[Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 2)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 286-310]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05ja10-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-ES-2009-0084]
[90100-1660-1FLA B6]
[RIN 1018-AW39]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Six
Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the
following six foreign species found on islands in French Polynesia and
in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Africa: Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao
urogallus cantabricus); Marquesan Imperial Pigeon (Ducula galeata); the
Eiao Polynesian warbler (Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis), previously
referred to as (Acrocephalus mendanae aquilonis); greater adjutant
(Leptoptilos dubius); Jerdon's courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus); and
slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris) as endangered, pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This proposal, if
made final, would extend the Act's protection to these species. We seek
data and comments from the public on this proposed rule.
DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comment on this
proposed rulemaking action, we will accept comments received or
postmarked on or before March 8, 2010. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by February 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
* Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-
2009-0084, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel on the left side of the screen under the Document Type
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
* By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2009-0084; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
[[Page 287]]
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comment Procedures section below under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Krofta, Chief, Branch of
Listing, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-
358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the taxonomy, range,
distribution, and population size of these species, including the
locations of any additional populations of these species.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species.
(4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
(5) Any information concerning the effects of climate change on
these species or their habitats.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this
proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We
will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not
listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://
www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--including any personal
identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. Please note
that comments submitted to this Web site are not immediately viewable.
When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However,
the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might
not occur until several days after submission.
If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on
http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search
Documents box, enter FWS-R9-ES-2009-0084, which is the docket number
for this action. Then in the Search panel on the left side of the
screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the
Document Type heading.
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to
view the comments and materials in person at U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Endangered Species Program, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420,
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2171.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires us to make a finding
(known as a ``90-day finding'') on whether a petition to add a species
to, remove a species from, or reclassify a species on the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants has presented
substantial information indicating that the requested action may be
warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we must make the finding
within 90 days following receipt of the petition and must publish it
promptly in the Federal Register. If we find that the petition has
presented substantial information indicating that the requested action
may be warranted (a positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act
requires us to commence a status review of the species if we have not
already initiated one under our internal candidate assessment process.
In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires us to make a
finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition (``12-month
finding'') on whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted,
or warranted but precluded by higher priority actions. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that when we make a warranted but
precluded finding on a petition, we are to treat such a petition as one
that is resubmitted on the date of such finding. Thus, we are required
to publish new 12-month findings on these ``resubmitted'' petitions on
an annual basis. We publish an annual notice of resubmitted petition
findings (annual notice) for all foreign species for which we
previously found listings to be warranted but precluded.
In this proposed rule, we propose to list six foreign bird species
as endangered, under the Act. These species are: Cantabrian
capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus); Marquesan Imperial Pigeon
(Ducula galeata); Eiao Polynesian warbler (Acrocephalus percernis
aquilonis), previously referred to as (Acrocephalus mendanae
aquilonis); greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius); Jerdon's courser
(Rhinoptilus bitorquatus); and slender-billed curlew (Numenius
tenuirostris). These species range widely from islands in French
Polynesia to Europe, Southeast Asia, and Africa, and all are considered
terrestrial species, with one exception, the slender-billed curlew. The
slender-billed curlew is a water bird that undertakes a long annual
migration.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 28, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from
Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman, U.S. Section of the International Council
for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to add 70 native and foreign bird species
to the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11),
including three species (Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan Imperial
Pigeon, and Eiao Polynesian warbler) that are the subject of this
proposed rule. Two of the foreign species identified in the petition
were already listed under the Act. In response to the 1980 petition, we
published a substantial 90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464),
for 58 foreign species and initiated a status review. On January 20,
1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12-month finding within an annual
review on pending petitions and description of progress on all pending
petition findings. In this notice, we found that listing all 58 foreign
bird species in the 1980 petition was warranted but precluded by higher
priority listing actions. On May 10, 1985, we published the first
annual
[[Page 288]]
notice (50 FR 19761) in which we continued to find that listing all 58
foreign bird species in the 1980 petition warranted but precluded by
higher priority listing actions. We published additional annual notices
on the 58 foreign bird species on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996); July 7,
1988 (53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746); April 25, 1990 (55
FR 17475); November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664); and May 21, 2004 (69 FR
29354). These notices indicated that listing of the Cantabrian
capercaillie, Marquesan imperial pigeon, and Eiao Polynesian warbler,
along with the remaining species in the 1980 petition, continued to be
warranted but precluded.
On May 6, 1991, we received a petition (1991 petition) from Alison
Stattersfield, of ICBP, to list 53 additional foreign birds under the
Act, including the three remaining bird species (greater adjutant,
Jerdon's courser, and slender-billed curlew) that are the subject of
this proposed rule. On December 16, 1991, we published a positive 90-
day finding and announced the initiation of a status review of the 53
foreign birds listed in the 1991 petition (56 FR 65207). On March 28,
1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a proposed rule to list 30 African
bird species from both the 1980 and 1991 petitions. In the same Federal
Register document, we included a notice of findings in which we
announced our determination that listing the 38 remaining species from
the 1991 petition was warranted but precluded; this group included
greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, and slender-billed curlew. On July
29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published an annual notice of findings on
resubmitted petitions for foreign species and annual description of
progress on listing actions within which we ranked species for listing
by assigning each a Listing Priority Number per our listing priority
guidelines, published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). Based on
this ranking and priorities, we determined that listing the six
previously petitioned species that are the subject of this proposed
rule-- Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan imperial pigeon, Eiao
Polynesian warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, and slender-
billed curlew-- was warranted.
On September 8, 2008, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) over violations of
section 4 of the Act for failure to promptly publish listing proposals
for the 30 warranted species identified in our 2008 Annual Notice of
Review. Under a settlement agreement approved by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 15, 2009 (CDB v.
Salazar, 09-cv-02578-CRB), we must submit to the Federal Register
proposed listing rules for the Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan
imperial pigeon, Eiao Polynesian warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's
courser, and slender-billed curlew by December 29, 2009.
These six species were selected from the list of warranted-but-
precluded species because of the significance and similarity of the
threats to the species. We assigned all six of these species a listing
priority ranking number of 2 or 3. Combining species that face similar
threats into one proposed rule allows us to maximize our limited staff
resources and thus increases our ability to complete the listing
process for warranted-but-precluded species.
Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination.
Despite the fact that global climate changes are occurring and
affecting habitat, the climate change models that are currently
available do not yet enable us to make meaningful predictions of
climate change for specific, local areas (Parmesan and Matthews 2005,
p. 354). In addition, we do not have models to predict how the climate
in the range of these Eurasian and Asian bird species will change, and
we do not know how any change that may occur would affect these
species. Nor do we have information on past and future weather patterns
within the specific range of these species. Therefore, based on the
current lack of information, we did not evaluate climate change as a
threat to these species. We are, however, seeking additional
information on this subject (see Public Comment Procedures section)
that can be used in preparing the final rule.
Below is a species-by-species description and analysis of the five
factors. The species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning
with the Cantabrian capercaillie, followed by the Eiao Polynesian
warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, Marquesan Imperial Pigeon,
and the slender-billed curlew.
I. Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus)
Species Description
The Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus) is a
subspecies of the western capercaillie (T. urogallus) in the family
Tetraonidae. The species in general is a large grouse, of 80 to 115
centimeters (cm) in length (31 to 45 inches (in)), and the female is
much smaller than the male. The species is characterized by having dark
gray plumage with fine blackish vermiculation (wavelike pattern) around
the head and neck. The breast is glossy greenish-black. This bird has a
long, rounded tail, an ivory white bill, and a scarlet crest (World
Association of Zoos and Aquaria 2009, unpaginated).
The Cantabrian capercaillie once existed along the whole of the
Cantabrian mountain range from northern Portugal through Galicia,
Astruias, and Leon, to Santander in northern Spain (IUCN Redbook 1979,
p. 1). Currently its range is restricted to the Cantabrian mountains in
northwest Spain. The subspecies inhabits an area of 1,700 square
kilometers (km2) (656 square miles (mi2)), and its range is separated
from its nearest neighboring subspecies of capercaillie (T. u.
aquitanus) in the Pyrenees mountains by a distance of more than 300 km
(186 mi) (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 268).
The Cantabrian capercaillie occurs in mature beech (Fagus
sylvatica) forest and mixed forests of beech and oaks (Quercus robur,
Q. petraea, and Q. pyrenaica) at elevations ranging from 800 to 1,800 m
(2,600 to 5,900 ft). The Cantabrian capercaillie also uses other
microhabitat types (broom (Genista spp.), meadow, and heath (Erica
spp.)) selectively throughout the year (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271).
The species feeds on beech buds, catkins of birch (Betrula alba),
and holly leaves (Ilex aquifolium). It also feeds on bilberry
(Vaccinium myrtillus), a commonly eaten component of its diet
(Rodriguez and Obeso 2000 as reported in Pollo et al. 2005, p. 398).
Storch et al. estimates the population to be 627 birds, of which
approximately 500 are adults, according to the most recent population
data collected from 2000 through 2003 (2006, p. 654). Population
estimates for species of grouse are commonly assessed by counting males
that gather during the
[[Page 289]]
breeding season to sing and display at leks (traditional places where
males assemble during the mating season and engage in competitive
displays that attract females). Pollo et al. (2005, p. 397) estimated a
60-to-70 percent decline in the number of male leks since 1981. This is
equivalent to an average decline of 3 percent per year, or 22 percent
over 8 years. There is also evidence of a 30-percent decline in lek
occupancy in the northern watershed of the species' range between 2000
and 2005 (Banuelos and Quevedo, unpublished data, as reported in Storch
et al. 2006, p. 654).
Based on data collected between 2000 and 2003 by Pollo et al.
(2005, p. 401), the distribution of Cantabrian capercaillie on the
southern slope of the Cantabrian Mountains is fragmented into 13 small
subpopulations: four in the western area and 9 in the eastern. Six
subpopulations (5 in the eastern and 1 in the western) contained only
one singing male, which indicates a very small subpopulation, since
presence of singing males is a direct correlate to population numbers.
The area occupied by Cantabrian capercaillie in 1981-1982 covered
up to approximately 2,070 km2 (799 mi2) of the southern slope 972 km2
(375 mi2) in the west and 1,098 km2 (424 mi2) in the east). Between
2000 and 2003, the area of occupancy had declined to 693 km2 (268 mi2),
specifically 413 km2 (159 mi2) in the west and 280 km2 (108 mi2) in the
east. Thus, over a 22-year period, there was a 66-percent reduction in
the areas occupied by this subspecies on the southern slope of the
Cantabrian Mountains (Pollo et al. 2005, p. 401). Based on this data,
the subpopulation in the eastern portion of the range appears to be
declining at a faster rate than the subpopulation in the western
portion of the range.
Conservation Status
Although Storch, et al. 2006 (p. 653) noted that the Cantabrian
capercaillie meets the criteria to be listed as ``Endangered'' on the
IUCN Redlist due to ``rapid population declines, small population size,
and severely fragmented range,'' it is currently not classified as such
by the IUCN. The species is classified as ``vulnerable'' in Spain under
the National Catalog of Endangered Species. The species has not been
formally considered for listing in the CITES Appendices (http://
www.cites.org).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Cantabrian Capercaillie
A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range
Numerous limiting factors influence the population dynamics of the
capercaillie throughout its range, including habitat degradation, loss,
and fragmentation (Storch 2000, p. 83; 2007, p. 96). Forest structure
plays an important role in determining habitat suitability and
occupancy. Quevedo et al. (2006b, p. 274) found that open forest
structure with well-distributed bilberry shrubs were the preferred
habitat type of Cantabrian capercaillie. Management of forest resources
for timber production has caused and continues to cause significant
changes in forest structure such as: species composition, density and
height of tress, forest patch size, and understory vegetation (Pollo et
al. 2005, p. 406).
The historic range occupied by this subspecies (3,500 km2 (1,350
mi2)) has declined by more than 50 percent (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p.
268). The current range is severely fragmented, with low forest habitat
cover (22 percent of the landscape) and most of the suitable habitat
remaining in small patches less than 10 hectares (ha) (25 acres (ac))
in size (Garcia et al. 2005, p. 34). Patches of good-quality habitat
are scarce and discontinuous, particularly in the central parts of the
range (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 269), and leks in the smaller forest
patches have been abandoned during the last few decades. The leks that
remain occupied are now located farther from forest edges than those
occupied in the 1980s (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271).
Based on population surveys, forest fragments containing occupied
leks in 2000 were significantly larger than fragments containing leks
in the 1980s that have since been abandoned (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p.
271). The forest fragments from which the Cantabrian capercaillie has
disappeared since the 1980s are small in size, and are the most
isolated from other forest patches. In addition, the Cantabrian
capercaillie have disappeared from forest patches located closest to
the edge of the range in both the eastern and western subpopulations of
the south slope of the Cantabrian Mountains, suggesting that forest
fragmentation is playing an important role in the population dynamics
of this subspecies (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271). Research conducted
on other subspecies of capercaillie indicate that the size of forest
patches is correlated to the number of males that gather in leks to
display, and that below a certain forest patch size, leks are abandoned
(Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 273).
In highly fragmented landscapes, forest patches are embedded in a
matrix of other habitats, and forest dwellers like capercaillies
frequently encounter open areas within their home range. Quevedo et al.
(2006a, p. 197) developed a habitat suitability model for the Cantarian
capercaillie that assessed the relationship between forest patch size
and occupancy. He determined that the subspecies still remains in
habitat units that show habitat suitability indices below the cut-off
values of the two best predictive models (decline and general), which
may indicate a high risk of local extinction. Other researchers
suggested that, should further habitat or connectivity loss occur, the
Cantabrian capercaillie population may become so disaggregated that the
few isolated subpopulations will be too small to ensure their own long-
term persistence (Grimm and Storch 2000, p. 224).
A demographic model based on Bavarian alpine populations of
capercaillie suggest a minimum viable population size of the order of
500 birds (Grimm and Storch 2000, p. 222). However, genetic data show
clear signs of reduced variability in populations with numbers of
individuals in the range of fewer than 1,000 birds, which indicates
that a demographic minimum population of 500 birds may be too small to
maintain high genetic variability (Segelbacher et al. 2003, p. 1779).
Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation exist for this species in
the form of increased genetic differentiation due to increased
isolation of populations (Segelbacher et al. 2003, p. 1779). Therefore,
anthropogenic habitat deterioration and fragmentation not only leads to
range contractions and extinctions, but may also have significant
genetic, and thus, evolutionary consequences for the surviving
populations (Segelbacher et al. 2003, p. 1779).
Summary of Factor A
Recent population surveys show this subspecies is continuing to
decline throughout its current range, and subpopulations may be
isolated from one another due to range contractions in the eastern and
western portions of its range, leaving the central portion of the
subspecies range abandoned (Pollo et al. 2005, p. 401). Some remaining
populations may already have a high risk of local extinction (Quevedo
et al. 2006a, p. 197). Management of forest resources for timber
production continues to negatively affect forest structure, thereby
affecting the quality,
[[Page 290]]
quantity, and distribution of suitable habitat available for this
subspecies. In addition, the structure of the matrix of habitats
located between forest patches is likely affecting the ability of
capercaillies to disperse between subpopulations. Therefore, we find
that present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the habitat or range is a threat to the continued existence of the
Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes
Currently hunting of the Cantabrian capercaillie is illegal in
Spain; however, illegal hunting still occurs (Storch 2000, p. 83; 2007,
p. 96). Because this species congregates in leks, individuals are
particularly easy targets, and poaching of protected grouse is
considered common (Storch 2000, p. 15). It is unknown what the
incidence of poaching is or what impact it is having on this
subspecies; however, given the limited number of birds remaining and
the reduced genetic variability already evident at current population
levels, the further loss of breeding adults could have substantial
impact on the subspecies. Therefore, we find that overutilization for
recreational purposes is a threat to the continued existence of the
Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its range.
C. Disease or predation
Diseases and parasites have been proposed as factors associated
with the decline of populations of other species within the same family
of birds as the capercaillie (Tetraonidae) (Obeso et al. 2000, p. 191).
In an attempt to determine if parasites were contributing to the
decline of the Cantabrian capercaillie, researchers collected and
analyzed fecal samples in 1998 from various localities across the range
of this subspecies. The prevalence of common parasites (Eimeria sp. and
Capillaria sp.) was present in 58 percent and 25 percent of the samples
collected, respectively. However, both the intensity and average
intensity of these parasites were very low compared to other
populations of species of birds in the Tetraonidae family. Other
parasites were found infrequently. The researchers concluded that it
was unlikely that intestinal parasites were causing the decline of the
Cantebrian capercaillie.
Based on the information above, we do not believe that parasite
infestations are a significant factor in the decline of this
subspecies. We are not aware of any species-specific information
currently available that indicates that predation poses a threat to the
species. Therefore, we are not considering disease or predation to be
contributing threats to the continued existence of the Cantabrian
capercaillie throughout its range.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
Although it meets the qualifications, the Cantabrian capercaillie
is currently not classified as endangered by the IUCN. Nor is the
species listed under any Appendix of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
This subspecies is currently classified as ``vulnerable'' in Spain
under the National Catalog of Endangered Species, which affords it
special protection (e.g., additional regulation of activities in the
forests of its range, regulation of trails and roads in the area,
elimination of poaching, and protection of areas important to young).
Although it is classified as vulnerable, as mentioned above (see Factor
B), illegal hunting still occurs.
The European Union (EU) Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC addresses the
protection of habitat and species listed as endangered at the European
scale (European Union 2008). Several habitat types valuable to
capercaillie have been included in this Directive, such as in Appendix
I, Section 9, Forests. The EU Bird Directive (79/407/EEC) lists the
capercaillie in Annex I as a ``species that shall be subject to special
habitat conservation measures in order to ensure their survival.''
Under this Directive, a network of Special Protected Areas (SPAs)
comprising suitable habitat for Annex I species is to be designated.
This network of SPAs and other protected sites are collectively
referred to as Natura 2000. Several countries in Europe, including
Spain, are in the process of establishing the network of SPAs. The
remaining Cantabrian capercaillie populations occur primarily in
recently established Natural Reserves in Spain that are part of the
Natura 2000 network (Muniellos Biosphere Reserve). Management of
natural resources by local communities is still allowed in areas
designated as an SPA; however, the development of management plans to
meet the various objectives of the Reserve network is required.
This subspecies is also afforded special protection under the Bern
Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats; European Treaty Series/104; Council of Europe 1979).
The Cantabrian capercaillie is listed as ``strictly protected'' under
Appendix II, which requires member states to ensure the conservation of
the listed taxa and their habitats. Under this Convention, protections
of Appendix-II species include the prohibition of: The deliberate
capture, keeping and killing of the species; deliberate damage or
destruction of breeding sites; deliberate disturbance during the
breeding season; deliberate taking or destruction of eggs; and the
possession or trade of any individual of the species. We were unable to
find information on the effectiveness of this designation in preventing
further loss of Cantabrian capercaillie or its habitat.
In November 2003, Spain enacted the ``Forest Law,'' which
addresses the preservation and improvement of the forest and rangelands
in Spain. This law requires development of plans for the management of
forest resources, which are to include plans for fighting forest fires,
establishment of danger zones based on fire risk, formulation of a
defense plan in each established danger zone, the mandatory restoration
of burned area, and the prohibition of changing forest use of a burned
area into other uses for a period of 30 years. In addition, this law
provides economic incentives for sustainable forest management by
private landowners and local entities. We do not have information on
the effectiveness of this law with regard to its ability to prevent
negative impacts to Cantabrian capercaillie habitat.
Summary of Factor D
Despite recent advances in protection of this subspecies and its
habitat through EU Directives and protection under Spanish law and
regulation, illegal poaching still occurs (Storch 2000, p. 83; 2007, p.
96). Further, we were unable to find information on the effectiveness
of many of these measures at reducing threats to the species.
Therefore, we find that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to ameliorate the current threats to the Cantabrian capercaillie
throughout its range.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued
existence
Suarez-Seoane and Roves (2004, pp. 395, 401) assessed the
potential impacts of human disturbances in core populations of
Cantabrian capercaillie in Natural Reserves in Spain. They found that
locations selected as leks were located at the core of larger patches
of forest and were less subject to human disturbance. They also found
[[Page 291]]
that Cantabrian capercaillie disappeared from leks situated in rolling
hills at lower altitudes closer to houses, hunting sites, and
repeatedly burned areas.
Recurring fires have also been implicated as a factor in the
decline of the subspecies. An average of 85,652 ha (211,650 ac) of
forested area per year over a 10-year period (1995-2005) has been
consumed by fire in Spain (Lloyd 2007a, p. 1). On average, 80 percent
of all fires in Spain are set intentionally by humans (Lloyd 2007a, p.
1). Suarez-Seoane and Garcia-Roves (2004, p. 405) found that the
stability of Cantabrian capercaillie breeding areas throughout a 20-
year period was mainly related to low fire recurrence in the
surrounding area and few houses nearby. In addition, the species avoids
areas that are recurrently burned because the areas lose their ability
to regenerate and cannot produce the habitat the species requires
(Suarez-Seoane and Garcia-Roves 2004, p. 406). We were unable to find
information as to how many hectares of suitable Cantabrian capercaillie
habitat is consumed by fire each year. However, since the species
requires a low recurrence of fire, and both disturbance and fire
frequency are likely to increase with human presence, this could be a
potential threat to both habitat and individual birds where there is a
high prevalence of disturbance and fire frequency.
In summary, disturbance from humans appears to impact the species;
birds are typically found in areas of less anthropogenic disturbance
and further from homes. Natural Protected Areas in Spain have seen an
increase in human use for recreation and hunting. As human population
centers expand and move closer to occupied habitat areas, increased
disturbance to important breeding, feeding, and sheltering behaviors of
this species is expected to occur. Additionally, as human presence
increases, it is likely that both fires and disturbances will increase.
Either or both of these factors have the potential to impact both
individuals and their habitat. Therefore, we conclude that other
natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the
species, in the form of forest fires and disturbance, are threats to
the continued existence of the Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the Cantabrian Capercaillie
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Cantabrian capercaillie. The species is
currently at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of
habitat destruction and modification (Factor A), inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), and other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence in the form of forest fires and
disturbance (Factor E).
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the
Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its entire range, as described
above, we determine that this subspecies is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the
Cantabrian capercaillie as an endangered species throughout all of its
range. Because we find that the Cantabrian capercaillie is endangered
throughout all of its range, there is no reason to consider its status
in a significant portion of its range.
II. Eiao Polynesian warbler (Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis),
previously referred to as Acrocephalus mendanae aquilonis and
Acrocephalus caffer aquilonis
Species Description
Due to the similarity of the reed-warblers of Polynesia, all of
these warblers were once considered a single, widespread species known
as the long-billed reed-warbler (Acrocephalus caffer). The 1980
petition from Dr. Warren B. King included the Eiao Polynesian warbler
(Acrocephalus caffer aquilonis), a subspecies of reed-warbler. The
subspecies aquilonis denoted those warblers found on Eiao Island. The
species was later split into three separate species: those of the
Society Islands (Acrocephalus caffer), Tuamotu (A. atyphus), and
Marquesas (A. mendanae) (Cibois et al. 2007, p. 1151). This subspecies
then became known as A. mendanae aquilonis. Recent genetic research on
Marquesan reed-warblers found two independent lineages: warblers found
in the northern islands of the Marquesas Archipelago (Nuku Hiva, Eiao,
Hatuta'a, and Ua Huka) and those found on the southern islands (Hiva
Oa, Tahuata, Ua Pou, and Fatu Iva). As a result, the Marquesas species
was split into two separate species; those of the four most northern
islands (A. percernis) and those in the southern islands (A. mendanae).
The reed-warblers found on Eiao are now classified as a subspecies of
Northern Marquesan reed-warblers (A. percernis aquilonis) (Cibois et
al. 2007, pp. 1155, 1160).
The Eiao Polynesian warbler (Eiao warbler) is a large,
insectivorous reed-warbler of the family Acrocephalidae. It is
characterized by brown plumage with bright yellow underparts (Cibois et
al. 2007, p. 1151). The Eiao warbler is endemic to the island of Eiao
in the French Polynesian Marquesas Archipelago in the Pacific Ocean.
The Marquesas Archipelago is a territory of France located
approximately 1,600 km (994 mi) northeast of Tahiti. Eiao Island is one
of the northernmost islands in the Archipelago and encompasses 40 km2
(15 mi).
Population densities of the Eiao warbler are thought to be high
within the remaining suitable habitat; one singing bird was found
nearly every 40-50 m (131-164 ft). The total population is estimated at
more than 2,000 birds (Raust 2007, pers. comm.). This population
estimate is much larger than the 100-200 individuals last reported in
1987 by Thibault (as reported in USFWS 2007). It is unknown if the
population actually increased from 1987 to 2007, or if the differences
in the population estimates are a result of using different survey
methodologies. We have no reliable information on the population trend
of this subspecies.
Reed-warblers of the Polynesian islands utilize various habitats,
ranging from shrubby vegetation in dry, lowland areas to humid forest
in wet montane areas (Cibois et al. 2007, pp. 1151, 1153). Reed-
warblers in general display strong territorial behavior (Cibois et al.
2007, p. 1152). The Eiao warbler is a subspecies of Northern Marquesan
reed- warblers, which at one time were all considered one species, the
Marquesan reed-warbler. Like other reed-warblers, the female reed-
warbler builds the nest with little or no help from the male. Vines,
coconut fiber, and grasses are the most common nesting material (Mosher
and Fancy 2002, p. 8). Warbler nests are found in the tops of trees and
on vertical branches (Thibault et al. 2002, pp. 166, 169). Eggs of
Pacific island reed-warblers range from blue to olive, containing black
or brown spots, and the clutch size for Marquesan reed-warblers is up
to five eggs (Mosher and Fancy 2002, p. 9).
Conservation Status
Marquesan reed-warblers (A. mendanae) are classified as ``of least
concern'' by the IUCN (IUCN 2009a, unpaginated). However, it appears
that the recent split of the Marquesan reed-
[[Page 292]]
warblers into the Northern and Southern Marquesan reed-warblers is not
yet reflected in the IUCN assessment. Northern Marquesan reed-warblers
(A. percernis) are protected under Law Number 95-257 in French
Polynesia. The species has not been formally considered for listing in
the CITES Appendices (http://www.cites.org).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range
Eiao Island was declared a Nature Reserve in 1971 and is not
currently inhabited by humans. However, the entire island has been
heavily impacted by introduced domestic livestock that have become
feral (Manu 2009, unpaginated). Feral sheep have been identified as the
main threat to the forest on the island (Thibault et al. 2002, p. 167).
Sheep and pigs have devastated much of the vegetation and soil on Eiao,
and native plant species have been largely replaced by introduced
species (Merlin and Juvik 1992, pp. 604-606). Sheep have overgrazed the
island, leaving areas completely denuded of vegetation. The exposed
soil erodes from rainfall, further preventing native plants from
regenerating (WWF 2001, unpaginated). Currently, only 10-20 percent of
the island contains suitable habitat for the Eiao warbler (Raust 2007,
pers. comm.). These areas of suitable habitat are likely restricted to
small refugia inaccessible to the feral livestock. We are not aware of
any current efforts or future plans to reduce the number of feral
domestic livestock on the island.
In summary, the ongoing habitat degradation from overgrazing
livestock continues to have significant and ongoing impacts to the
natural habitat for this subspecies. The current level of grazing on
the island prevents recovery of native vegetation. Without active
management of the feral livestock population on the island, the
population of Eiao warblers will continue to be restricted to small
portions of the island which are inaccessible to the feral livestock.
Furthermore, although the current estimated population is 2,000
individuals, the subspecies will not be able to expand to the rest of
the island and recover beyond this current population level due to
habitat loss. Because the Eiao warbler is limited to one small island,
the continuing loss of habitat makes this subspecies extremely
vulnerable to extinction. Therefore, we find that present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range are
threats to the continued existence of the Eiao warbler throughout its
range.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes
We are unaware of any information currently available that
indicates the use of this subspecies for any commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purpose. As a result, we are not considering
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to be a contributing factor to the continued
existence of the Eiao warbler throughout its range.
C. Disease or predation
Avian diseases are a concern for species with restricted ranges
and small populations, especially if the species is restricted to an
island. Hawaii's avian malaria is a limiting factor for many species of
native passerines and is dominant on other remote oceanic islands,
including French Polynesia (Beadell et al. 2006, p. 2935). This strain
was found in 9 out of 11 Marquesan reed-warblers collected on Nuku Hiva
in 1987. However, because these birds were thought to be more robust
(all Marquesan reed-warblers were considered A. mendanae), avian
malaria was not thought to pose a threat to the species (Beadell et al.
2006, p. 2940). We have no data on whether Hawaii's avian malaria is
present on Eiao or what effects it may have on the population of reed-
warblers.
Black rats (Rattus rattus) were introduced to Eiao, Nuku Hiva, Ua
Pou, Hiva Oa, Tahuata, and Fatu Iva of the Marquesas Archipelago in the
early 20th century (Cibois et al. 2007, p. 1159); although Thibault et
al. (2002, p. 169) state that the presence of black rats on Eiao is
only suspected. A connection between the presence of rats and the
decline and extirpation of birds has been well documented (Blanvillain
et al. 2002, p. 146; Thibault et al. 2002, p 162; Meyer and Butaud
2009, pp. 1169-1170). Specifically, predation on eggs, nestlings, or
adults by rats has been implicated as an important factor in the
extinction of Pacific island birds (Thibault et al. 2002, p. 162).
However, Thibault et al. (2002, pp. 165, 169) did not find a
significant effect of rats on the abundance of Polynesian warblers. It
is thought that the position of warbler nests on vertical branches
close to the tops of trees makes them less accessible to rats (Thibault
et al. 2002, p. 169), even though rats are known to be good climbers.
The common myna (Acridotheres tristis), an introduced bird
species, may contribute to the spread of invasive plant species by
consuming their fruit and may also prey on the eggs and nestlings of
native birds species or out-compete native bird species for nesting
sites. The myna is thought to have contributed to the decline of
another reed-warbler endemic to the Marquesas (A. caffer mendanae)
(Global Invasive Species Database 2009, unpaginated). Mynas do not
currently occur on Eiao Island. Furthermore, Thibault et al. (2002, p.
165) found no significant effect of mynas on Polynesian warblers in
Marquesas. If the myna expands its range and colonizes Eiao Island, it
is unknown to what extent predation would affect the Eiao warbler.
In summary, although the presence of avian malaria has been
documented on Eiao and the presence of introduced rats is suspected,
there is no data indicating that either is affecting the warbler
population on Eiao. Nest location appears to be high enough in the
trees to avoid significant predation from the introduced rat. Mynas are
not known to inhabit Eiao Island, and it is not clear that they would
negatively impact the warbler population if they were to colonize Eiao.
Therefore, we find that disease and predation are not a threat to the
continued existence of the Eiao warbler throughout its range.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
The Eiao warbler is a protected species in French Polynesia.
Northern Marquesan reed-warblers (A. percernis) are classified as a
Category A species under Law Number 95-257. Article 16 of this law
prohibits the collection and exportation of species listed under
Category A. In addition, under part 23 of Law 95-257, the introduced
myna bird species, which is commonly known to outcompete other bird
species, is considered a danger to the local avifauna and is listed as
``threatening biodiversity.'' Part 23 also prohibits importation of all
new specimens of species listed as ``threatening biodiversity,'' and
translocation from one island to another is prohibited.
The French Environmental Code, Article L411-1, prohibits the
destruction or poaching of eggs or nests; mutilation, destruction,
capture or poaching, intentional disturbance, the practice of
taxidermy, transport, peddling, use, possession, offer for sale, and
the sale or the purchase of nondomestic species in need of
conservation. It also prohibits the destruction, alteration, or
degradation of habitat for these species.
[[Page 293]]
Hunting and destruction of all species of birds in French Polynesia
were prohibited by a 1967 decree (Villard et al. 2003, p. 193);
however, destruction of birds which have been listed as ``threatening
biodiversity'' is legal. Furthermore, restrictions on possession of
firearms in Marquesas are in place (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10).
Hunting is not known to be a threat to the survival of this subspecies.
In addition, the entire island Eiao Island was declared an
officially protected area in 1971. It is classified as Category IV, an
area managed for habitat or species. However, of the nine protected
areas in French Polynesia, only one (Vaikivi on Ua Huka) is actively
managed (Manu 2009, unpaginated).
In summary, regulations exist that protect the subspecies and its
habitat. However, as described under Factor A, habitat destruction
continues to threaten this subspecies. Although legal protections are
in place, there are none effectively protecting the suitable habitat on
the island from damage from overgrazing sheep as described in Factor A.
Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to ameliorate the current threats to the Eiao warbler
throughout its range.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued
existence
Island populations have a higher risk of extinction than mainland
populations. Ninety percent of bird species that have been driven to
extinction were island species (as cited in Frankham 1997, p. 311).
Based on genetics alone, endemic island species are predicted to have
higher extinction rates than nonendemic island populations (Frankham
2007, p. 321). Small, isolated populations may experience decreased
demographic viability (population birth and death rates, immigration
and emigration rates, and sex ratios), increased susceptibility of
extinction from stochastic environmental factors (e.g., weather events,
disease), and an increased threat of extinction from genetic isolation
and subsequent inbreeding depression and genetic drift.
Although the population of Eiao warblers appears to be stable, the
subspecies is found on only one island and is vulnerable to stochastic
events. Furthermore, the warblers are limited to the fraction of the
island's area that contains suitable habitat. Eradication of feral
livestock is needed to allow recovery of native vegetation and provide
additional suitable habitat throughout the island. Expansion and
recovery of native vegetation will permit the subspecies to recover
beyond the current population of 2,000 individuals and buffer the
subspecies against impacts from stochastic events.
In summary, the limited range of the Eiao warbler makes this
subspecies extremely vulnerable to stochastic events and, therefore,
extinction. Additional habitat is needed to expand the population and
buffer the subspecies from the detrimental effects typical of small
island populations. Therefore, we find that other natural or manmade
factors threaten the continued existence of the Eiao warbler throughout
its range.
Status Determination for the Eiao Polynesian Warbler
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Eiao Polynesian warbler. The subspecies is
currently at risk on Eiao Island due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A) and stochastic events
associated with the subspecies' restricted range (Factor E).
Furthermore, we have determined that the existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate the current threats to the
subspecies.
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the Eiao
Polynesian warbler throughout its entire range, as described above, we
determine that this subspecies is in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the Eiao
Polynesian warbler as an endangered subspecies throughout all of its
range. Because we find that the Eiao Polynesian warbler is endangered
throughout all of its range, there is no reason to consider its status
in a significant portion of its range.
III. Greater Adjutant (Leptoptilos dubiu)
Species Description
The greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius) is a very large (145 to
150 cm long (4.7 to 4.9 ft)) species of stork in the family Ciconiidae.
This species is characterized by a naked pink head and a low-hanging
neck pouch. Its bill is very thick and yellow in color. The plumage
ruff of the neck is white, and other than a pale grey leading edge on
each wing, the rest of the greater adjutant's body is dark grey
(Birdlife International (BLI) 2009a, unpaginated).
This species of bird once was common across much of Southeast
Asia, occurring in India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Sumatra, Java, and Borneo. Large breeding
colonies occurred in Myanmar; however, this colony collapsed in the
mid-1900s (Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 264).
The current distribution of this species consists of two breeding
populations, one in India and the other in Cambodia. Recent sighting
records of this species from the neighboring countries of Nepal,
Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand are presumed to be wandering birds
from one of the two populations in India and Cambodia (BLI 2009a,
unpaginated).
India: The most recent range-wide population estimate for this
species in India (600 to 800 birds) comes from data collected in 1995
through 1996 (Singha et al. 2003, p. 146). Approximately 11 breeding
sites are located in the Brahmaputra Valley in the State of Assam
(Singha et al. 2003, p.147). Recent information indicates that
populations of this species continue to decline in India. At two
breeding sites near the city of Guwahati in the State of Assam, the
most recent survey data show that the number of breeding birds has
declined from 247 birds in 2005 to 118 birds in 2007 (Hindu 2007,
unpaginated).
In India, much of the greater adjutant's native habitat has been
lost. The greater adjutant uses habitat in three national parks in
India; however, almost all nesting colonies in India are found outside
of the national parks. The greater adjutant often occurs close to urban
areas; the species feeds in and around wetlands in the breeding season,
and disperses to scavenge at trash dumps, burial grounds, and slaughter
houses at other times of the year. The natural diet of the greater
adjutant consists primarily of fish, frogs, reptiles, small mammals and
birds, crustaceans, and carrion (Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 266).
This species breeds in colonies during the dry season (winter) in
stands of tall trees near water sources. In India, the greater adjutant
prefers to nest in large, widely branched trees in a tightly spaced
colony with little foliage cover and food sources nearby (Singha et al.
2002, p. 214). The breeding sites are also commonly associated with
bamboo forests which provide protection from
[[Page 294]]
heavy rain during the pre-monsoon season (Singha et al. 2002, p. 218).
Each adult female greater adjutant commonly lays two eggs each year
(Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 266).
Cambodia: Currently there are two known breeding populations in
Cambodia. The larger of these two populations occurs in the Tonle Sap
Biosphere Reserve (TSBR) near Tonle Sap Lake and has recently been
estimated at 77 breeding pairs (Clements et al. 2007, p. 7). The Tonle
Sap floodplain (and associated rivers) is considered one of the few
remaining remnants of freshwater swamp forest in the region.
Approximately 5,490 km2 (2,120 mi2) of the freshwater swamp forest
ecoregion is protected in Cambodia. Of this amount, the Tonle Sap Great
Lake Protected Area (which includes the Tonle Sap floodplain) makes up
5,420 km2 (2,092 mi2) of that protected habitat (WWF 2007, p. 3).
A smaller population of greater adjutants was recently discovered
in the Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary in the Northern Plains of
Cambodia. This population has been estimated at 40 birds (Clements
2008, pers. comm.; BLI 2009, unpaginated). Although other breeding
sites have not yet been found in Cambodia, researchers expect that the
greater adjutant may nest along the Mekong River in the eastern
provinces of Mondulkiri, Ratanakiri, Stung Treng, and Kratie in
Cambodia (Clement 2008, pers. comm.).
In Cambodia, the greater adjutant breeds in freshwater flooded
forest, and disperses to seasonally inundated forest, tall wet
grasslands, mangroves, and intertidal flats to forage. These forests
are characterized by deciduous tropical hardwoods (Dipterocarpaceae
family) and semi-evergreen forest (containing a mix of deciduous and
evergreen trees) interspersed with meadows, ponds, and other wetlands
(WWF 2006b, p. 1).
Conservation Status
The IUCN classifies the greater adjutant as critically endangered.
In India, the greater adjutant is listed under Schedule I of the Indian
Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. The species is not listed in the
Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Greater Adjutant
A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range
India: The greater adjutant occurs in Kaziranga, Manas, and
Diburu-Saikhowa National Parks. However, nearly all breeding sites for
this species are located outside of protected areas (Singha et al.
2003, p. 148). The ongoing loss of habitat through habitat conversion
for development and agriculture is a primary threat to the greater
adjutant. The clearing of trees that are suitable for breeding sites is
a serious threat to this species. The recent decline in the population
at the breeding colonies near Guwahai, India, is believed to be caused
by tree removal at the breeding site and filling of wetlands in an area
near the city that had been used by the greater adjutant as feeding
areas (Hindu 2007, unpaginated). These activities were undertaken for
the purpose of expanding residential developments in the city. The
species is also seasonally dependent on wetlands for forage. These
sites are impacted in India by drainage, encroachment, and overfishing.
For instance, some sites have reportedly experienced encroachment from
rice cultivation (BLI 2001, p. 284).
Singha et al. 2002 (pp. 218-219) found that preferred nest trees
were significantly larger and different in structure to non-nest trees
near Nagaon in central Assam. The nest trees were large and widely
branched with thin foliage cover (Singha et al. 2002, p. 214).
Researchers believe that removal of preferred nesting trees at breeding
may result in adjutants nesting in suboptimal trees at existing nest
sites or relocating to other suboptimal nest sites. The trees and their
limbs at suboptimal breeding sites are smaller in diameter, and the
structure of the limbs does not always support the combined weight of
the nest, adults, and chicks. As chicks grow older, nest limbs often
break, sending the half grown chicks tumbling from the nest.
Approximately 15 percent of chicks die after falling from their nests,
for a variety of causes, including injuries and abandonment (Singha et
al. 2006, p. 315). Some efforts have been made to reduce chick
mortality, like those employed at two breeding sites near Nagaon from
2001 to 2003 (Singha et al. 2006, pp. 315-320). Safety nets are placed
under the canopy of nest trees to catch falling chicks. Chicks are
either replaced in their nest, if on-site monitors can determine which
nest the chick came from, or raised in captivity and later released.
Juvenile birds were monitored after their release, and the program is
considered a success (Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 268; Singha et al.
2006, pp. 315-320). Though some efforts have been undertaken to reduce
chick mortality due to falls from nests, loss of chicks based on
nesting in sub-optimal breeding sites is likely still occurring at
other breeding sites.
Cambodia: The largest breeding colonies are located in the Tonle
Sap Biosphere Reserve, which consists primarily of the Tonle Sap Lake
and its floodplain. A second breeding population occurs in the Kulen
Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary in the Northern Plains. Poole (2002, p. 35)
reported that large nesting trees around Cambodia's Tonle Sap
floodplain, particularly crucial to greater adjutants for nesting, are
under increasing pressure by felling for firewood and building
material. Poole (2002, p. 35) concluded that a lack of nesting trees,
both at Tonle Sap and in the Northern Plains, may be the most serious
threat in the future to large water bird colonies.
The Mekong River Basin flows through several countries in
Southeast Asia, including Tibet, China, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand,
Cambodia, and Laos, traveling over 4,800 km (2,980 mi) from start to
finish. In Cambodia, the Mekong River flows into the Tonle Sap
floodplain. Tonle Sap Lake expands and contracts throughout the year as
a result of rainfall from monsoons and the flow of the Mekong River.
The lake acts as a storage reservoir at different times of the year to
regulate flooding in the Mekong Delta (Davidson 2005, p. 3). This
flooding also results in flooded forests and shrublands, which provides
seasonal habitat to several species. The Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve is
one of Southeast Asia's most important wetlands for biodiversity and is
particularly crucial for birds, reptiles, and plant assemblages
(Davidson 2005, p. 6).
Upstream developments in the Mekong have already led to
significant trapping of sediments and nutrients in upstream reservoirs,
which could lead to increased bed and bank erosion downstream, as well
as decreased productivity (Kummu and Varis 2007, pp. 289, 291).
According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB 2005, p. 2), 13 dams have
been built, are being built, or are proposed to be built along the
Mekong River. Proposed hydroelectric dams along the Mekong River in
countries upstream from Cambodia have the potential to adversely affect
the habitat of the greater adjutant by affecting the hydrology of the
basin and reducing the overall foraging habitat and the abundance of
prey species during the breeding season (Clements et al. 2007, p. 59).
In addition, decline in productivity of the habitat, and thereby prey
species abundance, may increase competition for food, and increased
releases from upstream dams during the dry season could result in
permanent flooding of these forests that will eventually kill the trees
in these areas
[[Page 295]]
(Clements et al. 2007, p. 59). Under some scenarios, up to half of the
core area (21,342 ha (52,737 ac)) of the Prek Toal area in the Tonle
Sap Biosphere Reserve could be affected.
Summary of Factor A
This species continues to face significant ongoing threats to its
breeding and foraging habitat in both India and Cambodia. In India,
activities such as the draining and filling of wetlands (Hindu 2007,
unpaginated), removal of nest trees, and encroachment on habitat
significantly impact this species (BLI 2001, p. 284). In Cambodia,
threats include tree removal (Poole 2002, p. 35) and large-scale
hydrologic changes due to existing dams and proposed dam construction
(Clements et al. 2007, p. 59; Kummu and Varis, pp. 287-288). The latter
threat could potentially eliminate habitat in protected areas such as
the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, and it could additionally reduce
productivity of these areas, which would further impact the species by
affecting the foraging base and potentially increasing competition with
other species (Clements et al. 2007, p. 59). Therefore, we find that
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the habitat or range is a threat to the continued existence of the
greater adjutant throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes
Local communities collect bird eggs and chicks for consumption and
for trade in both India and Cambodia. This is considered a primary
threat to the birds in Cambodia, where fledglings are also taken
(Clements 2008, pers. comm.). Due to their rarity, greater adjutants
are believed to have a high market value, which increases the
likelihood this type of activity will continue. The implementation of
bird nest protection programs has been developed by the Wildlife
Conservation Society, working with local villages such as the program
at Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary (ACCB 2009, unpaginated). Although
the impacts from large-scale collection of bird eggs and chicks has
been reduced through these programs, collection still remains a threat
to the species.
Accounts of poisoning, netting, trapping, and shooting of adult
birds were also reported at various locations in both India and
Cambodia during the 1990s (BLI 2001, pp. 285-286). In India, some birds
were shot because of perceived impact on fish stocks, others in hunts
(BLI 2001, p. 285). In Cambodia, some birds were captured to be sold as
food and for use as pets, and some were also hunted (BLI 2001, p. 286).
Birds are also likely inadvertently injured or killed as a result of
destructive fishing techniques in Cambodia such as electro-fishing and
the use of poisons (Clements 2008, pers. comm.). In a 1999 article, the
Phnom Penh Post (as reported in Environmental Justice Foundation 2002,
p. 25) reported that pesticides are used to kill both fish and wildlife
species at Tonle Sap.
In summary, although we are unaware of any scientific or
educational purpose for which the adjutant is used, local communities
are known to collect bird eggs, chicks, and adults for consumption and
other purposes (e.g., pet trade and perceived threat to fish stocks) in
either or both India or Cambodia (BLI 2001, pp. 285-286). Further, even
though nest protection programs are being implemented, these programs
are insufficient to adequately protect the species. Therefore, we find
that overutilization due to commercial and recreational purposes is a
threat to the continued existence of the greater adjutant throughout
its range.
C. Disease or predation
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 continues to be a
serious problem for this species. This strain of avian influenza first
appeared in Asia in 1996, and spread from country to country with rapid
succession as found by Peterson et al. (2007, p. 1). By 2006, the virus
was detected across most of Europe and in several African countries.
Influenza A viruses, to which group strain H5N1 belongs, infects
domestic animals and humans, but wildfowl and shorebirds are considered
the primary source of this virus in nature (Olsen et al. 2006, p. 384).
Though it is still unclear if the greater adjutant is a carrier, lack
of an avian influenza wild bird surveillance program in Cambodia will
make it difficult to resolve this question.
Until recently, there was no information on predation affecting
the greater adjutant. However, recent research on other waterbirds
suggests that predation may impact the greater adjutant in Cambodia.
For example, nesting surveys for several waterbirds were conducted
between 2004 and 2007 at the Prek Toal area in Tonle Sap Biosphere
Reserve. These surveys included monitoring of nest sites. Human
disturbances at nest sites due to illegal collection of chicks and eggs
resulted in an increase of predation by crows (Corvus spp.) on spot-
billed pelicans in the 2001-2002 breeding season, causing up to 100
percent loss of reproduction, and again in the 2002-2003 breeding
season, resulting in up to 60 percent loss in reproduction due to a
combination of collection and predation. In some locations, the spot-
billed pelicans abandoned their nests for the remainder of the breeding
season (Clements et al. 2007, p. 57). It is likely that other
waterbirds, such as the greater adjutant at Prek Toal would be
similarly affected due to illegal collection of eggs by humans, nest
site disturbance, and subsequent increase in crow presence, thereby
increasing the predation of their chicks and eggs.
In summary, although incidence of local residents collecting eggs
and chicks for consumption has been reduced in some areas due to
educational and enforcement programs, these impacts still occur. At the
largest breeding sites for this species in India, reproductive success
is low, less than one chick per nest per year. Because the total
population of the greater adjutant is fewer than 1,000 birds, the loss
of eggs and chicks in populations in India and Cambodia is a
significant threat to the species. In addition, there may be secondary
impacts due to predation by crows. Therefore, we find that predation is
a threat to the continued existence of the greater adjutant throughout
its range.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
The greater adjutant is classified as critically endangered by the
IUCN. Although there is evidence of commercial trade across the
Cambodia border into Laos and Thailand, this species is currently not
listed under CITES.
India: The greater adjutant is listed under Schedule I of the
Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 (IWPA). Schedule I provides
absolute protection, with the greatest penalties for offenses. This law
prohibits hunting, possession, sale, and transport of listed species.
The IWPA also provides for the designation and management of
sanctuaries and national parks for the purposes of protecting,
propagating, or developing wildlife or its environment. Protected areas
in India allow for regulated levels of human use and disturbance and
are managed to prevent widespread clearing and complete loss of
suitable habitat. Although the greater adjutant uses habitat in three
national parks in India, almost all nesting colonies of this species in
India are found outside of protected areas (Singha et al. 2003, p.
148). Some of the species' foraging areas are also located outside of
protected areas. As stated above in Factor A, the ongoing loss of
habitat through habitat
[[Page 296]]
conversion for development and agriculture is a primary threat to this
species. The regulatory mechanisms currently in place in India do not
provide protection of habitat for the greater adjutant outside of
existing protected areas such as national parks, and therefore are not
adequate.
Cambodia: Areas designated as natural areas by the Ministry of
Environment, such as the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, are to be managed
for the protection of the natural resources contained within. Portions
of the Biosphere Reserve have also been designated as areas of
importance under the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance
of 1971.
The Mekong River Commission (MRC) was formed between the
governments of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Vietnam in 1995 as part
of the Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of
the Mekong River Basin. The signatories agreed to jointly manage their
shared water resources and the economic development of the river (MRC
2007, p. 1-2). According to the Asian Development Bank, 13 dams have
been built, are being built, or are proposed to be built along the
Mekong River (ADB 2005, p. 2). The continued modification of greater
adjutant habitat has been identified as a primary threat to this
species (Factor A), and this regional regulatory mechanism is not
effective at reducing that threat.
Several laws exist in Cambodia to protect the greater adjutant
from two of the primary threats to the species: habitat destruction and
hunting. However, they are ineffective at reducing those threats. In
Cambodia, Declaration No. 359, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries in 1994, prohibits the hunting of greater
adjutant. However, reports of severe hunting pressure within the
greater adjutant's habitat exist and illegal poaching of wildlife in
Cambodia continues (Bird et al. 2006, p. 23; Poole 2002, pp. 34-35;
UNEP-SEF 2005, pp. 23, 27).
The Creation and Designation of Protected Areas regulation
(November 1993) established a national system of protected areas. In
1994, through Declaration No. 1033 on the Protection of Natural Areas,
the following activities were banned in all protected areas:
(1) Construction of saw mills, charcoal ovens, brick kilns, tile
kilns, limestone ovens, tobacco ovens;
(2) hunting or placement of traps for tusks, bones, feathers,
horns, leather, or blood;
(3) deforestation;
(4) mining minerals or use of explosives;
(5) the use of domestic animals such as dogs;
(6) dumping of pollutants;
(7) the use of machines or heavy cars which may cause smoke
pollution;
(8) noise pollution; and
(9) unpermitted research and experiments.
In addition, the Law on Environmental Protection and Natural
Resource Management of 1996 sets forth general provisions for
environmental protection. Under Article 8 of this law, Cambodia
declares that its natural resources (including wildlife) shall be
conserved, developed, and managed and used in a rational and
sustainable manner.
Protected Areas have been established within the range of the
greater adjutant, such as the Tonle Sap Lake Biosphere Reserve. The
Tonle Sap Great Lake protected area was designated a multi-purpose
protected area in 1993 (Matsui et al. 2006, p. 411). Under this decree,
Multiple Use Management Areas are those areas which provide for the
sustainable use of water resources, timber, wildlife, fish, pasture,
and recreation; the conservation of nature is primarily oriented to
support these economic activities. In 1997, the Tonle Sap region was
nominated as a Biosphere Reserve under UNESCO's (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) ``Man and the
Biosphere Program.'' The Cambodian government developed a National
Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) in 1997, supporting the UNESCO site
goals. Among the priority areas of intervention are fisheries and
floodplain agriculture at Tonle Sap Lake, biodiversity and protected
areas, and environmental education. NEAP was followed by the adoption
of the Strategy and Action Plan for the Protection of Tonle Sap
(SAPPTS) in February 1998 (Matsui et al. 2006, p. 411), and the
issuance of a Royal Decree officially creating Tonle Sap Lake a
Biosphere Reserve (TSBR) on April 10, 2001. The royal decree was
followed by a subdecree by the Prime Minister to establish a
Secretariat, along with its roles and functions, for the TSBR with the
understanding that its objectives could not be achieved without
cooperation and coordination among relevant stakeholders (TSBR
Secretariat 2007, p. 1).
Joint Declaration No. 1563, on the Suppression of Wildlife
Destruction in the Kingdom of Cambodia, was issued by the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries in 1996. Although the Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA 1999, p. 19) reported that this
regulatory measure was ineffectively enforced, some strides have been
made recently through the combined efforts of WCS, the Cambodian
government, and local communities at Tonle Sap Lake. WCS Cambodia
(2009, unpaginated) reports that the illegal wildlife trade in Cambodia
is ``enormous'' and driven by demand for meat and traditional medicines
in Thailand, Vietnam, and China. Substantial progress has been made in
protecting seven species of waterbirds at Prek Toal Core Area in the
TSBR, increasing populations of some species tenfold by working with
the primary management agencies and working at the field level to
improve community engagement, law enforcement, and long-term research
and monitoring (WCS Cambodia 2009, unpaginated).
The Forestry Law of 2002 strictly prohibits hunting, harming, or
harassing wildlife (Article 49) (Law on Forestry 2003). This law
further prohibits the possession, trapping, transport, or trade in rare
and endangered wildlife (Article 49). However, to our knowledge,
Cambodia has not yet published a list of endangered or rare species.
Thus, this law is not currently effective at protecting the greater
adjutant from threats by hunting.
In 2006, the Cambodian government created Integrated Farming and
Biodiversity Areas (IFBA), including over 161 km (100 mi) of grassland
(over 30,000 ha (74,132 ac)) near Tonle Sap Lake to protect the Bengal
florican, an endangered bird in that region (WWF 2006a, pp. 1-2). The
above measures have focused attention on the conservation situation at
TSBR and have begun to improve the conservation of the area and its
wildlife there, but several management challenges remain. These
challenges include overexploitation of flooded forests and fisheries;
negative impacts from invasive species; lack of monitoring and
enforcement; low level of public awareness of biodiversity values; and
uncoordinated research, monitoring, and evaluation of species'
populations (Matsui et al. 2006, pp. 409-418; TSBR Secretariat 2007,
pp. 1-6).
Even though these wildlife laws exist, greater adjutant habitat
within Cambodian protected areas faces several challenges. The legal
framework governing wetlands management is institutionally complex. It
rests upon legislation vested in government agencies responsible for
land use planning (Land Law 2001), resource use (Fishery Law 1987), and
environmental conservation (Environmental Law 1996, Royal Decree on the
Designation and
[[Page 297]]
Creation of National Protected Areas System 1993); however, there is no
interministerial coordinating mechanism nationally for wetland planning
and management (Bonheur et al. 2005, p. 9). As a result of this
institutional complexity and lack of defined jurisdiction, natural
resource use goes largely unregulated (Bonheur et al. 2005, p. 9).
Thus, the protected areas system in Cambodia is ineffective in removing
or reducing the threats of habitat modification and hunting faced by
the greater adjutant.
Summary of Factor D
Existing regulatory mechanisms in both India and Cambodia are
ineffective at reducing or removing threats to the species such as
habitat modification and collection of eggs and chicks for consumption.
Although progress has been made recently in the protection of nests and
birds at specific locations, this has largely been driven by measures
from the private sector. We believe that the inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms, especially with regard to lack of law enforcement and
habitat protection, is a significant risk factor for the greater
adjutant. Therefore we find that existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to ameliorate the current threats to the greater adjutant
throughout its range.
E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species' continued
existence
India: Due to a lack of natural foraging areas and availability of
native wildlife carcasses to feed upon, the greater adjutant is known
to commonly forage in refuge dumps and slaughterhouses during certain
times of the year. Researchers believe that along with the refuse at
these sites, these birds are inadvertently ingesting household
contaminants and plastics that can adversely affect their health and
reproductive capability (Singha et al. 2003, p. 148; BLI 2009a,
unpaginated). In addition, pesticide has been used in winter to kill
fish at a national park in India, and may be a widespread practice
throughout the Brahmaputra lowlands (BLI 2001, p. 287). As the
remaining natural foraging habitat for this species continues to
shrink, the level of foraging at refuge dumps and slaughter houses is
expected to increase, thereby increasing the incidence of greater
adjutants ingesting contaminants at these sites. Also, the use of
pesticides in and near water sources in the Brahmaputra lowlands may
result in further contamination to the species.
Cambodia: Increasing use of agro-chemicals, especially pesticides,
is a major concern in the TSBR and throughout Cambodia. A survey
conducted in Cambodian agriculture practices in 2000 showed that 67
percent of farms used pesticides. Of these farms, 44 percent began
using pesticides in the 1980s, and 23 percent began using them in the
1990s (Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) 2002, p. 13). All of the
pesticides used in Cambodia are produced outside of the country, and
the labels, which include information on the appropriate use of these
chemicals, are often not written in a language understandable to local
villagers (EJF 2002, p. 18). A Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) study found that only 1 percent of vegetable
farmers received technical training in pesticide use (EJF 2002, p. 17).
This problem often leads to overuse of these highly toxic compounds.
In Cambodia, organochlorine insecticides, such as dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and organophosphate insecticides such
as methyl-parathion are commonly used. Organochlorine insecticides are
known to accumulate in aquatic systems and concentrate in the organs of
species of waterbirds such as the greater adjutant. The effects of
persistent organic pesticides are variable depending on concentration
and species, but can include direct mortality, feminization of embryos,
reduced hormones for egg-laying, and egg-shell thinning (EJF 2002, p.
24).
In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use of DDT was banned in most
developed countries; however, it is still used for agriculture in
Cambodia. In recent years, mong bean farmers in Siem Reap province are
estimated to have applied 10 tons of a pesticide mix of DDT, Thiodan
(endosulfan), and methyl-parathion on fields that are submerged in the
wet season and thus capable of polluting the Tonle Sap basin (EJF 2002,
p. 25). In addition, methyl-parathion and endosulfan are used in
illegal fishing (EJF 2002, p. 14). Methyl-parathion is considered
highly toxic to birds and may take 2 weeks to degrade in lakes and
rivers. The decline in the number of some bird species from around the
Tonle Sap Lake may be partly due to pesticide poisoning (EJF 2002, p.
25). Further, because higher levels of persistent organochlorines have
been recorded in freshwater fish and mussels than marine fish and
mussels, the source of these compounds is likely inland watersheds (EJF
2002, p. 24). Although we could not locate any specific contaminant
reports on the amount of these toxic chemicals found in greater
adjutants based on the above data, it is likely that the persistent use
of these compounds is contributing to the decline of this species.
Summary of Factor E
The use of pesticides occurs in both India and Cambodia for a
variety of reasons, including agriculture, fishing, and insect control.
As human interactions with the adjutant continue to increase, the
chances of poisoning of the species, both directly and indirectly, also
continue to rise. Therefore we find that other natural or manmade
factors affecting the continued existence of the species in the form of
pesticide use and ingesting other contaminants is a threat to the
greater adjutant throughout its range.
Status Determination for the Greater Adjutant
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the greater adjutant. The species is currently
at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A); overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes in the
form of hunting, egg and chick collection, and trapping (Factor B);
predation (Factor C); inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D); and other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence in the form of overuse of toxic compounds (Factor
E).
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the greater
adjutant throughout its entire range, as described above, we determine
that this species is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to list the greater adjutant as an
endangered species throughout all of its range. Because we find that
the greater adjutant is endangered throughout all of its range, there
is no reason to consider its status in a significant portion of its
range.
[[Page 298]]
IV. Jerdon's courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus)
Species Description
The Jerdon's courser, also known as the double-banded courser
(Rhinoptilus bitorquatus), is a small, nocturnal bird, which is
specialized for running and belongs to the family Glareolidae (Bhushan
1986, pp. 1, 6; Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al.
2004b, p. 7). It was first described by T. C. Jerdon in 1848 (Bhushan
1986, p. 1; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 1). This species averages 27 cm
(11 in) in length, its plumage consists of two brown bands around its
breast, a blackish colored crown, a broad buff-colored supercilium
(eyebrow stripe), an orange patch that runs from its throat down to its
chest, and it has a short yellow bill with a black tip (BLI 2009b,
unpaginated).
The Jerdon's courser is a rare species of bird that is endemic to
the Eastern Ghats of the states of Andhra Pradesh and extreme southern
Madhya Pradesh in India (BLI 2009b, unpaginated). The size of the
population is not known. Historically, this species was reported in the
Khamman, Nellore, and Anantapur districts of Andhra Pradesh and the
Gadchiroli District of Maharashtra (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5).
Until 1900, its presence was periodically recorded, including some
records in the Pennar and Godavari river valleys and near Anantapur
(Bhushan 1986, p. 2; Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al.
2004b, p. 7; Jeganathan et al. 2006, p. 227). Efforts by various
ornithologists in the early 1930s and mid to late 1970s to record the
presence of this species failed, leading to the belief that the species
was extinct (Bhushan 1986, p. 2; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7). In
1986, the Jerdon's courser was rediscovered near Reddipalli village,
Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh (Bhushan 1986, pp. 8-9; Jeganathan et
al. 2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; Jeganathan et al.
2005, p. 3; Jeganathan et al. 2006, p. 227; Senapathi et al. 2007, p.
1).
The area where the species was rediscovered was designated as the
Sri Lankamaleswara Wildlife Sanctuary (SLWS) (Jeganathan et al. 2004b,
p. 7; Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 3). After its rediscovery, it was only
observed regularly at a few sites in and around the SLWS (Jeganathan et
al. 2004b, p. 7, 18; Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5; Jeganathan et al.
2006, p. 227; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1), including reports of its
presence in Sri Penusula Narasimha Wildlife Sanctuary (SPNWS) in the
Cuddapah and Nellore districts, Andhra Pradesh (Jeganathan et al. 2005,
p. 3). It has since been found at three additional localities
(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 228; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 20; BLI
2009b, unpaginated).
Due to the nocturnal nature of the species and the wooded nature
of its habitat, individuals are rarely seen; therefore, very little
information is available on the distribution, ecology, population size,
and habitat requirements of the Jerdon's courser (Jeganathan et al.
2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; Jeganathan et al. 2005,
p. 3; Jeganathan et al. 2006, p. 227; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1). New
survey techniques have allowed researchers to detect the presence and
absence of Jerdon's courser using track strips and a tape playback of
the species call. These methods can be useful in mapping the geographic
range of the Jerdon's courser and in estimating the population size,
and have contributed to a better understanding of habitat preferences.
Surveys have not been conducted in all areas with suitable habitat
characteristics; additional surveys are needed to confirm the current
range and population size of this species. Although the size of the
population is not known, it is believed to be a small, declining
population (Jeganathan 2004b, p. 7; BLI 2009b, unpaginated; IUCN 2009c,
unpaginated).
The Jerdon's courser inhabits open patches within scrub-forest
interspersed with patches of bare ground, in gently undulating, rocky
foothills (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1).
Studies show that this species is most likely to occur where the
density of large bushes (greater than 2 m (6 ft) tall) ranges from 300
to 700 per ha (121-283 large bushes per acre) and the density of
smaller bushes (less than 2 m (6 ft) tall) is less than 1,000 per ha
(404 per acre) (Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 228; Jeganathan et al.
2004b, p. 22; Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5; Senapathi et al. 2007, p.
1). The dominant woody vegetation includes species of shrub,
particularly Zizyphus rugosa, Carissa carandas, and Acacia horrida
(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 228; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 22).
The amount of suitable habitat that existed for this species in
2000 was estimated to be approximately 3,847 km2 (1,485 mi2) of scrub
habitat in the Cuddapah and Nellore districts of the State of Andhra
Pradesh (Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 6). Jeganathan (2008, pers. comm.)
further stated that the amount of suitable habitat available in and
around the SLWS is approximately 132 km2 (51 mi2). A comprehensive
habitat assessment of all the shrub habitat areas within the historic
range of this species has not yet been completed; therefore, suitable
habitat may occur elsewhere for this species.
Little information is known about feeding habits or feeding areas
of this species. The only information known comes from the analysis of
two Jerdon's courser fecal samples, which consisted mainly of termites
and ants. Jeganathan (2004a, p. 234) suggested that despite being
nocturnal and affected by the shadowing effects of the canopy, coursers
may be able to see invertebrate prey on the ground by selecting
relatively well-illuminated open areas.
There is no information on the life history of the Jerdon's
courser; no nests or young birds have ever been found, although the
footprints of a young bird along with an adult Jerdon's courser
suggests successful breeding is taking place (Jeganathan et al. 2004b,
pp. 17, 29). The calling period is brief, starting approximately 45 to
50 minutes after sunset and continuing for a few minutes to
approximately 20 minutes.
Conservation Status
Due to the single, small, and declining population of the Jerdon's
courser, it is classified as ``critically endangered'' by the IUCN
(Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1; Jeganathan
et al. 2008, p. 73; IUCN 2009c, unpaginated), a category assigned to
species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. It is
also listed under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of
1972. The species has not been formally considered for listing in the
Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Jerdon's Courser
A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range
The primary threat to the persistence of the Jerdon's courser is
habitat destruction and alteration due to conversion of suitable
habitat to agriculture lands, grazing, and construction within and
around the SLWS and SPNWS, and increasing settlements (Jeganathan 2005
et al. 2005, p. 6; Norris 2008, pers. comm.; Jeganathan 2009, pers.
comm..). Agriculture is the main occupation of the people living in the
area. The State of Andhra Pradesh has experienced growth of intensive
agricultural practices in recent years (Senapathi et al. 2007, pg. 2),
with paddy (Oryza sativa), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), cotton
(Gossypium sp.), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), finger millet (Eleusince
coracana), turmeric
[[Page 299]]
(Curcuma longa), and onion (Allium cepa) being the major crops of the
area (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 77). From 1991 to 2000, scrub habitat
in the Cuddapah District and parts of the Nellore District in Andhra
Pradesh decreased by 11-15 percent, while the area occupied by
agricultural land more than doubled (109 percent increase) during the
same time period. Remaining scrub patches were also found to be smaller
(38.4 percent decrease) and further from human settlements (Senapathi
et al. 2007, pp. 1, 4; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76).
The main causes for the loss of scrub habitat were human
settlements and subsequent conversions of scrub habitat to agriculture
and cleared areas (Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 6). From 2001 to 2004, an
estimated 480 ha (1,186 ac) of scrub habitat were cleared within and
around the SLWS, 275 ha (680 ac) of which were cleared to provide land
for agriculture to the people of India who were displaced by floods and
for farming of lemons and forestry plantations. These cleared areas
fall within 1 km (0.6 mi) of previously known and newly discovered
Jerdon's courser areas (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76). From 2000 to
2005, Jeganathan et al. (2008, p. 77) noted that approximately 215 ha
(531 ac) of scrub habitat outside of the SLWS were cleared and most
likely will become lemon farms. The irrigation required to sustain
agricultural activities will likely further fragment any remaining
suitable habitat (Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 7).
The Jerdon's courser inhabits open patches within scrub-forest and
prefers areas with moderate densities of trees and brush (Jeganathan et
al. 2004a, p. 234). Researchers believe this open habitat is maintained
by grazing animals and some woodcutting (Norris 2008, pers. comm.).
Known Jerdon's courser sites are already being used for grazing
livestock and woodcutting, but at moderate levels that maintain the
appropriate vegetation structure (Jeganathan 2005, p. 15). Mechanical
clearing of bushes to create pasture, orchards, and tilled land; high
levels of woodcutting; and high level of use by domestic livestock are
likely to cause deterioration in scrub habitat by creating a scrub
forest that is too open for the Jerdon's courser. However, low levels
of grazing by livestock or absence of woodcutting may also lead to
habitat that is more closed and, therefore, unsuitable (Jeganathan et
al. 2004a, p. 234; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 23; Norris 2008, pers.
comm.).
Land in SLWS and adjacent areas is used by the people from
villages in Sagileru valley for grazing herds of domestic buffalo
(Bubalus bubalis), sheep (Ovis aries), and goats (Capra hircus), and
for woodcutting (Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 9). Jeganathan (2008,
pers. comm.) states that most of the potentially suitable habitat for
Jerdon's courser is located on the fringe of the forest and can be
easily accessed by locals for grazing and woodcutting. Jeganathan et
al. (2008, p. 77) notes three types of grazing within and around the
SLWS and SPNWS. The first includes shepherds who bring goats, sheep,
and buffalo into the scrub habitat in and around the sanctuaries every
morning, grazing 2-3 km (1-2 mi) into the forest before returning to
the villages in the evening. The second includes nomads with 200-300
cattle. Although they are invited by farmers to help fertilize the
lemon farms, they stay 3 to 4 months and graze in the forested areas in
and around the sanctuaries. The third includes sheep that graze inside
the sanctuaries throughout the year; however, this type of grazing did
not occur in scrub habitat. Furthermore, a common practice is to cut
and bend the branches of scrub and tree species to facilitate better
access for grazing (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 78). In addition, the
people of the local villages also use the sanctuaries for timber and
nontimber forest products; including fuel wood, illegal wood
collecting, grass, and bamboo. From 2001 to 2003, Jeganathan et al.
(2008, pp. 77-78) regularly observed wood loads being removed by either
head loads, bullock cart, or tractor.
Development activities within the SLWS, including the construction
of check dams, and percolation ponds, and digging of trenches, have
been observed in known and newly recorded areas of the Jerdon's courser
(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, pp. 26, 28; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76).
Approximately 0.5 to 1 ha (1-2 ac) of scrub forest was cleared for each
of five percolation ponds dug near the main Jerdon's courser area and
exotic plant species planted on the embankment. In addition, scrub
habitat was thinned (removal of all scrub species except saplings), and
pits for collecting rainwater were dug (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76).
Furthermore, various sizes of stones were collected from the scrub
jungle within and around the SLWS for road construction every year.
Collection included digging of stones with crowbars, collection of
stones in heavy vehicles, and the excavation of 15 large pits
(Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76).
Construction of dams and reservoirs and river floods in the area
has resulted in the relocation of villages near the SLWS and SPNWS.
Fifty-seven villages were relocated closer to SLWS after the
construction of the Somasila dam. Fifteen were displaced due to the
construction of the Sri Potuluri Veera Brahmendraswamy (SPVB)
Reservoir. Currently, there are approximately 146 villages between the
SLWS and SPNWS (Jeganathan et al. 2008, pp. 76-77). There are more
villages in the area of Somasila and SPVB Reservoir that could be
relocated near the sanctuaries in the future, and there are plans to
increase the height of the Somasila dam, which will cause the
displacement of more villages near the southeastern part of SLWS
(Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 77). With the relocation and expansion of
human settlements, there is concern over additional land conversion for
agriculture, increased pressure for grazing and woodcutting, and
further development.
At the time of the Jerdon's courser rediscovery in 1986, the only
known site where the species was found was under threat from a project
to construct the Telugu-Ganga canal through its habitat. The Andhra
Pradesh Forestry Department (APFD) and the State Government of Andhra
Pradesh responded by designating the site as the SLWS to protect the
species. The proposed route of the canal was adjusted to avoid the
sanctuary (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 6; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p.
78). However, in 2005, construction of the Telugu-Ganga canal began,
illegally, within the SLWS. Construction was stopped immediately once
the APFD was notified (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 6; Kohli 2006,
unpaginated). Illegal excavation was reported even after construction
was stopped and the contracting company fined (Kohli 2006,
unpaginated). A report by the Bombay National History Society (BNHS)
found that 80 to 100 m (263 to 328 ft) were cleared for canals that
were 16 to 20 m (53 to 66 ft) wide. It also found that approximately 22
ha (54 ac) of potentially suitable habitat were cleared and one of the
three newly recorded sites for the Jerdon's courser was destroyed by
the illegal construction within the SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p.
12; BNHS 2007, p. 1; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 73). The report also
assessed the potential impacts of the proposed realignment and
determined that the construction of the canal would still impact 650 ha
(1,606 ac) of suitable habitat around the SLWS and would pass within
500 m (1640 ft) of recent records of the Jerdon's courser and pass very
close to the only place where the species has been regularly sighted
since 1986 (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 12; Jeganathan et al. 2008,
[[Page 300]]
p. 80). Plans for the Telugu-Ganga canal included another canal project
along the western boundary of the SPNWS. Unauthorized work near the
Sanctuary boundary was stopped by the Cuddapah Forest Division in
October 2005. In some locations along the canal route, forest had been
cleared and roads developed inside of the Sanctuary boundary
(Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 9). Approximately 163 ha (403 ac) were
cleared for the construction of the canal in and around the SPNWS
(Jeganathan et al. 2005; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 80). It is unknown
how much of this area is occupied by the Jerdon's courser.
Following the illegal construction of the canal within the SLWS
and SPNWS, the issue was raised to the Central Empowered Committee
(CEC), a monitoring body on forest matters set up by the Supreme Court
(Kholi 2006, unpaginated). The CEC ruled in favor of a realignment
route completely avoiding courser habitat. Also, the government of
Andhra Pradesh has transferred approximately 1,000 ha (2,4711 ac) of
land between the canal and the SLWS to the APFD (BLI 2009b,
unpaginated; Jeganathan 2009, pers. comm.).
During the BNHS study on the construction of the Telugu-Ganga
canal, additional threats were identified in association with the
construction. Roads were built along the canal route and from the main
roads to the canal, which subsequently provided easy access to the
forest for unauthorized woodcutting. Furthermore, the SLWS is known to
have red sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus), a highly valued species of
trees sought after by illegal woodcutters. APDF records from 1984 to
2003 show that over 116,000 kilograms (255,736 pounds) of matured red
sanders were seized from smugglers (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 13).
Pressure from smugglers on mature red sanders, coupled with the
increased access points into the SLWS due to canal construction
activities, has caused extensive unauthorized woodcutting within the
SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 13).
Summary of Factor A
In summary, the scrub habitat known to be occupied by the species
and potentially suitable habitat on adjacent lands in and around the
SLWS and SPNWS in the Cuddapah District of India have been destroyed
and diminished due to conversion of land for agriculture purposes,
grazing livestock, construction, and woodcutting. These actions are a
result of human expansion and the subsequent increase in human activity
in and around the SLWS and SPNWS. Additional relocation of villages
around SLWS and SPNW is anticipated. Because the two most common
livelihoods are agriculture and cattle rearing and because the
establishment of additional villages will require more land to
accommodate agriculture and livestock needs, the scrub habitat that is
vital to the Jerdon's courser remains at risk of further curtailment.
The population of the Jerdon's courser is extremely small and believed
to be declining, so any further loss or degradation of remaining
suitable habitat represents a significant threat to the species.
Therefore, we find that present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range are threats to the
continued existence of the Jerdon's courser throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes
We are not aware of any information currently available that
indicates the use of this species for any commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purpose. As a result, we are not considering
overutilization to be a contributing threat to the continued existence
of the Jerdon's courser throughout its range.
C. Disease or predation
We are not aware of any information currently available that
indicates disease or predation pose a threat for this species. As a
result, we are not considering disease or predation to be contributing
threats to the continued existence of the Jerdon's courser throughout
its range.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
The Jerdon's courser is listed under Schedule I of the Indian
Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Schedule I provides absolute
protection with the greatest penalties for offenses. This law prohibits
hunting, possession, sale, and transport of listed species and allows
the State Government to designate an area as a sanctuary or national
park for the purpose of protecting, propagating, or developing wildlife
or its environment. The SLWS and SPNWS were established for the purpose
of protecting the habitat of the Jerdon's courser. The sanctuaries
allow for regulated levels of human use and disturbance while
preventing complete loss of scrub habitat (Senapathi et al. 2007, p.
8). In addition, the SLWS and SNPWS are designated as Important Bird
Areas (IBA) in India (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5). IBAs are sites of
international importance for the conservation of birds, as well as
other animals and plants, and are meant to be used to focus
conservation efforts and reinforce the existing protected areas
network. However, designation as an IBA provides no legal protection of
these areas (BNHS 2009, unpaginated).
The Jerdon's courser is also listed as a priority species under
the National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) of India. This National
Plan includes guidance to expand and strengthen the existing network of
protected areas, develop management plans for protected areas in the
country, restore and manage degraded habitats outside of protected
areas, and control activities such as poaching and illegal trade, among
others. We are unaware of any management plans for the protected areas
in Andhra Pradesh where the Jerdon's courser occurs. Additionally, the
SLWS and SPNWS are protected by the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.
Section 2 of this law restricts the use of forest land for nonforest
purposes, such as the fragmentation or clearing of any forest.
In summary, although protections for the species exist, the
primary threat to this species is ongoing loss of habitat. Senapathi et
al. (2007, pp. 7-8) found an extensive and rapid decline in scrub
habitat, with most removal of scrub occurring up to sanctuary
boundaries and little loss occurring within the wildlife sanctuaries.
Due to the threat of an increasing number of settlements near the
sanctuaries, and the subsequent further loss of scrub habitat to
agriculture and livestock, protection of scrub habitat used by the
Jerdon's courser will be important for the species' continued
existence. Jeganathan et al. (2004, p. 28) classified many areas in the
Cuddapah District as suitable habitat for the Jerdon's courser;
however, with the exception of one sanctuary, the rest of the suitable
habitats are not protected. Therefore, current regulatory mechanisms do
not provide enough protection of suitable habitat for this species
outside of existing protected areas. We are also unaware of any grazing
standards within SLWS and SPNWS to ensure the maintenance of open scrub
habitat and that prevent overgrazing by livestock. When combined with
Factor A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the habitat or range), we find that the existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ameliorate the current threats
to the Jerdon's courser throughout its range.
[[Page 301]]
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued
existence
There are particular species characteristics which render a species
vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2002, p. 193). For example, species
with a narrow geographic range, small population size, declining
population, and specialized habitat requirements are more susceptible
to extinction than others without these characteristics (Primack 2002,
pp. 193-200). Although exact population estimates and distribution of
the Jerdon's courser are not available, the species has been reported
as a small, declining population (Jeganathan 2004b, p. 7; BLI 2009b,
unpaginated; IUCN 2009c, unpaginated) and only reported from a small
patch of scrub habitat in and around the SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 2008,
p. 73). Furthermore, certain species characteristics, such as those
found in this species, predispose it to particular sources of
extinction (Owens and Bennett 2000, p. 12147). Owens and Bennett (2000,
p. 12147) found that extinction risks for birds with specialized
habitat and small body size increased with habitat loss. The Jerdon's
courser is a small bird dependent on scrub habitat of moderate density
for survival. Habitat loss, as described under Factor A, is the primary
threat to this species. Further loss of Jerdon's courser habitat may
fragment remaining suitable habitat adjacent to the SLWS and increase
the extinction risk for the species. In addition, small, isolated
populations may experience decreased demographic viability and
increased susceptibility of extinction from stochastic environmental
factors (e.g., weather events, disease) and an increased threat of
extinction from genetic isolation and subsequent inbreeding depression
and genetic drift.
In conclusion, the single known population of Jerdon's courser may
be vulnerable to threats associated with low population sizes. Because
the known population is small in size, and restricted in range, and
depends on a special habitat for survival, any factor (i.e., habitat
change, a loss of demographic viability, etc.) that results in a
decline in habitat or individuals may be problematic for the long-term
recovery of this species. Therefore, we find that other natural or
manmade factors pose a threat to the Jerdon's courser throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the Jerdon's Courser
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Jerdon's courser. The species is currently
at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A), and demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events and other complications associated with
the species' low population and restricted range (Factor E).
Furthermore, we have determined that the existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate the current threats to the
species.
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the Jerdon's
courser throughout its entire range, as described above, we determine
that this species is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to list the Jerdon's courser as an
endangered species throughout all of its range. Because we find that
the Jerdon's courser is endangered throughout all of its range, there
is no reason to consider its status in a significant portion of its
range.
V. Marquesan Imperial Pigeon (Ducula galeata)
Species Description
The Marquesan Imperial Pigeon (Ducula galeata), known locally as
Upe, is a very large arboreal pigeon belonging to the family
Columbidae. It was first described by Charles Lucien Bonaparte in 1855
(Villard et al. 2003, p. 198; BLI 2009, unpaginated). The species
measures 55 cm (22 in) in length, is dark slate-grey with bronze-green
reflections on the upperparts, rufous-chestnut undertail-coverts, white
eyes, and a white and grey-black cere protruding almost to the tip of
the bill (Blanvillain et al. 2007, unpaginated; BLI 2009c,
unpaginated).
The pigeon is endemic to the French Polynesian Marquesas
Archipelago in the Pacific Ocean. The Marquesas Archipelago is a
territory of France located approximately 1,600 km (994 mi) northeast
of Tahiti. Based on subfossil records, the pigeon was historically
present on four islands in the Marquesas Archipelago, Hiva Oa, Ua Huka,
Tahuata, and Nuku Hiva, as well as the Cook, the Pitcairn, and Society
Island chains (Steadman 1997, p. 740; Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 6;
Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 381; Blanvillain et al. 2007,
unpaginated). At the time of its discovery, the pigeon was already
restricted to Nuku Hiva, a 337 km2 (130 sq mi2) island. Researchers
believe that hunting, degradation of local forest, invasive weeds and
trees, and predation were the probable causes of its decline (Thorsen
et al. 2002, pp. 8-9; Blanvillian et al. 2007, unpaginated). On Nuku
Hiva, the pigeon is restricted to 7 sites which are difficult to access
by hunters and livestock and appear to be resistant to colonization by
rats (Villard et al. 2003, p. 191; BLI 2009c, unpaginated). In an
effort to protect the remaining population from extinction due to
catastrophic events, the pigeon was reintroduced to Ua Huka, an island
50 km (31 mi) east of Nuku Hiva in 2000 (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 14;
Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 385; BLI 2009c, unpaginated). Ua Huka
was chosen as a reintroduction site primarily because the pigeon was
historically found on the island, and due to availability of suitable
habitat located in a protected area, a lack of black rats (Rattus
rattus), and a smaller human population compared to other Marquesan
islands (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 13).
Population estimates on Nuku Hiva have ranged from 75 to 300 birds
since 1975; however, the most recent survey, conducted in 2000,
estimated the population to be approximately 80-150 birds (Villard et
al. 2003, p. 194). In 2000, five birds were translocated to Ua Huka and
an additional five translocated in 2003. As of 2006, approximately 32
birds were present. The population objective for the reintroduction
project is to establish a population of 50 individuals on Ua Huka by
2010 (BLI 2009c, unpaginated).
The species is almost exclusively arboreal and prefers the
intermediate and upper canopy forest layers consisting of Guettarda
speciosa, Cerbera manghas, Ficus spp., Terminalia cattapa, and Sapindus
saponaria; however, individuals have also been observed perched on
shrubs (Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 382; Villard et al. 2003, p.
191). These pigeons heavily rely on this canopy forest for roosting and
feeding. Based on observations of pigeons in 2000, this species appears
to return to the same feeding and night roosting areas.
Species of Ducula are primarily frugivorous (fruit eaters). The
diet of Marquesan imperial pigeons consists mainly of fruits, which are
usually swallowed whole, from Ficus spp. and Psidium guajava (guava; an
introduced
[[Page 302]]
species); however, it has been reported that caterpillars from S.
saponaria and the foliage and flowers of other tree and shrub species
also make up a portion of the pigeon's diet. The species' consumption
of an introduced shrub species, the guava, is likely due to the
degradation of native habitat (Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 384)
and the subsequent loss of native fruits, foliage, and flowers.
Gleaning and browsing are the two main feeding methods (Blanvillain and
Thorsen 2003, pp. 382-383).
Courtship behavior includes the male and female sitting next to
one another and allopreening the breast and neck areas and mirroring
each other's actions (Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 383). The
breeding season is long, occurring from mid-May to December (Thorsen et
al. 2002, p. 6). Nests are constructed of intermingled branches,
approximately 60 cm (24 in) in diameter, 10 to 18 m (33 to 59 ft) above
ground at the top of the canopy (Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 384);
clutch size is only one egg (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 192, 195).
Abundance of fruit is critical in determining the breeding success of
frugivorous birds (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). However, studies
suggest that the pigeon is successfully breeding in different areas
where it exists (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 17; Villard et al. 2003, p.
195).
Conservation Status
The Marquesan imperial pigeon was originally classified as
``critically endangered'' by the IUCN. In 2008, however, this species
was downlisted to ``endangered'' status due to the establishment of a
second population through the translocation of birds to Ua Huka (IUCN
2009b, unpaginated). The Marquesan imperial pigeon is also protected
under Law Number 95-257 in French Polynesia. The species has not been
formally considered for listing in the Appendices of CITES (http://
www.cites.org).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Marquesan Imperial Pigeon
A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range
Destruction of habitat associated with human colonization is one of
the main threats to the remaining populations of the Marquesan imperial
pigeon. Since Polynesian occupation and discovery of the area by
Europeans, substantial changes to the Nuku Hiva landscape have occurred
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 8; Villard et al. 2003, p. 190) and are still
occurring. These changes include clearing of land for agriculture and
development, introduction of domestic livestock, introduction of exotic
plants, and introduction of rats (Rattus spp.) and cats (Felis catus)
(Thorsen et al. 2002, pp. 8-9).
Most of Nuku Hiva was originally covered by forest, with the
exception of the drier northwestern plain where shrub savanna is
predominant. Since colonization of Nuku Hiva, the native landscape has
been cleared for agriculture and settlement. Fires have been used to
clear land for agriculture and plantations (Manu 2009, unpaginated). In
more recent times (between 1974 and 1989), all natural vegetation on a
large area of the main plateau (de Toovii) on the island was cut down
or burned to be converted into grassland for pasture, and 1,100 ha
(2,718 ac) were planted with Caribbean pine (Pinus caribaea), an exotic
tree species. By 2000, modern facilities, such as roads, an airport,
and other buildings had been built (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 190, 195).
Suitable habitat for this species has also been modified and
degraded by introduced domestic livestock and exotic plant species.
Domestic livestock have become feral, and while cattle and horses are
mostly controlled, feral goats (Capra hircus) and pigs (Sus scrofa)
continue to be a major concern (Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). Goats are
particularly destructive; they have caused devastation to natural
habitats on several other islands (Sykes 1969, pp. 13-16; Parkes 1984,
pp. 95-101; Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9).
The Nuku Hiva goat population has been increasing since the 1970s,
and both goats and pigs are found everywhere on the island (Villard et
al. 2003, p. 195). Goats have the potential to damage and alter the
vegetative composition of an area by overgrazing indigenous and endemic
species to the point at which seedlings are consumed before they are
able to mature to a height which is out of the reach of goats and,
therefore, survive (Sykes 1969, p. 14; Parkes 1984, pp. 95, 96, 101;
Villard et al. 2002, p. 189). Subsequently, exotic plant species are
able to flourish and outcompete native species, which results in little
or no regeneration of native trees (Sykes 1969, p. 15; Thorsen et al.
2002, p. 9). Large patches of natural forest have been destroyed by
goats and pigs in areas where Marquesan imperial pigeons are found and
there is poor natural forest regeneration (Villard et al. 2003, p.
193). Blanvillain and Thorsen (2003, pp. 382-383) found most of the
ground covered by several introduced plant species, including guava,
African basil (Ocimum gratissimum), and soft elephants foot
(Elephantopus mollis). Overgrazing, combined with the introduction of
exotic species, prohibits the tall trees that comprise the canopy layer
of the forest from regenerating and from providing feeding and roosting
sites needed by pigeons.
In addition, introduced rats on the island of Nuka Hiva inhibit
regeneration of native trees because they consume the flowers, fruits,
seeds, seedlings, leaves, buds, roots, and rhizomes (Thorsen et al.
2002, p. 9; Meyer and Butaud 2009, p. 1570), thus further contributing
to the alteration of the vegetation composition. Thorsen et al. (2002,
p. 9) noted that seed caches containing many seeds that are part of the
Marquesan imperial pigeon's food supply were common.
Marquesan imperial pigeons are frugivorous birds and act as seed
dispersal agents for those trees from which they feed and roost.
Habitat loss, predation, or any other factor resulting in the decline
of pigeons indirectly contributes to a decrease in seed dispersal,
possibly contributing to low recruitment of the vital native tree
species. Therefore, hunting may also contribute to the destruction and
modification of habitat (See also Factor B).
The habitat in the Vaiviki Valley on the island of Ua Huka, where
the pigeon was reintroduced, was classified as a protected area in 1997
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 13). There are no indications that ongoing
habitat degradation from livestock grazing is occurring in this area.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, the Marquesan imperial pigeon prefers to inhabit the
canopy forest layer of mature forests and relies on the fruits of these
trees as a food source. This habitat on Nuku Hiva has been destroyed,
and continues to be destroyed by conversion of land for agriculture and
development, overgrazing, and competition with exotic plant species.
The species is currently restricted to seven small sites in the most
remote areas of Nuku Hiva (Villard et al. 2003, p. 191). An intact
canopy of native species is rare; in addition, the native understory
and shrub layers are absent and composed mostly of browse-resistant
species (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9). Poor natural forest regeneration
is evident in areas where pigeons are found (Villard et al. 2003, p.
193). Overgrazing by goats and competition with exotic species remain a
threat to the pigeon's habitat on Nuku Hiva; any additional loss of
suitable habitat is likely to have a large impact
[[Page 303]]
on the distribution of this species. Since the largest population of
pigeons is located on Nuka Hiva and impacts to the suitable habitat on
this island are ongoing, we find that present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range is a
threat to the continued existence of the Marquesan imperial pigeon on
Nuku Hiva. Since Ua Huka is classified as a protected area and there is
no indication of ongoing habitat degradation from livestock grazing in
this area, we find that present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range are not threats to
the continued existence of the Marquesan imperial pigeon on Ua Huka.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes
Two researchers found that hunting is the primary reason for the
current restricted range of the species to remote areas of Nuku Hiva
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 8; Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). By 1922, most
of the modification of habitat by man had already occurred, yet
Marquesan imperial pigeons were still abundant (Villard et al. 2003, p.
195). In 1922, 82 birds were killed during an expedition; Villard et
al. (2003, p. 194) theorized that this represented a significant
portion of the estimated several hundred birds present at that time.
After these killings, the pigeon was reported as ``not so abundant.''
In 1944, many birds were reported on the northern coast of Nuku Hiva
and hunters were known to bring back full bags of birds. In 1951, the
population of pigeons appeared to be decreasing and, with the
introduction of shotguns in the 1950s, the effect was amplified. During
the construction of the airport from 1978 to 1979, workers were known
to hunt for pigeons (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 193, 195). On Ua Huka, a
local agreement now exists not to hunt pigeons (Thorsen et al. 2002, p.
13).
Bird hunting in the French Polynesia was banned in 1967; however,
the law is rarely enforced and hunting still occurs (Thorsen et al.
2002, p. 10) on Nuku Hiva. Most Marquesan imperial pigeons that are
killed are opportunistic kills by those hunting goats and pigs, but
some intentionally target pigeons for sale to local inhabitants
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). In an effort to reduce illegal hunting
and engage the public in conservation of local endemic species, the
Societed'Ornithologie de Polynesie (Manu), a conservation organization
in French Polynesia, developed a public outreach and educational
program for local schools about the importance of this species.
However, poaching remains a potential threat to the remaining small
population (BLI 2009c, unpaginated). To protect the remaining
populations from hunting, an agreement by the inhabitants of Nuku Hiva
to stop hunting pigeons or the appointment of a ranger to enforce
current laws (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 11).
An adult Marquesan imperial pigeon lays only one egg per year,
suggesting this species is long lived (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 192,
195). Populations of species that are long-lived with low fecundity
rates tend to be more affected by loss of breeding adults than those
species with shorter lifespans and high fecundity. Therefore, an
increase in adult mortality due to illegal hunting would likely have a
substantial impact on the survival of this species. Furthermore,
because pigeons are frugivorous and act as seed dispersal agents for
those trees from which they feed and roost, further declines in pigeons
may indirectly contribute to low recruitment of the vital native tree
species.
Summary of Factor B
In summary, hunting was likely a major contributing factor to the
current restricted range and small population of Marquesan imperial
pigeon. On the island of Ua Huka, because the species is in a protected
area, there is a smaller human population compared to other Marquesan
islands, and since there is no information indicating hunting is a
threat to this species on the island of Ua Huka, we find that
overutilization is not a threat to the continued existence of the
pigeon. On the island of Nuku Hiva, although hunting of pigeons is
illegal, the law is not enforced and poaching remains a potential
threat. Because this species has a clutch size of one egg, poaching
would have a substantial impact on the species' continued existence.
Therefore, we find that overutilization is a threat to the continued
existence of Marquesan imperial pigeon on the island of Nuku Hiva.
C. Disease or predation
Avian diseases are a concern for species with restricted ranges and
small populations, especially if the species is restricted to an
island. Extensive human activity in previously undisturbed or isolated
areas can lead to the introduction and spread of exotic diseases, some
of which (e.g., West Nile virus) can negatively impact endemic bird
populations (Neotropical News 2003, p. 1; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 704).
The introduction and transmittal of an avian disease could result in
the extinction of the Marquesan imperial pigeon (Blanvillian et al.
2007, unpaginated). Beadell et al. (2006, p. 2940) found the presence
of Hawaii's avian malaria in reed-warblers on Nuku Hiva; however, there
is no data on the effects of this malaria on the population of pigeons
on the island. Although large and stable populations of wildlife
species have adapted to natural levels of disease and predation within
their historic ranges, any additive mortality to the Marquesan imperial
pigeon population or a decrease in its fitness due to an increase in
the incidence of disease or predation could adversely impact the
species' overall viability (see Factor E). However, while these
potential influences remain a concern for future management of the
species, we are not aware of any information currently available that
specifically indicates the occurrence of disease in the Marquesan
imperial pigeon. No other diseases are known to affect the pigeons. In
addition, the reintroduction of the pigeons to the island of Ua Huka
reduces the likelihood of diseases causing extinction of the species.
Black rats were introduced to Nuku Hiva in 1915 and are now found
everywhere pigeons are located on Nuku Hiva (Villard et al. 2003, pp.
193, 195). Rats may prey upon the eggs and nestlings of Marquesan
Imperial pigeons, even if the nests are located in the tops of trees
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). However, due to the large size of this
species, adult pigeons may be able to chase away rats from their nests
(Villard et al. 2003, p. 195). Furthermore, Thorsen et al. (2002, p.
10) observed juveniles and Villard et al. (2003, p. 195) noted a
significant proportion of young pigeons, suggesting that black rats are
not affecting breeding success. Due to the potential threat of black
rats, pigeons were introduced to Ua Huka where black rats were not
present. As an additional measure, poison bait stations were
established around the wharf area of Ua Huka to prevent introduction of
black rats (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 17).
Cats have also been introduced to both the islands of Nuku Hiva
and Ua Huka. While predation of adult and juvenile birds by cats is
possible when pigeons are forced to feed on low shrubs, such as guava,
due to destruction and absence of native species (See Factor A)
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10), we are not aware of any information
currently available that specifically indicates that predation by cats
is a threat to the survival of this species.
[[Page 304]]
Summary of Factor C
In summary, while avian diseases such as avian malaria in reed-
warblers was found to be present on Nuku Hiva, no avian diseases are
known to affect Marquesan imperial pigeons. Although predation has been
indicated as a contributing factor to the decline of the species
(Thorsen et al. 2002, pp. 9, 10; Blanvillain et al. 2007, unpaginated),
we did not find information to suggest that predation is currently a
threat to the survival of this species. Further, while black rats are
found everywhere pigeons are found, the observation of a significant
proportion of juveniles suggests that predation of pigeon's eggs and
nestlings by black rats on Nuku Hiva is not a significant threat to
pigeons. Cats are present on both islands, and there is potential for
predation when pigeons are forced to feed on low shrubs, such as guava;
however, there is no information to substantiate cat predation as a
threat to the species' survival. Therefore, we find that disease and
predation are not contributing threats to the continued existence of
the pigeon throughout its range.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
The Marquesan imperial pigeon is a protected species in French
Polynesia; it is classified as a Category A species under Law Number
95-257. Article 16 of this law prohibits the collection and exportation
of species listed under Category A. Under Article L411-1 of the French
Environmental Code, the destruction or poaching of eggs or nests,
mutilation, destruction, capture or poaching, intentional disturbance,
the practice of taxidermy, transport, peddling, use, possession, offer
for sale, or the sale or the purchase of non-domestic species in need
of conservation is prohibited. The French Environmental Code also
prohibits the destruction, alteration, or degradation of habitat for
these species.
Hunting of this species is believed to be one of the main reasons
for the species' decline (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10; Villard et al.
2003, p. 195). Hunting and destruction of all species of birds in
French Polynesia was prohibited by a decree enacted in 1967 (Villard et
al. 2003, p. 193). Furthermore, although restrictions on possession of
firearms in Marquesas are in place, firearms are made available through
visiting boats (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). On Ua Huka, there is an
agreement in force not to hunt pigeons (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 13).
Although this species is fully protected, and hunting has been banned,
illegal hunting of the Marquesan Imperial pigeon still occurs (see
Factor B) and remains a threat on Nuku Hiva.
The Marquesas Archipelago is designated as an Endemic Bird Area
(EBA) (Manu 2009, unpaginated, BLI 2009c). EBAs are territories less
than 50,000 km2 (19,300 mi2) where at least two bird species with
restricted ranges are found together, and represent priority areas for
biodiversity. Nord-Ouest de Nuku Hiva is 9,000 ha area designated as an
Important Bird Area (IBA) (Manu 2009, unpaginated). Designation as an
IBA constitutes recognition of the area as a critical site for
conservation of birds. In addition, Nuku Hiva is designated as an
Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) (Manu 2009, unpaginated). AZEs are
considered areas that are in the most urgent need of conservation.
Although Nuku Hiva and Ua Huka are designated as areas of importance to
the conservation of birds, these designations only serve to identify
areas of biodiversity and focus conservation efforts; there is no legal
protection of these areas. There is one officially protected area on Ua
Huka (Vaikivi), established in 1997, which is actively managed.
In summary, regulations exist to protect the species and its
habitat. The threats that affect the species on each island are
different. On the island of Ua Huka, also described under Factors A and
B, destruction and modification of habitat are not known to threaten
this species and illegal hunting is not occurring. This is likely
because the protected area on Ua Huka is actively managed, the human
population is less substantial, and there is a local agreement
preventing hunting on this island. Furthermore, pigeons were
reintroduced to Ua Huka due to the absence of threats to the species.
Therefore, we find that the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is not applicable to Ua Huka. However, as described in
Factors A and B, habitat destruction continues to threaten this species
and illegal hunting continues to occur on the island of Nuku Hiva.
Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to ameliorate the current threats to the Marquesan imperial
pigeon on the island of Nuku Hiva.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued
existence
Introduced animal and plant species threaten the habitat and
survival of the Marquesan imperial pigeon by inhibiting the growth of
canopy tree species needed for nesting and roosting and creating
competition for food sources.
As described under Factor A, the introduction of livestock,
including cattle, horses, goats and pigs, has caused and continues to
cause substantial changes in the forest composition, affecting the
amount of suitable habitat available for pigeons. Horses are now under
control and cattle were eradicated by hunters (Thorsen et al. 2002, p.
9; Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). However, goats, in particular,
overgraze native species to a level at which seedlings are consumed
before they mature to a height out of goats' reach (Sykes 1969, p. 14;
Parkes 1984, pp 95, 96, 101; Villard et al. 2002, p. 189).
Consequently, exotic plant species such as guava are able to
proliferate, preventing regeneration of natural forest (Sykes 1969, p.
15; Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9). To restore native forests, measures to
control feral goats are needed. Local inhabitants hunt goats and pigs
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10); however, overgrazing continues to be a
problem. Fenced enclosures would exclude any livestock and allow
regeneration of native species (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 11). In
addition, introduced rats on the island of Nuka Hiva inhibit
regeneration of native trees by consuming the flowers, fruits, seeds,
seedlings, leaves, buds, roots, and rhizomes (Thorsen et al. 2002, p.
9; Meyer and Butaud 2009, p. 1570) of native tree species, further
contributing to the alteration of forest composition. Introduced
species are not known to threaten pigeons on Ua Huka.
Introduced rats on Nuku Hiva may also be a source of competition
for food resources that would otherwise be available to pigeons. The
diet for the Marquesan imperial pigeon consists of fruits from Ficus
spp. and guava, foliage of S. saponaria, T. cattapa, and Misceltum
spp., and the flowers of H. tiliaceus, C. manghas, and G. speciosa
(Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 382). Rats are known to consume the
flowers, fruits, and leaves of the same tree species, including guava,
T. cattapa, Ficus spp., and S. saponaria (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9).
The consumption of these fruits and foliage by rats may reduce the
available food supply for this frugivorous bird. Furthermore, during
periods of limited fruit availability, the pigeons may also compete
with the white-capped fruit pigeon (Ptilinopus dupetitbouarsii), a
wider ranging pigeon found in French Polynesia (including Nuku Hiva and
Ua Huka), for food sources (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). Abundance of
fruit is critical to the breeding success of frugivorous birds. When
food resources are limited, breeding output and fledgling and adult
[[Page 305]]
survival may also be affected (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). This may be
especially critical to the Marquesan imperial pigeon since it is a
long-lived species with low fecundity. An increase in adult mortality
due to decreased food availability would likely have a substantial
impact on the breeding success and, ultimately, on the survival of this
species.
Island populations have a higher risk of extinction than mainland
populations. Ninety percent of bird species driven to extinction were
island species (as cited in Frankham 1997, p. 311). Based on genetics
alone, endemic island species are predicted to have higher extinction
rates than nonendemic island populations (Frankham 2007, p. 321).
Small, isolated populations may experience decreased demographic
viability (population birth and death rates, immigration and emigration
rates, and sex ratios), increased susceptibility of extinction from
stochastic environmental factors (e.g., weather events, disease), and
an increased threat of extinction from genetic isolation and subsequent
inbreeding depression and genetic drift. As discussed above, there are
two small extant populations of Marquesan imperial pigeons, one on Nuku
Hiva and a reintroduced population on Ua Huka. Because the species now
present on Ua Huka originated from the Nuku Hiva population, there is
no genetic variation between the two populations. Furthermore, we have
no indication that there is natural dispersion between the populations
and, thus, no genetic interchange. The lack of genetic variation may
lead to inbreeding and associated complications, including reduced
fitness. Species with low fecundity, like the pigeon, are particularly
vulnerable to inbreeding depression because they can withstand less
decrease in survival before population growth rates are affected and
they recover more slowly (Lacy 2000, p. 47). In addition, genetic
threats associated with small populations will exacerbate other threats
to the species and likely increase the risk of extinction of island
populations (Frankham 1997, p. 321).
Summary of Factor E
In summary, introduced livestock and rats are altering the native
forests of Nuku Hiva on which the Marquesan imperial pigeon depends.
Native tree species are unable to regenerate due to overgrazing by
goats; allowing graze-resistant exotic plant species to proliferate.
Through consumption of fruits, flowers, seeds, and foliage, rats
contribute to the alteration of the native forest and also serve as a
source of competition for food. On Nuku Hiva and Ua Huka, the white-
capped fruit pigeon may also serve as a source of competition for food
during periods of limited fruit availability. When food resources are
limited, breeding output and fledgling and adult survival may also be
affected, which may be particularly critical for a species with low
fecundity.
Both pigeon populations are subject to detrimental effects typical
of small island populations. Decreased demographic viability,
environmental factors, and genetic isolation may lead to inbreeding
depression and associated complications, including reduced fitness.
Species with low fecundity are particularly vulnerable because they can
withstand less decrease in survival and recover more slowly. These
genetic threats will exacerbate other threats to the species and likely
increase the risk of extinction. Therefore, we find that other natural
or manmade factors are threats to the continued existence of the
Marquesan imperial pigeon on both Nuku Hiva and Ua Huka.
Status Determination for the Marquesan Imperial Pigeon
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Marquesan Imperial Pigeon. The species is
currently at risk on Nuku Hiva due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A); illegal hunting (Factor B);
and demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events
associated with the species' low population, restricted range, and low
fecundity (Factor E). Furthermore, we have determined that the existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate the
current threats to the species. In addition, we have determined that
Factors A, B, C, and D are not factors affecting the continued
existence of the species on Ua Huka. However, we have determined that
the Ua Huka population is at risk due to demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events associates with the species' low
population, restricted range, and low fecundity (Factor E).
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the Marquesan
Imperial Pigeon throughout its entire range, as described above, we
determine that this species is in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we propose to list the Marquesan Imperial
Pigeon as an endangered species throughout all of its range. Because we
find that the Marquesan Imperial Pigeon is endangered throughout all of
its range, there is no reason to consider its status in a significant
portion of its range.
VI. Slender-billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)
Species Description
The slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris) is a species of
wading bird, one of the six curlews of the same genus within the family
Scolopacidae. It is medium-sized and mottled brown-grey in color. It
has white underparts marked with black heart-shaped spots on the
flanks. It has a decurved bill that tapers to a distinctly fine tip. It
has pale, barred inner primary feathers and its secondary feathers
contrast markedly with its brown-black primary feathers. Its tail is
virtually unmarked, with a few dark bars on a white background (BLI
2006, p. 1).
Though this species was regarded as common in the 19th century, it
declined precipitously in the 20th century (Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139).
The species is believed to breed in Northwest Siberia (though the only
two confirmed cases of breeding were in 1914 and 1924). The species
migrates 5,000 - 6,000 km (3,100 - 3,700 mi) towards the west-
southwest, passing north of the Caspian and Black Seas through
southeast and southern Europe to its overwintering grounds in southern
Europe and northwest Africa (Gretton 1996, p. 6; Chandrinos 2000, p. 1;
Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139). There are also records of wintering birds in
the Middle East, but verification of a second wintering area has not
been confirmed (Gretton 1996, p. 6).
The species has been sighted in Eastern Europe, including in
Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and
Yugoslavia; in Southern Europe, including Greece, Italy, and Turkey;
and in North Africa, including Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia (BLI 2006,
p. 2). It has also been reported in Slovenia, Uzbekistan, and
Turkmenistan (BLI 2006, p. 2).
During the second half of the 19th century and up until 1920, the
slender-billed curlew was considered an abundant bird. Its population
density frequently exceeded that of two relative
[[Page 306]]
species: The Eurasian curlew (Nemenius arquata) and the whimbrel
(Numenius phaeopus) (Chandrinos 2000, p. 1). Flocks of slender-billed
curlew over 100 birds in size were recorded in Morocco as late as the
1960s and 1970 (Gretton 1996, p. 6). The population was estimated to be
between 80 and 400 birds in 1990, but this estimate was later adjusted
to 50 to 270 birds (Gretton 1996, p. 6). In recent years, records
consist of sightings of 1 to 3 birds, with one exception in 1995, when
a flock of 19 birds was sighted in Italy (BLI 2006, p. 3; Hirschfeld
2008, p. 139). The most recent population estimate is fewer than 50
birds (BLI 2006, p. 3; Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139). Surveys have been
conducted in recent years (1987 through 2000) in various parts of the
species' historic breeding range, which covered several thousand
kilometers of habitat. No slender-billed curlews were found during
these survey efforts (Gretton et al. 2002, p. 341; CMS update 2004, p.
2). This species has not been seen at its last regular wintering ground
in Morocco since 1995 (Gretton 1996, p. 6; Chandrinos 2000, p. 2), and
the last confirmed sighting anywhere in the world was in 1999 in Greece
(Chandrinos 2000, p. 2).
There are only two confirmed accounts of slender-billed curlew
nests. These accounts were both in the early 1900s and are described in
four papers by V.E. Ushakav that were later translated. These nests
were both located in a wet marsh at Krasnoperovaya, south of Tara,
Siberia. The habitat was described as open marsh containing some birch
(Betula) and marshy areas adjacent to pine (Pinus) forests. The nests
were located in the middle of the marsh on grassy hillocks or on small
dry islands. Based on these early accounts, complete clutch sizes were
found to be four eggs per nest between May 11 and June 1, 1900. The
young fledged in early July, and family groups of five to six birds
were seen wandering around the marsh in early August. Overall, slender-
billed curlews were seen in their nesting grounds in Siberia from mid-
May until early August (Gretton et al. 2002, pp. 335-336).
During seasonal migrations and in the winter months, the species
is known to use a variety of habitats, including steppe grassland,
saltmarsh, fishponds, brackish lagoons, saltpans, tidal mudflats,
semidesert, brackish wetlands, and sandy farmland near lagoons
(Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139).
There is little information on the diet of this species. The birds
at Merja Zerga (wintering grounds in Morocco) have been recorded eating
earthworms and tipulid larvae. Elsewhere, the species has been recorded
eating other insects (grasshoppers, earwigs, and beetles), mollusks,
and crustaceans (Gretton 1996, p. 7).
Conservation Status
The slender-billed curlew is classified as critically endangered
by the IUCN and is listed under CITES Appendix I. Live wild specimens,
and parts and products of wild specimens of this species listed under
Appendix I of CITES, are prohibited from being traded commercially
internationally. The species is also listed on Annex I of the European
Union (EU) Wild Bird Directive (Europa Environment 2009, unpaginated)
and Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention), which
encourages international cooperation for the conservation of species.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Slender-billed Curlew
A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range
Krasnoperovaya, near Tara, where Ushakav made his observation in
the early 1900s, is located towards the northern limits of the forest-
steppe zone, with parts of the marsh having some characteristics of the
taiga, such as the presence of conifers. Surveyors noted that in 1990
and 1994 there were still substantial areas of marsh at Krasnopervaya
that were quite similar to that described by Ushakov, with possibly
more trees being present than in the early 1900s. By 1997, the area had
changed dramatically, with the higher grassland areas next to marsh
under cultivation, and the marsh itself completely covered with young
forest (Boere & Yurlov, as reported in Gretton et al. 2002, p. 342).
Threats on the breeding grounds are largely unknown due to the
lack of information on this species' nesting localities. Within its
potential breeding range, the habitat has been subject to some
modification, the taiga is little modified, the forest-steppe has been
partially cultivated, and much of the steppe has been modified by
intensive agriculture. The impacts to the species from these types of
modifications would vary depending on which of these habitat types are
used for nesting (Gretton 1996, p. 8).
Habitat loss in the wintering grounds is of unknown importance;
however this species has not been seen at the last regular wintering
ground in Morocco since 1995 (BLI 2004, unpaginated). Threats to
potential wintering habitat are summarized in the 1996 version of the
International Action Plan for the Slender-billed Curlew (Gretton 1996,
pp. 8-9). Parts of the wintering grounds (e.g., the Rharb plain of
northwest Morocco) have undergone extensive drainage of wetlands. In
Tunisia also, temporary freshwater marshes (e.g. Kairouan) have been
seriously damaged by construction of dams for flood control and the
provision of water supplies to these marshes. In other parts of North
Africa, other types of wetland have been less affected, including
coastal sites and inland sites, such as temporary brackish wetlands. In
the Middle East, the permanent marshes in the central (Qurnah) area
were reduced to 40 percent of their 1985 extent by 1992, from 1,133,000
ha to 457,000 ha (2,800,000 ac to 1,129,000 ac), with further loss
expected (Gretton 1996, p. 8).
In conclusion, this species annually migrates 5,000 to 6,500 km
(3,100 to 4,000 mi) between its presumed breeding grounds in Siberia to
its wintering grounds in Morocco, passing though many European
countries. Many of the areas along the migratory route, such as steppe
areas in central and eastern Europe and the area around the Aral Sea,
have experienced substantial anthropogenic impacts. There has also been
a loss of wetlands in the Palearctic. However, since the species uses a
wide variety of habitats along its migratory route and in its wintering
grounds, it is unlikely that habitat loss in these areas has played a
substantial part in the decline of this species, especially since many
other wading birds using these areas have not shown such a decline
(Gretton 1996, pp. 7-8). The situation is hard to assess, because Merja
Zerga remains the only known regular wintering site for the species.
Loss of breeding ground habitat would better explain such a drastic
population decline, since the species is thought to use a more
specialized habitat for breeding. Belik (1994, p. 37) argued that the
species may nest primarily in steppe areas. If this is the case, then
the species population decline would be better explained by the
extensive loss of this habitat type, particularly in Kazakhstan
(Gretton 1996, p. 7). Therefore, we find that present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range
threaten the continued existence of the slender-billed curlew
throughout its range.
[[Page 307]]
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes
Large-scale hunting of waders was known to occur across most of
Europe during the early 20th century, with curlews being preferred
(Gretton 1996, p. 8). This species has a reputation for being ``tame,''
meaning that it does not show fear of humans, and was an easy target
during a hunt. A significant number of slender-billed curlew specimens,
notably from Hungary and Italy, date from this time (Gretton 1991, pp.
37-38). Between 1962 and 1987, 17 slender-billed curlew were known to
have been shot (13 of these in Italy and former Yugoslovia) (Gretton
1996, p. 9). Additionally, as late as 1980, one guide described the
taking of ``a great number'' from a flock of about 500 in Morocco
(Gretton 1991, p. 38).
In summary, hunting has been indicated as a factor in the range-
wide decline of this species during the first half of the 20th century.
Both legal and illegal hunting is likely to still occur throughout the
range of this species. Based on the very small population size and the
long-range migratory habits of this species, loss of individual birds
is expected to have a significant impact on the remaining population.
Therefore, we find that overutilization is a threat to the continued
existence of the slender-billed curlew throughout its range.
C. Disease or predation
We are unaware of any threats due to disease or predation for this
subspecies. As a result, we are not considering disease or predation to
be contributing threats to the continued existence of the slender-
billed curlew throughout its range.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
As stated above, the slender-billed curlew is listed on Annex I of
the European Union (EU) Wild Bird Directive, which includes protection
for habitat, bans for activities that directly threaten wild birds, and
a network of protected areas for wild birds found within the EU (Europa
Environment 2009, unpaginated), and Appendix I of the CMS or Bonn
Convention, which includes strictly protected fauna species. This
convention encourages international cooperation for the conservation of
species.
Inclusion in Appendix I of CMS means that member states work
toward strict protection, conserving and restoring the habitat of the
species, controlling other reasons for endangerment, and mitigating
obstacles to migration, whereas Appendix II encourages multistate and
regional cooperation for conservation (CMS 2009, unpaginated). A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed under CMS auspices and
became effective on September 10, 1994.
The MOU area covers 30 Range States in Southern and Eastern
Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East. As of December 31, 2000,
the MOU had been signed by 18 Range States and three cooperating
organizations. In early 1996, a status report was produced and
distributed by the CMS Secretariat. An International Action Plan for
the Conservation of the Slender-billed Curlew was prepared by BLI in
1996, which was later approved by the European Commission and endorsed
by the Fifth Meeting of the CMS. The Action Plan is the main tool for
conservation activities for the species under the MOU. Conservation
priorities include: effective legal protection for the slender-billed
curlew and its look-alikes; locating its breeding grounds and key
wintering and passage sites; appropriate protection and management of
its habitat; and increasing the awareness of politicians in the
affected countries (CMS 2009, unpaginated).
The Convention on Migratory Species website (CMS 2004) includes an
update on the progress being made under the Slender-billed curlew MOU.
It states that conservation activities have already been undertaken or
are under way in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Morocco, the Russian
Federation, Ukraine, and Iran (CMS 2009, unpaginated). However, no
details of these activities are provided. The website also notes that
population size may have stabilized at a low level (CMS 2009,
unpaginated), although no data or references are provided to support
this claim.
Based on the lack of information available on this species
(location of breeding and wintering areas and its current population
status), it is difficult to assess the adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms in preventing the extinction of this species. Although
progress is under way in various countries to better protect the
habitat, prevent loss of individuals from hunting and
misidentification, and educate the public about the precarious status
of this species, not all 30 Range States of this species have signed
the MOU (CMS 2009, unpaginated). Further, Gretton et al. 2002 (p. 344)
reported that the combined efforts devoted to research and conservation
of this species (from 1997-2002) had limited direct impact on this
species' chance of survival. Therefore, we find that the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the continued existence
of the slender-billed curlew throughout its range.
E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species' continued
existence
The status of the slender-billed curlew is extremely precarious.
As stated above, the most recent population estimate for this species
is fewer than 50 birds. The last confirmed sighting of a slender-billed
curlew was of a single bird in 1999. Information on the nesting habits
and locality of the breeding grounds for this species is extremely
limited, and despite survey efforts over the last 20 years, slender-
billed curlews have not been located on the only known historic nesting
area of this species in the steppes of Siberia.
In smaller populations, additional threats to persistence and
stability often surface, resulting from the stochastic nature of these
events, which can lead to instability of population dynamics. Among
these factors are rates of mate acquisition, breeding success,
transmission of genetic material, dispersal, survival, and sex
determination. Further, fluctuations in rates as described above can
couple with reduction in growth rate to act synergistically (Lacy 2000,
pp. 39-40).
Due to the distance of annual migration, the geographic spread of
the range, and the limited numbers of birds, the slender-billed curlew
is likely vulnerable to one or more threats associated with small
population size. Early records of this species often referred to large
flocks on migration and in winter. Based on what we know of other
similar migratory bird species, it is likely that the experience of
older birds was important in guiding such flocks along the migration
route. As slender-billed curlew numbers declined, individuals would be
more likely to join flocks of other species, notably the Eurasian
curlew. The chances of slender-billed curlews meeting each other on the
breeding grounds would become increasingly low (as was described for
the Eskimo curlew by Bodsworth in 1954). The smaller the population,
the less likely it is that this species would be able to locate another
slender-billed curlew and successfully reproduce. Since this species
has not been recorded on the only known historic breeding grounds for a
number of years (Gretton 1996, p. 6), it is difficult to assess whether
a breakdown of social behavior patterns has already occurred.
In summary, breakdown of social behavior patterns is increasingly
likely
[[Page 308]]
to occur in addition to the general threats posed by small population
size such as increased susceptibility to demographic, environmental,
and genetic stochasticity, as this species' population levels decline.
Because so few individuals have been found in recent years, it is
difficult to assess whether the breakdown of social behavior patterns
has already occurred. However, given the species' low numbers, this and
other threats of small population size could already be occurring.
Therefore, we find that demographic, genetic, and environmental
stochastic events are threats to the continued existence of the
slender-billed curlew throughout its range.
Status Determination for the Slender-billed Curlew
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the slender-billed curlew. The species is
currently at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of
habitat destruction and modification (Factor A); overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes in the
form of hunting (Factor B); and threats associated with small
population size (Factor E).
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the slender-
billed curlew throughout its entire range, as described above, we
determine that this species is in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we propose to list the slender-billed
curlew as an endangered species throughout all of its range. Because we
find that the slender-billed curlew is endangered throughout all of its
range, there is no reason to consider its status in a significant
portion of its range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results
in conservation actions by Federal and foreign governments, private
agencies and interest groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that the Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan Imperial
Pigeon, Eiao Polynesian warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser,
and slender-billed curlew are not native to the United States, we are
not proposing critical habitat for these species under section 4 of the
Act.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited
financial assistance for the development and management of programs
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to
encourage conservation programs for foreign endangered and threatened
species and to provide assistance for such programs in the form of
personnel and the training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. As such, these prohibitions would be applicable to
the Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan Imperial Pigeon, Eiao Polynesian
warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, and slender-billed curlew.
These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to ``take'' (take includes: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to engage in any such
conduct) any endangered wildlife species within the United States or
upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply
to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22, for endangered species, and 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following
purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy with National Marine Fisheries
Service, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in
Endangered Species Act Activities,'' published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate independent specialists regarding this proposed
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure listing decisions are
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will
send copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately
following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these
peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period on our
specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposal to list the
species listed in this proposed rule. We will consider all comments and
information we receive during the comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final determination. Accordingly, our final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if we receive any requests for hearings. We must receive your request
for a public hearing within 45 days after the date of this Federal
Register publication (see DATES). Such requests must be made in writing
and be addressed to the Chief of the Branch of Listing at the address
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce
the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to
obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15
days before the first hearing.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The regulation will not
impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local
[[Page 309]]
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may not
conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted under
section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Branch of Listing, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding new entries for ``Adjutant,
Greater,'' ``Capercaillie, Cantabrian,'' ``Courser, Jerdon's,''
``Curlew, Slender-billed,'' ``Pigeon, Marquesan Imperial,'' and
``Warbler, Eiao Polynesian'' in alphabetical order under BIRDS to the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------ population where Critical
Historic Range endangered or Status When Listed Habitat Special Rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjutant, greater Leptoptilos Entire E NA NA
dubius
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capercaillie, Cantabrian Tetrao urogallus Entire E NA NA
cantabricus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courser, Jerdon's Rhinoptilus India Entire E NA NA
bitorquatus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curlew, slender-billed Numenius Entire E NA NA
tenuirostris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pigeon, Marquesan Imperial Ducula galeata French Polynesia Entire E NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 310]]
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warbler, Eiao Polynesian Acrocephalus Entire E NA NA
percernis
aquilonis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 16, 2009
Daniel M. Ashe,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service
[FR Doc. E9-31101 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S