[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24603-24632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09504]



[[Page 24603]]

Vol. 78

Thursday,

No. 80

April 25, 2013

Part V





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of 
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual 
Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 80 / Thursday, April 25, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 24604]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0044; 450 003 0115]


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 Annual Notice of Review (ANOR) of foreign species, we 
present an updated list of plant and animal species foreign to the 
United States that we regard as candidates for addition to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended. This review ensures that we focus 
conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk first. Overall, 
this ANOR recognizes one new candidate and removes one species from 
candidate status. The current number of foreign species that are 
candidates for listing is 20. Based on our current review, we find that 
20 species continue to warrant listing, but their listing remains 
precluded by higher priority proposals to determine whether any species 
is an endangered species or a threatened species.

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. Please submit any new information, materials, 
comments, or questions of a general nature on this notice to the 
Arlington, VA, address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, 
Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2171. 
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    In this Annual Notice of Review (ANOR) of foreign species, we 
present an updated list of plant and animal species foreign to the 
United States that we regard as candidates for addition to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under 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 proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, 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.
    Since publication of the previous ANOR on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 
25150), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to 
ensure that listing is warranted for each species and reevaluated the 
relative listing priority number (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, delist, or downlist 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 section, below, for details).
    Overall, this ANOR recognizes one new candidate and removes one 
species from candidate status. The current number of foreign species 
that are candidates for listing is 20. Based on our current review, we 
find that 20 species continue to warrant listing, but their listing 
remains precluded by higher priority proposals to determine whether any 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species.

Request for Information

    This ANOR summarizes the status and threats that we evaluated in 
order to determine that species qualify as candidates and to assign an 
LPN to each species or to determine that species should be removed from 
candidate status. This document also describes our progress in revising 
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) 
during the period May 3, 2011, through September 30, 2012.
    With this ANOR, we request additional information for the 20 taxa 
whose listings are warranted but precluded by higher priority proposals 
to determine whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species. 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. 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.
    You may submit your information concerning this notice in general 
or for any of the species included in this notice by one of the methods 
listed in the ADDRESSES section.

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, upon our own initiative, 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 proposals to determine 
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species. 
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). Nineteen of these 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

[[Page 24605]]

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 (See Preclusion and Expeditious Progress section).
    In accordance with 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 
Notice of Review published May 3, 2011 (76 FR 25150).
    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. We strongly encourage 
collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species, and offer 
technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For 
additional information regarding such assistance, see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 
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.
    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). 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 are in 
part 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 May 3, 2011 (76 FR 25150). Since 
our last review of petition findings in May 2011, we have issued a 
proposed rule to list one species previously included in the ANOR (see 
the Preclusion and Expeditious Progress section for additional listing 
actions that were not related to this notice). On January 10, 2013, we 
published a proposed rule to list the blue throated macaw under the Act 
(78 FR 2239).

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions

    This notice describes our resubmitted petition findings for 19 
foreign species for which we had previously found 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

[[Page 24606]]

Priority Guidance the LPN of each taxon for which proposed listing 
continues to be warranted but precluded. Based on our review of the 
best available scientific and commercial information, with this ANOR, 
we have changed the LPN for two candidate species.

New Candidate Species

    Below we present a summary of one new species Colorado delta clam 
(Mulinia coloradoensis), which is an addition to this year's ANOR. 
Based upon our own initiative, we find that we have sufficient 
information on its biological vulnerability and threats to support a 
proposal to list it as endangered or threatened, but preparation and 
publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing 
actions (i.e., it met our definition of a candidate species).
    As a result of our review, we find that warranted-but-precluded 
findings is appropriate for the below 20 species, including 1 new 
candidate species. We emphasize that we are not proposing these species 
for listing, 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.

                                Table 1--Species in 2012 Annual Notice of Review
                                    [C = listing is warranted but precluded]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status
---------------------------------   Scientific name         Family            Common name       Historic range
    Category         Priority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Birds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C..............  2..............  Pauxi unicornis...  Craciidae.........  southern helmeted   Bolivia, Peru.
                                                                           curassow.
C..............  2..............  Rallus              Rallidae..........  Bogota rail.......  Colombia.
                                   semiplumbeus.
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..............  8..............  Eunymphicus         Psittacidae.......  Uvea parakeet.....  Uvea, New
                                   uvaeensis.                                                  Caledonia.
C..............  8..............  Dryocopus galeatus  Picidae...........  helmeted            Argentina, Brazil,
                                                                           woodpecker.         Paraguay.
C..............  2..............  Dendrocopus         Picidae...........  Okinawa woodpecker  Okinawa Island,
                                   noguchii.                                                   Japan.
C..............  2..............  Aulacorhynchus      Ramphastidae......  yellow-browed       Peru.
                                   huallagae.                              toucanet.
C..............  11.............  Scytalopus          Conopophagidae....  Brasilia tapaculo.  Brazil.
                                   novacapitalis.
C..............  12.............  Bowdleria punctata  Sylviidae.........  Codfish Island      Codfish Island,
                                   wilsoni.                                fernbird.           New 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 (Butterflies)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Mollusc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C..............  2..............  Mulinia             Mactridae.........  Colorado delta      Mexico.
                                   coloradoensis.                          clam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 is warranted but precluded due to the need to 
complete pending, higher priority proposals to determine whether any 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species. 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

[[Page 24607]]

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

Southern Helmeted Curassow (Pauxi unicornis), LPN = 2

Taxonomy

    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 subspecies 
is Pauxi unicornis koepckeae (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 267). 
What is now recognized as the southern helmeted curassow may in fact be 
two separate species that are currently recognized as two subspecies 
(Pauxi unicornis unicornis and Pauxi unicornis koepckeae). It has been 
proposed that these subspecies of Pauxi unicornis may represent two 
different species because they are separated by more than 1,000 km (621 
mi), and have distinct characteristics (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, 
p. 267). Currently, both BirdLife International (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 2012, accessed June 11, 2012).
    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, 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 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.

Species Description

    The southern helmeted curassow, also known as the helmeted or 
horned curassow or the unicorn bird, is one of the least frequently 
encountered South American bird species (Tobias and del Hoyo 2006, p. 
61; Maillard 2006, p. 95; Cox et al. 1997, p. 199). This may be due to 
the inaccessibility of its preferred habitat and its apparent 
intolerance of human disturbance (Macleod et al. 2009, pp. 15-16; 
Herzog and Kessler 1998).
    This species of curassow inhabits dense, humid, lower montane 
forest and adjacent evergreen forest at altitudes of between 450 and 
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).

Range

    The southern helmeted curassow is only known to occur in central 
Bolivia and central Peru (BirdLife International (BLI) 2012). One of 
the locations where it has been found is Valle de la Luna, on the east 
side of the R[iacute]o Leche, 0.5-1.0 km (0.3-0.6 miles) north of 
Parque Nacional Carrasco, in the Department of Cochabamba, Bolivia. The 
Valley is an extensive, flat, largely unvegetated area at 450 m (1,476 
ft) above sea level, bounded by the R[iacute]o Leche to the west and by 
steep cliffs and primary forest to the east. It has also been located 
in Ambor[oacute] (Macleod et al. 2009, pp. 15-16).
    Research indicates that the species once inhabited a contiguous 
area along the Peruvian-Bolivian Andean mountain cloud forest chain, 
and now has become two isolated populations or subspecies (see Appendix 
A in Docket FWS-R9-ES-2012-0044 for a map) that are at the peripheries 
of its former range (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 273). In Bolivia, 
the horned curassow is found only in the departments of Cochabamba and 
Santa Cruz (BLI 2012; Maillard 2006, p. 95). All current records are 
from in or near three protected areas--Ambor[oacute], Carrasco, and 
Isiboro-S[eacute]core (Asociaci[oacute]n Armon[iacute]a 2012; Maillard 
2006, p. 95).
    In Ambor[oacute] National Park (Yungas Inferiores de 
Ambor[oacute]), the southern helmeted curassow was regularly seen on 
the upper Saguayo River (Saguayo R[iacute]o) (Wege and Long 1995). More 
recently, it has been observed in the adjacent Ambor[oacute] and 
Carrasco National Parks (Maillard 2006, p. 95; Brooks 2006; Herzog and 
Kessler 1998). It was also found in Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory 
and National Park (TIPNIS), and along the western edge of the 
Cordillera Mosetenes, Cochabamba. A recent survey located a few 
southern helmeted curassows across the northern boundary of Carrasco 
National Park, where it was historically found (MacLeod 2007 as cited 
in BLI 2009a). Some surveys conducted between 2004 and 2005 found no 
evidence of the species anywhere north or east of Ambor[oacute], 
Carrasco, and Isiboro-Secure National Parks in central Bolivia (Macleod 
et al. 2009, p. 16). However, one survey in 2005 found it approximately 
8 km (5 mi) northeast of Palmasola in the Integrated Management Natural 
Area, Ambor[oacute], Santa Cruz Department (Maillard 2006, p. 95). It 
was found only in six locations during the surveys. 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 u. koepckeae is known only from the Sira Mountains 
(known as the Reserva Comunal El Sira), in the Department of 
Hu[aacute]nuco (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, pp. 267, 269; Tobias and 
del Hoyo 2006). Surveys suggest that the southern helmeted curassow is 
extremely rare here (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 267; MacLeod in 
litt. 2004 as cited in BLI 2008; Maccormack in litt. 2004 as cited in 
BLI 2009a; Gasta[ntilde]aga and Hennessey 2005; Mee et al. 2002). Pauxi 
u. koepckeae occurs in an area that is isolated from the Andes 
Mountains.

Population

    The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to 
be between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals (BLI 2012). Within its limited 
range, the southern helmeted curassow typically occurs at densities of 
up to 20 individuals per square kilometer (km\2\) (Macleod 2007 as 
cited in BLI 2008). Within Peru, the population is estimated to have 
fewer than 400 individuals (Gasta[ntilde]aga in litt. 2007, as cited in 
BLI 2010a). In recent years, extensive field surveys of southern 
helmeted curassow habitat have resulted in little success in locating 
the

[[Page 24608]]

species (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; Mee et al. 2002). As of 2009, the estimated 
decline in the overall population over 10 years was 50 to 79 percent 
(BLI 2009b).

Factors Affecting the Species

    The southern helmeted curassow is dependent upon particular 
environmental conditions that have been altered over the past few 
centuries. Southern helmeted curassow populations are estimated to be 
declining very rapidly (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 277; 
Gasta[ntilde]aga 2006, p. 15). This species has a small range and is 
known only from a few locations, and continues to be subject to habitat 
loss and hunting pressure. The species was observed in a forested area 
approximately 5 km (3 mi) from the Valle de la Luna clay lick site 
where parrots forage for nutrients (Mee et al. 2005, p. 4), but it had 
apparently been exterminated by hunting within 5 years (McLeod in litt. 
in Mee et al. 2005, p. 4).
    In Bolivia, large parts of southern helmeted curassow habitat are 
ostensibly protected by inclusion in the Ambor[oacute] and Carrasco 
National Parks and in the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and 
National Park. However, pressures on the species' populations continue 
(BLI 2010a). Forests within the range of the southern helmeted curassow 
in Bolivia are being cleared for crop cultivation by colonists from the 
altiplano (Maillard 2006, pp. 95-98). Rural development including road 
building inhibits its dispersal (Fjelds[aring] in litt. 1999 as cited 
in BLI 2010; Herzog and Kessler 1998). Historically, 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 
(Collar et al. 1992; Cordier 1971). 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.
    In Peru, the main factor affecting P. u. koepckeae is hunting by 
local communities (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 277), but the 
species is also impacted by subsistence agriculture forest clearing by 
colonists, mining, oil exploration, and illegal logging (MacLeod in 
litt. 2000 as cited in BLI 2010a). The R[iacute]o Leche area 
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). The disappearance may be due to illegal 
human encroachment. Unless threats are mitigated, this trend will 
probably continue for the next several years (Macleod in litt. 2005).
    Peru and Bolivia have enacted various laws and regulatory 
mechanisms to protect and manage wildlife and their habitats. However, 
the remaining suitable habitat for this species is fragmented and 
degraded. Habitat throughout the species' range has been and continues 
to be altered as a result of human activities, particularly human 
encroachment and concomitant increased pressure on natural resources. 
Despite the recent improvements in laws in Peru and Bolivia, 
destructive activities are ongoing within protected areas and in these 
species' habitat, indicating that the laws governing wildlife and 
habitat protection in both countries are either inadequate or 
inadequately enforced to protect the species or to mitigate ongoing 
habitat loss and population declines.
    The FAO conducted a review of forest policies and laws in 2010, and 
a summary for Peru and Bolivia is in Table 2. The study found that, 
although Peru does not have a national forest policy, it does have both 
a national forest program and law in place. Bolivia has a national 
forest policy, national forest program, and law program in place. No 
forest laws at the subnational level (such as jurisdictions equivalent 
to states in the United States) exist in these countries. FAO reported 
that Peru and Bolivia reported a significant loss of primary forests; 
this loss peaked in the period 2000-2005 in Peru and increased in 
Bolivia in the last decade compared with the 1990s (p. 56). FAO also 
reported that, at a regional level, South America suffered the largest 
net loss of forests between 2000 and 2010; at a rate of approximately 
4.0 million ha (9.9 million ac) per year (p. xvi). In Bolivia, habitat 
is protected either on the national or departmental level. Recently, 
Bolivia passed the ``Law of Rights of Mother Earth'' to add strength to 
its existing environmental protection laws. This law has the objective 
of recognizing the rights of the planet (Government of Bolivia, 2010).

           Table 2--Summary of Forest Policies and Laws in Bolivia and Peru (Adapted From FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment 2010, p. 303)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  National forest policy               National forest program                          Forest law national
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Country                                                                                                                       Subnational
                                      Exists         Year         Exists         Year         Status         National--type     Year         exists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolivia.......................  Yes..............     2008  Yes..............     2008  In implementation  Specific forest       1996  No
                                                                                                            law.
Peru..........................  No...............       --  Yes..............     2004  In implementation  Specific forest       2000  No
                                                                                                            law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservation Status

    The southern helmeted curassow is classified as endangered on the 
IUCN Red List (BLI 2012; 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.
    It is legally protected in the El Sira Communal Reserve (most of 
the Sira Mountains), but hunting still likely occurs in this area. The 
Armon[iacute]a Association is carrying out an environmental awareness 
project to inform local people about the threats to the 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. Armon[iacute]a is also 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 the previous ANOR, the southern helmeted curassow received an 
LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we have 
determined that no change in the LPN 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. 
The few locations where it is believed to exist continue to be subject 
to habitat

[[Page 24609]]

destruction and loss from agricultural development, road building, and 
hunting. Although the population is estimated to be between 1,500 and 
7,500 individuals, this may be an overestimate because it has such a 
limited range and the population trend is believed to be rapidly 
declining (Jetz et al. 2007, p. 1). The best scientific information 
available suggests that the population decline will continue in the 
future. Because the species is experiencing such a significant 
population decline and is still experiencing significant pressures, 
this species has an LPN of 2 to reflect imminent threats of high 
magnitude.

Bogota Rail (Rallus semiplumbeus), LPN = 2

Species and Habitat Description

    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 (8,202-13,123 ft and 
occasionally as low as 2,100 m) (6,890 ft) in savanna and p[aacute]ramo 
marshes (BLI 2010b). Bogota rails 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). The species 
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 2012; Varty et al. 1986 
as cited in BLI 2010b).

Population and Range

    The current population is estimated to be between 1,000 and 2,499 
individuals (BLI 2012). 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 described as being 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).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Its suitable habitat has become widely fragmented (BLI 2012; 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 2012).
    In the previous ANOR, the Bogota rail received an LPN of 2. After 
reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that no 
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 species' 
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. The factors affecting the species are 
occurring now, are ongoing, and are therefore imminent. Thus, the LPN 
remains at 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri), LPN = 8

Species Description

    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). Porphyrio mantelli was split into P. mantelli (extinct) and 
P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996). Takahe territories are between 
several hectares to more than 100 ha (247 acres) depending on the 
availability of their preferred food sources (Lee and Jamieson 2001, p. 
57). Takahe defend their territories aggressively against other takahe, 
which means that they will not form dense colonies even in optimal 
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 one to three eggs. The species forms life-
long pair bonds and generally occupy the same territory throughout life 
(Reid 1967). Generally, only a few pairs in the wild manage to 
consistently rear more than one chick each year.

Population and Range

    Historically, takahe were common throughout most coastal and 
eastern parts of the South Island of New Zealand (Grueber and Jamieson 
2011, p. 384; Grueber and Jamieson 2008, p. 384). Today, the species is 
present in the Murchison and Stuart Mountains and was introduced to 
five island reserves and one privately owned island (Wickes et al. 
2009, p. 10; Collar et al. 1994). Small groups of takahe were 
introduced to Maud Island in the Marlborough Sounds, Mana and Kapiti 
Islands north of Wellington, Tiritiri Matangi Island in the Hauraki 
Gulf northeast of Auckland, and Maungatautari Ecological Island, 
Waikato. The population in the Murchison Mountains of Fiordland 
National Park, South Island, is the only mainland population and that 
has the potential for sustaining a large, viable population (New 
Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) 2010; 2009b; 2007; Bunin and 
Jamieson 1996).
    When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the takahe 
population consisted of about 260 pairs (Heather and Robertson 1997; 
del Hoyo 1996). In 1981, the population reached a low of an estimated 
120 birds. As of 2010, it was estimated that there were about 100 birds 
in the wild in the Murchison Mountains (NZDOC 2010), but there may be 
up to 300 in this area (http://www.mitre10takaherescue.co.nz, accessed 
July 17, 2012). Currently, there are approximately 350 individuals that 
are receiving conservation efforts (Grueber et al. 2012, p. 4; Wickes 
et al. 2009).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Several factors have led to the decline in the species' population. 
Factors that had affected this species in the past included hunting, a 
competitor (the introduced brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus 
vulpecula)), and predators

[[Page 24610]]

such as stoats (Mustela erminea) and the threatened weka (Gallirallus 
australis), a flightless woodhen that is endemic to New Zealand (BLI 
2010c). The NZDOC ran a trial stoat control program in a portion of the 
takahe Special Area to measure the effect on takahe survival and 
productivity. Initial assessment indicated that the control program had 
a positive influence (NZDOC 2009, pp. 35-36); however, occasionally, 
stoat eradication still occurs as needed.
    Now the primary factors affecting the species are limited suitable 
habitat and a very small population size (Grueber et al. 2012, pp. 1-
5); however, other factors that likely affect this species are 
discussed in this section. Although there are no known diseases that 
are currently a concern in the takahe, diseases in avian species are 
currently a concern in New Zealand and are being monitored (McLelland 
et al. 2011, pp. 163-164).
    Studies suggest the level of inbreeding may be underestimated for 
this species because this species has persisted at a small population 
size for over 150 years (Grueber and Jamieson 2011, p. 392; Grueber et 
al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Relative to other species, the takahe has low 
genetic diversity (Grueber et al. 2010, pp. 7-9). There is growing 
evidence that inbreeding can negatively affect small, isolated 
populations. Inbreeding can result in reduced fitness potential and 
higher susceptibility to biotic and abiotic disturbances in the short 
term, and an inability to adapt to environmental change in the long 
term.
    After substantially decreasing in numbers, the species experienced 
a loss of fitness as a result of recent inbreeding (Grueber et al. 
2011; Grueber and Jamieson 2008, p. 649). Small populations generally 
recover slowly from catastrophic events (Crouchley 1994); this is a 
concern because this species has such a small population size 
(approximately 350 individuals). To increase the population, NZDOC has 
been removing some eggs from the wild, captive rearing them, and 
reintroducing them back into the wild (also refer to Conservation 
Status, below) (Grueber et al. 2012, p. 1; NZDOC 2009, p. 26).
    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 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 cause decreased fitness of takahe.
    Severe weather may also be a limiting factor to the takahe (BLI 
2010c; Bunin and Jamieson 1995). 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). The severity of winter conditions adversely affects 
survivorship of takahe in the wild, particularly of young birds 
(Maxwell and Jamieson 1997).
    Another factor of concern is that the mainland population and the 
populations on the island reserves may be at carrying capacity (Grueber 
et al. 2012, p. 1; Jamieson 2010, p. 122; Wickes et al. 2009, p. 29; 
Greaves 2007, p. 17). Rareness of a vital component of its diet, C. 
conspicua, may be a limiting factor affecting the lack of viability of 
the takahe population (Wickes et al. 2009, pp. 39-40). C. conspicua is 
less common in the forest understory in the Takahe Special Area than it 
was historically. NZDOC has conducted research and has attempted to 
reintroduce and increase the prevalence of this plant species in the 
Murchison Mountains Reserve (Wickes et al. 2009, 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 subsequent nest failure 
(Jamieson 2003, p. 708); however, this theory has not been confirmed.

Conservation Status

    The takahe is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List because it 
has an extremely small population (BLI 2012). It is not listed in any 
appendices of CITES; international trade is not a concern. 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 (Wickes et al. 2009, p. 9). The 
Takahe Recovery Group has explored strategies to increase the 
productivity of the island populations by establishing new island sites 
or relocating some birds to the Fiordland population (Grueber et al. 
2012, p. 4). The NZDOC has been involved in a captive-breeding and 
release program to improve takahe recovery since 1983 (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 have been used to establish five 
predator-free, offshore island reserves. Overall, this species' 
population numbers fluctuate annually, but appear to be slowly 
increasing due to intensive management of the island reserve 
populations (Grueber et al. 2012, pp. 1-5; Wickes et al. 2009). Pest 
eradication on Motutapu Island (1,500 ha) (3,707 ac) may provide 
suitable habitat for this species (Grueber et al. 2012, p. 4). These 
captive-breeding efforts have increased the rate of survival of chicks 
reaching 1 year of age from 50 to 90 percent (Wickes et al. 2009). 
Although takahe that were translocated to the islands had higher rates 
of egg infertility and low hatching success when they breed (Jamieson & 
Ryan 2000), there has been recent breeding success. In 2010, NZDOC 
reported that at least 21 chicks hatched on predator-free islands, and, 
for the first time, the mainland population on Maungatautari Ecological 
Island, Waikato, produced a chick, indicating an improvement in 
conservation efforts.
    In the previous 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 (approximately 350 
individuals), and the species' distribution is extremely limited. 
Although it has a small population, limited suitable habitat, and may 
experience inbreeding depression, because the NZDOC is actively 
involved in measures to aid the recovery of the species (Grueber et al. 
2012; Wickes et al. 2009, 58 pp.; NZDOC 2009e, 3 pp.), we find the 
threats that are moderate in magnitude. The NZDOC has implemented a 
captive breeding and release program to supplement the mainland 
population, and established several offshore island reserves. However, 
despite conservation efforts, the threats are ongoing and, therefore, 
imminent. Lack of suitable habitat and predation, 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

[[Page 24611]]

imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Chatham Oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis), LPN = 8

Species and Habitat Description

    The Chatham oystercatcher is the most rare oystercatcher species in 
the world (NZDOC 2001). It is endemic to the Chatham Island group 
(Schmechel and Paterson 2005; Marchant and Higgins 1993), which is 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. The Chatham Island group has an ecosystem 
that consists of biota that is quite different from New Zealand's 
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); 
however, the species exhibits preference for intertidal rock platforms 
and wide sandy beaches (Schmechel and Paterson 2005, p. 5).
    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 formed 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).

Population and Range

    Records of the Chatham Island oystercatcher indicate that, 
historically, this species has likely always existed as a sparse and 
small population (Moore 2008, p. 27). Although the population of this 
species has never likely been very large (Moore 2008, p. 27), the 
population has increased since the 1970s to approximately 300 birds due 
to predator control and habitat protection (NZ DOC 2012; Moore 2009b, 
p. 32; Moore 2005a). In the early 1970s, the Chatham oystercatcher 
population was approximately 50 birds (Moore 2008, p. 20; del Hoyo 
1996).
    The islands of Mangere and Rangatira were designated as Nature 
Reserves in the 1950s, and efforts began to save the native bird 
species including the removal of sheep in the 1960s. However, the 
Chatham oystercatcher population has not done well on those islands 
(Moore 2008, p. 29). Over the last 20 years, the population on South 
East Island (Rangatira), an island free of mammalian predators, has 
gradually declined since the 1970s for unknown reasons (Moore 2009a, p. 
9; Schmechel and O'Connor 1999). The decline is likely due to large 
waves during sea storms, which have destroyed the nests (Moore 2009a, 
p. 9). The distribution of oystercatchers in the Chatham Islands has 
changed from a southern to a northern dominance since 1970 (Moore 2008, 
p. 25). In the 1970s, 65 percent of the population was found on the 
southern three islands (Pitt, Mangere and Rangatira) and 35 percent on 
Chatham Island. As of 2006, 81 percent of the population was on Chatham 
Island (62 percent in northern core census areas) and 19 percent was on 
the southern islands (Moore 2008, p. 25).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Historically, cattle and sheep grazing, which began in the 1840s-
1850s, affected this species and its habitat (Moore 2008, p. 28). On 
Chatham Island, by 1901 there were 60,000 sheep, although they have 
since been removed. Much of the forest had been burned and cleared 
(Butler & Merton 1992 in Moore 2008, p. 28), particularly in coastal 
areas (Bell & Robertson 1994 in Moore 2008, p. 28).
    Predation, nest disturbance, invasive plants, and spring tides and 
storm surges are factors that significantly impact the Chatham 
oystercatcher population (NZDOC 2012, p. 2; Moore 2009a, pp. 8-9; Moore 
2005; NZDOC 2001). 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). When a cat was 
present, eggs usually lasted only 1 or 2 days. The weka, although 
endemic to New Zealand, is not endemic to the Chatham Islands, and was 
introduced in the early 1900s. Weka were observed preying upon this 
species three times through camera trapping between 1999 and 2001 
(Moore 2009a, p. 8). Weka 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.
    Severe reduction in Chatham oystercatcher numbers is attributed 
primarily to heavy predation by cats (Felis catus) and weka (Moore 
2009a, p. 8) (NZ 2012). Feral cats have become established on two of 
the Chatham Islands after being introduced as pets. Video cameras 
placed to observe nests indicated that feral cats are a major nest 
predator. Other predators include the native 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), and, in one case, a sheep 
was observed lying on a nest (Moore 2009b, p. 21).
    Another obstacle to Chatham oystercatcher populations is habitat 
degradation. Marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) introduced to New 
Zealand from Europe to protect farmland from sand encroachment (Moore 
2008, p. 28) 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. The dense marram grass is unsuitable 
for nesting (Moore 2008, p. 28; Moore and Davis 2005). Consequently, 
the Chatham oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to shore where nests 
are vulnerable to tides and storm surges. 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 were moved away from the 
shoreline by fieldworkers and placed in hand-dug scrapes surrounded by 
tidal debris and kelp.

Conservation Status

    The 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 2012). It is not 
listed in any appendices of CITES.
    The birds of the Chatham Island group receive limited protection in 
part due to their remote location and subsequent inaccessibility 
(McBride 2011, p. 108). 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 prescribed actions such as translocation of nests away from

[[Page 24612]]

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. Control of the 
invasive Marram grass has been successful in some areas. Intensive 
predator control combined with nest manipulation has resulted in a high 
number of fledglings (BLI 2009; NZDOC 2008).
    In the previous 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 (approximately 350 individuals), and 
the species has a limited range. Although the NZDOC has taken measures 
to aid the recovery of the species (the species' population is slowly 
increasing on some islands), the species continues to face threats 
(predation, trampling, low population numbers, and potential loss due 
to storm surges) that are moderate in magnitude (McBride 2011, pp. 108, 
110; Moore 2008, p. 30). However, the threats are still ongoing and, 
therefore, imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to reflect imminent threats 
of moderate magnitude.

Orange-Fronted Parakeet (Cyanoramphus malherbi), LPN = 8

Taxonomy

    The orange-fronted parakeet, endemic to New Zealand, 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 indicated that it is a distinct species (Kearvell et 
al. 2003). IUCN, BLI, and ITIS all recognize Cyanoramphus malherbi as a 
full species (ITIS 2010, accessed July 16, 2010). The common name 
``orange-fronted parakeet'' is used by BirdLife International (2000, 
2004) as the common name for Aratinga canicularis, which is native to 
Costa Rica. Because New Zealand continues to refer to this species as 
the orange-fronted parakeet, we will use this common name in this 
document. Absent peer-reviewed information to the contrary, we consider 
Cyanoramphus malherbi to be a valid species.

Species Description

    This species, also known as Malherbe's Parakeet or the 
k[auml]k[auml]riki, is primarily green with yellow and orange coloring 
on its head above its bill with some blue wing feathers. The female 
lays between five and eight eggs and the eggs take 21-26 days to 
incubate. During mast years (a year in which vegetation produces a 
significant abundance of mast, or fruit), when there is a high 
abundance of seed production by Nothofagus species (beech trees), 
parakeet numbers can increase substantially; breeding has been linked 
with food availability.
    On South Island, seeds of Nothofagus species were observed to be a 
major component of its diet (Kearvall et al. 2002, pp. 140-145). On the 
mainland, the species is reliant on old mature beech trees with natural 
cavities for nesting, but on the islands where it has been introduced, 
it is less selective in its nest sites (Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 
2009, p. 153). In other areas where it has been introduced, it feeds on 
a variety of other food sources. 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 (NZ DOC 
2012, p. 1).

Population and Range

    This species is described as never having been common (Mills and 
Williams 1979). The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small and 
fragmented population in addition to a limited range (BLI 2012). BLI 
estimates its population in the wild is between 50 and 249 individuals 
(BLI 2012). NZDOC's population estimate as of 2009 was between 100 and 
200 individuals remaining in the wild. Between 2007 and 2009, 
researchers introduced 62 birds to Maud Island, which has been 
designated as a scientific reserve and consists of 296 hectares (731 
ac). Seventy-one birds have been relocated to Tuhua Island, and these 
birds appear to be breeding successfully (Fauna Recovery NZ 2012, p. 
1).
    At one time, the orange-fronted parakeet was scattered throughout 
most of New Zealand (Harrison 1970). During the 19th century, the 
species' distribution included South Island, Stewart Island, and a few 
other offshore islands of New Zealand (NZDOC 2009a), but in the 
Southern Alps it is now only found in a few North Canterbury valleys 
(http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/small-forest-birds/10). This species 
historically inhabited southern beech forests, with a preference for 
areas bordering stands of N. solandri (mountain beech) (del Hoyo 1997; 
Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell 2002).
    The South Island populations are 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). Orange-fronted parakeets have been 
relocated to predator-free Chalky Island in Fiordland, Maud Island, 
Tuhua Island off Tauranga, and in 2011, Blumine Island (Butterfield 
2011; Elliott and Suggate 2007; Ortiz-Catedral and Brunton 2009, p. 
385). It is unclear whether the population trend is declining or stable 
(Fauna Recovery NZ 2012; NZDOC 2009a).

Factors Affecting the Species

    There are several reasons for the species' continuing decline; one 
of the most prominent factors affecting the species is believed to be 
predation by species that are not native to the island such as stoats 
(Mustela erminea) and rats (Rattus spp.) (NZ 2012, p. 1). Large numbers 
of stoats and rats in beech forests have caused large losses of 
parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Both species of predators are excellent 
hunters on the ground and in trees. They predate parakeet nests in tree 
cavities, which impacts primarily females, chicks, and eggs (NZDOC 
2009c).
    Habitat loss and degradation are two other factors that have 
affected the orange-fronted parakeet's suitable habitat (NZDOC 2006, p. 
2). Large areas of native forest have been felled or burned, decreasing 
the habitat available for parakeets (NZDOC 2009c). Silviculture of 
beech forests in the past had removed trees at an age when few would 
become mature enough to develop suitable cavities for species such as 
the orange-fronted parakeet (Kearvell et al. 2002, p. 261). The 
species' habitat is also degraded by brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus 
vulpecula), cattle, and deer, which all browse on plants, subsequently 
changing the forest structure (NZDOC 2009c). This is problematic for 
the orange-fronted parakeet, which feeds on seeds and insects on the 
ground and low-growing shrubs (Kearvell et al. 2002, p. 261).
    Other impacts to this species' viability exist. These include: (1) 
Increased competition between the orange-fronted parakeet and the 
yellow-crowned

[[Page 24613]]

parakeet for nest sites and food in a habitat that has been 
significantly modified by humans; (2) competition with introduced finch 
species (species unknown); and (3) competition with introduced wasps 
(Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica), which compete with parakeets for 
invertebrates as a dietary source (Kearvell et al. 2002). Hybridization 
with other species was a concern--the orange-fronted parakeet was 
thought to hybridize with the yellow-crowned parakeets (C. auriceps) at 
Lake Sumner (Snyder et al. 2000). However, researchers have introduced 
orange-fronted parakeets to islands where they are not likely to 
overlap in range with other parakeet species (Ortiz-Catedral 2011, pp. 
152-162).
    Beak and Feather Disease Virus (BFDV) has been a concern for the 
NZDOC, and the disease was discovered in wild native birds on South 
Island for the first time in 2011 (Massaro et al. 2012, unpaginated). 
The disease affects both wild and captive birds, with chronic 
infections resulting in feather loss and deformities of beak and 
feathers. Birds usually become infected in the nest by ingesting or 
inhaling virus particles. Birds will either develop immunity, die 
within a couple of weeks, or become chronically infected. We know of no 
vaccine in existence to immunize populations. However, the NZDOC is 
aware of the potential effect on the species, and efforts are in place 
to protect the orange-fronted parakeet from this disease (Ortiz-
Catedral et al. 2010, pp. 618-619).

Conservation Status

    The NZDOC (2009b) considers the orange-fronted parakeet to be the 
most rare parakeet in New Zealand. Because it is classified as 
``Nationally Critical'' with a high risk of extinction, the NZDOC has 
been working intensively to ensure its survival. The species is also 
listed as ``critically endangered'' on the IUCN Red List. It is listed 
in Appendix II of CITES; however, trade is not currently a concern 
(CITES 2010).
    The NZDOC closely monitors all known populations of the orange-
fronted parakeet. Nest searches are conducted, nest cavities are 
inspected, and surveys are conducted in other areas to look for 
evidence of other populations. 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 an initiative to respond to predator problems in beech forests in 
order to prevent species' extinctions, including orange-fronted 
parakeets. Predators are methodically controlled with traps, bait 
stations, bait bags, and aerial spraying, when necessary (Wickes et al. 
2009). The NZDOC also implemented a captive-breeding program for the 
orange-fronted parakeet. Using captive-bred birds from the program, 
NZDOC established several 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. Despite 
these controls, predation by introduced species is still a factor 
affecting the species because predators have not been completely 
eradicated from this species' range.
    In the previous ANOR, the orange-fronted parakeet received an LPN 
of 8. After reevaluating the factors affecting 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 and the species' population seems to have 
stabilized. The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic 
genus. Although the species' available suitable nesting habitat in 
beech forests is extremely limited, translocations have taken place and 
seem to be successful (Fauna Recovery NZ 2012). Additionally, the 
current population is small (approximately 350 individuals), and the 
species' distribution is extremely limited, but threats are being 
mitigated. The species faces threats (competition for food and suitable 
nesting habitat within highly altered habitat, predation, and habitat 
degradation) that are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC has taken 
measures to aid the recovery of the species. However, because the 
overall population of this species is very small and it could be 
affected by BFDV, we find that the threats to this species are still 
imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of 
moderate magnitude.

Uvea parakeet (Eunymphicus uvaeensis), LPN = 8

Species and Habitat Description

    The Uvea parakeet is endemic to a small island in New Caledonia, 
and 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).
    Uvea parakeets feed on fruit, berries, and flowers and seeds of 
native trees and shrubs (Robinet and Salas 2003, p. 71; del Hoyo et al. 
1997). They also feed on a few types of crops in cultivated land 
adjacent to their habitat. The greatest number of birds is seen close 
to gardens with papayas (BLI 2010f). A significant characteristic is 
that Uvea parakeets nest in cavities of native trees; so the absence of 
suitable trees and nesting cavities may be a limiting factor (Robinet 
and Salas 2003, p. 71). Their clutch size is generally two to three 
eggs; and they are known to have another clutch if the first set of 
eggs is destroyed (BLI 2010f).

Taxonomy

    The Uvea parakeet, previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus, is now 
recognized as a full species (Barr[eacute] et al. 2010, p. 695; Boon et 
al. 2008, p. 251). 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 a species 
(Boon et al. 2008, p. 259). ITIS considers the Uvea parakeet to be a 
subspecies, Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis (ITIS 2012, accessed July 
17, 2012). However, based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, we consider the Uvea parakeet to be E. uvaeensis.

Habitat and Range

    The Uvea parakeet is found only on the 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). 
Most Uvea parakeets occur in a forested area consisting of about 20 
km\2\ (7.7 mi\2\) in the north of the island, although some individuals 
are found in strips of forest on the northwest isthmus and in the 
southern part of the island, with a total potential habitat of 
approximately 66 km\2\ (25.5 mi\2\) (BLI 2010f).

Population

    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 were in the south of the 
Island (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 between 1,280

[[Page 24614]]

and 3,413 individuals (IUCN 2012; Barr[eacute] et al. 2010, p. 695).

Factors Affecting the Species

    The primary factors that had affected this species have been the 
capture of juveniles for the pet trade (Barre et al. 2010, pp. 695, 
699). Capture of juvenile parakeets for the pet trade involves cutting 
open nesting cavities to extract nestlings, which renders the holes 
unsuitable for future nesting. However, since restrictions have been 
put into place and the species has been monitored in association with 
its recovery plan (see Conservation Status section below), it appears 
that nest poaching is no longer occurring such that it significantly 
affects this species (Barre et al. 2010, p. 699). Since conservation 
awareness programs and protections such as guards were put into place, 
the population has increased. However, because the human population on 
the island is increasing, encroachment and other factors continue to be 
concerns.
    This species' status is still tenuous due to its small population 
size. The primary factors affecting this species are now believed to be 
the lack of nesting sites, predation, and competition from bees for 
nesting sites (Barre et al. 2010, pp. 695, 699; Robinet et al. 2003, 
pp. 73, 78). 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).
    Preventive measures have been taken at the main seaport of entry to 
the island and airport to prevent introduction of rats, but there is 
concern that rats may be accidentally introduced in the future (BLI 
2010, p. 3). As of 2010, the island was rat-free (Barre et al. 2010, p. 
696). Although current Uvea parakeet numbers are increasing, any 
relaxation of conservation efforts or introduction of nonnative rats, 
other predators (particularly cavity-nesting bees, the ship rat, and 
the Norway rat), or invasive species could lead to a rapid decline (BLI 
2010f; Robinet et al. 1998). Artificial nests are being installed to 
increase available nesting sites, 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).

Conservation Status

    This species is listed as ``Endangered'' on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 
2012). Protection for this species increased when it was uplisted to 
Appendix I of CITES from Appendix II in July 2000. This action was due 
to its small population size, restricted area of distribution, loss of 
suitable habitat, and the illegal pet trade (CITES 2000b). Various 
conservation measures are in place for this species. A recovery plan 
for the Uvea parakeet was developed by the Association for the 
Protection of the Ouv[eacute]a Parakeet 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 now celebrated as an island emblem (Primot in litt. 
1999 as cited in BLI 2009; Robinet and Salas 1997). In-situ management 
(habitat protection and restoration such as providing nest boxes and 
food) and public education about the Uvea parakeet and its habitat 
occur (Barre et al. 2010, p. 699; Robinet et al. 1996). Increased 
awareness of the plight of the Uvea parakeet and improvements in law 
enforcement capability are helping to address illegal trade of the 
species.
    In the previous ANOR, the Uvea parakeet received an LPN of 2. We 
reevaluated the threats to the Uvea parakeet and determined that a 
change in the LPN for the species is warranted because the population 
has significantly increased and now its population is estimated to be 
between 1,280 and 3,413 individuals. The Uvea parakeet does not 
represent a monotypic genus and it is an island endemic with limited 
suitable habitat (Barre et al. 2010, p. 695). The Uvea parakeet 
continues to experience a tenuous situation primarily due to the lack 
of the old-growth forest on which the birds depend for nesting holes. 
Management of the species has resulted in an increase in the 
population; therefore, the threats are moderate in magnitude. Because 
the species has increased in size due to conservation education, a ban 
on commercial trade and a reduction in poaching, we have changed the 
LPN from 2 to 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus galeatus), LPN = 8

Species and Habitat Description

    The helmeted woodpecker is sympatric (co-occurs) with two other 
woodpeckers that are similar in appearance: the lineated woodpecker 
(Dryocopus lineatus) and the robust woodpecker (Campephilus robustus). 
The helmeted woodpecker is a fairly small woodpecker (27-29 cm (10.6-
11.4 in) in length). It has a cinnamon face, containing no white 
markings, barred underparts, brown-black wings, a white rump, and a 
large, rounded red crest on its head (Lammertink et al. 2012, 
unpaginated). Common names for this species include Carpintero cara 
canela (Spanish) and pica-pau-de-cara-canela (Portuguese). It typically 
forages in the mid-story of the tree canopy and has been observed 
eating larvae, ants, berries, and small fruit (Bodrati, personal 
observation). It prefers to nest in tree cavities of dead or decaying 
trees, but has been observed in tree cavities of a live anchico tree 
(Parapiptadenia rigida) and a live grapia tree (Apueleia leiocarpa). 
Its habitat type 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 in the 
Atlantic Forest region can reach as high as 2,000 m (6,562 ft) above 
sea level.
    This species exhibits an unusual behavior of sharing nest cavities 
with other bird species. It was observed sharing a nest cavity with 
white-eyed parakeets (Aratinga leucophthalma) in 2009 and with white-
throated woodcreepers (Xiphocolaptes albicollis) in 2010. However, in 
one instance, there was conflict between two species, and the conflict 
may have resulted in clutch failure of the helmeted woodpecker 
(Lammertink et al. 2012, unpaginated).

Population

    The helmeted woodpecker's population is believed to have declined 
sharply between 1945 and 2000 in conjunction with the clearing of 
mature forest habitat (Lammertink et al. 2012). Although forest 
clearing has recently slowed, the population of this species is still 
believed to be declining. Because the helmeted woodpecker is difficult 
to locate except when vocalizing and it is silent most of the year, its 
population size is difficult to determine. The most recent estimate of 
its population is between 400 and 8,900 individuals and decreasing, but 
experts believe its population is more likely closer to the smaller 
estimate (Lammertink et al. 2012, unpaginated; Bodrati 2010, 
unpaginated).

Range

    This species is endemic to the southern Atlantic forest region of 
southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina 
(Lammertink et al. 2012, p. 1). Its estimated range is likely between 
25,000 and 40,000 km\2\ (9,653 and 15,444 mi\2\), which is reduced from 
a historical distribution of 661,330 km\2\ (255,341 mi\2\). The 
Atlantic Forest extends along

[[Page 24615]]

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 (Conservation International 
2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, pp. 
786-787). The Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 km (373 mi) west of the 
Atlantic Ocean.
    The territory or home range requirements for this species are 
unclear, however, in 2010, two nests in Intervales State Park, Brazil, 
were located 2.4 km (1.49 mi) apart from each other (Junior, pers. 
comm. in Lammertink et al. 2012, unpaginated). The species is not 
common anywhere it is known to exist (BLI 2010h). Lammertink et al. 
2012 note that in old-growth sites this species may reach densities 
estimated at one territory per 3 to 5 km\2\ (1.2 to 1.9 mi\2\) (Brooks 
et al. 1993, Esquivel pers. comm., Bodrati pers. obs.).
    In Paraguay, the species is known from the eastern half of the 
country, in the departments of Amambay, San Pedro, Canindey[uacute], 
Caaguaz[uacute], Alto Paran[aacute], Guair[aacute], Cazaap[aacute], 
Itap[uacute]a, and Paraguar[iacute] (Lammertink et al. 2012, 
unpaginated; Collar et al. 1992, Hayes 1995). In Argentina, it is only 
known from Misiones province. In Brazil, it occurs in the states of 
S[atilde]o Paulo, Paran[aacute], Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul.
    It is found generally in mature montane forest along the Atlantic 
coast from sea level up to elevations of 1,000 m (3,280 ft). The 
species has been recorded in degraded and small forest patches; 
however, it is usually found in or near large undisturbed forested 
tracts (Cockle 2010; Chebez 1995b as cited in BLI 2010h; Clay in litt. 
2000 as cited in BLI 2010h). This species is often absent from large 
tracts of apparently suitable habitat (Collar et al. 1992). For 
example, local ornithologists indicate that large portions of 
Iguaz[uacute] National Park (550 km\2\ of mature forest), appear not to 
be or are rarely used by this species (Castelino and Somay in litt. in 
Lammertink 2010, unpaginated).

Factors Affecting the Species

    There is little information available about this species, however, 
species experts indicate that the factors affecting the species include 
the reduction of nesting sites, loss of connectivity of suitable 
habitat, and widespread deforestation (Kohler in litt 2010, 
unpaginated; Cockle 2008 as cited in BLI 2010h). Its range is believed 
to be reduced to 20 percent of its original habitat (Lammertink et al. 
2012, unpaginated). Between 92 and 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 
(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; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; 
Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853-854). Of 
this, less than one percent of the remaining forest in the range of the 
helmeted woodpecker is original undisturbed habitat. Most of the forest 
clearance in the Atlantic Forest occurred between 1945 and 2000 
(Galindo-Leal and de Gusm[atilde]o C[acirc]mera 2003), and this was 
likely the period during which the helmeted woodpecker's population 
severely declined (Lammertink et al. 2012, unpaginated).
    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, urban and industrial developments (including new 
hydroelectric dams), slash-and-burn clearing, and both 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 legal protections in Brazil, the rate of 
habitat loss throughout the Atlantic Forest biome has increased since 
the mid-1990s (Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270; CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et 
al. 1997, p. 1). 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 is believed to be 
declining parallel with habitat loss (BLI 2010h).
    Information suggests that this species does not do as well in 
secondary, although mature, forest than it does in primary, undisturbed 
forested areas. There may be an ecological component that is missing 
from the secondary forest; ecological interactions can be complex and 
relationships may not always be obvious. When habitat is degraded, 
there is often a lag time before the species losses are evident (Brooks 
et al. 1999, p. 1140), so the helmeted woodpecker may still be present, 
despite the low quality of its habitat. Further studies are needed to 
clarify this species' distribution and status.
    This species may not be as competitive as other species whose range 
overlaps with the helmeted woodpecker. Other species, particularly more 
aggressive woodpeckers, may compete for nest sites, or they may use 
fragmented and ``edge'' habitat more effectively (Lammertink et al. 
2012, unpaginated; BLI 2010h). The lack of nesting cavities is often a 
limiting factor for bird species that depend on these cavities for 
nesting (Sandoval and Barrantes 2009, p. 75; Kyle 2006, p. 8).
    In Paraguay, some viable, although fragmented, habitat for this 
species remains in San Rafael National Park (Esquivel et al. 2007, pp. 
301-302). However, 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). 
Fragmentation of populations can decrease the fitness and reproductive 
potential of the species, which exacerbates other threats.

Conservation Status

    The helmeted woodpecker is listed as vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 
2012). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES (CITES 2012). It is 
protected by Brazilian law, and populations occur in numerous protected 
areas throughout its range such as Intervales State Park in Brazil and 
in San Rafael National Park in Paraguay (Esquivel et al. 2007, p. 301; 
Lowen et al. 1996 as cited in BLI 2009; Chebez et al. 1998 as cited in 
BLI 2009).
    In the previous ANOR, the helmeted woodpecker received an LPN of 8. 
After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change in 
the LPN for the helmeted woodpecker is warranted. The helmeted 
woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of 
threat to the species is moderate because the species' range is fairly 
large. The threats are imminent because the forest habitat upon which 
the species depends is still being altered and degraded. We will 
continue to monitor the status of this species, however, an LPN of 8 
remains valid for this species.

Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos noguchii syn. Sapheopipo noguchii), LPN 
= 2

Taxonomy

    Often there are differences in the taxonomic classification of 
species. ITIS recognizes the Okinawa woodpecker, (also known as Pryer's 
woodpecker) as belonging to the monotypic genus Sapheopipo (ITIS 2012, 
accessed August 17, 2012). IUCN and BLI both recognize this species as 
Dendrocopos noguchii. Japan references it as Sapheopipo noguchii 
(www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/reddata.html,

[[Page 24616]]

accessed September 30, 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 which 
consists of several species (not a monotypic genus). For the purpose of 
this finding and absent peer-reviewed information to the contrary, we 
recognize it as D. noguchii and will treat S. noguchii as a synonym.

Species and Habitat Description

    This species of woodpecker prefers undisturbed, mature, subtropical 
evergreen broadleaf forests, with tall trees greater than 20 cm (7.9 
in) in diameter (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982). 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 thought to 
be located along the mountain ridges between Mt. Nishime-take and Mt. 
Iyu-take, although it has been observed nesting in well-forested 
coastal areas in the northern part of the island (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 (Winkler et al. 1995; Short 1973). 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 been birds 
displaced by the clearing of mature forests (Brazil 1991).
    The Okinawa woodpecker feeds on large arthropods, notably beetle 
larvae, spiders, moths, and centipedes, as well as fruit, berries, 
seeds, acorns, and other nuts (Winkler et al. 2005; del Hoyo 2002; 
Short 1982). It forages in old-growth forests with large, often 
moribund trees, accumulated fallen trees, rotting stumps, debris, and 
undergrowth (Brazil 1991; Short 1973). This species has been observed 
nesting in holes excavated in large, old growth trees such as 
Castanopsis cuspidate (Japanese chinquapin) and Machilus thunbergii 
(Tabu-no-ki tree) (del Hoyo 2002; Short 1982; Ogasawara and Ikehara 
1977). 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. 
1,880). The number of fledglings per season range between one and three 
birds (BLI 2001, p. 1,880).

Range

    The Okinawa woodpecker is endemic to Okinawa Island, Japan. Okinawa 
is the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, a small island chain located 
between Japan and Taiwan (Winkler et al. 2005; Stattersfield et al. 
1998; Brazil 1991). 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.

Population

    This species is considered one of the world's most rare extant 
woodpecker species (Winkler et al. 2005). Many observations of this 
species have recently been made at the Jungle Warfare Training Center, 
part of the United States Marine Corps (USMC) installation on Okinawa 
Island (USMC in litt. 2012). 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 is 
between 100 and 390 mature individuals (BLI 2012).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Deforestation and the fragmented nature of its habitat due to 
logging, dam construction, road-building, agricultural development, and 
golf course construction have been cited to be the main causes of its 
reduced habitat and decreased population (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). Most 
of the habitat loss appears to have ceased; however, it still suffers 
from limited suitable habitat and a small population size (BLI 2012).
    The limited range and tiny population make this species vulnerable 
to extinction from disease and natural disasters such as typhoons (BLI 
2012, p. 54). In addition, the species may be vulnerable to predators 
due to its tendencies to forage close to the ground. Feral dogs and 
cats, the introduced Javan mongoose (Herpestes javanicus), and weasel 
(Mustela itatsi) are likely predators of the woodpecker (BLI 2012).

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 100 and 390 mature individuals (BLI 2012). The 
species is legally protected in Japan, and it occurs in small protected 
areas in Yambaru (BLI 2012). The Yambaru forested area in the Okinawa 
Prefecture, was designated as a national park in 1996 (BLI 2010i). The 
species is also listed in the USMC's 2009 Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plan in compliance with the Japan Environmental Governing 
Standards, to be used by Department of Defense installations in Japan 
(USMC 2012). 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 the previous ANOR, the Okinawa woodpecker received an LPN of 2. 
After reevaluating the available information, we find that no 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. The best available 
information indicates that this species is being actively monitored. 
However, 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 
still be 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 continue to be ongoing and 
imminent. Because the species faces threats that are high in magnitude 
due to its restricted population size, past habitat loss, endemism, and 
because the current

[[Page 24617]]

population estimate ranges between 100 and 390 mature individuals, the 
LPN for this species remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high 
magnitude.

Yellow-browed toucanet (Aulacorhynchus huallagae), LPN = 2

Species and Habitat Description

    There is very little information available regarding the yellow-
browed toucanet. This species is endemic to Peru and is known from only 
two locations in north-central Peru--La Libertad, where it is described 
as uncommon, and Rio Abiseo National Park, San Martin, where it is 
thought to be very rare (BLI 2012b; del Hoyo et al. 2002; Wege and Long 
1995). There was also a report of yellow-browed toucanets observed in 
the Leymebamba area (Mark in litt. 2003, as cited in BLI 2010j) of 
Peru, although there are no available photos of this species to verify 
this information.
    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).

Population and Range

    The current population size is believed to be 600-1,500 mature 
individuals, with a decreasing population trend (BLI 2012, p. 1).
    The yellow-browed toucanet's estimated range is 450 km\2\ (174 
mi\2\) (BLI 2012). The species inhabits a narrow altitudinal range 
between 2,125 and 2,510 m (6,970 and 8,232 ft). It prefers a canopy of 
humid, epiphyte-laden montane cloud forests, particularly areas that 
support Clusia trees (known as autograph trees) (del Hoyo et al. 2002; 
Schulenberg and Parker 1997, pp. 717-718; Fjelds[aring] and Krabbe 
1990). 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). The narrow distributional band in which yellow-browed 
toucanets are found may be related to the occurrence of other avian 
species that may outcompete the yellow-browed toucanet. Both of the 
suggested competitors have wider altitudinal ranges that completely 
encompass the range of the yellow-browed toucanet (del Hoyo et al. 
2002; Clements and Shany 2001, as cited in BLI 2008; Hornbuckle in 
litt. 1999, as cited in BLI 2009; Collar et al. 1992). 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 for surveying, and its 
existence in other areas has not been confirmed.

Factors Affecting the Species

    Deforestation, mining, and secondary impacts associated with those 
activities such as habitat degradation, erosion, and contamination from 
mining waste affect this species' habitat. Deforestation within its 
range has been widespread, 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 2012; 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 due to 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

    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 2012). 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 2012). No other protections are known, but 
see Pauxi unicornis for a discussion of applicable laws in Peru.
    In the previous ANOR, the yellow-browed toucanet received an LPN of 
2. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change 
in the LPN for the yellow-browed toucanet is warranted. The yellow-
browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. 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 very small range and declining 
population and may be in competition for habitat with more competitive 
avian species. Additionally, the only records of this species are from 
two small locations, and they have not been verified in several years. 
Thus, the LPN for this species remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats 
of high magnitude.

Brasilia tapaculo (Scytalopus novacapitalis), LPN = 11

Taxonomy

    Within the Scytalopus genus, there are several species (Raposo and 
Kirwan 2008, p. 80). The Brasilia tapaculo is a common name that could 
refer to several species within the Scytalopus genus (Raposo et al. 
2006, p. 37). S. novacapitalis is described as occupying the 
northwestern part of the overall range (from Bras[iacute]lia south to 
western Minas Gerais--the central to southern-central region of the 
country); S. pachecoi is described as occupying Rio Grande do Sul, 
Santa Catarina, and northeastern Argentina; S. diamantinensis is 
described as occupying the northernmost part of Brazil; and two 
species: S. speluncae and Scytalopus sp. nov. (possibly S. 
novacapitalis but the taxonomy is unclear) occupy the central area of 
the overall range (Raposo and Kirwan 2008, p. 80; Raposo et al. 2006, 
p. 51). Both BLI and ITIS recognize the Brasilia tapaculo as Scytalopus 
novacapitalis (BLI 2012; ITIS 2012, Accessed August 10, 2012). For the 
purpose of this document, we will refer to S. novacapitalis as the 
Brasilia tapaculo.

Species and Habitat Description

    The Brasilia tapaculo is a small bird endemic to Brazil. The 
Brasilia tapaculo occupies the central to southern-central region of 
the country (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural 
Resources (IBAMA) 2012; BLI 2012). The Brasilia tapaculo is found in 
swampy ``gallery'' forests. These forests surround 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 strongly associated with two 
plant species: Blechnum ferns and Euterpe palms (del Hoyo et al. 2003, 
in BLI 2010k).
    This species, S. novacapitalis, is notably different from its 
congeners in two ways. It is light grey with brown fringed feathers on 
the rump and flanks

[[Page 24618]]

and is morphologically almost identical to S. speluncae (Raposo et al. 
2006, p. 52). Additionally, the song of S. novacapitalis consists on 
average of 1.1 notes per second, which is considerably fewer than 
either S. notorius or S. speluncae, whereas the duration of each note 
lasts an average 0.1 seconds, as opposed to either S. speluncae or S. 
notorius, which never exceeded 0.05 seconds in any sample analyzed 
(Raposo et al. 2006, p. 52).

Range

    The species has been documented in the state of Goi[aacute]s and in 
the state of Minas Gerais, specifically in Serra da Canastra National 
Park (BLI 2012; Honkala and Niiranen 2010, p. 124; BLI 2008; Scaramuzza 
et. al. 2005, p. 49; Silveira 1998, p. 55; Negret and Cavalcanti 1985, 
as cited in Collar et al. 1992). The species occupies forested areas 
within a range of approximately 109,000 km\2\ (42,085 mi\2\) but is 
still likely losing habitat (BLI 2010j; Scaramuzza et. al. 2005, p. 
49). Its distribution now may be larger than believed when we were 
initially petitioned to list this species in the 1980s. 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 has in the past been reported to be very common (Honkala and 
Niiranen 2010, p. 124; Silveira 1998, p. 3). 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).

Population

    There is no current population estimate other than that the 
population is decreasing in connection with habitat loss and 
degradation (BLI 2012).

Factors Affecting the Species

    The swampy forests where it is found are not as conducive to forest 
clearing as other areas, leaving the species' habitat less vulnerable 
to habitat loss and degradation than previously thought. The majority 
of locations where this species is found are likely within established 
protected nature reserves such as Serra da Canastra. Both fire risk and 
drainage impacts are reduced in these areas (Antas in litt. 2007). 
However, dam building for irrigation on rivers that normally flood 
gallery forests may still impact this species (Antas in litt. 2007; 
Teixeira in litt. 1987, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). Its population 
has likely decreased in connection with habitat loss.

Conservation Status

    The IUCN categorizes the Brasilia tapaculo as ``Near Threatened'' 
(BLI 2012). It is not listed in any appendices of CITES (CITES 2010). 
This species was listed in Brazil's Official List of Species of 
Brazilian Fauna Threatened with Extinction in 1989 under Ordinance No. 
1522 of 19 December 1989, Law No. 7.735 of 1989 (IBAMA 1989, p. 6). 
However, the Brasilia tapaculo is no longer listed on Brazil's List of 
Species of Brazilian Fauna Threatened with Extinction (IBAMA 2003). In 
2005, a team reviewed priority areas for biodiversity conservation in 
Goi[aacute]s State, and the Brasilia tapaculo was considered to have a 
lower level of vulnerability than many other species in the state 
(Scaramuzza et. al. 2005, pp. 48-49).
    Some of the areas where this species occurs are protected. Three 
Important Bird Areas (IBAs) have been identified as important for this 
species: Parque Nacional de Bras[iacute]lia, Cerrados ao Sul de 
Bras[iacute]lia, and the Serra da Canastra National Park. IBAs are a 
way to identify conservation priorities (BLI 2012). 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.'' Criteria for sites 
for conservation are those that are small enough to be conserved in 
their entirety, but large enough to support self-sustaining populations 
of the key bird species.
    In the previous 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 warranted. The Brasilia tapaculo 
does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threat to the 
species is moderate to low because at least two of the populations are 
in protected habitat which ameliorate some factors affecting the 
species; and its preferred habitat is swampy and difficult to clear. 
Threats are nonimminent, because it is found in a number of habitats 
and is reported as being common in some protected areas. Because the 
species has such a wide range and its distribution is likely larger 
than believed when we were initially petitioned to list this species in 
the 1980s, we find that, an LPN of 11 is appropriate for this species, 
and we will continue to monitor its status.

Codfish Island fernbird (Bowdleria punctata wilsoni), LPN = 12

Taxonomy

    There are five subspecies of Bowdleria punctata, each restricted to 
a single island in New Zealand and its outlying islets. The North 
Island subspecies (M. p. vealeae) and South Island subspecies (M. p. 
punctatus) are described as widespread and locally common. The Stewart 
Island (M. p. stewartianus) and the Snares (M. p. caudatus) subspecies 
are described as being moderately abundant (Heather and Robertson 
1997). IUCN and BLI only recognize the species Bowdleria punctata; it 
is not addressed at subspecies level. Neither the species nor the 
subspecies is addressed by ITIS (www.itis.gov, accessed June 8, 2012). 
However, the New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) recognizes 
the Codfish Island fernbird as a valid subspecies. 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 multispecies genus.

Species Description

    There is little information available about this species. 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 (McClelland 2007). 
McClelland (2007) indicated that, in the past, the Codfish Island 
fernbird was restricted to low shrubland in the higher areas of Codfish 
Island. Fernbirds are sedentary and are not strong fliers. They are 
secretive and reluctant to leave cover and feed in low vegetation or on 
the ground, eating mainly caterpillars, spiders, grubs, beetles, flies, 
and moths (Heather and Robertson 1997).

Population

    Although there is no current estimate of the 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. 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). While there are no 
accurate data on the population size or trends on Putauhinu, as of 
2007, the numbers were estimated to be between 200 and 300 birds spread

[[Page 24619]]

over the island (McClelland 2007). McClelland believes that the 
population has likely stabilized (2007).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Codfish Island's native vegetation has been modified by the 
Australian brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), which was 
introduced to the Island. Codfish Island fernbird populations were also 
reduced due to predation by weka and Polynesian rats (McClelland 2007; 
McClelland 2002, pp. 1-9; Merton 1974, pers. comm., as cited in IUCN 
1979). The Codfish Island fernbird population was reported to have 
rebounded strongly with the removal of predator species in the 1980s 
and 1990s (McClelland 2007). Additionally, it successfully recolonized 
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 believed to be stable. Even with a second 
population on Putauhinu Island, the Codfish Island fernbird still 
remains vulnerable to naturally occurring storm events due to its 
restricted range, predation, and small population size.

Conservation Status

    The Codfish Island fernbird has varying levels of conservation 
status. At the species level, IUCN categorizes Bowdleria punctata as 
least concern (BLI 2010k); however, neither the IUCN nor BLI addresses 
the subspecies individually. 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).
    In the previous ANOR, the Codfish Island fernbird received an LPN 
of 12. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no 
change in the LPN for this subspecies is 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 predators 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 have been successful. Therefore, an 
LPN of 12 remains valid for this subspecies. However, we will continue 
to monitor the status of this subspecies.

Ghizo white-eye (Zosterops luteirostris), LPN = 2

Species and Habitat Description

    There is little information available about this species and its 
habitat (Filardi 2012, pers. comm.). Its range is estimated to be less 
than 35 km\2\ (13.5 mi\2\), of which less than 1 km\2\ (0.39 mi\2\) is 
old growth forest. The Ghizo white-eye (also known as the splendid 
white-eye) is described as ``warbler-like.'' Its physical 
characteristics include silvery-white eye rings with dark olive upper 
parts and its underparts are bright yellow (BLI 2012). The species has 
a black beak and orange-yellow legs (BLI 2012). The Ghizo white-eye is 
endemic to the small island of Ghizo, which is 11 km long and 5 km wide 
(7 by 3 mi). Ghizo is a densely populated island in the Solomon Islands 
in the South Pacific Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea (BLI 2010m). As of 
2005, the human population on the island was estimated to be 
approximately 6,670 (www.adb.org, accessed September 9, 2010).

Population

    A very rough population estimate for this species is between 250 
and 1,000 mature individuals (BLI 2012). However, it is based on (1) 
population density estimates for close relatives with a similar body 
size, and (2) the fact that only a portion of its estimated extent of 
occurrence is likely to be occupied (BLI 2012). In the 1990s, this 
species was characterized as being locally common in the remaining tall 
or old-growth forest, which is very fragmented and is now believed to 
be less than 1 km\2\ (0.39 mi\2\). It is unclear whether the remaining 
habitat can support sustainable breeding populations (Filardi pers. 
comm. 2012, Buckingham et al. 1995, as cited in BLI 2008). Biologists 
familiar with this species recommend that systematic surveys be 
conducted for this species to verify its status in the wild and to 
evaluate the condition of its habitat and its population. Although 
there are no data on population trends, the species is very likely 
declining due to habitat loss and degradation (Filardi pers. comm. 
2012, BLI 2012).

Factors Affecting the Species

    This species' small population is likely declining due to habitat 
loss. Areas around Ghizo Town, which previously supported the species, 
have been further degraded since the town was devastated by a tsunami, 
and habitat was found less likely able to support the species in 2012 
(Filardi in litt. 2012). The tsunami in 2007 contributed to the loss of 
habitat to the point where the area around Ghizo town, which once 
contained the species, has been deemed unable to support the species 
(Filardi in litt. 2012 in BLI 2012). Extreme weather events are likely 
to affect this species; however, little information is available.
    The species is also affected through conversion of forested areas 
to agricultural uses (BLI 2008). The very tall old-growth forest on 
Ghizo is still under pressure from clearance for local use as timber, 
firewood, and gardens, as are the areas of secondary growth, which are 
already suboptimal habitats for this species. Its very small population 
is believed to still be 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).

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 
(Filardi 2012, pers. comm., BLI 2012). It is not listed in any 
appendices of CITES (CITES 2012).
    In the previous ANOR, the Ghizo white-eye received an LPN of 2. 
After reevaluating the available information, we find that no 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 and its small, declining 
population size. The best available information indicates that forest 
clearing is occurring at a pace that is rapidly denuding the habitat; 
secondary growth is being converted to agricultural purposes. Further, 
the human population on the small island is likely contributing to the 
reduction in old-growth forest for local uses such as gardens and 
timber. The estimate of the Ghizo white-eye population is believed to 
be between 250 and 1,000 individuals, and its population trend is 
believed to be declining. These threats

[[Page 24620]]

to the species are ongoing, of high magnitude, and imminent. Thus, 
based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the 
LPN remains a 2 for this species.

Black-backed tanager (Tangara peruviana), LPN = 8

Species and Habitat Description

    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 duller and greener. 
It has a complex distribution with seasonal fluctuations in response to 
the ripening of Schinus fruit, at least in Rio de Janeiro and 
S[atilde]o 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 endemic to the coastal Atlantic forest 
region of southeastern Brazil. The species has been documented in Rio 
de Janeiro, S[atilde]o Paulo, Parana, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do 
Sul, and Espirito Santo (BLI 2010n; Argel-de-Oliveira in litt. 2000, as 
cited in BLI 2008). The species is generally restricted to Restinga 
habitat, which is a Brazilian term that refers to sandy forest habitat 
consisting of a patchwork of vegetation types, such as beach 
vegetation; open shrubby vegetation; herbaceous, shrubby coastal sand 
dune habitat; and both dry and swamp forests distributed over coastal 
plains (McGinley 2007, pp. 1-2; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263). This 
habitat type is specific to the local nutrient-poor, sandy, acidic 
soils of the Atlantic Forest. In addition to being found in undisturbed 
habitat, the black-backed tanager has also been observed in secondary 
forests (BLI 2008).
    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.

Population

    Within suitable habitat, the black-backed tanager is generally not 
considered rare (BLI 2010n). The population estimate is between 2,500 
to 10,000 individuals (BLI 2012). This species is more common in 
S[atilde]o Paulo during the winter, and records from Espirito Santo are 
only available from the winter season. Additional knowledge of the 
species' seasonal movements would provide an improved understanding of 
the species' population status and distribution, but populations 
currently appear small and fragmented and are believed to be declining, 
likely in response to extensive habitat loss (BLI 2012).

Factors Affecting the Species

    The primary factor affecting this species is the rapid and 
widespread loss of habitat. As of 2000, between 7 and 10 percent of its 
habitat remained intact (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Oliveira-
Filho and Fontes 2000, p. 794). Based on a number of 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 (Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation 
International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; TNC 2007, p. 1; WWF 
2007, pp. 2-41; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Morellato and Haddad 2000, 
p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853-854). In addition to the overall 
loss and degradation of its habitat, the remaining tracts of its 
habitat are severely fragmented.
    Its remaining suitable habitat in the areas of Rio de Janeiro and 
S[atilde]o Paulo are affected by ongoing development of coastal areas, 
primarily for tourism enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes, 
beachside housing) and associated infrastructure support (BLI 2012; WWF 
2007, pp. 7 and 36-37; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616). These activities have 
drastically reduced the species' abundance and extent of its occupied 
range. These activities affect the species' continued existence because 
populations are being limited to highly fragmented patches of habitat 
(BLI 2012). This species seems to tolerate some environmental 
degradation if there are well-preserved stretches in its territory in 
which the birds can seek shelter; however, we expect habitat loss and 
degradation will likely increase in the 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 investigated 
based on predictions of sea level 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 may cause flooding and erosion and could 
change salt marsh zones within this species' habitat (Alfredini et al. 
2008, pp. 377-379). As sea level rises, less habitat will be available 
for this species. Habitat loss due to sea level rise may be compounded 
by an increased demand by humans to use land for housing and 
infrastructure. The black-backed tanager would likely attempt to move 
inland in search of new suitable habitat as its current habitat 
disappears. However, there may not be enough suitable habitat remaining 
for the species. Although Brazil has several laws implementing 
protection for species such as the black-backed tanager and small 
portions of this species' range occur in six protected areas, none of 
the protected areas are supported by effective protection according to 
BLI (2012). Its habitat is under pressure from the intense development 
that occurs in coastal areas, particularly south of Rio de Janeiro. 
These factors affecting 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 classified as vulnerable by the IUCN (BLI 2012). 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 protections are not always effective (BLI 2012). This species 
is protected under the National Environmental Policy Act (Law 6.938 of 
1981), implemented by the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and 
Natural Resources (Instituto Brasileiro do a Meio Ambiente de do 
Recursos Naturais Renov[aacute]veis (IBAMA). The basis of environmental 
law and policy in Brazil is Article 225 of its Constitution (Pereira 
Neto et al. 2011, p. 63).
    In the previous ANOR, the black-backed tanager received an LPN of 
8. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change 
in the LPN for this species is warranted at this time. The black-backed 
tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. Despite laws in place, 
its habitat continues to diminish. We find that threats (primarily 
habitat loss) to the species are moderate in magnitude due to the 
species' fairly large range, existence in protected areas, and apparent 
flexibility in diet and habitat suitability. Threats are imminent 
because the species is at risk due to ongoing and widespread loss of 
habitat due to beachfront and related development. Therefore, an LPN of 
8 remains valid for this species.

[[Page 24621]]

Lord Howe Island pied currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis), LPN = 6

Taxonomy

    The Lord Howe Island pied currawong is a subspecies distinct 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 only S. graculina (ITIS 2012, accessed August 21, 2012) 
rather than the subspecies. The subspecies is not specifically 
addressed by BLI or IUCN. 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 multispecies 
genus.

Species Range and Habitat Description

    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 an 18-km\2\ (6.95 mi\2\) area on the 20-
km\2\ (7.7-mi\2\) island (Government of Australia 2012, p. 3). It has 
been recorded to a limited extent on small nearby islets of the 
Admiralty group (New South Wales Department of Environment & Climate 
Change (NSW DECC) 2010; Garnett and Crowley 2000). Lord Howe Island is 
unique among inhabited Pacific Islands in that less than 15 percent of 
the island has been cleared (Wilkinson and Priddel 2011, p. 508) and 
less than 24 percent has been disturbed (NSW Department of Environment 
and Conservation (DEC) 2007a).
    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.
    The Lord Howe pied currawong is omnivorous and eats a wide variety 
of food, including native fruits and seeds (Hutton 1991, Auld et al. 
2009). 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 by its 
parents was observed to be, in decreasing order of frequency: 
invertebrates, fruits, reptiles, and nestlings of other bird species 
(Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB) 2006).

Population

    In the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett and Crowley 
2000), the Lord Howe pied currawong population was estimated to be 
approximately 80 mature individuals. In 2007, the Foundation for 
National Parks & Wildlife (FNPW 2007) estimated that the breeding 
population of the Lord Howe pied currawong was between 80 and 100 
pairs, with a nesting territory in the tall forest areas of about 5 ha 
(12 ac) per pair (Carlile 2007, pers. comm. in Government of Australia 
2012, p. 3). The most recent population estimate was between 100 and 
200 individuals (from surveys in 2005-2006) (NSW DECC 2010, p. 3). It 
was recently described as being widespread on the island and occurring 
in urban areas (Government of Australia 2012, p. 3); however, a precise 
estimate of the population is unavailable.

Factors Affecting the Species

    The small population size makes this species highly vulnerable to 
factors that can be detrimental to its survival. Its population size is 
limited by the amount of available habitat and the lack of food during 
the winter (FNPW 2007). Two potential threats have been identified: the 
introduction of exotic predators and the persecution of the Pied 
Currawong (Lord Howe Island) by humans in retaliation to attacks on 
domestic and endemic birds (Garnett & Crowley 2000; Hutton 1991). On 
Lord Howe Island, ten bird species have become extinct due to hunting, 
introduced predators, and competitors (Government of Australia 2012b, 
p. 633). The Lord Howe pied currawong remains unpopular with some 
residents, likely because of its predatory nature on nestlings. The 
incidence of shooting has declined since the 1970s, when conservation 
efforts on Lord Howe Island began (Hutton 1991), but occasional 
shootings occurred as of 2007 (Carlile 2007, pers. comm.). It is 
unclear what effect this localized killing has on the overall 
population size and distribution of the species (Garnett and Crowley 
2000).
    The Lord Howe Island Pied Currawong has persisted in reasonable 
numbers despite the introduction of the black rat (Rattus rattus) in 
1918 (Fullagar & Disney 1975; McAllan et al. 2004). However, it may 
benefit from previous rat eradication programs and a rat eradication 
program that is currently underway (The Daily Telegraph, July 20, 2012; 
Carlile 2007, pers. comm.). The removal of feral animals has resulted 
in the recovery of some forest understory (WWF 2001).
    Other factors affecting the species include nontarget poisoning, 
and effects associated with extremely small population sizes (NSW DECC 
2010). Because the Lord Howe pied currawong often preys on rats, it may 
be subject to nontarget poisoning during rat-baiting programs 
(Wilkinson and Priddel 2011, p. 509; DEC 2007b). The Pied Currawong may 
actually have benefited from the introduction of some exotic plants and 
animals that are now used as a food source (Garnett & Crowley 2000; 
McFarland 1994; Mills undated; Cooper 1990; Hutton 1991).
    Habitat loss and degradation continue to occur. All the forest 
areas adjacent to clearings continue to suffer from progressive dieback 
(Sinclair 2002, p. 6). Sinclair notes that the Permanent Park Preserve 
and Transit Hill are degrading at the edges where rainforest trees 
(which need to be buffered) are exposed to strong winds. Close 
monitoring of the population is needed because this small, endemic 
population is highly susceptible to the factors identified above as 
well as catastrophic events such as disease or introduction of a new 
predator (Government of Australia 2012b, p. 633).

Conservation Status

    Various levels of conservation and protections exist for this 
subspecies. At the species level, it is considered least concern by the 
IUCN; the subspecies is not addressed (BLI 2010o). It is not listed in 
any appendices of CITES. The NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act of 
1995 lists the Lord Howe pied currawong as vulnerable due to its 
extremely limited range (it only occurs on Lord Howe Island) and its 
small population size (NSW DECC 2010). The pied currawong is also 
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, (1) established the Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB), 
(2) made provisions for the LHIB to care,

[[Page 24622]]

control, and manage the island; and (3) established 75 percent of the 
land area as a permanent park preserve (NSW DEC 2007). Additionally, 
the Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan was finalized in 
2007, and is the formal Recovery Plan for threatened species and 
communities of the Lord Howe Island Group (DEC 2007a, Government of 
Australia 2005, p. 574).
    In the previous ANOR, the Lord Howe pied currawong received an LPN 
of 6. After reevaluating the threats to the Lord Howe pied currawong, 
we have determined that no 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 a combination of factors including 
its extremely small population size, nontarget 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 
of factors affecting this species (Davies et al. 2004, pp. 265-271). 
However, because conservation efforts for the species have been 
implemented, and the species is being closely managed and monitored, we 
find that the threats are nonimminent. Thus, based on the best 
available information, the LPN remains at 6 to reflect nonimminent 
threats of high magnitude.

Invertebrates

Harris' mimic swallowtail (Mimoides (syn. Eurytides) lysithous 
harrisianus), LPN = 6

Species and Habitat Description

    Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly is a subspecies endemic to 
Brazil (Collins and Morris 1985). Although the species' range 
historically included Paraguay, the subspecies has not recently been 
confirmed in Paraguay (Finnish University and Research Network 2004; 
Collins and Morris 1985). 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 (Brown 1996; 
Collins and Morris 1985). 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 makes 
it difficult to distinguish this subspecies from the species that it 
mimics (Brown in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004).

Population

    The Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o colony is the best-studied. 
Between 1984 and 2004, the population maintained a stable size, varying 
between 50 to 250 individuals (Brown in litt. 2004; Brown 1996; Collins 
and Morris 1985), and was reported to be viable, vigorous, and stable 
in 2004 (Brown 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 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).

Range

    In Rio de Janeiro, Harris' mimic swallowtail has been confirmed in 
three locations. 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 range of Harris' mimic swallowtail overlaps two protected areas: 
Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve and Jurubatiba National Park, 
and therefore it is somewhat protected from habitat loss. Both Barra de 
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and the Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve 
are within the S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin. The Barra de 
S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River Basin encompasses a 216,605-ha (535,240-
ac) area, of which 150,700 ha (372,286 ac) is managed as a protected 
area. The Harris' mimic swallowtail was previously known in Espirito 
Santo; however, there are no recent confirmations of its occurrence 
there (New and Collins 1991; Collins and Morris 1985).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Habitat destruction has been the main threat to this subspecies 
(Brown 1996; Collins and Morris 1985), 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 region, and 
coastal development is ongoing throughout the Atlantic Forest region 
(TNC 2009; Butler 2007; Conservation International 2007; CEPF 2007a; 
H[ouml]fling 2007; Peixoto and Silva 2007; Pivello 2007; WWF 2007; 
Hughes et al. 2006).
    Habitat destruction caused by fires in the Po[ccedil]o das Antas 
Biological Reserve appears to have abated. The 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 (Teixeira 2007; WWF 2003; De Roy 2002). The 
revised management plan indicates that the Reserve is to be used for 
research and conservation with limited public access (CEPF 2007a; IBAMA 
2005). The Jurubatiba National Park is located in a region that is 
undergoing continuing development pressures from urbanization and 
industrialization (Savarese 2008; Khalip 2007; Brown 1996; IFC 2002; 
CEPF 2007b; Otero and Brown 1984), 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).
    As of 2004, conditions at Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o appeared 
to be suitable for long-term survival of this subspecies. The Harris' 
mimic swallowtail's preferred environment of both 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 1,000 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 may be that the conditions available there remain 
suitable.
    Another factor affecting butterfly species is collection. Trade in 
wildlife parts and products is extremely lucrative, and, as wildlife 
becomes rarer, it becomes worth more in value (TRAFFIC 2010, pp. 52, 
122, 179). Although there are laws to prohibit

[[Page 24623]]

illegal wildlife trade, in some countries, laws are rarely enforced due 
to inadequate resources; and only a fraction of smuggled wildlife is 
intercepted (TRAFFIC 2012, p. 4; TRAFFIC 2010, p. 7). 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 2,000 
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 1 year and 6 months' imprisonment and fined 1 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 three Queen Alexandra's Birdwings 
(Ornithoptera alexandrae, CITES Appendix I) and one Apollo Butterfly 
(Parnassius apollo, CITES Appendix II) (p. 179).
    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. Although we do not know the full extent of 
illegal trade, according to the 2010 TRAFFIC report, this may represent 
only a small fraction of the illegal collection of butterfly species 
that occurs.

Conservation Status

    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 the 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 biodiversity and other natural resources and assesses 
civil, administrative, and criminal penalties to private individuals, 
corporations, and businesses. 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.
    In the previous ANOR, the Harris' mimic swallowtail received an LPN 
of 6. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have 
determined that no 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, collection, and potential catastrophic events such 
as severe tropical storms or introduction of a new disease or predator. 
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 colonies are located within 
protected areas. Based on the best available information, the LPN of 6 
will remain to reflect nonimminent threats of high magnitude for this 
species.

Jamaican Kite Swallowtail (Protographium marcellinus, syn. Eurytides), 
LPN = 2

Species Description and Range

    The Jamaican kite swallowtail butterfly is endemic to Jamaica, 
preferring wooded, undisturbed habitat containing its only known larval 
host plant: black lancewood or West Indian lancewood (Oxandra 
lanceolata). The food preferences of adults have not been reported 
(Bailey 1994; Collins and Morris 1985). 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, in the Parish of 
Westmoreland (Garraway in litt 2011; Harris 2002; M[ouml]hn 2002; WRC 
2001; Bailey 1994; Smith et al. 1994). There is only one known breeding 
site in the eastern coast town of Rozelle, St. Thomas Parish, although 
it is possible that other sites exist given the widely dispersed nature 
of the larval food plant (Garraway in litt 2011; Robbins in litt. 2004; 
Garraway et al. 1993; Bailey 1994; Smith et al. 1994; Collins and 
Morris 1985).

Population

    The Jamaican kite swallowtail maintains a low population level; 
there is no known estimate of its population size (Garraway 2011 in 
litt). It occasionally becomes locally abundant in Kingston and Rozelle 
during the breeding season in early summer and again in early fall 
(Garraway in litt 2011; Bailey 1994; Smith et al. 1994; Garraway et al. 
1993; Collins and Morris 1985; Brown and Heineman 1972), and 
experiences episodic population explosions (72 FR 20184; 69 FR 70580). 
The population in St. Thomas has generally been regarded as the core 
population (Garraway in litt 2011).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Habitat loss and degradation had been considered to be the primary 
factors affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail; however, now the 
primary factors affecting the species are believed to be its small 
population size and that it is endemic only to Jamaica (Garraway in 
litt 2011). After centuries of a high rate of deforestation, the island 
lost much of its original forest (Gartner et al., 2008, pp. 8, 11; 
Berglund and Johansson 2004, pp. 2, 5; Evelyn and Camirand 2003, p. 
354; Koenig 2001, p. 206; Koenig 1999, p. 9). Eight percent of the 
total land area of Jamaica is covered with forest classified as 
minimally disturbed closed broadleaf (Evelyn and Camirand 2003 in 
Strong in litt. 2011). Some of the species' most important habitat is 
protected from human activities due to the inaccessibility of the 
habitat, but even these areas have been encroached upon and degraded. 
However, in some areas, its habitat is regenerating (Garraway in litt. 
2011).
    Monophagous butterflies (meaning that their larvae feed only on a 
single plant species) such as the Jamaican kite swallowtail tend to be 
more affected by habitat degradation than polyphagous species, due 
largely to their specific habitat and ecological requirements (Kotiaho 
et al. 2005). Harvest and clearing has reduced the availability of this 
species' only known larval food plant. In Rozelle, extensive habitat 
modification for agricultural and

[[Page 24624]]

industrial purposes such as mining has diminished this species' habitat 
(WWF 2001; Gimenez-Dixon 1996). When habitat is altered through open-
pit mining, it is irreversibly modified and, therefore, it is 
impossible to restore the previous ecosystem. These sites can be 
rehabilitated; however, a typical reclaimed and rehabilitated site 
often fails to regenerate with woody vegetation (Strong in litt. 2011). 
As of 2004, black lancewood was being impacted by clearing for 
cultivation and by felling for the commercial timber industry (Windsor 
Plywood 2004; Collins and Morris 1985). However, more recent 
information indicates that its food source is more readily available 
than previously believed (Garraway in litt 2011).
    Jamaica is subject to high-impact stochastic events such as 
hurricanes. 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 factor affecting this 
species, we believe that the damage caused by hurricanes is 
contributing to habitat loss.
    The Jamaican kite swallowtail has been collected for commercial 
trade in the past (Melisch 2000; Sch[uuml]tz 2000; Collins and Morris 
1985). 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 (National Environment and 
Planning Agency 2005). As of 2008, we were unaware of any recent 
seizures under the Lacey Act 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.). With the legal prohibition 
described below in effect, however, the current impact of collection is 
likely negligible (Garraway in litt 2011).

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). The Forest Act of 1996 
and the Forest Regulations Act of 2001 increased the power of Jamaican 
authorities to protect the species' habitat (Gartner et al. 2008, pp. 
9-10). These included mandates to determine the biodiversity in the 
forest as well as the ability to acquire private lands as forest 
reserves. Since 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been 
categorized on the IUCN Red List as ``Vulnerable'' (IUCN 2012). This 
species is not listed in any of the appendices of CITES (CITES 2012).
    In the previous ANOR, the Jamaican kite swallowtail received an LPN 
of 2. After reevaluating the factors affecting the Jamaican kite 
swallowtail, we have determined that no change in the listing priority 
number is warranted. The Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a 
monotypic genus. The current factors affecting the species are high in 
magnitude particularly since there is only one known larval host plant. 
There is only one known breeding site and the species' larval food 
plant has a restricted distribution. In addition, stochastic events 
such as hurricanes and tropical storms are unpredictable but are likely 
to occur. Although Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to preserve 
native swallowtail habitat, the threats affecting this species are 
imminent; it has a very small population size, and habitat destruction 
based on hurricanes and tropical storms is very likely to occur. Based 
on a reevaluation of the threats to this species, the LPN remains a 2 
to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Fluminense Swallowtail (Parides ascanius), LPN = 5

Species and Habitat Description

    The Fluminense swallowtail is a white and rose swallowtail 
butterfly endemic to Brazil's restinga habitat within the Atlantic 
Forest region in the tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests 
of southeastern coastal Brazil (Uehara-Prado and Fonesca 2007, p. 265; 
Thomas 2003). Its habitat is characterized by medium-sized trees and 
shrubs that are adapted to coastal conditions (Kelecom et al 2002, p. 
171). During the caterpillar stage of its lifecycle, it feeds on 
Aristolochia macroura (Dutchman's pipe) and is believed to be 
monophagous (Otero and Brown 1984).

Range

    One study predicted the species potentially occurs in an area of 
1,675,457 ha (4,140,127 ac) within the State of Rio de Janeiro (Uehara-
Prado and Fonseca 2007, p. 265). While the presence of suitable habitat 
should not be used to infer the presence of a species, it can 
facilitate more focused efforts to identify and confirm additional 
locations and the conservation status of the Fluminense swallowtail 
(Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007, p. 266). The only known occurrences of 
the Fluminense swallowtail correlated with existing protected areas 
within Rio de Janeiro, including the Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological 
Reserve (Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007). This Reserve, established in 
1974, encompasses 13,096 ac (5,300 ha) of inland Atlantic Forest 
habitat (CEPF 2007a; Decree No. 73,791, 1974). 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 (Brown in litt. 2004; Robbins 
in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1984).
    In Rio de Janeiro, the species has been documented in five 
locations including: Barra de S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o and Maca[eacute] 
(in the Restinga de Jurubatiba National Park) along the coast; and 
farther inland at the Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve (Brown 
in litt. 2004). Other verified occurrences were in the [Aacute]rea de 
Tombamento do Mangue do Rio Para[iacute]ba do Sul and in Parque Natural 
Municipal do Bosque da Barra (Instituto Iguacu 2008; Uehara-Prado and 
Fonseca 2007).

Population

    This swallowtail species is sparsely distributed throughout its 
range, reflecting the patchy distribution of its preferred habitat 
(Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007; Tyler et al. 1994; Otero and Brown 
1984). The species is described as being 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 S[atilde]o Paulo (Gelhaus et al. 2004). 
However, there are no recent confirmations of this species in either 
Espirito Santo or S[atilde]o Paulo.
    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

[[Page 24625]]

Po[ccedil]o das Antas Biological Reserve was rediscovered in 1997, 
after a nearly 30-year absence from this location (Brown in litt. 
2004). Researchers noted only that ``large numbers'' of swallowtails 
were observed (Brown in litt. 2004; Robbins in litt. 2004). There are 
no population estimates for other colonies. However, individuals from 
the population considered to be the most viable in Barra de S[atilde]o 
Jo[atilde]o migrate widely in some years, and this is likely to enhance 
gene flow among colonies (Brown in litt. 2004).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Habitat destruction has been the main factor affecting this species 
(Brown 1996; Gimenez Dixon 1996; Collins and Morris 1985). Monophagous 
butterflies tend to be more susceptible to habitat degradation than 
polyphagous species (Kotiaho et al. 2005, p. 1,966), and the restinga 
habitat preferred by Fluminense swallowtails is a highly specialized 
environment that is restricted in distribution (Ueraha-Prado and 
Fonseca 2007, p. 264; Brown in litt. 2004; Otero and Brown 1986). 
Fluminense swallowtails require large areas to maintain viable 
populations (Uehara-Prado et al. 2007, pp. 43-53; Brown in litt. 2004; 
Otero and Brown 1986). The Atlantic Forest habitat, which once covered 
1.4 million km\2\ (540,543 mi\2\), has been reduced to between 5 and 10 
percent of its original cover. It also contains more than 70 percent of 
the Brazilian human population (TNC 2009; Butler 2007; Conservation 
International 2007; CEPF 2007a; H[ouml]fling 2007; WWF 2007). The 
restinga habitat upon which this species depends was 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, unpaginated). In addition, of the forest that remains, 83 
percent exists in small fragments of less than 50 ha (123 acres). 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 (Butler 2007; Pivello 2007; TNC 2007; Peixoto and Silva 
2007; WWF 2007; Hughes et al. 2006).
    Collection and commercial exploitation was identified as a factor 
affecting the Fluminense swallowtail (Collins and Morris 1985; Melisch 
2000; Sch[uuml]tz 2000). The species is easy to capture. 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 in litt. 2004; Robbins in 
litt. 2004).
    Parasitism has been indicated to be another 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, p. 1,197). To date, there 
is no information regarding the magnitude of effect these parasites are 
having on the Fluminense swallowtail.
    Although the Fluminense swallowtail and the Harris' mimic 
swallowtail face similar threats, there are several dissimilarities 
that influence the magnitude of these threats. Fluminense swallowtails 
are monophagous (Kotiaho et al. 2005; Otero and Brown 1984). In 
contrast, Harris' mimic swallowtail is polyphagous (Brown 1996; Collins 
and Morse 1985); its larvae feed on more than one plant species 
(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 the Fluminense 
swallowtail. Also unlike the Harris' mimic swallowtail, Fluminense 
swallowtails require a large area to maintain a viable population 
(Brown in litt. 2004; Monteiro et al. 2004); in part because they are 
known to feed on only one food source.
    According to the 2005 management plan (IBAMA 2005), the Po[ccedil]o 
das Antas Biological 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 maintaining 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 believed to be 
a factor affecting the species. 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 have been planned or created to connect existing protected 
areas and 13 privately protected forests by planting and restoring 
habitat previously cleared for agriculture or by fires, which should 
assist the habitat connectivity for this species (De Roy 2002, 
unpaginated).
    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 areas containing restinga habitat under 
protection in Brazil (CEPF 2007b; Rocha et al. 2007). The Maca[eacute] 
River Basin forms the outer edge of the Jurubatiba National Park and 
contains the habitat preferred by the Fluminense swallowtail 
((International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2002; 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.

Conservation Status

    Brazil categorizes the Fluminense swallowtail to be ``Imperiled'' 
(Portaria No. 1,522 1989; MMA 2003). Commerce in this species is 
strictly prohibited (Brown in litt. 2004). According to the 2012 IUCN 
Red List, the Fluminense swallowtail has been classified as 
``Vulnerable'' since 1983, based on its distribution and habitat 
fragmentation and loss that has occurred within its predicted range. 
This species has not been formally considered for listing in the 
appendices to 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, verified August 20, 2012). There has been no legal 
trade of this species into the European Union since its listing on 
Annex B (Grimm in litt. 2008), nor are we aware of any recent reports 
of seizures under the Lacey Act 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 the previous ANOR, the Fluminense swallowtail received an LPN of 
5. After reevaluating the factors affecting the Fluminense swallowtail,

[[Page 24626]]

we have determined that no change in the listing priority number is 
warranted. The Fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic 
genus. The species is currently affected by habitat destruction; 
however, we have no information to suggest that overutilization and 
parasitism are currently occurring such that they are threats to the 
Fluminense swallowtail. 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. Based on the conservation measures in place, we believe 
that overutilization is not currently a threat to the Fluminense 
swallowtail. On the basis of this information, the Fluminense 
swallowtail retains a priority rank of 5.

Hahnel's Amazonian Swallowtail (Parides hahneli), LPN = 2

Species and Habitat

    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is endemic to Brazil and is found 
only on sandy beaches where the habitat is overgrown with dense scrub 
vegetation (Tyler et al. 1994; New and Collins 1991; Collins and Morris 
1985). Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is likely monophagous. This 
swallowtail depends upon highly specialized habitat--beaches of river 
drainage areas. Wells et al. (1983) describe 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 (Tyler et al. 1994; Collins and Morris 1985).
    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is known from three locations along 
the tributaries of the middle and lower Amazon River basin in the 
states of Amazonas and Par[aacute] (Brown 1996; Tyler et al. 1994; New 
and Collins 1991; Collins and Morris 1985). Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail is highly localized, reflecting the distribution of its 
highly specialized preferred habitat (Brown in litt. 2004).

Population

    The population size of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is not known, 
nor do we have information on any population trend for this species. 
Within its range, Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail populations are 
described as being small (Brown in litt. 2004).

Factors Affecting the Species

    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 (Hurwitz 2007; Fearnside 2006). 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 (New and Collins 1991; Wells et 
al. 1983).
    Competition for host plants has been identified as a potential 
factor affecting 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 (Brown 1996; 
Collins and Morris 1985; Wells 1983). 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). However, this competition has not been 
confirmed, and, at this time, there is insufficient information to 
conclude that this is a factor affecting this species.
    This species of swallowtail has been collected for commercial trade 
(http://www.johnnyvalencia.com/?tag=parides-hahneli; Melisch 2000; 
Sch[uuml]tz 2000; Collins and Morris 1985). Species with restricted 
distributions or localized populations, such as the Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail, are more vulnerable to collection 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). As of 2008, seizures under the Lacey Act 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 collection is impacting the species.

Conservation Status

    Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail continues to be listed as ``Data 
Deficient'' by the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2012). Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail is listed as endangered on the state of Par[aacute]'s list 
of threatened species (Resolu[ccedil][atilde]o 054 2007; Decreto No. 
802 2008; Secco and Santos 2008). Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is not 
listed in any Appendices of CITES (CITES 2012). 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).
    In our previous ANOR, the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail received 
an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the Hahnel's Amazonian 
swallowtail, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. 
This swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats 
that are high in magnitude and imminence due to its small endemic 
population, and limited and decreasing availability of its highly 
specialized habitat (beaches of river drainage area) and food sources. 
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 and competition with other species. Based on a reevaluation 
of the threats, the LPN remains a 2 to reflect imminent threats of high 
magnitude.

Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail (Teinopalpus imperialis), LPN = 8

Species Description and Range

    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is native to the Himalayan regions of 
Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam 
(TRAFFIC 2007; Baral et al. 2005; Food and Agriculture Organization 
(FAO) 2001; Igarashi 2001; Masui and Uehara 2000; Forest Resources 
Assessment Program of Bhutan 1999; Osada et al. 1999; Tordoff et al. 
1999; Trai and Richardson 1999; Shrestha 1997). This species prefers 
undisturbed (primary), heterogeneous, broad-leaved-evergreen forests or 
montane deciduous forests, and is found at altitudes between 1,500 and 
3,050 m (4,921 to 10,000 ft) (Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999; 
Collins and Morris 1985). This species is polyphagous. It has been 
reported that the adult Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails do not feed, but 
this remains unclear (Collins and Morris 1985). Larval host-

[[Page 24627]]

plants may differ across the species' range, but they include:
    Magnolia campbellii in China (Sung and Yan 2005; Yen and Yang 2001; 
Igarashi and Fukuda 2000);
    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).

Populations

    Despite the species' widespread distribution, local populations are 
described as not being abundant (Collins and Morris 1985). The known 
locations within each range country are as follows:
    Bhutan: The species was reported to be extant (still in existence) 
in Bhutan (FRAP 1999; Gimenez Dixon 1996), although specific details on 
locations or population information are not readily available.
    China: The species has been reported in Fuji, Guangxi, Hubei, 
Jiangsu, Sichuan, and Yunnan Provinces (Sung and Yan 2005; Igarashi and 
Fukuda 2000; UNEP-WCMC 1999; Gimenez Dixon 1996; Collins and Morris 
1985).
    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) with the 
exception of the region of Assam where the species had not been sighted 
in several years (Barua et al. 2010, p. 8).
    Laos: The species has been reported in Laos (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).
    Nepal: The species has been reported in Nepal in the Central 
Administrative Region at two localities: Phulchoki Mountain Forest and 
Shivapuri National Park (Baral et al. 2005; Nepali Times 2002; Shrestha 
1997, Gimenez Dixon 1996; Collins and Morris 1985).
    Thailand: The species has been reported in the northern province of 
Chang Mai (Pornpitagpan 1999). The species has limited distribution in 
the higher elevation mountains (greater than 1,500 m (4,921 ft)) of 
northern Thailand and is found within three national parks according to 
the CITES Scientific Authority of Thailand (2007).
    Vietnam: The species has been confirmed in three Nature Reserves 
(Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 1999).

Factors Affecting the Species

    Habitat destruction is believed to negatively impact this species, 
which prefers undisturbed high-altitude habitat (Igarashi 2001; Tordoff 
et al. 1999; Collins and Morris 1985). In China and India, the Kaiser-
I-Hind swallowtail populations are at risk from habitat modification 
and destruction due to commercial and illegal logging (Barua et al. 
2010; Maheshwari 2003; Yen and Yang 2001). In Nepal, the species is at 
risk from habitat disturbance and destruction resulting from mining, 
wood collection for use as fuel, agriculture, and grazing animals 
(Baral et al. 2005; Shrestha 1997; Collins and Morris 1985). In Nepal, 
the Forest Ministry considered habitat destruction to be a critical 
threat to all biodiversity, including the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, in 
the development of its biodiversity strategy (HMGN 2002). In Thailand, 
habitat degradation and loss caused by deforestation and land 
conversion for agricultural purposes is considered to be a primary 
factor affecting this species (FAO 2001; Hongthong 1998).
    The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has been 
collected for commercial trade, despite range country regulations 
prohibiting or restricting such activities, in part because it is very 
difficult to enforce protections for species such as butterflies that 
are easy to collect and smuggle (TRAFFIC 2007; Sch[uuml]tz 2000; 
Collins and Morris 1985). Between 1990 and 1997, illegally collected 
specimens were selling for 500 Rupees (12 USD) per female and 30 Rupees 
in India (0.73 USD) per male (Bahuguna 1998), and illegal species 
purportedly derived from Sichuan were being advertised for sale on the 
internet for 60 U.S. Dollars (US$), despite restrictions in China.
    In a recent survey conducted by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (2007), of 
2,000 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. 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 
likely inadequate to protect this species from illegal collection 
throughout its range.
    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 in 2009, 
specimens were noted as being ``out of stock'' (Lepidoptera Breeders 
Association 2009).
    Between 1991 and 2012, CITES records indicate that 163 specimens 
were traded internationally under valid CITES permits (UNEP-WCMC CITES 
trade database 2012). 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 under the Lacey Act 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, although 
illegal trade remains a concern, we do not consider legal international 
trade to be a significant factor affecting this species.

Conservation Status

    Since 1996, the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been categorized on 
the IUCN Red List as ``Lower Risk/near threatened'' (IUCN 2012; Gimenez 
Dixon 1996). The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail has been listed in CITES 
Appendix II since 1987 (CITES 2012).
    In China, the species is protected by the Animals and Plants 
(Protection of Endangered Species) Ordinance (1989), which restricts 
import, export, and possession of the species. On China's 2005 Species 
Red List, it was described as ``Vulnerable'' (China Red List 2006).
    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 (Indian Wildlife Protection Act 2006; Collins and 
Morris 1985).
    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 Forestry Ministry of 
Nepal 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

[[Page 24628]]

(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 (Choldumrongkul in litt. 2007; FAO 2001; Pornpitagpan 1999; 
Hongthong 1998). In addition to prohibiting possession, WARPA prohibits 
hunting, breeding, and trading. Import and export are allowed only for 
conservation purposes (Jaisielthum in litt. 2007).
    In Vietnam, 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). In Vietnam, this species of swallowtail 
is reported to be among the most valuable of all butterflies (World 
Bank 2005). In 2006, the species was listed on Vietnam's 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). The species is provided 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).
    After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined 
that no change in its LPN is warranted. The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail 
does not represent a monotypic genus. The current factors, habitat 
destruction and illegal collection, are moderate in magnitude due to 
the species' wide distribution and to various protections in place 
within each country. We find that the threats are imminent due to 
ongoing habitat destruction and high market value for specimens. Based 
on our reassessment of the threats, we have retained an LPN of 8 to 
reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Molluscs

Colorado Delta Clam (Mulinia coloradoensis), LPN = 2

Taxonomy

    The Colorado Delta clam is a member of the family Mactridae (Phylum 
Mollusca). This species is restricted to the Gulf of California and 
west Mexican area (Keen 1971, p. 207). The treatment of Mulinia 
coloradoensis as a distinct species is widely accepted among experts of 
molluscan studies (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 2011, p. 1; Smithsonian 
Institution 2011, p. 1; Gemmell et al. 1987, p. 45; Bernard 1983, p. 
40). The taxonomy of M. coloradoensis has been validated as a unique 
species through morphometric analysis (Flessa and Tellez-Duarte 2001, 
p. 5). Accordingly, we conclude that M. coloradoensis is a valid 
species.

Species Description

    The Colorado Delta clam was described by Dall (1894, p. 6) as 
having a ``larger'' shell, solid, rude (relatively undeveloped or 
primitive), equilateral, resembling M. modesta, but having a more 
arched posterior dorsal margin, the base behind the posterior dorsal 
angle. It was also described as being somewhat concavely flexuous, with 
slightly elevated ridges that radiate. The length of a medium-sized 
specimen is 49 millimeters (mm) (0.2 in), and its height 36.5 mm (0.14 
in), and the width is 32 mm (0.13 in). Rodriguez et al. (2001a, p. 253) 
report the species can reach lengths of almost 60 mm (0.24 in).
    Little is known about the life history of the Colorado Delta clam. 
The species is known to take 3 years to grow to an average adult size 
of 30 mm (0.12 in) (Kowalewski et al. 2000, p. 1060; Kowalewski et al. 
1994, p. 231), and it likely does not live much longer. The lifespan of 
this species is likely about 3 years, which is average for this genus. 
Other species of Mulinia are known to live up to 2 years (Lu et al. 
1996, p. 3482). The family Mactridae is commonly found in sandy or 
muddy substrates associated with brackish water (Leal 2002, p. 59-61). 
This species is an infaunal (aquatic animal that lives in the substrate 
of a body of water, usually in a soft sea bottom), suspension-feeding 
estuarine bivalve (Rodriguez et al. 2001a, p. 252). The species is 
found in low intertidal mud at depths of about 7 cm (2.75 in) beneath 
sediment (Rodriguez et al. 2001a, p. 253).
    No specific information has been collected regarding the 
reproductive biology of the Colorado Delta clam, although Rodriguez et 
al. (2001a, p. 255) speculate the species may spawn in response to 
episodes of fresh water inflow. Reproduction in bivalves is mostly 
through external fecundation (sperm and egg cells unite external to the 
bodies of reproducing individuals) (Leal 2002, p. 26). A species within 
the same genus, M. lateralis, is known to spawn from May to November 
(Puglisi and Thiebaud 2008, p. 2; Lu et al. 1996, p. 3,482). A female 
M. lateralis will release between 0.5 to 2 million eggs during a 
spawning event (Lu et al. 1996, p. 3482), indicating the Colorado Delta 
clam could potentially exhibit high fecundity in the proper conditions.

Historical Range

    The Colorado Delta clam was once an abundant species in the head of 
the Gulf of California in the estuary of the Colorado River (Martinez 
2012; Dall 1894, p. 6). This species is present in cheniers (piles of 
dead shells) as far as 75 km (47 mi) from the mouth of the Colorado 
River Delta (Rodriguez et al. 2001b, pp. 185-186). This finding 
indicates the species historically had a broad distribution (Martinez 
2012; Alles 2006, p. 2; Arias et al. 2004, p. 11; Zamora-Arroyo et al. 
2005, p. 2; Cohen et al. 2001, p. 35; Luecke et al. 1999, p. 1).

Current Range

    This species is now known to exist as a relict population at Isla 
Montague, Mexico, at the mouth of the Colorado River Delta (Martinez 
2012; Cintra-Buenrostro et al. 2005, p. 296; Flessa and Tellez-Duarte 
2001, p. 9; Rodriguez et al. 2001a, p. 251; Flessa and Rodriguez 1999, 
p. 8). Although Keen (1971, p. 207) indicated the species also occurs 
in ``west Mexican area,'' there are no reliable records of the species 
from that area and the available evidence indicates the species' 
distribution is restricted to the Delta (Flessa and Tellez-Duarte 2001, 
p. 9; Flessa and Rodriguez 1999, p. 5).
    The relative abundance of Colorado Delta clam is associated with 
salinity, which is common with Mulinia clams (Flessa and Rodriguez 
1999, p. 8). Abundance of dead shells of Colorado Delta clam decreases 
with increasing distance from the mouth of the Colorado River, 
suggesting the species distribution is influenced by freshwater inflow 
(Rodriguez et al. 2001b, p. 188).

Population Estimate

    We are unaware of precise estimates of the population size for 
Colorado Delta clam. However, the species is believed to now comprise 
less than one percent of the living fauna in the Delta (Avila-Serrano 
et al. 2006, p. 656; Flessa and Tellez-Duarte 2001, p. 2; Rodriguez et 
al. 2001b, p. 186; Kowalewski et al. 2000, p. 1060; Kowalewski et al. 
1994, p. 219). Prior to 1998, the species was described as the most 
abundant mollusk that lived in the Colorado River Delta area (Rodriguez 
et al. 1998, p. 1). The best available information suggests that the 
species has experienced a 90 percent reduction from historical 
population size caused by the decrease in freshwater flow to the 
estuary (Martinez 2012; Avila-Seranno et al. 2006, pp. 650, 658; 
Cintra-Buenrostro 2005, p. 300).

[[Page 24629]]

Factors Affecting the Species

    Virtually the entire flow of the Colorado River has been captured 
and consumed by municipal, industrial, and agricultural users before 
entering Mexico (Alles 2006, p. 2, 6; Cohen 2005, p. 2; Morrison et al. 
1996, p. xii; Rodriguez et al. 2001b, p. 183). The Delta is now 
believed to support only about 60,000 ha (150,000 ac) of wetland 
habitats and riparian communities, having been reduced by over 90 
percent over the past 80 years (Cohen 2005, p. 2; Arias et al. 2004, p. 
11; Cohen et al. 2001, p. 35; Glenn et al. 1996, p. 1175). The 
reduction in the extent of the estuary ecosystem in the Colorado Delta 
mirrors the decline of the Colorado Delta clam (Martinez 2012). Through 
examination of dead shells, which accumulate in cheniers, the Colorado 
Delta clam once dominated the bivalve community of the Delta with a 
massive population extending 75 km (47 mi) into the Gulf of California 
(Rodriguez et al. 2001a, p. 254; Kowalewski et al. 2000, pp. 1059-
1060).
    The relict population at Isla Montague continues to survive, 
apparently on scarce and intermittent freshwater inflow (Martinez 
2012). The ecological conditions within the Delta, upon which the 
Colorado Delta clam depends, have undergone significant changes due to 
the reduction of freshwater inflow. Rodriguez et al. (2001a, p. 257) 
demonstrated that the decrease of freshwater, nutrients, and sediments 
from Colorado River inflow is largely responsible for the decline in 
the abundance and distribution of the Colorado Delta clam. Zamora-
Arroyo et al. (2005, p. 3) determined that lack of dedicated freshwater 
input is the principle threat to the Delta and Upper Gulf of 
California.
    Since completion of upstream dams, primarily Glen Canyon Dam in 
1963, very little fresh water reaches the Gulf of California in most 
years (Avila-Serrano et al. 2006, p. 649; Baron et al. 2002, p. 1251; 
Postel et al. 1998, p. 120; Glenn et al. 1992, p. 818). Construction of 
upstream dams and diversions since the 1930s has transformed the upper 
Gulf of California to an inverse estuary with salinity increasing 
toward the mouth of the river (Rodriguez et al. 2001b, p. 183; Lavin et 
al. 1998, p. 769). Salinity at the mouth of the Colorado River has 
increased from 22-33 practical salinity units (psu) before the 
construction of the Hoover Dam in 1923 to 38 psu today (Cintra-
Buenrostro et al. 2011). There are long periods when no fresh water 
reaches the Gulf, which creates highly saline conditions and increasing 
water temperatures (Varady et al. 2001, p. 205), and the estuary of the 
Delta is becoming increasingly saline due to lack of freshwater inflow 
(Alles 2006, p. 2). Dams also trap most sediment before it reaches the 
Gulf (Alles 2006, p. 8). These conditions are not conducive to the 
survival of this clam species.
    Intermittent and unplanned flood releases from upstream dams 
between 1980 and 2000 resulted in water flowing to the Delta in 10 of 
those 20 years (Varady et al. 2001, p. 203), causing reestablishment of 
riparian habitat (Rowell et al. 2006, pp. 47-48; Luecke et al. 1999, p. 
7). These releases are likely critical to the maintenance of the 
aquatic community in the estuary and the continued survival of the 
species at Isla Montague.
    In addition to intermittent flood releases from major dams along 
the Colorado River, the Delta appears to also be sustained by 
groundwater seepage and agricultural return water (Rowell et al. 2006, 
p. 48; Arias et al. 2004, p. 12). The only water that now reaches the 
Delta on a regular basis is agricultural return flows, largely from the 
Mexicali Valley via the Rio Hardy (Alles 2006, p. 2; Cohen 2005, p. 1; 
Cohen et al. 2001, p. 44). There is usually no surface connection from 
the Cienega de Santa Clara, a large wetland in the upper Delta (Glenn 
et al. 1992, p. 822). Agricultural return flow from the Mexicali 
Valley, coupled with aquifer inflow, is a freshwater source that 
ensures the continued survival of the clam.
    The contribution of agricultural return flow is due to the recent 
lining of the All-American Canal, which was completed in 2009. Prior to 
lining, the All-American Canal was a source of recharge to the Mexicali 
Valley aquifer (Calleros 1991, p. 837). Sixty percent of the annual 
recharge to the subterranean aquifer of the Mexicali Valley is due to 
subterranean flows (Calleros 1991, p. 829), largely from the All-
American Canal. Further reductions in freshwater inflow to the Delta 
may occur in the near future (Martinez 2012).

Drought

    At a regional scale, there is broad consensus among climate models 
that the southwestern United States and northern Mexico will become 
drier in the twenty-first century, and that the trend is already under 
way (Martinez 2012; Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181-1184) with increasing 
aridity in the Southwest occurring as early as 2021-2040. Wetlands in 
the southwestern United States and northern Mexico are predicted to be 
particularly at risk of drying (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1183-1184), 
which has severe implications for aquatic ecosystems.
    Numerous models also predict a decrease in annual precipitation in 
the southwestern United States and northern Mexico (Solomon et al. 
2009, p. 1707; Christensen et al. 2007, p. 888). Solomon et al. 2009 
predicts precipitation in the southwestern United States and northern 
Mexico will decrease by as much as 9 to 12 percent. Christensen et al. 
(2007, p. 888) contend the projection of smaller warming over the 
Pacific Ocean than over the continent is likely to induce a decrease in 
annual precipitation in the southwestern United States and northern 
Mexico. This decrease would modify freshwater and sediments vital to 
the survival of the Colorado Delta clam.
    Warmer water temperatures across temperate regions are also 
predicted to expand the distribution of existing aquatic nonnative 
species, which could affect this species (Martinez 2012; Mohseni et al. 
2003, p. 389). There could be 31 percent more suitable habitat for 
aquatic nonnative species, which are often tropical in origin and 
better adapted to warmer water temperatures. This change in 
temperatures could result in an expansion in the range of nonnative 
aquatic species to the detriment of native species like the Colorado 
Delta clam.
    The Colorado Delta clam is currently threatened by the ongoing and 
continuing reduction in freshwater input into the Gulf of California, 
and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to ensure freshwater input 
(Martinez 2012). Freshwater is critical to the species' survival 
because the species' life history is tied to the inflow of freshwater 
to ensure the maintenance of its brackish water habitat. The Delta 
continues to experience a reduction in freshwater inflow, which is 
critical to the survival of the species because it depends on the 
availability of brackish water. Furthermore, the available information 
indicates that loss of freshwater will likely worsen in the near and 
long-term future.

Conservation Status

    This species exists in Mexico's Biosphere Reserve of the upper gulf 
of California and the Colorado River Delta, which consists of 930,777 
hectares (2.3 million acres). Monitoring of this species is being 
conducted in connection with the Colorado River Delta-Sonoran Joint 
Venture between Mexico and the United States (Zamora et al. 2007, 
2002). A workshop was held in 2002 to determine conservation

[[Page 24630]]

priorities in the Colorado River Delta (Zamora-Arroyo et al. 2005, p. 
3). As of 2002, NGOs in Mexico were working with the Government of 
Mexico's Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources 
(Secretar[iacute]a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, or SEMARNAT) 
to develop ways to protect Mexico's Colorado River riparian corridor 
(Zamora-Arroyo et al. 2005, p. 4). SEMARNAT's purpose is to promote the 
protection, restoration, and conservation of ecosystems and natural 
resources. In 2007, SEMARNAT published a report on the goals and 
priorities of the Conservation and Management Program for the Reserve 
(SEMARNAT 2007, 323 pp.). It is not listed on any of the appendices of 
CITES.
    After reviewing the factors affecting this species, we found that 
the species has experienced an approximate 90 percent reduction from 
historical population size caused by the decrease in freshwater flow to 
the estuary. The available evidence indicates that Colorado delta clam 
is now restricted to one relict population at Isla Montague at the 
mouth of the Colorado River delta. Since habitat containing the entire 
range of the species may be rendered unsuitable within the future, we 
find that threats are of high magnitude. Accordingly, we find the 
Colorado delta clam is subject to high-magnitude imminent threats, and 
we assign a LPN of 2 for this species.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have 
sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there 
are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of 
those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work 
on a listing proposal regulation or whether promulgation of such a 
proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions--(1) the 
amount of resources available for completing the listing function; (2) 
the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing, and (3) the 
Service's workload and prioritization of the proposed listing in 
relation to other actions.
    In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the 
Act was transferred from the Service's Division of Scientific 
Authority, International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species 
Program. 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.
    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.
    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).
    Effective in FY 2012, the Service's Listing Program budget has 
included a foreign species subcap to ensure that some funds are 
available for other work in the Listing Program. Prior to FY 2012, 
there was no distinction between listing domestic and foreign species. 
To reasonably balance the foreign species listing commitment with other 
listing program responsibility, Congress further refined the 
appropriations of the Service to add ``and, of which not to exceed 
$1,500,000 shall be used for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), 
and (e) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, for 
species that are not indigenous to the United States * * *'' (See 
Conference Report 112-331, 112th Congress, 1st session, December 15, 
2011).
    Thus, through the listing program cap and the foreign species 
subcap, Congress has determined the amount of money available for 
foreign species listing activities, including petition findings and 
listing determinations. Therefore, the funds in the foreign species 
subcap set the limits on our determinations of preclusion and 
expeditious progress.
    In FY 2012, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be 
achieved with $1,500,000, which is the amount of money that Congress 
appropriated for the foreign species subcap within the Listing Program 
budget (Conference Report 112-331). Funding in the amount of $1,500,000 
is being used for 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 addition, available staff resources 
are also a factor in determining which high-priority species are 
provided with funding.
    Our expeditious progress also includes work on petition findings 
and 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

[[Page 24631]]

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.
    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. 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.

 Table 3--ESA Foreign Species Listing Actions Funded in Previous Fiscal
                 Years and FY 2013 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All have been completed (See Table 4     ...............................
 below for these specific actions).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 tarantula species...................  90-day petition finding.
15 bat species.........................  90-day petition finding.
Caribou, Peary and Dolphin and Union...  12-month petition finding.
Chimpanzee.............................  12-month petition finding.
Caiman, broad-snouted..................  Final downlisting
                                          determination.
Ridgway's Hawk eagle...................  90-day petition finding.
Virgin Islands coqui...................  90-day petition finding.
Flores hawk-eagle......................  90-day petition finding.
Emperor penguin........................  90-day petition finding.
10 sturgeon species....................  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the priorities that preclude 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 our previous Annual Notice of 
Review, published on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 25150), to April 25, 2013, 
includes preparing and publishing the following:

   Table 4--ESA Foreign Species Listing Actions Published Since the Previous ANOR Was Published on May 3, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Publication date                  Species                Action                     FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05/26/2011........................  Salmon-crested         Final rule;           76 FR 30758-30780
                                     cockatoo.              threatened with
                                                            special rule.
06/02/2011........................  Straight-horned        90-day finding;       76 FR 31903-31906
                                     markhor.               initiation of
                                                            status review.
08/09/2011........................  Crimson shining        Status review; not    76 FR 49202-49236
                                     parrot.                warranted.
08/09/2011........................  Philippine cockatoo..  Proposed rule;        76 FR 49202-49236
                                                            endangered.
08/09/2011........................  Yellow-crested         Proposed rule;        76 FR 49202-49236
                                     cockatoo.              endangered.
08/09/2011........................  White cockatoo.......  Proposed rule;        76 FR 49202-49236
                                                            threatened with
                                                            special rule.
08/11/2011........................  Six Eurasian birds...  Final rule;           76 FR 50052-50080
                                                            endangered
                                                            throughout their
                                                            range.
09/01/2011........................  Chimpanzee...........  Petition finding;     76 FR 54423-54425
                                                            initiation of
                                                            status review.
10/11/2011........................  Yellow-billed parrot.  Proposed rule;        76 FR 62740-62754
                                                            threatened with
                                                            special rule.
10/12/2011........................  Two South American     Status review; not    76 FR 63480-63508
                                     parrot species.        warranted.
01/05/2012........................  Broad-snouted caiman.  Proposed rule;        77 FR 666-697
                                                            downlisting.
05/03/2012........................  Wood bison...........  Final rule;           77 FR 26191-26212
                                                            downlisting.
05/23/2012........................  Morelet's crocodile..  Final rule;           77 FR 30820-30854
                                                            delisting.
07/06/2012........................  Military and great     Proposed rule;        77 FR 40172-40219
                                     green macaw.           endangered.
07/06/2012........................  Hyacinth macaw.......  Proposed rule;        77 FR 39965-39983
                                                            endangered.
07/06/2012........................  Scarlet macaw........  Proposed rule;        77 FR 40222-40247
                                                            endangered.
07/24/2012........................  Six Peruvian and       Final rule;           77 FR 43433-43467
                                     Bolivian bird          endangered.
                                     species.
08/07/2012........................  Markhor, straight-     Proposed rule;        77 FR 47011-47027
                                     horned.                downlisting with
                                                            special rule.
09/19/2012........................  Scimitar-horned......  90-day petition       77 FR 58084-58086
                                    oryx, dama gazelle,     finding.
                                     and addax.
11/27/2012........................  Lion, African........  90-day petition       77 FR 70727-70733
                                                            finding.
01/02/2013........................  Hummingbird, Honduran  Proposed listing      78 FR 59-72
                                     emerald.               determination.
01/10/2013........................  Macaw, blue-throated.  Proposed listing      78 FR 2239-2249
                                                            determination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24632]]

    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. 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 
2012 in the foreign species branch of 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, when possible, 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.

References Cited

    A list of the references used to develop this notice is available 
at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0044.

Authors

    This Notice of Review was primarily authored by Amy Brisendine and 
staff of the Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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 8, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09504 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P