# 72 FR 20184: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-7443

## Section

- **Citation:** 72 FR 20184
- **Heading:** Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 72 / 72 FR 20184

## Text

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 AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:
Review of findings on petitions.

SUMMARY:
In this review, we announce our annual petition findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, we must complete a new status review each year until we publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent status reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings are referred to as “resubmitted” petition findings.
Information contained in this review describes our status review of 56 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-precluded findings. Based on our review, we find that 50 species continue to warrant listing, but that their listing remains precluded by higher-priority listing actions (see Table 1). For six species previously found to be warranted but precluded, listing is now warranted. We will promptly publish a listing proposal for those six species.
With this review, we are requesting additional status information for the 50 species that remain warranted-but-precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted petition findings. This information will also help us to monitor the status of the taxa and in conserving them.

DATES:
We will accept comments on these resubmitted petition findings at any time.

ADDRESSES:
Submit any comments, information, and questions by mail to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N
isting documents and future resubmitted petition findings. This information will also help us to monitor the status of the taxa and in conserving them.

DATES:
We will accept comments on these resubmitted petition findings at any time.

ADDRESSES:
Submit any comments, information, and questions by mail to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203; by fax to 703-358-2276; or by e-mail to ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. Comments and supporting information will be available for public inspection, by appointment, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marie T. Maltese at the above address, or by telephone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail, ScientificAuthority@fws.gov ; or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. First, we can identify and propose for listing those species that are endangered or threatened based on the factors contained in section 4(a)(1). We implement this through the candidate program. Candidate taxa are those taxa for which we have sufficient information on file relating to biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list the taxa as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposed rule is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. None of the species covered by this review were assessed through the candidate program; they were the result of public petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), which is the other mechanism for considering species for listing
hreatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposed rule is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. None of the species covered by this review were assessed through the candidate program; they were the result of public petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), which is the other mechanism for considering species for listing. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive such a petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (90-day finding). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that 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, section 4(b)(5) and (6) 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 means that immediate publication of a proposed rule to list a species is precluded by higher-priority listing proposals, and expeditious progress is being made to add and remove species from the Lists, as appropriate.
Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in response to a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, we must make a new 12-month finding annually until we publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted
her-priority listing proposals, and expeditious progress is being made to add and remove species from the Lists, as appropriate.
Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act, when, in response to a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, we must make a new 12-month finding annually until we publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent 12-month findings are referred to as “resubmitted” petition findings. This notice contains our resubmitted petition findings for all foreign species that are currently the subject of outstanding petitions.
Previous Notices
The species discussed in this review were the result of three separate petitions submitted to the Service to list a number of foreign bird and butterfly species as threatened or endangered under the Act. We received petitions to list foreign bird species on November 28, 1980, and April 30, 1991 (46 FR 26464 and 56 FR 58664 respectively). On January 10, 1994, we received a petition to list 7 butterfly species as threatened or endangered (59 FR 24117).
We took several actions on these petitions, and to notify the public, we published earlier petition findings, status reviews, and petition finding reviews that included foreign species in the Federal Register on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464); January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485); May 10, 1985 (50 FR 19761); January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996); July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52747); January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554); November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664); March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14496); May 10, 1994 (59 FR 24117), and January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899). Our most recent review of petition findings was published on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354).
Since our last review of petition findings we have taken two listing actions related to this notice. On December 7, 2004, we published our 12-month finding on a petition to list seven foreign species of Swallowtail butterflies as threatened or endangered (69 FR 70580)
list of warranted-but-precluded-species. The Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, Galapagos petrel, and magenta petrel are all classified as Priority 2 species. The two other species are classified as Priority 8 (Cook's petrel) and Priority 11 (Heinroth's shearwater). Although these two species are not of the highest priority under our listing priority ranking system, all six species face similar threats. With a minimum amount of additional effort and additional resources, we can proceed with developing the proposed listing for these two species concurrent with developing the proposed listing rule for the other four members of this family. As noted in our 1983 Listing Priority Guidance (48 FR 43098), the listing priority system provides such flexibility. We will be able to consult the same experts for species information, and perhaps have them act in a peer review capacity, because the scientists are likely to be knowledgeable about multiple taxa within the Procellariidae. This efficient use of resources also will allow us to make more expeditious progress in taking action on the species whose listing has been found to be warranted but precluded.
The other reason we selected the Procellarids for our next listing proposal over the other Priority 2 species is because of the significance of the threats to the species. Procellarids are pelagic species and spend much of their lives on the wing at sea. The only time they spend any significant amount of time on land is to breed and rear young, and these species require specific islands for reproduction and rearing fledglings. Procellarids are long-lived species with low reproductive rates and juvenile mortality is often high due to predation by introduced mammalian species. As is common for all island nesting avian species, they are vulnerable to stochastic events, such as typhoons, which could result in rapid population declines or unforeseen species extinctions (Birdlife International 2006)
on and rearing fledglings. Procellarids are long-lived species with low reproductive rates and juvenile mortality is often high due to predation by introduced mammalian species. As is common for all island nesting avian species, they are vulnerable to stochastic events, such as typhoons, which could result in rapid population declines or unforeseen species extinctions (Birdlife International 2006).
Based on information gathered and assessed since May 21, 2004 and December 7, 2004, we have updated our determinations of whether listing of these taxa continues to be warranted or warranted but precluded, or whether listing is no longer warranted. See Table 1 for a summary of these current determinations. Taxa in Table 1 of this notice are assigned to two status categories, noted in the “categories” column at the left side of the table. We identify the taxa for which we continue to find that listing is warranted but precluded by a “C” in the category column. The other category is for those species for which we find that listing is warranted and designate these taxa with an “L.” For this notice, we have not determined that listing is no longer warranted for any species whose listing was previously found to be warranted but precluded. The column labeled “Priority” indicates the listing priority number (LPN) for all warranted or warranted-but-precluded taxa. We assign the LPN based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as taxonomic status. A complete description of our listing priority system was published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). 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 historical range for the taxon. The avian species in Table 1 are listed taxonomically
as taxonomic status. A complete description of our listing priority system was published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). 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 historical range for the taxon. The avian species in Table 1 are listed taxonomically.
Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted
Birds
We will promptly prepare listing proposals for the Fiji petrel ( Pterodroma macgillivrayi ), the Chatham petrel ( Pterodroma axillaris ), Cook's petrel ( Pterodroma cookii ), the Galapagos petrel ( Pterodroma phaeopygia ), the magenta petrel ( Pterodroma magentae ), and Heinroth's shearwater ( Puffinus heinrothi ). These species are birds in the Family Procellariidae.
Fiji petrel ( Pterodroma macgillivrayi )
The Fiji petrel is a marine species and presumably pelagic (del Hoyo et al. 1992). It was originally known from just one specimen collected in 1855 on Gau Island and more recently from eight records of sightings on the island since 1983 (BirdLife International 2000). The only other record is a reported sighting at sea over 200 km north of Gau (Watling 2000, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). The Fiji petrel's breeding grounds have not been discovered, but may be located in areas of undisturbed mature forest, on rocky, mountainous ground, or in the cloud forest highlands of Gau Island (del Hoyo et al. 1992, Rare 2006). The species is classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN because it is inferred, given the paucity of recent records, that there is only a tiny population confined to an extremely small breeding area (IUCN 2006). The population is estimated at fewer than 50 individuals and is assumed to be declining because of predation by feral cats which are believed to prey upon nestling and fledgling petrels
species is classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN because it is inferred, given the paucity of recent records, that there is only a tiny population confined to an extremely small breeding area (IUCN 2006). The population is estimated at fewer than 50 individuals and is assumed to be declining because of predation by feral cats which are believed to prey upon nestling and fledgling petrels. The reduction in juvenile survival rates and declines in recruitment are believed to threaten the species' long-term survival (BirdLife International 2000). Very little is known about the species and its life history. It is protected under Fijian law, and priorities for the species include conducting surveys on Gau and other islands with suitable habitat and reinforcing existing community awareness (BirdLife International 2000). With the goal of strengthening community awareness in mind, from 2002-2004, a local conservationist on Gau Island, Milika Rati, conducted the Pride campaign (Rare 2006). Ms. Rati chose the Fiji petrel as the flagship mascot for the Pride campaign and used a series of high-profile activities to raise awareness of the plight of the endangered Fiji petrel. During the late stages of the campaign there was finally a confirmed sighting of a Fiji petrel (Rare 2006). A survey conducted at the close of the campaign found that 99 percent of participants thought natural resource protection was important and 94 percent knew that the Fiji petrel is threatened with extinction. The chiefs of all 16 villages on the island signed a formal agreement supporting the creation of a bird sanctuary on the island for the species (Rare 2006). The Australian Regional National Heritage Programme continues to fund the Pride campaign on Gau Island
nt of participants thought natural resource protection was important and 94 percent knew that the Fiji petrel is threatened with extinction. The chiefs of all 16 villages on the island signed a formal agreement supporting the creation of a bird sanctuary on the island for the species (Rare 2006). The Australian Regional National Heritage Programme continues to fund the Pride campaign on Gau Island. The Wildlife Conservation Society, BirdLife International, and the National Trust of Fiji Islands are collaborating to follow
The importance of raising public awareness of the species' threats and the recognition of the value of natural resource protection are intrinsic measures that are invaluable for species such as the Fiji petrel. Although resource economists frequently struggle to assign such intangible measures a monetary value, we recognize their importance and value in furthering the protection and conservation of threatened and endangered species. Creation of the bird sanctuary is an important initial step to preserve essential habitat for the Fiji petrel and the awareness of the value of natural resource protection should help to alleviate any future man-made threats. Public awareness alone cannot address population declines, the genetic effects of small populations, or stochastic events that can destroy an entire population during a single incident. However, the Fijian Pride campaign has united the island's efforts to preserve the Fiji petrel and its habitat; therefore, it is anticipated that current and potential measures will help to reduce the threats to the species as the campaign continues to broaden in scope.
The Fiji petrel does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threat to the species is high due to the species' small population size which has continued to decrease since our previous notice, and the immediacy of threat is imminent due to continued predation by feral cats. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 2
threats to the species as the campaign continues to broaden in scope.
The Fiji petrel does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threat to the species is high due to the species' small population size which has continued to decrease since our previous notice, and the immediacy of threat is imminent due to continued predation by feral cats. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 2.
Chatham petrel ( Pterodroma axillaris ; Previously Referred to as Pterodroma hypoleuca axillaris )
The Chatham petrel is found only on South East Island (Rangatira) in the Chatham Islands of New Zealand (BirdLife International 2006). It is marine and presumably pelagic, and breeds on coastal lowlands and slopes in areas with low forest, bracken, or rank grass (del Hoyo et al. 1992). It nests in burrows amongst low vegetation and roots on flat to moderately sloping ground (Marchant and Higgins 1990). This species is classified as Critically Endangered by IUCN because it is restricted to South East Island and inferred to be continuing to decline due to competition from other native burrowing seabirds (IUCN 2006). The population estimate for this species is 800-1,000 birds with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2000). There is intense competition for burrows on South East Island with the abundant broad-billed prion ( Pachyptila vittata ), which may be the cause of low breeding success and the high rate of pair bond disruption (BirdLife International 2000). As a conservation measure, artificial nest sites have been provided, and burrows have been blocked to prevent occupation by P. vittata (BirdLife International 2000). Although these actions have greatly improved breeding success, only a small proportion of breeding burrows have been located (Taylor 2000).
This species does not represent a monotypic genus. It has a restricted range and its population is declining. The threat to the species is high and imminent because the threats are currently ongoing
ent occupation by P. vittata (BirdLife International 2000). Although these actions have greatly improved breeding success, only a small proportion of breeding burrows have been located (Taylor 2000).
This species does not represent a monotypic genus. It has a restricted range and its population is declining. The threat to the species is high and imminent because the threats are currently ongoing. Therefore, this species receives a priority rank of 2.
Cook's petrel ( Pterodroma cookii )
Cook's petrel is endemic to New Zealand. It is marine and highly pelagic in temperate and subtropical waters, and rarely approaches land except for nesting (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Cook's petrel breeds on three islands: Little Barrier, Great Barrier, and Codfish Islands (del Hoyo et al. 1992), and occupies thickly forested high ridges and slopes, up to 700 m above sea level (BirdLife International 2000). This species is classified as Endangered by IUCN because it has a very small breeding range, and population numbers are decreasing (IUCN 2006). Furthermore, there is a danger that the Great Barrier Island population may soon be extirpated because only four nest burrows have been located in recent years and it is estimated that fewer than 20 pairs inhabit the island for breeding purposes (BirdLife International 2006). The population estimate for this species is 150,000-200,000 birds (BirdLife International 2006). Threats to the species are predominantly from invasive predator species such as feral cats, black rats ( Rattus rattus ), Pacific rats ( R. exulans ), and the weka ( Gallirallus australis ), which are major predators of adults and chicks (Heather and Robertson 1997; Taylor 2000). By 1980, feral cats were eradicated from Little Barrier Island, and wekas were eradicated from Codfish Island between 1980 and 1985 (Taylor 2000). Pacific rats were successfully eradicated from Codfish Island in August 1998, and an eradication program on Little Barrier Island has been proposed (Conservation News 2002)
major predators of adults and chicks (Heather and Robertson 1997; Taylor 2000). By 1980, feral cats were eradicated from Little Barrier Island, and wekas were eradicated from Codfish Island between 1980 and 1985 (Taylor 2000). Pacific rats were successfully eradicated from Codfish Island in August 1998, and an eradication program on Little Barrier Island has been proposed (Conservation News 2002).
This species does not represent a monotypic genus, and has a fairly large population size; however, the population is decreasing. Primary threats to the species are a limited breeding range and predation by introduced species. Loss of the Great Barrier Island population would lessen the overall species' range and distribution by one-third. The unique contributions of the Great Barrier Island population's gene pool would no longer be available to the species.
Although the threat of predation by introduced species has been reduced by targeted eradication programs, these programs are not completely successful and must be adequately funded to continue as a protective measure for the petrels. Finally, as is common for all island species, is concern for their vulnerability to stochastic events, such as typhoons, which could result in rapid population declines or extinction of the species.
Therefore, although the threat to the species is moderate due to the current large population estimate, it is imminent because the population is decreasing, an important segment of the population is likely to become extinct in the near future, and the threat from predation remains. We assigned this species a priority ranking of 8.
Galapagos petrel ( Pterodroma phaeopygia ; previously referred to as Pterodroma phaeopygia phaeopygia )
The Galapagos petrel is a pelagic marine bird endemic to the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (BirdLife International 2006). It breeds on Santa Cruz, Floreana, Santiago, San Cristobal, Isabela, and possibly other islands in the Galapagos archipelago (Cruz and Cruz 1987; H. Vargas and F. Cruz in litt
Galapagos petrel ( Pterodroma phaeopygia ; previously referred to as Pterodroma phaeopygia phaeopygia )
The Galapagos petrel is a pelagic marine bird endemic to the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (BirdLife International 2006). It breeds on Santa Cruz, Floreana, Santiago, San Cristobal, Isabela, and possibly other islands in the Galapagos archipelago (Cruz and Cruz 1987; H. Vargas and F. Cruz in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). This species is classified as Critically Endangered by IUCN because of its continuing history of declines (IUCN 2002). In the early 1980s, Galapagos petrel populations underwent extremely rapid declines; estimates of population declines are as high as 81 percent in 4 years, and it is likely to have declined by more than 80 percent in the last 60 years (three generations) (IUCN 2002). The total population estimate for this species is 20,000-60,000 birds with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2000). Threats to survival include introduced dogs, feral cats, and pigs, which take eggs, young, and adults; black rats and brown rats ( R. norvegicus ), which take eggs and chicks; nest-site destruction by goats, donkeys, cattle, and horses; and predation by Galapagos hawks ( Buteo galapagoensis ) (Cruz and Cruz 1987; Cruz and Cruz 1996). Predator control and petrel monitoring programs are currently in place on Floreana, Santa Cruz, and Santiago Islands (H. Vargus and F. Cruz in litt. 2000, as cited in BirdLife
This species does not represent a monotypic genus, but it is declining and has persistent threats that are high in magnitude, such as nest predation by feral animals. This and other threats are imminent because they are ongoing; for instance, loss of breeding habitat that has been cleared for agricultural purposes is a threat that is nearly impossible to resolve. Therefore, this species receives a priority rank of 2.
Magenta petrel ( Pterodroma magentae )
The magenta petrel is known from Chatham Island, New Zealand
, such as nest predation by feral animals. This and other threats are imminent because they are ongoing; for instance, loss of breeding habitat that has been cleared for agricultural purposes is a threat that is nearly impossible to resolve. Therefore, this species receives a priority rank of 2.
Magenta petrel ( Pterodroma magentae )
The magenta petrel is known from Chatham Island, New Zealand. It breeds in a fragmented colony under dense forest, is a marine bird species, and presumably pelagic (BirdLife International 2000, del Hoyo et al. 1992). The magenta petrel was rediscovered in 1978 after 10 years of intensive searching (Crockett 1994, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). This species is listed as Critically Endangered by IUCN because it has undergone an historic decline that is assumed to be greater than 80 percent in 60 years, it has a very small population, and it is restricted to one extremely small location (IUCN 2002). The population is estimated to number 100-150 individuals. It is possible that the species' long-term decline may have begun to stabilize, but it is premature to assume that there is not a continuing decline until this information is verified (BirdLife International 2000). The species is predominantly threatened by introduced species that prey upon eggs, chicks, and adults for food; compete for burrows, or destroy nesting sites (BirdLife International 2000).
The magenta petrel does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threat to the species is high due to its historic rapid decline, the current estimate of a very small population, and a single, small breeding location. These threats render the species highly vulnerable to extirpation during a single stochastic event. The magnitude is imminent because the threats are ongoing, and there is very little information available about the species' current population dynamics. It therefore receives a priority rank of 2
rapid decline, the current estimate of a very small population, and a single, small breeding location. These threats render the species highly vulnerable to extirpation during a single stochastic event. The magnitude is imminent because the threats are ongoing, and there is very little information available about the species' current population dynamics. It therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Heinroth's shearwater ( Puffinus heinrothi )
The Heinroth's shearwater is known from the Bismarck Archipelago, around Bougainville in Papua New Guinea, and Kolombangara in the Solomon Islands (Buckingham et.al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). It is a marine bird species, and presumably pelagic (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The Heinroth's shearwater is believed to breed on high, inaccessible mountains. Introduced rats, feral cats and dogs are considered potential threats to the species. BirdLife International has identified a number of target conservation actions for the species including: demographic surveys and an assessment of the presence of introduced mammals on potential breeding grounds (BirdLife International 2000). The Heinroth's shearwater is categorized as Vulnerable by the IUCN because it is believed to have a very small population and breeding range (IUCN 2002). The population estimate for this species is 250-999 birds with an unknown population trend (BirdLife International 2000). There is no substantial evidence of a decline (IUCN 2002).
Heinroth's shearwater does not represent a monotypic genus. There is no substantial evidence of a population decline; however, because of its small population size it faces threats that are moderate and non-imminent. This species was designated a priority rank of 11
99 birds with an unknown population trend (BirdLife International 2000). There is no substantial evidence of a decline (IUCN 2002).
Heinroth's shearwater does not represent a monotypic genus. There is no substantial evidence of a population decline; however, because of its small population size it faces threats that are moderate and non-imminent. This species was designated a priority rank of 11.
Findings on Species for Which Listing Is Warranted but Precluded
We have found that, for the following 50 bird species, issuance of proposed listing rules, even for species with the highest listing priority numbers, will continue to be precluded over the next year due to the need to complete pending proposals to determine if other species are threatened or endangered. We will continue to monitor the status of these species as new information becomes available. Our review of new information will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency list any species or change the LPN of any of the species.
As explained in the previous section, one of our highest priorities in the coming year is to prepare proposed listing rules for the six species of Procellarids. Over the next year the issuance of additional proposed listing rules will also be precluded due to the need to work on the following listing actions. We will be working on a final listing determination for the six foreign bird species that we proposed for listing on November 23, 2006. Reaching a final decision on this proposed rule is consistent with the statutory deadlines under section 4(b)(5) and is a high priority that takes precedence over proposed listings for additional warranted-but-precluded species.
A foreign government has petitioned us to delist a species that is under its jurisdiction and is listed under the Act. Mexico submitted a petition to delist the Morelet's crocodile ( Crocodylus moreletii )
oposed rule is consistent with the statutory deadlines under section 4(b)(5) and is a high priority that takes precedence over proposed listings for additional warranted-but-precluded species.
A foreign government has petitioned us to delist a species that is under its jurisdiction and is listed under the Act. Mexico submitted a petition to delist the Morelet's crocodile ( Crocodylus moreletii ). The Morelet's crocodile petition was submitted by the Mexican government through the National Commission for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), and was received by the Service on May 26, 2005. A 90-day finding was published on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36743) finding that the petitioned action may be warranted. The 12-month review is currently in progress and we must complete work on this petition consistent with our responsibilities under section 4(b)(3) of the Act.
We are also in the process of making a final determination on whether to delist the Mexican bobcat ( Lynx rufus escuinapae ). The United States, with support from Mexico and other countries, proposed to transfer the Mexican bobcat from Appendix I to Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), based on the bobcat's widespread and stable status in Mexico and the questionable taxonomy of the subspecies. The U.S. proposal was accepted and the change went into effect on November 6, 1992. On July 8, 1996, we received a petition from the National Trappers Association, Inc. to delist the Mexican bobcat. Our 12-month finding and proposed rule were published on May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28895). Under section 4(b)(6) of the Act, we have a statutory responsibility to complete this rule-making process.
We are also making a final determination on whether to delist the scarlet-chested parakeet ( Neophema splendida ) and the turquoise parakeet ( Neophema pulchella )
iation, Inc. to delist the Mexican bobcat. Our 12-month finding and proposed rule were published on May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28895). Under section 4(b)(6) of the Act, we have a statutory responsibility to complete this rule-making process.
We are also making a final determination on whether to delist the scarlet-chested parakeet ( Neophema splendida ) and the turquoise parakeet ( Neophema pulchella ). On September 22, 2000, we announced a review of all endangered and threatened foreign species in the Order Psittaciformes as part of a 5-year review under section 4(c)(2) of the Act (65 FR 57363). One commenter suggested we consider these two species for delisting. The individual
On January 4, 2005, we received a petition from 14 county officials representing 13 western States to list the Northern snakehead fish ( Channa argus ) as threatened or endangered under the Act, and further, to designate the Chesapeake Bay region as critical habitat. On March 5, 2005, we received a petition from a private individual to de-list the tiger ( Panthera tigris ). We have a statutory responsibility under section 4(b)(3) of the Act to process these petitions.
On November 29, 2006, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list 12 species of penguins as threatened or endangered under the Act. The petitioned species include the emperor penguin ( Aptenodytes forsteri ) as threatened; Southern rockhopper penguin ( Eudyptes chrysocome ) as threatened; Northern rockhopper penguin ( Eudyptes moseleyi ) as endangered; Fiordland crested penguin ( Eudyptes pachyrhynchus ) as endangered; snares crested penguin ( Eudyptes robustus ) as threatened; erect-crested penguin ( Eudyptes sclateri ) as endangered; macaroni penguin ( Eudyptes chrysolophus ) as threatened, or, if not listed as threatened, CBD requested that we consider the South Georgia and Marion populations as Distinct Population Segments, or as a “significant portion” of the species range; royal penguin ( Eudyptes schlegeli ) as threatened; white-flippe
es robustus ) as threatened; erect-crested penguin ( Eudyptes sclateri ) as endangered; macaroni penguin ( Eudyptes chrysolophus ) as threatened, or, if not listed as threatened, CBD requested that we consider the South Georgia and Marion populations as Distinct Population Segments, or as a “significant portion” of the species range; royal penguin ( Eudyptes schlegeli ) as threatened; white-flippered penguin ( Eudyptula albosignata ) as endangered; yellow-eyed penguin ( Megadyptes antipodes ) as endangered; African penguin ( Spheniscus demersus ) as endangered; and Humboldt penguin ( Spheniscus humboldti ) as endangered. We have a statutory responsibility under section 4(b)(3) of the Act to process this petition and are preparing our 90-day petition finding.
In addition to these listing actions, we are also currently preparing a 5-year notice of review of all foreign-listed wildlife species as required under section 4(c)(2) of the Act. During the coming year, we will also be working on the 2008 ANOR, which sets priorities for the next set of listing actions. Using our best efforts to meet our statutory responsibilities under the Act is a high priority.
Our ability to complete determinations on whether any species is endangered or threatened is also a function of available resources. The number of species' proposals pending, and the rate at which we can process proposals and add more proposals, depends on the staff resources available. Listing of foreign species under the Act is carried out by a different Service program than the domestic Endangered Species program. The Division of Scientific Authority (DSA), within the Service's International Affairs program, is solely responsible for the development of all listing proposals for foreign species and promulgation of final rules, whether internally-driven or as the result of a citizen petition. Unlike the Service's domestic Endangered Species program, DSA does not have specific branch or field offices for endangered species functions
fic Authority (DSA), within the Service's International Affairs program, is solely responsible for the development of all listing proposals for foreign species and promulgation of final rules, whether internally-driven or as the result of a citizen petition. Unlike the Service's domestic Endangered Species program, DSA does not have specific branch or field offices for endangered species functions. The DSA program consists of a Division Chief, a Branch Chief, two botanists, and three zoologists, when fully staffed. As of September 2005, DSA had one zoologist position vacant, and the Branch Chief position was vacant for most of 2006. Both positions were finally filled in August, 2006. We dedicate over 50 percent of our existing staff resources to foreign endangered species listing activities, including processing petitions, preparation of the ANOR, and listing species which have been designated as warranted.
In determining the resources available for listing actions under the Act, we must also balance these needs with the resources needed for completing the other non-discretionary activities that are the responsibility of DSA staff and that are funded under the International Wildlife Trade budget component of the International Affairs program. This budget is used for not only the ESA foreign listing activities, but also issuing permits under the Act, mandatory activities for U.S. implementation of CITES, implementing the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, certain permitting provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and parts of the Pelly Amendment (Section 8 of the Fisherman's Protective Act).
The United States is a party to CITES; and has the responsibility under the Treaty to implement and enforce its provisions (see Article VIII, paragraph 1). CITES regulates and monitors listed species in trade through a system of permits. Species are listed based on the level of threat to the species and that species' need for conservation in international trade
f the Fisherman's Protective Act).
The United States is a party to CITES; and has the responsibility under the Treaty to implement and enforce its provisions (see Article VIII, paragraph 1). CITES regulates and monitors listed species in trade through a system of permits. Species are listed based on the level of threat to the species and that species' need for conservation in international trade. Section 8A of the Act designates the Service, through its Scientific Authority and Management Authority, to carry out the United States' CITES responsibilities. As required under Articles III and IV of CITES, the DSA staff is responsible for reviewing and making non-detriment findings for permits for the export of species listed in Appendix-I and Appendix-II of CITES , and the import of Appendix-I species. In 2004, DSA either provided written non-detriment findings or written non-detriment advice for approximately 3,192 permits that were issued by the Service's Division of Management Authority (DMA). In 2005, that number had increased to approximately 5,854 issued permits. These figures do not include the number of non-detriment findings made for permit applications that were denied, abandoned, or withdrawn. DSA's other CITES responsibilities include proposing species for listing or delisting at the biennial meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) (see Article XI), and participating in the CITES Plants and Animals Committee meetings, between each CoP, for the dissemination of biological information and other Treaty business.
The Division of Management Authority (DMA), which also operates under the International Wildlife Trade budget, is responsible for issuing permits under the Act, other ESA activities such as conducting section 7 consultations, certain permitting provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, issuing Injurious Wildlife permits under the Lacey Act, and implementing parts of the Pelly Amendment (section 8 of the Fisherman's Protective Act). DMA also manages CITES implementation obligations
dlife Trade budget, is responsible for issuing permits under the Act, other ESA activities such as conducting section 7 consultations, certain permitting provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, issuing Injurious Wildlife permits under the Lacey Act, and implementing parts of the Pelly Amendment (section 8 of the Fisherman's Protective Act). DMA also manages CITES implementation obligations. DMA and DSA share responsibilities for implementation of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. Therefore, the resources available for ESA listing actions for foreign species is limited by these competing non-discretionary activities funded from the International Wildlife Trade budget. If additional resources become available, it will be our highest priority in the coming year to prepare proposed listing rules for additional priority 2 warranted-but-precluded species.
Birds
Junin flightless grebe ( Podiceps taczanowskii )
The Junin flightless grebe is found only at Lake Junin, which is located 4,080 m above sea level in central Peru (Fjeldså 1981, as cited in O'Donnell and Fjedså 1997). The lake covers approximately 14,320 hectares bordered by extensive reed marshes and reaches a depth of 10 m at the center. The reed marshes are continuous in some areas of the lake shore, but they also form a mosaic with stretches of open water in Chara spp.) (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The Junin grebe prefers open lake habitat and remains in the center of the lake when it is not breeding. During the breeding season, however, it nests in areas of tall Scirpus californicus tatora or bays and channels along the outer edge of the 2-5 km-wide reed marshes surrounding the lake (O'Donnel and Fjedså 1997). The Junin grebe feeds predominantly on fish ( Orestias spp.), which constitute approximately 90% of its diet (del Hoyo et al. 1992).
The Junin grebe experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th Century
season, however, it nests in areas of tall Scirpus californicus tatora or bays and channels along the outer edge of the 2-5 km-wide reed marshes surrounding the lake (O'Donnel and Fjedså 1997). The Junin grebe feeds predominantly on fish ( Orestias spp.), which constitute approximately 90% of its diet (del Hoyo et al. 1992).
The Junin grebe experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th Century. The species was considered abundant in 1938, and common in 1961, with population estimates of several thousand birds (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Current population estimates for the Junin grebe range between 50 and 249 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2006). As a result of the species' decline, and because it is endemic to a single Andean lake, the Junin grebe qualifies as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006). Current population numbers have been known to fluctuate considerably from year to year. Population fluctuations are believed to be tied to relatively unstable climatic conditions recently linked to El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, with population numbers lowest during dry years. Although the species appears able to recover in good years, it remains unclear whether this process can be sustained, particularly in the face of other, continuing threats (IUCN 2006). The original decline of this species was brought about by declines in water quality of Lake Junin due to local mining activities and variations in water levels of up to 7 m, which are linked to electrical power generation by a local hydroelectric power station. The water level draw-downs reduced nesting and foraging areas (BirdLife International 2000), and in 1969, the vegetation of Lake Junin appeared to be dyed yellow with breakdown products of sulphuric acids and toxic fumes from a copper mine (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Of less significance, perhaps, was the introduction of non-native trout species in the 1930s, which have replaced native fish species
n. The water level draw-downs reduced nesting and foraging areas (BirdLife International 2000), and in 1969, the vegetation of Lake Junin appeared to be dyed yellow with breakdown products of sulphuric acids and toxic fumes from a copper mine (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Of less significance, perhaps, was the introduction of non-native trout species in the 1930s, which have replaced native fish species. Since 1975, several conservation measures have been implemented; Lake Junin was declared a protected reserve, and the Peruvian Government nationalized the mines of Cerro del Pasco in an attempt to prevent pollution by the mine (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Since that time, however, there has been rapid expansion of the mine, and no available information to indicate that pollution controls have been put in place (Mbendi 2007).
The Junin flightless grebe does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude, such as oscillations in ENSO conditions which can cause environmental conditions that are harmful to the species; and imminent because the declines in water quality are ongoing, and possibly increasing, as the result of increased production at the Cerro del Pasco mine. It therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Greater adjutant stork ( Leptoptilos dubius )
The greater adjutant stork was previously widespread and common, and found in much of South and Southeast Asia, from Pakistan through northern India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, to Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Viet Nam, and Cambodia (BirdLife International 2006). However, during the 20th Century the species experienced a rapid decline, and currently the population estimate is 800-1,000 birds (BirdLife International 2006). Only two very small and highly disjunct breeding populations remain: one in Assam, India (Saikia and Bhattacharjee 1989, as cited in BirdLife International 2006), the other in Cambodia (Mundkur et al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2006)
during the 20th Century the species experienced a rapid decline, and currently the population estimate is 800-1,000 birds (BirdLife International 2006). Only two very small and highly disjunct breeding populations remain: one in Assam, India (Saikia and Bhattacharjee 1989, as cited in BirdLife International 2006), the other in Cambodia (Mundkur et al. 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). During the 19th century, there were vast colonies of millions of greater adjutant storks in Burma, and del Hoyo et al. (1992) noted that in Calcutta there was “almost one [stork] on every roof.” The greater adjutant stork frequents marshes, lakes, paddy fields, and open forest, and may also be found in dry areas, such as grasslands and fields. It is commonly found feeding at carcasses and rubbish dumps at the edges of towns (BirdLife International 2006).
The greater adjutant stork is classified as Endangered by the IUCN (IUCN 2006). Major threats to the species include direct exploitation, such as hunting and egg collection from nesting colonies; habitat destruction, particularly lowland deforestation and the felling of nest trees; and drainage, agricultural conversion, pollution, and over-exploitation of wetlands. The Assam population is considered threatened by the loss of a readily available food source, due to the reduced number of open rubbish dumps for the disposal of carcasses and foodstuffs (BirdLife International 2006).
The greater adjutant stork does not represent a monotypic genus, but it faces threats that are high in magnitude and imminent because they are ongoing and likely to remain so. Conversion of the species' habitat for agricultural purposes is not likely to cease; nor will the land, once cleared, be allowed to revert back to the wild habitat which is optimal for the storks. The loss of nesting trees lessens the number of available sites for nesting, mating, and recruitment of young to the population
in magnitude and imminent because they are ongoing and likely to remain so. Conversion of the species' habitat for agricultural purposes is not likely to cease; nor will the land, once cleared, be allowed to revert back to the wild habitat which is optimal for the storks. The loss of nesting trees lessens the number of available sites for nesting, mating, and recruitment of young to the population. Drainage of wetlands to be used for cultivation further impacts the stork's habitat needs, forcing the birds into inferior habitat which increases the threats to the species survival. It therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Andean flamingo ( Phoenicopterus andinus )
The Andean flamingo is restricted to high-altitude salt lakes in the Andes, mainly between 3,500 and 4,500 m, from southern Peru through Bolivia to northern Chile and northwestern Argentina (del Hoyo et al. 1992). Population assessments for this species vary greatly, but it is believed that 50,000-100,000 individuals existed until the mid-1980s (Rocha and Quiroga 1997, as cited in BirdlLife International 2006). Commercial egg collection for food was intensive during the mid-20th Century and again in the early 1980s, with estimates of thousands of eggs being taken annually. Unfavorable water levels resulting from weather and human manipulation, mining activities, erosion of nest sites, and human disturbance are other factors that are affecting productivity. In 1997, the entire population was estimated at 34,000 individuals, indicating that the species had experienced a rapid population decline in less than 20 years (BirdlLife International 2006). Very low breeding success has been reported for this species (Flamingo Action Plan Questionnaire 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2006), and population declines may continue unabated for many years without an accurate understanding of the extent of decline because of the extensive longevity of the species (del Hoyo 1992, as cited in BirdLife International 2006)
rdlLife International 2006). Very low breeding success has been reported for this species (Flamingo Action Plan Questionnaire 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2006), and population declines may continue unabated for many years without an accurate understanding of the extent of decline because of the extensive longevity of the species (del Hoyo 1992, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). It is also difficult to quantify the number of juvenile birds that survive to adulthood and successfully produce viable offspring. Due to the species' reproductive history, recruitment uncertainty, and the abiotic threats to the species, an assessment of the population decline and the need for conservation measures to protect the species are challenging.
The Andean flamingo is categorized as Vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 2006) and is also listed in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2006). Threats include ongoing exploitation of the species as a
The Andean flamingo does not represent a monotypic genus. The threats to the species are high in magnitude, such as weather-related water levels at nesting sites. The threats are imminent because they continue to occur. Exploitation, egg collection, mining activities, human disturbance, and reductions in the quality of the species' habitat are all threats that could be addressed at the local level to protect the species, yet are ongoing. This species therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Brazilian merganser ( Mergus octosetaceus )
The Brazilian merganser is found in extremely low numbers at a few, highly disjunct localities in south-central Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina (BirdLife International 2006). The species inhabits shallow clear-water streams and rapid rivers, preferably surrounded by dense tropical forests. It is believed to be a highly-sedentary species and presumably maintains its territory all year (del Hoyo et al. 1992)
nd in extremely low numbers at a few, highly disjunct localities in south-central Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina (BirdLife International 2006). The species inhabits shallow clear-water streams and rapid rivers, preferably surrounded by dense tropical forests. It is believed to be a highly-sedentary species and presumably maintains its territory all year (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The Brazilian merganser is a good swimmer and diver, and feeds primarily on fish, and occasionally on aquatic insects and snails (Collar et al. 1992).
Recent records from Brazil, and a newly discovered northern range extension, indicate that the status of this species is better than previously considered because several additional, highly disjunct populations were located in 2002 (BirdLife International 2006). However, the Brazilian merganser remains close to extinction and the IUCN categorizes the species as Critically Endangered (IUCN 2006). The population is estimated at 50-249 individuals and the trend is decreasing (BirdLife International 2006). Threats to the species include the perturbation and pollution of rivers, which are predominately the result of deforestation, agriculture, and diamond mining in the Serra da Canastra area (Bartmann 1994 and 1996, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Dam construction has destroyed suitable habitat, especially in Brazil and Paraguay. In Argentina, hunting and collecting specimens for exhibition are considered contributory factors to the species' decline (BirdLife International 2006). The Brazilian merganser is considered extirpated in Mato Grosso do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, and Santa Catarina (BirdLife International 2006). There is only one recent record of the species from Misiones, Argentina (Benstead 1994; Hearn 1994, as cited in Collar et al. 1994), and it was last recorded in Paraguay in 1984 (BirdLife International 2006). The species is legally protected in Brazil and it occurs in three Brazilian national parks (del Hoyo et al. 1992)
Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, and Santa Catarina (BirdLife International 2006). There is only one recent record of the species from Misiones, Argentina (Benstead 1994; Hearn 1994, as cited in Collar et al. 1994), and it was last recorded in Paraguay in 1984 (BirdLife International 2006). The species is legally protected in Brazil and it occurs in three Brazilian national parks (del Hoyo et al. 1992). The Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursons Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA) in Brazil has established eight committees to develop and monitor conservation strategies for specific endangered species, including the Brazilian merganser (Marinia and Garcia 2004).
This species does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude because the small populations are disjunct and geographically isolated, resulting in populations which are unable to exchange genetic material and, are therefore faced with the inbreeding depression common to small, endangered populations. Additionally, species with few remaining individuals are particularly vulnerable to stochastic events, such as large-scale storms that could eliminate the entire species at one time. The threats remain imminent because all of the factors contributing to the destruction of the merganser's habitat are ongoing and likely to be permanent. It therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Cauca guan ( Penelope perspicax )
The Cauca guan is endemic to the west slopes of the West and Central Andes (Risaralda, Quindio, Valle del Cauca, and Cauca), in Colombia (Collar et al. 1992). The stronghold for the species is the Ucumari Regional Park, Risaralda (BirdLife International 2006). The Cauca guan inhabits large, humid primary forests at 1,600-2,150 m (P.G.W. Salaman in litt. 1999 and 2000, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Individuals have also been located at lower elevations of 900-1,600 m on exotic broadleaf tree plantations, secondary forest, and forest edge (Silva Arias 1996, as cited in BirdLife International 2006)
Park, Risaralda (BirdLife International 2006). The Cauca guan inhabits large, humid primary forests at 1,600-2,150 m (P.G.W. Salaman in litt. 1999 and 2000, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Individuals have also been located at lower elevations of 900-1,600 m on exotic broadleaf tree plantations, secondary forest, and forest edge (Silva Arias 1996, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). The Cauca guan was considered fairly common at the beginning of the 20th Century, but severe habitat loss has had a major deleterious impact on the species (del Hoyo et al. 1994). Population estimates for the species have fallen from 1,000-2,499 individuals in 2000 (BirdLife International 2000), to a current estimate of 250-999 individuals, with a decreasing trend (BirdLife International 2006). The bird is hunted for food even in protected areas, except Ucumari (BirdLife International 2006). IUCN categorizes the species as Endangered because it has a small contracted range composed of widely fragmented patches of habitat, which are declining (IUCN 2006).
This species does not represent a monotypic genus. Habitat loss is the greatest threat to the guan, and this threat is high in magnitude and imminent because the guan now appears to be utilizing sub-optimal habitat as the result of continuing habitat destruction. The species is also hunted for food everywhere except Ucumari Regional Park. This species therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Southern helmeted curassow ( Pauxi unicornis )
The southern helmeted curassow is known from central Bolivia and central and eastern Peru, where it inhabits dense, humid, lower montane forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450-1,200 m (BirdLife International 2006). This species prefers nuts of the almendrillo tree ( Byrsonima wadsworthii ) as its major source of food. It also consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and insects (BirdLife International 2006)
is known from central Bolivia and central and eastern Peru, where it inhabits dense, humid, lower montane forest and adjacent evergreen forest at 450-1,200 m (BirdLife International 2006). This species prefers nuts of the almendrillo tree ( Byrsonima wadsworthii ) as its major source of food. It also consumes other nuts, seeds, fruit, soft plants, larvae, and insects (BirdLife International 2006). The southern helmeted curassow was previously classified as Vulnerable by IUCN; however, after further assessment, it was uplisted in 2005 to Endangered (IUCN 2006). The species is estimated to be declining very rapidly due to uncontrolled hunting and habitat destruction. It has a small range and is known from few locations in a narrow elevational band, which continues to be subject to habitat loss (IUCN 2006). The population is estimated at 10,000-19,999 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2006). Field surveys in portions of its range indicate gaps in species' distribution (BirdLife International 2006). The species is often hunted for meat and its casque, or horn (BirdLife International 2006), which is used to fashion native handicrafts (Cordier 1971, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). Other threats to the species include forest clearing for staple and export crops, road building, and rural
The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude as the population is fairly large; however, the population trend has been declining rapidly. The threats to the species are imminent and ongoing. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Blue-billed curassow ( Crax alberti )
The blue-billed curassow historically occurred in northern Colombia, from the base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta west to the Sinu Valley and south in Magdalena Valley to north Tolima (BirdLife International 2006). It inhabits humid forest up to 1,200 m, but is more common below 600 m (del Hoyo et al
going. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Blue-billed curassow ( Crax alberti )
The blue-billed curassow historically occurred in northern Colombia, from the base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta west to the Sinu Valley and south in Magdalena Valley to north Tolima (BirdLife International 2006). It inhabits humid forest up to 1,200 m, but is more common below 600 m (del Hoyo et al. 1994), where it feeds on fruit, shoots, invertebrates, and possibly carrion (BirdLife International 2006).
The blue-billed curassow is categorized as Critically Endangered by IUCN (IUCN 2006) and is listed in Appendix III of CITES by Colombia (CITES 2006). The species was uncommon in the Santa Marta region at the beginning of the 20th Century; it was perhaps most numerous in the humid lowlands of the north coast of Colombia (Todd and Carriker 1922, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). The blue-billed curassow was becoming increasingly rare during the 20th Century (Haffner 1975, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and by the 1980s, the species had disappeared from a large portion of its previous range (Estudillo Lopez 1986, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). In 1994, the population was estimated at 1,000-2,500 birds and local reports have indicated recent and rapid declines (BirdLife International 2006). The population trend for the species continues to be decreasing due to the substantial threats it faces (BirdLife International 2006). Earlier reports indicated that outside of a few forest patches bordering national parks, the species was nearly extinct (L.M. Renjifo, Z. Calle, D. Rodriguez personal communications, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 2000). However, additional sites which are believed to harbor the species have been identified in work supported by the World Pheasant Association International (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 2000)
ide of a few forest patches bordering national parks, the species was nearly extinct (L.M. Renjifo, Z. Calle, D. Rodriguez personal communications, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 2000). However, additional sites which are believed to harbor the species have been identified in work supported by the World Pheasant Association International (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 2000).
There is very little suitable foraging and nesting habitat remaining for use by the species after the rapid deforestation and logging that has occurred throughout its range. Additionally, oil extraction, gold mining, government defoliation of illegal drug crops, increased human encroachment, egg collecting, and hunting present serious threats to the survival of the blue-billed curassow, indicating it could undergo an extremely rapid population reduction over a very short time period (BirdLife International 2006). The blue-billed curassow is perhaps one of the most endangered species identified as an immediate conservation priority by the Cracid Specialist Group (Brooks and Strahl 2000). International trade in this bird may be an additional threat to survival of the species (J.V. Rodriguez personal communication, as cited in Brooks and Strahl 2000).
The blue-billed curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. The species faces significant threats that are high in magnitude. The curassow's habitat continues to be seriously degraded by processes and pollution associated with oil extraction, gold mining, and government defoliation of illegal drug crops. Increased human encroachment is resulting in the destruction of habitat as land is cleared for agricultural purposes. The species is further threatened by egg collecting and hunting, which continue unabated. The threats to the species are imminent and ongoing; extremely limited foraging and nesting habitat remains after the rapid deforestation of the area. Therefore it receives a priority rank of 2
ncreased human encroachment is resulting in the destruction of habitat as land is cleared for agricultural purposes. The species is further threatened by egg collecting and hunting, which continue unabated. The threats to the species are imminent and ongoing; extremely limited foraging and nesting habitat remains after the rapid deforestation of the area. Therefore it receives a priority rank of 2.
Cantabrian capercaillie ( Tetrao urogallus cantabricus )
The Cantabrian capercaillie inhabits the Cantabrian Mountains of northern Spain (Storch 2000). It occupies forest and woodland habitats that consist largely of coniferous species, particularly Pinus sylvestris , conifers from the Piscea and Abies genera, and isolated broad-leaved deciduous tree species (BirdLife International 2006). It prefers extensive areas of old-growth shady forest that include damp soil and interspersed bogs, areas of peat or glades, and a dense undergrowth of ericaceous plants (Garcia et al. 2004). The IUCN currently designates the species as Endangered (IUCN 2006). The population has been estimated at 250-300 adult males, equivalent to a total population size of fewer than 1,000, but it is more likely that only 600-750 birds currently exist (A. Lucio, personal communication, as cited by Storch 2000). The Cantabrian Capercaillie Specialist Group estimates that population numbers have declined by 25-50 percent over the past 10-15 years (Storch 2000). Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation related to forestry and tourism, illegal hunting, and disturbance by human outdoor activities have been identified as the major causes of species' and habitat decline (J. Castroviejo, personal communication, as cited by Storch 2000). Recent studies indicate that habitat fragmentation may have a greater effect on the species than previously recognized (Suárez-Seoane and García-Rovés 2004, Garcia et al. 2005, Quevedo et al. 2005a, and Quevedo et al. 2005b)
urbance by human outdoor activities have been identified as the major causes of species' and habitat decline (J. Castroviejo, personal communication, as cited by Storch 2000). Recent studies indicate that habitat fragmentation may have a greater effect on the species than previously recognized (Suárez-Seoane and García-Rovés 2004, Garcia et al. 2005, Quevedo et al. 2005a, and Quevedo et al. 2005b). There are concerns that the population, as compared to other grouse populations, exhibits very low values of allelic richness and heterozygosity which are commonly observed in endangered species. Combining such genetic factors with a high level of habitat fragmentation and consistent indications of low average fledging success suggests some degree of inbreeding depression may be affecting the population (Quevedo et al. 2005a).
This is a subspecies that faces threats that are high in magnitude due to the low number of individual animals, extensive habitat fragmentation, and very low allelic richness and heterozygosity values which are all negative survival factors for an already declining subspecies. The threats are imminent because habitat fragmentation, which this species is particularly vulnerable to, continues, and other man-made factors such as hunting, outdoor activities, and tourism are not likely to end in the near future. It receives a priority rank of 3.
Gorgeted wood-quail ( Odontophorus strophium )
The gorgeted wood-quail occurs on the west slope of the east Andes of Colombia in Santander and Cundinamarca (Collar et al. 1992). It is found on the forest floor of temperate and subtropical forests at 1,500-2,050 m, especially those dominated by Quercus humboldtii (del Hoyo et al. 1994). The gorgeted wood-quail is probably dependent on primary-growth forest for at least part of its life cycle, although it has also been found in degraded habitats and secondary-growth forest (BirdLife International 2006)
(Collar et al. 1992). It is found on the forest floor of temperate and subtropical forests at 1,500-2,050 m, especially those dominated by Quercus humboldtii (del Hoyo et al. 1994). The gorgeted wood-quail is probably dependent on primary-growth forest for at least part of its life cycle, although it has also been found in degraded habitats and secondary-growth forest (BirdLife International 2006). Since the 17th Century, the west slope of the East Andes has been extensively logged and converted to agriculture (Stiles et al. 1999). Forest habitat loss below 2,500 m has been almost complete (Stattersfield et al. 1998), with et al. 1999). The species is classified as Critically Endangered by IUCN because it has an extremely small and highly-fragmented range, with existing population records from only two locations. Hunting and logging are likely to be causing continued declines in population and range (IUCN 2006). Current population estimates range from 250 to 999 individuals and the remaining population trend is declining (BirdLife International 2006). Additionally, until 1923, the species was known only from Cundinamarca, but there have been no reports of the species from that area since 1954 (Wege and Long 1995, in BirdLife International 2006). It has been discovered in suitable habitat in several areas since 1970, and appears to be restricted to the larger oak forest remnants in the eastern Cordillera. Both remnants have decreased considerably in size during the previous two decades (J. Velasquez and N. Silva in litt. 2004, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). It is possible that less disturbed forests that have not been recently censused in west Boyaca and Santander may retain populations of the species (BirdLife International 2006). In November 1993, 100 km 2 of forest at Virolin was gazetted as a reserve, the Guanenta-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (Andrade and Repizzo 1994), which affords the species some protection from indiscriminate hunting (BirdLife International 2006)
forests that have not been recently censused in west Boyaca and Santander may retain populations of the species (BirdLife International 2006). In November 1993, 100 km 2 of forest at Virolin was gazetted as a reserve, the Guanenta-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (Andrade and Repizzo 1994), which affords the species some protection from indiscriminate hunting (BirdLife International 2006).
This species does not represent a monotypic genus. The threat to the species is high in magnitude because few individuals are interspersed over a very highly-fragmented range. The threats are imminent because hunting and forest clearing, which have serious impacts on the species, has been ongoing since the 17th Century and continues. It receives a priority rank of 2.
Junin rail ( Laterallus tuerosi )
The Junin rail is endemic to the Andean Highlands of central Peru along the shores of Lago de Junin (BirdLife International 2006). It is known from two sites on the southwest shore of the lake, but may occur in other portions of the approximately 150 km 2 of marsh surrounding the lake. The Junin rail inhabits rush marsh vegetation bordering the lake. Details regarding habitat preference are not fully known (Fjeldså 1983, as cited in Collar et al. 1992); however, the rail has been observed in mosaics of Juncus andecolus , mosses, and low herbs in open marsh landscapes (Fjeldså 1983, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). This species is classified as Endangered by the IUCN because it has a very small range of marshland around a single lake where habitat quality is declining (IUCN 2006). The population trend is decreasing and the current population estimate for this species is 1,000-2,499 birds (BirdLife International 2006). Since 1955, Lago de Junin has been affected by pollution and human-induced water level changes, which may be adversely affecting the fringe vegetation (J. Fjeldså 1987 personal communication, as cited in Collar et al. 1992)
at quality is declining (IUCN 2006). The population trend is decreasing and the current population estimate for this species is 1,000-2,499 birds (BirdLife International 2006). Since 1955, Lago de Junin has been affected by pollution and human-induced water level changes, which may be adversely affecting the fringe vegetation (J. Fjeldså 1987 personal communication, as cited in Collar et al. 1992). Reed marsh habitat has been destroyed due to frequent periods of desiccation resulting from drought conditions which may be linked to the ENSO, unsustainable water management by Electro Peru, and occasional flooding with highly acidic water from the Cerro de Pasco mines (J. Fjeldså in litt. to Taylor and van Perlo 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Although the lake is a national reserve, mining and dam-building activities persist along the lake shore, further altering the Junin rail's habitat.
The Junin rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude because the species lives along the shores of one lake, and is dependent on the declining quality of the lake's habitat. The threats are imminent because water level changes and management by Electro Peru are not made with the rail's needs in mind. Furthermore, Lago de Junin is subject to perturbations resulting from the presence of ENSO, which is ongoing and is a change that cannot be controlled by man. It therefore receives a priority rank of 2.
Bogota rail ( Rallus semiplumbeus )
The Bogota rail is found in the East Andes of Colombia on the Ubaté-Bogotá Plateau in Cundinamarca and Boyacá. It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (occasionally as low as 2,100 m) in savanna and páramo marshes (BirdLife International 2006). This rail frequents wetland habitats with vegetation-rich shallows that are surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes. It feeds along the water's edge, in flooded pasture land, and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Varty et al
inamarca and Boyacá. It occurs in the temperate zone, at 2,500-4,000 m (occasionally as low as 2,100 m) in savanna and páramo marshes (BirdLife International 2006). This rail frequents wetland habitats with vegetation-rich shallows that are surrounded by tall, dense reeds and bulrushes. It feeds along the water's edge, in flooded pasture land, and along small overgrown dykes and ponds (Varty et al. 1986; Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990 as cited in BirdLife International 2006). This species is omnivorous, consuming a diet that includes aquatic invertebrates, insect larvae, worms, molluscs, dead fish, frogs, tadpoles, and plant material (Varty et al. 1986; BirdLife International 2006).
The Bogota rail is listed as Endangered by IUCN primarily because its range is very small and is contracting owing to widespread habitat loss and degradation. Furthermore, available habitat has become widely fragmented (IUCN 2006). The current population is estimated to range between 1,000-2,499 individuals and the trend is decreasing (BirdLife International 2006). Although the Bogota rail is declining, it is still uncommon to fairly common, with some notable populations, including nearly 400 birds at Laguna de Tota, some 50 territories at Laguna de la Herrera, approximately 110 birds at Parque La Florida, and other populations at La Conejera marsh and Laguna de Fuquene (BirdLife International 2006). Some of the birds occur in protected areas such as Chingaza National Park and Carpanta Biological Reserve. However, most savanna wetlands are virtually unprotected.
The Bogota rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It is subject to threats that are moderate in magnitude and imminent. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Takahe ( Porphyrio hochstetteri; Previously Referred to as Porphyrio mantelli )
The takahe is endemic to New Zealand and is the world's largest extant member of the rail family (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli , has been split into P. mantelli (extinct) and P
t is subject to threats that are moderate in magnitude and imminent. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Takahe ( Porphyrio hochstetteri; Previously Referred to as Porphyrio mantelli )
The takahe is endemic to New Zealand and is the world's largest extant member of the rail family (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The species, Porphyrio mantelli , has been split into P. mantelli (extinct) and P. hochstetteri (extant) (Trewick 1996, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). BirdLife International (2000) incorrectly assigned the name P. mantelli to the extant form, while the name P. hochstetteri was incorrectly assigned to the extinct form. Fossils indicate that this bird was once widespread throughout the North and South Islands. However, when the species was rediscovered in 1948, it was confined to the Murchison Mountains in Fjordland (BirdLife International 2000). Originally, the species preferred forest and grass ecosystems; it is now limited to alpine tussock grasslands on the mainland and feeds primarily on juices from the bases of snow tussock and the rhizome of a fern species (BirdLife International 2006). The takahe is listed as Endangered by the IUCN because it has an extremely small population (IUCN 2006). The main cause of the species' decline has been competition for tussocks by grazing red deer, Cervus elaphus , which were introduced after the 1940s (BirdLife International 2006). Grazing also highly modified the habitat (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Predation by introduced stoats, Mustela erminea is Trichosurus vulpecula , and the threatened weka, Gallirallus australis (New Zealand Department of Conservation 1997). Since the 1980s, the population has fluctuated between 100-160 birds (Maxwell in press, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Populations have been established on four predator-free offshore islands—Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Matangi, and Maud-using birds that were translocated between 1984 and 1991 (BirdLife International 2006)
Gallirallus australis (New Zealand Department of Conservation 1997). Since the 1980s, the population has fluctuated between 100-160 birds (Maxwell in press, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Populations have been established on four predator-free offshore islands—Kapiti, Mana, Tiritiri Matangi, and Maud-using birds that were translocated between 1984 and 1991 (BirdLife International 2006). Red deer have been controlled in the Murchison Mountains since the 1960s (BirdLife International 2006). Overall, population numbers are slowly increasing due to intensive management of the island populations, but fluctuations in the remnant mainland population continue to occur (IUCN 2006). Captive-breeding efforts have increased the rate of survival to one year of age from 50 percent to 90 percent (BirdLife International 2006). However, Takahe that have been translocated to the islands have higher rates of egg infertility and low hatching success, contributing to the slow increase in the islands populations. Researchers postulated that the difference in vegetation between the native mainland grassland tussocks and that found on the islands might be affecting reproductive success. After testing nutrients from all available food sources, they concluded that there was no effect, and advised that a supplementary feeding program for the birds was not necessary or recommended (Jamieson 2003).
There are grave concerns about inbreeding effects within this small population. Jamieson (2006) suggests that limiting the potential effects of inbreeding and loss of genetic variation should be integral to any management plan for a small, isolated, highly-inbred island species, such as the takahe. Failure to address these concerns may result in reduced fitness potential and much higher susceptibility to biotic and abiotic disturbances in the short term and an inability to adapt to environmental change in the long term (Jamieson et al. 2006).
The takahe does not represent a monotypic genus
egral to any management plan for a small, isolated, highly-inbred island species, such as the takahe. Failure to address these concerns may result in reduced fitness potential and much higher susceptibility to biotic and abiotic disturbances in the short term and an inability to adapt to environmental change in the long term (Jamieson et al. 2006).
The takahe does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude and imminent. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 8.
Chatham oystercatcher ( Haematopus chathamensis )
The Chatham oystercatcher is endemic to the Chatham Islands, New Zealand (BirdLife International 2006). It prefers rocky shores, sand or gravel beaches, and nests in scrapes on the shore away from the waterline (F.A. Schmechel in litt. 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). This species is classified as Endangered by the IUCN because it has an extremely small population (IUCN 2006). In 1988, based on past productivity information, it was feared that the species was at risk of extinction within 50-70 years (Davis 1988, as cited in Schmechel and Paterson 2005). Although the population is now slowly increasing due to intervention and management of the species (the Chatham Island group), population sizes can fluctuate as the result of stochastic events, with numbers on one island undergoing a long term decline (IUCN 2006). The total population has increased from approximately 50 birds in the early 1970s to 100-110 birds during the breeding season of 1987-1988, which included 44 breeding pairs (del Hoyo et al. 1996). A census conducted in 1998 revealed 140-150 birds, which represented a significant increase in total population size (BirdLife International 2006). In 2004, 266 birds were counted on the four islands in the Chatham group, representing an estimated population size of 310-325 birds (Moore 2005, as cited in BirdLife International 2006)
87-1988, which included 44 breeding pairs (del Hoyo et al. 1996). A census conducted in 1998 revealed 140-150 birds, which represented a significant increase in total population size (BirdLife International 2006). In 2004, 266 birds were counted on the four islands in the Chatham group, representing an estimated population size of 310-325 birds (Moore 2005, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). However, the population on South East Island has gradually declined since the 1970s (Schmechel and O'Connor 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Introduced predators, as well as cattle and sheep, are a major threat on Pitt and Chatham Islands (B.D. Bell in litt. as cited in BirdLife International 2006). South East and Mangere Islands are free of mammalian predators, but oystercatcher populations are highly variable, and the reason for the decline occurring on South East Island is unknown (Schmechel and O'Connor 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). The birds of the Chatham Island group are protected due to human intervention and management. Nest manipulation, fencing, signage, intensive predator control, and a research program aimed at assessing the effects of predators, flooding, and management on breeding success have been underway for several years (BirdLife International 2006).
The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are moderate in magnitude and imminent, and therefore it receives a priority rank of 8.
Jerdon's courser ( Rhinoptilus bitorquatus ; previously referred to as Cursorius bitorquatus )
The Jerdon's courser is a rare local endemic in southern India, where it is principally found in the Eastern Ghats of southern Andhra Pradesh and extreme southern Madhya Pradesh (BirdLife International 2006). Historically, the species was also located in the Pennar and Godaveri River valleys (Ripley and Beehler 1989; Ali and Ripley 1968-1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2006)
itorquatus )
The Jerdon's courser is a rare local endemic in southern India, where it is principally found in the Eastern Ghats of southern Andhra Pradesh and extreme southern Madhya Pradesh (BirdLife International 2006). Historically, the species was also located in the Pennar and Godaveri River valleys (Ripley and Beehler 1989; Ali and Ripley 1968-1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). It prefers sparse, thorny areas dominated by Acacia , Zizyphus , and Carissa (BirdLife International 2006). The courser may also inhabit scrub-forest consisting of Cassia , Hardwickia , Dalbergia , Butea , and Anogeissus , interspersed with patches of bare ground, in gently undulating rocky foothills (BirdLife International 2006). Historically, the courser was known from just a few records and assumed to be extinct until 1986, when it was rediscovered around Lankamalai (BirdLife International 2006).
Jerdon's courser is listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN because it is a poorly-known species consisting of a single small, declining population (IUCN 2006). Threats include: exploitation of the scrub-forest, livestock grazing, disturbance by humans and livestock, and rock quarrying (IUCN 2006). Habitat modeling has shown that it is possible to ascertain an optimal level of grazing and woodcutting that would maintain or create suitable conditions for the species; however, additional study is necessary (Jeganathan et al. 2004). The population estimate for this species is 50-249 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2006). Very few individuals have been recorded so far, mainly due to the species' nocturnal and retiring habits (BirdLife International 2006). Members of the Yanaadi community, who played a major role in the rediscovery of the species, were employed by the State Forest Department to locate individuals in other localities and habitats in the Eastern Ghats, but the results of this search remain unknown (Bhushan 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2006)
ly due to the species' nocturnal and retiring habits (BirdLife International 2006). Members of the Yanaadi community, who played a major role in the rediscovery of the species, were employed by the State Forest Department to locate individuals in other localities and habitats in the Eastern Ghats, but the results of this search remain unknown (Bhushan 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 2006).
Jerdon's courser does not represent a monotypic genus. The current threat to the species is high because there is only one small population in existence with a declining population trend and the species' historic range has diminished. Threats to the species are imminent because it is highly susceptible to human disturbance and livestock
Slender-billed curlew ( Numenius tenuirostris )
The slender-billed curlew migrates along a west-southwest route from Siberia through central and eastern Europe (predominantly Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia) to southern Europe (Greece, Italy, and Turkey) and North Africa (Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia) (BirdLife International 2006). The only confirmed observations of breeding activity were made between 1914 and 1924, near Tara, north of Omsk, in Siberia, Russia (del Hoyo et al. 1996). The few nests that were located at that time were found on the northern limit of the forest-steppe zone in habitat more typical of taiga marsh (BirdLife International 2006). During winter migration the curlew utilizes a wide variety of habitats, including steppe grassland, marshland, salt pans, brackish lagoons and wetlands, tidal mudflats, fish ponds, semi-desert, and sandy farmland near lagoons (BirdLife International 2006).
During the 19th Century, the slender-billed curlew was regarded as very common, but the species declined quite rapidly during the 20th Century (BirdLife International 2006)
lew utilizes a wide variety of habitats, including steppe grassland, marshland, salt pans, brackish lagoons and wetlands, tidal mudflats, fish ponds, semi-desert, and sandy farmland near lagoons (BirdLife International 2006).
During the 19th Century, the slender-billed curlew was regarded as very common, but the species declined quite rapidly during the 20th Century (BirdLife International 2006). The IUCN designates the species as Critically Endangered because it has an extremely small population, the number of birds recorded annually continues to decline, and the population trend is continuing to decrease (IUCN 2006). The slender-billed curlew is listed in CITES Appendix I (CITES 2006). As recently as the 1960s and 1970s, flocks of more than 100 birds were recorded in Morocco (BirdLife International 2006). However, during the 1980s, only 103 observations were confirmed, totaling between 316 and 326 birds. The population continued to decline rapidly and by 1994, the population was estimated to range between 50-270 birds, and current records suggest it may now be lower. Sporadic sightings of 1-3 birds are reported now and then, with the exception of a flock of 19 birds in Italy in 1995 (BirdLife International 2006).
Historically, hunting levels have been high along the species' entire migratory flyway, but reports of hunting seemed to be the highest in Russia. Hunting is believed to be the primary factor for the species' decline (BirdLife International 2006). The likelihood of threats to the breeding grounds has not been adequately assessed because the location of breeding and moulting areas is unknown to date (BirdLife International 2006). It has been suggested that the species' breeding areas might have been located in the steppe zone, which has been cultivated on a large scale, perhaps contributing to the rapid decline of the species (del Hoyo et al. 1996)
elihood of threats to the breeding grounds has not been adequately assessed because the location of breeding and moulting areas is unknown to date (BirdLife International 2006). It has been suggested that the species' breeding areas might have been located in the steppe zone, which has been cultivated on a large scale, perhaps contributing to the rapid decline of the species (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Extensive draining of wetlands in North Africa, Iraq, and the entire Mediterranean Sea region has had a deleterious affect on this species, and many other wading bird species in Eurasia (BirdLife International 2006).
The slender-billed curlew does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threat to the species is high and imminent because the major threats, hunting and habitat loss, are ongoing. Although there has been no actual change in threats since we published our last Notice, habitat loss represents an ongoing and imminent threat to the slender-billed curlew. Therefore, to ensure consistency in the application of our listing priority guidance, we changed the listing priority number from 5 to 2 to reflect that the threats are imminent. Therefore, the priority rank for this species is 2.
Marquesan imperial-pigeon ( Ducula galeata )
The Marquesan imperial-pigeon is endemic to Nuku Hiva in the Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia. The species prefers remote wooded valleys from 250 to 1,300 m in elevation in the west and north of the island. It also inhabits secondary forest and edge habitat near banana and orange plantations (Holyoak and Thibault 1984, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). The Marquesan imperial-pigeon is categorized as Critically Endangered by IUCN because it has a very small population on one diminutive island in an isolated volcanic island chain in the south Pacific (IUCN 2006).
Nuku Hiva was previously nearly inaccessible to hunters, introduced grazers, and rats because of its remote location
Holyoak and Thibault 1984, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). The Marquesan imperial-pigeon is categorized as Critically Endangered by IUCN because it has a very small population on one diminutive island in an isolated volcanic island chain in the south Pacific (IUCN 2006).
Nuku Hiva was previously nearly inaccessible to hunters, introduced grazers, and rats because of its remote location. However, the local habitat has recently been modified and degraded by introduced vegetation and grazing by feral livestock (Evva 1998; Seitre and Seitre 1991, 1992; as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Fortunately for the species, the cattle have been eradicated, and the number of goats and pigs are decreasing (Evva 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). Illegal hunting is one of two serious threats to the species (Evva 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). The other threat is believed to come from a rapidly increasing introduced black rat ( Rattus rattus ) population which preys on eggs and the young of the species (Seitre and Seitre 1991, 1992; as cited in BirdLife International 2006).
Holyoak and Thibault (1984) estimated a population of 200-400 birds in 1975. In 1998, a maximum of 85 birds were located and the population was estimated at approximately 250 individuals (Evva 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2006).
The Marquesan imperial-pigeon does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude because it is confined to one small island population which is extremely vulnerable to typhoons and volcanic eruption, stochastic events that could extirpate the entire species during one event. The threats to the species are imminent because there are no known controls on hunting, nor is there a rat eradication program that we are aware of; hence, these threats remain and are ongoing. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 2
all island population which is extremely vulnerable to typhoons and volcanic eruption, stochastic events that could extirpate the entire species during one event. The threats to the species are imminent because there are no known controls on hunting, nor is there a rat eradication program that we are aware of; hence, these threats remain and are ongoing. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 2.
Salmon-crested cockatoo ( Cacatua moluccensis )
The salmon-crested cockatoo is endemic to the islands of Ambon, Haruku, Seram, Saparua and South Maluku, Indonesia. Currently, the species is believed to survive in one area on Ambon, while the remaining population lives on Seram. There are no recent records of the species on Haruku and Saparua (BirdLife International 2006). Lowland rain forest below 1,000 m in elevation and unlogged lowland forest below 300 m are the most productive habitat for the species (Marsden 1998). Studies conducted in 1998 suggested that habitat rich in strangler fig trees and Octomeles sumatranus , the tree species the cockatoos prefer for nesting, were also likely to produce the highest densities of cockatoos, but these studies need confirmation (Kinnaird et al. in prep., as cited in BirdLife International 2006). The diet of salmon-crested cockatoos consists of seeds, nuts, coconuts, berries, and insects and their larvae (Forshaw 1989).
The salmon-crested cockatoo was formerly a common species of the lowlands within its range (del Hoyo et al. 1997). This species is one of three threatened members of the suite of 14 bird species that are entirely restricted to the Seram Endemic Bird Area (BirdLife International 2006). The IUCN lists the species as Vulnerable (IUCN 2006), and current populations are estimated at 62,400 individuals with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2006).
By the 1980s, salmon-crested cockatoo populations were declining rapidly due to uncontrolled trapping for the caged-bird trade (BirdLife International 2006). Concerns about et al
ird Area (BirdLife International 2006). The IUCN lists the species as Vulnerable (IUCN 2006), and current populations are estimated at 62,400 individuals with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2006).
By the 1980s, salmon-crested cockatoo populations were declining rapidly due to uncontrolled trapping for the caged-bird trade (BirdLife International 2006). Concerns about et al. [in prep.], as cited in BirdLife International 2001). In October 1989, the salmon-crested cockatoo was transferred to CITES Appendix-I. The change in listing status resulted in a decrease of legally traded birds to zero; however the domestic market remains high (BirdLife International 2006). Interviews in villages suggest that perhaps as many as 4,000 birds are still being captured each year (Kinnaird 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2001).
In addition to the caged-bird trade, forest loss, ongoing habitat degradation and fragmentation resulting from timber extraction, human settlement, and hydroelectric power projects are additional threats to the species (BirdLife International 2006). In 2000, a program was launched to promote ecotourism which was linked to a local project to raise awareness about the plight of the salmon-crested cockatoo. The income produced through the ecotourism program was another incentive to protect and conserve the cockatoos (BirdLife International 2000). Current conservation measures suggest continuing and expanding the awareness program and using the salmon-crested cockatoo as the island's flagship species to reduce trapping pressure and encourage local support for the survival of the species (BirdLife International 2006).
The salmon-crested cockatoo does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude. Despite measures taken by CITES to reduce international trade of the species by transferring the cockatoo to Appendix I, trapping for the domestic pet market continues unabated
e trapping pressure and encourage local support for the survival of the species (BirdLife International 2006).
The salmon-crested cockatoo does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude. Despite measures taken by CITES to reduce international trade of the species by transferring the cockatoo to Appendix I, trapping for the domestic pet market continues unabated. Ongoing habitat loss and degradation threaten the survival of the species, rendering these threats imminent and ongoing. Therefore, we have assigned the species a priority rank of 2.
Orange-fronted parakeet ( Cyanoramphus malherbi )
The orange-fronted parakeet was treated as an individual species until it was proposed to be a color morph of C. auriceps in 1974 (Holyoak 1974, as cited in Snyder et al. 2000). Further taxonomic analysis suggests that it should once again be considered as a distinct species (Triggs and Daugherty 1996; Juniper and Parr 1998; ITIS 2006). Species' distribution during the 19th Century was limited to New Zealand and several offshore islands, including Three Kings, Hen, Big Chicken, Little Barrier, Great Barrier (rare), Kapiti (rare), the Chetwolde Islands, Stewart Island and satellite islets, Codfish, Solander, Ruapuke, and the Auckland Islands including Adams Island (Juniper and Parr 1998). The parakeet was previously believed to be most common on off-shore islands where predation by introduced animals was less prevalent than on mainland New Zealand (Juniper and Parr 1998). Currently, there are three remnant populations, all located within a 30 km radius in Arthur's Pass National Park and Lake Sumner Forest Park (New Zealand Department of Conservation [NZDOC] 2006). This species inhabits southern beech ( Nothofagus spp.) forest (BirdLife International 2000; NZDOC 2006), with a preference for locales bordering stands of mountain beech ( N. solandri ) (Snyder et al. 2000)
rently, there are three remnant populations, all located within a 30 km radius in Arthur's Pass National Park and Lake Sumner Forest Park (New Zealand Department of Conservation [NZDOC] 2006). This species inhabits southern beech ( Nothofagus spp.) forest (BirdLife International 2000; NZDOC 2006), with a preference for locales bordering stands of mountain beech ( N. solandri ) (Snyder et al. 2000). It requires mature trees with natural hollows or cavities for nesting, and breeding is linked with the irregular seed production by Nothofagus (BirdLife International 2000).
The orange-fronted parakeet has an extremely small population and limited range. There have only been a few sightings since 1966 (Triggs and Daugherty 1996), and previous assessments of its status have ranged from more common than originally thought (Harrison 1970) to near extinction (Mills and Williams 1980). The IUCN classifies the species as Critically Endangered (IUCN 2006) and it is listed in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2006). The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) (2006) considers the orange-fronted parakeet, or käkäriki, to be the rarest parakeet in New Zealand and because it is classified as “Nationally Critical” with a high risk of extinction NZDOC has been working intensively with the species to ensure its survival. The population is estimated at 100-200 individuals in the wild and declining (NZDOC 2006). There are several reasons for the species' decline; the most significant threats is predation by introduced species such as the brush-tailed possum ( Trichosurus vulpecula ), stoats ( Mustela erminea ), and rats ( Rattus spp.) (BirdLife International 2006). The NZDOC introduced “Operation ARK”, an initiative to respond to predator problems in beech forests to prevent species extinctions, including orange-fronted parakeets. Predators are methodically controlled with traps, toxins in bait stations, bait bags, and aerial spraying, as necessary.
Hybridization with yellow-crowned parakeets ( C
ea ), and rats ( Rattus spp.) (BirdLife International 2006). The NZDOC introduced “Operation ARK”, an initiative to respond to predator problems in beech forests to prevent species extinctions, including orange-fronted parakeets. Predators are methodically controlled with traps, toxins in bait stations, bait bags, and aerial spraying, as necessary.
Hybridization with yellow-crowned parakeets ( C. auriceps ) has been observed at Lake Sumner (Snyder et al. 2000; Kearvell et al. 2002). Increased competition between the yellow-crowned parakeet and the orange-crowned parakeet in a habitat substantially modified by humans, competition with introduced finch species, and competition with wasp species for invertebrates as a dietary source are considered other threats to the species (Kearvell et al. 2002).
The NZDOC closely monitors all known populations of the orange-fronted parakeet. With such a limited population, NZDOC focuses the species program on monitoring the breeding of the wild population and captive-breeding efforts. Nest searches are conducted, nest holes are inspected, and surveys are carried out in other areas to look for evidence of other populations. In May 2003, surveys successfully located an additional orange-fronted parakeet population, and identified a new population in 2006 on the predator-free Chalky Island. NZDOC officials remove eggs from nests on the island so that foster parakeet parents could incubate the eggs and care for the hatchlings until they fledged. The juvenile birds were then transferred back to the island. Monitoring of these birds later in 2006 indicated that they had successfully nested and reared chicks. Additional birds will be added to Chalky Island to augment the population and to increase its genetic diversity.
The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. The current population ranges between 100 and 200 individuals, and the species' distribution has become limited
and. Monitoring of these birds later in 2006 indicated that they had successfully nested and reared chicks. Additional birds will be added to Chalky Island to augment the population and to increase its genetic diversity.
The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. The current population ranges between 100 and 200 individuals, and the species' distribution has become limited. However, it faces threats that are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC has taken important measures to aid in the recovery of the species. NZDOC implemented a successful captive-breeding program for the orange-fronted parakeet. Using captive-bred birds from the program, NZDOC established a population of the orange-fronted parakeet on a predator-free island (Chalky Island). Individuals from this population have successfully reproduced and reared young. The
Uvea parakeet ( Eunymphicus uvaeensis )
This species was previously known as Eunymphicus cornutus , but was split into E. cornutus and E. uvaeensis following the treatment by Juniper and Parr (1998) (BirdLife International 2006). The Uvea parakeet is restricted to Uvea, New Caledonia. It is found primarily in forest habitat, notably, those dominated by Agathis and Araucaria and general woodlands, and feeds on the berries of vines and the flowers and seeds of native trees and shrubs (del Hoyo et al. 1997). The species is restricted to areas of old-growth forest with nesting holes, but the greatest number of birds occurs close to gardens with papayas which they can utilize as a food source (BirdLife International 2006).
Early population estimates were alarmingly low; 70-90 birds and declining (Hahn 1993). Surveys in 1993 yielded estimates of approximately 600 birds, and in 1998 some 750 birds were located (P. Primot, in litt. 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). In 1999, it was believed that 742 individuals lived in northern Uvea, with 82 birds living in the south (Primot 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2006)
estimates were alarmingly low; 70-90 birds and declining (Hahn 1993). Surveys in 1993 yielded estimates of approximately 600 birds, and in 1998 some 750 birds were located (P. Primot, in litt. 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). In 1999, it was believed that 742 individuals lived in northern Uvea, with 82 birds living in the south (Primot 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2006). The IUCN classifies the species as Endangered because it occupies a very small, declining area of forest on one small island (IUCN 2006). The species was uplisted from Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES in July 2000, due to unsustainable trade of the species (CITES 2006). Habitat destruction during the last 30 years has caused a 30 to 50 percent decline in primary forest. The species is also threatened by the illegal pet trade, mainly for the domestic market (BirdLife International 2006). Nesting holes are cut open to extract nestlings, which render the holes unsuitable for future nesting. The increasing lack of nesting sites is believed to be a limiting factor for the species (BirdLife International 2006). Predation is also a threat to the survival of the species. Juveniles are taken by predators such as the native brown goshawk ( Accipiter fasciatus ). Introductions of the species to the adjacent island of Lifou in 1925 and 1963 failed (BirdLife International 2006), possibly due to the presence of ship rats and Norwegian rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) (Snyder et al. 2000).
A recovery plan for the Uvea parakeet was prepared for the period 1997-2002, which included strong local participation in population and habitat monitoring (Snyder et al. 2000). The species has recently increased in popularity and is celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; BirdLife International 2006). Increased awareness of the plight of the species and improvements in law enforcement capability are helping to address illegal trade of the species
997-2002, which included strong local participation in population and habitat monitoring (Snyder et al. 2000). The species has recently increased in popularity and is celebrated as an island emblem (Robinet and Salas 1997; BirdLife International 2006). Increased awareness of the plight of the species and improvements in law enforcement capability are helping to address illegal trade of the species. In 1998, a captive-breeding program was initiated to restock the southern portion of Uvea. Measures are now being taken to control predators and prevent further colonization by rats (BirdLife International 2006). Current Uvea parakeet numbers are increasing, but any relaxation of conservation efforts or introduction of rats or other predators could lead to a rapid decline of the species (IUCN 2006).
The Uvea parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are moderate because important management efforts have been put in place to aid in the recovery of the species. However, all of these efforts must continue to function, because this species is an island endemic with restricted habitat in one location. Threats to the species are imminent because illegal trade still occurs, and the removal of 30 to 50 percent of the old growth forest which the birds are dependent upon for nesting holes negatively impacts the reproductive requirements of the species. We assign this species a priority rank of 8.
Blue-throated macaw ( Ara glaucogularis )
The blue-throated macaw is endemic to forest islands in the seasonally flooded Beni Lowlands (Lanos de Moxos) of Central Bolivia (Jordan and Munn 1993). It inhabits a mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm groves, forest islands, and humid lowlands. This species is found in areas where palm-fruit food is available, especially Attalea phalerata (Hesse 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). It inhabits elevations between 200 and 250 m (BirdLife International 2000)
ni Lowlands (Lanos de Moxos) of Central Bolivia (Jordan and Munn 1993). It inhabits a mosaic of seasonally inundated savanna, palm groves, forest islands, and humid lowlands. This species is found in areas where palm-fruit food is available, especially Attalea phalerata (Hesse 1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). It inhabits elevations between 200 and 250 m (BirdLife International 2000). These macaws are not found to congregate in large flocks; but are seen most commonly traveling in pairs, and on rare occasions may be found in small flocks of up to five individuals (Collar et al. 1992). The blue-throated macaw nests between November and March in large tree cavities where one to two young are raised (BirdLife International 2000).
The taxonomic status of this species was long disputed, primarily because the species was unknown in the wild to biologists until 1992 (del Hoyo et al. 1997). Trappers apparently discovered the species sometime during the late 1970s or early 1980s. Between the early 1980s and early 1990s, approximately 400-1,200 birds were exported from Bolivia, and many are now in captivity in the European Union and in North America (World Parrot Trust 2003). This species is severely threatened by previous trapping for the national and international cage-bird trade. Recent estimates indicate that there are between 75 and 150 individuals in the wild (Snyder et al. 2000). This species is categorized as Critically Endangered by the IUCN and is listed in Appendix I of CITES (IUCN 2006; CITES 2006). The species is legally protected in Bolivia (Juniper and Parr 1998). The Eco Bolivia Foundation patrols existing macaw habitat by foot and motorbike, and the Armonia Association of Santa Cruz is searching the Beni lowlands for more populations. Additionally, the Armonia Association is building an awareness campaign aimed at the cattlemen's association to ensure that these birds are not hunted by trappers on their property (Snyder et al. 2000)
uniper and Parr 1998). The Eco Bolivia Foundation patrols existing macaw habitat by foot and motorbike, and the Armonia Association of Santa Cruz is searching the Beni lowlands for more populations. Additionally, the Armonia Association is building an awareness campaign aimed at the cattlemen's association to ensure that these birds are not hunted by trappers on their property (Snyder et al. 2000).
The blue-throated macaw does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are moderate because wild birds are no longer taken for the legal wild-bird trade as a result of the species' CITES listing, and it is also legally protected in Bolivia. Wildlife managers in Bolivia are actively protecting the species and searching for additional populations. Threats to the species are imminent and ongoing because hunters still trap the birds for the illegal bird trade. We assigned this species a priority rank of 8.
Southeastern rufous-vented ground cuckoo ( Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis )
The southeastern rufous-vented ground cuckoo is a subspecies found in southeastern Brazil from Espirito Santo to Rio de Janeiro (del Hoyo et al. 1997). It is found in tropical lowland evergreen forests, where it feeds on large insects, scorpions, centipedes, spiders, small frogs, lizards, and occasionally seeds and fruit (del Hoyo et al. 1997). The subspecies is not globally threatened, although populations of ground cuckoos in southern Brazil appear to be under threat due to continuing deforestation (del Hoyo et al. 1997). It is a rare, local, solitary subspecies that is dependent upon large blocks of undisturbed forest et al. 1997). This extremely timid species is among the first to disappear if its primary forest habitat is altered, and in southeastern Brazil where it occurs, most of this type of forest has been destroyed (IUCN 1978-1979). It is poorly known, has a small range, and is highly sensitive to human disturbance (BirdLife International 2001). This subspecies is protected under Brazilian law (IUCN 1978-1979)
1997). This extremely timid species is among the first to disappear if its primary forest habitat is altered, and in southeastern Brazil where it occurs, most of this type of forest has been destroyed (IUCN 1978-1979). It is poorly known, has a small range, and is highly sensitive to human disturbance (BirdLife International 2001). This subspecies is protected under Brazilian law (IUCN 1978-1979).
The threats to the subspecies are high in magnitude because human disturbance and habitat destruction are ongoing and constitute highly significant impacts on the cuckoo's survival. The subspecies is dependent upon large blocks of undisturbed forest habitat for its life-cycle requirements, and habitat destruction within the cuckoo's range results in a patchy landscape, reducing the availability of the type of forest habitat necessary for the subspecies. It therefore receives a priority rank of 3.
Margaretta's hermit ( Phaethornis malaris margarettae; Previously Referred to as Phaethornis margarettae )
Margaretta's hermit was first described as a new species in 1972 by A. Ruschi (Sibley and Monroe 1990). Current taxonomic studies place Margaretta's hermit as a subspecies of the great-billed hermit ( Phaethornis malaris ) (Sick 1993), which is not considered globally threatened. This subspecies is found in the understory of inundated lowland forest, secondary growth, bamboo thickets, and shrubbery. Margaretta's hermit is found in coastal East Brazil and is limited to forest remnants; consequently, further habitat destruction is a threat to the subspecies (del Hoyo et al. 1999). The Margaretta's hermit is listed in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2006).
Habitat destruction is a significant threat to Margaretta's hermit that is high in magnitude and imminent because it is ongoing and likely permanent due to the high pressure for coastal development in the area. Therefore, we assign the subspecies a priority rank of 3
tion is a threat to the subspecies (del Hoyo et al. 1999). The Margaretta's hermit is listed in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2006).
Habitat destruction is a significant threat to Margaretta's hermit that is high in magnitude and imminent because it is ongoing and likely permanent due to the high pressure for coastal development in the area. Therefore, we assign the subspecies a priority rank of 3.
Black-breasted puffleg ( Eriocnemis nigrivestis )
The black-breasted puffleg is now confined to the northern ridge crests of Volcan Pichincha and Volcan Atacazo, in Pichincha Province, northwest Ecuador (BirdLife International 2000). In 1983, there was a possible sighting of the species at Loma Gramalote on Pichincha, and an additional three individuals were located in 1993 at the same location (Collar et al. 1992, Krabb et al. 1994a; as cited in IUCN Red List 1996). The species occurs in dwarf, humid elfin forest and paramo, at 3,100-4,500 m, from November through January and in humid temperate forest at about 2,400 m during the rest of the year (Philips 1989).
There are over 100 museum specimens of this species, suggesting it was more common in the past (Philips 1989). Between 1950 and 1993, the only confirmed sighting of the species was three individuals in 1980 (BirdLife International 2000). Recent fieldwork targeting the species has produced a few additional records, but it is clearly rare within a very limited range (Philips 1989). The population estimate for the species is 50-249 birds, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2006). This species is classified as Critically Endangered in the 2006 IUCN Red List and is listed in Appendix II of CITES (IUCN 2006; CITES 2006). It qualifies as Critically Endangered because it has an extremely small range and the population is restricted to one location where habitat is being rapidly converted and there is ongoing volcanic activity (BirdLife International 2006)
e International 2006). This species is classified as Critically Endangered in the 2006 IUCN Red List and is listed in Appendix II of CITES (IUCN 2006; CITES 2006). It qualifies as Critically Endangered because it has an extremely small range and the population is restricted to one location where habitat is being rapidly converted and there is ongoing volcanic activity (BirdLife International 2006). The main threat to the species is conversion of trees in the elfin forest to charcoal, although media coverage of the species has encouraged authorities to control access to the forest and forbid charcoal production (Philips 1989). Potato cultivation and livestock grazing on ridge crests rapidly destroyed suitable habitat in these areas (Philips 1989). Some ridges are almost completely devoid of natural vegetation, and even if black-breasted pufflegs still occur in these areas, their numbers are most likely quite low (BirdLife International 2000). Recently, however, the Jocotoco Foundation has established the Yanacocha Reserve on the slopes of Volcan Pichincha, protecting 960 hectares of Polylepis woodland, as well as the entire range of the black-breasted puffleg in an effort to protect and conserve the species, which has become the “Emblem of the City of Quito” (WorldLand Trust 2005). The area will be managed by the Corporación Ornitológica de Ecuador (Ornithological Corporation of Ecuador, CECIA), a conservation organization which will also manage ecotourism, environmental education, and conservation initiatives including restoration of the Polylepis woodland (Foundacion Jocotoco 2005).
The black-breasted puffleg does not represent a monotypic genus. The long-term loss of habitat is the most significant threat to the species as loss of the species' elfin forest habitat to charcoal production and conversion to agriculture are ongoing. This threat is high in magnitude and imminent because it is ongoing. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 2
dland (Foundacion Jocotoco 2005).
The black-breasted puffleg does not represent a monotypic genus. The long-term loss of habitat is the most significant threat to the species as loss of the species' elfin forest habitat to charcoal production and conversion to agriculture are ongoing. This threat is high in magnitude and imminent because it is ongoing. Therefore, it receives a priority rank of 2.
Chilean woodstar ( Eulid

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [72 FR 62 Community Development Block Grant Program; Small Cities Program; Proposed Rule](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22502.md)
- [72 FR 96 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); U.S. Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management Measures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22512.md)
- [72 FR 485 Airworthiness Directives; Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” Gliders](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-9988.md)
- [72 FR 662 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 Airplanes and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22534.md)
- [72 FR 676 Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU Previously Held by Apex Aircraft and Avions Pierre Robin) Model R2160 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-49.md)
- [72 FR 711 Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio To Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22617.md)
- [72 FR 724 Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-20.md)
- [72 FR 1190 Heir Property](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22102.md)
- [72 FR 1200 Radio Broadcasting Services; Port Chester, NY, and Stamford, CT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-185.md)
- [72 FR 1384 Termination of a Foreign Private Issuer's Registration of a Class of Securities Under Section 12(g) and Duty To File Reports Under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22405.md)
- [72 FR 1473 Phase 2 of the Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Notice of Reconsideration-Extension of Public Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-355.md)
- [72 FR 1685 Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Modification of Administrative Rules Governing Committee Representation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-425.md)
- [72 FR 1946 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-10E Series Turbofan Engines](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-499.md)
- [72 FR 1949 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-10E Series Turbofan Engines](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-498.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-7443. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.