[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25150-25176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10286]
[[Page 25149]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 85
May 3, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual
Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 25150]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0053; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual
Description of Progress on Listing Actions
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we announce our annual petition
findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded
by higher priority listing actions, we must review the status of the
species each year until we publish a proposed rule or make a
determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent status
reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings are referred to as
``resubmitted'' petition findings.
Information contained in this notice describes our status review of
20 foreign taxa that were the subject of previous warranted-but-
precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2009 Notice of
Review published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540). Based on our current
review, we find that 20 species continue to warrant listing, but their
listing remains precluded by higher priority listing actions.
With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting
additional information for the 20 taxa whose listings that remain
warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will
consider this information in preparing listing documents and future
resubmitted petition findings for these 20 taxa. This information will
also help us to monitor the status of the taxa and conserve them.
DATES: We will accept information on these resubmitted petition
findings at any time.
ADDRESSES: This notice is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, and http://endangered.fws.gov/. Supporting
information used in preparing this notice is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Branch
of Foreign Species, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington,
Virginia 22203. Please submit any new information, materials, comments,
or questions concerning this notice to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Foreign Species,
Endangered Species Program, (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 703-358-
2171; or by facsimile at 703-358-1735. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for considering species for
listing. First, we can identify and propose for listing those species
that are endangered or threatened based on the factors contained in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We implement this mechanism through the
candidate program. Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have
sufficient information on file relating to biological vulnerability and
threats to support a proposal to list the taxa as endangered or
threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposed
rule is precluded by higher priority listing actions. The second
mechanism for considering species for listing is when the public
petitions us to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The species covered by this notice were
assessed through the petition process.
Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a listing
petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent
practicable, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted (90-day finding). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species. Using the information from the status review, in accordance
with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we must make one of three findings
within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (12-month finding). The
first possible 12-month finding is that listing is not warranted, in
which case we need not take any further action on the petition. The
second possibility is that we may find that listing is warranted, in
which case we must promptly publish a proposed rule to list the
species. Once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections
4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern further procedures, regardless of
whether or not we issued the proposal in response to the petition. The
third possibility is that we may find that listing is warranted but
precluded. A warranted but-precluded finding on a petition to list
means that listing is warranted, but that the immediate proposal and
timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by higher
priority listing actions. In making a warranted-but-precluded finding
under the Act, the Service must demonstrate that expeditious progress
is being made to add and remove species from the Lists.
Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in response to
a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded,
we must make a new 12-month finding annually until we publish a
proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted.
These subsequent 12-month findings are referred to as ``resubmitted''
petition findings. This notice contains our resubmitted petition
findings for foreign species previously described in the 2009 Notice of
Review (August 12, 2009, 74 FR 40540).
We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: To
notify the public that these species are facing threats to their
survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings; to
provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts
that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make
listing unnecessary; to request input from interested parties to help
us identify those candidate species that may not require protection
under the Act or additional species that may require the Act's
protections; and to request necessary information for setting
priorities for preparing listing proposals.
On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a
listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098).
Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12,
depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and
taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority
(that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing
priority). Guidelines for such a priority-ranking guidance system are
required under section 4(h)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)). As
explained below, in using this system we first categorize based on the
magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and
finally by taxonomic status.
Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be
either ``high'' or ``moderate to low.'' This criterion helps ensure
that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued
[[Page 25151]]
existence receive the highest listing priority. It is important to
recognize that all candidate species face threats to their continued
existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. When
evaluating the magnitude of the threat(s) facing the species, we
consider information such as: the number of populations and/or extent
of range of the species affected by the threat(s); the biological
significance of the affected population(s), the life-history
characteristics of the species and its current abundance and
distribution; and whether the threats affect the species in only a
portion of its range. We also consider the likelihood of persistence of
the species in the unaffected portions and whether the effects are
likely to be permanent.
As used in our priority ranking system, immediacy of threat is
categorized as either ``imminent'' or ``nonimminent.'' It is not a
measure of how quickly the species is likely to become extinct if the
threats are not addressed; rather, immediacy is based on when the
threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to
occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent.
Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing
actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals
over those for which threats are only potential or species that are
intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats, but are not known
to be presently facing such threats.
Our priority ranking system has three categories for taxonomic
status: species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in
genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct
population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).
The result of the ranking system entails assigning each candidate a
listing priority number of 1 to 12. For example, if the threat(s) is/
are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the
listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic
status (i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be
assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species would be assigned to LPN
2, and a subspecies, DPS, or a species that is endangered or threatened
in only a significant portion of its range would be assigned to LPN 3).
In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making
decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to
list a given species. Each species included in this notice is one for
which we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule to
list, because it is in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
For more information on the process and standards used in assigning
LPNs, a copy of the guidance is available on our Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. For more
information on the LPN assigned to a particular species, the species
assessment for each candidate contains the LPN and a rationale for the
determination of the magnitude and imminence of threat(s) and
assignment of the LPN; that information is presented in this ANOR.
Previous Notices
This revised notice supersedes all previous annual notices of
review for foreign species. The species discussed in this notice were
the result of three separate petitions submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) to list a number of foreign bird and
butterfly species as endangered or threatened under the Act. We
received petitions to list foreign bird species on November 24, 1980,
and May 6, 1991 (46 FR 26464, May 12, 1981; and 56 FR 65207, December
16, 1991, respectively). On January 10, 1994, we received a petition to
list seven butterfly species as endangered or threatened (59 FR 24117;
May 10, 1994).
We took several actions on these petitions. Our most recent review
of petition findings was published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540).
Previously published petition findings, listing rules, status reviews,
and petition finding reviews that included foreign species are also
listed in the 2009 ANOR.
Summary of This ANOR
Since publication of the previous ANOR on August 12, 2009 (74 FR
40540), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to
ensure that listing is warranted for each species, and reevaluated the
relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to
emergency list any of these species, particularly species with high
listing priority numbers (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This
review ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at
greatest risk first. In addition to reviewing foreign candidate species
since publication of the last ANOR, we have worked on numerous findings
in response to petitions to list species and on proposed and final
determinations for rules to list species under the Act. Some of these
findings and determinations have been completed and published in the
Federal Register, while work on others is still under way (see
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details).
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, with this ANOR, we have changed the LPN for several
candidates. The review of these 20 species is summarized in Table 1.
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions
This notice describes our resubmitted petition findings for 20
foreign species for which we had previously found proposed listing to
be warranted but precluded. We have considered all of the new
information that we have obtained since the previous finding, and we
have reviewed in accordance with our Listing Priority Guidance the
listing priority number (LPN) of each taxon for which proposed listing
continues to be warranted but precluded.
As a result of our review, we find that warranted-but-precluded
findings remain appropriate for these 20 species. We emphasize that we
are not proposing these species for listing by this notice, but we do
anticipate developing and publishing proposed listing rules for these
species in the future, with an objective of making expeditious progress
in addressing all 20 of these foreign species within a reasonable
timeframe.
Table 1 provides a summary of all updated determinations of the 20
taxa in our review. All taxa in Table 1 of this notice are ones for
which we find that listing is warranted but precluded and are referred
to as ``candidates'' under the Act. The column labeled ``Priority''
indicates the LPN. Following the scientific name of each taxon (third
column) is the family designation (fourth column) and the common name,
if one exists (fifth column). The sixth column provides the known
historic range for the taxon. The avian species in Table 1 are listed
taxonomically.
[[Page 25152]]
Table 1--Annual Notice of Review
[C = listing warranted-but-precluded]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status
----------------------------- Scientific name Family Common name Historic range
Category Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.............. 2 Pauxi unicornis.... Craciidae.......... southern helmeted Bolivia, Peru.
curassow.
C.............. 2 Rallus semiplumbeus Rallidae........... Bogota rail........ Colombia.
C.............. 8 Porphyrio Rallidae........... takahe............. New Zealand.
hochstetteri.
C.............. 8 Haematopus Haematopodidae..... Chatham Chatham Islands,
chathamensis. oystercatcher. New Zealand.
C.............. 8 Cyanoramphus Psittacidae........ orange-fronted New Zealand.
malherbi. parakeet.
C.............. 2 Eunymphicus Psittacidae........ Uvea parakeet...... Uvea, New
uvaeensis. Caledonia.
C.............. 2 Ara glaucogularis.. Psittacidae........ blue-throated macaw Bolivia.
C.............. 8 Dryocopus galeatus. Picidae............ helmeted woodpecker Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay.
C.............. 2 Dendrocopus Picidae............ Okinawa woodpecker. Okinawa Island,
noguchii. Japan.
C.............. 2 Aulacorhynchus Ramphastidae....... yellow-browed Peru.
huallagae. toucanet.
C.............. 8 Scytalopus Conopophagidae..... Brasilia tapaculo.. Brazil.
novacapitalis.
C.............. 12 Bowdleria punctata Sylviidae.......... Codfish Island Codfish Island, New
wilsoni. fernbird. Zealand.
C.............. 2 Zosterops Zosteropidae....... Ghizo white-eye.... Solomon Islands.
luteirostris.
C.............. 8 Tangara peruviana.. Thraupidae......... black-backed Brazil.
tanager.
C.............. 6 Strepera graculina Cracticidae........ Lord Howe pied Lord Howe Islands,
crissalis. currawong. New South Wales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invertebrates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.............. 6 Eurytides (= Paplionidae........ Harris' mimic Brazil.
Graphium or swallowtail.
Mimoides)
lysithous
harrisianus.
C.............. 2 Eurytides (= Paplionidae........ Jamaican kite Jamaica.
Graphium or swallowtail.
Neographium or
Protographium or
Protesilaus)
marcellinus.
C.............. 5 Parides ascanius... Paplionidae........ Fluminense Brazil.
swallowtail.
C.............. 2 Parides hahneli.... Paplionidae........ Hahnel's Amazonian Brazil.
swallowtail.
C.............. 8 Teinopalpus Paplionidae........ Kaiser-I-Hind Bhutan, China,
imperialis. swallowtail. India, Laos,
Myanmar, Nepal,
Thailand, Vietnam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted but Precluded
We have found that, for the 20 taxa discussed below, publication of
proposed listing rules continues to be warranted but precluded due to
the need to complete pending, higher priority listing actions. We will
continue to monitor the status of these species as new information
becomes available (see Monitoring, below). Our review of new
information will determine if a change in status is warranted,
including the need to emergency list any species or change the LPN of
any of the species. In the following section, we describe the status of
and threats to the individual species.
Birds
A. Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi unicornis), LPN = 2
The southern helmeted curassow, also known as the horned curassow,
is one of the least frequently encountered South American bird species.
This may be due to the inaccessibility of its preferred habitat and its
apparent intolerance of human disturbance (Herzog and Kessler 1998;
Macleod et al. 2009, p. 15). The southern helmeted curassow is only
known to occur in central Bolivia and central Peru (BirdLife
International (BLI) 2010a). The Bolivian population of the nominate (a
subspecies with the same name as the species) species (Pauxi unicornis
unicornis) remained unknown to science until 1937 (Cordier 1971). The
Peruvian population is known as Pauxi unicornis koepckeae.
What is now recognized as the southern helmeted curassow may in
fact comprise two separate species that are currently recognized as two
subspecies (Pauxi unicornis unicornis, and Pauxi unicornis koepckeae).
It has been proposed that these populations of Pauxi unicornis that are
currently treated as subspecies may represent two different species
because they are separated by more than 1,000 km (621 mi), and have a
multitude of distinct characteristics (Gasta[ntilde]aga in prep. in BLI
2010a). Currently, both BLI and the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognize the southern helmeted curassow
as Pauxi unicornis and do not specifically address either subspecies.
The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) recognizes Pauxi
unicornis as a full species as well as both subspecies (ITIS 2010,
accessed July 16, 2010). For the purpose of this ANOR, we are reviewing
the petitioned entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all subspecies.
In many cases, taxonomy of species can be unclear. There is
substantial discussion in scientific literature that debates the
classification of species and whether various entities deserve species
status rather than subspecies status (Phillimore 2010, pp. 42-53; James
2010, pp. 1-5; Pratt 2010, pp. 79-89). This is sometimes significant
with respect to conservation measures,
[[Page 25153]]
particularly when considering the criteria used by organizations such
as the IUCN. These two subspecies may in fact be species, but for the
purpose of this review, these two subspecies essentially face the same
threats, are generally in the same region of South America, and they
both have quite small populations. Absent peer-reviewed information to
the contrary and based on the best available information, we recognize
both subspecies as being valid. For the purpose of this review, we are
reviewing the petitioned entity, Pauxi unicornis, which includes all
subspecies. We welcome comments on the classification of the southern
helmeted curassow.
The southern helmeted curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450 to 1,200 meters (m) (1,476
to 3,937 feet) (Cordier 1971; Herzog and Kessler 1998). It prefers
eating nuts of the almendrillo tree (Byrsonima wadsworthii (Cordier
1971)), but also consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft plants,
larvae, and insects (BLI 2008). Clutch size of the southern helmeted
curassow is probably two, as in other Cracidae. However, the only nest
found contained only one egg (Banks 1998; Cox et al. 1997; Renjifo and
Renjifo 1997 as cited in BLI 2010a). The southern helmeted curassow
typically occurs at densities up to 20 individuals per square kilometer
(km\2\) (Macleod 2007 as cited in BLI 2008).
In Ambor[oacute] National Park (Yungas Inferiores de
Ambor[oacute]), the southern helmeted curassow was regularly sighted on
the upper Saguayo river (Saguayo R[iacute]o; Wege and Long 1995).
Subsequently, it has been observed in the adjacent Ambor[oacute] and
Carrasco National Parks (Herzog and Kessler 1998; Brooks 2006). It was
also found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park
(TIPNIS), and along the western edge of the Cordillera Mosetenes
(Mosetenes Mountains), Cochabamba, Bolivia. A recent survey located a
few southern helmeted curassows across the northern boundary of
Carrasco National Park (Yungas Inferiores de Carrasco), where it was
historically found (MacLeod 2007 as cited in BLI 2009a). Surveys
conducted between 2004 and 2005 found no evidence of the species
anywhere north or east of Amboro, Carrasco, and Isiboro-Secure National
Parks in central Bolivia (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). It was found
only in five locations during the survey period. Extensive surveys over
the last several years have failed to locate the species in Madidi
National Park, La Paz, on the eastern edge of the Mosetenes Mountains
in Cochabamba, or in the R[iacute]o Tambopata area near the Bolivia-
Peru border (MacLeod in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2010a; Hennessey
2004a as cited in BLI 2009a; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI
2008).
In Peru, Pauxi unicornis koepckeae is known only from the Sira
Mountains (known as the Reserva Comunal El Sira), in Huanuco (Tobias
and del Hoyo 2006). In 2005, a team from the Armonia Association
(BirdLife in Bolivia) saw one and heard three southern helmeted
curassow in the Sira Mountains: The first sighting of the distinctive
endemic Peruvian subspecies since 1969 (BLI 2008). Limited reports
suggest that the southern helmeted curassow is rare here (Mee et al.
2002; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2008; Maccormack in litt.
2004 as cited in BLI 2009a; Gasta[ntilde]aga and Hennessey 2005 as
cited in BLI 2009a).
The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to
be between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals (BLI 2010a). The population in
Peru is estimated to have fewer than 400 individuals (Gasta[ntilde]aga
in litt. 2007, as cited in BLI 2010a). The estimated decline in the
overall population over 10 years has been 50 to 79 percent (BLI 2009b).
Southern helmeted curassow populations are estimated to be
declining very rapidly due to uncontrolled hunting and habitat
destruction. This species has a small range and is known only from a
few locations, which continue to be subject to habitat loss and hunting
pressure. Hunting was indicated to be the biggest threat to southern
helmeted curassow in all parts of its range (Gasta[ntilde]aga 2006).
The species was often hunted for meat due to its large size and for its
unique blue casque, or horn, which the local people used to make
cigarette lighters (Cordier 1971; Collar et al. 1992). In the
Ambor[oacute] region of Bolivia, the bird's head was purportedly used
in folk dances (Hardy 1984 as cited in Collar 1992). It is unclear
whether this practice still occurs.
The R[iacute]o Leche area in Peru experienced a 100 percent
population decline in less than 5 years likely due to hunting or other
pressures (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). In Carrasco National Park, the
species had been abundant during surveys in 2001 but in 2004 there were
no visual or auditory sightings (Macleod et al. 2009, p. 16). This may
be due to illegal human encroachment. Similar human pressures are
ongoing throughout the species' range. The observed decline infers that
a 50-percent population loss likely occurred between 1995 and 2005.
Unless threats are mitigated, this trend will probably continue for the
next several years (Macleod in litt. 2005).
In Bolivia, forests within the range of the southern helmeted
curassow are being cleared for crop cultivation by colonists from the
altiplano (Maillard 2006, pp. 95-98). Rural development, including road
building, inhibits its dispersal (Herzog and Kessler 1998;
Fjelds[aring] in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010). In Peru, southern
helmeted curassow habitat is threatened by subsistence agriculture
(MacLeod in litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010a), forest clearing by
colonists, illegal logging, mining, and oil exploration (BLI 2010a).
Conservation Status. According to IUCN's Species Survival
Commission (SSC) Cracid Specialist Group, the southern helmeted
curassow is critically endangered and should be given immediate
conservation attention (Brooks and Strahl 2000). The southern helmeted
curassow was previously classified as ``Vulnerable'' on the IUCN Red
List. In 2005, it was uplisted to its current status as ``Endangered''
(BLI 2009a). It is not listed in any appendices of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES; www.cites.org), which regulates international trade in animals
and plants of conservation concern.
The southern helmeted curassow is dependent upon pristine habitat.
In Bolivia, large parts of southern helmeted curassow habitat are
ostensibly protected by inclusion in the Amboro and Carrasco National
Parks and in the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park.
However, pressures on the species' populations continue (BLI 2010a). In
recent years, extensive field surveys of southern helmeted curassow
habitat have resulted in little success in locating the species (Mee et
al. 2002; Hennessey 2004a; MacLeod in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2009a;
Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2010a; MacLeod in litt. 2003
as cited in BLI 2010a). The Armonia Association has been attempting to
estimate southern helmeted curassow population numbers to identify its
most important populations, and is evaluating human impact on the
species' natural habitat. In addition, Armonia is carrying out an
environmental awareness project to inform local people about the
threats to southern helmeted curassow (Asociaci[oacute]n Armon[iacute]a
2010) and is conducting training workshops with park guards to help
improve chances for its survival.
In our 2009 ANOR, the southern helmeted curassow received an LPN of
8. After reevaluating the threats to the
[[Page 25154]]
species, we have determined that a change in the listing priority
number representing the magnitude of threats to the species is
warranted. The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a
monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on
its small, limited range; and these few locations where it is believed
to exist continue to be subject to habitat destruction and loss from
agricultural development, road building, and hunting. Although the
population is estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals, the
population trend is believed to be rapidly declining. In the past ten
years, the species' population is believed to have declined between 50
and 79 percent (BLI 2009b). The best scientific information available
suggests that these significant declines will continue in the future.
The threats to the species are occurring now and are ongoing, and are
therefore imminent. Because the species is experiencing such a
significant population decline, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a
2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
B. Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus), LPN = 2
The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the
Ubat[eacute]-Bogot[aacute] Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyac[aacute].
It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (occasionally as low
as 2,100 m) (6,890 ft) in savanna and p[aacute]ramo marshes (BLI
2010b). Bogota rail inhabit wetland habitats with vegetation-rich
shallows that are surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes (Stiles
in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). It inhabits the water's edge, in
flooded pasture and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Varty et al.
1986 as cited in BLI 2010b; Fjelds[aring] 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b;
Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BLI 2010b; Salaman in litt.
1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). Nests have been recorded adjoining shallow
water in beds of Scirpus (bulrush or sedge) and Typha (cat tail)
species. (Stiles in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2010b). The Bogota rail
is omnivorous, consuming a diet that includes aquatic invertebrates,
insect larvae, worms, mollusks, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant
material (BLI 2010b; Varty et al. 1986 as cited in BLI 2010b).
The current population is estimated to range between 1,000 and
2,499 individuals, although numbers are expected to decline over the
next 10 years by 10 to 19 percent (BLI 2009). Although the Bogota rail
has been observed in at least 21 locations in Cundinamarca, the Bogota
rail population is thought to be declining. It is still uncommon to
fairly common, with a few notable populations, including nearly 400
birds at Laguna de Tota, approximately 50 bird territories at Laguna de
la Herrera, approximately 100 birds at Parque La Florida, and
populations at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BLI 2010b).
Its suitable habitat has become widely fragmented (BLI 2010b).
Wetland drainage, pollution, and siltation on the Ubat[eacute]-
Bogot[aacute] plateau have resulted in major habitat loss and few
suitably vegetated marshes remain. All major savanna wetlands are
threatened, predominately due to draining, but also due to agricultural
runoff, erosion, dyking, eutrophication caused by untreated sewage
effluent, insecticides, tourism, hunting, burning, reed harvesting,
fluctuating water levels, and increasing water demand. Additionally,
road construction may result in colonization and human interference,
including introduction of exotic species in previously stable wetland
environments (Cortes in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010b).
Conservation Status. The Bogota rail is listed as ``Endangered'' by
IUCN primarily because its range is very small and is contracting due
to widespread habitat loss and degradation. It is not listed in any
appendices of CITES. Some Bogota rails occur in protected areas such as
Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most
savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected (BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Bogota rail received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that a
change in the listing priority number for the species is appropriate.
The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats
that are high in magnitude due to the pressures on the population's
habitat. Its range is very small and is rapidly contracting because of
widespread habitat loss and degradation (agricultural encroachment,
erosion, dyking, and eutrophication). The population is believed to be
between 1,000 and 2,499 individuals, and the population trend is
believed to be rapidly declining. Based on new information regarding
threats to this species, we find that the threats to the species are
occurring now, are ongoing, and are therefore imminent. Thus, we have
changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high
magnitude.
C. Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri, Previously Known as P. mantelli),
LPN = 8
The takahe, a flightless rail endemic to New Zealand, is the
world's largest extant (living) member of the rail family (del Hoyo et
al. 1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli, was split into P. mantelli
(extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). BLI (2000)
incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the extant form, while the
name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to the extinct form.
Fossils indicate that this species was once widespread throughout New
Zealand's North and South Islands. The takahe was thought to be extinct
by the 1930s until its rediscovery in 1948 in the Murchison Mountains,
Fiordland (South Island) (Bunin and Jamieson 1996; New Zealand
Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2009b). Soon after its rediscovery,
a takahe Special Area of 500 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) was set aside in the
Murchison Mountains of Fiordland National Park for the conservation of
the takahe (Crouchley 1994; NZDOC 2009c). Today, the species is present
in the Murchison and Stuart Mountains and was introduced to five island
reserves (Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri, Mantangi, Maud) and one privately
owned island (Collar et al. 1994; NZDOC 2009d, p. 10). The population
in the Murchison Mountains is important because it is the only mainland
population and has the potential for sustaining a large, viable
population (NZDOC 1997).
When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the takahe
population was about 260 pairs (del Hoyo 1996; Heather and Robertson
1997). By the 1970s, takahe populations had declined dramatically, and
it appeared that the species was at risk of extinction. In 1981, the
population reached a low at an estimated 120 birds. Since then, the
population has fluctuated between 100 and 160 birds (Crouchley 1994;
Maxwell 2001). At first, translocated populations increased only
slowly, possibly in part due to young pair-bonds and the quality of the
founding population (Bunin et al. 1997). In recent years, the total
takahe population has experienced significant growth; in 2004, there
was a 13.6 percent increase in the number of adult birds, with the
number of breeding pairs up 7.9 percent (BLI 2005). As of June 2008,
the estimated population of takahe was approximately 93 in the Core
Census Area; 91 on islands and at Maungatautari (the mainland
sanctuary); 36 at the Burwood Breeding Center; and 5 birds on public
display at Wildlife Centers. The Core Census Area consists of suitable
habitat east of the
[[Page 25155]]
Esk Burn and Woodrow Burn streams in the Murchison Mountains (NZDOC
2009d, pp. 9-10).
This species experienced a loss of fitness as a result of recent
inbreeding. Relative to other species, it has low genetic diversity
(Grueber et al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Research reported in 2010 that the true
level of inbreeding may be underestimated for this species (Grueber et
al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Failure to address these concerns could result in
reduced fitness potential and much higher susceptibility to biotic and
abiotic disturbances in the short term, and an inability to adapt to
environmental change in the long term. There is growing evidence that
inbreeding can negatively affect small, isolated populations. Jamieson
et al. (2006) suggested that limiting the potential effects of
inbreeding and loss of genetic variation should be integral to any
management plan for a small, isolated, inbred island species such as
the takahe.
As of 2009, the current total population estimate is 227 adults
(NZDOC 2009d, p. 11; NZDOC 2009e). Birds under 1 year of age were not
counted in these totals. As of 2007, the mainland population, as well
as island reserves, were thought to be at carrying capacity (Greaves
2007, p. 17), (NZDOC 2009, p. 29), however a Recovery Plan is underway
to address conservation priorities and needs for this species (NZDOC
2009d, entire). Overall, population numbers are slowly increasing due
to intensive management of the island reserve populations, but
fluctuations in the remnant mainland population continue to occur
(NZDOC 2009d; BLI 2010c).
Takahe territories historically have been large; they have been
known to be between several hectares (ha) to more than 100 ha (247
acres (ac)) depending on the availability of their preferred food
sources (Lee and Jamieson 2001, p. 57). Takahe defend them aggressively
against other takahe, which means that they will not form dense
colonies even in very good habitat. They are long-lived birds, probably
living between 14 and 20 years (Heather and Robertson 1997) and have a
low reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of 1 to 3 eggs. They
form life-long pair bonds and generally occupy the same territory
throughout life (Reid 1967). Generally pairs in the wild only rear one
chick. Only a few pairs manage to consistently rear more than one chick
each year. Although under normal conditions this is generally
sufficient to maintain the population, populations recover slowly from
catastrophic events (Crouchley 1994); and this is a concern because
this species has such a small population size. To increase the
population, NZDOC has been removing some eggs from the wild, captive
rearing them, and reintroducing them back into the wild (NZDOC 2009, p.
26).
Originally, the species occurred throughout forest and grass
ecosystems. Now takahe occupy alpine grasslands (BLI 2010c). They feed
on tussock grasses during much of the year; snow tussocks (Chionochloa
pallens, Chionochloa conspicua, Chionochloa flavescens, and Chionochloa
crassiuscula) are their preferred food (Mills and Mark 1977, p. 951;
Mills et al., 1980, Crouchley 1994, NZDOC 2009, pp. 39-40). These
grasses are high in nutritional content. C. flavescens is high in
phosphorus; C. pallens is high in starch; and C. crassiuscula is high
in sulphur, starch, and sodium (Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 951, 953).
takahe also forage on Carex coriacea, which is also high in nutrients.
During some seasons, takahe prefer plants with high phosphorus content;
for example, during spring and autumn, they prefer C. crassiuscula.
From October to December, when they lay eggs, they prefer mountain
daisy (Celmisia petriei), which has high levels of calcium and sugar
(Mills and Mark 1977, pp. 952-953). By June, the snow cover usually
prevents feeding above tree line, and birds move into forested valleys
in the winter and feed mainly on the rhizome of a fern (Hypolepis
millefolium) which has a high carbohydrate content (Mills et al. 1980,
p. 136).
Research by Mills et al. (1980) suggested that takahe require the
high-carbohydrate concentrations in the rhizomes of the fern to meet
the metabolic requirement of thermoregulation in the mid-winter
subfreezing temperatures. Chionochloa conspicua (bush snow-grass) is
the takahe's preferred winter food in the Murchison Mountains, although
new information indicates that it is currently uncommon due to
overgrazing by deer (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). C. conspicua has higher
levels of phosphorus, potassium and magnesium (Mills et al. 1980, p.
136) than Hypolepis spp., which is currently the primary plant in the
winter takahe diet.
Although Hypolepis rhizomes may not be sufficient for a balanced
winter diet, they are a valuable source of starch, nitrogen and
phosphorus (Mills et al. 1980, p. 136). Because foraging on Hypolepis
is a learned behavior, it is being taught at the Burwood Captive
Rearing Center to chicks by adult birds (NZDOC 2009d, p. 27).
Rareness of C. conspicua may be a contributing factor to the lack
of viability of the takahe population (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-40). There
are no known diseases that pose threats to the takahe. C. conspicua is
less common in the forest understory in the takahe Special Area than it
previously was, in part due to overgrazing by deer. NZDOC is conducting
research and trying to reintroduce and increase the prevalence of this
plant species in the Murchison Mountains Reserve (NZDOC 2009d, pp. 39-
40). The island populations now primarily consume introduced grasses
(BLI 2010c). Some researchers have theorized that consumption of these
nonnative species may contribute to inadequate nutrition and
subsequently nest failure (Jamieson 2003, p. 708); however this has not
been confirmed.
Several factors have led to the decline in the species' population.
The main cause of the species' historical decline was competition for
tussock grasses by grazing red deer (Cervus elaphus), which were
introduced after the 1940s (Mills and Mark 1977). The red deer
overgrazed the takahe's habitat, eliminating nutritious plants and
preventing some grasses from seeding (del Hoyo et al. 1996; NZDOC 2009,
p. 39). The NZDOC has controlled red deer through an intensive hunting
program in the Murchison Mountains since the 1960s. Predation by
introduced stoats (Mustela erminea) is still a threat to the species
(Crouchley 1994; Bunin and Jamieson 1995; Bunin and Jamieson 1996;
NZDOC 2009, pp. 34-36). The NZDOC is running a trial stoat control
program in a portion of the takahe Special Area to measure the effect
on takahe survival and productivity. Initial assessment indicates that
the control program has had a positive influence (NZDOC 2009, pp. 35-
36).
Other potential threats include a competitor, the introduced brush-
tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and the predator, the threatened
weka (Gallirallus australis), a flightless woodhen endemic to New
Zealand (BLI 2010c). Severe weather may also be a limiting factor to
this species (Bunin and Jamieson 1995; BLI 2010c). Weather patterns in
the Murchison Mountains vary from year to year. High chick and adult
mortality may occur during extraordinarily severe winters, and poor
breeding may result from severe stormy weather during spring breeding
season (Crouchley 1994). Research has confirmed that severity of winter
conditions adversely affects survivorship of takahe in the wild,
particularly of young birds (Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
Lead exposure may affect this species on some of the islands (Youl
2009, pp. 79-83). Lead levels in the island populations were found to
be higher
[[Page 25156]]
than those on the mainland. Older buildings on some of the island
contain lead paint. One or more takahe breeding pairs were located near
buildings containing lead-based paint. A family group on one island
that was close to a building containing lead paint was found to have
significantly higher lead levels than a family group located away from
buildings (Youl 2009, p. 80). Lead has been found to affect the
learning capacity of avian species (Youl 2009, pp. 11-13). This
exposure to lead may lead to decreased fitness of takahe.
Conservation Status. The takahe is listed as ``Endangered'' on the
IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small population (BLI 2010c).
It is not listed in any appendices of CITES. New Zealand considers the
takahe to be an endangered species and it is classified as ``Nationally
Critical'' under the New Zealand Threat Classification System. The
NZDOC, through its 2007-2012 takahe Recovery Plan, is managing the
populations of the species through various conservation efforts such as
captive breeding, population management, eradication of predators, and
management of grasslands.
Since 1983, the NZDOC has been involved in managing a captive-
breeding and release program to boost takahe recovery (NZDOC 2009, p.
29). Excess eggs from wild nests are managed to produce birds suitable
for releasing back into the wild population in the Murchison Mountains.
Some of these captive-reared birds were used to establish five
predator-free, offshore island reserves. These captive-breeding efforts
have increased the rate of survival of chicks reaching one year of age
from 50 to 90 percent (NZDOC 1997; NZDOC 2009d). Takahe that have been
translocated to the islands have higher rates of egg infertility and
low hatching success when they breed (Jamieson & Ryan 2000).
Researchers postulated that the difference in vegetation between the
native mainland grassland tussocks and the grasses found on the islands
might affect reproductive success. After testing nutrients from
available food sources, it remains unclear whether the islands contain
adequate nutrients in the available food sources (James et al. 2004,
pp. 342-344). Research on takahe that are established on Tiritiri
Matangi Island estimated that the island can currently support up to 8
breeding pairs, but suggested that the ability of the island to support
takahe is likely to decrease as the grass and shrub ecosystem reverts
to forest. The researchers concluded that, although the four island
populations fulfilled their role as insurance against extinction on the
mainland at the time of the study, given impending habitat changes on
the islands, it is unclear whether these island populations will
continue to be viable in the future without an active management plan
(Baber and Craig 2003a; Baber and Craig 2003b). Maxwell and Jamieson
(1997) studied survival and recruitment of captive-reared and wild-
reared takahe on Fiordland. They concluded that captive rearing of
takahe for release into the wild increases recruitment of juveniles
into the population.
In our 2009 ANOR, the takahe received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the threats to the takahe, we have determined that no
change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats
to the species is warranted at this time. The takahe does not represent
a monotypic genus. The current population is small (between 150-220
individuals), and the species' distribution is extremely limited. It
faces threats that are moderate in magnitude (extremely small
population, limited suitable habitat, inbreeding depression, and to
some extent predation) because the NZDOC has taken measures to aid the
recovery of the species (NZDOC 2009d, 58 pp.; NZDOC 2009e, 3 pp.) and
is active in the species conservation and recovery. The NZDOC has
implemented a successful deer control program, implemented a captive-
breeding and release program to augment the mainland population, and
established four offshore island reserves. However, we find that the
threats are on-going and therefore, imminent. Predation by introduced
species and reduced survivorship resulting from severe winters,
combined with the takahe's small population size and naturally low
reproductive rate are threats to this species that are moderate in
magnitude. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of
moderate magnitude.
D. Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis), LPN = 8
The Chatham oystercatcher is the most rare oystercatcher species in
the world (NZDOC 2001). It is endemic to the Chatham Island group
(Marchant and Higgins 1993; Schmechel and Paterson 2005), which lies
860 km (534 mi) east of mainland New Zealand. The Chatham Island group
consists of two large, inhabited islands (Chatham and Pitt) and
numerous smaller islands. Two of the smaller islands (Rangatira and
Mangere) are nature reserves, which provide vitally needed habitat for
the Chatham oystercatcher. The Chatham Island group has a biota quite
different from the mainland. The remote marine setting, distinct
climate, and physical makeup have led to a high degree of endemism
(Aikman et al. 2001). The southern part of the Chatham oystercatcher
range is dominated by rocky habitats with extensive rocky platforms.
The northern part of the range is a mix of sandy beach and rock
platforms (Aikman et al. 2001).
Pairs of Chatham oystercatchers occupy their territory all year,
while juveniles and subadults form small flocks or occur alone on
vacant sections of the coast. Their scrape nests (shallow-rimmed
depressions in soil or vegetation) are usually on sandy beaches just
above spring-tide and storm surge level or among rocks above the
shoreline and are often under the cover of small bushes or rock
overhangs (Heather and Robertson 1997).
In the early 1970s, the Chatham oystercatcher population was
approximately 50 birds (del Hoyo 1996). The population increased by 30
percent overall between 1987 and 1999, except trends varied in
different areas of the Chatham Islands (Moore et al. 2001). Surveys
taken over a 6-year period recorded an increase in Chatham
oystercatchers from approximately 100 individuals in 1998 to 320
individuals (including 88 breeding pairs) in 2005 (Moore 2005a; Moore
2009b, p. 32). Although the overall population has significantly
increased over the last 20 years, the population on South East Island
(Rangatira), an island free of mammalian predators, has gradually
declined since the 1970s. The reason for the decline is unknown
(Schmechel and O'Connor 1999) but is likely due to large waves during
sea storms which destroy the nests (Moore 2009a, p. 9).
Predation, nest disturbance, invasive plants, and spring tides and
storm surges are factors threatening the Chatham oystercatcher
population (NZDOC 2001, Moore 2005; Moore 2009a, pp. 8-9). Feral cats
(Felis catus) have become established on two of the Chatham Islands
after being introduced as pets. Severe reduction in Chatham
oystercatcher numbers is attributed in part to heavy cat predation.
Video cameras placed to observe nests indicated that feral cats are a
major nest predator. After three summers of video recording, 13 of the
19 nests recorded were predated by cats. When a cat was present eggs
usually lasted only 1 or 2 days.
Another predator, the weka (Gallirallus australis), an endemic New
Zealand rail was introduced to the Chatham Islands in the early 1900s.
Weka was observed preying upon this species three times through camera
trapping between 1999 and 2001 (Moore
[[Page 25157]]
2009a, p. 8). It is not considered as severe a threat to the Chatham
oystercatcher as feral cats because weka only prey on eggs when adult
oystercatchers are not present.
Other potential predators include the Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), ship rat (R. rattus), Australian brush-tailed possum
(Trichsurus vulpeculs), and hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). However,
these predators are not considered serious threats because of the large
size of the oystercatcher eggs. Native predators include the red-billed
gull (Larus scopulinus), and southern black-backed gull (L.
dominicanus) (Moore 2005b). Nest destruction and disturbance is caused
by people fishing, walking, or driving on or near nests. When a nesting
area is disturbed, adult Chatham oystercatchers often abandon their
eggs for up to an hour or more, leaving the eggs vulnerable to
opportunistic predators. Eggs are also trampled by livestock (Moore
2005a). In one case, a sheep was observed to lie on a nest (Moore
2009b, p. 21).
Another obstacle to Chatham oystercatcher populations is marram
grass (Ammophila arenaria), introduced to New Zealand from Europe to
protect farmland from sand encroachment. Marram grass has spread to the
Chatham Islands where it binds beach sands forming tall dunes with
steep fronts. In many marram-infested areas, the strip between the high
tide mark and the fore dunes narrows as the marram advances seaward.
Consequently, the Chatham oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to
shore where nests are vulnerable to tides and storm surges. The dense
marram grass is unsuitable for nesting (Moore and Davis 2005). In a
study done by Moore and Williams (2005), the authors found that, along
the narrow shoreline, many eggs were washed away and the adults would
not successfully breed without human intervention. Oystercatcher eggs
could easily be moved away from the shoreline by fieldworkers and
placed in hand-dug scrapes surrounded by tidal debris and kelp. After
three summers of video recording, 13 of the 19 nests recorded were
predated by cats, but of the remaining six nest failures, weka were
responsible for three; red-billed gull, one; sheep-trampling, one; and
sea wash, one (Moore 2005b).
Conservation Status. Chatham oystercatcher is listed as critically
endangered by the NZDOC (2010d), making it a high priority for
conservation management (NZDOC 2007). It is classified as
``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List because it has an extremely small
population (BLI 2010d). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
The birds of the Chatham Island group are protected. The NZDOC
focused conservation efforts in the early 1990s on predator trapping
and fencing to limit domestic stock access to nesting areas. In 2001,
the NZDOC published the Chatham Island Oystercatcher Recovery Plan
2001-2011 (NZDOC 2001, 24 pp.), which outlines actions such as
translocation of nests away from the high tide mark and nest
manipulation to further the conservation of this species. These actions
may have helped to increase hatching success (NZDOC 2008b). Artificial
incubation has been attempted but has not increased productivity.
Additionally, livestock have been fenced and signs erected to reduce
human and dog disturbance. Marram grass control has been successful in
some areas. Intensive predator control combined with nest manipulation
has resulted in a high number of fledglings (BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Chatham oystercatcher received an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that
no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of
threats to the species is warranted at this time. The Chatham
oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The current
population estimate is very small--between 50 and 300 individuals--and
the species only occurs in a small area. Although it faces threats that
are moderate in magnitude (predation, low population numbers, and
potential loss due to storm surges); the NZDOC has taken measures to
aid the recovery of the species that appear to be effective (the
species' population is increasing), However, we find that the threats
are still on-going and therefore, imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to
reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.
E. Orange-Fronted Parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi), LPN = 8
The orange-fronted parakeet, also known as Malherbe's parakeet is
endemic to New Zealand. It was treated as an individual species until
it was proposed to be a color morph of the yellow-crowned parakeet, C.
auriceps, in 1974 (Holyoak 1974). Further taxonomic analysis suggested
that it should once again be considered a distinct species (Kearvell et
al. 2003). ITIS recognizes Cyanoramphus malherbi as a full species
(ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). Absent peer-reviewed information
to the contrary, we consider the orange-fronted parakeet to be a valid
species.
At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout
most of New Zealand (Harrison 1970). This species has been described as
never being common (Mills and Williams 1979). During the 19th century,
the species' distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a
few other offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a). Currently,
there are three known remaining populations. The South Island
populations are managed and located within a 30-km (18.6-mi) radius in
beech (Nothofagus spp.) forests of upland valleys (Hawdon and Poulter
valleys). These valleys are within Arthur's Pass National Park and the
Hurunui South Branch in Lake Sumner Forest Park in Canterbury, South
Island (NZDOC 2009a). Two populations of this species have also been
established on Chalky and Maud Islands (Elliott and Suggate 2007;
Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). Between 2007 and 2009, 62
birds were introduced to Maud Island.
This species inhabits southern beech forests, with a preference for
locales bordering stands of N. solandri (mountain beech) (del Hoyo
1997; Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002). The species is reliant on old
mature beech trees with natural cavities or hollows for nesting.
Breeding is linked with the irregular seed production by Nothofagus; in
mast years (years yielding a high abundance of seeds), parakeet numbers
can increase substantially. On South Island, Nothofagus species were
observed to be a major component of its diet (Kearvall et al. 2002, pp.
140-145). On Maud Island, a primary component of its diet was Melicytus
ramiflorus (mahoe) (Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 385). In
addition to eating seeds, the orange-fronted parakeet feeds on fruits,
leaves, flowers, buds, and small invertebrates (BLI 2009).
The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small, fragmented
population and limited range, and its population has declined during
the past 10 years (BLI 2010e). Currently, BLI estimates its population
in the wild to be between 50 and 249 individuals (BLI 2010e, p. 1).
NZDOC's population estimate is between 100 to 200 individuals in the
wild and they also believe the population is declining (NZDOC 2009a).
There are several reasons for the species' continuing decline; one
of the most prominent risks to the species is believed to be predation
by introduced species, such as stoats (Mustela erminea) and rats
(Rattus spp.) (BLI 2009). Large numbers of stoats and rats
[[Page 25158]]
in beech forests cause large losses of parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Stoats
and rats are excellent hunters on the ground and in trees. They are
able to exploit parakeet nests and roosts in tree holes, which impacts
primarily females, chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 2009c).
In 2007, habitat loss and degradation were considered threats to
the orange-fronted parakeet (BLI 2007b). Large areas of native forest
have been felled or burnt, decreasing the habitat available for
parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Silviculture of beech forests aims to harvest
trees at an age when few will become mature enough to develop suitable
cavities for orange-fronted parakeets (Kearvell 2002). The habitat is
also degraded by brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), cattle,
and deer, which browse on plants, changing the forest structure (NZDOC
2009c). This is problematic for the orange-fronted parakeet, which
utilizes the ground and low-growing shrubs while feeding (Kearvell et
al. 2002).
Other risks to this species' viability exist. Some of these other
potential threats include increased competition between the orange-
fronted parakeet and the yellow-crowned parakeet for nest sites and
food in a habitat substantially modified by humans; competition with
introduced finch species; and competition with introduced wasps
(Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica) which compete with parakeets for
invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002). Hybridization
is also a concern. The orange-fronted parakeet may hybridize with other
species. Snyder et al. reported that hybridization with yellow-crowned
parakeets (C. auriceps) had been observed at Lake Sumner (2000). In
some cases, we are not able to distinguish between hybridized birds and
full species due to similarities in color (Chan 2006, p. 5).
Conservation Status. The NZDOC (2009b) considers the orange-fronted
parakeet, or k[auml]k[auml]riki, to be the rarest parakeet in New
Zealand. Because it is classified as ``Nationally Critical'' with a
high risk of extinction, the NZDOC has been working intensively on the
species to ensure its survival. The species is listed as ``Critically
Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List, ``because it underwent a population
crash following rat invasions between 1990-2000.'' It is listed in
Appendix II of CITES as part of a general listing for all parrots
(CITES 2010).
The NZDOC closely monitors all known populations of the orange-
fronted parakeet. Nest searches are conducted, nest holes are
inspected, and surveys are carried out in other areas to look for
evidence of other populations. For example, the surveys successfully
located another orange-fronted parakeet population in May 2003 (NZDOC
2009d). A new population was established in 2006 on the predator-free
Chalky Island. Eggs were removed from nests in the wild, and foster
parakeet parents incubated the eggs and cared for the hatchlings until
they fledged and were transferred to the island. Monitoring later in
the year (2006) indicated that the birds had successfully nested and
reared chicks. Additional birds will be added to the Chalky Island
population in an effort to increase the genetic diversity of the
population (NZDOC 2009d). A second self-sustaining population has been
established on Maud Island (NZDOC 2008).
Because the NZDOC determined that the species' largest threat is
predation, they initiated a program to remove predators in some parts
of the species' range. ``Operation ARK'' is their initiative to respond
to predator problems in beech forests to prevent species' extinctions,
including orange-fronted parakeets. Predators are methodically
controlled with traps, toxins in bait stations, bait bags, and aerial
spraying, when necessary (NZDOC 2009d). The NZDOC also implemented a
captive-breeding program for the orange-fronted parakeet. Using
captive-bred birds from the program, NZDOC established two self-
sustaining populations of the orange-fronted parakeet on predator-free
islands. The NZDOC monitors wild nest sites and is actively managing
the conservation of the species, as evidenced by the 2003 discovery of
a new population. Despite these controls, predation by introduced
species is still a threat because predators have not been eradicated
from this species' range.
In our 2009 ANOR, the orange-fronted parakeet received an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the threats to the orange-fronted parakeet, we have
determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude of
threats to the species is warranted because NZDOC is actively managing
the species. The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic
genus. Although the species' available suitable nesting habitat in
beech forests is extremely restricted, translocations have taken place
and seem to be successful (BLI 2010e, p. 2). Although the current
population is small and declining (between 50 and 249 individuals), and
the species' distribution is extremely limited, threats are being
mitigated. It has a very small and severely fragmented population that
has declined over the past 10 years (BLI 2010e) but it is being closely
monitored and may slowly be increasing (van Hal in litt, in BLI 2010e).
The species faces threats that are moderate in magnitude (competition
for food and suitable nesting habitat within highly altered habitat,
predation, and habitat degradation) because the NZDOC has taken
measures to aid the recovery of the species. However, because the
threats are on-going, we find that the threats to this species are
still imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats
of moderate magnitude.
F. Uvea Parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis), LPN = 2
The Uvea parakeet, previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus, is
currently known as both E. uvaeensis and E. c. cornutus (Boon et al.
2008, p 251; BLI 2010f). BLI recognizes the Uvea parakeet as E.
uvaeensis. ITIS considers the Uvea parakeet to be a subspecies,
Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis (ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010).
Research presented in 2008 indicates that the Uvea parakeet, based on
genetic, ecological, behavioral, and biogeographical evidence, is so
markedly distinct that it warrants status as its own species (Boon 2008
et al., p. 259). Thus, in this ANOR, based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, we consider the Uvea parakeet to be the
species E. uvaeensis. We are evaluating the threats to the Uvea
parakeet at the taxonomic level of a species.
The Uvea parakeet is found only on the small island of Uvea (also
known as both Ouv[eacute]a Island and Wallis Island) in the Loyalty
Archipelago, New Caledonia (a territory of France) in the South Pacific
Ocean. The island is approximately 1,500 km (932 mi) east of Australia.
Uvea Island is 110 km\2\ (42 mi\2\) in size (Juniper and Parr 1998).
The Uvea parakeet is found primarily in old-growth forests,
specifically those dominated by the pine tree Agathis australis (del
Hoyo et al. 1997). The island is predominantly limestone and lacks deep
soil layers (Boon et al. 2008, p. 257). Most birds occur in about 20
km\2\ (7.7 mi\2\) of forest in the north, although some individuals are
found in strips of forest on the northwest isthmus and in the southern
part of the island, with a total area of potential habitat of
approximately 66 km\2\ (25.5 mi\2\) (BLI 2010f).
Uvea parakeets feed on fruit, the berries of vines, and the flowers
and seeds of native trees and shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997; Robinet and
Salas 2003, p. 71). They also feed on a few types of crops in
cultivated land
[[Page 25159]]
adjacent to their habitat. The greatest number of birds occurs close to
gardens with papayas (BLI 2010f). A significant characteristic is that
Uvea parakeet nest in cavities of native trees; the absence of suitable
trees and nesting cavities may be a limiting factor (Robinet and Salas
2003, p. 71). Their clutch size is generally 2 to 3 eggs; and they are
known to have another clutch if the first set of eggs is destroyed
(termed ``double-clutch'') (BLI 2010f).
One survey of Uvea parakeet in the early 1990s estimated that the
population was between 70 and 90 individuals (Hahn 1993). However,
another survey in 1993 (Robinet et al. 1996) yielded an estimate of
between 270 and 617 individuals. In 1999, it was believed that 742
individuals lived in northern Uvea, and 82 in the south (Primot 1999 as
cited in BLI 2010f). Six surveys conducted between 1993 and 2007
indicated a steady increase in population numbers in both areas
(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010f). The current population
estimate is 750 individuals (BLI 2010f).
Various threats to this species exist. The Uvea parakeet is
primarily threatened by lack of nesting sites due to competition from
bees and historic habitat loss, and to lesser extents predation and
possibly capture of juveniles for the pet trade (Robinet et al. 2003,
pp. 73, 78; BLI 2010f, p. 2). Although the forest habitat of the Uvea
parakeet has been threatened by clearance for agriculture and logging
in the past, the primary threats now appear to be competition by bees
for nests and predation by goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus) (Robinet et
al. 2003, p. 73). The invasion of bees into Uvea in 1996 resulted in
competition with Uvea parakeet over nesting sites. This decreased known
Uvea parakeet nesting sites by 10 percent between 2000 and 2002
(Barr[eacute] in litt. 2003 as cited in BLI 2010f). Studies by Robinet
et al. (2003) indicate the density of breeding Uvea parakeet is
positively related to the distribution of suitable trees. Consequently,
the limited number of suitable trees limits the number of breeding
pairs. In two other cases, Robinet et al. (2003) observed successful
nesting after human restoration of former nest sites that had been
destroyed by illegal collectors. This further indicates the deleterious
effect of nest-site limitation. Another limiting factor is forest
fragmentation as a result of increased numbers of coconut plantations
which acts as a barrier to dispersal. This could possibly explain the
lack of recolonization in southern Uvea (Robinet et al. 2003).
It is unknown if capture of young Uvea parakeets for the pet trade
is still occurring, and if so, to what extent. Capture of juvenile
parakeets involves cutting open nesting cavities to extract nestlings,
which renders the holes unsuitable for future nesting. Robinet et al.
(1996) suggested that the impact of capture of juveniles on the
viability of populations is not obvious in long-lived species that are
capable of re-nesting, such as Uvea parakeet.
In 1999, a study of the reproductive biology of Uvea parakeet found
that the main cause of chick death was starvation of the third chick
within the first week after hatching (Robinet and Salas). However, the
reason underlying the starvation is unknown.
Norway rats are prolific invaders of islands and can rapidly
establish large populations (Russell 2007). Additionally, impacts of
the rat appear to be more severe on smaller islands (Martin et al.
2000). In one study, it was determined that the low rate of predation
on nest sites of Uvea parakeet was related to the absence of the ship
rat and Norway rat. However, these rat species are present on the other
nearby Loyalty Islands and on Grande Terre (Robinet and Salas 1996);
precautions need to be taken to ensure that rats do not reach Uvea
Island. Egg predation rates were four times higher on Lifou (also known
as Lifu Island) where R. rattus occurs (Robinet et al. 1998).
In 30 years, approximately 30 to 50 percent of primary forest was
removed (Robinet et al. 1996). The island has a young and increasing
human population. A 2000 population estimate was 4,000 inhabitants; and
the 2008 population census for Wallis (Uvea) was 9,731
(www.insee.gov.fr, accessed March 19, 2011). The increase in human
population may lead to more destruction of forest for housing,
cultivated fields, and plantations. As of 2000, coconut palms
plantations were the island's main source of income (CITES 2000a). As
indicated earlier, the lack of nesting sites is believed to be the most
significant limiting factor for the species (Robinet et al. 2003, pp.
73, 78; BLI 2010, p. 2).
Conservation Status. Various conservation measures are in place for
this species. This species is listed as ``Endangered'' on the 2010 IUCN
Red List (BLI 2010f). It was uplisted from Appendix II to Appendix I of
CITES in July 2000, due to its small population size, restricted area
of distribution, loss of suitable habitat, and the illegal pet trade
(CITES 2000b). A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet was prepared for
the period 1997-2002, which included strong local participation in
population and habitat monitoring (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in
Snyder et al. 2000). A second recovery plan was initiated in 2003. The
species increased in popularity and is celebrated as an island emblem
(Robinet and Salas 1997; Primot in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2009).
Conservation actions, including in situ management (habitat protection
and restoration), recovery efforts (providing nest boxes and food), and
public education on the protection of Uvea parakeet and its habitat
have occurred (Robinet et al. 1996), however the success of current
conservation efforts is unknown. Increased awareness of the plight of
the Uvea parakeet and improvements in law enforcement capability are
helping to address illegal trade of the species.
Preventive measures have been taken at the port and airport to
prevent introduction of invasive rats and should continue to be
reinforced, but there is concern that these rats may be introduced in
the future (BLI 2010, p. 3). As of 2007, the island remained rat-free
(Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010). Introductions of Uvea
parakeets to the adjacent island of Lifou (to establish a second
population) in 1925 and 1963 failed (Robinet et al. 1995 as cited in
BLI 2009), possibly because of the presence of ship rats and Norway
rats (Robinet in litt. 1997 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). Robinet et
al. (1998) studied the impact of rats in Uvea and Lifou on the Uvea
parakeet and concluded that Lifou is not a suitable place for
translocating Uvea parakeet unless active habitat management is carried
out to protect it from invasive rats. As a preventative measure in case
rats reach the island, they also suggested it would be valuable to
implement low-intensity rat control of the Polynesian rat (R. exulans)
in Uvea immediately before the parakeet breeding season. Lifou may also
lack suitable nesting sites (Robinet et al. 2003, pp. 73, 78).
A captive-breeding program has been discussed but not begun (BLI
2010f). A translocation program to restock this species into the
southern portion of Uvea was cancelled under the new recovery plan
(2003) because the population was considered viable and was expected to
increase naturally (Barr[eacute] in litt. 2003; Anon 2004 as cited in
BLI 2010f). Measures are being taken to control predators and prevent
colonization by rats (BLI 2010f). Current Uvea parakeet numbers appear
to be slowly increasing, but any relaxation of conservation efforts or
introduction of nonnative rats or other predators could lead to a rapid
decline (BLI 2010f). The Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Cal[eacute]donienne
d'Ornithologie (SCO) received funding to test artificial
[[Page 25160]]
nests, and BirdLife Suisse (ASPO) is continuing to destroy invasive
bees' nests and is placing hives in forested areas to attract bees for
removal (Verfaille in litt. 2007 as cited in BLI 2010f).
Even though populations appear to be currently increasing, any
reduction in conservation efforts or introduction of invasive species
(particularly cavity-nesting bees, the ship rat, and the Norway rat)
could lead to rapid declines (Robinet et al. 1998; BLI 2010f). Although
the Uvea parakeet is affected by other threats, the absence of the ship
rat and Norway rat on Uvea is a major factor contributing to its
survival.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Uvea parakeet received an LPN of 8. We
reevaluated the threats to the Uvea parakeet and determined that a
change in the LPN for the species is warranted. The Uvea parakeet does
not represent a monotypic genus. Its population is estimated to be
approximately 750 individuals, and it is an island endemic in limited
locations with restricted and declining habitat. The Uvea parakeet
faces threats that are high in magnitude primarily due to nest
competition by bees, predation by goshawk, and the lack of the old-
growth forest, on which the birds depend for nesting holes. The birds
only occur in an area about 20 km\2\ (7.7 mi\2\) of forest with a total
area of potential habitat of approximately 66 km\2\ (25.5 mi\2\) (BLI
2010f). Because the human population on the island is increasing, there
is likely an increase occurring in the magnitude of threats to this
species. Management efforts have been put in place to aid in the
recovery of the species, however, the threats to the species identified
here continue. Based on new information, we find that the threats to
this species are occurring now, ongoing, and are imminent. Thus, we
have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of
high magnitude.
G. Blue-Throated Macaw (Ara glaucogularis), LPN = 2
The blue-throated macaw is endemic to forest islands in the
seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de Mojos, also known as Lanos
de Moxos) of central Bolivia (Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de
Barros 1997; BLI 2010g). The taxonomic status of this species was long
disputed, primarily because the species was unknown in the wild to
biologists until fairly recently. Previously, it was considered an
aberrant form of the blue-and-yellow macaw (A. ararauna), but the two
species are now known to occur sympatrically without interbreeding (del
Hoyo et al. 1997).
The species inhabits a mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm
groves, forest islands, and humid lowlands. This macaw species is found
in areas where palm-fruit food and suitable nesting cavities are
available (Herrera et al. 2007, pp. 18-24). They particularly like
fruit mesocarp of palm trees (Jordan and Munn 1993; Yamashita and de
Barros 1997; Bueno 2000; Herrera 2007, p. 20) such as Attalea phalerata
(motacu palm), Mauritia flexuosa (common names: aguaje, it palm, buriti
palm, moriche palm), and Acrocomia aculeata (common names include:
coyoli palm, gru-gru palm, macaw palm, Paraguay palm, acrocome, gru-
gru, noix de Coyol, Coyolipalme, amankayo, corojo, corozo, coyol,
baboso, tucuma, and totai) (http://www.ars-grin.gov, http://www.pacsoa.org.au).
The blue-throated macaw also depends on motacu palms for nesting
(BLI 2008d). In 2005, this species was found nesting in an area
dominated by the Curupau tree (Anadenanthera colubrina) (also known as
Vilca, Huilco, Wilco, Cebil, or Angico) (Kyle 2005, p. 7). The species
inhabits elevations between 200 and 300 m (656 and 984 ft) (Brace et
al. 1995; Yamashita and de Barros 1997; BLI 2008c). These macaws are
seen most commonly traveling in pairs, and have been seen in flocks of
7 to 9 birds, and on rare occasions may be found in small flocks
(Macleod et al. 2009, p. 15). One flock of 70 birds was found in 2007
near the Rio Mamor[eacute] by the Armonia Association (Waugh 2007a, p.
53). The blue-throated macaw nests between November and March in large
tree cavities where one to three young are raised (BLI 2010g).
BLI (2010g) estimates the total wild population to be between 50
and 300 birds and noted the population has some fragmentation. Surveys
indicate the population may have slowly increased following dramatic
declines in the 1970s and 1980s, but now the population is believed to
be decreasing (BLI 2010g). Biologists surveying for this species in
2004 found more birds than in previous surveys by searching specific
habitat types (palm groves and forested islands) (Herrera et al. 2007).
A population viability analysis (PVA) of this species found that it had
a low probability of extinction over the next 50 years (Strem 2008).
However, its small population size and its low population growth rate
makes this species very vulnerable to any threat. The low probability
of extinction may be reasonable given that the blue-throated macaw is a
long-lived species, and the 50-year simulation timeframe is relatively
short for such species. However, Strem found that impacts such as
habitat destruction and harvesting had significantly increased the
probability of extinction, which reemphasizes the importance of
addressing these threats for this species (2008).
The blue-throated macaw was historically at risk from trapping for
the national and international bird trade, and some illegal trade may
still be occurring. Between the early 1980s and early 1990s, an
estimated 1,200 or more wild-caught individuals were exported from
Bolivia, and many are now in captivity in the European Union and in
North America (World Parrot Trust 2003; BLI 2008b). Although Bolivia
outlawed the export of live parrots in 1984 (Brace et al. 1995),
illegal trade did occur after that. In 1993, investigators reported
that an Argentinean bird dealer was offering illegal Bolivian dealers a
``high price'' for blue-throated macaws (Jordan and Munn 1993, p. 695).
Armonia Association (a nonprofit organization in Bolivia) monitored
the wild birds that passed through a pet market in Santa Cruz, Bolivia,
from August 2004 to July 2005. Although nearly 7,300 parrots were
recorded in trade, the blue-throated macaw was absent in the market
during the monitoring period, which may point to the effectiveness of
the ongoing conservation programs in Bolivia (BLI 2007), or it may be
indicative of the scarcity of blue-throated macaws in the wild. There
are a number of blue-throated macaws in captivity, with over 1,000
registered in the North American studbook (Waugh 2007c). Because these
birds are not difficult to breed, the supply of captive-bred birds has
increased (Waugh 2007a), helping to alleviate pressure on, but not
completely eliminating illegal collection of wild birds. However,
United Nations Environment Programme--World Conservation Monitoring
Center (UNEP-WCMC) trade data indicates that no birds of wild origin of
this species have been exported from Bolivia since 1993 (UNEP-WCMC,
accessed September 3, 2010). A current internet search indicated that
captive-bred specimens of this species sell for between $1,500 and
$3,000 in the United States (www.hoobly.com, accessed September 13,
2010). One search advertised that this is a ``very rare species and
there are only 300 left in the wild.'' The high value of this species
could lead to continued illegal trade.
Other threats to the blue-throated macaw include habitat loss,
botfly parasites, and competition from other birds, such as other
macaws, toucans, and large woodpeckers (Kyle 2005, pp.
[[Page 25161]]
6-10; World Parrot Trust 2008; BLI 2010g). An early researcher noted
that all known sites of the blue-throated macaw were on private cattle
ranches, where local ranchers typically burn the pasture annually (del
Hoyo 1997). This type of burning resulted in almost no recruitment of
native palm trees, which are vital to the ecological needs of the blue-
throated macaw (Yamashita and de Barros 1977). The blue-throated macaw
requires suitable nesting cavities for raising their young. The loss of
suitable trees has resulted in increased competition from other species
for these nesting cavities as well. In fact, recent research found that
some parrot species have been using termite mounds as nesting cavities
(Sanchez-Martinez and Renton 2009). In Beni, many palms are cut down by
the local people for firewood (Brace et al. 1995). Although palm groves
are more than 500 years old, Yamashita and de Barros (1977) concluded
that the palm population structure suggests long-term decline. In 2004-
2005, of 13 potential blue-throated macaw nests, researchers observed
several of the threats identified above over the course of the survey.
At the end of the survey, only two chicks had fledged (Kyle 2005, p.
9).
Conservation Status. This species is listed in Appendix I of CITES
(CITES 2010) and is legally protected in Bolivia (Juniper and Parr
1998). Although conservation of this species is occurring, this species
remains categorized as ``Critically Endangered'' on the 2010 IUCN Red
List (BLI 2010g). The Eco Bolivia Foundation patrols existing macaw
habitat by foot and motorbike, and the Armonia Association monitors the
Beni lowlands for additional populations (Snyder et al. 2000).
Additionally, the Armonia Association is building an awareness campaign
aimed at the cattlemen's association to ensure that the protection and
conservation of these birds is at a local level (e.g., protection of
macaws from trappers and the sensible management of key habitats, such
as palm groves and forest islands, on their property) (Snyder et al.
2000; Llampa 2007; BLI 2008a).
In October 2008, Armonia Association announced it had purchased a
large, 3,555-ha (8,785-ac) reserve for the purpose of establishing a
protected area for the blue-throated macaw (BLI 2008d; Worldland Trust
2010, accessed July 16, 2010). The Barba Azul Nature Reserve protects
savanna habitat, and 20 blue-throated macaws have been observed to nest
here. The organization has also been experimenting with artificial nest
boxes; the macaws have been using these, and this promises to be a way
to boost breeding success while habitat restoration is under way in the
new reserve. Despite these efforts, only between 50 and 300 remain in
the wild.
In our 2009 ANOR, the blue-throated macaw received an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in
the LPN is warranted for this species. The blue-throated macaw does not
represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in
magnitude such as limited and decreasing habitat suitability (nesting
cavities), competition for nesting cavities from other species (toucans
in particular and other more aggressive macaws), and parasitism by
botflies. Wildlife managers in Bolivia are actively protecting the
species and searching for additional populations, and the species is
now protected in one nature reserve. Although wild birds may no longer
be imported for commercial purposes as a result of the species' CITES
listing, and it is legally protected in Bolivia, there are only between
50 and 300 of these birds left in the wild, and the population is
decreasing rapidly, despite conservation efforts. The threats to the
species identified are of high magnitude, ongoing, and imminent. Based
on the rapidly declining population, we have changed the LPN from an 8
to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
H. Helmeted Woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus), LPN = 8
The helmeted woodpecker is endemic to the southern Atlantic forest
region of southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern
Argentina (BLI 2010h). Its estimated range spans 24,000 km\2\ (9,266
mi\2\). It is found in tall lowland Atlantic and primary and mature
montane forest, and has been recorded in degraded and small forest
patches. However, it is usually found near large forest tracts (Chebez
1995b as cited in BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010h).
Helmeted woodpeckers forage primarily in the middle story of the forest
interior (Brooks et al. 1993 cited in BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 2000 as
cited in BLI 2010h).
Field work on the helmeted woodpecker indicated that the species is
less rare than once thought (BLI 2010h), although its range is
restricted (Mattsson et al. 2008) by its habitat requirements. Numerous
sightings since the mid-1980s include one pair in the Brazilian State
of Santa Catarina in 1998, where the species had not been seen since
1946 (del Hoyo et al. 2002).
The most recent population estimate is between 10,000 and 19,999
individuals and decreasing (BLI 2010h); however it is unclear when the
last census of this species was conducted. Because the helmeted
woodpecker is difficult to locate except when vocalizing and it is
silent most of the year, its numbers may be underestimated. Between
1997 and 2006, it was observed in the San Rafael National Park,
Paraguay, although infrequently (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 310). The
overall conservation status of the helmeted woodpecker's population is
unclear; however, it is not common anywhere it is known to exist (BLI
2010h).
The greatest threat to the helmeted woodpecker is widespread
deforestation (Cockle 2008 as cited in BLI 2009; BLI 2010h). Other
threats may be competition from other species, particularly more
competitive woodpeckers, which may use fragmented and ``edge'' habitat
more effectively (BLI 2010h).
The Atlantic Forest, habitat in which the helmeted woodpecker
resides, extends along the Atlantic coast of Brazil from Rio Grande do
Norte in the north to Rio Grande do Sul in the south, and inland as far
as Paraguay and Misiones Province of northeastern Argentina (Morellato
and Haddad 2000, pp. 786-787; Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1). The Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 km (373
mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. It consists of tropical and subtropical
moist forests, tropical dry forests, and mangrove forests at mostly
low-to-medium elevations less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft); however,
altitude can reach as high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea level. It is
likely that only between 7 and 10 percent of this habitat remains
intact (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes
2000, p. 794). Between 92 to 95 percent of the area historically
covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been
converted or severely degraded as a result of various human activities
(Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853-854;
Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation
International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007, pp. 2-
41). In addition to the overall loss and degradation of native habitats
within this biome, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely
fragmented. The current rate of habitat decline is unknown.
A significant portion of Atlantic Forest habitat has been, and
continues to be, lost and degraded by various ongoing human activities,
including logging, establishment and expansion of plantations and
livestock pastures,
[[Page 25162]]
urban and industrial developments (including many new hydroelectric
dams), slash-and-burn clearing, and intentional and accidental ignition
of fires (Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2001, pp. 9-15).
Even with the passage of a national forest policy and in light of many
other legal protections in Brazil, the rate of habitat loss throughout
the Atlantic Forest biome has increased since the mid-1990s (Hodge et
al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF 2001, p. 10; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270). Native
habitats at many of the remaining sites where the helmeted woodpecker
currently exists may be lost over the next several years (Rocha et al.
2005, p. 263). Furthermore, the helmeted woodpecker's population is
already highly fragmented, and its population believed to be declining
(BLI 2010h). Any further loss or degradation of its remaining suitable
habitat represents a significant threat to the species. Further studies
are needed to clarify this species' distribution and status.
In Paraguay, some viable, although fragmented habitat for this
species remains in San Rafael National Park (Esquivel et al. 2007, pp.
301-302). The park has undergone logging and clearance, and is
extremely isolated from other mature forested areas that might be
suitable for the helmeted woodpecker (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 302).
Conservation Status. The helmeted woodpecker is listed as
``Vulnerable'' by the IUCN (IUCN 2010). It is not listed in any
appendices of CITES (CITES 2010). In one of the few remaining large
fragments of Atlantic Forest in Paraguay, it is considered to be near
threatened (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 301). It is protected by Brazilian
law, and populations occur in numerous protected areas throughout its
range (Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BLI 2009; Chebez et al. 1998 as
cited in BLI 2009).
In our 2009 ANOR, the helmeted woodpecker received an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in
the LPN for the helmeted woodpecker is not warranted. The helmeted
woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of
threat to the species is moderate because the species' range (24,000
km\2\ (9,266 mi\2\)) and population (between 10,000 and 19,999
individuals) is believed to be much larger than previously thought. The
threats are imminent because the forest habitat upon which the species
depends is constantly being altered and destroyed by humans. We will
continue to monitor the status of this species, however, a priority
rank of 8 remains valid for this species.
I. Okinawa Woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii), LPN = 2
The Okinawa woodpecker (also known as Pryer's woodpecker)
(Dendrocopos noguchii, synonym Sapheopipo noguchii) is endemic to
Okinawa Island, Japan. ITIS recognizes the Okinawa woodpecker as
belonging to the monotypic genus Sapheopipo (ITIS 2010i, accessed
September 7, 2010). Winkler et al. (2005, pp. 103-109) analyzed partial
nucleotide sequences of mitochondrial genes and concluded that this
woodpecker belongs in the genus Dendrocopos. IUCN and BLI both
recognize this species as Dendrocopos noguchii. Japan references it as
Sapheopipo noguchii (http://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/reddata.html, accessed September 30, 2010). For the purpose of this
finding and absent peer-reviewed information to the contrary, we
recognize it as Dendrocopos noguchii. We welcome comments on the
classification of this species.
Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, a small island chain
located between Japan and Taiwan (Brazil 1991; Stattersfield et al.
1998; Winkler et al. 2005). Okinawa is approximately 646 km (401 mi)
from Taiwan and 1,539 km (956 mi) from Tokyo, Japan. The island is 108
km (67 miles) in length and its width varies between 3 and 27 km (2 to
17 mi). Okinawa's highest point is Mt. Yonaha at 455 m (1,494 ft). The
Okinawa woodpecker is confined to forested areas in the northern part
of the island, generally in the Yambaru (also known as Yanbaru) area,
particularly in the Yonaha-dake Prefecture Protection Area. Yambaru
refers to the mountainous areas of Kunigami County in northern Okinawa.
This species of woodpecker prefers undisturbed, mature, subtropical
evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall trees greater than 20 cm (7.9
in) in diameter (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002). Trees of this size are
generally more than 30 years old and as of 1991 were confined to
hilltops (Brazil 1991). The species' main breeding areas are located
along the mountain ridges between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. Iyu-take,
although it has been observed nesting in well-forested coastal areas
(Research Center, Wild Bird Society of Japan 1993, as cited in BLI
2001). The majority of the broadleaf trees in the Yanbaru area are oak
and chinquapin (Distylium racemosum and Schefflera octophylla) (Ito et
al. 2000, p. 305). Areas with conifers (Coniferae, cone-bearing trees
such as pines and firs) appear to be avoided (Short 1973; Winkler et
al. 1995). The Okinawa woodpecker was also observed just south of the
Mt. Tano-dake in an area of entirely secondary forest that was too
immature for use by woodpeckers to excavate nest cavities, but these
may have involved birds displaced by the clearing of mature forests
(Brazil 1991).
The Okinawa woodpecker feeds on large arthropods, notably beetle
larvae, spiders, moths, and centipedes, fruit, berries, seeds, acorns,
and other nuts (Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002; Winkler et al. 2005). They
forage in old-growth forests with large, often moribund trees,
accumulated fallen trees, rotting stumps, debris, and undergrowth
(Short 1973; Brazil 1991). This species has been observed to nest in
holes excavated in large, old growth trees such as Castanopsis
cuspidate (Japanese chinquapin) and Machilus thunbergii (Tabu-no-ki
tree) (Ogasawara and Ikehara 1977; Short 1982; del Hoyo 2002). Both of
these tree species grow to approximately 20 meters (66 ft) in height.
It is thought that Castanopsis is the preferred tree species for
nesting because it tends to be hollow with hard wood, so that the
nesting cavities are more secure (Kiyosu 1965 in BLI 2001, p. 1880).
The number of fledglings per season range between one and three birds
(BLI 2001, p. 1880).
This species is considered one of the world's most rare extant
woodpecker species (Winkler et al. 2005). During the 1930s, the Okinawa
woodpecker was considered nearly extinct. In the early 1970s, it was
observed to be scattered among small colonies and isolated pairs (Short
1973). By the early 1990s, the breeding population was estimated to be
about 75 birds (BLI 2008a). In 2008, its projected 10-year decline was
between 30 to 49 percent (BLI 2008b). The current population estimate
ranges between 146 and 584 individuals (BLI 2010i).
Deforestation and the fragmented nature of its habitat due to
logging, dam construction, road-building, agricultural development, and
golf course construction are cited to be the main causes of its small
population size (BLI 2010i). Between 1979 and 1991, 2,443 ha (6,037 ac)
of forest were destroyed in the Yanbaru area (Department of
Agriculture, Okinawa Prefectural Government 1992, in Ito et al. 2000,
p. 311). As of 2001, there was only 40 km\2\ (15 mi\2\) of suitable
habitat available for this species (BLI 2001, p. 1882).
The limited range and tiny population make this species vulnerable
to extinction from disease and natural disasters such as typhoons (BLI
2008). Feral dogs and cats, the introduced Javan mongoose (Herpestes
javanicus), and weasel (Mustela itatsi) are possible
[[Page 25163]]
predators of the woodpecker. Additionally, feral pigs damage potential
ground-foraging sites (BLI 2003).
Conservation Status. Various protections and conservation measures
are in place for this species. The species is categorized on the IUCN
Red List as ``Critically Endangered'' because it consists of a small,
declining population estimated to be between 150 and 584 individuals
(BLI 2010i). The species is legally protected in Japan and it occurs in
small protected areas on Mt. Ibu and Mt. Nishime (BLI 2008a). The
Yambaru, a forested area in the Okinawa Prefecture, was designated as a
national park in 1996 (BLI 2010i). Additionally, conservation
organizations have purchased sites where the woodpecker occurred in
order to establish private wildlife preserves (del Hoyo et al. 2002;
BLI 2008). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Okinawa woodpecker received an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in
the LPN for the Okinawa woodpecker is warranted. The Okinawa woodpecker
does not represent a monotypic genus. It is considered one of the
world's most rare extant woodpecker species and faces threats that are
high in magnitude even though the species is legally protected in
Japan. The best available information does not indicate that this
species is being actively managed. The threats to the species are of
high magnitude due to the scarcity of old-growth habitat (only 40 km\2\
(15 mi\2\)) upon which the species is dependent. Its very small
population is believed to be continually declining; and species with
fragmented habitat in combination with small population sizes may be at
greater risk of extinction due to synergistic effects (Davies et al.
2004, pp. 265-271). Although it exists in areas with protected status,
the best available information indicates that the threats to the
species are ongoing and imminent. Because its projected 10-year decline
was between 30 to 49 percent in 2008, (BLI 2008b), and because the
current population estimate ranges between 146 and 584 individuals, we
have changed the LPN for this species from an 8 to a 2 to reflect
imminent threats of high magnitude.
J. Yellow-Browed Toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae), LPN = 2
There is very little information available regarding the yellow-
browed toucanet. This species is endemic to Peru and is known from only
two localities in north-central Peru--La Libertad, where it is
uncommon, and Rio Abiseo National Park, San Martin, where it is thought
to be very rare (Wege and Long 1995; del Hoyo et al. 2002; BLI 2009).
There was also a report of yellow-browed toucanets seen in the
Leymebamba area (Mark in litt. 2003, as cited in BLI 2010j) of Peru,
although there are no available photos of this species. The current
population size is believed to be between 1,000 and 2,499 with a
decreasing population trend (BLI 2010j).
The yellow-browed toucanet's estimated range is 450 km\2\ (174
mi\2\) (BLI 2010j). The species inhabits a narrow altitudinal range
between 2,125 and 2,510 m (6,970 and 8,232 ft). It prefers the canopy
of humid, epiphyte-laden montane cloud forests, particularly areas that
support Clusia trees (sometimes known as autograph trees)
(Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 1990; Schulenberg and Parker 1997, pp. 717-
718; del Hoyo et al. 2002). Within the Clusia genus, there are about 20
species. The yellow-browed toucanet does not appear to occupy all
potentially suitable forest available within its range (Schulenberg and
Parker 1997). Its restricted range remains unexplained.
The narrow distributional band in which yellow-browed toucanets are
found may be related to the occurrence of other avian species that may
out-compete the yellow-browed toucanet. Recent information indicates
that both of the suggested competitors have wider altitudinal ranges
that completely encompass that of the yellow-browed toucanet (Collar et
al. 1992; Hornbuckle in litt. 1999, as cited in BLI 2009; Clements and
Shany 2001, as cited in BLI 2008; del Hoyo et al. 2002). The larger
grey-breasted mountain toucan (Andigena hypoglauca) occurs above 2,300
m (7,544 ft), and the emerald toucanet (Aulacorhynchus prasinus) occurs
below 2,100 m (6,888 ft) (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). The yellow-
browed toucanet may occur to the north and south of its known range,
but the area between the Cordillera de Col[aacute]n, Amazonas, and the
Carpish region, Hu[aacute]nuco, is inaccessible, and its existence in
other areas has not been confirmed.
Distinguishing features of the yellow-browed toucanet include a
bright yellow vent or cloaca, a blackish bill, and a generally green
face, (Schulenberg and Parker 1997, p. 719). Its call has been
described as a series of 20 to 30 frog-like ``krik'' notes, delivered
at a rate of slightly more than one note per second (recordings housed
in Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Schulenberg and Parker 1997, p.
717).
Human-related threats to the species include deforestation, mining,
and secondary impacts associated with those activities. Deforestation
has been widespread in this region, but has largely occurred at lower
elevations than habitat occupied by the yellow-browed toucanet (Barnes
et al. 1995; BLI 2009). However, coca growers have taken over forests
within its altitudinal range, probably resulting in some reductions in
this species' range and population (BLI 2009; Plenge in litt. 1993, as
cited in BLI 2009). Most of the area in 1997 was described as being
only lightly settled by humans (Schulenberg and Parker 1997). However,
the human population surrounding the Rio Abiseo Park was steadily
increasing during the 15 years prior to 2002, primarily because of the
advent of mining operations in the area (Obenson 2002). Pressures in
and around the park exist due to mining and those secondary impacts
associated with mining (Vehkam[auml]ki and B[auml]ckman, 2006, pp. 1-
2).
Conservation Status. Protections for this species are minimal. The
yellow-browed toucanet is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List
due to its very small range and population records from only two
locations (BLI 2010j). It occurs in at least one protected area, the
Rio Abiseo National Park, a World Heritage Site which was established
to protect fauna (UNEP-WCMC 2008, p. 1). It is not listed in any
appendices of CITES (CITES 2010).
In our 2009 ANOR, the yellow-browed toucanet received an LPN of 11.
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in
the LPN for the yellow-browed toucanet is warranted. The yellow-browed
toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species is
believed to exist in the protected Rio Abiseo National Park, there have
been no documented sightings since 2003. As of 2010, BLI reported that
coca-growers have taken over forest within its altitudinal range (BLI
2010j). The magnitude of threats to the species is high given that the
species has a small range and rapidly declining population; and may be
in competition for habitat with more competitive avian species.
Further, pressures in and around the park exist due to mining and
secondary impacts associated with mining. Additionally, the only
records of this species are from two small locations and they have not
been verified in several years. Based on these factors, we find that
the threats are imminent and of high magnitude. Thus, we have
reassessed and changed the LPN for this species from an 11 to a 2 to
reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
[[Page 25164]]
K. Brasilia Tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis), LPN = 8
The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird endemic to Brazil,
specifically in the central to southern-central region of the country.
It is found in swampy gallery forests, which are forests that grow
along streams and rivers in regions otherwise devoid of trees, within
disturbed areas of thick streamside vegetation and dense secondary
growth of Pteridium aquilinum (bracken fern). The Brasilia tapaculo is
also strongly associated with two other plant species: Blechnum ferns
and Euterpe palms (del Hoyo et al. 2003, in BLI 2010k).
The species has been documented in Goi[aacute]s and Serra da
Canastra National Park, Minas Gerais (Negret and Cavalcanti 1985, as
cited in Collar et al. 1992; Collar et al. 1992; BLI 2008). In Serra do
Cip[oacute] and Cara[ccedil]a, which are in the hills and plateaus of
central Brazil, this species was located at low densities (Collar et
al. 1992). In and around the Serra da Canastra National Park, this
species was reported to be very common (Silveira 1998, p. 3). Again in
the Minas Gerais area, the species was located at low densities at
Serra Negra (on the upper Dourados River) and the headwaters of the
S[atilde]o Francisco river, in the early 1990s (Collar et al. 1992).
Although the species was once considered rare (Sick and Texeira
1979, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), it has been found in reasonable
numbers in areas of Brasilia noted above (D. M. Teixeira in litt. 1987,
as cited in Collar et al. 1992). There is no current population
estimate other than that the population is decreasing (BLI 2010j).
However, in 2008 the population was estimated at approximately 10,000
birds, with a decreasing population trend (BLI 2008).
The species occupies a limited area within a range of 109,000 km\2\
(42,085 mi\2\) and is likely losing habitat (BLI 2010j). Its
distribution now appears larger than initially estimated, and the
swampy gallery forests where it is found are not conducive to forest
clearing, leaving the species' habitat less vulnerable to this threat
than previously thought. The majority of locations where this species
is found are within established protected nature reserves. Both fire
risk and drainage impacts are reduced in these areas (Antas 2007).
However, dam building for irrigation on rivers that normally flood
gallery forests was identified as an emerging threat (Teixeira in litt.
1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992; Antas 2007). Further, annual
burning of adjacent grasslands limits the extent and availability of
suitable habitat, as does wetland drainage and the sequestration of
water for irrigation (Machado et al. 1998, as cited in BLI 2008).
Conservation Status. The IUCN categorizes the Brasilia tapaculo as
``Near Threatened'' (BLI 2010j). It is not listed in any appendices of
CITES (CITES 2010). The Brasilia tapaculo is protected by Brazilian law
(Bernardes et al. 1990, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and some of
the areas where this species occurs are protected. Three Important Bird
Areas (IBAs) have been identified for this species: Parque Nacional de
Bras[iacute]lia, Cerrados ao Sul de Bras[iacute]lia, and the Serra da
Canastra National Park. A site is recognized as an IBA when it meets
criteria `` * * * based on the occurrence of key bird species that are
vulnerable to global extinction or whose populations are otherwise
irreplaceable.'' These key sites for conservation are small enough to
be conserved in their entirety, but large enough to support self-
sustaining populations of the key bird species. IBAs are a way to
identify conservation priorities (BLI 2010).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Brasilia tapaculo received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the
LPN for the Brasilia tapaculo is not warranted. The Brasilia tapaculo
does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threat to the
species is moderate because in 2008, their population was estimated at
approximately 10,000 birds; at least two of the populations are in
protected habitat; and their preferred habitat is swampy and difficult
to clear. Threats are imminent, because habitat is still being drained
or dammed for agricultural irrigation, and grassland burning limits the
extent of suitable habitat. Therefore, a priority rank of 8 remains
valid for this species.
L. Codfish Island Fernbird (Bowdleria punctata wilsoni), LPN = 12
The Codfish Island fernbird is found only on Codfish Island, New
Zealand. Codfish Island is a nature reserve of 1,396 ha (3,448 ac)
located 3 km (1.8 mi) off the northwest coast of Stewart Island (IUCN
1979; McClelland 2007). There are five subspecies of Bowdleria
punctata, each restricted to a single island and its outlying islets.
The North and South Islands' subspecies are widespread and locally
common. The Stewart Island and the Snares' subspecies are moderately
abundant (Heather and Robertson 1997). In 1966, the status of the
Codfish Island subspecies (B. punctata wilsoni) was considered
relatively safe (Blackburn 1967), but estimates dating from 1975
indicated a gradually declining population to approximately 100
individuals (Bell 1975 as cited in IUCN 1979). McClelland (2007)
indicated that in the past, the Codfish Island fernbird was restricted
to low shrubland in the higher areas of Codfish Island. Few individuals
were seen around the coastal shrubland; and a significant predator was
the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) (McClelland 2007). In 1979, the
IUCN (1979) concluded that the absence of the fernbird from formerly
occupied areas of Codfish Island evidenced a decline.
Although there is no accurate estimate of the current size of the
Codfish Island fernbird population (estimates are based on incidental
encounter rates in the various habitat types on the island), the
population as of 2007 was believed to be several hundred. McClelland
(2007) concluded that is it likely that the population peaked and is
stable.
Fernbirds are sedentary and are not strong fliers. They are
secretive and reluctant to leave cover. They feed in low vegetation or
on the ground, eating mainly caterpillars, spiders, grubs, beetles,
flies, and moths (Heather and Robertson 1997). Codfish Island's native
vegetation has been modified by the introduced Australian brush-tailed
possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). Codfish Island fernbird populations
have also been reduced due to predation by weka (Gallirallus australis
scotti) and Polynesian rats (Merton 1974, pers. comm., as cited in IUCN
1979; McClelland 2002, pp. 1-9).
IUCN and BLI only recognize the species Bowdleria punctata; it is
not addressed at subspecies levels. Neither the species nor the
subspecies is addressed by ITIS (www.itis.gov/, accessed September 9,
2010). The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) recognizes
the Codfish Island fernbird as a valid subspecies, however. Because New
Zealand recognizes the subspecies, and absent peer-reviewed information
to the contrary, we currently consider Bowdleria punctata wilsoni to be
a valid subspecies within a multi-species genus.
Conservation Status. Varying levels of conservation status and
protections are in place for this species. IUCN categorizes Bowdleria
punctata as ``Least concern'' (BLI 2010k). The 2008 New Zealand Threat
Classification System manual indicates that the two ``at risk''
categories, ``range restricted'' and ``sparse,'' have been replaced by
a single category called ``naturally uncommon'' (p. 10). The NZDOC
categorizes this subspecies as ``naturally uncommon.'' It is not listed
in any appendices of CITES (CITES 2010).
Several specific conservation measures have been undertaken by the
[[Page 25165]]
NZ DOC with respect to Bowdleria punctata wilsoni as well as Bowdleria
punctata; however the current population size of the subspecies is
unclear. The weka and possum were eradicated from Codfish Island in
1984 and 1987, respectively (McClelland 2007). The Polynesian rat was
believed to have been eradicated in 1997 (Conservation News 2002;
McClelland 2007). The Codfish Island fernbird population was reported
to have rebounded strongly with the removal of invasive predator
species. Additionally, it successfully colonized the forest habitat,
which greatly expanded its range. However, because there is always the
chance that rats could reestablish a population on the island, the
island is being monitored for rats.
To safeguard the Codfish Island fernbird, the NZ DOC established a
second population on Putauhinu Island, a small 144-ha (356-ac),
privately owned island located approximately 40 km (25 mi) south of
Codfish Island. The Putauhinu population established rapidly, and
McClelland (2007) reported that it is also believed to be stable. While
there are no accurate data on the population size or trends on
Putauhinu, as of 2007, the numbers were estimated to be 200 to 300
birds spread over the island (McClelland 2007). Even with a second
population, the Codfish Island fernbird still remains vulnerable to
naturally occurring storm events due to its restricted range and small
population size.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Codfish Island fernbird received an LPN of
12. After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change
in the LPN for this subspecies is not warranted. The information
available indicates that the subspecies faces threats that are low to
moderate in magnitude because: (1) It exists on an island that is a
nature reserve and (2) the removal of invasive predator species and the
establishment of a second population have allowed for a rebound in the
subspecies' population. Although the actual population numbers for this
subspecies are unknown (possibly around 500 individuals), threats are
nonimminent because the conservation measures to prevent the invasion
of predatory invasive species indicate that they have been successful;
the subspecies is being actively managed. Therefore, a priority rank of
12 remains valid for this subspecies. However, we will continue to
monitor the status of this subspecies.
M. Ghizo White-Eye (Zosterops luteirostris), LPN = 2
The Ghizo white-eye (also known as the splendid white-eye) is
endemic to the island of Ghizo. Ghizo is a very densely populated
island in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific ocean, east of Papua
New Guinea (BLI 2010m). The Ghizo white-eye is described as a
``warbler-like'' bird. The island of Ghizo is 11 km long and 5 km wide
(7 by 3 mi), and the human population is estimated to be approximately
6,670 as of 2005 (http://www.adb.org, accessed September 9, 2010.)
This species was characterized as being locally common in the 1990s
in the remaining tall or old-growth forest, which is very fragmented
and is now less than 1 km2 (0.39 mi2). It has
been reported to be less common in scrub close to large trees and in
plantations (Buckingham et al. 1995 and Gibbs 1996, as cited in BLI
2008). It is unclear whether these remaining habitats can support
sustainable breeding populations (Buckingham et al. 1995, as cited in
BLI 2008).
The most recent population estimate for this species is 250 to 999
birds (BLI 2010m). Biologists have recommended that systematic surveys
be conducted for this species to verify its conservation status
(Sherley 2001). While there are no data on population trends, the
species is very likely declining due to habitat loss and degradation
(BLI 2010m).
The very tall old-growth forest on Ghizo is still under threat from
clearance for local use as timber, firewood, and gardens, as are the
areas of other secondary growth, which are suboptimal habitats for this
species. The species is also under considerable threat from
deforestation for agricultural land (BLI 2008).
Conservation Status. Few, if any, protections are in place for this
species. The IUCN Red List classifies this species as ``Endangered,''
because of its very small population that is considered to be declining
due to habitat loss (BLI 2010m). It is not listed in any appendices of
CITES (CITES 2010).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Ghizo white-eye received an LPN of 8. After
reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in the
LPN for this species is warranted. The Ghizo white-eye does not
represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in
magnitude due to declining suitable habitat; its range is estimated to
be less than 35 km2 (13.5 mi2); of which less
than 1 km2 (0.39 mi2) is old growth forest. The
best available information indicates that forest clearing is proceeding
at a pace that is rapidly denuding the habitat; secondary growth is
being converted for agricultural purposes. Further, the human
population on the small island is increasing, which is likely
contributing to the reduction in old-growth forest for local uses such
as gardens and timber. Additionally, the last estimate of the Ghizo
white-eye population was believed to be between 250 and 999
individuals, but its population trend is believed to be declining.
These threats to the species are ongoing, of high magnitude, and
imminent. Thus, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2.
N. Black-Backed Tanager (Tangara peruviana), LPN = 8
The black-backed tanager is endemic to the coastal Atlantic forest
region of southeastern Brazil. The species has been documented in Rio
de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and
Espirito Santo (Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 2000, as cited in BLI 2008;
BLI 2010n). The species is generally restricted to coastal sand-plain
forest and restinga, but has also been located in secondary forests
(BLI 2008). Restinga is a Brazilian term that describes white sand
forest habitat consisting of a patchwork of vegetation types, such as
beach vegetation; open shrubby vegetation; herbaceous, shrubby coastal
sand dune habitat; and dry and swamp forests distributed over coastal
plains from northeastern to southeastern Brazil (Rocha et al. 2005, p.
263; McGinley 2007, pp. 1-2).
The Atlantic Forest, on which this species depends, extends up to
600 km (373 mi) west of the Atlantic Ocean. It consists of tropical and
subtropical moist forests, tropical dry forests, and mangrove forests
at mostly low-to-medium elevations less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft);
however, altitude can reach as high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea
level. Between 7 and 10 percent of this habitat remains intact
(Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p.
794). Based on a number of other estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the
area historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic
Forest biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of
various human activities (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et
al. 2000, pp. 853-854; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; TNC
2007, p. 1; WWF 2007, pp. 2-41). In addition to the overall loss and
degradation of habitat, the remaining tracts of habitat are severely
fragmented.
This species' physical characteristics include an underbody color
of blue-turquoise and a pale red-brown vent or cloaca. The male has a
chestnut colored head and black back. The female is
[[Page 25166]]
duller and greener. It has a complex distribution with seasonal
fluctuations in response to the ripening of areoira Schinus fruit, at
least in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo (BLI 2010n). It has been observed
visiting gardens and orchards of houses close to forested areas. Its
diet consists primarily of fruit, and to a smaller extent, insects
(Moraes and Krul 1997).
The black-backed tanager is generally not considered rare within
suitable habitat (BLI 2010n). This species is more common in Sao Paulo
during the winter, and records from Espirito Santo are only from the
winter season. Clarification of the species' seasonal movements would
provide an improved understanding of the species' population status and
distribution, but currently populations appear small and fragmented and
are declining rapidly; likely in response to extensive habitat loss
(BLI 2010n). Population estimates range from 2,500 to 10,000
individuals (BLI 2010n).
The primary threat impacting this species is the rapid and
widespread loss of habitat for beachfront development. A minor threat
may be that it occasionally appears in the illegal bird trade (BLI
2010n). The remaining tracts of suitable habitat in Rio de Janeiro and
S[atilde]o Paulo are threatened by ongoing development of coastal
areas, primarily for tourism enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes,
beachside housing) and associated infrastructure support (del Hoyo
2003, p. 616; WWF 2007, pp. 7 and 36-37). These activities have
drastically reduced the species' abundance and extent of its occupied
range. These activities are currently a risk to the species' continued
existence because populations are being limited to highly fragmented
patches of habitat (BLI 2010n). Although this species seems to tolerate
some environmental degradation if there are well preserved stretches in
its territory in which the birds can seek shelter, we expect the degree
of these threats will continue and likely increase within the
foreseeable future.
Because this species inhabits coastal areas, sea level rise may
also affect this species (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377-379). In
Santos Bay on the coast, sea level rise scenarios were conducted based
on predictions of increases between 0.5 and 1.5 m (1.6 and 4.9 ft) by
the year 2100 (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 378). Even small increases in
sea level could cause flooding, cause erosion, and change salt marsh
zones (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp. 377-379) within this species'
habitat. As sea level rises, habitat will be less available for this
species, compounded by an increased demand by humans to utilize land
for housing. The black-backed tanager may attempt to move inland in
search of new suitable habitat as its current habitat disappears,
however, there may not be suitable habitat remaining for the species.
Although Brazil has several laws requiring resource protection for
species such as the black-backed tanager, its habitat is under pressure
from the intense development that occurs in coastal areas, particularly
south of Rio de Janeiro. Threats to the black-backed tanager's
remaining habitat are ongoing due to the challenges that Brazil faces
to balance its competing development and environmental priorities.
Conservation Status. The species is considered ``Vulnerable'' by
the IUCN (BLI 2010n). The black-backed tanager is not listed in any
appendices of CITES (CITES 2010). Portions of the tanager's range are
in six protected areas, although the protections are not always
effective (BLI 2010n).
In our 2009 ANOR, the black-backed tanager received an LPN of 8.
After reevaluating the available information, we find that a change in
the LPN for this species is not warranted at this time. The black-
backed tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats (primarily
habitat loss) to the species are moderate in magnitude due to the
species' fairly large range, population size, and apparent flexibility
in diet and habitat suitability. Threats are however, imminent because
the species is at risk by ongoing and widespread loss of habitat due to
beachfront and related development. Therefore, a priority rank of 8
remains valid for this species.
O. Lord Howe Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis), LPN = 6
The Lord Howe pied currawong is a subspecies separate from the five
mainland pied currawongs (Strepera graculina spp.). In 2004, it was
suggested that its taxonomy be reviewed to determine if it warrants
recognition as a distinct species (McAllan et al. 2004). ITIS
recognizes the species as S. graculina (ITIS 2010, accessed September
13, 2010). Because Australia recognizes the subspecies, and absent
peer-reviewed information to the contrary, we consider S. graculina
crissalis to be a valid subspecies within a multi-species genus.
This subspecies is endemic to Lord Howe Island, New South Wales,
Australia. Lord Howe Island is 600 km (373 mi) northeast of Sydney,
Australia. This is also the distance to the subspecies' closest
relative, the mainland Pied Currawong (S. graculina). The Lord Howe
pied currawong is limited to a 12-km\2\ (4.6 mi2) area on
the 20-km2 (7.7-mi2) island (Hutton 1991; Garnett
and Crowley 2000). It has been recorded to a limited extent on small
nearby islets of the Admiralty group (Garnett and Crowley 2000; New
South Wales Department of Environment & Climate Change (NSW DECC)
2010). Lord Howe Island is unique among inhabited Pacific Islands in
that less than 10 percent of the island has been cleared (WWF 2001) and
less than 24 percent has been disturbed (NSW Department of Environment
and Conservation (DEC) 2007a). In 1982, the island was added to the
World Heritage List (NSW Department of the Environment and Water
Resources 2007).
The Lord Howe pied currawong breeds in rainforests and palm
forests, particularly along streams. Its territories include sections
of streams or gullies that are lined by tall timber (Garnett and
Crowley 2000). The highest densities of Lord Howe pied currawong nests
have been located on the slopes of Mount Gower and in the Erskine
Valley, with smaller numbers on the lower land to the north (Knight
1987, as cited in Garnett and Crowley 2000). The nests are typically
situated high in trees and are made in a cup shape with sticks and
lined with grass and palm thatch (NSW DECC 2005). As of 2001, most of
Lord Howe Island was still forested, and the removal of feral animals
resulted in the recovery of the forest understory (WWF 2001).
The Lord Howe pied currawong is omnivorous and eats a wide variety
of food, including native fruits and seeds (Hutton 1991). It is the
only remaining native island vertebrate predator (NSW DECC 2010). It
has been recorded eating seabird chicks, poultry, and chicks of the
Lord Howe woodhen (Tricholimnas sylvestris) and white tern (Gygis
alba). It also feeds on both live and dead rats (Hutton 1991). Food
brought to Lord Howe pied currawong nestlings was observed to be, in
decreasing order: Invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, and nestlings of
other bird species (Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB) 2006).
In the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett and Crowley
2000), the Lord Howe pied currawong population was estimated at
approximately 80 mature individuals. In 2007, the Foundation for
National Parks & Wildlife (FNPW 2007) estimated the breeding population
of the Lord Howe pied currawong was 80 to 100 pairs, with a nesting
territory in the tall forest areas of about 5 ha (12 ac) per pair. The
population size is limited by the amount of available habitat and the
lack of food during the winter (FNPW 2007). The
[[Page 25167]]
most recent population estimate is 100 to 200 individuals (from surveys
in 2005-2006) (NSW DECC 2010, p. 3).
The main threat identified for the Lord Howe pied currawong is
habitat clearing and modification. Other threats include non-target
poisoning, and effects associated with extremely small population sizes
(NSW DECC 2010). A lesser threat to the Lord Howe pied currawong is
human interaction with the species. Prior to the 1970s, locals would
shoot this currawong because it preys on nestling birds (Hutton 1991).
The Lord Howe pied currawong remains unpopular with some residents,
likely because of its predatory nature on nestlings. It is unclear what
effect this localized killing has on the overall population size and
distribution of the species (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Also, because
the Lord Howe pied currawong often preys on ship (black) rats, it may
be subject to nontarget poisoning during rat-baiting programs (DEC
2007b). Close monitoring of the population is needed because this
small, endemic population is highly susceptible to catastrophic events,
such as disease or introduction of a new predator (Garnett and Crowley
2000).
Conservation Status. Various levels of conservation and protections
exist for this species. The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management
Plan was finalized in 2007, and is the formal National and NSW Recovery
Plan for threatened species and communities of the Lord Howe Island
Group (DEC 2007a). The NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995
lists the Lord Howe pied currawong as ``Vulnerable'' because it has a
limited range, only occurring on Lord Howe Island (NSW DECC 2010). It
also is listed as vulnerable under the Australian Commonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. These
laws provide a legislative framework to protect and encourage the
recovery of vulnerable species (NSW DEC 2006a). The Lord Howe Island
Act of 1953, as amended, established the Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB),
made provisions for the LHIB to care, control, and manage the island;
and established 75 percent of the land area as a permanent park
preserve (NSW DEC 2007). Although the subspecies is not specifically
addressed by BLI or IUCN, the species is considered ``Least Concern''
by the IUCN (BLI 2010o). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Lord Howe pied currawong received an LPN of
12. After re-evaluating the threats to the Lord Howe pied currawong, we
have determined that a change in the LPN representing the magnitude and
imminence of threats to the subspecies is warranted. The Lord Howe pied
currawong does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that
are high in magnitude due to its extremely small population size, non-
target poisoning, and habitat clearing and modification. Despite
conservation efforts, the population of the Lord Howe pied currawong
has remained around 100 to 200 individuals. Species with small,
declining population sizes such as these may be at greater risk of
extinction due to synergistic effects (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265-
271). Because conservation efforts for the species have been
implemented, we find that the threats are non-imminent. Thus, based on
the best available information, the LPN has been changed from 12 to 6
to reflect non-imminent threats of high magnitude.
Invertebrates
P. Harris' Mimic Swallowtail (Mimoides (syn. Eurytides) lysithous
harrisianus), LPN = 6
Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly is a subspecies endemic to
Brazil (Collins and Morris 1985). Although the species' range includes
Paraguay, the subspecies has not been confirmed in Paraguay (Collins
and Morris 1985; Finnish University and Research Network 2004).
Occupying the lowland swamps and sandy flats above the tidal margins of
the coastal Atlantic Forest, the subspecies prefers alternating patches
of strong sun and deep shade (Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996).
This subspecies is polyphagous, meaning that its larvae feed on more
than one plant species (Kotiaho et al. 2005). Information on its
preferred host plants and adult nectar-sources was published in the
status review (also known as a 12-month finding) on December 7, 2004
(69 FR 70580). The Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly mimics at least
three butterfly species in the Parides genus, including the fluminense
swallowtail (described below). This mimicry system may cause problems
in distinguishing this subspecies from the species that it mimics
(Brown in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).
The Harris' mimic swallowtail was previously known in Espirito
Santo, however, there are no recent confirmations of its occurrence
there (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991). In Rio de
Janeiro, Harris' mimic swallowtail has been confirmed in three
localities. Two colonies were identified on the east coast of Rio de
Janeiro, at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and Maca[eacute], and the
other in Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve, farther inland. The
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o colony is the best-studied. Between
1984 and 2004, it maintained a stable size, varying between 50 to 250
individuals (Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985; Brown in litt. 2004),
and was reported to be viable, vigorous, and stable in 2004 (Brown, Jr.
in litt. 2004). There are no estimates of the size of the colony in
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve where it had not been seen for
30 years prior to its rediscovery there in 1997 (Brown, Jr. in litt.
2004). Population estimates are lacking for the colony at Maca[eacute],
where the subspecies was netted in Jurubatiba National Park in the year
2000, after having not been seen in the area for 16 years (Monteiro et
al. 2004).
Both Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and the Po[ccedil]o das Antas
Biological Reserve lie within the S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin.
Conditions at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o appear to be suitable for
long-term survival of this subspecies. The Barra de S[atilde]o
Jo[atilde]o River Basin encompasses a 216,605-ha (535,240-ac) area,
150,700 ha (372,286 ac) of which is managed as protected area. The
Harris' mimic swallowtail's preferred environment of open and shady
areas continues to be present in the region, with approximately 541
forest patches averaging 127 ha (314 ac) in size, covering nearly
68,873 ha (170,188 ac), and a minimum distance between forest patches
of 276 meters (m) (0.17 mi) (Teixeira 2007). In studies between 1984
and 1991, Brown (1996) determined that Harris' mimic swallowtails in
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o flew a maximum distance of 1000 m (0.62
mi). It follows that the average flying distance would be less than
this figure. Thus, the average 276 m (0.17 mi) distance between forest
patches in the Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin is clearly
within the flying distance of this subspecies. Because the colony at
Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o has maintained a stable population for
20 years, it is probable that the conditions available there remain
suitable.
Habitat destruction has been the main threat to this subspecies
(Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996), especially urbanization in Barra
de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o, industrialization in Maca[eacute]
(Jurubatiba National Park), and previous fires that occurred in the
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve. As described in detail for
the fluminense swallowtail (below), Atlantic Forest habitat has been
reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original cover. More than 70 percent
of the Brazilian population lives in the Atlantic forest, and coastal
development is ongoing throughout the Atlantic Forest region (Hughes et
al. 2006; Butler 2007; Conservation International 2007; CEPF 2007a;
H[ouml]fling 2007; Peixoto and
[[Page 25168]]
Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007; TNC 2009).
Another factor affecting many butterfly species is illegal
collection. The wildlife trade is extremely lucrative and as wildlife
becomes rarer; it is worth more. Although there are laws on illegal
wildlife trade, in some countries, many times laws are rarely enforced
due to inadequate resources; and only a fraction of smuggled wildlife
is caught (http://www.traffic.org). For example, in 1998, in the United
States 100 Golden Birdwing (Troides aeacus, CITES Appendix II)
butterflies were seized; no permit had been issued for the specimens
which had been falsely labeled before being exported from Thailand
(TRAFFIC 2010, p. 28). In 2001, two Russian insect collectors were
arrested in India and were found to have approximately 2000 butterflies
in their possession (p. 52). In 2007, a Japanese individual was
convicted for illegal sale of $38,831 U.S. dollars (USD) worth of
protected butterfly species. This individual is apparently known as the
world's top smuggler of protected butterflies. One of the smuggled
butterfly species was Homerus Swallowtail (Papilio homerus, CITES
Appendix I). During this investigation, 43 butterflies were sold to
undercover agents, including 2 Alexandra's birdwings (Ornithoptera
alexandrae, CITES Appendix I), 2 Luzon Peacock swallowtails (Papilio
chikae, CITES Appendix I), and 6 Corsican swallowtails (Papilio
hospiton, CITES Appendix I) (p. 122). In 2009, in Japan an individual
was sentenced to one year and six months' imprisonment and fined one
million yen ($10,750 USD) due to illegally importing and selling rare
butterfly species. He was found to have illegally imported 145
butterflies from France. Among the specimens were 3 Queen Alexandra's
Birdwings (Ornithoptera alexandrae, CITES Appendix I) and 1 Apollo
Butterfly (Parnassius apollo, CITES Appendix II) (p. 179). Although we
do not know the full extent of illegal trade, according to the 2010
TRAFFIC report, this represents only a small fraction of the illegal
collection of butterfly species that occurs.
Conservation Status. The Brazilian Institute of the Environment and
Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro do a Meio Ambiente de do
Recursos Naturais Renov[aacute]veis; IBAMA) considers this subspecies
to be critically imperiled (Portaria No. 1,522 1989; Ministerio de Meio
Ambiente 2003). As of 1996, collection and trade of the subspecies was
prohibited (Brown 1996). In 1998, Brazil enacted a more effective law,
Lei de Crimes Ambientais ou Lei da Natureza--Law no 9.605/98, which
addresses environmental crimes and sets forth penal and administrative
penalties resulting from activities that are harmful to the environment
(IBAMA 2011). This law addresses the integrity of air, water bodies,
forests and biodiversity; and assesses civil, administrative, and
criminal penalties to private individuals, corporations, and business.
Harris' mimic swallowtail was categorized on the IUCN Red List as
``Endangered'' in the 1988, 1990, and 1994 IUCN Red Lists (IUCN 1996).
However, it currently is not included in the current IUCN Redlist (IUCN
2010; Xerces Society 2010a). This species is not listed on any
appendices of CITES.
Harris' mimic swallowtail ranges within two protected areas:
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba National Park.
These protected areas are described in detail for the fluminense
swallowtail below. The Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve
(Reserve) was established to protect the golden lion tamarin
(Leontopithecus rosalia) (Decree No. 73,791, 1974), but the Harris'
mimic swallowtail, which occupies the same range, likely benefits as a
result of efforts to conserve golden-lion-tamarin habitat (De Roy 2002;
WWF 2003; Teixeira 2007). Habitat destruction caused by fires in
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve appears to have abated. The
revised management plan indicates that the Reserve will be used for
research and conservation, with limited public access (IBAMA 2005; CEPF
2007a). The Jurubatiba National Park (Park) is located in a region that
is undergoing continuing development pressures from urbanization and
industrialization (Otero and Brown 1984; Brown 1996; IFC 2002; CEPF
2007b; Khalip 2007; Savarese 2008), and there is no management plan in
place for the Park (CEPF 2007b). However, as discussed for the
fluminense swallowtail, the Park, as of 2007, was considered to be in a
very good state of conservation (Rocha et al. 2007).
In our 2009 ANOR, the Harris' mimic swallowtail received an LPN of
12. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined
that a change in the listing prioritization number is warranted.
Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies and is not within a monotypic
genus. Although the best-studied colony has maintained a stable and
viable size for nearly two decades, there is limited suitable habitat
remaining for this subspecies. Habitat destruction remains a threat.
These threats are high in magnitude due to its small endemic population
and potential catastrophic events such as severe tropical storms or
introduction of a new disease or predator. The only known populations
are within close proximity to a major, expanding city in Brazil--Rio de
Janiero, the second largest city in Brazil. As this species becomes
rarer, it becomes even more desirable to collectors (Traffic 2010, pp.
52, 122, 179). Although the species exists in a protected area,
collectors will take risks to obtain these rare and desirable species.
Because the population is very small and limited to only two small
areas, we find the threats are of high magnitude. However, we do not
find that these threats are imminent because the subspecies is
protected by Brazilian law; and the two colonies are located within
protected areas. Based on the best available information, we have
changed the LPN from a 12 to a 6 to reflect non-imminent threats of
high magnitude.
Q. Jamaican Kite Swallowtail (Protographium marcellinus, syn.
Eurytides), LPN = 2
The Jamaican kite swallowtail is endemic to Jamaica, preferring
wooded, undisturbed habitat containing its only known larval host plant
West Indian lancewood (Oxandra lanceolata). The food preferences of
adults have not been reported (Collins and Morris 1985; Bailey 1994).
Since the 1990s, adult Jamaican kite swallowtails have been observed in
the parishes of St. Thomas and St. Andrew in the east; westward in St.
Ann, Trelawny, and St. Elizabeth; and in the extreme western coast
Parish of Westmoreland (Bailey 1994; Smith et al. 1994; WRC 2001;
Harris 2002; M[ouml]hn 2002).
The Jamaican kite swallowtail maintains a low population level. It
occasionally becomes locally abundant in Rozelle during the breeding
season in early summer and again in early fall (Brown and Heineman
1972; Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Bailey 1994; Smith
et al. 1994), and experiences episodic population explosions, as
described in the December 7, 2004, 12-month finding (69 FR 70580) and
in the 2007 ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). There is only one known
breeding site in the eastern coast town of Rozelle (also known as
Roselle), St. Thomas Parish, although it is possible that other sites
exist given the widely dispersed nature of the larval food plant
(Collins and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; Bailey 1994; Smith et
al. 1994; Robbins in litt. 2004).
Habitat destruction has been considered a primary threat to the
Jamaican kite swallowtail. Monophagous butterflies (meaning that their
larvae feed only on a single plant species) such as the Jamaican kite
[[Page 25169]]
swallowtail tend to be more threatened than polyphagous species. This
is in part due to their specific habitat requirements (Kotiaho et al.
2005). Harvest and clearing reduces the availability of the only known
larval food plant. Habitat modification poses an additional threat
because the swallowtail does not thrive in disturbed habitats (Collins
and Morris 1985). In Rozelle, extensive habitat modification for
agricultural and industrial purposes such as mining has occurred
(Gimenez Dixon 1996; WWF 2001). West Indian lancewood, the Jamaican
kite swallowtail's larval food plant, is threatened by clearing for
cultivation and by felling for the commercial timber industry (Collins
and Morris 1985; Windsor Plywood 2004).
Rozelle is also subject to naturally occurring, high-impact
stochastic events, such as regularly-occurring hurricanes, as described
in the 2007 ANOR (72 FR 20184; April 23, 2007). Hurricane-related
weather damage in the last two decades along the coastal zone of
Rozelle has resulted in the erosion and virtual disappearance of the
once-extensive recreational beach (Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), and the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) (2004)). Hurricane
Ivan, a category 5 hurricane, caused severe local damage to Rozelle
Beach in 2004, including road collapse caused by the erosion of the
cliff face and shoreline. The estimated restoration cost from Hurricane
Ivan damage was $23 million USD ($1.6 million Jamaican dollars (J$)
(ECLAC et al. 2004), indicating the severity of the damage inflicted by
these hurricanes. While we do not consider stochastic events to be a
primary threat factor for this species, we believe that the damage
caused by hurricanes is contributing to habitat loss.
In western parishes, habitat destruction also threatens adult
Jamaican kite swallowtails. Cockpit Country, encompassing 30,000 ha
(74,131 ac) of rugged forest-karst (a specialized limestone habitat)
terrain, spans four western parishes, including Trelawny and St.
Elizabeth, where adult Jamaican kite swallowtails have been observed
(Gordon and Cambell 2006). As of 2006, 81 percent of this region
remained forested, although fragmentation was occurring as a result of
human-induced activities (Tole 2006). Threats to Cockpit Country
include bauxite mining, unregulated plant collecting, extensive
logging, conversion of forest to agriculture, illegal drug cultivation,
and expansion of human settlements. These activities contribute to
threats to the hydrology system from in-filling, siltation,
accumulation of solid waste, and invasion by nonnative, invasive
species (Cockpit Country Stakeholders Group and JEAN (Gordon and
Cambell 2006; Tole 2006; Jamaica Environmental Advocacy Network 2007)).
The Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park, located on the
inland portions of St. Thomas and St. Andrew and the southeast portion
of St. Mary Parishes, is the only protected area in which adult
Jamaican Kite swallowtails have been observed (Bailey 1994; Jamaica
Conservation and Development Trust (JCDT) 2006). Established in 1990,
this Park encompasses 49,520 ha (122,367 ac) of mountainous, forested
terrain that ranges in elevation from 150 to 2,256 m (492 to 7,402 ft)
and is considered one of the best-managed protected areas in Jamaica
(JCDT 2006). However, deforestation consisting of slash-and-burn
agriculture and illegal timber harvesting continues to be a threat in
the Blue Mountains (Tole 2006; TNC 2010).
The Jamaican kite swallowtail has been collected for commercial
trade in the past (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Sch[uuml]tz
2000). The Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act of 1998 carries a maximum
penalty of U.S. $1,439 (J $100,000) or 12 months of imprisonment for
violating its provisions. This deterrent appears to be effectively
protecting this species from illegal trade (NEPA 2005). As of 2008, we
were unaware of any recent seizures or smuggling in this species into
or out of the United States (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt.).
Conservation Status. Various levels of conservation exist for the
species. In addition to being protected under Jamaica's Wildlife
Protection Act of 1998, it is also included in Jamaica's National
Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity. This strategy
established specific goals and priorities for the conservation of
Jamaica's biological resources (Schedules of The Wildlife Protection
Act 1998). Since 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been
categorized on the IUCN Red List as ``Vulnerable'' (IUCN 2010). This
species is not listed in any of the appendices of CITES.
In our 2009 ANOR, the Jamaican kite swallowtail received an LPN of
8. After reevaluating the threats to the Jamaican kite swallowtail, we
have determined that a change in the listing priority number is
warranted. The Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a monotypic
genus. The current threats to the species are high in magnitude
particularly since it only has one known larval host plant. Slash-and-
burn agriculture and illegal timber harvesting continues to occur
within this species' habitat (TNC 2010). These threats are occurring at
the species' only known breeding site and they are exacerbated by the
species' restricted distribution of its larval food plant and range. In
addition, stochastic events such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and
introduction of a new disease are unpredictable. Illegal collection of
butterfly species (refer to discussion under Harris' mimic swallowtail)
continues to occur which further adds to the pressures affecting this
species. Although Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to preserve native
swallowtail habitat, the threats affecting this species are imminent;
its habitat is decreasing; and this loss of habitat is ongoing. Based
on a reevaluation of the threats to this species, we have changed the
LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.
R. Fluminense Swallowtail (Parides ascanius), LPN = 5
The fluminense swallowtail is endemic to Brazil's restinga habitat
within the Atlantic Forest region in the tropical and subtropical moist
broadleaf forests of coastal Brazil (Thomas 2003). Its habitat is
characterized by medium-sized trees and shrubs that are adapted to
coastal conditions (Kelecom 2002). During the caterpillar stage of its
lifecycle, it feeds on a species in the Dutchman's pipe genus
(Aristolochia macroura) and is believed to be monophagous (Otero and
Brown 1984).
The fluminense swallowtail is sparsely distributed throughout its
range, reflecting the patchy distribution of its preferred habitat
(Otero and Brown 1984; Tyler et al. 1994; Uehara-Prado and Fonseca
2007). The species can be seasonally common, with sightings of up to 50
individuals seen in one morning in the Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o
area. It was historically seen in Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo, and
Sao Paulo (Gelhaus et al. 2004). However, there are no recent
confirmations of this species in either Espirito Santo or Sao Paulo. In
Rio de Janeiro, the species has been documented in five localities
including: Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and Maca[eacute] (in the
Restinga de Jurubatiba National Park) along the coast; and Po[ccedil]o
das Antas Biological Reserve, farther inland (Brown in litt. 2004;
Soler 2005). Another verified occurrence was in the [Aacute]rea de
Tombamento do Mangue do Rio Para[iacute]ba do Sul (Uehara-Prado and
Fonseca 2007). Additionally, the fluminense swallowtail has been
[[Page 25170]]
documented in Parque Natural Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto
Iguacu 2008).
A population estimate reported in 1984 in Barra de S[atilde]o
Jo[atilde]o was between 20 and 100 individuals (Otero and Brown 1984).
The colony within the Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve was
rediscovered in 1997, after a nearly 30-year absence from this locality
(Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004). Researchers noted only that ``large
numbers'' of swallowtails were observed (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004;
Robbins in litt. 2004). There are no population estimates for the other
colonies. However, individuals from the viable population in Barra de
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o migrate widely in some years, and this is likely
to enhance interpopulation gene flow among existing colonies (Brown,
Jr. in litt. 2004).
Habitat destruction has been the main threat to this species
(Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996; Gimenez Dixon 1996). Monophagous
butterflies tend to be more threatened than polyphagous species
(Kotiaho et al. 2005), and the restinga habitat preferred by fluminense
swallowtails is a highly specialized environment that is restricted in
distribution (Otero and Brown 1986; Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Ueraha-
Prado and Fonseca 2007). Moreover, fluminense swallowtails require
large areas to maintain viable populations (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004;
Otero and Brown 1986; Ueraha-Prado and Fonseca). The Atlantic Forest
habitat, which once covered 1.4 million km\2\ (540,543 mi\2\), has been
reduced to 5 to 10 percent of its original cover. It harbors more than
70 percent of the Brazilian human population (Butler 2007; Conservation
International 2007; CEPF 2007a; H[ouml]fling 2007; WWF 2007; TNC 2009).
The restinga habitat upon which this species depends has been reduced
by 17 km\2\ (6.56 mi\2\) each year between 1984 and 2001, equivalent to
a loss of 40 percent of restinga vegetation over the 17-year period
(Temer 2006). The major ongoing human activities that have resulted in
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation include: Conversion to
agriculture, plantations, livestock pastures, human settlements,
hydropower reservoirs, commercial logging, subsistence activities, and
coastal development (Hughes et al. 2006; Butler 2007; Pivello 2007; TNC
2007; Peixoto and Silva 2007; World Food Prize 2007; WWF 2007).
One estimate concluded that Rio de Janeiro contains 1,675,457 ha
(4,140,127 ac) of suitable habitat (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007).
While the presence of suitable habitat should not be used to infer the
presence of a species (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007), it should
facilitate more focused efforts to identify and confirm additional
localities and the conservation status of the fluminense swallowtail.
Evaluating the correlation between the distribution of fluminense
swallowtail and the existing protected areas within Rio de Janeiro
revealed that only two known occurrences of the fluminense swallowtail
correlated with protected areas, including the Po[ccedil]o das Antas
Biological Reserve (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007). The Po[ccedil]o das
Antas Biological Reserve and the Jurubatiba National Park are the only
two protected areas considered large enough to support viable
populations of the fluminense swallowtail (Otero and Brown 1984; Brown,
Jr. in litt. 2004; Robbins in litt. 2004). The Po[ccedil]o das Antas
Biological Reserve, established in 1974, encompasses 13,096 ac (5,300
ha) of inland Atlantic Forest habitat (CEPF 2007a; Decree No. 73,791,
1974).
According to the 2005 revised management plan (IBAMA 2005), the
Reserve is used solely for protection, research, and environmental
education. Public access is restricted, and there is an emphasis on
habitat conservation, including protection of the R[iacute]o S[atilde]o
Jo[atilde]o. This river runs through the Reserve and is integral to
creating the restinga conditions preferred by the fluminense
swallowtail. The Reserve was plagued by fires in the late 1980s through
the early 2000s, but fire is not currently thought to be a threat.
Between 2001 and 2006, there was an increase in the number of private
protected areas near or adjacent to the Po[ccedil]o das Antas
Biological Reserve and Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o (Critical
Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2007a). Corridors are being created
between existing protected areas and 13 privately protected forests, by
planting and restoring habitat previously cleared for agriculture or by
fires (De Roy 2002).
The Jurubatiba National Park (14,860 ha; 36,720 mi\2\), located in
Maca[eacute] and established in 1998 (Decree of April 29 1998), is one
of the largest contiguous restingas (specialized sandy, coastal
habitats) under protection in Brazil (CEPF 2007b; Rocha et al. 2007).
The Maca[eacute] River Basin forms the outer edge of the Jurubatiba
National Park (Park) (International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2002) and
consists of the habitat preferred by the fluminense swallowtail (Brown
1996; Otero and Brown 1984). Rocha et al. (2007) described the habitat
as being in a very good state of conservation, but lacking a formal
management plan. Threats to the Maca[eacute] region include
industrialization for oil reserve and power development (IFC 2002) and
intense population pressures (including migration and infrastructural
development) (Brown 1996; CEPF 2007b; IFC 2002; Khalip 2007; Otero and
Brown 1984; Savarese 2008). The researchers concluded that the existing
protected area system may be inadequate for the conservation of this
species.
Commercial exploitation has been identified as a potential threat
to the fluminense swallowtail (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000;
Sch[uuml]tz 2000). The species is easy to capture, and species with
restricted distributions or localized populations, such as the
fluminense swallowtail, tend to be more vulnerable to overcollection
than those with a wider distribution (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Robbins
in litt. 2004). However, based on the conservation measures in place,
we believe that overutilization is not currently a threat to the
fluminense swallowtail.
Parasitism has been indicated to be a factor affecting the
fluminense swallowtail. Recently, Tavares et al. (2006) discovered four
species of parasitic chalcid wasps (Brachymeria and Conura species;
Hymenoptera family) associated with fluminense swallowtails.
Parasitoids are species whose immature stages develop on or within an
insect host of another species, ultimately killing the host (Weeden et
al. 1976). This is the first report of parasitoid association with
fluminense swallowtails (Tavares et al. 2006). To date, there is no
information regarding the magnitude of effect these parasites are
having on the fluminense swallowtail. At this time, we do not find that
it affects the species to the extent that it is a threat to the
species.
Although Harris' mimic swallowtail and the fluminense swallowtail
face similar threats, there are several dissimilarities that influence
the magnitude of these threats. Fluminense swallowtails are monophagous
(Otero and Brown 1984; Kotiaho et al. 2005). In contrast, Harris' mimic
swallowtail is polyphagous (Collins and Morse 1985; Brown 1996); its
larvae feed on more than one species of plant (Kotiaho et al. 2005). In
addition, although their ranges overlap, Harris' mimic swallowtails
tolerate a wider range of habitat than the highly specialized restinga
habitat preferred by fluminense swallowtail. Also unlike the Harris'
mimic swallowtail, fluminense swallowtails require a large area to
maintain a viable population (Brown, Jr. in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al.
2004); in part because they are known to only feed on one food source.
Conservation Status. Brazil categorizes the fluminense swallowtail
to be ``Imperiled'' (Portaria No. 1,522
[[Page 25171]]
1989; MMA 2003). It is strictly protected from commerce (Brown, Jr. in
litt. 2004). According to the 2010 IUCN Red List, the fluminense
swallowtail has been classified as ``Vulnerable'' since 1983, based on
its small distribution and a decline in the number of populations
caused by habitat fragmentation and loss. However, this species has not
been reevaluated using the 1997 IUCN Red List categorization criteria.
This species has not been formally considered for listing in the
Appendices of CITES (www.cites.org). However, the European Commission
listed fluminense swallowtail on Annex B of Regulation 338/97 in 1997
(Grimm in litt. 2008), and the species continues to be listed on this
Annex (Eur-Lex 2008). This listing requires that imports from a non-
European Union country be accompanied by a permit that is only issued
if the CITES Scientific Authority has made a finding that trade in the
species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the
wild (Grimm in litt. 2008). There would be no requirement that the non-
European Union exporting country make such a finding or issue a
document if the species is not CITES-listed. There has been no legal
trade in this species into the European Union since its listing on
Annex B (Grimm in litt. 2008), and we are not aware of any recent
reports of seizures or smuggling in this species into or out of the
United States (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt. 2008).
In our 2009 ANOR, the fluminense swallowtail received an LPN of 5.
After reevaluating the threats to the fluminense swallowtail, we have
determined that a change in the listing priority number is not
warranted. The fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic
genus. The species is currently at risk from habitat destruction;
however, we have determined that overutilization and parasitism are not
currently occurring such that they are threats to the fluminense
swallowtail. The current threat of habitat destruction is of high
magnitude because the species: (1) Occupies highly specialized habitat;
(2) requires large areas to maintain a viable colony; and (3) is only
found within two protected areas considered to be large enough to
support viable colonies. However, additional populations have been
reported, increasing previously known population numbers and
distribution. The threat of habitat destruction is nonimminent because
most habitat modification is the result of historical destruction that
has resulted in fragmentation of the current landscape; however, the
potential for continued habitat modification exists, and we will
continue to monitor the situation. On the basis of this information,
the fluminense swallowtail retains a priority rank of 5.
S. Hahnel's Amazonian Swallowtail (Parides hahneli), LPN = 2
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is endemic to Brazil and is found
only on sandy beaches where the habitat is overgrown with dense scrub
vegetation (Collins and Morris 1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al.
1994). Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is likely to be monophagous. The
swallowtail depends upon highly specialized habitat--stranded beaches
of river drainage areas. Wells et al. (1983) describes the habitat as
ancient sandy beaches covered by scrubby or dense vegetation that is
not floristically diverse. The larval host-plant is believed to be a
species in the Dutchman's pipe genus, either Aristolochia lanceolato-
lorato or A. acutifolia (69 FR 70580; December 7, 2004).
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is known in three localities along
the tributaries of the middle and lower Amazon River basin in the
states of Amazonas and Par[aacute] (Collins and Morris 1985; New and
Collins 1991; Tyler et al. 1994; Brown 1996). Two of these colonies
were rediscovered in the 1970s (Collins and Morris 1985; Brown 1996).
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is highly localized, reflecting the
distribution of its highly specialized preferred habitat (Brown in
litt. 2004). The population size of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is
not known. However, within the area of its range, Hahnel's Amazonian
swallowtail populations are small (Brown in litt. 2004).
Habitat alteration (e.g., for dam construction and waterway crop
transport) and destruction (e.g., clearing for agriculture and cattle
grazing) are ongoing in Par[aacute] and Amazonas, where this species is
found (Fearnside 2006; Hurwitz 2007). Current research on population
trends is lacking. However, researchers believe that, because Hahnel's
Amazonian swallowtail has extremely limited habitat preferences, any
sort of river modification such as impoundment, channelization, or
levee construction would have an immediate and highly negative impact
on the species (Wells et al. 1983; New and Collins 1991).
This species of swallowtail has been collected for commercial trade
(Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 2000; Sch[uuml]tz 2000). Species with
restricted distributions or localized populations, such as the Hahnel's
Amazonian swallowtail, are more vulnerable to overcollection than those
with a wider distribution (Brown in litt. 2004; Robbins in litt. 2004).
Although not strictly protected from collection throughout Brazil, the
state of Par[aacute] recently declared the capture of Hahnel's
Amazonian swallowtail for purposes other than research to be forbidden
(Decreto No. 802, 2008). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES.
As of 2008, seizures of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail into or out of
the United States had not been reported (Office of Law Enforcement,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt. 2008). The
best available information does not indicate that overutilization is a
threat to the species.
Competition for host plants has been identified as a potential
threat to Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail. Researchers in the past
believed that this species might suffer from host plant competition
with other butterfly species in the region (Wells 1983; Collins and
Morris 1985; Brown 1996); however, this competition has not been
confirmed. It occupies the same range with another swallowtail
butterfly, Parides chabrias ygdrasilla, and mimics at least two other
genera that occupy the same area, Methona and Thyrides (Brown 1996). At
this time, there is insufficient information to conclude that
competition is a threat affecting this species.
Conservation Status. Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is not
nationally protected (Portaria No. 1522 1989; MMA 2003), although the
state of Par[aacute] listed it as endangered on its list of threatened
species (Resolu[ccedil][atilde]o 054 2007; Decreto No. 802 2008; Secco
and Santos 2008). Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail continues to be listed
as ``Data Deficient'' by the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010). Hahnel's
Amazonian swallowtail has not been formally considered for listing in
the Appendices of CITES (CITES 2009). Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is
listed on Annex B of Regulation 338/97 (Eur-Lex 2008), and there has
been no legal trade in this species into the European Union since its
listing on Annex B in 1997 (Grimm in litt. 2008).
After reevaluating the threats to the Hahnel's Amazonian
swallowtail, we have determined that a change in listing priority
number is warranted. Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail does not represent
a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude and
imminent due to its small endemic population, and limited and
decreasing availability of its highly specialized
[[Page 25172]]
habitat (stranded beaches of river drainage area) and food sources. The
primary threats of dam construction, waterway crop transport, clearing
for agriculture and cattle grazing are ongoing in Par[aacute] and
Amazonas. These threats are imminent due to the species' highly
localized and specialized habitat requirements. Secondary concerns are
possible illegal collection, competition with other species, and
potential catastrophic events such as severe tropical storms or
introduction of a new disease or predator. Based on a reevaluation of
the threats, we have changed the LPN from an 8 to a 2 to reflect
imminent threats of high magnitude.
T. Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis), LPN = 8
The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is native to the Himalayan regions of
Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam
(Shrestha 1997; FRAP 1999; Osada et al. 1999; Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai
and Richardson 1999; Masui and Uehara 2000; Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) 2001; Igarashi 2001; Baral et al. 2005; TRAFFIC
2007). This species prefers undisturbed (primary), heterogeneous,
broad-leaved-evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests, and flies
at altitudes of 1,500 to 3,050 m (4,921 to 10,000 ft) (Collins and
Morris 1985; Tordoff et al. 1999; Igarashi 2001). This species is
polyphagous. Larval host-plants may differ across the species' range,
and include: Magnolia campbellii in China (Igarashi and Fukuda 2000;
Sung and Yan 2005; Yen and Yang 2001); Magnolia spp. in Vietnam (Funet
2004); Daphne spp. in India, Nepal, and Myanmar (Funet 2004); and
Daphne nipalensis also in India (Robinson et al. 2004). It has been
reported that the adult Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails do not feed (Collins
and Morris 1985).
Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to this species, which
prefers undisturbed high-altitude habitat (Collins and Morris 1985;
Tordoff et al. 1999; Igarashi 2001). In China and India, the Kaiser-I-
Hind swallowtail populations are at risk from habitat modification and
destruction due to commercial and illegal logging (Yen and Yang 2001;
Maheshwari 2003). In Nepal, the species is at risk from habitat
disturbance and destruction resulting from mining, fuel wood
collection, agriculture, and grazing animals (Collins and Morris 1985;
Shrestha 1997; Baral et al. 2005). Nepal's Forest Ministry considered
habitat destruction to be a critical threat to all biodiversity,
including the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, in the development of their
biodiversity strategy (HMGN 2002). Habitat degradation and loss caused
by deforestation and land conversion for agricultural purposes is a
primary threat to the species in Thailand (Hongthong 1998; FAO 2001).
The species is afforded some protection from habitat destruction in
Vietnam, where it has been confirmed in three nature reserves that have
low levels of disturbance (Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson
1999).
Conservation Status
Since 1996, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been categorized on
the IUCN Red List as a species of ``Lower Risk/near threatened''; it
has not been reevaluated using the 1997 criteria (Gimenez Dixon 1996;
IUCN 2010). The species was considered ``Rare'' by Collins and Morris
(1985). Despite its widespread distribution, local populations are not
abundant (Collins and Morris 1985). The known localities and
conservation status of the species within each range country follows:
Bhutan: The species was reported to be extant in Bhutan (Gimenez
Dixon 1996; FRAP 1999), although details on localities or status
information were not provided.
China: The species has been reported in Fuji, Guangxi, Hubei,
Jiangsu, Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces (Collins and Morris 1985;
Gimenez Dixon 1996; UNEP-WCMC 1999; Igarashi and Fukuda 2000; Sung and
Yan 2005). The species is classified by the 2005 China Species Red List
as ``Vulnerable'' (China Red List 2006).
India: Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and West Bengal (Bahuguna
1998; Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996; Ministry of
Environment and Forests 2005). There is no recent status information on
this species (Bombay Natural History Society in litt. 2007).
Laos: The species has been reported (Osada et al. 1999), but no
further information is available (Vonxaiya in litt. 2007).
Myanmar: The species has been reported in Shan, Kayah (Karen) and
Thaninanthayi (Tenasserim) states (Collins and Morris 1985; Gimenez
Dixon 1996). There is no status information.
Nepal: The species has been reported in Nepal (Collins and Morris
1985; Gimenez Dixon 1996), in the Central Administrative Region at two
localities: Phulchoki Mountain Forest (Baral et al. 2005; Collins and
Morris 1985) and Shivapuri National Park (Nepali Times 2002; Shrestha
1997). There is no status information.
Thailand: The species has been reported in the northern province of
Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The CITES Scientific Authority of
Thailand recently confirmed that the species has limited distribution
in the high mountains (>1,500 m (4,921 ft)) of northern Thailand and is
found within three national parks. However, no biological or status
information was available (Choldumrongkul in litt. 2007).
Vietnam: The species has been confirmed in three Nature Reserves
(Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999), and the species is
listed as ``Vulnerable'' in the 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book, due to
declining population sizes and area of occupancy (Canh in litt. 2007).
The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has been
collected for commercial trade, despite range country regulations
prohibiting or restricting such activities (Collins and Morris 1985;
Sch[uuml]tz 2000). In China, where the species is protected by the
Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance (1989),
which restricts import, export, and possession of the species, species
purportedly derived from Sichuan were being advertised for sale on the
Internet for 60 U.S. Dollars (US$). In India, the Kaiser-I-Hind
swallowtail is listed on Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife Protection
Act of 1972, which prohibits hunting without a license (Collins and
Morris 1985; Indian Wildlife Protection Act 2006). However, between
1990 and 1997, illegally collected specimens were selling for 500
Rupees (12 US$) per female and 30 Rupees (0.73 US$) per male (Bahuguna
1998). In Nepal, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is protected by the
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973 (His Majesty's
Government of Nepal (HMGN) 2002). However, the Nepal Forestry Ministry
determined in 2002 that the high commercial value of its ``Endangered''
species on the local and international market may result in local
extinctions of species such as the Kaiser-I-Hind (HMGN 2002).
In Thailand, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail and 13 other
invertebrates are listed under Thailand's Wild Animal Reservation and
Protection Act (WARPA) of 1992 (B.E. 2535 1992), which makes it illegal
to collect wildlife (whether alive or dead) or to have the species in
one's possession (Hongthong 1998; Pornpitagpan 1999; FAO 2001;
Choldumrongkul in litt. 2007). In addition to prohibiting possession,
WARPA prohibits hunting, breeding, and trading. Import and export are
only allowed for conservation purposes
[[Page 25173]]
(Jaisielthum in litt. 2007). According to the Thai Scientific
Authority, there are no captive breeding programs for this species;
however, the species is offered for sale by the Lepidoptera Breeders
Association (2009). It was marketed as derived from a captive breeding
program in Thailand, although specimens were recently noted as being
``out of stock'' (Lepidoptera Breeders Association 2009).
In Vietnam, Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails are reported to be among the
most valuable of all butterflies (World Bank 2005). In 2006, the
species was listed on Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32 on ``Management of
endangered, precious and rare forest plants and animals.'' A Schedule
IIB-listing restricts the exploitation or commercial use of species
with small populations or that are considered by the country to be in
danger of extinction (Canh in litt. 2007). In a recent survey conducted
by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 2000 residents in Ha Noi, Vietnam,
the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail was among 37 Schedule IIB-species that
were actively being collected (p. 36). The majority of the survey
respondents were unaware of legislation prohibiting collection of
Schedule IIB-species (p. 7). This is a highly desirable species, and
there is a culture within Vietnam of consuming rare and expensive wild
animal dishes, particularly in Ha Noi among the elite (TRAFFIC 2007, p.
9). This practice does not seem to be decreasing; rather it appears to
be increasing. Thus, we find that overutilization for illegal domestic
use is a threat to this species. Although Vietnam has implemented
several action plans to strengthen control of trade in wild fauna and
flora (TRAFFIC 2007, p. 9), within-country protections are inadequate
to protect the species from illegal collection throughout its range.
The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been listed in CITES Appendix II
since 1987 (UNEP-WCMC 2008a). Between 1991 and 2005, 160 Kaiser-I-Hind
swallowtail specimens were traded internationally under CITES permits
(UNEP WCMC 2006), and between 2000 and 2008, 157 specimens were traded
(UNEP WCMC 2009). Reports that the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is being
captive-bred in Taiwan (Yen and Yang 2001) remain unconfirmed. Since
1993, there have been no reported seizures or smuggling of this species
into or out of the United States (Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia in litt. 2008). Therefore, on
the basis of global trade data, we do not consider legal international
trade to be a threat to this species.
After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined
that a change in listing priority number is not warranted. The Kaiser-
I-Hind swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. The current
threats of habitat destruction and illegal collection are moderate in
magnitude due to the species' wide distribution and to the protections
in place. We find that the threats are imminent due to ongoing habitat
destruction, high market value for specimens, and inadequate domestic
protections for the species or its habitat. Based on our reassessment
of the threats, we have retained an LPN of 8 to reflect imminent
threats of moderate magnitude.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
This section describes the actions that continue to preclude the
immediate proposal of listing rules for the 20 species described above.
In addition, we summarize the expeditious progress we are making, as
required by section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act, to add qualified
species to the lists of endangered or threatened species and to remove
from these lists species for which protections of the Act are no longer
necessary.
Section 4(b) of the Act states that the Service may make warranted-
but-precluded findings only if it can demonstrate that (1) An immediate
proposed rule is precluded by other pending proposals and that (2)
expeditious progress is being made on other listing actions. Preclusion
is a function of the listing priority of a species in relation to the
resources that are available and competing demands for those resources.
Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether
it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation
or whether promulgation of such a proposal is warranted-but-precluded
by higher priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
determinations on prior ``warranted-but-precluded'' petition findings
as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat
petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical
habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management
functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to
Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach
regarding listing and critical habitat).
The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be
extensive and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and
assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and
conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and
publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public
comments and peer review comments on proposed rules and incorporating
relevant information into final rules. The number of listing actions
that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the
complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions
generally are more costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing
a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a
proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing
rule with critical habitat, the median cost is $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds which may be
expended for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly
appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was
designed to prevent funds appropriated for other functions under the
Act (for example, recovery funds for removing species from the Lists),
or for other Service programs, from being used for Listing Program
actions (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1,
1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2010, we are using some of the critical habitat subcap
funds to fund actions with statutory deadlines.
Thus, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the
amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the
amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address
[[Page 25174]]
court-mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the
limits on our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
In FY 2010, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be
achieved with $10,471,000, which is the amount of money that Congress
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations
for species that are already listed). However, these funds were not
enough to fully fund all our court-ordered and statutory listing
actions in FY 2010, so we used $1,114,417 of our critical habitat
subcap funds in order to work on all of our required petition findings
and listing determinations. This brings the total amount of funds we
had for listing actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our process is to
make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure
that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and
also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. The
$11,585,417 is being used to fund work in the following categories:
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In 2009,
the responsibility for listing foreign species under the Act was
transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority (DSA),
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program.
Starting in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is being used to work on
the actions described above as they apply to listing actions for
foreign species.
For FY 2011, on September 29, 2010, Congress passed a continuing
resolution which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level. Until
Congress appropriates funds for FY 2011, we will fund listing work
based on the FY 2010 amount.
In addition, available staff resources are also a factor in
determining high-priority species provided with funding. Finally,
proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species to endangered
are lower priority, because as listed species, they are already
afforded the protection of the Act and implementing regulations.
Starting in FY 2010, the Washington Office (WO) Endangered Species
Program has full responsibility for foreign species' listing actions
under the Act. The Branch of Foreign Species (BFS) was established in
June 2010 to specifically work on petitions and other actions under
Section 4 of the Act for foreign species.
Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in
the bottom section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. The funding for
domestic and foreign species was not appropriated separately in FY
2010. In addition to the actions demonstrating expeditious progress
mentioned above, we list the progress in adding qualified species to
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species for domestic
species in the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review (75 FR 69822, published
November 10, 2010).
BFS may, based on available staff resources, work on species
described within this ANOR with an LPN of 2 or 3, and when appropriate,
species with a lower priority if they overlap geographically or have
the same threats as the species with the high priority. Including these
species together in the same proposed rule results in considerable
savings in time and funding, when compared to preparing separate
proposed rules for each of them in the future. Because the actions
below are either the subject of a court-approved settlement agreement
or subject to an absolute statutory deadline and, thus, are higher
priority than work on proposed listing determinations for the 20
species described above, publication of proposed rules for these 20
species is precluded. For expeditious progress on domestic actions, see
the Candidate Notice of Review, published November 10, 2010.
ESA Foreign Species Listing Actions Funded in FY 2010 But Not Yet Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 parrots \1\............................. 12-month status determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Bird species in Colombia and Ecuador..... Final listing determination.
6 Bird species in Europe and Asia \1\...... Final listing determination.
6 Bird species in Peru and Bolivia \1\..... Final listing determination.
7 Bird species in Brazil................... Final listing determination.
Peary and Dolphin-Union caribou............ 90-day petition finding.
Queen charlotte goshawk.................... Final listing determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds; also will be funded with FY 2011 funds.
Despite the priorities that preclude publishing proposed listing
rules for these 20 species described in this notice, we are making
expeditious progress in adding to and removing species from the Federal
lists of threatened and endangered species. Our expeditious progress
for foreign species since publication of the 2009 Notice of Review,
August 12, 2009 (74 FR 40540) to the current date includes preparing
and publishing the following:
[[Page 25175]]
ESA Foreign Species Listing Actions Published in FY 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Action FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/03/2009...................... Listing the Salmon- Proposed Listing 74 FR 56770-56791
Crested Cockatoo as Threatened.
Threatened Throughout
its Range with Special
Rule.
1/05/2010....................... Listing Foreign Bird Proposed Listing 75 FR 605-649
Species in Peru and Endangered.
Bolivia as Endangered
Throughout Their Range.
1/05/2010....................... Listing Six Foreign Proposed Listing 75 FR 286-310
Birds as Endangered Endangered.
Throughout Their Range.
1/05/2010....................... Withdrawal of Proposed Proposed rule, 75 FR 310-316
Rule to List Cook's withdrawal.
Petrel.
1/05/2010....................... Final Rule to List the Final Listing 75 FR 235-250
Galapagos Petrel and Threatened.
Heinroth's Shearwater
as Threatened
Throughout Their
Ranges.
6/23/2010....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 35746-35751
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Honduran Emerald Substantial.
Hummingbird as
Endangered.
7/27/2010....................... Determination on Final Listing 75 FR 43844-43853
Listing the Black- Endangered.
Breasted Puffleg as
Endangered Throughout
its Range; Final Rule.
7/27/2010....................... Final Rule to List the Final Listing 75 FR 43853-43864
Medium Tree-Finch Endangered.
(Camarhynchus pauper)
as Endangered
Throughout its Range.
8/3/2010........................ Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 45497-45527
Threatened Status for Threatened.
Five Penguin Species.
8/17/2010....................... Listing Three Foreign Final Listing 75 FR 50813-50842
Bird Species from Endangered.
Latin America and the
Caribbean as
Endangered Throughout
Their Range.
9/28/2010....................... Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 59645-59656
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the African Penguin.
02/22/2011...................... Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 9681-9692
Threatened Status for Endangered.
Southern rockhopper
penguin--Campbell
Plateau population.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted-but-
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (Although we do not discuss it in
detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing
species from the Lists under the Recovery program, which is funded by a
separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. As
with our ``precluded'' finding, expeditious progress in adding
qualified species to the Lists is a function of the resources available
and the competing demands for those funds. Given that limitation, we
find that we are making progress in FY 2010 in the Listing Program.
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
Our expeditious progress also includes work on pending listing
actions described above in our ``precluded finding,'' but for which
decisions had not been completed at the time of this publication.
Monitoring
Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to ``implement a
system to monitor effectively the status of all species'' for which we
have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to ``make
prompt use of the [emergency listing] authority [under section 4(b)(7)]
to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species.''
For foreign species, the Service's ability to gather information to
monitor species is limited. The Service welcomes all information
relevant to the status of these species, because we have no ability to
gather data in foreign countries directly and cannot compel another
country to provide information. Thus, this ANOR plays a critical role
in our monitoring efforts for foreign species. With each ANOR, we
request information on the status of the species included in the
notice. Information and comments on the annual findings can be
submitted at any time. We review all new information received through
this process as well as any other new information we obtain using a
variety of methods. We collect information directly from range
countries by correspondence, from peer-reviewed scientific literature,
unpublished literature, scientific meeting proceedings, and CITES
documents (including species proposals and reports from scientific
committees). We also obtain information through the permit application
processes under CITES, the Act, and the Wild Bird Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 4901 et seq.). We also consult with the IUCN species specialist
groups and staff members of the U.S. CITES Scientific and Management
Authorities, and the Division of International Conservation; and we
attend scientific meetings to obtain current status information for
relevant species. As previously stated, if we identify any species for
which emergency listing is appropriate, we will make prompt use of the
emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act.
Request for Information
We request the submission of any further information on the species
in this notice as soon as possible, or whenever it becomes available.
We especially seek information: (1) Indicating that we should remove a
taxon from consideration for listing; (2) documenting threats to any of
the included taxa; (3) describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats
facing these taxa; (4) identifying taxonomic or nomenclatural changes
for any of the taxa; or (5) noting any mistakes, such as errors in the
indicated historic ranges.
References Cited
A list of the references used to develop this notice is available
upon request (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
This Notice of Review was authored by the staff of the Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see ADDRESSES section).
[[Page 25176]]
Authority
This Notice of Review is published under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 15, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-10286 Filed 5-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P