continues to refer to this Stewart Island, and a few other offshore 2002, p. 261). species as the orange-fronted parakeet, islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a), Other impacts to this species’ viability we will use this common name in this but in the Southern Alps it is now only exist. These include: (1) Increased document. Absent peer-reviewed found in a few North Canterbury valleys competition between the orange-fronted information to the contrary, we consider (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/small- parakeet and the yellow-crowned

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24613

parakeet for nest sites and food in a with traps, bait stations, bait bags, and land adjacent to their habitat. The habitat that has been significantly aerial spraying, when necessary (Wickes greatest number of birds is seen close to modified by humans; (2) competition et al. 2009). The NZDOC also gardens with papayas (BLI 2010f). A with introduced finch species (species implemented a captive-breeding significant characteristic is that Uvea unknown); and (3) competition with program for the orange-fronted parakeet. parakeets nest in cavities of native trees; introduced wasps (Vespula vulgaris and Using captive-bred birds from the so the absence of suitable trees and V. germanica), which compete with program, NZDOC established several nesting cavities may be a limiting factor parakeets for invertebrates as a dietary self-sustaining populations of the (Robinet and Salas 2003, p. 71). Their source (Kearvell et al. 2002). orange-fronted parakeet on predator-free clutch size is generally two to three Hybridization with other species was a islands. The NZDOC monitors wild nest eggs; and they are known to have concern—the orange-fronted parakeet sites and is actively managing the another clutch if the first set of eggs is was thought to hybridize with the conservation of the species. Despite destroyed (BLI 2010f). yellow-crowned parakeets (C. auriceps) these controls, predation by introduced Taxonomy at Lake Sumner (Snyder et al. 2000). species is still a factor affecting the However, researchers have introduced species because predators have not been The Uvea parakeet, previously known orange-fronted parakeets to islands completely eradicated from this species’ as Eunymphicus cornutus, is now where they are not likely to overlap in range. recognized as a full species (Barre´ et al. range with other parakeet species (Ortiz- In the previous ANOR, the orange- 2010, p. 695; Boon et al. 2008, p. 251). Catedral 2011, pp. 152–162). fronted parakeet received an LPN of 8. Research presented in 2008 indicates Beak and Feather Disease Virus After reevaluating the factors affecting that the Uvea parakeet, based on (BFDV) has been a concern for the the orange-fronted parakeet, we have genetic, ecological, behavioral, and NZDOC, and the disease was discovered determined that no change in the biogeographical evidence, is so in wild native birds on South Island for classification of the magnitude of threats markedly distinct that it warrants status the first time in 2011 (Massaro et al. to the species is warranted because as a species (Boon et al. 2008, p. 259). 2012, unpaginated). The disease affects NZDOC is actively managing the species ITIS considers the Uvea parakeet to be both wild and captive birds, with and the species’ population seems to a subspecies, Eunymphicus cornutus chronic infections resulting in feather have stabilized. The orange-fronted uvaeensis (ITIS 2012, accessed July 17, loss and deformities of beak and parakeet does not represent a monotypic 2012). However, based on the best feathers. Birds usually become infected genus. Although the species’ available scientific and commercial data in the nest by ingesting or inhaling virus suitable nesting habitat in beech forests available, we consider the Uvea particles. Birds will either develop is extremely limited, translocations have parakeet to be E. uvaeensis. immunity, die within a couple of weeks, taken place and seem to be successful or become chronically infected. We (Fauna Recovery NZ 2012). Habitat and Range know of no vaccine in existence to Additionally, the current population is The Uvea parakeet is found only on immunize populations. However, the small (approximately 350 individuals), the island of Uvea (also known as both NZDOC is aware of the potential effect and the species’ distribution is Ouve´a Island and Wallis Island) in the on the species, and efforts are in place extremely limited, but threats are being to protect the orange-fronted parakeet Loyalty Archipelago, New Caledonia (a mitigated. The species faces threats territory of France) in the South Pacific from this disease (Ortiz-Catedral et al. (competition for food and suitable 2010, pp. 618–619). Ocean. The island is approximately nesting habitat within highly altered 1,500 km (932 mi) east of Australia. Conservation Status habitat, predation, and habitat Uvea Island is 110 km2 (42 mi2) in size The NZDOC (2009b) considers the degradation) that are moderate in (Juniper and Parr 1998). Most Uvea orange-fronted parakeet to be the most magnitude because the NZDOC has parakeets occur in a forested area rare parakeet in New Zealand. Because taken measures to aid the recovery of consisting of about 20 km2 (7.7 mi2) in it is classified as ‘‘Nationally Critical’’ the species. However, because the the north of the island, although some with a high risk of extinction, the overall population of this species is very individuals are found in strips of forest NZDOC has been working intensively to small and it could be affected by BFDV, on the northwest isthmus and in the ensure its survival. The species is also we find that the threats to this species southern part of the island, with a total listed as ‘‘critically endangered’’ on the are still imminent. Thus, the LPN potential habitat of approximately 66 IUCN Red List. It is listed in Appendix remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats km2 (25.5 mi2) (BLI 2010f). of moderate magnitude. II of CITES; however, trade is not Population currently a concern (CITES 2010). Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus The NZDOC closely monitors all uvaeensis), LPN = 8 One survey of Uvea parakeet in the known populations of the orange- early 1990s estimated that the fronted parakeet. Nest searches are Species and Habitat Description population was between 70 and 90 conducted, nest cavities are inspected, The Uvea parakeet is endemic to a individuals (Hahn 1993). However, and surveys are conducted in other small island in New Caledonia, and is another survey in 1993 (Robinet et al. areas to look for evidence of other found primarily in old-growth forests, 1996) yielded an estimate of between populations. Because the NZDOC specifically those dominated by the pine 270 and 617 individuals. In 1999, it was determined that the species’ largest tree Agathis australis (del Hoyo et al. believed that 742 individuals lived in threat is predation, they initiated a 1997). The island is predominantly northern Uvea, and 82 were in the south program to remove predators in some limestone and lacks deep soil layers of the Island (Primot 1999 as cited in parts of the species’ range. ‘‘Operation (Boon et al. 2008, p. 257). BLI 2010f). Six surveys conducted ARK’’ is an initiative to respond to Uvea parakeets feed on fruit, berries, between 1993 and 2007 indicated a predator problems in beech forests in and flowers and seeds of native trees steady increase in population numbers order to prevent species’ , and shrubs (Robinet and Salas 2003, p. in both areas (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as including orange-fronted parakeets. 71; del Hoyo et al. 1997). They also feed cited in BLI 2010f). The current Predators are methodically controlled on a few types of crops in cultivated population estimate is between 1,280

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24614 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

and 3,413 individuals (IUCN 2012; CITES from Appendix II in July 2000. containing no white markings, barred Barre´ et al. 2010, p. 695). This action was due to its small underparts, brown-black wings, a white population size, restricted area of rump, and a large, rounded red crest on Factors Affecting the Species distribution, loss of suitable habitat, and its head (Lammertink et al. 2012, The primary factors that had affected the illegal pet trade (CITES 2000b). unpaginated). Common names for this this species have been the capture of Various conservation measures are in species include Carpintero cara canela juveniles for the pet trade (Barre et al. place for this species. A recovery plan (Spanish) and pica-pau-de-cara-canela 2010, pp. 695, 699). Capture of juvenile for the Uvea parakeet was developed by (Portuguese). It typically forages in the parakeets for the pet trade involves the Association for the Protection of the mid-story of the tree canopy and has cutting open nesting cavities to extract Ouve´a Parakeet for the period 1997– been observed eating larvae, ants, nestlings, which renders the holes 2002, which included strong local berries, and small fruit (Bodrati, unsuitable for future nesting. However, participation in population and habitat personal observation). It prefers to nest since restrictions have been put into monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in tree cavities of dead or decaying place and the species has been in Snyder et al. 2000). A second trees, but has been observed in tree monitored in association with its recovery plan was initiated in 2003. The cavities of a live anchico tree recovery plan (see Conservation Status species increased in popularity and is (Parapiptadenia rigida) and a live grapia section below), it appears that nest now celebrated as an island emblem tree (Apueleia leiocarpa). Its habitat poaching is no longer occurring such (Primot in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2009; type consists of tropical and subtropical that it significantly affects this species Robinet and Salas 1997). In-situ moist forests, tropical dry forests, and (Barre et al. 2010, p. 699). Since management (habitat protection and mangrove forests at mostly low-to- conservation awareness programs and restoration such as providing nest boxes medium elevations less than 1,000 m protections such as guards were put into and food) and public education about (3,281 ft); however, altitude in the place, the population has increased. the Uvea parakeet and its habitat occur Atlantic Forest region can reach as high However, because the human (Barre et al. 2010, p. 699; Robinet et al. as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea level. population on the island is increasing, 1996). Increased awareness of the plight This species exhibits an unusual encroachment and other factors of the Uvea parakeet and improvements behavior of sharing nest cavities with continue to be concerns. in law enforcement capability are other bird species. It was observed This species’ status is still tenuous helping to address illegal trade of the sharing a nest cavity with white-eyed due to its small population size. The species. parakeets (Aratinga leucophthalma) in primary factors affecting this species are In the previous ANOR, the Uvea 2009 and with white-throated now believed to be the lack of nesting parakeet received an LPN of 2. We woodcreepers (Xiphocolaptes albicollis) sites, predation, and competition from reevaluated the threats to the Uvea in 2010. However, in one instance, there bees for nesting sites (Barre et al. 2010, parakeet and determined that a change was conflict between two species, and pp. 695, 699; Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, in the LPN for the species is warranted the conflict may have resulted in clutch 78). Introductions of Uvea parakeets to because the population has significantly failure of the helmeted woodpecker the adjacent island of Lifou (to establish increased and now its population is (Lammertink et al. 2012, unpaginated). a second population) in 1925 and 1963 estimated to be between 1,280 and 3,413 Population failed (Robinet et al. 1995 as cited in BLI individuals. The Uvea parakeet does not The helmeted woodpecker’s 2009), possibly because of the presence represent a monotypic genus and it is an population is believed to have declined of ship rats and Norway rats (Robinet in island endemic with limited suitable sharply between 1945 and 2000 in litt. 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). habitat (Barre et al. 2010, p. 695). The Preventive measures have been taken conjunction with the clearing of mature Uvea parakeet continues to experience a at the main seaport of entry to the island forest habitat (Lammertink et al. 2012). tenuous situation primarily due to the and airport to prevent introduction of Although forest clearing has recently lack of the old-growth forest on which rats, but there is concern that rats may slowed, the population of this species is the birds depend for nesting holes. be accidentally introduced in the future still believed to be declining. Because Management of the species has resulted (BLI 2010, p. 3). As of 2010, the island the helmeted woodpecker is difficult to in an increase in the population; was rat-free (Barre et al. 2010, p. 696). locate except when vocalizing and it is therefore, the threats are moderate in Although current Uvea parakeet silent most of the year, its population magnitude. Because the species has numbers are increasing, any relaxation size is difficult to determine. The most increased in size due to conservation of conservation efforts or introduction of recent estimate of its population is education, a ban on commercial trade nonnative rats, other predators between 400 and 8,900 individuals and and a reduction in poaching, we have (particularly cavity-nesting bees, the decreasing, but experts believe its changed the LPN from 2 to 8 to reflect ship rat, and the Norway rat), or population is more likely closer to the imminent threats of moderate invasive species could lead to a rapid smaller estimate (Lammertink et al. magnitude. decline (BLI 2010f; Robinet et al. 1998). 2012, unpaginated; Bodrati 2010, Artificial nests are being installed to Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus unpaginated). increase available nesting sites, and galeatus), LPN = 8 Range BirdLife Suisse (ASPO) is continuing to Species and Habitat Description destroy invasive bees’ nests and is This species is endemic to the placing hives in forested areas to attract The helmeted woodpecker is southern Atlantic forest region of bees for removal (Verfaille in litt. 2007 sympatric (co-occurs) with two other southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, as cited in BLI 2010f). that are similar in and northeastern Argentina appearance: the (Lammertink et al. 2012, p. 1). Its Conservation Status (Dryocopus lineatus) and the robust estimated range is likely between 25,000 This species is listed as ‘‘Endangered’’ woodpecker (Campephilus robustus). and 40,000 km2 (9,653 and 15,444 mi2), on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2012). The helmeted woodpecker is a fairly which is reduced from a historical Protection for this species increased small woodpecker (27–29 cm (10.6–11.4 distribution of 661,330 km2 (255,341 when it was uplisted to Appendix I of in) in length). It has a cinnamon face, mi2). The Atlantic Forest extends along

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24615

the Atlantic coast of Brazil from Rio percent of the area historically covered woodpecker. Other species, particularly Grande do Norte in the north to Rio by tropical forests within the Atlantic more aggressive woodpeckers, may Grande do Sul in the south, and inland Forest biome has been converted or compete for nest sites, or they may use as far as Paraguay and Misiones severely degraded as a result of various fragmented and ‘‘edge’’ habitat more Province of northeastern Argentina human activities (Butler 2007, p. 2; effectively (Lammertink et al. 2012, (Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; unpaginated; BLI 2010h). The lack of Ho¨fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and Ho¨fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature nesting cavities is often a limiting factor Haddad 2000, pp. 786–787). The Conservancy (TNC) 2007, p. 1; World for bird species that depend on these Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 km Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007, pp. 2–41; cavities for nesting (Sandoval and (373 mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Morellato Barrantes 2009, p. 75; Kyle 2006, p. 8). The territory or home range and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. In Paraguay, some viable, although requirements for this species are 2000, pp. 853–854). Of this, less than fragmented, habitat for this species unclear, however, in 2010, two nests in one percent of the remaining forest in remains in San Rafael National Park Intervales State Park, Brazil, were the range of the helmeted woodpecker is (Esquivel et al. 2007, pp. 301–302). located 2.4 km (1.49 mi) apart from each original undisturbed habitat. Most of the However, the park has undergone other (Junior, pers. comm. in forest clearance in the Atlantic Forest logging and clearance, and is extremely Lammertink et al. 2012, unpaginated). occurred between 1945 and 2000 isolated from other mature forested The species is not common anywhere it (Galindo-Leal and de Gusma˜o Caˆmera areas that might be suitable for the is known to exist (BLI 2010h). 2003), and this was likely the period helmeted woodpecker (Esquivel et al. Lammertink et al. 2012 note that in old- during which the helmeted 2007, p. 302). Fragmentation of growth sites this species may reach woodpecker’s population severely populations can decrease the fitness and densities estimated at one territory per declined (Lammertink et al. 2012, reproductive potential of the species, 3 to 5 km2 (1.2 to 1.9 mi2) (Brooks et al. unpaginated). which exacerbates other threats. 1993, Esquivel pers. comm., Bodrati A significant portion of Atlantic pers. obs.). Forest habitat has been, and continues Conservation Status In Paraguay, the species is known to be, lost and degraded by various The helmeted woodpecker is listed as from the eastern half of the country, in ongoing human activities, including vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 2012). It the departments of Amambay, San logging, establishment and expansion of is not listed in any appendices of CITES Pedro, Canindeyu´ , Caaguazu´ , Alto plantations and livestock pastures, (CITES 2012). It is protected by Parana´, Guaira´, Cazaapa´, Itapu´ a, and urban and industrial developments Brazilian law, and populations occur in Paraguarı´ (Lammertink et al. 2012, (including new hydroelectric dams), numerous protected areas throughout its unpaginated; Collar et al. 1992, Hayes slash-and-burn clearing, and both range such as Intervales State Park in 1995). In Argentina, it is only known intentional and accidental ignition of Brazil and in San Rafael National Park from Misiones province. In Brazil, it fires (Critical Ecosystem Partnership in Paraguay (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 301; occurs in the states of Sa˜o Paulo, Fund (CEPF) 2001, pp. 9–15). Even with Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BLI 2009; Parana´, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande the passage of a national forest policy Chebez et al. 1998 as cited in BLI 2009). do Sul. and in light of many legal protections in In the previous ANOR, the helmeted It is found generally in mature Brazil, the rate of habitat loss woodpecker received an LPN of 8. After montane forest along the Atlantic coast throughout the Atlantic Forest biome reevaluating the available information, from sea level up to elevations of 1,000 has increased since the mid-1990s we find that no change in the LPN for m (3,280 ft). The species has been (Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270; CEPF 2001, the helmeted woodpecker is warranted. recorded in degraded and small forest p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1). The The helmeted woodpecker does not patches; however, it is usually found in remaining sites where the helmeted represent a monotypic genus. The or near large undisturbed forested tracts woodpecker currently exists may be lost magnitude of threat to the species is (Cockle 2010; Chebez 1995b as cited in over the next several years (Rocha et al. moderate because the species’ range is BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in 2005, p. 263). Furthermore, the fairly large. The threats are imminent BLI 2010h). This species is often absent helmeted woodpecker’s population is because the forest habitat upon which from large tracts of apparently suitable already highly fragmented, and its the species depends is still being altered habitat (Collar et al. 1992). For example, population is believed to be declining and degraded. We will continue to local ornithologists indicate that large parallel with habitat loss (BLI 2010h). monitor the status of this species, ´ Information suggests that this species portions of Iguazu National Park (550 however, an LPN of 8 remains valid for 2 does not do as well in secondary, km of mature forest), appear not to be this species. or are rarely used by this species although mature, forest than it does in (Castelino and Somay in litt. in primary, undisturbed forested areas. Okinawa woodpecker ( Lammertink 2010, unpaginated). There may be an ecological component noguchii syn. Sapheopipo noguchii), that is missing from the secondary LPN = 2 Factors Affecting the Species forest; ecological interactions can be Taxonomy There is little information available complex and relationships may not about this species, however, species always be obvious. When habitat is Often there are differences in the experts indicate that the factors affecting degraded, there is often a lag time before taxonomic classification of species. ITIS the species include the reduction of the species losses are evident (Brooks et recognizes the Okinawa woodpecker, nesting sites, loss of connectivity of al. 1999, p. 1140), so the helmeted (also known as Pryer’s woodpecker) as suitable habitat, and widespread woodpecker may still be present, belonging to the monotypic genus deforestation (Kohler in litt 2010, despite the low quality of its habitat. Sapheopipo (ITIS 2012, accessed unpaginated; Cockle 2008 as cited in Further studies are needed to clarify this August 17, 2012). IUCN and BLI both BLI 2010h). Its range is believed to be species’ distribution and status. recognize this species as Dendrocopos reduced to 20 percent of its original This species may not be as noguchii. Japan references it as habitat (Lammertink et al. 2012, competitive as other species whose Sapheopipo noguchii (www.env.go.jp/ unpaginated). Between 92 and 95 range overlaps with the helmeted en/nature/biodiv/reddata.html,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24616 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

accessed September 30, 2010). Winkler season range between one and three The limited range and tiny population et al. (2005, pp. 103–109) analyzed birds (BLI 2001, p. 1,880). make this species vulnerable to partial nucleotide sequences of extinction from disease and natural Range mitochondrial genes and concluded that disasters such as typhoons (BLI 2012, p. this woodpecker belongs in the genus The Okinawa woodpecker is endemic 54). In addition, the species may be Dendrocopos which consists of several to Okinawa Island, Japan. Okinawa is vulnerable to predators due to its species (not a monotypic genus). For the the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, a tendencies to forage close to the ground. purpose of this finding and absent peer- small island chain located between Feral dogs and cats, the introduced reviewed information to the contrary, Japan and Taiwan (Winkler et al. 2005; Javan mongoose (Herpestes javanicus), we recognize it as D. noguchii and will Stattersfield et al. 1998; Brazil 1991). and weasel (Mustela itatsi) are likely treat S. noguchii as a synonym. Okinawa is approximately 646 km (401 predators of the woodpecker (BLI 2012). Species and Habitat Description mi) from Taiwan and 1,539 km (956 mi) Conservation Status from Tokyo, Japan. The island is 108 km This species of woodpecker prefers (67 miles) in length and its width varies Various protections and conservation undisturbed, mature, subtropical between 3 and 27 km (2 to 17 mi). measures are in place for this species. evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall Okinawa’s highest point is Mt. Yonaha The species is categorized on the IUCN trees greater than 20 cm (7.9 in) in at 455 m (1,494 ft). The Okinawa Red List as critically endangered diameter (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982). woodpecker is confined to forested because it consists of a small, declining Trees of this size are generally more areas in the northern part of the island, population estimated to be between 100 than 30 years old, and as of 1991 were generally in the Yambaru (also known and 390 mature individuals (BLI 2012). confined to hilltops (Brazil 1991). The as ) area, particularly in the The species is legally protected in species’ main breeding areas are thought Yonaha-dake Prefecture Protection Area. Japan, and it occurs in small protected areas in Yambaru (BLI 2012). The to be located along the mountain ridges Yambaru refers to the mountainous Yambaru forested area in the Okinawa between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu- areas of Kunigami County in northern Prefecture, was designated as a national take, although it has been observed Okinawa. park in 1996 (BLI 2010i). The species is nesting in well-forested coastal areas in Population also listed in the USMC’s 2009 the northern part of the island (Research Integrated Natural Resources Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, This species is considered one of the Management Plan in compliance with as cited in BLI 2001). The majority of world’s most rare extant woodpecker the Japan Environmental Governing the broadleaf trees in the Yanbaru area species (Winkler et al. 2005). Many Standards, to be used by Department of are oak and chinquapin (Distylium observations of this species have Defense installations in Japan (USMC racemosum and Schefflera octophylla) recently been made at the Jungle 2012). Additionally, conservation (Ito et al. 2000, p. 305). Areas with Warfare Training Center, part of the organizations have purchased sites conifers (Coniferae, cone-bearing trees United States Marine Corps (USMC) where the woodpecker occurred in such as pines and firs) appear to be installation on Okinawa Island (USMC order to establish private wildlife avoided (Winkler et al. 1995; Short in litt. 2012). During the 1930s, the preserves (del Hoyo et al. 2002; BLI 1973). The Okinawa woodpecker was Okinawa woodpecker was considered 2008). It is not listed in any appendices also observed just south of the Mt. Tano- nearly extinct. In the early 1970s, it was of CITES. dake in an area of entirely secondary observed to be scattered among small In the previous ANOR, the Okinawa forest that was too immature for use by colonies and isolated pairs (Short 1973). woodpecker received an LPN of 2. After woodpeckers to excavate nest cavities, By the early 1990s, the breeding reevaluating the available information, but these may have been birds displaced population was estimated to be about 75 we find that no change in the LPN for by the clearing of mature forests (Brazil birds (BLI 2008a). In 2008, its projected the Okinawa woodpecker is warranted. 1991). 10-year decline was between 30 to 49 The Okinawa woodpecker does not The Okinawa woodpecker feeds on percent (BLI 2008b). The current represent a monotypic genus. It is large , notably beetle larvae, population estimate is between 100 and considered one of the world’s most rare spiders, moths, and centipedes, as well 390 mature individuals (BLI 2012). extant woodpecker species. The best as fruit, berries, seeds, acorns, and other Factors Affecting the Species available information indicates that this nuts (Winkler et al. 2005; del Hoyo species is being actively monitored. 2002; Short 1982). It forages in old- Deforestation and the fragmented However, the threats to the species are growth forests with large, often nature of its habitat due to logging, dam of high magnitude due to the scarcity of moribund trees, accumulated fallen construction, road-building, agricultural old-growth habitat (only 40 km2 (15 trees, rotting stumps, debris, and development, and golf course mi2)) upon which the species is undergrowth (Brazil 1991; Short 1973). construction have been cited to be the dependent. Its very small population is This species has been observed nesting main causes of its reduced habitat and believed to still be declining, and in holes excavated in large, old growth decreased population (BLI 2010i). species with fragmented habitat in trees such as Castanopsis cuspidate Between 1979 and 1991, 2,443 ha (6,037 combination with small population (Japanese chinquapin) and Machilus ac) of forest were destroyed in the sizes may be at greater risk of extinction thunbergii (Tabu-no-ki tree) (del Hoyo Yanbaru area (Department of due to synergistic effects (Davies et al. 2002; Short 1982; Ogasawara and Agriculture, Okinawa Prefectural 2004, pp. 265–271). Although it exists Ikehara 1977). Both of these tree species Government 1992, in Ito et al. 2000, p. in areas with protected status, the best grow to approximately 20 meters (66 ft) 311). As of 2001, there was only 40 km2 available information indicates that the in height. It is thought that Castanopsis (15 mi2) of suitable habitat available for threats to the species continue to be is the preferred tree species for nesting this species (BLI 2001, p. 1882). Most of ongoing and imminent. Because the because it tends to be hollow with hard the habitat loss appears to have ceased; species faces threats that are high in wood, so that the nesting cavities are however, it still suffers from limited magnitude due to its restricted more secure (Kiyosu 1965 in BLI 2001, suitable habitat and a small population population size, past habitat loss, p. 1,880). The number of fledglings per size (BLI 2012). endemism, and because the current

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24617

population estimate ranges between 100 Clements and Shany 2001, as cited in coca-growers have taken over forest and 390 mature individuals, the LPN for BLI 2008; Hornbuckle in litt. 1999, as within its altitudinal range (BLI 2010j). this species remains a 2 to reflect cited in BLI 2009; Collar et al. 1992). The magnitude of threats to the species imminent threats of high magnitude. The larger grey-breasted mountain is high given that the species has a very toucan (Andigena hypoglauca) occurs small range and declining population Yellow-browed toucanet above 2,300 m (7,544 ft), and the and may be in competition for habitat (Aulacorhynchus huallagae), emerald toucanet (Aulacorhynchus with more competitive avian species. LPN = 2 prasinus) occurs below 2,100 m (6,888 Additionally, the only records of this Species and Habitat Description ft) (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The species are from two small locations, yellow-browed toucanet may occur to There is very little information and they have not been verified in the north and south of its known range, available regarding the yellow-browed several years. Thus, the LPN for this but the area between the Cordillera de toucanet. This species is endemic to species remains a 2 to reflect imminent Cola´n, Amazonas, and the Carpish Peru and is known from only two threats of high magnitude. region, Hua´nuco, is inaccessible for locations in north-central Peru—La surveying, and its existence in other Brasilia tapaculo (Scytalopus Libertad, where it is described as areas has not been confirmed. novacapitalis), LPN = 11 uncommon, and Rio Abiseo National Park, San Martin, where it is thought to Factors Affecting the Species Taxonomy be very rare (BLI 2012b; del Hoyo et al. Deforestation, mining, and secondary Within the Scytalopus genus, there 2002; Wege and Long 1995). There was impacts associated with those activities are several species (Raposo and Kirwan also a report of yellow-browed toucanets such as habitat degradation, erosion, 2008, p. 80). The Brasilia tapaculo is a observed in the Leymebamba area (Mark and contamination from mining waste common name that could refer to in litt. 2003, as cited in BLI 2010j) of affect this species’ habitat. Deforestation several species within the Scytalopus Peru, although there are no available within its range has been widespread, genus (Raposo et al. 2006, p. 37). S. photos of this species to verify this but has largely occurred at lower novacapitalis is described as occupying information. elevations than habitat occupied by the the northwestern part of the overall Distinguishing features of the yellow- yellow-browed toucanet (Barnes et al. range (from Brası´lia south to western browed toucanet include a bright yellow 1995; BLI 2009). However, coca growers Minas Gerais—the central to southern- vent or cloaca, a blackish bill, and a have taken over forests within its central region of the country); S. generally green face, (Schulenberg and altitudinal range, probably resulting in pachecoi is described as occupying Rio Parker 1997, p. 719). Its call has been some reductions in this species’ range Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and described as a series of 20 to 30 frog-like and population (BLI 2012; Plenge in litt. northeastern Argentina; S. ‘‘krik’’ notes, delivered at a rate of 1993, as cited in BLI 2009). Most of the diamantinensis is described as slightly more than one note per second area in 1997 was described as being occupying the northernmost part of (recordings housed in Cornell only lightly settled by humans Brazil; and two species: S. speluncae Laboratory of Ornithology, Schulenberg (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). and Scytalopus sp. nov. (possibly S. and Parker 1997, p. 717). However, the human population novacapitalis but the taxonomy is unclear) occupy the central area of the Population and Range surrounding the Rio Abiseo Park was steadily increasing during the 15 years overall range (Raposo and Kirwan 2008, The current population size is prior to 2002, primarily due to the p. 80; Raposo et al. 2006, p. 51). Both believed to be 600–1,500 mature advent of mining operations in the area BLI and ITIS recognize the Brasilia individuals, with a decreasing (Obenson 2002). Pressures in and tapaculo as Scytalopus novacapitalis population trend (BLI 2012, p. 1). around the park exist due to mining and (BLI 2012; ITIS 2012, Accessed August The yellow-browed toucanet’s those secondary impacts associated with 10, 2012). For the purpose of this estimated range is 450 km2 (174 mi2) mining (Vehkama¨ki and Ba¨ckman 2006, document, we will refer to S. (BLI 2012). The species inhabits a pp. 1–2). novacapitalis as the Brasilia tapaculo. narrow altitudinal range between 2,125 and 2,510 m (6,970 and 8,232 ft). It Conservation Status Species and Habitat Description prefers a canopy of humid, epiphyte- The yellow-browed toucanet is listed The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird laden montane cloud forests, as endangered on the IUCN Red List due endemic to Brazil. The Brasilia tapaculo particularly areas that support Clusia to its very small range and population occupies the central to southern-central trees (known as autograph trees) (del records from only two locations (BLI region of the country (Brazilian Institute Hoyo et al. 2002; Schulenberg and 2012). It occurs in at least one protected of Environment and Renewable Natural Parker 1997, pp. 717–718; Fjeldsa˚ and area, the Rio Abiseo National Park, a Resources (IBAMA) 2012; BLI 2012). Krabbe 1990). Within the Clusia genus, World Heritage Site which was The Brasilia tapaculo is found in there are about 20 species. established to protect fauna (UNEP– swampy ‘‘gallery’’ forests. These forests The yellow-browed toucanet does not WCMC 2008, p. 1). It is not listed in any surround streams and rivers in regions appear to occupy all potentially suitable appendices of CITES (CITES 2012). No otherwise devoid of trees, within forest available within its range other protections are known, but see disturbed areas of thick streamside (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The Pauxi unicornis for a discussion of vegetation and dense secondary growth narrow distributional band in which applicable laws in Peru. of Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern). yellow-browed toucanets are found may In the previous ANOR, the yellow- The Brasilia tapaculo is strongly be related to the occurrence of other browed toucanet received an LPN of 2. associated with two plant species: avian species that may outcompete the After reevaluating the available ferns and Euterpe palms (del yellow-browed toucanet. Both of the information, we find that no change in Hoyo et al. 2003, in BLI 2010k). suggested competitors have wider the LPN for the yellow-browed toucanet This species, S. novacapitalis, is altitudinal ranges that completely is warranted. The yellow-browed notably different from its congeners in encompass the range of the yellow- toucanet does not represent a monotypic two ways. It is light grey with brown browed toucanet (del Hoyo et al. 2002; genus. As of 2010, BLI reported that fringed feathers on the rump and flanks

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24618 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

and is morphologically almost identical Its population has likely decreased in Codfish Island fernbird (Bowdleria to S. speluncae (Raposo et al. 2006, p. connection with habitat loss. punctata wilsoni), LPN = 12 52). Additionally, the song of S. Taxonomy novacapitalis consists on average of 1.1 Conservation Status There are five subspecies of Bowdleria notes per second, which is considerably The IUCN categorizes the Brasilia fewer than either S. notorius or S. punctata, each restricted to a single tapaculo as ‘‘Near Threatened’’ (BLI island in New Zealand and its outlying speluncae, whereas the duration of each 2012). It is not listed in any appendices note lasts an average 0.1 seconds, as islets. The North Island subspecies (M. of CITES (CITES 2010). This species was p. vealeae) and South Island subspecies opposed to either S. speluncae or S. listed in Brazil’s Official List of Species notorius, which never exceeded 0.05 (M. p. punctatus) are described as of Brazilian Fauna Threatened with seconds in any sample analyzed widespread and locally common. The Extinction in 1989 under Ordinance No. (Raposo et al. 2006, p. 52). Stewart Island (M. p. stewartianus) and 1522 of 19 December 1989, Law No. the Snares (M. p. caudatus) subspecies Range 7.735 of 1989 (IBAMA 1989, p. 6). are described as being moderately However, the Brasilia tapaculo is no The species has been documented in abundant (Heather and Robertson 1997). longer listed on Brazil’s List of Species the state of Goia´s and in the state of IUCN and BLI only recognize the of Brazilian Fauna Threatened with Minas Gerais, specifically in Serra da species Bowdleria punctata; it is not Extinction (IBAMA 2003). In 2005, a Canastra National Park (BLI 2012; addressed at subspecies level. Neither Honkala and Niiranen 2010, p. 124; BLI team reviewed priority areas for the species nor the subspecies is ´ addressed by ITIS (www.itis.gov, 2008; Scaramuzza et. al. 2005, p. 49; biodiversity conservation in Goias State, accessed June 8, 2012). However, the Silveira 1998, p. 55; Negret and and the Brasilia tapaculo was New Zealand Department of Cavalcanti 1985, as cited in Collar et al. considered to have a lower level of Conservation (NZDOC) recognizes the 1992). The species occupies forested vulnerability than many other species in Codfish Island fernbird as a valid areas within a range of approximately the state (Scaramuzza et. al. 2005, pp. subspecies. Because New Zealand 109,000 km2 (42,085 mi2) but is still 48–49). recognizes the subspecies, and absent likely losing habitat (BLI 2010j; Some of the areas where this species peer-reviewed information to the Scaramuzza et. al. 2005, p. 49). Its occurs are protected. Three Important contrary, we currently consider distribution now may be larger than Bird Areas (IBAs) have been identified Bowdleria punctata wilsoni to be a valid believed when we were initially as important for this species: Parque subspecies within a multispecies genus. petitioned to list this species in the Nacional de Brası´lia, Cerrados ao Sul de 1980s. In Serra do Cipo´ and Carac¸a, Brası´lia, and the Serra da Canastra Species Description which are in the hills and plateaus of National Park. IBAs are a way to There is little information available central Brazil, this species was located identify conservation priorities (BLI about this species. The Codfish Island at low densities (Collar et al. 1992). In 2012). A site is recognized as an IBA fernbird is found only on Codfish and around the Serra da Canastra when it meets criteria ‘‘* * *based on Island, New Zealand. Codfish Island is National Park, this species has in the the occurrence of key bird species that a nature reserve of 1,396 ha (3,448 ac) past been reported to be very common are vulnerable to global extinction or located 3 km (1.8 mi) off the northwest (Honkala and Niiranen 2010, p. 124; whose populations are otherwise coast of Stewart Island (McClelland Silveira 1998, p. 3). In the Minas Gerais irreplaceable.’’ Criteria for sites for 2007). McClelland (2007) indicated that, area, the species was located at low conservation are those that are small in the past, the Codfish Island fernbird densities at Serra Negra (on the upper enough to be conserved in their entirety, was restricted to low shrubland in the Dourados River) and the headwaters of but large enough to support self- higher areas of Codfish Island. Fernbirds the Sa˜o Francisco river in the early sustaining populations of the key bird are sedentary and are not strong fliers. 1990s (Collar et al. 1992). species. They are secretive and reluctant to leave Population In the previous ANOR, the Brasilia cover and feed in low vegetation or on the ground, eating mainly caterpillars, There is no current population tapaculo received an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, spiders, grubs, beetles, flies, and moths estimate other than that the population (Heather and Robertson 1997). is decreasing in connection with habitat we find that a change in the LPN for the loss and degradation (BLI 2012). Brasilia tapaculo is warranted. The Population Brasilia tapaculo does not represent a Although there is no current estimate Factors Affecting the Species monotypic genus. The magnitude of of the size of the Codfish Island fernbird The swampy forests where it is found threat to the species is moderate to low population (estimates are based on are not as conducive to forest clearing because at least two of the populations incidental encounter rates in the various as other areas, leaving the species’ are in protected habitat which habitat types on the island), the habitat less vulnerable to habitat loss ameliorate some factors affecting the population as of 2007 was believed to be and degradation than previously species; and its preferred habitat is several hundred. In 1966, the status of thought. The majority of locations swampy and difficult to clear. Threats the Codfish Island subspecies (B. where this species is found are likely are nonimminent, because it is found in punctata wilsoni) was considered within established protected nature a number of habitats and is reported as relatively safe (Blackburn 1967), but reserves such as Serra da Canastra. Both being common in some protected areas. estimates dating from 1975 indicated a fire risk and drainage impacts are Because the species has such a wide gradually declining population to reduced in these areas (Antas in litt. range and its distribution is likely larger approximately 100 individuals (Bell 2007). However, dam building for than believed when we were initially 1975 as cited in IUCN 1979). While irrigation on rivers that normally flood petitioned to list this species in the there are no accurate data on the gallery forests may still impact this 1980s, we find that, an LPN of 11 is population size or trends on Putauhinu, species (Antas in litt. 2007; Teixeira in appropriate for this species, and we will as of 2007, the numbers were estimated litt. 1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). continue to monitor its status. to be between 200 and 300 birds spread

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24619

over the island (McClelland 2007). have allowed for a rebound in the degradation (Filardi pers. comm. 2012, McClelland believes that the population subspecies’ population. Although the BLI 2012). has likely stabilized (2007). actual population numbers for this Factors Affecting the Species subspecies are unknown (possibly Factors Affecting the Species around 500 individuals), threats are This species’ small population is Codfish Island’s native vegetation has nonimminent because the conservation likely declining due to habitat loss. been modified by the Australian brush- measures have been successful. Areas around Ghizo Town, which tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), Therefore, an LPN of 12 remains valid previously supported the species, have which was introduced to the Island. for this subspecies. However, we will been further degraded since the town Codfish Island fernbird populations continue to monitor the status of this was devastated by a tsunami, and were also reduced due to predation by subspecies. habitat was found less likely able to weka and Polynesian rats (McClelland support the species in 2012 (Filardi in 2007; McClelland 2002, pp. 1–9; Merton Ghizo white-eye (Zosterops litt. 2012). The tsunami in 2007 1974, pers. comm., as cited in IUCN luteirostris), LPN = 2 contributed to the loss of habitat to the 1979). The Codfish Island fernbird Species and Habitat Description point where the area around Ghizo population was reported to have town, which once contained the species, rebounded strongly with the removal of There is little information available has been deemed unable to support the predator species in the 1980s and 1990s about this species and its habitat species (Filardi in litt. 2012 in BLI (McClelland 2007). Additionally, it (Filardi 2012, pers. comm.). Its range is 2012). Extreme weather events are likely successfully recolonized forest habitat, estimated to be less than 35 km2 (13.5 to affect this species; however, little which greatly expanded its range. mi2), of which less than 1 km2 (0.39 information is available. However, because there is always the mi2) is old growth forest. The Ghizo The species is also affected through chance that rats could reestablish a white-eye (also known as the splendid conversion of forested areas to population on the island; the island is white-eye) is described as ‘‘warbler- agricultural uses (BLI 2008). The very being monitored for rats. To safeguard like.’’ Its physical characteristics tall old-growth forest on Ghizo is still the Codfish Island fernbird, the NZ DOC include silvery-white eye rings with under pressure from clearance for local established a second population on dark olive upper parts and its use as timber, firewood, and gardens, as Putauhinu Island, a small 144-ha (356- underparts are bright yellow (BLI 2012). are the areas of secondary growth, ac), privately owned island located The species has a black beak and which are already suboptimal habitats approximately 40 km (25 mi) south of orange-yellow legs (BLI 2012). The for this species. Its very small Codfish Island. The Putauhinu Ghizo white-eye is endemic to the small population is believed to still be population established rapidly, and island of Ghizo, which is 11 km long declining; and species with fragmented McClelland (2007) reported that it is and 5 km wide (7 by 3 mi). Ghizo is a habitat in combination with small believed to be stable. Even with a densely populated island in the population sizes may be at greater risk second population on Putauhinu Island, Solomon Islands in the South Pacific of extinction due to synergistic effects the Codfish Island fernbird still remains Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea (BLI (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265–271). vulnerable to naturally occurring storm 2010m). As of 2005, the human Conservation Status events due to its restricted range, population on the island was estimated predation, and small population size. to be approximately 6,670 Few, if any, protections are in place (www.adb.org, accessed September 9, for this species. The IUCN Red List Conservation Status 2010). classifies this species as endangered The Codfish Island fernbird has because of its very small population that varying levels of conservation status. At Population is considered to be declining due to the species level, IUCN categorizes A very rough population estimate for habitat loss (Filardi 2012, pers. comm., Bowdleria punctata as least concern this species is between 250 and 1,000 BLI 2012). It is not listed in any (BLI 2010k); however, neither the IUCN mature individuals (BLI 2012). appendices of CITES (CITES 2012). nor BLI addresses the subspecies However, it is based on (1) population In the previous ANOR, the Ghizo individually. The 2008 New Zealand density estimates for close relatives with white-eye received an LPN of 2. After Threat Classification System manual a similar body size, and (2) the fact that reevaluating the available information, indicates that the two ‘‘at risk’’ only a portion of its estimated extent of we find that no change in the LPN for categories: ‘‘range restricted’’ and occurrence is likely to be occupied (BLI this species is warranted. The Ghizo ‘‘sparse’’ have been replaced by a single 2012). In the 1990s, this species was white-eye does not represent a category called ‘‘naturally uncommon’’ characterized as being locally common monotypic genus. It faces threats that (p. 10). The NZDOC categorizes this in the remaining tall or old-growth are high in magnitude due to declining subspecies as ‘‘naturally uncommon.’’ It forest, which is very fragmented and is suitable habitat and its small, declining is not listed in any appendices of CITES now believed to be less than 1 km2 (0.39 population size. The best available (CITES 2010). mi2). It is unclear whether the information indicates that forest In the previous ANOR, the Codfish remaining habitat can support clearing is occurring at a pace that is Island fernbird received an LPN of 12. sustainable breeding populations rapidly denuding the habitat; secondary After reevaluating the available (Filardi pers. comm. 2012, Buckingham growth is being converted to agricultural information, we find that no change in et al. 1995, as cited in BLI 2008). purposes. Further, the human the LPN for this subspecies is Biologists familiar with this species population on the small island is likely warranted. The information available recommend that systematic surveys be contributing to the reduction in old- indicates that the subspecies faces conducted for this species to verify its growth forest for local uses such as threats that are low to moderate in status in the wild and to evaluate the gardens and timber. The estimate of the magnitude because: (1) It exists on an condition of its habitat and its Ghizo white-eye population is believed island that is a nature reserve, and (2) population. Although there are no data to be between 250 and 1,000 the removal of predators and the on population trends, the species is very individuals, and its population trend is establishment of a second population likely declining due to habitat loss and believed to be declining. These threats

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24620 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

to the species are ongoing, of high movements would provide an improved infrastructure. The black-backed tanager magnitude, and imminent. Thus, based understanding of the species’ would likely attempt to move inland in on the best available scientific and population status and distribution, but search of new suitable habitat as its commercial information, the LPN populations currently appear small and current habitat disappears. However, remains a 2 for this species. fragmented and are believed to be there may not be enough suitable habitat declining, likely in response to Tangara remaining for the species. Although Black-backed tanager ( extensive habitat loss (BLI 2012). peruviana), LPN = 8 Brazil has several laws implementing Factors Affecting the Species protection for species such as the black- Species and Habitat Description The primary factor affecting this backed tanager and small portions of This species’ physical characteristics species is the rapid and widespread loss this species’ range occur in six protected include an underbody color of blue- of habitat. As of 2000, between 7 and 10 areas, none of the protected areas are turquoise and a pale red-brown vent or percent of its habitat remained intact supported by effective protection cloaca. The male has a chestnut-colored (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; according to BLI (2012). Its habitat is head and black back. The female is Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p. 794). under pressure from the intense duller and greener. It has a complex Based on a number of estimates, 92 to development that occurs in coastal distribution with seasonal fluctuations 95 percent of the area historically areas, particularly south of Rio de in response to the ripening of Schinus covered by tropical forests within the Janeiro. These factors affecting the fruit, at least in Rio de Janeiro and Sa˜o Atlantic Forest biome has been black-backed tanager’s remaining Paulo (BLI 2010n). It has been observed converted or severely degraded as a habitat are ongoing due to the visiting gardens and orchards of houses result of various human activities challenges that Brazil faces to balance close to forested areas. Its diet consists (Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation its competing development and primarily of fruit and to a smaller International 2007a, p. 1; Ho¨fling 2007, environmental priorities. extent, insects (Moraes and Krul 1997). p. 1; TNC 2007, p. 1; WWF 2007, pp. 2– The black-backed tanager is endemic 41; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Morellato Conservation Status to the coastal Atlantic forest region of and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. southeastern Brazil. The species has 2000, pp. 853–854). In addition to the The species is classified as vulnerable been documented in Rio de Janeiro, Sa˜o overall loss and degradation of its by the IUCN (BLI 2012). The black- Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio habitat, the remaining tracts of its backed tanager is not listed in any Grande do Sul, and Espirito Santo (BLI habitat are severely fragmented. appendices of CITES (CITES 2010). 2010n; Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 2000, as Its remaining suitable habitat in the Portions of the tanager’s range are in six cited in BLI 2008). The species is areas of Rio de Janeiro and Sa˜o Paulo protected areas, although protections are generally restricted to Restinga habitat, are affected by ongoing development of not always effective (BLI 2012). This which is a Brazilian term that refers to coastal areas, primarily for tourism species is protected under the National sandy forest habitat consisting of a enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes, Environmental Policy Act (Law 6.938 of patchwork of vegetation types, such as beachside housing) and associated 1981), implemented by the Brazilian beach vegetation; open shrubby infrastructure support (BLI 2012; WWF Institute of the Environment and vegetation; herbaceous, shrubby coastal 2007, pp. 7 and 36–37; del Hoyo 2003, Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro sand dune habitat; and both dry and p. 616). These activities have drastically do a Meio Ambiente de do Recursos swamp forests distributed over coastal reduced the species’ abundance and Naturais Renova´veis (IBAMA). The plains (McGinley 2007, pp. 1–2; Rocha extent of its occupied range. These basis of environmental law and policy et al. 2005, p. 263). This habitat type is activities affect the species’ continued in Brazil is Article 225 of its existence because populations are being specific to the local nutrient-poor, Constitution (Pereira Neto et al. 2011, p. sandy, acidic soils of the Atlantic limited to highly fragmented patches of 63). Forest. In addition to being found in habitat (BLI 2012). This species seems to undisturbed habitat, the black-backed tolerate some environmental In the previous ANOR, the black- tanager has also been observed in degradation if there are well-preserved backed tanager received an LPN of 8. secondary forests (BLI 2008). stretches in its territory in which the After reevaluating the available The Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 birds can seek shelter; however, we information, we find that no change in km (373 mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. expect habitat loss and degradation will the LPN for this species is warranted at It consists of tropical and subtropical likely increase in the future. this time. The black-backed tanager does moist forests, tropical dry forests, and Because this species inhabits coastal not represent a monotypic genus. mangrove forests at mostly low-to- areas, sea level rise may also affect this Despite laws in place, its habitat medium elevations less than 1,000 m species (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377– continues to diminish. We find that (3,281 ft); however, altitude can reach as 379). In Santos Bay on the coast, sea threats (primarily habitat loss) to the high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea level rise scenarios were investigated species are moderate in magnitude due level. based on predictions of sea level to the species’ fairly large range, increases between 0.5 and 1.5 m (1.6 existence in protected areas, and Population and 4.9 ft) by the year 2100 (Alfredini apparent flexibility in diet and habitat Within suitable habitat, the black- et al. 2008, pp. 378). Even small suitability. Threats are imminent backed tanager is generally not increases in sea level may cause considered rare (BLI 2010n). The flooding and erosion and could change because the species is at risk due to population estimate is between 2,500 to salt marsh zones within this species’ ongoing and widespread loss of habitat 10,000 individuals (BLI 2012). This habitat (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377– due to beachfront and related species is more common in Sa˜o Paulo 379). As sea level rises, less habitat will development. Therefore, an LPN of 8 during the winter, and records from be available for this species. Habitat loss remains valid for this species. Espirito Santo are only available from due to sea level rise may be the winter season. Additional compounded by an increased demand knowledge of the species’ seasonal by humans to use land for housing and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24621

Lord Howe Island pied currawong only remaining native island vertebrate The Lord Howe Island Pied (Strepera graculina crissalis), predator (NSW DECC 2010). It has been Currawong has persisted in reasonable LPN = 6 recorded eating seabird chicks, poultry, numbers despite the introduction of the and chicks of the Lord Howe woodhen black rat (Rattus rattus) in 1918 Taxonomy (Tricholimnas sylvestris) and white tern (Fullagar & Disney 1975; McAllan et al. The Lord Howe Island pied (Gygis alba). It also feeds on both live 2004). However, it may benefit from currawong is a subspecies distinct from and dead rats (Hutton 1991). Food previous rat eradication programs and a the five mainland pied currawongs brought to Lord Howe pied currawong rat eradication program that is currently (Strepera graculina spp.). In 2004, it was nestlings by its parents was observed to underway (The Daily Telegraph, July 20, suggested that its taxonomy be reviewed be, in decreasing order of frequency: 2012; Carlile 2007, pers. comm.). The to determine if it warrants recognition invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, and removal of feral animals has resulted in as a distinct species (McAllan et al. nestlings of other bird species (Lord the recovery of some forest understory 2004). ITIS recognizes only S. graculina Howe Island Board (LHIB) 2006). (WWF 2001). (ITIS 2012, accessed August 21, 2012) Other factors affecting the species rather than the subspecies. The Population include nontarget poisoning, and effects subspecies is not specifically addressed In the 2000 Action Plan for Australian associated with extremely small by BLI or IUCN. Because Australia Birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000), the population sizes (NSW DECC 2010). recognizes the subspecies, and absent Lord Howe pied currawong population Because the Lord Howe pied currawong peer-reviewed information to the was estimated to be approximately 80 often preys on rats, it may be subject to contrary, we consider S. graculina mature individuals. In 2007, the nontarget poisoning during rat-baiting crissalis to be a valid subspecies within Foundation for National Parks & programs (Wilkinson and Priddel 2011, a multispecies genus. Wildlife (FNPW 2007) estimated that p. 509; DEC 2007b). The Pied Species Range and Habitat Description the breeding population of the Lord Currawong may actually have benefited Howe pied currawong was between 80 from the introduction of some exotic This subspecies is endemic to Lord plants and animals that are now used as Howe Island, New South Wales, and 100 pairs, with a nesting territory in the tall forest areas of about 5 ha (12 ac) a food source (Garnett & Crowley 2000; Australia. Lord Howe Island is 600 km McFarland 1994; Mills undated; Cooper (373 mi) northeast of Sydney, Australia. per pair (Carlile 2007, pers. comm. in Government of Australia 2012, p. 3). 1990; Hutton 1991). This is also the distance to the Habitat loss and degradation continue The most recent population estimate subspecies’ closest relative, the to occur. All the forest areas adjacent to was between 100 and 200 individuals mainland pied currawong (S. graculina). clearings continue to suffer from The Lord Howe pied currawong is (from surveys in 2005–2006) (NSW progressive dieback (Sinclair 2002, p. 6). limited to an 18-km2 (6.95 mi2) area on DECC 2010, p. 3). It was recently Sinclair notes that the Permanent Park the 20-km2 (7.7-mi2) island described as being widespread on the Preserve and Transit Hill are degrading (Government of Australia 2012, p. 3). It island and occurring in urban areas at the edges where rainforest trees has been recorded to a limited extent on (Government of Australia 2012, p. 3); (which need to be buffered) are exposed small nearby islets of the Admiralty however, a precise estimate of the to strong winds. Close monitoring of the group (New South Wales Department of population is unavailable. population is needed because this small, Environment & Climate Change (NSW Factors Affecting the Species endemic population is highly DECC) 2010; Garnett and Crowley 2000). susceptible to the factors identified Lord Howe Island is unique among The small population size makes this above as well as catastrophic events inhabited Pacific Islands in that less species highly vulnerable to factors that such as disease or introduction of a new than 15 percent of the island has been can be detrimental to its survival. Its predator (Government of Australia cleared (Wilkinson and Priddel 2011, p. population size is limited by the amount 2012b, p. 633). 508) and less than 24 percent has been of available habitat and the lack of food Conservation Status disturbed (NSW Department of during the winter (FNPW 2007). Two Environment and Conservation (DEC) potential threats have been identified: Various levels of conservation and 2007a). the introduction of exotic predators and protections exist for this subspecies. At The Lord Howe pied currawong the persecution of the Pied Currawong the species level, it is considered least breeds in rainforests and palm forests, (Lord Howe Island) by humans in concern by the IUCN; the subspecies is particularly along streams. Its territories retaliation to attacks on domestic and not addressed (BLI 2010o). It is not include sections of streams or gullies endemic birds (Garnett & Crowley 2000; listed in any appendices of CITES. The that are lined by tall timber (Garnett and Hutton 1991). On Lord Howe Island, ten NSW Threatened Species Conservation Crowley 2000). The highest densities of bird species have become extinct due to Act of 1995 lists the Lord Howe pied Lord Howe pied currawong nests have hunting, introduced predators, and currawong as vulnerable due to its been located on the slopes of Mount competitors (Government of Australia extremely limited range (it only occurs Gower and in the Erskine Valley, with 2012b, p. 633). The Lord Howe pied on Lord Howe Island) and its small smaller numbers on the lower land to currawong remains unpopular with population size (NSW DECC 2010). The the north (Knight 1987, as cited in some residents, likely because of its pied currawong is also listed as Garnett and Crowley 2000). The nests predatory nature on nestlings. The vulnerable under the Australian are typically situated high in trees and incidence of shooting has declined since Commonwealth Environment Protection are made in a cup shape with sticks and the 1970s, when conservation efforts on and Biodiversity Conservation Act of lined with grass and palm thatch (NSW Lord Howe Island began (Hutton 1991), 1999. These laws provide a legislative DECC 2005). As of 2001, most of Lord but occasional shootings occurred as of framework to protect and encourage the Howe Island was still forested. 2007 (Carlile 2007, pers. comm.). It is recovery of vulnerable species (NSW The Lord Howe pied currawong is unclear what effect this localized killing DEC 2006a). The Lord Howe Island Act omnivorous and eats a wide variety of has on the overall population size and of 1953, as amended, (1) established the food, including native fruits and seeds distribution of the species (Garnett and Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB), (2) (Hutton 1991, Auld et al. 2009). It is the Crowley 2000). made provisions for the LHIB to care,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24622 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

control, and manage the island; and (3) finding) on December 7, 2004 (69 FR Brazilian population lives in the established 75 percent of the land area 70580). The Harris’ mimic swallowtail Atlantic Forest region, and coastal as a permanent park preserve (NSW butterfly mimics at least three butterfly development is ongoing throughout the DEC 2007). Additionally, the Lord Howe species in the Parides genus, including Atlantic Forest region (TNC 2009; Butler Island Biodiversity Management Plan the Fluminense swallowtail (described 2007; Conservation International 2007; was finalized in 2007, and is the formal below). This mimicry system makes it CEPF 2007a; Ho¨fling 2007; Peixoto and Recovery Plan for threatened species difficult to distinguish this subspecies Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; WWF 2007; and communities of the Lord Howe from the species that it mimics (Brown Hughes et al. 2006). Island Group (DEC 2007a, Government in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004). caused by fires in of Australia 2005, p. 574). the Poc¸o das Antas Biological Reserve In the previous ANOR, the Lord Howe Population appears to have abated. The Reserve was pied currawong received an LPN of 6. The Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o colony is the established to protect the golden lion After reevaluating the threats to the best-studied. Between 1984 and 2004, tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia) (Decree Lord Howe pied currawong, we have the population maintained a stable size, No. 73,791, 1974), but the Harris’ mimic determined that no change in the LPN varying between 50 to 250 individuals swallowtail, which occupies the same representing the magnitude and (Brown in litt. 2004; Brown 1996; range, likely benefits as a result of imminence of threats to the subspecies Collins and Morris 1985), and was efforts to conserve golden-lion-tamarin is warranted. The Lord Howe pied reported to be viable, vigorous, and habitat (Teixeira 2007; WWF 2003; De currawong does not represent a stable in 2004 (Brown in litt. 2004). Roy 2002). The revised management monotypic genus. It faces threats that There are no estimates of the size of the plan indicates that the Reserve is to be are high in magnitude due to a colony in Poc¸o das Antas Biological used for research and conservation with combination of factors including its Reserve where it had not been seen for limited public access (CEPF 2007a; extremely small population size, 30 years prior to its rediscovery there in IBAMA 2005). The Jurubatiba National nontarget poisoning, and habitat 1997 (Brown in litt. 2004). Population Park is located in a region that is clearing and modification. Despite estimates are lacking for the colony at undergoing continuing development conservation efforts, the population of Macae´, where the subspecies was netted pressures from urbanization and the Lord Howe pied currawong has in Jurubatiba National Park in the year industrialization (Savarese 2008; Khalip remained around 100 to 200 2000, after having not been seen in the 2007; Brown 1996; IFC 2002; CEPF individuals. Species with small, area for 16 years (Monteiro et al. 2004). 2007b; Otero and Brown 1984), and declining population sizes such as these Range there is no management plan in place may be at greater risk of extinction due for the Park (CEPF 2007b). However, as to synergistic effects of factors affecting In Rio de Janeiro, Harris’ mimic discussed for the Fluminense this species (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265– swallowtail has been confirmed in three swallowtail, the Park, as of 2007, was 271). However, because conservation locations. Two colonies were identified considered to be in a very good state of efforts for the species have been on the east coast of Rio de Janeiro, at conservation (Rocha et al. 2007). implemented, and the species is being Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o and Macae´, and the As of 2004, conditions at Barra de Sa˜o closely managed and monitored, we other in Poc¸o das Antas Biological Joa˜o appeared to be suitable for long- find that the threats are nonimminent. Reserve, farther inland. The range of term survival of this subspecies. The Thus, based on the best available Harris’ mimic swallowtail overlaps two Harris’ mimic swallowtail’s preferred information, the LPN remains at 6 to protected areas: Poc¸o das Antas environment of both open and shady reflect nonimminent threats of high Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba areas continues to be present in the magnitude. National Park, and therefore it is region, with approximately 541 forest somewhat protected from habitat loss. patches averaging 127 ha (314 ac) in Invertebrates Both Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o and the Poc¸o das size, covering nearly 68,873 ha (170,188 Harris’ mimic swallowtail (Mimoides Antas Biological Reserve are within the ac), and a minimum distance between (syn. Eurytides) lysithous Sa˜o Joa˜o River Basin. The Barra de Sa˜o forest patches of 276 meters (m) (0.17 harrisianus), LPN = 6 Joa˜o River Basin encompasses a mi) (Teixeira 2007). In studies between 216,605-ha (535,240-ac) area, of which 1984 and 1991, Brown (1996) Species and Habitat Description 150,700 ha (372,286 ac) is managed as determined that Harris’ mimic Harris’ mimic is a protected area. The Harris’ mimic swallowtails in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o flew a subspecies endemic to Brazil (Collins swallowtail was previously known in a maximum distance of 1,000 m (0.62 and Morris 1985). Although the species’ Espirito Santo; however, there are no mi). It follows that the average flying range historically included Paraguay, recent confirmations of its occurrence distance would be less than this figure. the subspecies has not recently been there (New and Collins 1991; Collins Thus, the average 276-m (0.17-mi) confirmed in Paraguay (Finnish and Morris 1985). distance between forest patches in the University and Research Network 2004; Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o River Basin is clearly Collins and Morris 1985). Occupying Factors Affecting the Species within the flying distance of this the lowland swamps and sandy flats Habitat destruction has been the main subspecies. Because the colony at Barra above the tidal margins of the coastal threat to this subspecies (Brown 1996; de Sa˜o Joa˜o has maintained a stable Atlantic Forest, the subspecies prefers Collins and Morris 1985), especially population for 20 years, it may be that alternating patches of strong sun and urbanization in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o, the conditions available there remain deep shade (Brown 1996; Collins and industrialization in Macae´ (Jurubatiba suitable. Morris 1985). This subspecies is National Park), and previous fires that Another factor affecting butterfly polyphagous, meaning that its larvae occurred in the Poc¸o das Antas species is collection. Trade in wildlife feed on more than one plant species Biological Reserve. As described in parts and products is extremely (Kotiaho et al. 2005). Information on its detail for the Fluminense swallowtail lucrative, and, as wildlife becomes rarer, preferred host plants and adult nectar- (below), Atlantic Forest habitat has been it becomes worth more in value sources was published in the status reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original (TRAFFIC 2010, pp. 52, 122, 179). review (also known as a 12-month cover. More than 70 percent of the Although there are laws to prohibit

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24623

illegal wildlife trade, in some countries, prohibited (Brown 1996). In 1998, Brazil Parish of Westmoreland (Garraway in laws are rarely enforced due to enacted the Lei de Crimes Ambientais litt 2011; Harris 2002; Mo¨hn 2002; WRC inadequate resources; and only a ou Lei da Natureza—Law no 9.605/98, 2001; Bailey 1994; Smith et al. 1994). fraction of smuggled wildlife is which addresses environmental crimes There is only one known breeding site intercepted (TRAFFIC 2012, p. 4; and sets forth penal and administrative in the eastern coast town of Rozelle, St. TRAFFIC 2010, p. 7). For example, in penalties resulting from activities that Thomas Parish, although it is possible 1998, in the United States 100 Golden are harmful to the environment (IBAMA that other sites exist given the widely Birdwing (Troides aeacus, CITES 2011). This law addresses the integrity dispersed nature of the larval food plant Appendix II) butterflies were seized; no of biodiversity and other natural (Garraway in litt 2011; Robbins in litt. permit had been issued for the resources and assesses civil, 2004; Garraway et al. 1993; Bailey 1994; specimens, which had been falsely administrative, and criminal penalties Smith et al. 1994; Collins and Morris labeled before being exported from to private individuals, corporations, and 1985). Thailand (TRAFFIC 2010, p. 28). In businesses. Harris’ mimic swallowtail Population 2001, two Russian insect collectors were was categorized on the IUCN Red List as arrested in India and were found to have endangered in the 1988, 1990, and 1994 The Jamaican kite swallowtail approximately 2,000 butterflies in their IUCN Red Lists (IUCN 1996). However, maintains a low population level; there possession (p. 52). In 2007, a Japanese it currently is not included in the is no known estimate of its population individual was convicted for illegal sale current IUCN Redlist (IUCN 2010; size (Garraway 2011 in litt). It of $38,831 U.S. dollars (USD) worth of Xerces Society 2010a). This species is occasionally becomes locally abundant protected butterfly species. This not listed on any appendices of CITES. in Kingston and Rozelle during the individual is apparently known as the In the previous ANOR, the Harris’ breeding season in early summer and world’s top smuggler of protected mimic swallowtail received an LPN of 6. again in early fall (Garraway in litt 2011; butterflies. One of the smuggled After reevaluating the threats to this Bailey 1994; Smith et al. 1994; butterfly species was Homerus species, we have determined that no Garraway et al. 1993; Collins and Morris Swallowtail (Papilio homerus, CITES change in the listing prioritization 1985; Brown and Heineman 1972), and Appendix I). During this investigation, number is warranted. Harris’ mimic experiences episodic population 43 butterflies were sold to undercover swallowtail is a subspecies and is not explosions (72 FR 20184; 69 FR 70580). agents, including 2 Alexandra’s within a monotypic genus. Although the The population in St. Thomas has birdwings (Ornithoptera alexandrae, best-studied colony has maintained a generally been regarded as the core CITES Appendix I), 2 Luzon Peacock stable and viable size for nearly two population (Garraway in litt 2011). swallowtails (Papilio chikae, CITES decades, there is limited suitable habitat Factors Affecting the Species Appendix I), and 6 Corsican remaining for this subspecies. Habitat Habitat loss and degradation had been swallowtails (Papilio hospiton, CITES destruction remains a threat. These Appendix I) (p. 122). In 2009, in Japan considered to be the primary factors threats are high in magnitude due to its affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail; an individual was sentenced to 1 year small endemic population, collection, and 6 months’ imprisonment and fined however, now the primary factors and potential catastrophic events such affecting the species are believed to be 1 million yen ($10,750 USD) due to as severe tropical storms or introduction illegally importing and selling rare its small population size and that it is of a new disease or predator. Because endemic only to Jamaica (Garraway in butterfly species. He was found to have the population is very small and limited illegally imported 145 butterflies from litt 2011). After centuries of a high rate to only two small areas, we find the of deforestation, the island lost much of France. Among the specimens were threats are of high magnitude. However, three Queen Alexandra’s Birdwings its original forest (Gartner et al., 2008, we do not find that these threats are pp. 8, 11; Berglund and Johansson 2004, (Ornithoptera alexandrae, CITES imminent because the subspecies is Appendix I) and one Apollo Butterfly pp. 2, 5; Evelyn and Camirand 2003, p. protected by Brazilian law, and the 354; Koenig 2001, p. 206; Koenig 1999, (Parnassius apollo, CITES Appendix II) colonies are located within protected (p. 179). p. 9). Eight percent of the total land area areas. Based on the best available of Jamaica is covered with forest The only known populations are information, the LPN of 6 will remain to within close proximity to a major, classified as minimally disturbed closed reflect nonimminent threats of high expanding city in Brazil—Rio de broadleaf (Evelyn and Camirand 2003 in magnitude for this species. Janiero, the second largest city in Brazil. Strong in litt. 2011). Some of the As this species becomes rarer, it Jamaican Kite Swallowtail species’ most important habitat is becomes even more desirable to (Protographium marcellinus, syn. protected from human activities due to collectors (TRAFFIC 2010, pp. 52, 122, Eurytides), LPN = 2 the inaccessibility of the habitat, but 179). Although the species exists in a even these areas have been encroached Species Description and Range protected area, collectors will take risks upon and degraded. However, in some to obtain these rare and desirable The Jamaican kite swallowtail areas, its habitat is regenerating species. Although we do not know the butterfly is endemic to Jamaica, (Garraway in litt. 2011). full extent of illegal trade, according to preferring wooded, undisturbed habitat Monophagous butterflies (meaning the 2010 TRAFFIC report, this may containing its only known larval host that their larvae feed only on a single represent only a small fraction of the plant: black lancewood or West Indian plant species) such as the Jamaican kite illegal collection of butterfly species lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata). The swallowtail tend to be more affected by that occurs. food preferences of adults have not been habitat degradation than polyphagous reported (Bailey 1994; Collins and species, due largely to their specific Conservation Status Morris 1985). Since the 1990s, adult habitat and ecological requirements IBAMA considers this subspecies to Jamaican kite swallowtails have been (Kotiaho et al. 2005). Harvest and be critically imperiled (Portaria No. observed in the parishes of St. Thomas clearing has reduced the availability of 1,522 1989; Ministerio de Meio and St. Andrew in the east; westward in this species’ only known larval food Ambiente 2003). As of 1996, collection St. Ann, Trelawny, and St. Elizabeth; plant. In Rozelle, extensive habitat and trade of the subspecies was and in the extreme western coast, in the modification for agricultural and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24624 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

industrial purposes such as mining has Conservation Status lifecycle, it feeds on Aristolochia diminished this species’ habitat (WWF Various levels of conservation exist macroura (Dutchman’s pipe) and is 2001; Gimenez-Dixon 1996). When for the species. In addition to being believed to be monophagous (Otero and habitat is altered through open-pit protected under Jamaica’s Wildlife Brown 1984). mining, it is irreversibly modified and, Protection Act of 1998, it is also Range therefore, it is impossible to restore the included in Jamaica’s National Strategy One study predicted the species previous ecosystem. These sites can be and Action Plan on Biological Diversity. potentially occurs in an area of rehabilitated; however, a typical This strategy established specific goals 1,675,457 ha (4,140,127 ac) within the reclaimed and rehabilitated site often and priorities for the conservation of State of Rio de Janeiro (Uehara-Prado fails to regenerate with woody Jamaica’s biological resources and Fonseca 2007, p. 265). While the vegetation (Strong in litt. 2011). As of (Schedules of The Wildlife Protection presence of suitable habitat should not 2004, black lancewood was being Act 1998). The Forest Act of 1996 and be used to infer the presence of a impacted by clearing for cultivation and the Forest Regulations Act of 2001 species, it can facilitate more focused by felling for the commercial timber increased the power of Jamaican efforts to identify and confirm industry (Windsor Plywood 2004; authorities to protect the species’ habitat additional locations and the Collins and Morris 1985). However, (Gartner et al. 2008, pp. 9–10). These conservation status of the Fluminense more recent information indicates that included mandates to determine the swallowtail (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca its food source is more readily available biodiversity in the forest as well as the 2007, p. 266). The only known than previously believed (Garraway in ability to acquire private lands as forest occurrences of the Fluminense litt 2011). reserves. Since 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail correlated with existing Jamaica is subject to high-impact swallowtail has been categorized on the protected areas within Rio de Janeiro, stochastic events such as hurricanes. IUCN Red List as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ (IUCN including the Poc¸o das Antas Biological Hurricane-related weather damage in 2012). This species is not listed in any Reserve (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca the last two decades along the coastal of the appendices of CITES (CITES 2007). This Reserve, established in zone of Rozelle has resulted in the 2012). erosion and virtual disappearance of the In the previous ANOR, the Jamaican 1974, encompasses 13,096 ac (5,300 ha) once-extensive recreational beach kite swallowtail received an LPN of 2. of inland Atlantic Forest habitat (CEPF (Economic Commission for Latin After reevaluating the factors affecting 2007a; Decree No. 73,791, 1974). The America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the Jamaican kite swallowtail, we have Poc¸o das Antas Biological Reserve and United Nations Development determined that no change in the listing the Jurubatiba National Park are the Programme (UNDP), and the Planning priority number is warranted. The only two protected areas considered Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) (2004)). Jamaican kite swallowtail does not large enough to support viable Hurricane Ivan, a category 5 hurricane, represent a monotypic genus. The populations of the Fluminense caused severe local damage to Rozelle current factors affecting the species are swallowtail (Brown in litt. 2004; Beach in 2004, including road collapse high in magnitude particularly since Robbins in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown caused by the erosion of the cliff face there is only one known larval host 1984). and shoreline. The estimated restoration plant. There is only one known breeding In Rio de Janeiro, the species has been cost from Hurricane Ivan damage was site and the species’ larval food plant documented in five locations including: ˜ ˜ ´ $23 million USD ($1.6 million Jamaican has a restricted distribution. In addition, Barra de Sao Joao and Macae (in the dollars (J$) (ECLAC et al. 2004), stochastic events such as hurricanes and Restinga de Jurubatiba National Park) indicating the severity of the damage tropical storms are unpredictable but are along the coast; and farther inland at the inflicted by these hurricanes. While we likely to occur. Although Jamaica has Poc¸o das Antas Biological Reserve do not consider stochastic events to be (Brown in litt. 2004). Other verified taken regulatory steps to preserve native ´ a primary factor affecting this species, swallowtail habitat, the threats affecting occurrences were in the Area de ´ we believe that the damage caused by this species are imminent; it has a very Tombamento do Mangue do Rio Paraıba hurricanes is contributing to habitat small population size, and habitat do Sul and in Parque Natural Municipal loss. destruction based on hurricanes and do Bosque da Barra (Instituto Iguacu The Jamaican kite swallowtail has tropical storms is very likely to occur. 2008; Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007). been collected for commercial trade in Based on a reevaluation of the threats to the past (Melisch 2000; Schu¨ tz 2000; Population Collins and Morris 1985). The Jamaican this species, the LPN remains a 2 to This swallowtail species is sparsely Wildlife Protection Act of 1998 carries reflect imminent threats of high distributed throughout its range, a maximum penalty of U.S. $1,439 (J magnitude. reflecting the patchy distribution of its $100,000) or 12 months of Fluminense Swallowtail (Parides preferred habitat (Uehara-Prado and imprisonment for violating its ascanius), LPN = 5 Fonseca 2007; Tyler et al. 1994; Otero provisions. This deterrent appears to be and Brown 1984). The species is effectively protecting this species from Species and Habitat Description described as being seasonally common, illegal trade (National Environment and The Fluminense swallowtail is a with sightings of up to 50 individuals Planning Agency 2005). As of 2008, we white and rose swallowtail butterfly seen in one morning in the Barra de Sa˜o were unaware of any recent seizures endemic to Brazil’s restinga habitat Joa˜o area. It was historically seen in Rio under the Lacey Act or smuggling of this within the Atlantic Forest region in the de Janeiro, Espirito Santo, and Sa˜o species into or out of the United States tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf Paulo (Gelhaus et al. 2004). However, (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish forests of southeastern coastal Brazil there are no recent confirmations of this and Wildlife Service, Arlington, (Uehara-Prado and Fonesca 2007, p. species in either Espirito Santo or Sa˜o Virginia in litt.). With the legal 265; Thomas 2003). Its habitat is Paulo. prohibition described below in effect, characterized by medium-sized trees A population estimate reported in however, the current impact of and shrubs that are adapted to coastal 1984 in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o was between collection is likely negligible (Garraway conditions (Kelecom et al 2002, p. 171). 20 and 100 individuals (Otero and in litt 2011). During the caterpillar stage of its Brown 1984). The colony within the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24625

Poc¸o das Antas Biological Reserve was tend to be more vulnerable to planting and restoring habitat rediscovered in 1997, after a nearly 30- overcollection than those with a wider previously cleared for agriculture or by year absence from this location (Brown distribution (Brown in litt. 2004; fires, which should assist the habitat in litt. 2004). Researchers noted only Robbins in litt. 2004). connectivity for this species (De Roy that ‘‘large numbers’’ of swallowtails Parasitism has been indicated to be 2002, unpaginated). were observed (Brown in litt. 2004; another factor affecting the Fluminense The Jurubatiba National Park (14,860 Robbins in litt. 2004). There are no swallowtail. Recently, Tavares et al. ha; 36,720 mi2), located in Macae´ and population estimates for other colonies. (2006) discovered four species of established in 1998 (Decree of April 29 However, individuals from the parasitic chalcid wasps (Brachymeria 1998), is one of the largest contiguous population considered to be the most and Conura species; Hymenoptera areas containing restinga habitat under viable in Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o migrate family) associated with Fluminense protection in Brazil (CEPF 2007b; Rocha widely in some years, and this is likely swallowtails. Parasitoids are species et al. 2007). The Macae´ River Basin to enhance gene flow among colonies whose immature stages develop on or forms the outer edge of the Jurubatiba (Brown in litt. 2004). within an insect host of another species, National Park and contains the habitat ultimately killing the host (Weeden et preferred by the Fluminense swallowtail Factors Affecting the Species al. 1976). This is the first report of ((International Finance Corporation Habitat destruction has been the main parasitoid association with Fluminense (IFC) 2002; Brown 1996; Otero and factor affecting this species (Brown swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006, p. Brown 1984). Rocha et al. (2007) 1996; Gimenez Dixon 1996; Collins and 1,197). To date, there is no information described the habitat as being in a very Morris 1985). Monophagous butterflies regarding the magnitude of effect these good state of conservation, but lacking tend to be more susceptible to habitat parasites are having on the Fluminense a formal management plan. Threats to degradation than polyphagous species swallowtail. the Macae´ region include (Kotiaho et al. 2005, p. 1,966), and the Although the Fluminense swallowtail industrialization for oil reserve and restinga habitat preferred by Fluminense and the Harris’ mimic swallowtail face power development (IFC 2002) and swallowtails is a highly specialized similar threats, there are several intense population pressures (including environment that is restricted in dissimilarities that influence the migration and infrastructural distribution (Ueraha-Prado and Fonseca magnitude of these threats. Fluminense development) (Brown 1996; CEPF 2007, p. 264; Brown in litt. 2004; Otero swallowtails are monophagous (Kotiaho 2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; Otero and Brown 1986). Fluminense et al. 2005; Otero and Brown 1984). In and Brown 1984; Savarese 2008). The swallowtails require large areas to contrast, Harris’ mimic swallowtail is researchers concluded that the existing maintain viable populations (Uehara- polyphagous (Brown 1996; Collins and protected area system may be Prado et al. 2007, pp. 43–53; Brown in Morse 1985); its larvae feed on more inadequate for the conservation of this litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1986). The than one plant species (Kotiaho et al. species. Atlantic Forest habitat, which once 2005). In addition, although their ranges covered 1.4 million km2 (540,543 mi2), overlap, Harris’ mimic swallowtails Conservation Status has been reduced to between 5 and 10 tolerate a wider range of habitat than the Brazil categorizes the Fluminense percent of its original cover. It also highly specialized restinga habitat swallowtail to be ‘‘Imperiled’’ (Portaria contains more than 70 percent of the preferred by the Fluminense No. 1,522 1989; MMA 2003). Commerce Brazilian human population (TNC 2009; swallowtail. Also unlike the Harris’ in this species is strictly prohibited Butler 2007; Conservation International mimic swallowtail, Fluminense (Brown in litt. 2004). According to the 2007; CEPF 2007a; Ho¨fling 2007; WWF swallowtails require a large area to 2012 IUCN Red List, the Fluminense 2007). The restinga habitat upon which maintain a viable population (Brown in swallowtail has been classified as this species depends was reduced by 17 litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004); in part ‘‘Vulnerable’’ since 1983, based on its km2 (6.56 mi2) each year between 1984 because they are known to feed on only distribution and habitat fragmentation and 2001, equivalent to a loss of 40 one food source. and loss that has occurred within its percent of restinga vegetation over the According to the 2005 management predicted range. This species has not 17-year period (Temer 2006, plan (IBAMA 2005), the Poc¸o das Antas been formally considered for listing in unpaginated). In addition, of the forest Biological Reserve is used solely for the appendices to CITES that remains, 83 percent exists in small protection, research, and environmental (www.cites.org). However, the European fragments of less than 50 ha (123 acres). education. Public access is restricted, Commission listed Fluminense The major ongoing human activities that and there is an emphasis on habitat swallowtail on Annex B of Regulation have resulted in habitat loss, conservation, including protection of 338/97 in 1997 (Grimm in litt. 2008), degradation, and fragmentation include: the Rı´o Sa˜o Joa˜o. This river runs and the species continues to be listed on conversion to agriculture, plantations, through the Reserve and is integral to this Annex (Eur-Lex 2008, verified livestock pastures, human settlements, maintaining the restinga conditions August 20, 2012). There has been no hydropower reservoirs, commercial preferred by the Fluminense legal trade of this species into the logging, subsistence activities, and swallowtail. The Reserve was plagued European Union since its listing on coastal development (Butler 2007; by fires in the late 1980s through the Annex B (Grimm in litt. 2008), nor are Pivello 2007; TNC 2007; Peixoto and early 2000s, but fire is not currently we aware of any recent reports of Silva 2007; WWF 2007; Hughes et al. believed to be a factor affecting the seizures under the Lacey Act or 2006). species. Between 2001 and 2006, there smuggling in this species into or out of Collection and commercial was an increase in the number of private the United States (Office of Law exploitation was identified as a factor protected areas near or adjacent to the Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife affecting the Fluminense swallowtail Poc¸o das Antas Biological Reserve and Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt. (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o (Critical Ecosystem 2008). Schu¨ tz 2000). The species is easy to Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2007a). In the previous ANOR, the capture. Species with restricted Corridors have been planned or created Fluminense swallowtail received an distributions or localized populations, to connect existing protected areas and LPN of 5. After reevaluating the factors such as the Fluminense swallowtail, 13 privately protected forests by affecting the Fluminense swallowtail,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24626 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

we have determined that no change in Population Conservation Status the listing priority number is warranted. The population size of Hahnel’s Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail The Fluminense swallowtail does not Amazonian swallowtail is not known, continues to be listed as ‘‘Data represent a monotypic genus. The nor do we have information on any Deficient’’ by the IUCN Red List (IUCN species is currently affected by habitat population trend for this species. 2012). Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail destruction; however, we have no Within its range, Hahnel’s Amazonian is listed as endangered on the state of information to suggest that swallowtail populations are described Para´’s list of threatened species overutilization and parasitism are as being small (Brown in litt. 2004). (Resoluc¸a˜o 054 2007; Decreto No. 802 currently occurring such that they are 2008; Secco and Santos 2008). Hahnel’s threats to the Fluminense swallowtail. Factors Affecting the Species Amazonian swallowtail is not listed in Habitat destruction is of high magnitude Habitat alteration (e.g., for dam any Appendices of CITES (CITES 2012). because the species: (1) Occupies highly construction and waterway crop Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is specialized habitat; (2) requires large transport) and destruction (e.g., clearing listed on Annex B of Regulation 338/97 areas to maintain a viable colony; and for agriculture and cattle grazing) are (Eur-Lex 2008), and there has been no (3) is only found within two protected ongoing in Para´ and Amazonas where legal trade in this species into the areas considered to be large enough to this species is found (Hurwitz 2007; European Union since its listing on support viable colonies. However, Fearnside 2006). Researchers believe Annex B in 1997 (Grimm in litt. 2008). additional populations have been that, because Hahnel’s Amazonian In our previous ANOR, the Hahnel’s reported, increasing previously known swallowtail has extremely limited population numbers and distribution. Amazonian swallowtail received an habitat preferences, any sort of river LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats The threat of habitat destruction is modification such as impoundment, nonimminent because most habitat to the Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail, channelization, or levee construction we have determined that no change in modification is the result of historical would have an immediate and highly destruction that has resulted in the LPN is warranted. This swallowtail negative impact on the species (New does not represent a monotypic genus. fragmentation of the current landscape; and Collins 1991; Wells et al. 1983). however, the potential for continued It faces threats that are high in Competition for host plants has been magnitude and imminence due to its habitat modification exists, and we will identified as a potential factor affecting continue to monitor the situation. Based small endemic population, and limited Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail. and decreasing availability of its highly on the conservation measures in place, Researchers in the past believed that we believe that overutilization is not specialized habitat (beaches of river this species might suffer from host plant drainage area) and food sources. Dam currently a threat to the Fluminense competition with other butterfly species swallowtail. On the basis of this construction, waterway crop transport, in the region (Brown 1996; Collins and clearing for agriculture and cattle information, the Fluminense Morris 1985; Wells 1983). It occupies swallowtail retains a priority rank of 5. grazing are ongoing in Para´ and the same range with another swallowtail Amazonas. These threats are imminent Hahnel’s Amazonian Swallowtail butterfly, Parides chabrias ygdrasilla, due to the species’ highly localized and (Parides hahneli), LPN = 2 and mimics at least two other genera specialized habitat requirements. that occupy the same area, Methona and Species and Habitat Secondary concerns are possible illegal Thyrides (Brown 1996). However, this collection and competition with other Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is competition has not been confirmed, species. Based on a reevaluation of the endemic to Brazil and is found only on and, at this time, there is insufficient threats, the LPN remains a 2 to reflect sandy beaches where the habitat is information to conclude that this is a imminent threats of high magnitude. overgrown with dense scrub vegetation factor affecting this species. (Tyler et al. 1994; New and Collins This species of swallowtail has been Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail 1991; Collins and Morris 1985). collected for commercial trade (http:// (Teinopalpus imperialis), LPN = 8 www.johnnyvalencia.com/?tag=parides- Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is Species Description and Range likely monophagous. This swallowtail hahneli; Melisch 2000; Schu¨ tz 2000; depends upon highly specialized Collins and Morris 1985). Species with The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is habitat—beaches of river drainage areas. restricted distributions or localized native to the Himalayan regions of Wells et al. (1983) describe the habitat populations, such as the Hahnel’s Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, as ancient sandy beaches covered by Amazonian swallowtail, are more Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam scrubby or dense vegetation that is not vulnerable to collection than those with (TRAFFIC 2007; Baral et al. 2005; Food floristically diverse. The larval host- a wider distribution (Brown in litt. 2004; and Agriculture Organization (FAO) plant is believed to be a species in the Robbins in litt. 2004). Although not 2001; Igarashi 2001; Masui and Uehara Dutchman’s pipe genus, either strictly protected from collection 2000; Forest Resources Assessment Aristolochia lanceolato-lorato or A. throughout Brazil, the state of Para´ Program of Bhutan 1999; Osada et al. acutifolia (Tyler et al. 1994; Collins and recently declared the capture of 1999; Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Morris 1985). Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail for Richardson 1999; Shrestha 1997). This Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is purposes other than research to be species prefers undisturbed (primary), known from three locations along the forbidden (Decreto No. 802, 2008). As of heterogeneous, broad-leaved-evergreen tributaries of the middle and lower 2008, seizures under the Lacey Act of forests or montane forests, Amazon River basin in the states of Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail into or and is found at altitudes between 1,500 Amazonas and Para´ (Brown 1996; Tyler out of the United States had not been and 3,050 m (4,921 to 10,000 ft) et al. 1994; New and Collins 1991; reported (Office of Law Enforcement, (Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999; Collins and Morris 1985). Hahnel’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Collins and Morris 1985). This species Amazonian swallowtail is highly Arlington, Virginia in litt. 2008). The is polyphagous. It has been reported that localized, reflecting the distribution of best available information does not the adult Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails do its highly specialized preferred habitat indicate that collection is impacting the not feed, but this remains unclear (Brown in litt. 2004). species. (Collins and Morris 1985). Larval host-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24627

plants may differ across the species’ (Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and are likely inadequate to protect this range, but they include: Richardson 1999). species from illegal collection campbellii in China (Sung throughout its range. Factors Affecting the Species and Yan 2005; Yen and Yang 2001; According to the Thai Scientific Igarashi and Fukuda 2000); Habitat destruction is believed to Authority, there are no captive breeding Magnolia spp. in Vietnam (Funet negatively impact this species, which programs for this species; however, the 2004); prefers undisturbed high-altitude species is offered for sale by the Daphne spp. in India, Nepal, and habitat (Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. Breeders Association Myanmar (Funet 2004); and 1999; Collins and Morris 1985). In (2009). It was marketed as derived from Daphne nipalensis also in India China and India, the Kaiser-I-Hind a captive breeding program in Thailand, (Robinson et al. 2004). swallowtail populations are at risk from although in 2009, specimens were noted habitat modification and destruction Populations as being ‘‘out of stock’’ (Lepidoptera due to commercial and illegal logging Breeders Association 2009). Despite the species’ widespread (Barua et al. 2010; Maheshwari 2003; Between 1991 and 2012, CITES distribution, local populations are Yen and Yang 2001). In Nepal, the records indicate that 163 specimens described as not being abundant species is at risk from habitat were traded internationally under valid (Collins and Morris 1985). The known disturbance and destruction resulting CITES permits (UNEP–WCMC CITES locations within each range country are from mining, wood collection for use as trade database 2012). Reports that the as follows: fuel, agriculture, and grazing animals Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is being Bhutan: The species was reported to (Baral et al. 2005; Shrestha 1997; Collins captive-bred in Taiwan (Yen and Yang be extant (still in existence) in Bhutan and Morris 1985). In Nepal, the Forest 2001) remain unconfirmed. Since 1993, (FRAP 1999; Gimenez Dixon 1996), Ministry considered habitat destruction there have been no reported seizures although specific details on locations or to be a critical threat to all biodiversity, under the Lacey Act or smuggling of this population information are not readily including the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, species into or out of the United States available. in the development of its biodiversity (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish China: The species has been reported strategy (HMGN 2002). In Thailand, and Wildlife Service, Arlington, in Fuji, Guangxi, Hubei, Jiangsu, habitat degradation and loss caused by Virginia in litt. 2008). Therefore, on the Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces (Sung deforestation and land conversion for basis of global trade data, although and Yan 2005; Igarashi and Fukuda agricultural purposes is considered to be illegal trade remains a concern, we do 2000; UNEP-WCMC 1999; Gimenez a primary factor affecting this species not consider legal international trade to Dixon 1996; Collins and Morris 1985). (FAO 2001; Hongthong 1998). be a significant factor affecting this India: Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is species. , and West Bengal (Bahuguna highly valued and has been collected for 1998; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez commercial trade, despite range country Conservation Status Dixon 1996; Ministry of Environment regulations prohibiting or restricting Since 1996, the Kaiser-I-Hind and Forests 2005). There is no recent such activities, in part because it is very swallowtail has been categorized on the status information on this species difficult to enforce protections for IUCN Red List as ‘‘Lower Risk/near (Bombay Natural History Society in litt. species such as butterflies that are easy threatened’’ (IUCN 2012; Gimenez 2007) with the exception of the region to collect and smuggle (TRAFFIC 2007; Dixon 1996). The Kaiser-I-Hind of Assam where the species had not Schu¨ tz 2000; Collins and Morris 1985). swallowtail has been listed in CITES been sighted in several years (Barua et Between 1990 and 1997, illegally Appendix II since 1987 (CITES 2012). al. 2010, p. 8). collected specimens were selling for 500 In China, the species is protected by Laos: The species has been reported Rupees (12 USD) per female and 30 the Animals and Plants (Protection of in Laos (Osada et al. 1999), but no Rupees in India (0.73 USD) per male Endangered Species) Ordinance (1989), further information is available (Bahuguna 1998), and illegal species which restricts import, export, and (Vonxaiya in litt. 2007). purportedly derived from Sichuan were possession of the species. On China’s Myanmar: The species has been being advertised for sale on the internet 2005 Species Red List, it was described reported in Shan, Kayah (Karen) and for 60 U.S. Dollars (US$), despite as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ (China Red List 2006). Thaninanthayi (Tenasserim) states restrictions in China. In India, the Kaiser-I-Hind (Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez In a recent survey conducted by swallowtail is listed on Schedule II of Dixon 1996). TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of Nepal: The species has been reported 2,000 residents in Ha Noi, Vietnam, the 1972, which prohibits hunting without in Nepal in the Central Administrative Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail was among 37 a license (Indian Wildlife Protection Act Region at two localities: Phulchoki Schedule IIB-species that were actively 2006; Collins and Morris 1985). Mountain Forest and Shivapuri National being collected (p. 36). The majority of In Nepal, the Kaiser-I-Hind Park (Baral et al. 2005; Nepali Times the survey respondents were unaware of swallowtail is protected by the National 2002; Shrestha 1997, Gimenez Dixon legislation prohibiting collection of Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1996; Collins and Morris 1985). Schedule IIB-species (p. 7). This is a 1973 (His Majesty’s Government of Thailand: The species has been highly desirable species, and there is a Nepal (HMGN) 2002). However, the reported in the northern province of culture within Vietnam of consuming Forestry Ministry of Nepal determined Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The rare and expensive wild animal dishes, in 2002 that the high commercial value species has limited distribution in the particularly in Ha Noi among the elite of its ‘‘Endangered’’ species on the local higher elevation mountains (greater than (TRAFFIC 2007, p. 9). This practice and international market may result in 1,500 m (4,921 ft)) of northern Thailand does not seem to be decreasing; rather local extinctions of species such as the and is found within three national parks it appears to be increasing. Although Kaiser-I-Hind (HMGN 2002). according to the CITES Scientific Vietnam has implemented several In Thailand, the Kaiser-I-Hind Authority of Thailand (2007). action plans to strengthen control of swallowtail and 13 other invertebrates Vietnam: The species has been trade in wild fauna and flora (TRAFFIC are listed under Thailand’s Wild Animal confirmed in three Nature Reserves 2007, p. 9), within-country protections Reservation and Protection Act

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24628 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

(WARPA) of 1992 (B.E. 2535 1992), unique species through morphometric Historical Range which makes it illegal to collect wildlife analysis (Flessa and Tellez-Duarte 2001, (whether alive or dead) or to have the p. 5). Accordingly, we conclude that M. The Colorado Delta clam was once an abundant species in the head of the Gulf species in one’s possession coloradoensis is a valid species. (Choldumrongkul in litt. 2007; FAO of California in the estuary of the 2001; Pornpitagpan 1999; Hongthong Species Description Colorado River (Martinez 2012; Dall 1894, p. 6). This species is present in 1998). In addition to prohibiting The Colorado Delta clam was possession, WARPA prohibits hunting, cheniers (piles of dead shells) as far as described by Dall (1894, p. 6) as having breeding, and trading. Import and 75 km (47 mi) from the mouth of the a ‘‘larger’’ shell, solid, rude (relatively export are allowed only for conservation Colorado River Delta (Rodriguez et al. purposes (Jaisielthum in litt. 2007). undeveloped or primitive), equilateral, 2001b, pp. 185–186). This finding In Vietnam, the species is listed as resembling M. modesta, but having a indicates the species historically had a ‘‘Vulnerable’’ in the 2007 Vietnam Red more arched posterior dorsal margin, broad distribution (Martinez 2012; Alles Data Book, due to declining population the base behind the posterior dorsal 2006, p. 2; Arias et al. 2004, p. 11; sizes and area of occupancy (Canh in angle. It was also described as being Zamora-Arroyo et al. 2005, p. 2; Cohen litt. 2007). In Vietnam, this species of somewhat concavely flexuous, with et al. 2001, p. 35; Luecke et al. 1999, p. swallowtail is reported to be among the slightly elevated ridges that radiate. The 1). length of a medium-sized specimen is most valuable of all butterflies (World Current Range Bank 2005). In 2006, the species was 49 millimeters (mm) (0.2 in), and its listed on Vietnam’s Schedule IIB of height 36.5 mm (0.14 in), and the width This species is now known to exist as Decree No. 32 on ‘‘Management of is 32 mm (0.13 in). Rodriguez et al. a relict population at Isla Montague, endangered, precious, and rare forest (2001a, p. 253) report the species can Mexico, at the mouth of the Colorado plants and animals.’’ A Schedule IIB- reach lengths of almost 60 mm (0.24 in). River Delta (Martinez 2012; Cintra- listing restricts the exploitation or Little is known about the life history Buenrostro et al. 2005, p. 296; Flessa commercial use of species with small of the Colorado Delta clam. The species and Tellez-Duarte 2001, p. 9; Rodriguez populations or that are considered by is known to take 3 years to grow to an et al. 2001a, p. 251; Flessa and the country to be in danger of extinction average adult size of 30 mm (0.12 in) Rodriguez 1999, p. 8). Although Keen (Canh in litt. 2007). The species is (Kowalewski et al. 2000, p. 1060; (1971, p. 207) indicated the species also provided some protection from habitat Kowalewski et al. 1994, p. 231), and it occurs in ‘‘west Mexican area,’’ there are destruction in Vietnam, where it has likely does not live much longer. The no reliable records of the species from been confirmed in three nature reserves lifespan of this species is likely about 3 that area and the available evidence that have low levels of disturbance indicates the species’ distribution is (Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and years, which is average for this genus. Other species of Mulinia are known to restricted to the Delta (Flessa and Richardson 1999). Tellez-Duarte 2001, p. 9; Flessa and live up to 2 years (Lu et al. 1996, p. After reevaluating the threats to this Rodriguez 1999, p. 5). species, we have determined that no 3482). The family Mactridae is The relative abundance of Colorado change in its LPN is warranted. The commonly found in sandy or muddy Delta clam is associated with salinity, Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail does not substrates associated with brackish which is common with Mulinia clams represent a monotypic genus. The water (Leal 2002, p. 59–61). This species (Flessa and Rodriguez 1999, p. 8). current factors, habitat destruction and is an infaunal (aquatic animal that lives Abundance of dead shells of Colorado illegal collection, are moderate in in the substrate of a body of water, Delta clam decreases with increasing magnitude due to the species’ wide usually in a soft sea bottom), distance from the mouth of the Colorado distribution and to various protections suspension-feeding estuarine bivalve River, suggesting the species in place within each country. We find (Rodriguez et al. 2001a, p. 252). The distribution is influenced by freshwater that the threats are imminent due to species is found in low intertidal mud inflow (Rodriguez et al. 2001b, p. 188). ongoing habitat destruction and high at depths of about 7 cm (2.75 in) market value for specimens. Based on beneath sediment (Rodriguez et al. Population Estimate our reassessment of the threats, we have 2001a, p. 253). We are unaware of precise estimates retained an LPN of 8 to reflect imminent No specific information has been threats of moderate magnitude. of the population size for Colorado Delta collected regarding the reproductive clam. However, the species is believed Molluscs biology of the Colorado Delta clam, to now comprise less than one percent although Rodriguez et al. (2001a, p. 255) Colorado Delta Clam (Mulinia of the living fauna in the Delta (Avila- speculate the species may spawn in coloradoensis), LPN = 2 Serrano et al. 2006, p. 656; Flessa and response to episodes of fresh water Tellez-Duarte 2001, p. 2; Rodriguez et Taxonomy inflow. Reproduction in bivalves is al. 2001b, p. 186; Kowalewski et al. The Colorado Delta clam is a member mostly through external fecundation 2000, p. 1060; Kowalewski et al. 1994, of the family Mactridae (Phylum (sperm and egg cells unite external to p. 219). Prior to 1998, the species was ). This species is restricted to the bodies of reproducing individuals) described as the most abundant mollusk the Gulf of California and west Mexican (Leal 2002, p. 26). A species within the that lived in the Colorado River Delta area (Keen 1971, p. 207). The treatment same genus, M. lateralis, is known to area (Rodriguez et al. 1998, p. 1). The of Mulinia coloradoensis as a distinct spawn from May to November (Puglisi best available information suggests that species is widely accepted among and Thiebaud 2008, p. 2; Lu et al. 1996, the species has experienced a 90 percent experts of molluscan studies (Arizona- p. 3,482). A female M. lateralis will reduction from historical population Sonora Desert Museum 2011, p. 1; release between 0.5 to 2 million eggs size caused by the decrease in Smithsonian Institution 2011, p. 1; during a spawning event (Lu et al. 1996, freshwater flow to the estuary (Martinez Gemmell et al. 1987, p. 45; Bernard p. 3482), indicating the Colorado Delta 2012; Avila-Seranno et al. 2006, pp. 1983, p. 40). The taxonomy of M. clam could potentially exhibit high 650, 658; Cintra-Buenrostro 2005, p. coloradoensis has been validated as a fecundity in the proper conditions. 300).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24629

Factors Affecting the Species et al. 2001, p. 205), and the estuary of 1184), which has severe implications for Virtually the entire flow of the the Delta is becoming increasingly aquatic ecosystems. Colorado River has been captured and saline due to lack of freshwater inflow Numerous models also predict a consumed by municipal, industrial, and (Alles 2006, p. 2). Dams also trap most decrease in annual precipitation in the southwestern United States and agricultural users before entering sediment before it reaches the Gulf northern Mexico (Solomon et al. 2009, Mexico (Alles 2006, p. 2, 6; Cohen 2005, (Alles 2006, p. 8). These conditions are p. 1707; Christensen et al. 2007, p. 888). p. 2; Morrison et al. 1996, p. xii; not conducive to the survival of this Solomon et al. 2009 predicts Rodriguez et al. 2001b, p. 183). The clam species. precipitation in the southwestern Delta is now believed to support only Intermittent and unplanned flood United States and northern Mexico will about 60,000 ha (150,000 ac) of wetland releases from upstream dams between decrease by as much as 9 to 12 percent. habitats and riparian communities, 1980 and 2000 resulted in water flowing Christensen et al. (2007, p. 888) contend having been reduced by over 90 percent to the Delta in 10 of those 20 years the projection of smaller warming over over the past 80 years (Cohen 2005, p. (Varady et al. 2001, p. 203), causing the Pacific Ocean than over the 2; Arias et al. 2004, p. 11; Cohen et al. reestablishment of riparian habitat (Rowell et al. 2006, pp. 47–48; Luecke continent is likely to induce a decrease 2001, p. 35; Glenn et al. 1996, p. 1175). in annual precipitation in the The reduction in the extent of the et al. 1999, p. 7). These releases are likely critical to the maintenance of the southwestern United States and estuary ecosystem in the Colorado Delta northern Mexico. This decrease would mirrors the decline of the Colorado aquatic community in the estuary and the continued survival of the species at modify freshwater and sediments vital Delta clam (Martinez 2012). Through to the survival of the Colorado Delta examination of dead shells, which Isla Montague. In addition to intermittent flood clam. accumulate in cheniers, the Colorado Warmer water temperatures across releases from major dams along the Delta clam once dominated the bivalve temperate regions are also predicted to Colorado River, the Delta appears to also community of the Delta with a massive expand the distribution of existing be sustained by groundwater seepage population extending 75 km (47 mi) into aquatic nonnative species, which could the Gulf of California (Rodriguez et al. and agricultural return water (Rowell et affect this species (Martinez 2012; 2001a, p. 254; Kowalewski et al. 2000, al. 2006, p. 48; Arias et al. 2004, p. 12). Mohseni et al. 2003, p. 389). There pp. 1059–1060). The only water that now reaches the could be 31 percent more suitable The relict population at Isla Montague Delta on a regular basis is agricultural habitat for aquatic nonnative species, continues to survive, apparently on return flows, largely from the Mexicali which are often tropical in origin and scarce and intermittent freshwater Valley via the Rio Hardy (Alles 2006, p. better adapted to warmer water inflow (Martinez 2012). The ecological 2; Cohen 2005, p. 1; Cohen et al. 2001, temperatures. This change in conditions within the Delta, upon p. 44). There is usually no surface temperatures could result in an which the Colorado Delta clam depends, connection from the Cienega de Santa expansion in the range of nonnative have undergone significant changes due Clara, a large wetland in the upper Delta aquatic species to the detriment of to the reduction of freshwater inflow. (Glenn et al. 1992, p. 822). Agricultural native species like the Colorado Delta Rodriguez et al. (2001a, p. 257) return flow from the Mexicali Valley, clam. demonstrated that the decrease of coupled with aquifer inflow, is a The Colorado Delta clam is currently freshwater, nutrients, and sediments freshwater source that ensures the threatened by the ongoing and from Colorado River inflow is largely continued survival of the clam. continuing reduction in freshwater responsible for the decline in the The contribution of agricultural return input into the Gulf of California, and the abundance and distribution of the flow is due to the recent lining of the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to Colorado Delta clam. Zamora-Arroyo et All-American Canal, which was ensure freshwater input (Martinez al. (2005, p. 3) determined that lack of completed in 2009. Prior to lining, the 2012). Freshwater is critical to the dedicated freshwater input is the All-American Canal was a source of species’ survival because the species’ principle threat to the Delta and Upper recharge to the Mexicali Valley aquifer life history is tied to the inflow of Gulf of California. (Calleros 1991, p. 837). Sixty percent of freshwater to ensure the maintenance of Since completion of upstream dams, the annual recharge to the subterranean its brackish water habitat. The Delta primarily Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, aquifer of the Mexicali Valley is due to continues to experience a reduction in very little fresh water reaches the Gulf subterranean flows (Calleros 1991, p. freshwater inflow, which is critical to of California in most years (Avila- 829), largely from the All-American the survival of the species because it Serrano et al. 2006, p. 649; Baron et al. Canal. Further reductions in freshwater depends on the availability of brackish 2002, p. 1251; Postel et al. 1998, p. 120; inflow to the Delta may occur in the water. Furthermore, the available Glenn et al. 1992, p. 818). Construction near future (Martinez 2012). information indicates that loss of of upstream dams and diversions since Drought freshwater will likely worsen in the near the 1930s has transformed the upper and long-term future. Gulf of California to an inverse estuary At a regional scale, there is broad with salinity increasing toward the consensus among climate models that Conservation Status mouth of the river (Rodriguez et al. the southwestern United States and This species exists in Mexico’s 2001b, p. 183; Lavin et al. 1998, p. 769). northern Mexico will become drier in Biosphere Reserve of the upper gulf of Salinity at the mouth of the Colorado the twenty-first century, and that the California and the Colorado River Delta, River has increased from 22–33 trend is already under way (Martinez which consists of 930,777 hectares (2.3 practical salinity units (psu) before the 2012; Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181–1184) million acres). Monitoring of this construction of the Hoover Dam in 1923 with increasing aridity in the Southwest species is being conducted in to 38 psu today (Cintra-Buenrostro et al. occurring as early as 2021–2040. connection with the Colorado River 2011). There are long periods when no Wetlands in the southwestern United Delta-Sonoran Joint Venture between fresh water reaches the Gulf, which States and northern Mexico are Mexico and the United States (Zamora creates highly saline conditions and predicted to be particularly at risk of et al. 2007, 2002). A workshop was held increasing water temperatures (Varady drying (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1183– in 2002 to determine conservation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24630 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

priorities in the Colorado River Delta Section 4(b) of the Act states that the to the amount expressly appropriated (Zamora-Arroyo et al. 2005, p. 3). As of Service may make warranted-but- for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 2002, NGOs in Mexico were working precluded findings only if it can cap was designed to prevent funds with the Government of Mexico’s demonstrate that (1) An immediate appropriated for other functions under Ministry of Environment and Natural proposed rule is precluded by other the Act (for example, recovery funds for Resources (Secretarı´a de Medio pending proposals and that (2) removing species from the Lists), or for Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, or expeditious progress is being made on other Service programs, from being used SEMARNAT) to develop ways to protect other listing actions. Preclusion is a for Listing Program actions (see House Mexico’s Colorado River riparian function of the listing priority of a Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st corridor (Zamora-Arroyo et al. 2005, p. species in relation to the resources that Session, July 1, 1997). 4). SEMARNAT’s purpose is to promote are available and competing demands Effective in FY 2012, the Service’s the protection, restoration, and for those resources. Thus, in any given Listing Program budget has included a conservation of ecosystems and natural fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate foreign species subcap to ensure that resources. In 2007, SEMARNAT whether it will be possible to undertake some funds are available for other work published a report on the goals and work on a proposed listing regulation or in the Listing Program. Prior to FY 2012, priorities of the Conservation and whether promulgation of such a there was no distinction between listing Management Program for the Reserve proposal is warranted-but-precluded by domestic and foreign species. To (SEMARNAT 2007, 323 pp.). It is not higher priority listing actions. reasonably balance the foreign species listed on any of the appendices of The resources available for listing listing commitment with other listing CITES. actions are determined through the program responsibility, Congress further After reviewing the factors affecting annual Congressional appropriations refined the appropriations of the Service this species, we found that the species process. The appropriation for the to add ‘‘and, of which not to exceed has experienced an approximate 90 Listing Program is available to support $1,500,000 shall be used for percent reduction from historical work involving the following listing implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), population size caused by the decrease actions: Proposed and final listing rules; and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered in freshwater flow to the estuary. The 90-day and 12-month findings on Species Act, as amended, for species available evidence indicates that petitions to add species to the Lists of that are not indigenous to the United Colorado delta clam is now restricted to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife States * * *’’ (See Conference Report one relict population at Isla Montague at and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 112–331, 112th Congress, 1st session, the mouth of the Colorado River delta. of a species from threatened to December 15, 2011). Since habitat containing the entire range endangered; annual determinations on Thus, through the listing program cap of the species may be rendered prior ‘‘warranted-but-precluded’’ and the foreign species subcap, unsuitable within the future, we find petition findings as required under Congress has determined the amount of that threats are of high magnitude. section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical money available for foreign species Accordingly, we find the Colorado delta habitat petition findings; proposed and listing activities, including petition clam is subject to high-magnitude final rules designating critical habitat; findings and listing determinations. imminent threats, and we assign a LPN and litigation-related, administrative, Therefore, the funds in the foreign of 2 for this species. and program-management functions species subcap set the limits on our (including preparing and allocating determinations of preclusion and Preclusion and Expeditious Progress budgets, responding to Congressional expeditious progress. A listing proposal is precluded if the and public inquiries, and conducting In FY 2012, expeditious progress is Service does not have sufficient public outreach regarding listing and that amount of work that can be resources available to complete the critical habitat). achieved with $1,500,000, which is the proposal, because there are competing The work involved in preparing amount of money that Congress demands for those resources, and the various listing documents can be appropriated for the foreign species relative priority of those competing extensive and may include, but is not subcap within the Listing Program demands is higher. Thus, in any given limited to: gathering and assessing the budget (Conference Report 112–331). fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate best scientific and commercial data Funding in the amount of $1,500,000 is whether it will be possible to undertake available and conducting analyses used being used for work in the following work on a listing proposal regulation or as the basis for our decisions; writing categories: compliance with court orders whether promulgation of such a and publishing documents; and and court-approved settlement proposal is precluded by higher priority obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating agreements requiring that petition listing actions—(1) the amount of public comments and peer review findings or listing determinations be resources available for completing the comments on proposed rules and completed by a specific date; section 4 listing function; (2) the estimated cost of incorporating relevant information into (of the Act) listing actions with absolute completing the proposed listing, and (3) final rules. The number of listing statutory deadlines; essential litigation- the Service’s workload and actions that we can undertake in a given related, administrative, and listing prioritization of the proposed listing in year also is influenced by the program-management functions; and relation to other actions. complexity of those listing actions; that high-priority listing actions for some of In 2009, the responsibility for listing is, more complex actions generally are our candidate species. In addition, foreign species under the Act was more costly. available staff resources are also a factor transferred from the Service’s Division We cannot spend more than is in determining which high-priority of Scientific Authority, International appropriated for the Listing Program species are provided with funding. Affairs Program, to the Endangered without violating the Anti-Deficiency Our expeditious progress also Species Program. The Branch of Foreign Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In includes work on petition findings and Species (BFS) was established in June addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal listing actions that we funded in FY 2010 to specifically work on petitions year since then, Congress has placed a 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been and other actions under Section 4 of the statutory cap on funds which may be completed to date. These actions are Act for foreign species. expended for the Listing Program, equal listed below. Actions in the top section

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 24631

of the table are being conducted under within this ANOR with an LPN of 2 or agreement or subject to an absolute a deadline set by a court. Actions in the 3, and when appropriate, species with a statutory deadline and, thus, are higher bottom section of the table are being lower priority if they overlap priority than work on proposed listing conducted to meet statutory timelines, geographically or have the same threats determinations for the 20 species that is, timelines required under the as the species with the high priority. described above, publication of Act. Because the actions below are either the proposed rules for these 20 species is BFS may, based on available staff subject of a court-approved settlement precluded. resources, work on species described

TABLE 3—ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS AND FY 2013 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

All have been completed (See Table 4 below for these specific actions)

Actions with Statutory Deadlines

11 tarantula species ...... 90-day petition finding. 15 bat species ...... 90-day petition finding. Caribou, Peary and Dolphin and Union ...... 12-month petition finding. Chimpanzee ...... 12-month petition finding. Caiman, broad-snouted ...... Final downlisting determination. Ridgway’s Hawk eagle ...... 90-day petition finding. Virgin Islands coqui ...... 90-day petition finding. Flores hawk-eagle ...... 90-day petition finding. Emperor penguin ...... 90-day petition finding. 10 sturgeon species ...... 90-day petition finding.

Despite the priorities that preclude species from the Federal lists of May 3, 2011 (76 FR 25150), to April 25, publishing proposed listing rules for threatened and endangered species. Our 2013, includes preparing and publishing these 20 species described in this expeditious progress for foreign species the following: notice, we are making expeditious since publication of our previous progress in adding to and removing Annual Notice of Review, published on

TABLE 4—ESA FOREIGN SPECIES LISTING ACTIONS PUBLISHED SINCE THE PREVIOUS ANOR WAS PUBLISHED ON MAY 3, 2011

Publication date Species Action FR pages

05/26/2011 ...... Salmon-crested cockatoo ...... Final rule; threatened with special rule 76 FR 30758–30780 06/02/2011 ...... Straight-horned markhor ...... 90-day finding; initiation of status re- 76 FR 31903–31906 view. 08/09/2011 ...... Crimson shining parrot ...... Status review; not warranted ...... 76 FR 49202–49236 08/09/2011 ...... Philippine cockatoo ...... Proposed rule; endangered ...... 76 FR 49202–49236 08/09/2011 ...... Yellow-crested cockatoo ...... Proposed rule; endangered ...... 76 FR 49202–49236 08/09/2011 ...... White cockatoo ...... Proposed rule; threatened with special 76 FR 49202–49236 rule. 08/11/2011 ...... Six Eurasian birds...... Final rule; endangered throughout 76 FR 50052–50080 their range. 09/01/2011 ...... Chimpanzee ...... Petition finding; initiation of status re- 76 FR 54423–54425 view. 10/11/2011 ...... Yellow-billed parrot ...... Proposed rule; threatened with special 76 FR 62740–62754 rule. 10/12/2011 ...... Two South American parrot species ... Status review; not warranted ...... 76 FR 63480–63508 01/05/2012 ...... Broad-snouted caiman ...... Proposed rule; downlisting ...... 77 FR 666–697 05/03/2012 ...... Wood bison ...... Final rule; downlisting ...... 77 FR 26191–26212 05/23/2012 ...... Morelet’s crocodile ...... Final rule; delisting ...... 77 FR 30820–30854 07/06/2012 ...... Military and great green macaw ...... Proposed rule; endangered ...... 77 FR 40172–40219 07/06/2012 ...... Hyacinth macaw ...... Proposed rule; endangered ...... 77 FR 39965–39983 07/06/2012 ...... Scarlet macaw ...... Proposed rule; endangered ...... 77 FR 40222–40247 07/24/2012 ...... Six Peruvian and Bolivian bird species Final rule; endangered ...... 77 FR 43433–43467 08/07/2012 ...... Markhor, straight-horned ...... Proposed rule; downlisting with spe- 77 FR 47011–47027 cial rule. 09/19/2012 ...... Scimitar-horned ...... 90-day petition finding ...... 77 FR 58084–58086 oryx, dama gazelle, and addax ...... 11/27/2012 ...... Lion, African ...... 90-day petition finding ...... 77 FR 70727–70733 01/02/2013 ...... Hummingbird, Honduran emerald ...... Proposed listing determination ...... 78 FR 59–72 01/10/2013 ...... Macaw, blue-throated ...... Proposed listing determination ...... 78 FR 2239–2249

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5 24632 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules

As explained above, a determination monitor effectively the status of all with the IUCN species specialist groups that listing is warranted-but-precluded species’’ for which we have made a and staff members of the U.S. CITES must also demonstrate that expeditious warranted-but-precluded 12-month Scientific and Management Authorities, progress is being made to add or remove finding, and to ‘‘make prompt use of the and the Division of International qualified species to and from the Lists [emergency listing] authority [under Conservation; and we attend scientific of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife section 4(b)(7)] to prevent a significant meetings, when possible, to obtain and Plants. As with our ‘‘precluded’’ risk to the well being of any such current status information for relevant finding, expeditious progress in adding species.’’ For foreign species, the species. As previously stated, if we qualified species to the Lists is a Service’s ability to gather information to identify any species for which function of the resources available and monitor species is limited. The Service emergency listing is appropriate, we the competing demands for those funds. welcomes all information relevant to the will make prompt use of the emergency Given that limitation, we find that we status of these species, because we have listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of are making progress in FY 2012 in the no ability to gather data in foreign the Act. foreign species branch of the Listing countries directly and cannot compel References Cited Program. another country to provide information. We have endeavored to make our Thus, this ANOR plays a critical role in A list of the references used to listing actions as efficient and timely as our monitoring efforts for foreign develop this notice is available at http:// possible, given the requirements of the species. www.regulations.gov at Docket No. relevant law and regulations, and With each ANOR, we request FWS–R9–ES–2012–0044. constraints relating to workload and information on the status of the species personnel. We are continually included in the notice. Information and Authors considering ways to streamline comments on the annual findings can be This Notice of Review was primarily processes or achieve economies of scale, submitted at any time. We review all authored by Amy Brisendine and staff of such as by batching related actions new information received through this the Branch of Foreign Species, together. Given our limited budget for process as well as any other new Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish implementing section 4 of the Act, these information we obtain using a variety of and Wildlife Service. actions described above collectively methods. We collect information constitute expeditious progress. directly from range countries by Authority Our expeditious progress also correspondence, from peer-reviewed This Notice of Review is published includes work on pending listing scientific literature, unpublished under the authority of the Endangered actions described above in our literature, scientific meeting Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 ‘‘precluded finding,’’ but for which proceedings, and CITES documents U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). decisions had not been completed at the (including species proposals and reports Dated: April 8, 2013. time of this publication. from scientific committees). We also obtain information through the permit Rowan W. Gould, Monitoring application processes under CITES, the Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act Act, and the Wild Bird Conservation Act [FR Doc. 2013–09504 Filed 4–24–13; 8:45 am] requires us to ‘‘implement a system to (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.). We also consult BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:12 Apr 24, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\25APP5.SGM 25APP5 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS5