[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 286-310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31101]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-ES-2009-0084]
[90100-1660-1FLA B6]
[RIN 1018-AW39]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Six 
Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the 
following six foreign species found on islands in French Polynesia and 
in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Africa: Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao 
urogallus cantabricus); Marquesan Imperial Pigeon (Ducula galeata); the 
Eiao Polynesian warbler (Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis), previously 
referred to as (Acrocephalus mendanae aquilonis); greater adjutant 
(Leptoptilos dubius); Jerdon's courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus); and 
slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris) as endangered, pursuant 
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This proposal, if 
made final, would extend the Act's protection to these species. We seek 
data and comments from the public on this proposed rule.

DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comment on this 
proposed rulemaking action, we will accept comments received or 
postmarked on or before March 8, 2010. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section by February 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    * Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-
2009-0084, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
    * By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2009-0084; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife

[[Page 287]]

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comment Procedures section below under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Krofta, Chief, Branch of 
Listing, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-
358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

     We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may 
be addressing those threats.
    (2) Additional information concerning the taxonomy, range, 
distribution, and population size of these species, including the 
locations of any additional populations of these species.
    (3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
these species.
    (4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these 
species and possible impacts of these activities on these species.
    (5) Any information concerning the effects of climate change on 
these species or their habitats.
     Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
     You may submit your comments and materials concerning this 
proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We 
will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not 
listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment--including any personal 
identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. Please note 
that comments submitted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. 
When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, 
the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might 
not occur until several days after submission.
     If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal 
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the 
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we 
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov.
     Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection in two ways:
     (1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search 
Documents box, enter FWS-R9-ES-2009-0084, which is the docket number 
for this action. Then in the Search panel on the left side of the 
screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the 
Document Type heading.
     (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to 
view the comments and materials in person at U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Endangered Species Program, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2171.

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires us to make a finding 
(known as a ``90-day finding'') on whether a petition to add a species 
to, remove a species from, or reclassify a species on the Federal Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants has presented 
substantial information indicating that the requested action may be 
warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we must make the finding 
within 90 days following receipt of the petition and must publish it 
promptly in the Federal Register. If we find that the petition has 
presented substantial information indicating that the requested action 
may be warranted (a positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act 
requires us to commence a status review of the species if we have not 
already initiated one under our internal candidate assessment process. 
In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires us to make a 
finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition (``12-month 
finding'') on whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted, 
or warranted but precluded by higher priority actions. Section 
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that when we make a warranted but 
precluded finding on a petition, we are to treat such a petition as one 
that is resubmitted on the date of such finding. Thus, we are required 
to publish new 12-month findings on these ``resubmitted'' petitions on 
an annual basis. We publish an annual notice of resubmitted petition 
findings (annual notice) for all foreign species for which we 
previously found listings to be warranted but precluded.
    In this proposed rule, we propose to list six foreign bird species 
as endangered, under the Act. These species are: Cantabrian 
capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus); Marquesan Imperial Pigeon 
(Ducula galeata); Eiao Polynesian warbler (Acrocephalus percernis 
aquilonis), previously referred to as (Acrocephalus mendanae 
aquilonis); greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius); Jerdon's courser 
(Rhinoptilus bitorquatus); and slender-billed curlew (Numenius 
tenuirostris). These species range widely from islands in French 
Polynesia to Europe, Southeast Asia, and Africa, and all are considered 
terrestrial species, with one exception, the slender-billed curlew. The 
slender-billed curlew is a water bird that undertakes a long annual 
migration.

Previous Federal Actions

    On November 28, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from 
Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman, U.S. Section of the International Council 
for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to add 70 native and foreign bird species 
to the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11), 
including three species (Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan Imperial 
Pigeon, and Eiao Polynesian warbler) that are the subject of this 
proposed rule. Two of the foreign species identified in the petition 
were already listed under the Act. In response to the 1980 petition, we 
published a substantial 90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464), 
for 58 foreign species and initiated a status review. On January 20, 
1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12-month finding within an annual 
review on pending petitions and description of progress on all pending 
petition findings. In this notice, we found that listing all 58 foreign 
bird species in the 1980 petition was warranted but precluded by higher 
priority listing actions. On May 10, 1985, we published the first 
annual

[[Page 288]]

notice (50 FR 19761) in which we continued to find that listing all 58 
foreign bird species in the 1980 petition warranted but precluded by 
higher priority listing actions. We published additional annual notices 
on the 58 foreign bird species on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996); July 7, 
1988 (53 FR 25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746); April 25, 1990 (55 
FR 17475); November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664); and May 21, 2004 (69 FR 
29354). These notices indicated that listing of the Cantabrian 
capercaillie, Marquesan imperial pigeon, and Eiao Polynesian warbler, 
along with the remaining species in the 1980 petition, continued to be 
warranted but precluded.
     On May 6, 1991, we received a petition (1991 petition) from Alison 
Stattersfield, of ICBP, to list 53 additional foreign birds under the 
Act, including the three remaining bird species (greater adjutant, 
Jerdon's courser, and slender-billed curlew) that are the subject of 
this proposed rule. On December 16, 1991, we published a positive 90-
day finding and announced the initiation of a status review of the 53 
foreign birds listed in the 1991 petition (56 FR 65207). On March 28, 
1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a proposed rule to list 30 African 
bird species from both the 1980 and 1991 petitions. In the same Federal 
Register document, we included a notice of findings in which we 
announced our determination that listing the 38 remaining species from 
the 1991 petition was warranted but precluded; this group included 
greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, and slender-billed curlew. On July 
29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published an annual notice of findings on 
resubmitted petitions for foreign species and annual description of 
progress on listing actions within which we ranked species for listing 
by assigning each a Listing Priority Number per our listing priority 
guidelines, published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). Based on 
this ranking and priorities, we determined that listing the six 
previously petitioned species that are the subject of this proposed 
rule-- Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan imperial pigeon, Eiao 
Polynesian warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, and slender-
billed curlew-- was warranted.
    On September 8, 2008, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue 
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) over violations of 
section 4 of the Act for failure to promptly publish listing proposals 
for the 30 warranted species identified in our 2008 Annual Notice of 
Review. Under a settlement agreement approved by the U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of California on June 15, 2009 (CDB v. 
Salazar, 09-cv-02578-CRB), we must submit to the Federal Register 
proposed listing rules for the Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan 
imperial pigeon, Eiao Polynesian warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's 
courser, and slender-billed curlew by December 29, 2009.
     These six species were selected from the list of warranted-but-
precluded species because of the significance and similarity of the 
threats to the species. We assigned all six of these species a listing 
priority ranking number of 2 or 3. Combining species that face similar 
threats into one proposed rule allows us to maximize our limited staff 
resources and thus increases our ability to complete the listing 
process for warranted-but-precluded species.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

     Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based 
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination.
     Despite the fact that global climate changes are occurring and 
affecting habitat, the climate change models that are currently 
available do not yet enable us to make meaningful predictions of 
climate change for specific, local areas (Parmesan and Matthews 2005, 
p. 354). In addition, we do not have models to predict how the climate 
in the range of these Eurasian and Asian bird species will change, and 
we do not know how any change that may occur would affect these 
species. Nor do we have information on past and future weather patterns 
within the specific range of these species. Therefore, based on the 
current lack of information, we did not evaluate climate change as a 
threat to these species. We are, however, seeking additional 
information on this subject (see Public Comment Procedures section) 
that can be used in preparing the final rule.
     Below is a species-by-species description and analysis of the five 
factors. The species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning 
with the Cantabrian capercaillie, followed by the Eiao Polynesian 
warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, Marquesan Imperial Pigeon, 
and the slender-billed curlew.

I. Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus)

Species Description

     The Cantabrian capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabricus) is a 
subspecies of the western capercaillie (T. urogallus) in the family 
Tetraonidae. The species in general is a large grouse, of 80 to 115 
centimeters (cm) in length (31 to 45 inches (in)), and the female is 
much smaller than the male. The species is characterized by having dark 
gray plumage with fine blackish vermiculation (wavelike pattern) around 
the head and neck. The breast is glossy greenish-black. This bird has a 
long, rounded tail, an ivory white bill, and a scarlet crest (World 
Association of Zoos and Aquaria 2009, unpaginated).
     The Cantabrian capercaillie once existed along the whole of the 
Cantabrian mountain range from northern Portugal through Galicia, 
Astruias, and Leon, to Santander in northern Spain (IUCN Redbook 1979, 
p. 1). Currently its range is restricted to the Cantabrian mountains in 
northwest Spain. The subspecies inhabits an area of 1,700 square 
kilometers (km2) (656 square miles (mi2)), and its range is separated 
from its nearest neighboring subspecies of capercaillie (T. u. 
aquitanus) in the Pyrenees mountains by a distance of more than 300 km 
(186 mi) (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 268).
     The Cantabrian capercaillie occurs in mature beech (Fagus 
sylvatica) forest and mixed forests of beech and oaks (Quercus robur, 
Q. petraea, and Q. pyrenaica) at elevations ranging from 800 to 1,800 m 
(2,600 to 5,900 ft). The Cantabrian capercaillie also uses other 
microhabitat types (broom (Genista spp.), meadow, and heath (Erica 
spp.)) selectively throughout the year (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271).
     The species feeds on beech buds, catkins of birch (Betrula alba), 
and holly leaves (Ilex aquifolium). It also feeds on bilberry 
(Vaccinium myrtillus), a commonly eaten component of its diet 
(Rodriguez and Obeso 2000 as reported in Pollo et al. 2005, p. 398).
     Storch et al. estimates the population to be 627 birds, of which 
approximately 500 are adults, according to the most recent population 
data collected from 2000 through 2003 (2006, p. 654). Population 
estimates for species of grouse are commonly assessed by counting males 
that gather during the

[[Page 289]]

breeding season to sing and display at leks (traditional places where 
males assemble during the mating season and engage in competitive 
displays that attract females). Pollo et al. (2005, p. 397) estimated a 
60-to-70 percent decline in the number of male leks since 1981. This is 
equivalent to an average decline of 3 percent per year, or 22 percent 
over 8 years. There is also evidence of a 30-percent decline in lek 
occupancy in the northern watershed of the species' range between 2000 
and 2005 (Banuelos and Quevedo, unpublished data, as reported in Storch 
et al. 2006, p. 654).
     Based on data collected between 2000 and 2003 by Pollo et al. 
(2005, p. 401), the distribution of Cantabrian capercaillie on the 
southern slope of the Cantabrian Mountains is fragmented into 13 small 
subpopulations: four in the western area and 9 in the eastern. Six 
subpopulations (5 in the eastern and 1 in the western) contained only 
one singing male, which indicates a very small subpopulation, since 
presence of singing males is a direct correlate to population numbers.
     The area occupied by Cantabrian capercaillie in 1981-1982 covered 
up to approximately 2,070 km2 (799 mi2) of the southern slope 972 km2 
(375 mi2) in the west and 1,098 km2 (424 mi2) in the east). Between 
2000 and 2003, the area of occupancy had declined to 693 km2 (268 mi2), 
specifically 413 km2 (159 mi2) in the west and 280 km2 (108 mi2) in the 
east. Thus, over a 22-year period, there was a 66-percent reduction in 
the areas occupied by this subspecies on the southern slope of the 
Cantabrian Mountains (Pollo et al. 2005, p. 401). Based on this data, 
the subpopulation in the eastern portion of the range appears to be 
declining at a faster rate than the subpopulation in the western 
portion of the range.

Conservation Status

    Although Storch, et al. 2006 (p. 653) noted that the Cantabrian 
capercaillie meets the criteria to be listed as ``Endangered'' on the 
IUCN Redlist due to ``rapid population declines, small population size, 
and severely fragmented range,'' it is currently not classified as such 
by the IUCN. The species is classified as ``vulnerable'' in Spain under 
the National Catalog of Endangered Species. The species has not been 
formally considered for listing in the CITES Appendices (http://www.cites.org).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Cantabrian Capercaillie

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range

     Numerous limiting factors influence the population dynamics of the 
capercaillie throughout its range, including habitat degradation, loss, 
and fragmentation (Storch 2000, p. 83; 2007, p. 96). Forest structure 
plays an important role in determining habitat suitability and 
occupancy. Quevedo et al. (2006b, p. 274) found that open forest 
structure with well-distributed bilberry shrubs were the preferred 
habitat type of Cantabrian capercaillie. Management of forest resources 
for timber production has caused and continues to cause significant 
changes in forest structure such as: species composition, density and 
height of tress, forest patch size, and understory vegetation (Pollo et 
al. 2005, p. 406).
     The historic range occupied by this subspecies (3,500 km2 (1,350 
mi2)) has declined by more than 50 percent (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 
268). The current range is severely fragmented, with low forest habitat 
cover (22 percent of the landscape) and most of the suitable habitat 
remaining in small patches less than 10 hectares (ha) (25 acres (ac)) 
in size (Garcia et al. 2005, p. 34). Patches of good-quality habitat 
are scarce and discontinuous, particularly in the central parts of the 
range (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 269), and leks in the smaller forest 
patches have been abandoned during the last few decades. The leks that 
remain occupied are now located farther from forest edges than those 
occupied in the 1980s (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271).
     Based on population surveys, forest fragments containing occupied 
leks in 2000 were significantly larger than fragments containing leks 
in the 1980s that have since been abandoned (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 
271). The forest fragments from which the Cantabrian capercaillie has 
disappeared since the 1980s are small in size, and are the most 
isolated from other forest patches. In addition, the Cantabrian 
capercaillie have disappeared from forest patches located closest to 
the edge of the range in both the eastern and western subpopulations of 
the south slope of the Cantabrian Mountains, suggesting that forest 
fragmentation is playing an important role in the population dynamics 
of this subspecies (Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 271). Research conducted 
on other subspecies of capercaillie indicate that the size of forest 
patches is correlated to the number of males that gather in leks to 
display, and that below a certain forest patch size, leks are abandoned 
(Quevedo et al. 2006b, p. 273).
     In highly fragmented landscapes, forest patches are embedded in a 
matrix of other habitats, and forest dwellers like capercaillies 
frequently encounter open areas within their home range. Quevedo et al. 
(2006a, p. 197) developed a habitat suitability model for the Cantarian 
capercaillie that assessed the relationship between forest patch size 
and occupancy. He determined that the subspecies still remains in 
habitat units that show habitat suitability indices below the cut-off 
values of the two best predictive models (decline and general), which 
may indicate a high risk of local extinction. Other researchers 
suggested that, should further habitat or connectivity loss occur, the 
Cantabrian capercaillie population may become so disaggregated that the 
few isolated subpopulations will be too small to ensure their own long-
term persistence (Grimm and Storch 2000, p. 224).
     A demographic model based on Bavarian alpine populations of 
capercaillie suggest a minimum viable population size of the order of 
500 birds (Grimm and Storch 2000, p. 222). However, genetic data show 
clear signs of reduced variability in populations with numbers of 
individuals in the range of fewer than 1,000 birds, which indicates 
that a demographic minimum population of 500 birds may be too small to 
maintain high genetic variability (Segelbacher et al. 2003, p. 1779). 
Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation exist for this species in 
the form of increased genetic differentiation due to increased 
isolation of populations (Segelbacher et al. 2003, p. 1779). Therefore, 
anthropogenic habitat deterioration and fragmentation not only leads to 
range contractions and extinctions, but may also have significant 
genetic, and thus, evolutionary consequences for the surviving 
populations (Segelbacher et al. 2003, p. 1779).
Summary of Factor A
     Recent population surveys show this subspecies is continuing to 
decline throughout its current range, and subpopulations may be 
isolated from one another due to range contractions in the eastern and 
western portions of its range, leaving the central portion of the 
subspecies range abandoned (Pollo et al. 2005, p. 401). Some remaining 
populations may already have a high risk of local extinction (Quevedo 
et al. 2006a, p. 197). Management of forest resources for timber 
production continues to negatively affect forest structure, thereby 
affecting the quality,

[[Page 290]]

quantity, and distribution of suitable habitat available for this 
subspecies. In addition, the structure of the matrix of habitats 
located between forest patches is likely affecting the ability of 
capercaillies to disperse between subpopulations. Therefore, we find 
that present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
the habitat or range is a threat to the continued existence of the 
Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its range.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes

     Currently hunting of the Cantabrian capercaillie is illegal in 
Spain; however, illegal hunting still occurs (Storch 2000, p. 83; 2007, 
p. 96). Because this species congregates in leks, individuals are 
particularly easy targets, and poaching of protected grouse is 
considered common (Storch 2000, p. 15). It is unknown what the 
incidence of poaching is or what impact it is having on this 
subspecies; however, given the limited number of birds remaining and 
the reduced genetic variability already evident at current population 
levels, the further loss of breeding adults could have substantial 
impact on the subspecies. Therefore, we find that overutilization for 
recreational purposes is a threat to the continued existence of the 
Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its range.

C. Disease or predation

     Diseases and parasites have been proposed as factors associated 
with the decline of populations of other species within the same family 
of birds as the capercaillie (Tetraonidae) (Obeso et al. 2000, p. 191). 
In an attempt to determine if parasites were contributing to the 
decline of the Cantabrian capercaillie, researchers collected and 
analyzed fecal samples in 1998 from various localities across the range 
of this subspecies. The prevalence of common parasites (Eimeria sp. and 
Capillaria sp.) was present in 58 percent and 25 percent of the samples 
collected, respectively. However, both the intensity and average 
intensity of these parasites were very low compared to other 
populations of species of birds in the Tetraonidae family. Other 
parasites were found infrequently. The researchers concluded that it 
was unlikely that intestinal parasites were causing the decline of the 
Cantebrian capercaillie.
     Based on the information above, we do not believe that parasite 
infestations are a significant factor in the decline of this 
subspecies. We are not aware of any species-specific information 
currently available that indicates that predation poses a threat to the 
species. Therefore, we are not considering disease or predation to be 
contributing threats to the continued existence of the Cantabrian 
capercaillie throughout its range.

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

     Although it meets the qualifications, the Cantabrian capercaillie 
is currently not classified as endangered by the IUCN. Nor is the 
species listed under any Appendix of the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
     This subspecies is currently classified as ``vulnerable'' in Spain 
under the National Catalog of Endangered Species, which affords it 
special protection (e.g., additional regulation of activities in the 
forests of its range, regulation of trails and roads in the area, 
elimination of poaching, and protection of areas important to young). 
Although it is classified as vulnerable, as mentioned above (see Factor 
B), illegal hunting still occurs.
     The European Union (EU) Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC addresses the 
protection of habitat and species listed as endangered at the European 
scale (European Union 2008). Several habitat types valuable to 
capercaillie have been included in this Directive, such as in Appendix 
I, Section 9, Forests. The EU Bird Directive (79/407/EEC) lists the 
capercaillie in Annex I as a ``species that shall be subject to special 
habitat conservation measures in order to ensure their survival.'' 
Under this Directive, a network of Special Protected Areas (SPAs) 
comprising suitable habitat for Annex I species is to be designated. 
This network of SPAs and other protected sites are collectively 
referred to as Natura 2000. Several countries in Europe, including 
Spain, are in the process of establishing the network of SPAs. The 
remaining Cantabrian capercaillie populations occur primarily in 
recently established Natural Reserves in Spain that are part of the 
Natura 2000 network (Muniellos Biosphere Reserve). Management of 
natural resources by local communities is still allowed in areas 
designated as an SPA; however, the development of management plans to 
meet the various objectives of the Reserve network is required.
     This subspecies is also afforded special protection under the Bern 
Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and 
Natural Habitats; European Treaty Series/104; Council of Europe 1979). 
The Cantabrian capercaillie is listed as ``strictly protected'' under 
Appendix II, which requires member states to ensure the conservation of 
the listed taxa and their habitats. Under this Convention, protections 
of Appendix-II species include the prohibition of: The deliberate 
capture, keeping and killing of the species; deliberate damage or 
destruction of breeding sites; deliberate disturbance during the 
breeding season; deliberate taking or destruction of eggs; and the 
possession or trade of any individual of the species. We were unable to 
find information on the effectiveness of this designation in preventing 
further loss of Cantabrian capercaillie or its habitat.
     In November 2003, Spain enacted the ``Forest Law,'' which 
addresses the preservation and improvement of the forest and rangelands 
in Spain. This law requires development of plans for the management of 
forest resources, which are to include plans for fighting forest fires, 
establishment of danger zones based on fire risk, formulation of a 
defense plan in each established danger zone, the mandatory restoration 
of burned area, and the prohibition of changing forest use of a burned 
area into other uses for a period of 30 years. In addition, this law 
provides economic incentives for sustainable forest management by 
private landowners and local entities. We do not have information on 
the effectiveness of this law with regard to its ability to prevent 
negative impacts to Cantabrian capercaillie habitat.
Summary of Factor D
     Despite recent advances in protection of this subspecies and its 
habitat through EU Directives and protection under Spanish law and 
regulation, illegal poaching still occurs (Storch 2000, p. 83; 2007, p. 
96). Further, we were unable to find information on the effectiveness 
of many of these measures at reducing threats to the species. 
Therefore, we find that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 
to ameliorate the current threats to the Cantabrian capercaillie 
throughout its range.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued 
existence

     Suarez-Seoane and Roves (2004, pp. 395, 401) assessed the 
potential impacts of human disturbances in core populations of 
Cantabrian capercaillie in Natural Reserves in Spain. They found that 
locations selected as leks were located at the core of larger patches 
of forest and were less subject to human disturbance. They also found

[[Page 291]]

that Cantabrian capercaillie disappeared from leks situated in rolling 
hills at lower altitudes closer to houses, hunting sites, and 
repeatedly burned areas.
     Recurring fires have also been implicated as a factor in the 
decline of the subspecies. An average of 85,652 ha (211,650 ac) of 
forested area per year over a 10-year period (1995-2005) has been 
consumed by fire in Spain (Lloyd 2007a, p. 1). On average, 80 percent 
of all fires in Spain are set intentionally by humans (Lloyd 2007a, p. 
1). Suarez-Seoane and Garcia-Roves (2004, p. 405) found that the 
stability of Cantabrian capercaillie breeding areas throughout a 20-
year period was mainly related to low fire recurrence in the 
surrounding area and few houses nearby. In addition, the species avoids 
areas that are recurrently burned because the areas lose their ability 
to regenerate and cannot produce the habitat the species requires 
(Suarez-Seoane and Garcia-Roves 2004, p. 406). We were unable to find 
information as to how many hectares of suitable Cantabrian capercaillie 
habitat is consumed by fire each year. However, since the species 
requires a low recurrence of fire, and both disturbance and fire 
frequency are likely to increase with human presence, this could be a 
potential threat to both habitat and individual birds where there is a 
high prevalence of disturbance and fire frequency.
     In summary, disturbance from humans appears to impact the species; 
birds are typically found in areas of less anthropogenic disturbance 
and further from homes. Natural Protected Areas in Spain have seen an 
increase in human use for recreation and hunting. As human population 
centers expand and move closer to occupied habitat areas, increased 
disturbance to important breeding, feeding, and sheltering behaviors of 
this species is expected to occur. Additionally, as human presence 
increases, it is likely that both fires and disturbances will increase. 
Either or both of these factors have the potential to impact both 
individuals and their habitat. Therefore, we conclude that other 
natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the 
species, in the form of forest fires and disturbance, are threats to 
the continued existence of the Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its 
range.

Status Determination for the Cantabrian Capercaillie

     We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the Cantabrian capercaillie. The species is 
currently at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of 
habitat destruction and modification (Factor A), inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), and other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence in the form of forest fires and 
disturbance (Factor E).
     Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the 
Cantabrian capercaillie throughout its entire range, as described 
above, we determine that this subspecies is in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the 
Cantabrian capercaillie as an endangered species throughout all of its 
range. Because we find that the Cantabrian capercaillie is endangered 
throughout all of its range, there is no reason to consider its status 
in a significant portion of its range.

II. Eiao Polynesian warbler (Acrocephalus percernis aquilonis), 
previously referred to as Acrocephalus mendanae aquilonis and 
Acrocephalus caffer aquilonis

Species Description

     Due to the similarity of the reed-warblers of Polynesia, all of 
these warblers were once considered a single, widespread species known 
as the long-billed reed-warbler (Acrocephalus caffer). The 1980 
petition from Dr. Warren B. King included the Eiao Polynesian warbler 
(Acrocephalus caffer aquilonis), a subspecies of reed-warbler. The 
subspecies aquilonis denoted those warblers found on Eiao Island. The 
species was later split into three separate species: those of the 
Society Islands (Acrocephalus caffer), Tuamotu (A. atyphus), and 
Marquesas (A. mendanae) (Cibois et al. 2007, p. 1151). This subspecies 
then became known as A. mendanae aquilonis. Recent genetic research on 
Marquesan reed-warblers found two independent lineages: warblers found 
in the northern islands of the Marquesas Archipelago (Nuku Hiva, Eiao, 
Hatuta'a, and Ua Huka) and those found on the southern islands (Hiva 
Oa, Tahuata, Ua Pou, and Fatu Iva). As a result, the Marquesas species 
was split into two separate species; those of the four most northern 
islands (A. percernis) and those in the southern islands (A. mendanae). 
The reed-warblers found on Eiao are now classified as a subspecies of 
Northern Marquesan reed-warblers (A. percernis aquilonis) (Cibois et 
al. 2007, pp. 1155, 1160).
     The Eiao Polynesian warbler (Eiao warbler) is a large, 
insectivorous reed-warbler of the family Acrocephalidae. It is 
characterized by brown plumage with bright yellow underparts (Cibois et 
al. 2007, p. 1151). The Eiao warbler is endemic to the island of Eiao 
in the French Polynesian Marquesas Archipelago in the Pacific Ocean. 
The Marquesas Archipelago is a territory of France located 
approximately 1,600 km (994 mi) northeast of Tahiti. Eiao Island is one 
of the northernmost islands in the Archipelago and encompasses 40 km2 
(15 mi).
     Population densities of the Eiao warbler are thought to be high 
within the remaining suitable habitat; one singing bird was found 
nearly every 40-50 m (131-164 ft). The total population is estimated at 
more than 2,000 birds (Raust 2007, pers. comm.). This population 
estimate is much larger than the 100-200 individuals last reported in 
1987 by Thibault (as reported in USFWS 2007). It is unknown if the 
population actually increased from 1987 to 2007, or if the differences 
in the population estimates are a result of using different survey 
methodologies. We have no reliable information on the population trend 
of this subspecies.
    Reed-warblers of the Polynesian islands utilize various habitats, 
ranging from shrubby vegetation in dry, lowland areas to humid forest 
in wet montane areas (Cibois et al. 2007, pp. 1151, 1153). Reed-
warblers in general display strong territorial behavior (Cibois et al. 
2007, p. 1152). The Eiao warbler is a subspecies of Northern Marquesan 
reed- warblers, which at one time were all considered one species, the 
Marquesan reed-warbler. Like other reed-warblers, the female reed-
warbler builds the nest with little or no help from the male. Vines, 
coconut fiber, and grasses are the most common nesting material (Mosher 
and Fancy 2002, p. 8). Warbler nests are found in the tops of trees and 
on vertical branches (Thibault et al. 2002, pp. 166, 169). Eggs of 
Pacific island reed-warblers range from blue to olive, containing black 
or brown spots, and the clutch size for Marquesan reed-warblers is up 
to five eggs (Mosher and Fancy 2002, p. 9).

Conservation Status

     Marquesan reed-warblers (A. mendanae) are classified as ``of least 
concern'' by the IUCN (IUCN 2009a, unpaginated). However, it appears 
that the recent split of the Marquesan reed-

[[Page 292]]

warblers into the Northern and Southern Marquesan reed-warblers is not 
yet reflected in the IUCN assessment. Northern Marquesan reed-warblers 
(A. percernis) are protected under Law Number 95-257 in French 
Polynesia. The species has not been formally considered for listing in 
the CITES Appendices (http://www.cites.org).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range

     Eiao Island was declared a Nature Reserve in 1971 and is not 
currently inhabited by humans. However, the entire island has been 
heavily impacted by introduced domestic livestock that have become 
feral (Manu 2009, unpaginated). Feral sheep have been identified as the 
main threat to the forest on the island (Thibault et al. 2002, p. 167). 
Sheep and pigs have devastated much of the vegetation and soil on Eiao, 
and native plant species have been largely replaced by introduced 
species (Merlin and Juvik 1992, pp. 604-606). Sheep have overgrazed the 
island, leaving areas completely denuded of vegetation. The exposed 
soil erodes from rainfall, further preventing native plants from 
regenerating (WWF 2001, unpaginated). Currently, only 10-20 percent of 
the island contains suitable habitat for the Eiao warbler (Raust 2007, 
pers. comm.). These areas of suitable habitat are likely restricted to 
small refugia inaccessible to the feral livestock. We are not aware of 
any current efforts or future plans to reduce the number of feral 
domestic livestock on the island.
     In summary, the ongoing habitat degradation from overgrazing 
livestock continues to have significant and ongoing impacts to the 
natural habitat for this subspecies. The current level of grazing on 
the island prevents recovery of native vegetation. Without active 
management of the feral livestock population on the island, the 
population of Eiao warblers will continue to be restricted to small 
portions of the island which are inaccessible to the feral livestock. 
Furthermore, although the current estimated population is 2,000 
individuals, the subspecies will not be able to expand to the rest of 
the island and recover beyond this current population level due to 
habitat loss. Because the Eiao warbler is limited to one small island, 
the continuing loss of habitat makes this subspecies extremely 
vulnerable to extinction. Therefore, we find that present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range are 
threats to the continued existence of the Eiao warbler throughout its 
range.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes

    We are unaware of any information currently available that 
indicates the use of this subspecies for any commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purpose. As a result, we are not considering 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes to be a contributing factor to the continued 
existence of the Eiao warbler throughout its range.

C. Disease or predation

     Avian diseases are a concern for species with restricted ranges 
and small populations, especially if the species is restricted to an 
island. Hawaii's avian malaria is a limiting factor for many species of 
native passerines and is dominant on other remote oceanic islands, 
including French Polynesia (Beadell et al. 2006, p. 2935). This strain 
was found in 9 out of 11 Marquesan reed-warblers collected on Nuku Hiva 
in 1987. However, because these birds were thought to be more robust 
(all Marquesan reed-warblers were considered A. mendanae), avian 
malaria was not thought to pose a threat to the species (Beadell et al. 
2006, p. 2940). We have no data on whether Hawaii's avian malaria is 
present on Eiao or what effects it may have on the population of reed-
warblers.
     Black rats (Rattus rattus) were introduced to Eiao, Nuku Hiva, Ua 
Pou, Hiva Oa, Tahuata, and Fatu Iva of the Marquesas Archipelago in the 
early 20th century (Cibois et al. 2007, p. 1159); although Thibault et 
al. (2002, p. 169) state that the presence of black rats on Eiao is 
only suspected. A connection between the presence of rats and the 
decline and extirpation of birds has been well documented (Blanvillain 
et al. 2002, p. 146; Thibault et al. 2002, p 162; Meyer and Butaud 
2009, pp. 1169-1170). Specifically, predation on eggs, nestlings, or 
adults by rats has been implicated as an important factor in the 
extinction of Pacific island birds (Thibault et al. 2002, p. 162). 
However, Thibault et al. (2002, pp. 165, 169) did not find a 
significant effect of rats on the abundance of Polynesian warblers. It 
is thought that the position of warbler nests on vertical branches 
close to the tops of trees makes them less accessible to rats (Thibault 
et al. 2002, p. 169), even though rats are known to be good climbers.
     The common myna (Acridotheres tristis), an introduced bird 
species, may contribute to the spread of invasive plant species by 
consuming their fruit and may also prey on the eggs and nestlings of 
native birds species or out-compete native bird species for nesting 
sites. The myna is thought to have contributed to the decline of 
another reed-warbler endemic to the Marquesas (A. caffer mendanae) 
(Global Invasive Species Database 2009, unpaginated). Mynas do not 
currently occur on Eiao Island. Furthermore, Thibault et al. (2002, p. 
165) found no significant effect of mynas on Polynesian warblers in 
Marquesas. If the myna expands its range and colonizes Eiao Island, it 
is unknown to what extent predation would affect the Eiao warbler.
    In summary, although the presence of avian malaria has been 
documented on Eiao and the presence of introduced rats is suspected, 
there is no data indicating that either is affecting the warbler 
population on Eiao. Nest location appears to be high enough in the 
trees to avoid significant predation from the introduced rat. Mynas are 
not known to inhabit Eiao Island, and it is not clear that they would 
negatively impact the warbler population if they were to colonize Eiao. 
Therefore, we find that disease and predation are not a threat to the 
continued existence of the Eiao warbler throughout its range.

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

    The Eiao warbler is a protected species in French Polynesia. 
Northern Marquesan reed-warblers (A. percernis) are classified as a 
Category A species under Law Number 95-257. Article 16 of this law 
prohibits the collection and exportation of species listed under 
Category A. In addition, under part 23 of Law 95-257, the introduced 
myna bird species, which is commonly known to outcompete other bird 
species, is considered a danger to the local avifauna and is listed as 
``threatening biodiversity.'' Part 23 also prohibits importation of all 
new specimens of species listed as ``threatening biodiversity,'' and 
translocation from one island to another is prohibited.
     The French Environmental Code, Article L411-1, prohibits the 
destruction or poaching of eggs or nests; mutilation, destruction, 
capture or poaching, intentional disturbance, the practice of 
taxidermy, transport, peddling, use, possession, offer for sale, and 
the sale or the purchase of nondomestic species in need of 
conservation. It also prohibits the destruction, alteration, or 
degradation of habitat for these species.

[[Page 293]]

    Hunting and destruction of all species of birds in French Polynesia 
were prohibited by a 1967 decree (Villard et al. 2003, p. 193); 
however, destruction of birds which have been listed as ``threatening 
biodiversity'' is legal. Furthermore, restrictions on possession of 
firearms in Marquesas are in place (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). 
Hunting is not known to be a threat to the survival of this subspecies.
     In addition, the entire island Eiao Island was declared an 
officially protected area in 1971. It is classified as Category IV, an 
area managed for habitat or species. However, of the nine protected 
areas in French Polynesia, only one (Vaikivi on Ua Huka) is actively 
managed (Manu 2009, unpaginated).
     In summary, regulations exist that protect the subspecies and its 
habitat. However, as described under Factor A, habitat destruction 
continues to threaten this subspecies. Although legal protections are 
in place, there are none effectively protecting the suitable habitat on 
the island from damage from overgrazing sheep as described in Factor A. 
Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to ameliorate the current threats to the Eiao warbler 
throughout its range.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued 
existence

     Island populations have a higher risk of extinction than mainland 
populations. Ninety percent of bird species that have been driven to 
extinction were island species (as cited in Frankham 1997, p. 311). 
Based on genetics alone, endemic island species are predicted to have 
higher extinction rates than nonendemic island populations (Frankham 
2007, p. 321). Small, isolated populations may experience decreased 
demographic viability (population birth and death rates, immigration 
and emigration rates, and sex ratios), increased susceptibility of 
extinction from stochastic environmental factors (e.g., weather events, 
disease), and an increased threat of extinction from genetic isolation 
and subsequent inbreeding depression and genetic drift.
     Although the population of Eiao warblers appears to be stable, the 
subspecies is found on only one island and is vulnerable to stochastic 
events. Furthermore, the warblers are limited to the fraction of the 
island's area that contains suitable habitat. Eradication of feral 
livestock is needed to allow recovery of native vegetation and provide 
additional suitable habitat throughout the island. Expansion and 
recovery of native vegetation will permit the subspecies to recover 
beyond the current population of 2,000 individuals and buffer the 
subspecies against impacts from stochastic events.
    In summary, the limited range of the Eiao warbler makes this 
subspecies extremely vulnerable to stochastic events and, therefore, 
extinction. Additional habitat is needed to expand the population and 
buffer the subspecies from the detrimental effects typical of small 
island populations. Therefore, we find that other natural or manmade 
factors threaten the continued existence of the Eiao warbler throughout 
its range.

Status Determination for the Eiao Polynesian Warbler

     We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the Eiao Polynesian warbler. The subspecies is 
currently at risk on Eiao Island due to ongoing threats of habitat 
destruction and modification (Factor A) and stochastic events 
associated with the subspecies' restricted range (Factor E). 
Furthermore, we have determined that the existing regulatory mechanisms 
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate the current threats to the 
subspecies.
     Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the Eiao 
Polynesian warbler throughout its entire range, as described above, we 
determine that this subspecies is in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we propose to list the Eiao 
Polynesian warbler as an endangered subspecies throughout all of its 
range. Because we find that the Eiao Polynesian warbler is endangered 
throughout all of its range, there is no reason to consider its status 
in a significant portion of its range.

III. Greater Adjutant (Leptoptilos dubiu)

Species Description

     The greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius) is a very large (145 to 
150 cm long (4.7 to 4.9 ft)) species of stork in the family Ciconiidae. 
This species is characterized by a naked pink head and a low-hanging 
neck pouch. Its bill is very thick and yellow in color. The plumage 
ruff of the neck is white, and other than a pale grey leading edge on 
each wing, the rest of the greater adjutant's body is dark grey 
(Birdlife International (BLI) 2009a, unpaginated).
     This species of bird once was common across much of Southeast 
Asia, occurring in India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, 
Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Sumatra, Java, and Borneo. Large breeding 
colonies occurred in Myanmar; however, this colony collapsed in the 
mid-1900s (Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 264).
     The current distribution of this species consists of two breeding 
populations, one in India and the other in Cambodia. Recent sighting 
records of this species from the neighboring countries of Nepal, 
Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand are presumed to be wandering birds 
from one of the two populations in India and Cambodia (BLI 2009a, 
unpaginated).
     India: The most recent range-wide population estimate for this 
species in India (600 to 800 birds) comes from data collected in 1995 
through 1996 (Singha et al. 2003, p. 146). Approximately 11 breeding 
sites are located in the Brahmaputra Valley in the State of Assam 
(Singha et al. 2003, p.147). Recent information indicates that 
populations of this species continue to decline in India. At two 
breeding sites near the city of Guwahati in the State of Assam, the 
most recent survey data show that the number of breeding birds has 
declined from 247 birds in 2005 to 118 birds in 2007 (Hindu 2007, 
unpaginated).
     In India, much of the greater adjutant's native habitat has been 
lost. The greater adjutant uses habitat in three national parks in 
India; however, almost all nesting colonies in India are found outside 
of the national parks. The greater adjutant often occurs close to urban 
areas; the species feeds in and around wetlands in the breeding season, 
and disperses to scavenge at trash dumps, burial grounds, and slaughter 
houses at other times of the year. The natural diet of the greater 
adjutant consists primarily of fish, frogs, reptiles, small mammals and 
birds, crustaceans, and carrion (Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 266).
     This species breeds in colonies during the dry season (winter) in 
stands of tall trees near water sources. In India, the greater adjutant 
prefers to nest in large, widely branched trees in a tightly spaced 
colony with little foliage cover and food sources nearby (Singha et al. 
2002, p. 214). The breeding sites are also commonly associated with 
bamboo forests which provide protection from

[[Page 294]]

heavy rain during the pre-monsoon season (Singha et al. 2002, p. 218). 
Each adult female greater adjutant commonly lays two eggs each year 
(Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 266).
     Cambodia: Currently there are two known breeding populations in 
Cambodia. The larger of these two populations occurs in the Tonle Sap 
Biosphere Reserve (TSBR) near Tonle Sap Lake and has recently been 
estimated at 77 breeding pairs (Clements et al. 2007, p. 7). The Tonle 
Sap floodplain (and associated rivers) is considered one of the few 
remaining remnants of freshwater swamp forest in the region. 
Approximately 5,490 km2 (2,120 mi2) of the freshwater swamp forest 
ecoregion is protected in Cambodia. Of this amount, the Tonle Sap Great 
Lake Protected Area (which includes the Tonle Sap floodplain) makes up 
5,420 km2 (2,092 mi2) of that protected habitat (WWF 2007, p. 3).
     A smaller population of greater adjutants was recently discovered 
in the Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary in the Northern Plains of 
Cambodia. This population has been estimated at 40 birds (Clements 
2008, pers. comm.; BLI 2009, unpaginated). Although other breeding 
sites have not yet been found in Cambodia, researchers expect that the 
greater adjutant may nest along the Mekong River in the eastern 
provinces of Mondulkiri, Ratanakiri, Stung Treng, and Kratie in 
Cambodia (Clement 2008, pers. comm.).
     In Cambodia, the greater adjutant breeds in freshwater flooded 
forest, and disperses to seasonally inundated forest, tall wet 
grasslands, mangroves, and intertidal flats to forage. These forests 
are characterized by deciduous tropical hardwoods (Dipterocarpaceae 
family) and semi-evergreen forest (containing a mix of deciduous and 
evergreen trees) interspersed with meadows, ponds, and other wetlands 
(WWF 2006b, p. 1).

Conservation Status

     The IUCN classifies the greater adjutant as critically endangered. 
In India, the greater adjutant is listed under Schedule I of the Indian 
Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. The species is not listed in the 
Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Greater Adjutant

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range

     India: The greater adjutant occurs in Kaziranga, Manas, and 
Diburu-Saikhowa National Parks. However, nearly all breeding sites for 
this species are located outside of protected areas (Singha et al. 
2003, p. 148). The ongoing loss of habitat through habitat conversion 
for development and agriculture is a primary threat to the greater 
adjutant. The clearing of trees that are suitable for breeding sites is 
a serious threat to this species. The recent decline in the population 
at the breeding colonies near Guwahai, India, is believed to be caused 
by tree removal at the breeding site and filling of wetlands in an area 
near the city that had been used by the greater adjutant as feeding 
areas (Hindu 2007, unpaginated). These activities were undertaken for 
the purpose of expanding residential developments in the city. The 
species is also seasonally dependent on wetlands for forage. These 
sites are impacted in India by drainage, encroachment, and overfishing. 
For instance, some sites have reportedly experienced encroachment from 
rice cultivation (BLI 2001, p. 284).
     Singha et al. 2002 (pp. 218-219) found that preferred nest trees 
were significantly larger and different in structure to non-nest trees 
near Nagaon in central Assam. The nest trees were large and widely 
branched with thin foliage cover (Singha et al. 2002, p. 214). 
Researchers believe that removal of preferred nesting trees at breeding 
may result in adjutants nesting in suboptimal trees at existing nest 
sites or relocating to other suboptimal nest sites. The trees and their 
limbs at suboptimal breeding sites are smaller in diameter, and the 
structure of the limbs does not always support the combined weight of 
the nest, adults, and chicks. As chicks grow older, nest limbs often 
break, sending the half grown chicks tumbling from the nest. 
Approximately 15 percent of chicks die after falling from their nests, 
for a variety of causes, including injuries and abandonment (Singha et 
al. 2006, p. 315). Some efforts have been made to reduce chick 
mortality, like those employed at two breeding sites near Nagaon from 
2001 to 2003 (Singha et al. 2006, pp. 315-320). Safety nets are placed 
under the canopy of nest trees to catch falling chicks. Chicks are 
either replaced in their nest, if on-site monitors can determine which 
nest the chick came from, or raised in captivity and later released. 
Juvenile birds were monitored after their release, and the program is 
considered a success (Singha and Rahmani 2006, p. 268; Singha et al. 
2006, pp. 315-320). Though some efforts have been undertaken to reduce 
chick mortality due to falls from nests, loss of chicks based on 
nesting in sub-optimal breeding sites is likely still occurring at 
other breeding sites.
     Cambodia: The largest breeding colonies are located in the Tonle 
Sap Biosphere Reserve, which consists primarily of the Tonle Sap Lake 
and its floodplain. A second breeding population occurs in the Kulen 
Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary in the Northern Plains. Poole (2002, p. 35) 
reported that large nesting trees around Cambodia's Tonle Sap 
floodplain, particularly crucial to greater adjutants for nesting, are 
under increasing pressure by felling for firewood and building 
material. Poole (2002, p. 35) concluded that a lack of nesting trees, 
both at Tonle Sap and in the Northern Plains, may be the most serious 
threat in the future to large water bird colonies.
     The Mekong River Basin flows through several countries in 
Southeast Asia, including Tibet, China, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand, 
Cambodia, and Laos, traveling over 4,800 km (2,980 mi) from start to 
finish. In Cambodia, the Mekong River flows into the Tonle Sap 
floodplain. Tonle Sap Lake expands and contracts throughout the year as 
a result of rainfall from monsoons and the flow of the Mekong River. 
The lake acts as a storage reservoir at different times of the year to 
regulate flooding in the Mekong Delta (Davidson 2005, p. 3). This 
flooding also results in flooded forests and shrublands, which provides 
seasonal habitat to several species. The Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve is 
one of Southeast Asia's most important wetlands for biodiversity and is 
particularly crucial for birds, reptiles, and plant assemblages 
(Davidson 2005, p. 6).
     Upstream developments in the Mekong have already led to 
significant trapping of sediments and nutrients in upstream reservoirs, 
which could lead to increased bed and bank erosion downstream, as well 
as decreased productivity (Kummu and Varis 2007, pp. 289, 291). 
According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB 2005, p. 2), 13 dams have 
been built, are being built, or are proposed to be built along the 
Mekong River. Proposed hydroelectric dams along the Mekong River in 
countries upstream from Cambodia have the potential to adversely affect 
the habitat of the greater adjutant by affecting the hydrology of the 
basin and reducing the overall foraging habitat and the abundance of 
prey species during the breeding season (Clements et al. 2007, p. 59). 
In addition, decline in productivity of the habitat, and thereby prey 
species abundance, may increase competition for food, and increased 
releases from upstream dams during the dry season could result in 
permanent flooding of these forests that will eventually kill the trees 
in these areas

[[Page 295]]

(Clements et al. 2007, p. 59). Under some scenarios, up to half of the 
core area (21,342 ha (52,737 ac)) of the Prek Toal area in the Tonle 
Sap Biosphere Reserve could be affected.
Summary of Factor A
     This species continues to face significant ongoing threats to its 
breeding and foraging habitat in both India and Cambodia. In India, 
activities such as the draining and filling of wetlands (Hindu 2007, 
unpaginated), removal of nest trees, and encroachment on habitat 
significantly impact this species (BLI 2001, p. 284). In Cambodia, 
threats include tree removal (Poole 2002, p. 35) and large-scale 
hydrologic changes due to existing dams and proposed dam construction 
(Clements et al. 2007, p. 59; Kummu and Varis, pp. 287-288). The latter 
threat could potentially eliminate habitat in protected areas such as 
the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, and it could additionally reduce 
productivity of these areas, which would further impact the species by 
affecting the foraging base and potentially increasing competition with 
other species (Clements et al. 2007, p. 59). Therefore, we find that 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
the habitat or range is a threat to the continued existence of the 
greater adjutant throughout its range.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes

     Local communities collect bird eggs and chicks for consumption and 
for trade in both India and Cambodia. This is considered a primary 
threat to the birds in Cambodia, where fledglings are also taken 
(Clements 2008, pers. comm.). Due to their rarity, greater adjutants 
are believed to have a high market value, which increases the 
likelihood this type of activity will continue. The implementation of 
bird nest protection programs has been developed by the Wildlife 
Conservation Society, working with local villages such as the program 
at Kulen Promtep Wildlife Sanctuary (ACCB 2009, unpaginated). Although 
the impacts from large-scale collection of bird eggs and chicks has 
been reduced through these programs, collection still remains a threat 
to the species.
    Accounts of poisoning, netting, trapping, and shooting of adult 
birds were also reported at various locations in both India and 
Cambodia during the 1990s (BLI 2001, pp. 285-286). In India, some birds 
were shot because of perceived impact on fish stocks, others in hunts 
(BLI 2001, p. 285). In Cambodia, some birds were captured to be sold as 
food and for use as pets, and some were also hunted (BLI 2001, p. 286). 
Birds are also likely inadvertently injured or killed as a result of 
destructive fishing techniques in Cambodia such as electro-fishing and 
the use of poisons (Clements 2008, pers. comm.). In a 1999 article, the 
Phnom Penh Post (as reported in Environmental Justice Foundation 2002, 
p. 25) reported that pesticides are used to kill both fish and wildlife 
species at Tonle Sap.
     In summary, although we are unaware of any scientific or 
educational purpose for which the adjutant is used, local communities 
are known to collect bird eggs, chicks, and adults for consumption and 
other purposes (e.g., pet trade and perceived threat to fish stocks) in 
either or both India or Cambodia (BLI 2001, pp. 285-286). Further, even 
though nest protection programs are being implemented, these programs 
are insufficient to adequately protect the species. Therefore, we find 
that overutilization due to commercial and recreational purposes is a 
threat to the continued existence of the greater adjutant throughout 
its range.

C. Disease or predation

     Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 continues to be a 
serious problem for this species. This strain of avian influenza first 
appeared in Asia in 1996, and spread from country to country with rapid 
succession as found by Peterson et al. (2007, p. 1). By 2006, the virus 
was detected across most of Europe and in several African countries. 
Influenza A viruses, to which group strain H5N1 belongs, infects 
domestic animals and humans, but wildfowl and shorebirds are considered 
the primary source of this virus in nature (Olsen et al. 2006, p. 384). 
Though it is still unclear if the greater adjutant is a carrier, lack 
of an avian influenza wild bird surveillance program in Cambodia will 
make it difficult to resolve this question.
     Until recently, there was no information on predation affecting 
the greater adjutant. However, recent research on other waterbirds 
suggests that predation may impact the greater adjutant in Cambodia. 
For example, nesting surveys for several waterbirds were conducted 
between 2004 and 2007 at the Prek Toal area in Tonle Sap Biosphere 
Reserve. These surveys included monitoring of nest sites. Human 
disturbances at nest sites due to illegal collection of chicks and eggs 
resulted in an increase of predation by crows (Corvus spp.) on spot-
billed pelicans in the 2001-2002 breeding season, causing up to 100 
percent loss of reproduction, and again in the 2002-2003 breeding 
season, resulting in up to 60 percent loss in reproduction due to a 
combination of collection and predation. In some locations, the spot-
billed pelicans abandoned their nests for the remainder of the breeding 
season (Clements et al. 2007, p. 57). It is likely that other 
waterbirds, such as the greater adjutant at Prek Toal would be 
similarly affected due to illegal collection of eggs by humans, nest 
site disturbance, and subsequent increase in crow presence, thereby 
increasing the predation of their chicks and eggs.
     In summary, although incidence of local residents collecting eggs 
and chicks for consumption has been reduced in some areas due to 
educational and enforcement programs, these impacts still occur. At the 
largest breeding sites for this species in India, reproductive success 
is low, less than one chick per nest per year. Because the total 
population of the greater adjutant is fewer than 1,000 birds, the loss 
of eggs and chicks in populations in India and Cambodia is a 
significant threat to the species. In addition, there may be secondary 
impacts due to predation by crows. Therefore, we find that predation is 
a threat to the continued existence of the greater adjutant throughout 
its range.

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

     The greater adjutant is classified as critically endangered by the 
IUCN. Although there is evidence of commercial trade across the 
Cambodia border into Laos and Thailand, this species is currently not 
listed under CITES.
     India: The greater adjutant is listed under Schedule I of the 
Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 (IWPA). Schedule I provides 
absolute protection, with the greatest penalties for offenses. This law 
prohibits hunting, possession, sale, and transport of listed species. 
The IWPA also provides for the designation and management of 
sanctuaries and national parks for the purposes of protecting, 
propagating, or developing wildlife or its environment. Protected areas 
in India allow for regulated levels of human use and disturbance and 
are managed to prevent widespread clearing and complete loss of 
suitable habitat. Although the greater adjutant uses habitat in three 
national parks in India, almost all nesting colonies of this species in 
India are found outside of protected areas (Singha et al. 2003, p. 
148). Some of the species' foraging areas are also located outside of 
protected areas. As stated above in Factor A, the ongoing loss of 
habitat through habitat

[[Page 296]]

conversion for development and agriculture is a primary threat to this 
species. The regulatory mechanisms currently in place in India do not 
provide protection of habitat for the greater adjutant outside of 
existing protected areas such as national parks, and therefore are not 
adequate.
     Cambodia: Areas designated as natural areas by the Ministry of 
Environment, such as the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, are to be managed 
for the protection of the natural resources contained within. Portions 
of the Biosphere Reserve have also been designated as areas of 
importance under the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance 
of 1971.
     The Mekong River Commission (MRC) was formed between the 
governments of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Vietnam in 1995 as part 
of the Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of 
the Mekong River Basin. The signatories agreed to jointly manage their 
shared water resources and the economic development of the river (MRC 
2007, p. 1-2). According to the Asian Development Bank, 13 dams have 
been built, are being built, or are proposed to be built along the 
Mekong River (ADB 2005, p. 2). The continued modification of greater 
adjutant habitat has been identified as a primary threat to this 
species (Factor A), and this regional regulatory mechanism is not 
effective at reducing that threat.
     Several laws exist in Cambodia to protect the greater adjutant 
from two of the primary threats to the species: habitat destruction and 
hunting. However, they are ineffective at reducing those threats. In 
Cambodia, Declaration No. 359, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Forestry and Fisheries in 1994, prohibits the hunting of greater 
adjutant. However, reports of severe hunting pressure within the 
greater adjutant's habitat exist and illegal poaching of wildlife in 
Cambodia continues (Bird et al. 2006, p. 23; Poole 2002, pp. 34-35; 
UNEP-SEF 2005, pp. 23, 27).
     The Creation and Designation of Protected Areas regulation 
(November 1993) established a national system of protected areas. In 
1994, through Declaration No. 1033 on the Protection of Natural Areas, 
the following activities were banned in all protected areas:
     (1) Construction of saw mills, charcoal ovens, brick kilns, tile 
kilns, limestone ovens, tobacco ovens;
     (2) hunting or placement of traps for tusks, bones, feathers, 
horns, leather, or blood;
     (3) deforestation;
     (4) mining minerals or use of explosives;
     (5) the use of domestic animals such as dogs;
     (6) dumping of pollutants;
     (7) the use of machines or heavy cars which may cause smoke 
pollution;
     (8) noise pollution; and
     (9) unpermitted research and experiments.
    In addition, the Law on Environmental Protection and Natural 
Resource Management of 1996 sets forth general provisions for 
environmental protection. Under Article 8 of this law, Cambodia 
declares that its natural resources (including wildlife) shall be 
conserved, developed, and managed and used in a rational and 
sustainable manner.
     Protected Areas have been established within the range of the 
greater adjutant, such as the Tonle Sap Lake Biosphere Reserve. The 
Tonle Sap Great Lake protected area was designated a multi-purpose 
protected area in 1993 (Matsui et al. 2006, p. 411). Under this decree, 
Multiple Use Management Areas are those areas which provide for the 
sustainable use of water resources, timber, wildlife, fish, pasture, 
and recreation; the conservation of nature is primarily oriented to 
support these economic activities. In 1997, the Tonle Sap region was 
nominated as a Biosphere Reserve under UNESCO's (United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) ``Man and the 
Biosphere Program.'' The Cambodian government developed a National 
Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) in 1997, supporting the UNESCO site 
goals. Among the priority areas of intervention are fisheries and 
floodplain agriculture at Tonle Sap Lake, biodiversity and protected 
areas, and environmental education. NEAP was followed by the adoption 
of the Strategy and Action Plan for the Protection of Tonle Sap 
(SAPPTS) in February 1998 (Matsui et al. 2006, p. 411), and the 
issuance of a Royal Decree officially creating Tonle Sap Lake a 
Biosphere Reserve (TSBR) on April 10, 2001. The royal decree was 
followed by a subdecree by the Prime Minister to establish a 
Secretariat, along with its roles and functions, for the TSBR with the 
understanding that its objectives could not be achieved without 
cooperation and coordination among relevant stakeholders (TSBR 
Secretariat 2007, p. 1).
     Joint Declaration No. 1563, on the Suppression of Wildlife 
Destruction in the Kingdom of Cambodia, was issued by the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries in 1996. Although the Japan 
International Cooperation Agency (JICA 1999, p. 19) reported that this 
regulatory measure was ineffectively enforced, some strides have been 
made recently through the combined efforts of WCS, the Cambodian 
government, and local communities at Tonle Sap Lake. WCS Cambodia 
(2009, unpaginated) reports that the illegal wildlife trade in Cambodia 
is ``enormous'' and driven by demand for meat and traditional medicines 
in Thailand, Vietnam, and China. Substantial progress has been made in 
protecting seven species of waterbirds at Prek Toal Core Area in the 
TSBR, increasing populations of some species tenfold by working with 
the primary management agencies and working at the field level to 
improve community engagement, law enforcement, and long-term research 
and monitoring (WCS Cambodia 2009, unpaginated).
     The Forestry Law of 2002 strictly prohibits hunting, harming, or 
harassing wildlife (Article 49) (Law on Forestry 2003). This law 
further prohibits the possession, trapping, transport, or trade in rare 
and endangered wildlife (Article 49). However, to our knowledge, 
Cambodia has not yet published a list of endangered or rare species. 
Thus, this law is not currently effective at protecting the greater 
adjutant from threats by hunting.
     In 2006, the Cambodian government created Integrated Farming and 
Biodiversity Areas (IFBA), including over 161 km (100 mi) of grassland 
(over 30,000 ha (74,132 ac)) near Tonle Sap Lake to protect the Bengal 
florican, an endangered bird in that region (WWF 2006a, pp. 1-2). The 
above measures have focused attention on the conservation situation at 
TSBR and have begun to improve the conservation of the area and its 
wildlife there, but several management challenges remain. These 
challenges include overexploitation of flooded forests and fisheries; 
negative impacts from invasive species; lack of monitoring and 
enforcement; low level of public awareness of biodiversity values; and 
uncoordinated research, monitoring, and evaluation of species' 
populations (Matsui et al. 2006, pp. 409-418; TSBR Secretariat 2007, 
pp. 1-6).
     Even though these wildlife laws exist, greater adjutant habitat 
within Cambodian protected areas faces several challenges. The legal 
framework governing wetlands management is institutionally complex. It 
rests upon legislation vested in government agencies responsible for 
land use planning (Land Law 2001), resource use (Fishery Law 1987), and 
environmental conservation (Environmental Law 1996, Royal Decree on the 
Designation and

[[Page 297]]

Creation of National Protected Areas System 1993); however, there is no 
interministerial coordinating mechanism nationally for wetland planning 
and management (Bonheur et al. 2005, p. 9). As a result of this 
institutional complexity and lack of defined jurisdiction, natural 
resource use goes largely unregulated (Bonheur et al. 2005, p. 9). 
Thus, the protected areas system in Cambodia is ineffective in removing 
or reducing the threats of habitat modification and hunting faced by 
the greater adjutant.
Summary of Factor D
     Existing regulatory mechanisms in both India and Cambodia are 
ineffective at reducing or removing threats to the species such as 
habitat modification and collection of eggs and chicks for consumption. 
Although progress has been made recently in the protection of nests and 
birds at specific locations, this has largely been driven by measures 
from the private sector. We believe that the inadequacy of regulatory 
mechanisms, especially with regard to lack of law enforcement and 
habitat protection, is a significant risk factor for the greater 
adjutant. Therefore we find that existing regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to ameliorate the current threats to the greater adjutant 
throughout its range.

E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species' continued 
existence

     India: Due to a lack of natural foraging areas and availability of 
native wildlife carcasses to feed upon, the greater adjutant is known 
to commonly forage in refuge dumps and slaughterhouses during certain 
times of the year. Researchers believe that along with the refuse at 
these sites, these birds are inadvertently ingesting household 
contaminants and plastics that can adversely affect their health and 
reproductive capability (Singha et al. 2003, p. 148; BLI 2009a, 
unpaginated). In addition, pesticide has been used in winter to kill 
fish at a national park in India, and may be a widespread practice 
throughout the Brahmaputra lowlands (BLI 2001, p. 287). As the 
remaining natural foraging habitat for this species continues to 
shrink, the level of foraging at refuge dumps and slaughter houses is 
expected to increase, thereby increasing the incidence of greater 
adjutants ingesting contaminants at these sites. Also, the use of 
pesticides in and near water sources in the Brahmaputra lowlands may 
result in further contamination to the species.
     Cambodia: Increasing use of agro-chemicals, especially pesticides, 
is a major concern in the TSBR and throughout Cambodia. A survey 
conducted in Cambodian agriculture practices in 2000 showed that 67 
percent of farms used pesticides. Of these farms, 44 percent began 
using pesticides in the 1980s, and 23 percent began using them in the 
1990s (Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) 2002, p. 13). All of the 
pesticides used in Cambodia are produced outside of the country, and 
the labels, which include information on the appropriate use of these 
chemicals, are often not written in a language understandable to local 
villagers (EJF 2002, p. 18). A Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations (FAO) study found that only 1 percent of vegetable 
farmers received technical training in pesticide use (EJF 2002, p. 17). 
This problem often leads to overuse of these highly toxic compounds.
    In Cambodia, organochlorine insecticides, such as dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), and organophosphate insecticides such 
as methyl-parathion are commonly used. Organochlorine insecticides are 
known to accumulate in aquatic systems and concentrate in the organs of 
species of waterbirds such as the greater adjutant. The effects of 
persistent organic pesticides are variable depending on concentration 
and species, but can include direct mortality, feminization of embryos, 
reduced hormones for egg-laying, and egg-shell thinning (EJF 2002, p. 
24).
     In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use of DDT was banned in most 
developed countries; however, it is still used for agriculture in 
Cambodia. In recent years, mong bean farmers in Siem Reap province are 
estimated to have applied 10 tons of a pesticide mix of DDT, Thiodan 
(endosulfan), and methyl-parathion on fields that are submerged in the 
wet season and thus capable of polluting the Tonle Sap basin (EJF 2002, 
p. 25). In addition, methyl-parathion and endosulfan are used in 
illegal fishing (EJF 2002, p. 14). Methyl-parathion is considered 
highly toxic to birds and may take 2 weeks to degrade in lakes and 
rivers. The decline in the number of some bird species from around the 
Tonle Sap Lake may be partly due to pesticide poisoning (EJF 2002, p. 
25). Further, because higher levels of persistent organochlorines have 
been recorded in freshwater fish and mussels than marine fish and 
mussels, the source of these compounds is likely inland watersheds (EJF 
2002, p. 24). Although we could not locate any specific contaminant 
reports on the amount of these toxic chemicals found in greater 
adjutants based on the above data, it is likely that the persistent use 
of these compounds is contributing to the decline of this species.
Summary of Factor E
     The use of pesticides occurs in both India and Cambodia for a 
variety of reasons, including agriculture, fishing, and insect control. 
As human interactions with the adjutant continue to increase, the 
chances of poisoning of the species, both directly and indirectly, also 
continue to rise. Therefore we find that other natural or manmade 
factors affecting the continued existence of the species in the form of 
pesticide use and ingesting other contaminants is a threat to the 
greater adjutant throughout its range.

Status Determination for the Greater Adjutant

     We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the greater adjutant. The species is currently 
at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of habitat 
destruction and modification (Factor A); overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes in the 
form of hunting, egg and chick collection, and trapping (Factor B); 
predation (Factor C); inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
(Factor D); and other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence in the form of overuse of toxic compounds (Factor 
E).
     Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the greater 
adjutant throughout its entire range, as described above, we determine 
that this species is in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we propose to list the greater adjutant as an 
endangered species throughout all of its range. Because we find that 
the greater adjutant is endangered throughout all of its range, there 
is no reason to consider its status in a significant portion of its 
range.

[[Page 298]]

IV. Jerdon's courser (Rhinoptilus bitorquatus)

Species Description

     The Jerdon's courser, also known as the double-banded courser 
(Rhinoptilus bitorquatus), is a small, nocturnal bird, which is 
specialized for running and belongs to the family Glareolidae (Bhushan 
1986, pp. 1, 6; Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 
2004b, p. 7). It was first described by T. C. Jerdon in 1848 (Bhushan 
1986, p. 1; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 1). This species averages 27 cm 
(11 in) in length, its plumage consists of two brown bands around its 
breast, a blackish colored crown, a broad buff-colored supercilium 
(eyebrow stripe), an orange patch that runs from its throat down to its 
chest, and it has a short yellow bill with a black tip (BLI 2009b, 
unpaginated).
    The Jerdon's courser is a rare species of bird that is endemic to 
the Eastern Ghats of the states of Andhra Pradesh and extreme southern 
Madhya Pradesh in India (BLI 2009b, unpaginated). The size of the 
population is not known. Historically, this species was reported in the 
Khamman, Nellore, and Anantapur districts of Andhra Pradesh and the 
Gadchiroli District of Maharashtra (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5). 
Until 1900, its presence was periodically recorded, including some 
records in the Pennar and Godavari river valleys and near Anantapur 
(Bhushan 1986, p. 2; Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 
2004b, p. 7; Jeganathan et al. 2006, p. 227). Efforts by various 
ornithologists in the early 1930s and mid to late 1970s to record the 
presence of this species failed, leading to the belief that the species 
was extinct (Bhushan 1986, p. 2; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7). In 
1986, the Jerdon's courser was rediscovered near Reddipalli village, 
Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh (Bhushan 1986, pp. 8-9; Jeganathan et 
al. 2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; Jeganathan et al. 
2005, p. 3; Jeganathan et al. 2006, p. 227; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 
1).
    The area where the species was rediscovered was designated as the 
Sri Lankamaleswara Wildlife Sanctuary (SLWS) (Jeganathan et al. 2004b, 
p. 7; Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 3). After its rediscovery, it was only 
observed regularly at a few sites in and around the SLWS (Jeganathan et 
al. 2004b, p. 7, 18; Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5; Jeganathan et al. 
2006, p. 227; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1), including reports of its 
presence in Sri Penusula Narasimha Wildlife Sanctuary (SPNWS) in the 
Cuddapah and Nellore districts, Andhra Pradesh (Jeganathan et al. 2005, 
p. 3). It has since been found at three additional localities 
(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 228; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 20; BLI 
2009b, unpaginated).
     Due to the nocturnal nature of the species and the wooded nature 
of its habitat, individuals are rarely seen; therefore, very little 
information is available on the distribution, ecology, population size, 
and habitat requirements of the Jerdon's courser (Jeganathan et al. 
2004a, p. 225; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; Jeganathan et al. 2005, 
p. 3; Jeganathan et al. 2006, p. 227; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1). New 
survey techniques have allowed researchers to detect the presence and 
absence of Jerdon's courser using track strips and a tape playback of 
the species call. These methods can be useful in mapping the geographic 
range of the Jerdon's courser and in estimating the population size, 
and have contributed to a better understanding of habitat preferences. 
Surveys have not been conducted in all areas with suitable habitat 
characteristics; additional surveys are needed to confirm the current 
range and population size of this species. Although the size of the 
population is not known, it is believed to be a small, declining 
population (Jeganathan 2004b, p. 7; BLI 2009b, unpaginated; IUCN 2009c, 
unpaginated).
     The Jerdon's courser inhabits open patches within scrub-forest 
interspersed with patches of bare ground, in gently undulating, rocky 
foothills (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1). 
Studies show that this species is most likely to occur where the 
density of large bushes (greater than 2 m (6 ft) tall) ranges from 300 
to 700 per ha (121-283 large bushes per acre) and the density of 
smaller bushes (less than 2 m (6 ft) tall) is less than 1,000 per ha 
(404 per acre) (Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 228; Jeganathan et al. 
2004b, p. 22; Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 
1). The dominant woody vegetation includes species of shrub, 
particularly Zizyphus rugosa, Carissa carandas, and Acacia horrida 
(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, p. 228; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 22).
     The amount of suitable habitat that existed for this species in 
2000 was estimated to be approximately 3,847 km2 (1,485 mi2) of scrub 
habitat in the Cuddapah and Nellore districts of the State of Andhra 
Pradesh (Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 6). Jeganathan (2008, pers. comm.) 
further stated that the amount of suitable habitat available in and 
around the SLWS is approximately 132 km2 (51 mi2). A comprehensive 
habitat assessment of all the shrub habitat areas within the historic 
range of this species has not yet been completed; therefore, suitable 
habitat may occur elsewhere for this species.
     Little information is known about feeding habits or feeding areas 
of this species. The only information known comes from the analysis of 
two Jerdon's courser fecal samples, which consisted mainly of termites 
and ants. Jeganathan (2004a, p. 234) suggested that despite being 
nocturnal and affected by the shadowing effects of the canopy, coursers 
may be able to see invertebrate prey on the ground by selecting 
relatively well-illuminated open areas.
     There is no information on the life history of the Jerdon's 
courser; no nests or young birds have ever been found, although the 
footprints of a young bird along with an adult Jerdon's courser 
suggests successful breeding is taking place (Jeganathan et al. 2004b, 
pp. 17, 29). The calling period is brief, starting approximately 45 to 
50 minutes after sunset and continuing for a few minutes to 
approximately 20 minutes.

Conservation Status

     Due to the single, small, and declining population of the Jerdon's 
courser, it is classified as ``critically endangered'' by the IUCN 
(Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 7; Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 1; Jeganathan 
et al. 2008, p. 73; IUCN 2009c, unpaginated), a category assigned to 
species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. It is 
also listed under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 
1972. The species has not been formally considered for listing in the 
Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Jerdon's Courser

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range

     The primary threat to the persistence of the Jerdon's courser is 
habitat destruction and alteration due to conversion of suitable 
habitat to agriculture lands, grazing, and construction within and 
around the SLWS and SPNWS, and increasing settlements (Jeganathan 2005 
et al. 2005, p. 6; Norris 2008, pers. comm.; Jeganathan 2009, pers. 
comm..). Agriculture is the main occupation of the people living in the 
area. The State of Andhra Pradesh has experienced growth of intensive 
agricultural practices in recent years (Senapathi et al. 2007, pg. 2), 
with paddy (Oryza sativa), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), cotton 
(Gossypium sp.), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), finger millet (Eleusince 
coracana), turmeric

[[Page 299]]

(Curcuma longa), and onion (Allium cepa) being the major crops of the 
area (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 77). From 1991 to 2000, scrub habitat 
in the Cuddapah District and parts of the Nellore District in Andhra 
Pradesh decreased by 11-15 percent, while the area occupied by 
agricultural land more than doubled (109 percent increase) during the 
same time period. Remaining scrub patches were also found to be smaller 
(38.4 percent decrease) and further from human settlements (Senapathi 
et al. 2007, pp. 1, 4; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76).
    The main causes for the loss of scrub habitat were human 
settlements and subsequent conversions of scrub habitat to agriculture 
and cleared areas (Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 6). From 2001 to 2004, an 
estimated 480 ha (1,186 ac) of scrub habitat were cleared within and 
around the SLWS, 275 ha (680 ac) of which were cleared to provide land 
for agriculture to the people of India who were displaced by floods and 
for farming of lemons and forestry plantations. These cleared areas 
fall within 1 km (0.6 mi) of previously known and newly discovered 
Jerdon's courser areas (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76). From 2000 to 
2005, Jeganathan et al. (2008, p. 77) noted that approximately 215 ha 
(531 ac) of scrub habitat outside of the SLWS were cleared and most 
likely will become lemon farms. The irrigation required to sustain 
agricultural activities will likely further fragment any remaining 
suitable habitat (Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 7).
     The Jerdon's courser inhabits open patches within scrub-forest and 
prefers areas with moderate densities of trees and brush (Jeganathan et 
al. 2004a, p. 234). Researchers believe this open habitat is maintained 
by grazing animals and some woodcutting (Norris 2008, pers. comm.). 
Known Jerdon's courser sites are already being used for grazing 
livestock and woodcutting, but at moderate levels that maintain the 
appropriate vegetation structure (Jeganathan 2005, p. 15). Mechanical 
clearing of bushes to create pasture, orchards, and tilled land; high 
levels of woodcutting; and high level of use by domestic livestock are 
likely to cause deterioration in scrub habitat by creating a scrub 
forest that is too open for the Jerdon's courser. However, low levels 
of grazing by livestock or absence of woodcutting may also lead to 
habitat that is more closed and, therefore, unsuitable (Jeganathan et 
al. 2004a, p. 234; Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 23; Norris 2008, pers. 
comm.).
     Land in SLWS and adjacent areas is used by the people from 
villages in Sagileru valley for grazing herds of domestic buffalo 
(Bubalus bubalis), sheep (Ovis aries), and goats (Capra hircus), and 
for woodcutting (Jeganathan et al. 2004b, p. 9). Jeganathan (2008, 
pers. comm.) states that most of the potentially suitable habitat for 
Jerdon's courser is located on the fringe of the forest and can be 
easily accessed by locals for grazing and woodcutting. Jeganathan et 
al. (2008, p. 77) notes three types of grazing within and around the 
SLWS and SPNWS. The first includes shepherds who bring goats, sheep, 
and buffalo into the scrub habitat in and around the sanctuaries every 
morning, grazing 2-3 km (1-2 mi) into the forest before returning to 
the villages in the evening. The second includes nomads with 200-300 
cattle. Although they are invited by farmers to help fertilize the 
lemon farms, they stay 3 to 4 months and graze in the forested areas in 
and around the sanctuaries. The third includes sheep that graze inside 
the sanctuaries throughout the year; however, this type of grazing did 
not occur in scrub habitat. Furthermore, a common practice is to cut 
and bend the branches of scrub and tree species to facilitate better 
access for grazing (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 78). In addition, the 
people of the local villages also use the sanctuaries for timber and 
nontimber forest products; including fuel wood, illegal wood 
collecting, grass, and bamboo. From 2001 to 2003, Jeganathan et al. 
(2008, pp. 77-78) regularly observed wood loads being removed by either 
head loads, bullock cart, or tractor.
     Development activities within the SLWS, including the construction 
of check dams, and percolation ponds, and digging of trenches, have 
been observed in known and newly recorded areas of the Jerdon's courser 
(Jeganathan et al. 2004a, pp. 26, 28; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76). 
Approximately 0.5 to 1 ha (1-2 ac) of scrub forest was cleared for each 
of five percolation ponds dug near the main Jerdon's courser area and 
exotic plant species planted on the embankment. In addition, scrub 
habitat was thinned (removal of all scrub species except saplings), and 
pits for collecting rainwater were dug (Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76). 
Furthermore, various sizes of stones were collected from the scrub 
jungle within and around the SLWS for road construction every year. 
Collection included digging of stones with crowbars, collection of 
stones in heavy vehicles, and the excavation of 15 large pits 
(Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 76).
     Construction of dams and reservoirs and river floods in the area 
has resulted in the relocation of villages near the SLWS and SPNWS. 
Fifty-seven villages were relocated closer to SLWS after the 
construction of the Somasila dam. Fifteen were displaced due to the 
construction of the Sri Potuluri Veera Brahmendraswamy (SPVB) 
Reservoir. Currently, there are approximately 146 villages between the 
SLWS and SPNWS (Jeganathan et al. 2008, pp. 76-77). There are more 
villages in the area of Somasila and SPVB Reservoir that could be 
relocated near the sanctuaries in the future, and there are plans to 
increase the height of the Somasila dam, which will cause the 
displacement of more villages near the southeastern part of SLWS 
(Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 77). With the relocation and expansion of 
human settlements, there is concern over additional land conversion for 
agriculture, increased pressure for grazing and woodcutting, and 
further development.
     At the time of the Jerdon's courser rediscovery in 1986, the only 
known site where the species was found was under threat from a project 
to construct the Telugu-Ganga canal through its habitat. The Andhra 
Pradesh Forestry Department (APFD) and the State Government of Andhra 
Pradesh responded by designating the site as the SLWS to protect the 
species. The proposed route of the canal was adjusted to avoid the 
sanctuary (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 6; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 
78). However, in 2005, construction of the Telugu-Ganga canal began, 
illegally, within the SLWS. Construction was stopped immediately once 
the APFD was notified (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 6; Kohli 2006, 
unpaginated). Illegal excavation was reported even after construction 
was stopped and the contracting company fined (Kohli 2006, 
unpaginated). A report by the Bombay National History Society (BNHS) 
found that 80 to 100 m (263 to 328 ft) were cleared for canals that 
were 16 to 20 m (53 to 66 ft) wide. It also found that approximately 22 
ha (54 ac) of potentially suitable habitat were cleared and one of the 
three newly recorded sites for the Jerdon's courser was destroyed by 
the illegal construction within the SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 
12; BNHS 2007, p. 1; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 73). The report also 
assessed the potential impacts of the proposed realignment and 
determined that the construction of the canal would still impact 650 ha 
(1,606 ac) of suitable habitat around the SLWS and would pass within 
500 m (1640 ft) of recent records of the Jerdon's courser and pass very 
close to the only place where the species has been regularly sighted 
since 1986 (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 12; Jeganathan et al. 2008,

[[Page 300]]

p. 80). Plans for the Telugu-Ganga canal included another canal project 
along the western boundary of the SPNWS. Unauthorized work near the 
Sanctuary boundary was stopped by the Cuddapah Forest Division in 
October 2005. In some locations along the canal route, forest had been 
cleared and roads developed inside of the Sanctuary boundary 
(Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 9). Approximately 163 ha (403 ac) were 
cleared for the construction of the canal in and around the SPNWS 
(Jeganathan et al. 2005; Jeganathan et al. 2008, p. 80). It is unknown 
how much of this area is occupied by the Jerdon's courser.
     Following the illegal construction of the canal within the SLWS 
and SPNWS, the issue was raised to the Central Empowered Committee 
(CEC), a monitoring body on forest matters set up by the Supreme Court 
(Kholi 2006, unpaginated). The CEC ruled in favor of a realignment 
route completely avoiding courser habitat. Also, the government of 
Andhra Pradesh has transferred approximately 1,000 ha (2,4711 ac) of 
land between the canal and the SLWS to the APFD (BLI 2009b, 
unpaginated; Jeganathan 2009, pers. comm.).
     During the BNHS study on the construction of the Telugu-Ganga 
canal, additional threats were identified in association with the 
construction. Roads were built along the canal route and from the main 
roads to the canal, which subsequently provided easy access to the 
forest for unauthorized woodcutting. Furthermore, the SLWS is known to 
have red sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus), a highly valued species of 
trees sought after by illegal woodcutters. APDF records from 1984 to 
2003 show that over 116,000 kilograms (255,736 pounds) of matured red 
sanders were seized from smugglers (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 13). 
Pressure from smugglers on mature red sanders, coupled with the 
increased access points into the SLWS due to canal construction 
activities, has caused extensive unauthorized woodcutting within the 
SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 13).
Summary of Factor A
     In summary, the scrub habitat known to be occupied by the species 
and potentially suitable habitat on adjacent lands in and around the 
SLWS and SPNWS in the Cuddapah District of India have been destroyed 
and diminished due to conversion of land for agriculture purposes, 
grazing livestock, construction, and woodcutting. These actions are a 
result of human expansion and the subsequent increase in human activity 
in and around the SLWS and SPNWS. Additional relocation of villages 
around SLWS and SPNW is anticipated. Because the two most common 
livelihoods are agriculture and cattle rearing and because the 
establishment of additional villages will require more land to 
accommodate agriculture and livestock needs, the scrub habitat that is 
vital to the Jerdon's courser remains at risk of further curtailment. 
The population of the Jerdon's courser is extremely small and believed 
to be declining, so any further loss or degradation of remaining 
suitable habitat represents a significant threat to the species. 
Therefore, we find that present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range are threats to the 
continued existence of the Jerdon's courser throughout its range.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes

    We are not aware of any information currently available that 
indicates the use of this species for any commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purpose. As a result, we are not considering 
overutilization to be a contributing threat to the continued existence 
of the Jerdon's courser throughout its range.

C. Disease or predation

     We are not aware of any information currently available that 
indicates disease or predation pose a threat for this species. As a 
result, we are not considering disease or predation to be contributing 
threats to the continued existence of the Jerdon's courser throughout 
its range.

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

     The Jerdon's courser is listed under Schedule I of the Indian 
Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Schedule I provides absolute 
protection with the greatest penalties for offenses. This law prohibits 
hunting, possession, sale, and transport of listed species and allows 
the State Government to designate an area as a sanctuary or national 
park for the purpose of protecting, propagating, or developing wildlife 
or its environment. The SLWS and SPNWS were established for the purpose 
of protecting the habitat of the Jerdon's courser. The sanctuaries 
allow for regulated levels of human use and disturbance while 
preventing complete loss of scrub habitat (Senapathi et al. 2007, p. 
8). In addition, the SLWS and SNPWS are designated as Important Bird 
Areas (IBA) in India (Jeganathan et al. 2005, p. 5). IBAs are sites of 
international importance for the conservation of birds, as well as 
other animals and plants, and are meant to be used to focus 
conservation efforts and reinforce the existing protected areas 
network. However, designation as an IBA provides no legal protection of 
these areas (BNHS 2009, unpaginated).
     The Jerdon's courser is also listed as a priority species under 
the National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) of India. This National 
Plan includes guidance to expand and strengthen the existing network of 
protected areas, develop management plans for protected areas in the 
country, restore and manage degraded habitats outside of protected 
areas, and control activities such as poaching and illegal trade, among 
others. We are unaware of any management plans for the protected areas 
in Andhra Pradesh where the Jerdon's courser occurs. Additionally, the 
SLWS and SPNWS are protected by the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. 
Section 2 of this law restricts the use of forest land for nonforest 
purposes, such as the fragmentation or clearing of any forest.
     In summary, although protections for the species exist, the 
primary threat to this species is ongoing loss of habitat. Senapathi et 
al. (2007, pp. 7-8) found an extensive and rapid decline in scrub 
habitat, with most removal of scrub occurring up to sanctuary 
boundaries and little loss occurring within the wildlife sanctuaries. 
Due to the threat of an increasing number of settlements near the 
sanctuaries, and the subsequent further loss of scrub habitat to 
agriculture and livestock, protection of scrub habitat used by the 
Jerdon's courser will be important for the species' continued 
existence. Jeganathan et al. (2004, p. 28) classified many areas in the 
Cuddapah District as suitable habitat for the Jerdon's courser; 
however, with the exception of one sanctuary, the rest of the suitable 
habitats are not protected. Therefore, current regulatory mechanisms do 
not provide enough protection of suitable habitat for this species 
outside of existing protected areas. We are also unaware of any grazing 
standards within SLWS and SPNWS to ensure the maintenance of open scrub 
habitat and that prevent overgrazing by livestock. When combined with 
Factor A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the habitat or range), we find that the existing 
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ameliorate the current threats 
to the Jerdon's courser throughout its range.

[[Page 301]]

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued 
existence

    There are particular species characteristics which render a species 
vulnerable to extinction (Primack 2002, p. 193). For example, species 
with a narrow geographic range, small population size, declining 
population, and specialized habitat requirements are more susceptible 
to extinction than others without these characteristics (Primack 2002, 
pp. 193-200). Although exact population estimates and distribution of 
the Jerdon's courser are not available, the species has been reported 
as a small, declining population (Jeganathan 2004b, p. 7; BLI 2009b, 
unpaginated; IUCN 2009c, unpaginated) and only reported from a small 
patch of scrub habitat in and around the SLWS (Jeganathan et al. 2008, 
p. 73). Furthermore, certain species characteristics, such as those 
found in this species, predispose it to particular sources of 
extinction (Owens and Bennett 2000, p. 12147). Owens and Bennett (2000, 
p. 12147) found that extinction risks for birds with specialized 
habitat and small body size increased with habitat loss. The Jerdon's 
courser is a small bird dependent on scrub habitat of moderate density 
for survival. Habitat loss, as described under Factor A, is the primary 
threat to this species. Further loss of Jerdon's courser habitat may 
fragment remaining suitable habitat adjacent to the SLWS and increase 
the extinction risk for the species. In addition, small, isolated 
populations may experience decreased demographic viability and 
increased susceptibility of extinction from stochastic environmental 
factors (e.g., weather events, disease) and an increased threat of 
extinction from genetic isolation and subsequent inbreeding depression 
and genetic drift.
     In conclusion, the single known population of Jerdon's courser may 
be vulnerable to threats associated with low population sizes. Because 
the known population is small in size, and restricted in range, and 
depends on a special habitat for survival, any factor (i.e., habitat 
change, a loss of demographic viability, etc.) that results in a 
decline in habitat or individuals may be problematic for the long-term 
recovery of this species. Therefore, we find that other natural or 
manmade factors pose a threat to the Jerdon's courser throughout its 
range.

Status Determination for the Jerdon's Courser

     We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the Jerdon's courser. The species is currently 
at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of habitat 
destruction and modification (Factor A), and demographic, genetic, and 
environmental stochastic events and other complications associated with 
the species' low population and restricted range (Factor E). 
Furthermore, we have determined that the existing regulatory mechanisms 
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate the current threats to the 
species.
     Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the Jerdon's 
courser throughout its entire range, as described above, we determine 
that this species is in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we propose to list the Jerdon's courser as an 
endangered species throughout all of its range. Because we find that 
the Jerdon's courser is endangered throughout all of its range, there 
is no reason to consider its status in a significant portion of its 
range.

V. Marquesan Imperial Pigeon (Ducula galeata)

Species Description

     The Marquesan Imperial Pigeon (Ducula galeata), known locally as 
Upe, is a very large arboreal pigeon belonging to the family 
Columbidae. It was first described by Charles Lucien Bonaparte in 1855 
(Villard et al. 2003, p. 198; BLI 2009, unpaginated). The species 
measures 55 cm (22 in) in length, is dark slate-grey with bronze-green 
reflections on the upperparts, rufous-chestnut undertail-coverts, white 
eyes, and a white and grey-black cere protruding almost to the tip of 
the bill (Blanvillain et al. 2007, unpaginated; BLI 2009c, 
unpaginated).
     The pigeon is endemic to the French Polynesian Marquesas 
Archipelago in the Pacific Ocean. The Marquesas Archipelago is a 
territory of France located approximately 1,600 km (994 mi) northeast 
of Tahiti. Based on subfossil records, the pigeon was historically 
present on four islands in the Marquesas Archipelago, Hiva Oa, Ua Huka, 
Tahuata, and Nuku Hiva, as well as the Cook, the Pitcairn, and Society 
Island chains (Steadman 1997, p. 740; Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 6; 
Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 381; Blanvillain et al. 2007, 
unpaginated). At the time of its discovery, the pigeon was already 
restricted to Nuku Hiva, a 337 km2 (130 sq mi2) island. Researchers 
believe that hunting, degradation of local forest, invasive weeds and 
trees, and predation were the probable causes of its decline (Thorsen 
et al. 2002, pp. 8-9; Blanvillian et al. 2007, unpaginated). On Nuku 
Hiva, the pigeon is restricted to 7 sites which are difficult to access 
by hunters and livestock and appear to be resistant to colonization by 
rats (Villard et al. 2003, p. 191; BLI 2009c, unpaginated). In an 
effort to protect the remaining population from extinction due to 
catastrophic events, the pigeon was reintroduced to Ua Huka, an island 
50 km (31 mi) east of Nuku Hiva in 2000 (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 14; 
Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 385; BLI 2009c, unpaginated). Ua Huka 
was chosen as a reintroduction site primarily because the pigeon was 
historically found on the island, and due to availability of suitable 
habitat located in a protected area, a lack of black rats (Rattus 
rattus), and a smaller human population compared to other Marquesan 
islands (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 13).
     Population estimates on Nuku Hiva have ranged from 75 to 300 birds 
since 1975; however, the most recent survey, conducted in 2000, 
estimated the population to be approximately 80-150 birds (Villard et 
al. 2003, p. 194). In 2000, five birds were translocated to Ua Huka and 
an additional five translocated in 2003. As of 2006, approximately 32 
birds were present. The population objective for the reintroduction 
project is to establish a population of 50 individuals on Ua Huka by 
2010 (BLI 2009c, unpaginated).
     The species is almost exclusively arboreal and prefers the 
intermediate and upper canopy forest layers consisting of Guettarda 
speciosa, Cerbera manghas, Ficus spp., Terminalia cattapa, and Sapindus 
saponaria; however, individuals have also been observed perched on 
shrubs (Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 382; Villard et al. 2003, p. 
191). These pigeons heavily rely on this canopy forest for roosting and 
feeding. Based on observations of pigeons in 2000, this species appears 
to return to the same feeding and night roosting areas.
     Species of Ducula are primarily frugivorous (fruit eaters). The 
diet of Marquesan imperial pigeons consists mainly of fruits, which are 
usually swallowed whole, from Ficus spp. and Psidium guajava (guava; an 
introduced

[[Page 302]]

species); however, it has been reported that caterpillars from S. 
saponaria and the foliage and flowers of other tree and shrub species 
also make up a portion of the pigeon's diet. The species' consumption 
of an introduced shrub species, the guava, is likely due to the 
degradation of native habitat (Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 384) 
and the subsequent loss of native fruits, foliage, and flowers. 
Gleaning and browsing are the two main feeding methods (Blanvillain and 
Thorsen 2003, pp. 382-383).
     Courtship behavior includes the male and female sitting next to 
one another and allopreening the breast and neck areas and mirroring 
each other's actions (Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 383). The 
breeding season is long, occurring from mid-May to December (Thorsen et 
al. 2002, p. 6). Nests are constructed of intermingled branches, 
approximately 60 cm (24 in) in diameter, 10 to 18 m (33 to 59 ft) above 
ground at the top of the canopy (Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 384); 
clutch size is only one egg (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 192, 195). 
Abundance of fruit is critical in determining the breeding success of 
frugivorous birds (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). However, studies 
suggest that the pigeon is successfully breeding in different areas 
where it exists (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 17; Villard et al. 2003, p. 
195).
Conservation Status
     The Marquesan imperial pigeon was originally classified as 
``critically endangered'' by the IUCN. In 2008, however, this species 
was downlisted to ``endangered'' status due to the establishment of a 
second population through the translocation of birds to Ua Huka (IUCN 
2009b, unpaginated). The Marquesan imperial pigeon is also protected 
under Law Number 95-257 in French Polynesia. The species has not been 
formally considered for listing in the Appendices of CITES (http://www.cites.org).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Marquesan Imperial Pigeon

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range

    Destruction of habitat associated with human colonization is one of 
the main threats to the remaining populations of the Marquesan imperial 
pigeon. Since Polynesian occupation and discovery of the area by 
Europeans, substantial changes to the Nuku Hiva landscape have occurred 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 8; Villard et al. 2003, p. 190) and are still 
occurring. These changes include clearing of land for agriculture and 
development, introduction of domestic livestock, introduction of exotic 
plants, and introduction of rats (Rattus spp.) and cats (Felis catus) 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, pp. 8-9).
     Most of Nuku Hiva was originally covered by forest, with the 
exception of the drier northwestern plain where shrub savanna is 
predominant. Since colonization of Nuku Hiva, the native landscape has 
been cleared for agriculture and settlement. Fires have been used to 
clear land for agriculture and plantations (Manu 2009, unpaginated). In 
more recent times (between 1974 and 1989), all natural vegetation on a 
large area of the main plateau (de Toovii) on the island was cut down 
or burned to be converted into grassland for pasture, and 1,100 ha 
(2,718 ac) were planted with Caribbean pine (Pinus caribaea), an exotic 
tree species. By 2000, modern facilities, such as roads, an airport, 
and other buildings had been built (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 190, 195).
     Suitable habitat for this species has also been modified and 
degraded by introduced domestic livestock and exotic plant species. 
Domestic livestock have become feral, and while cattle and horses are 
mostly controlled, feral goats (Capra hircus) and pigs (Sus scrofa) 
continue to be a major concern (Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). Goats are 
particularly destructive; they have caused devastation to natural 
habitats on several other islands (Sykes 1969, pp. 13-16; Parkes 1984, 
pp. 95-101; Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9).
     The Nuku Hiva goat population has been increasing since the 1970s, 
and both goats and pigs are found everywhere on the island (Villard et 
al. 2003, p. 195). Goats have the potential to damage and alter the 
vegetative composition of an area by overgrazing indigenous and endemic 
species to the point at which seedlings are consumed before they are 
able to mature to a height which is out of the reach of goats and, 
therefore, survive (Sykes 1969, p. 14; Parkes 1984, pp. 95, 96, 101; 
Villard et al. 2002, p. 189). Subsequently, exotic plant species are 
able to flourish and outcompete native species, which results in little 
or no regeneration of native trees (Sykes 1969, p. 15; Thorsen et al. 
2002, p. 9). Large patches of natural forest have been destroyed by 
goats and pigs in areas where Marquesan imperial pigeons are found and 
there is poor natural forest regeneration (Villard et al. 2003, p. 
193). Blanvillain and Thorsen (2003, pp. 382-383) found most of the 
ground covered by several introduced plant species, including guava, 
African basil (Ocimum gratissimum), and soft elephants foot 
(Elephantopus mollis). Overgrazing, combined with the introduction of 
exotic species, prohibits the tall trees that comprise the canopy layer 
of the forest from regenerating and from providing feeding and roosting 
sites needed by pigeons.
     In addition, introduced rats on the island of Nuka Hiva inhibit 
regeneration of native trees because they consume the flowers, fruits, 
seeds, seedlings, leaves, buds, roots, and rhizomes (Thorsen et al. 
2002, p. 9; Meyer and Butaud 2009, p. 1570), thus further contributing 
to the alteration of the vegetation composition. Thorsen et al. (2002, 
p. 9) noted that seed caches containing many seeds that are part of the 
Marquesan imperial pigeon's food supply were common.
    Marquesan imperial pigeons are frugivorous birds and act as seed 
dispersal agents for those trees from which they feed and roost. 
Habitat loss, predation, or any other factor resulting in the decline 
of pigeons indirectly contributes to a decrease in seed dispersal, 
possibly contributing to low recruitment of the vital native tree 
species. Therefore, hunting may also contribute to the destruction and 
modification of habitat (See also Factor B).
     The habitat in the Vaiviki Valley on the island of Ua Huka, where 
the pigeon was reintroduced, was classified as a protected area in 1997 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 13). There are no indications that ongoing 
habitat degradation from livestock grazing is occurring in this area.
Summary of Factor A
     In summary, the Marquesan imperial pigeon prefers to inhabit the 
canopy forest layer of mature forests and relies on the fruits of these 
trees as a food source. This habitat on Nuku Hiva has been destroyed, 
and continues to be destroyed by conversion of land for agriculture and 
development, overgrazing, and competition with exotic plant species. 
The species is currently restricted to seven small sites in the most 
remote areas of Nuku Hiva (Villard et al. 2003, p. 191). An intact 
canopy of native species is rare; in addition, the native understory 
and shrub layers are absent and composed mostly of browse-resistant 
species (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9). Poor natural forest regeneration 
is evident in areas where pigeons are found (Villard et al. 2003, p. 
193). Overgrazing by goats and competition with exotic species remain a 
threat to the pigeon's habitat on Nuku Hiva; any additional loss of 
suitable habitat is likely to have a large impact

[[Page 303]]

on the distribution of this species. Since the largest population of 
pigeons is located on Nuka Hiva and impacts to the suitable habitat on 
this island are ongoing, we find that present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range is a 
threat to the continued existence of the Marquesan imperial pigeon on 
Nuku Hiva. Since Ua Huka is classified as a protected area and there is 
no indication of ongoing habitat degradation from livestock grazing in 
this area, we find that present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range are not threats to 
the continued existence of the Marquesan imperial pigeon on Ua Huka.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes

     Two researchers found that hunting is the primary reason for the 
current restricted range of the species to remote areas of Nuku Hiva 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 8; Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). By 1922, most 
of the modification of habitat by man had already occurred, yet 
Marquesan imperial pigeons were still abundant (Villard et al. 2003, p. 
195). In 1922, 82 birds were killed during an expedition; Villard et 
al. (2003, p. 194) theorized that this represented a significant 
portion of the estimated several hundred birds present at that time. 
After these killings, the pigeon was reported as ``not so abundant.'' 
In 1944, many birds were reported on the northern coast of Nuku Hiva 
and hunters were known to bring back full bags of birds. In 1951, the 
population of pigeons appeared to be decreasing and, with the 
introduction of shotguns in the 1950s, the effect was amplified. During 
the construction of the airport from 1978 to 1979, workers were known 
to hunt for pigeons (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 193, 195). On Ua Huka, a 
local agreement now exists not to hunt pigeons (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 
13).
     Bird hunting in the French Polynesia was banned in 1967; however, 
the law is rarely enforced and hunting still occurs (Thorsen et al. 
2002, p. 10) on Nuku Hiva. Most Marquesan imperial pigeons that are 
killed are opportunistic kills by those hunting goats and pigs, but 
some intentionally target pigeons for sale to local inhabitants 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). In an effort to reduce illegal hunting 
and engage the public in conservation of local endemic species, the 
Societed'Ornithologie de Polynesie (Manu), a conservation organization 
in French Polynesia, developed a public outreach and educational 
program for local schools about the importance of this species. 
However, poaching remains a potential threat to the remaining small 
population (BLI 2009c, unpaginated). To protect the remaining 
populations from hunting, an agreement by the inhabitants of Nuku Hiva 
to stop hunting pigeons or the appointment of a ranger to enforce 
current laws (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 11).
     An adult Marquesan imperial pigeon lays only one egg per year, 
suggesting this species is long lived (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 192, 
195). Populations of species that are long-lived with low fecundity 
rates tend to be more affected by loss of breeding adults than those 
species with shorter lifespans and high fecundity. Therefore, an 
increase in adult mortality due to illegal hunting would likely have a 
substantial impact on the survival of this species. Furthermore, 
because pigeons are frugivorous and act as seed dispersal agents for 
those trees from which they feed and roost, further declines in pigeons 
may indirectly contribute to low recruitment of the vital native tree 
species.
Summary of Factor B
    In summary, hunting was likely a major contributing factor to the 
current restricted range and small population of Marquesan imperial 
pigeon. On the island of Ua Huka, because the species is in a protected 
area, there is a smaller human population compared to other Marquesan 
islands, and since there is no information indicating hunting is a 
threat to this species on the island of Ua Huka, we find that 
overutilization is not a threat to the continued existence of the 
pigeon. On the island of Nuku Hiva, although hunting of pigeons is 
illegal, the law is not enforced and poaching remains a potential 
threat. Because this species has a clutch size of one egg, poaching 
would have a substantial impact on the species' continued existence. 
Therefore, we find that overutilization is a threat to the continued 
existence of Marquesan imperial pigeon on the island of Nuku Hiva.

C. Disease or predation

    Avian diseases are a concern for species with restricted ranges and 
small populations, especially if the species is restricted to an 
island. Extensive human activity in previously undisturbed or isolated 
areas can lead to the introduction and spread of exotic diseases, some 
of which (e.g., West Nile virus) can negatively impact endemic bird 
populations (Neotropical News 2003, p. 1; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 704). 
The introduction and transmittal of an avian disease could result in 
the extinction of the Marquesan imperial pigeon (Blanvillian et al. 
2007, unpaginated). Beadell et al. (2006, p. 2940) found the presence 
of Hawaii's avian malaria in reed-warblers on Nuku Hiva; however, there 
is no data on the effects of this malaria on the population of pigeons 
on the island. Although large and stable populations of wildlife 
species have adapted to natural levels of disease and predation within 
their historic ranges, any additive mortality to the Marquesan imperial 
pigeon population or a decrease in its fitness due to an increase in 
the incidence of disease or predation could adversely impact the 
species' overall viability (see Factor E). However, while these 
potential influences remain a concern for future management of the 
species, we are not aware of any information currently available that 
specifically indicates the occurrence of disease in the Marquesan 
imperial pigeon. No other diseases are known to affect the pigeons. In 
addition, the reintroduction of the pigeons to the island of Ua Huka 
reduces the likelihood of diseases causing extinction of the species.
     Black rats were introduced to Nuku Hiva in 1915 and are now found 
everywhere pigeons are located on Nuku Hiva (Villard et al. 2003, pp. 
193, 195). Rats may prey upon the eggs and nestlings of Marquesan 
Imperial pigeons, even if the nests are located in the tops of trees 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). However, due to the large size of this 
species, adult pigeons may be able to chase away rats from their nests 
(Villard et al. 2003, p. 195). Furthermore, Thorsen et al. (2002, p. 
10) observed juveniles and Villard et al. (2003, p. 195) noted a 
significant proportion of young pigeons, suggesting that black rats are 
not affecting breeding success. Due to the potential threat of black 
rats, pigeons were introduced to Ua Huka where black rats were not 
present. As an additional measure, poison bait stations were 
established around the wharf area of Ua Huka to prevent introduction of 
black rats (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 17).
     Cats have also been introduced to both the islands of Nuku Hiva 
and Ua Huka. While predation of adult and juvenile birds by cats is 
possible when pigeons are forced to feed on low shrubs, such as guava, 
due to destruction and absence of native species (See Factor A) 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10), we are not aware of any information 
currently available that specifically indicates that predation by cats 
is a threat to the survival of this species.

[[Page 304]]

Summary of Factor C
    In summary, while avian diseases such as avian malaria in reed-
warblers was found to be present on Nuku Hiva, no avian diseases are 
known to affect Marquesan imperial pigeons. Although predation has been 
indicated as a contributing factor to the decline of the species 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, pp. 9, 10; Blanvillain et al. 2007, unpaginated), 
we did not find information to suggest that predation is currently a 
threat to the survival of this species. Further, while black rats are 
found everywhere pigeons are found, the observation of a significant 
proportion of juveniles suggests that predation of pigeon's eggs and 
nestlings by black rats on Nuku Hiva is not a significant threat to 
pigeons. Cats are present on both islands, and there is potential for 
predation when pigeons are forced to feed on low shrubs, such as guava; 
however, there is no information to substantiate cat predation as a 
threat to the species' survival. Therefore, we find that disease and 
predation are not contributing threats to the continued existence of 
the pigeon throughout its range.

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

     The Marquesan imperial pigeon is a protected species in French 
Polynesia; it is classified as a Category A species under Law Number 
95-257. Article 16 of this law prohibits the collection and exportation 
of species listed under Category A. Under Article L411-1 of the French 
Environmental Code, the destruction or poaching of eggs or nests, 
mutilation, destruction, capture or poaching, intentional disturbance, 
the practice of taxidermy, transport, peddling, use, possession, offer 
for sale, or the sale or the purchase of non-domestic species in need 
of conservation is prohibited. The French Environmental Code also 
prohibits the destruction, alteration, or degradation of habitat for 
these species.
     Hunting of this species is believed to be one of the main reasons 
for the species' decline (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10; Villard et al. 
2003, p. 195). Hunting and destruction of all species of birds in 
French Polynesia was prohibited by a decree enacted in 1967 (Villard et 
al. 2003, p. 193). Furthermore, although restrictions on possession of 
firearms in Marquesas are in place, firearms are made available through 
visiting boats (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). On Ua Huka, there is an 
agreement in force not to hunt pigeons (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 13). 
Although this species is fully protected, and hunting has been banned, 
illegal hunting of the Marquesan Imperial pigeon still occurs (see 
Factor B) and remains a threat on Nuku Hiva.
     The Marquesas Archipelago is designated as an Endemic Bird Area 
(EBA) (Manu 2009, unpaginated, BLI 2009c). EBAs are territories less 
than 50,000 km2 (19,300 mi2) where at least two bird species with 
restricted ranges are found together, and represent priority areas for 
biodiversity. Nord-Ouest de Nuku Hiva is 9,000 ha area designated as an 
Important Bird Area (IBA) (Manu 2009, unpaginated). Designation as an 
IBA constitutes recognition of the area as a critical site for 
conservation of birds. In addition, Nuku Hiva is designated as an 
Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) (Manu 2009, unpaginated). AZEs are 
considered areas that are in the most urgent need of conservation. 
Although Nuku Hiva and Ua Huka are designated as areas of importance to 
the conservation of birds, these designations only serve to identify 
areas of biodiversity and focus conservation efforts; there is no legal 
protection of these areas. There is one officially protected area on Ua 
Huka (Vaikivi), established in 1997, which is actively managed.
    In summary, regulations exist to protect the species and its 
habitat. The threats that affect the species on each island are 
different. On the island of Ua Huka, also described under Factors A and 
B, destruction and modification of habitat are not known to threaten 
this species and illegal hunting is not occurring. This is likely 
because the protected area on Ua Huka is actively managed, the human 
population is less substantial, and there is a local agreement 
preventing hunting on this island. Furthermore, pigeons were 
reintroduced to Ua Huka due to the absence of threats to the species. 
Therefore, we find that the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms is not applicable to Ua Huka. However, as described in 
Factors A and B, habitat destruction continues to threaten this species 
and illegal hunting continues to occur on the island of Nuku Hiva. 
Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate to ameliorate the current threats to the Marquesan imperial 
pigeon on the island of Nuku Hiva.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued 
existence

     Introduced animal and plant species threaten the habitat and 
survival of the Marquesan imperial pigeon by inhibiting the growth of 
canopy tree species needed for nesting and roosting and creating 
competition for food sources.
     As described under Factor A, the introduction of livestock, 
including cattle, horses, goats and pigs, has caused and continues to 
cause substantial changes in the forest composition, affecting the 
amount of suitable habitat available for pigeons. Horses are now under 
control and cattle were eradicated by hunters (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 
9; Villard et al. 2003, p. 193). However, goats, in particular, 
overgraze native species to a level at which seedlings are consumed 
before they mature to a height out of goats' reach (Sykes 1969, p. 14; 
Parkes 1984, pp 95, 96, 101; Villard et al. 2002, p. 189). 
Consequently, exotic plant species such as guava are able to 
proliferate, preventing regeneration of natural forest (Sykes 1969, p. 
15; Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9). To restore native forests, measures to 
control feral goats are needed. Local inhabitants hunt goats and pigs 
(Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10); however, overgrazing continues to be a 
problem. Fenced enclosures would exclude any livestock and allow 
regeneration of native species (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 11). In 
addition, introduced rats on the island of Nuka Hiva inhibit 
regeneration of native trees by consuming the flowers, fruits, seeds, 
seedlings, leaves, buds, roots, and rhizomes (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 
9; Meyer and Butaud 2009, p. 1570) of native tree species, further 
contributing to the alteration of forest composition. Introduced 
species are not known to threaten pigeons on Ua Huka.
     Introduced rats on Nuku Hiva may also be a source of competition 
for food resources that would otherwise be available to pigeons. The 
diet for the Marquesan imperial pigeon consists of fruits from Ficus 
spp. and guava, foliage of S. saponaria, T. cattapa, and Misceltum 
spp., and the flowers of H. tiliaceus, C. manghas, and G. speciosa 
(Blanvillain and Thorsen 2003, p. 382). Rats are known to consume the 
flowers, fruits, and leaves of the same tree species, including guava, 
T. cattapa, Ficus spp., and S. saponaria (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 9). 
The consumption of these fruits and foliage by rats may reduce the 
available food supply for this frugivorous bird. Furthermore, during 
periods of limited fruit availability, the pigeons may also compete 
with the white-capped fruit pigeon (Ptilinopus dupetitbouarsii), a 
wider ranging pigeon found in French Polynesia (including Nuku Hiva and 
Ua Huka), for food sources (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). Abundance of 
fruit is critical to the breeding success of frugivorous birds. When 
food resources are limited, breeding output and fledgling and adult

[[Page 305]]

survival may also be affected (Thorsen et al. 2002, p. 10). This may be 
especially critical to the Marquesan imperial pigeon since it is a 
long-lived species with low fecundity. An increase in adult mortality 
due to decreased food availability would likely have a substantial 
impact on the breeding success and, ultimately, on the survival of this 
species.
     Island populations have a higher risk of extinction than mainland 
populations. Ninety percent of bird species driven to extinction were 
island species (as cited in Frankham 1997, p. 311). Based on genetics 
alone, endemic island species are predicted to have higher extinction 
rates than nonendemic island populations (Frankham 2007, p. 321). 
Small, isolated populations may experience decreased demographic 
viability (population birth and death rates, immigration and emigration 
rates, and sex ratios), increased susceptibility of extinction from 
stochastic environmental factors (e.g., weather events, disease), and 
an increased threat of extinction from genetic isolation and subsequent 
inbreeding depression and genetic drift. As discussed above, there are 
two small extant populations of Marquesan imperial pigeons, one on Nuku 
Hiva and a reintroduced population on Ua Huka. Because the species now 
present on Ua Huka originated from the Nuku Hiva population, there is 
no genetic variation between the two populations. Furthermore, we have 
no indication that there is natural dispersion between the populations 
and, thus, no genetic interchange. The lack of genetic variation may 
lead to inbreeding and associated complications, including reduced 
fitness. Species with low fecundity, like the pigeon, are particularly 
vulnerable to inbreeding depression because they can withstand less 
decrease in survival before population growth rates are affected and 
they recover more slowly (Lacy 2000, p. 47). In addition, genetic 
threats associated with small populations will exacerbate other threats 
to the species and likely increase the risk of extinction of island 
populations (Frankham 1997, p. 321).
Summary of Factor E
    In summary, introduced livestock and rats are altering the native 
forests of Nuku Hiva on which the Marquesan imperial pigeon depends. 
Native tree species are unable to regenerate due to overgrazing by 
goats; allowing graze-resistant exotic plant species to proliferate. 
Through consumption of fruits, flowers, seeds, and foliage, rats 
contribute to the alteration of the native forest and also serve as a 
source of competition for food. On Nuku Hiva and Ua Huka, the white-
capped fruit pigeon may also serve as a source of competition for food 
during periods of limited fruit availability. When food resources are 
limited, breeding output and fledgling and adult survival may also be 
affected, which may be particularly critical for a species with low 
fecundity.
     Both pigeon populations are subject to detrimental effects typical 
of small island populations. Decreased demographic viability, 
environmental factors, and genetic isolation may lead to inbreeding 
depression and associated complications, including reduced fitness. 
Species with low fecundity are particularly vulnerable because they can 
withstand less decrease in survival and recover more slowly. These 
genetic threats will exacerbate other threats to the species and likely 
increase the risk of extinction. Therefore, we find that other natural 
or manmade factors are threats to the continued existence of the 
Marquesan imperial pigeon on both Nuku Hiva and Ua Huka.

Status Determination for the Marquesan Imperial Pigeon

     We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the Marquesan Imperial Pigeon. The species is 
currently at risk on Nuku Hiva due to ongoing threats of habitat 
destruction and modification (Factor A); illegal hunting (Factor B); 
and demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events 
associated with the species' low population, restricted range, and low 
fecundity (Factor E). Furthermore, we have determined that the existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate the 
current threats to the species. In addition, we have determined that 
Factors A, B, C, and D are not factors affecting the continued 
existence of the species on Ua Huka. However, we have determined that 
the Ua Huka population is at risk due to demographic, genetic, and 
environmental stochastic events associates with the species' low 
population, restricted range, and low fecundity (Factor E).
     Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the Marquesan 
Imperial Pigeon throughout its entire range, as described above, we 
determine that this species is in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific 
and commercial information, we propose to list the Marquesan Imperial 
Pigeon as an endangered species throughout all of its range. Because we 
find that the Marquesan Imperial Pigeon is endangered throughout all of 
its range, there is no reason to consider its status in a significant 
portion of its range.

VI. Slender-billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)

Species Description

     The slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris) is a species of 
wading bird, one of the six curlews of the same genus within the family 
Scolopacidae. It is medium-sized and mottled brown-grey in color. It 
has white underparts marked with black heart-shaped spots on the 
flanks. It has a decurved bill that tapers to a distinctly fine tip. It 
has pale, barred inner primary feathers and its secondary feathers 
contrast markedly with its brown-black primary feathers. Its tail is 
virtually unmarked, with a few dark bars on a white background (BLI 
2006, p. 1).
     Though this species was regarded as common in the 19th century, it 
declined precipitously in the 20th century (Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139). 
The species is believed to breed in Northwest Siberia (though the only 
two confirmed cases of breeding were in 1914 and 1924). The species 
migrates 5,000 - 6,000 km (3,100 - 3,700 mi) towards the west-
southwest, passing north of the Caspian and Black Seas through 
southeast and southern Europe to its overwintering grounds in southern 
Europe and northwest Africa (Gretton 1996, p. 6; Chandrinos 2000, p. 1; 
Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139). There are also records of wintering birds in 
the Middle East, but verification of a second wintering area has not 
been confirmed (Gretton 1996, p. 6).
     The species has been sighted in Eastern Europe, including in 
Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and 
Yugoslavia; in Southern Europe, including Greece, Italy, and Turkey; 
and in North Africa, including Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia (BLI 2006, 
p. 2). It has also been reported in Slovenia, Uzbekistan, and 
Turkmenistan (BLI 2006, p. 2).
     During the second half of the 19th century and up until 1920, the 
slender-billed curlew was considered an abundant bird. Its population 
density frequently exceeded that of two relative

[[Page 306]]

species: The Eurasian curlew (Nemenius arquata) and the whimbrel 
(Numenius phaeopus) (Chandrinos 2000, p. 1). Flocks of slender-billed 
curlew over 100 birds in size were recorded in Morocco as late as the 
1960s and 1970 (Gretton 1996, p. 6). The population was estimated to be 
between 80 and 400 birds in 1990, but this estimate was later adjusted 
to 50 to 270 birds (Gretton 1996, p. 6). In recent years, records 
consist of sightings of 1 to 3 birds, with one exception in 1995, when 
a flock of 19 birds was sighted in Italy (BLI 2006, p. 3; Hirschfeld 
2008, p. 139). The most recent population estimate is fewer than 50 
birds (BLI 2006, p. 3; Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139). Surveys have been 
conducted in recent years (1987 through 2000) in various parts of the 
species' historic breeding range, which covered several thousand 
kilometers of habitat. No slender-billed curlews were found during 
these survey efforts (Gretton et al. 2002, p. 341; CMS update 2004, p. 
2). This species has not been seen at its last regular wintering ground 
in Morocco since 1995 (Gretton 1996, p. 6; Chandrinos 2000, p. 2), and 
the last confirmed sighting anywhere in the world was in 1999 in Greece 
(Chandrinos 2000, p. 2).
     There are only two confirmed accounts of slender-billed curlew 
nests. These accounts were both in the early 1900s and are described in 
four papers by V.E. Ushakav that were later translated. These nests 
were both located in a wet marsh at Krasnoperovaya, south of Tara, 
Siberia. The habitat was described as open marsh containing some birch 
(Betula) and marshy areas adjacent to pine (Pinus) forests. The nests 
were located in the middle of the marsh on grassy hillocks or on small 
dry islands. Based on these early accounts, complete clutch sizes were 
found to be four eggs per nest between May 11 and June 1, 1900. The 
young fledged in early July, and family groups of five to six birds 
were seen wandering around the marsh in early August. Overall, slender-
billed curlews were seen in their nesting grounds in Siberia from mid-
May until early August (Gretton et al. 2002, pp. 335-336).
     During seasonal migrations and in the winter months, the species 
is known to use a variety of habitats, including steppe grassland, 
saltmarsh, fishponds, brackish lagoons, saltpans, tidal mudflats, 
semidesert, brackish wetlands, and sandy farmland near lagoons 
(Hirschfeld 2008, p. 139).
     There is little information on the diet of this species. The birds 
at Merja Zerga (wintering grounds in Morocco) have been recorded eating 
earthworms and tipulid larvae. Elsewhere, the species has been recorded 
eating other insects (grasshoppers, earwigs, and beetles), mollusks, 
and crustaceans (Gretton 1996, p. 7).

Conservation Status

     The slender-billed curlew is classified as critically endangered 
by the IUCN and is listed under CITES Appendix I. Live wild specimens, 
and parts and products of wild specimens of this species listed under 
Appendix I of CITES, are prohibited from being traded commercially 
internationally. The species is also listed on Annex I of the European 
Union (EU) Wild Bird Directive (Europa Environment 2009, unpaginated) 
and Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory 
Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention), which 
encourages international cooperation for the conservation of species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Slender-billed Curlew

A. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range

     Krasnoperovaya, near Tara, where Ushakav made his observation in 
the early 1900s, is located towards the northern limits of the forest-
steppe zone, with parts of the marsh having some characteristics of the 
taiga, such as the presence of conifers. Surveyors noted that in 1990 
and 1994 there were still substantial areas of marsh at Krasnopervaya 
that were quite similar to that described by Ushakov, with possibly 
more trees being present than in the early 1900s. By 1997, the area had 
changed dramatically, with the higher grassland areas next to marsh 
under cultivation, and the marsh itself completely covered with young 
forest (Boere & Yurlov, as reported in Gretton et al. 2002, p. 342).
     Threats on the breeding grounds are largely unknown due to the 
lack of information on this species' nesting localities. Within its 
potential breeding range, the habitat has been subject to some 
modification, the taiga is little modified, the forest-steppe has been 
partially cultivated, and much of the steppe has been modified by 
intensive agriculture. The impacts to the species from these types of 
modifications would vary depending on which of these habitat types are 
used for nesting (Gretton 1996, p. 8).
     Habitat loss in the wintering grounds is of unknown importance; 
however this species has not been seen at the last regular wintering 
ground in Morocco since 1995 (BLI 2004, unpaginated). Threats to 
potential wintering habitat are summarized in the 1996 version of the 
International Action Plan for the Slender-billed Curlew (Gretton 1996, 
pp. 8-9). Parts of the wintering grounds (e.g., the Rharb plain of 
northwest Morocco) have undergone extensive drainage of wetlands. In 
Tunisia also, temporary freshwater marshes (e.g. Kairouan) have been 
seriously damaged by construction of dams for flood control and the 
provision of water supplies to these marshes. In other parts of North 
Africa, other types of wetland have been less affected, including 
coastal sites and inland sites, such as temporary brackish wetlands. In 
the Middle East, the permanent marshes in the central (Qurnah) area 
were reduced to 40 percent of their 1985 extent by 1992, from 1,133,000 
ha to 457,000 ha (2,800,000 ac to 1,129,000 ac), with further loss 
expected (Gretton 1996, p. 8).
     In conclusion, this species annually migrates 5,000 to 6,500 km 
(3,100 to 4,000 mi) between its presumed breeding grounds in Siberia to 
its wintering grounds in Morocco, passing though many European 
countries. Many of the areas along the migratory route, such as steppe 
areas in central and eastern Europe and the area around the Aral Sea, 
have experienced substantial anthropogenic impacts. There has also been 
a loss of wetlands in the Palearctic. However, since the species uses a 
wide variety of habitats along its migratory route and in its wintering 
grounds, it is unlikely that habitat loss in these areas has played a 
substantial part in the decline of this species, especially since many 
other wading birds using these areas have not shown such a decline 
(Gretton 1996, pp. 7-8). The situation is hard to assess, because Merja 
Zerga remains the only known regular wintering site for the species. 
Loss of breeding ground habitat would better explain such a drastic 
population decline, since the species is thought to use a more 
specialized habitat for breeding. Belik (1994, p. 37) argued that the 
species may nest primarily in steppe areas. If this is the case, then 
the species population decline would be better explained by the 
extensive loss of this habitat type, particularly in Kazakhstan 
(Gretton 1996, p. 7). Therefore, we find that present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range 
threaten the continued existence of the slender-billed curlew 
throughout its range.

[[Page 307]]

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes

     Large-scale hunting of waders was known to occur across most of 
Europe during the early 20th century, with curlews being preferred 
(Gretton 1996, p. 8). This species has a reputation for being ``tame,'' 
meaning that it does not show fear of humans, and was an easy target 
during a hunt. A significant number of slender-billed curlew specimens, 
notably from Hungary and Italy, date from this time (Gretton 1991, pp. 
37-38). Between 1962 and 1987, 17 slender-billed curlew were known to 
have been shot (13 of these in Italy and former Yugoslovia) (Gretton 
1996, p. 9). Additionally, as late as 1980, one guide described the 
taking of ``a great number'' from a flock of about 500 in Morocco 
(Gretton 1991, p. 38).
     In summary, hunting has been indicated as a factor in the range-
wide decline of this species during the first half of the 20th century. 
Both legal and illegal hunting is likely to still occur throughout the 
range of this species. Based on the very small population size and the 
long-range migratory habits of this species, loss of individual birds 
is expected to have a significant impact on the remaining population. 
Therefore, we find that overutilization is a threat to the continued 
existence of the slender-billed curlew throughout its range.

C. Disease or predation

     We are unaware of any threats due to disease or predation for this 
subspecies. As a result, we are not considering disease or predation to 
be contributing threats to the continued existence of the slender-
billed curlew throughout its range.

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

     As stated above, the slender-billed curlew is listed on Annex I of 
the European Union (EU) Wild Bird Directive, which includes protection 
for habitat, bans for activities that directly threaten wild birds, and 
a network of protected areas for wild birds found within the EU (Europa 
Environment 2009, unpaginated), and Appendix I of the CMS or Bonn 
Convention, which includes strictly protected fauna species. This 
convention encourages international cooperation for the conservation of 
species.
     Inclusion in Appendix I of CMS means that member states work 
toward strict protection, conserving and restoring the habitat of the 
species, controlling other reasons for endangerment, and mitigating 
obstacles to migration, whereas Appendix II encourages multistate and 
regional cooperation for conservation (CMS 2009, unpaginated). A 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed under CMS auspices and 
became effective on September 10, 1994.
     The MOU area covers 30 Range States in Southern and Eastern 
Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East. As of December 31, 2000, 
the MOU had been signed by 18 Range States and three cooperating 
organizations. In early 1996, a status report was produced and 
distributed by the CMS Secretariat. An International Action Plan for 
the Conservation of the Slender-billed Curlew was prepared by BLI in 
1996, which was later approved by the European Commission and endorsed 
by the Fifth Meeting of the CMS. The Action Plan is the main tool for 
conservation activities for the species under the MOU. Conservation 
priorities include: effective legal protection for the slender-billed 
curlew and its look-alikes; locating its breeding grounds and key 
wintering and passage sites; appropriate protection and management of 
its habitat; and increasing the awareness of politicians in the 
affected countries (CMS 2009, unpaginated).
     The Convention on Migratory Species website (CMS 2004) includes an 
update on the progress being made under the Slender-billed curlew MOU. 
It states that conservation activities have already been undertaken or 
are under way in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Morocco, the Russian 
Federation, Ukraine, and Iran (CMS 2009, unpaginated). However, no 
details of these activities are provided. The website also notes that 
population size may have stabilized at a low level (CMS 2009, 
unpaginated), although no data or references are provided to support 
this claim.
     Based on the lack of information available on this species 
(location of breeding and wintering areas and its current population 
status), it is difficult to assess the adequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms in preventing the extinction of this species. Although 
progress is under way in various countries to better protect the 
habitat, prevent loss of individuals from hunting and 
misidentification, and educate the public about the precarious status 
of this species, not all 30 Range States of this species have signed 
the MOU (CMS 2009, unpaginated). Further, Gretton et al. 2002 (p. 344) 
reported that the combined efforts devoted to research and conservation 
of this species (from 1997-2002) had limited direct impact on this 
species' chance of survival. Therefore, we find that the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the continued existence 
of the slender-billed curlew throughout its range.

E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species' continued 
existence

     The status of the slender-billed curlew is extremely precarious. 
As stated above, the most recent population estimate for this species 
is fewer than 50 birds. The last confirmed sighting of a slender-billed 
curlew was of a single bird in 1999. Information on the nesting habits 
and locality of the breeding grounds for this species is extremely 
limited, and despite survey efforts over the last 20 years, slender-
billed curlews have not been located on the only known historic nesting 
area of this species in the steppes of Siberia.
    In smaller populations, additional threats to persistence and 
stability often surface, resulting from the stochastic nature of these 
events, which can lead to instability of population dynamics. Among 
these factors are rates of mate acquisition, breeding success, 
transmission of genetic material, dispersal, survival, and sex 
determination. Further, fluctuations in rates as described above can 
couple with reduction in growth rate to act synergistically (Lacy 2000, 
pp. 39-40).
     Due to the distance of annual migration, the geographic spread of 
the range, and the limited numbers of birds, the slender-billed curlew 
is likely vulnerable to one or more threats associated with small 
population size. Early records of this species often referred to large 
flocks on migration and in winter. Based on what we know of other 
similar migratory bird species, it is likely that the experience of 
older birds was important in guiding such flocks along the migration 
route. As slender-billed curlew numbers declined, individuals would be 
more likely to join flocks of other species, notably the Eurasian 
curlew. The chances of slender-billed curlews meeting each other on the 
breeding grounds would become increasingly low (as was described for 
the Eskimo curlew by Bodsworth in 1954). The smaller the population, 
the less likely it is that this species would be able to locate another 
slender-billed curlew and successfully reproduce. Since this species 
has not been recorded on the only known historic breeding grounds for a 
number of years (Gretton 1996, p. 6), it is difficult to assess whether 
a breakdown of social behavior patterns has already occurred.
     In summary, breakdown of social behavior patterns is increasingly 
likely

[[Page 308]]

to occur in addition to the general threats posed by small population 
size such as increased susceptibility to demographic, environmental, 
and genetic stochasticity, as this species' population levels decline. 
Because so few individuals have been found in recent years, it is 
difficult to assess whether the breakdown of social behavior patterns 
has already occurred. However, given the species' low numbers, this and 
other threats of small population size could already be occurring. 
Therefore, we find that demographic, genetic, and environmental 
stochastic events are threats to the continued existence of the 
slender-billed curlew throughout its range.

Status Determination for the Slender-billed Curlew

    We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the slender-billed curlew. The species is 
currently at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of 
habitat destruction and modification (Factor A); overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes in the 
form of hunting (Factor B); and threats associated with small 
population size (Factor E).
     Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Based on the magnitude of the ongoing threats to the slender-
billed curlew throughout its entire range, as described above, we 
determine that this species is in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific 
and commercial information, we propose to list the slender-billed 
curlew as an endangered species throughout all of its range. Because we 
find that the slender-billed curlew is endangered throughout all of its 
range, there is no reason to consider its status in a significant 
portion of its range.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal 
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition 
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results 
in conservation actions by Federal and foreign governments, private 
agencies and interest groups, and individuals.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect 
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened, 
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated. 
However, given that the Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan Imperial 
Pigeon, Eiao Polynesian warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, 
and slender-billed curlew are not native to the United States, we are 
not proposing critical habitat for these species under section 4 of the 
Act.
    Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited 
financial assistance for the development and management of programs 
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful 
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign 
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to 
encourage conservation programs for foreign endangered and threatened 
species and to provide assistance for such programs in the form of 
personnel and the training of personnel.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and 
threatened wildlife. As such, these prohibitions would be applicable to 
the Cantabrian capercaillie, Marquesan Imperial Pigeon, Eiao Polynesian 
warbler, greater adjutant, Jerdon's courser, and slender-billed curlew. 
These prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to ``take'' (take includes: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to engage in any such 
conduct) any endangered wildlife species within the United States or 
upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of 
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce any endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to 
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife 
that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply 
to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22, for endangered species, and 17.32 for threatened species. With 
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following 
purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities.

Peer Review

     In accordance with our joint policy with National Marine Fisheries 
Service, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in 
Endangered Species Act Activities,'' published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at 
least three appropriate independent specialists regarding this proposed 
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure listing decisions are 
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will 
send copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately 
following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these 
peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period on our 
specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposal to list the 
species listed in this proposed rule. We will consider all comments and 
information we receive during the comment period on this proposed rule 
during our preparation of a final determination. Accordingly, our final 
decision may differ from this proposal.

Public Hearings

     The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if we receive any requests for hearings. We must receive your request 
for a public hearing within 45 days after the date of this Federal 
Register publication (see DATES). Such requests must be made in writing 
and be addressed to the Chief of the Branch of Listing at the address 
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule 
public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce 
the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to 
obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 
days before the first hearing.

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of 
information that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The regulation will not 
impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local

[[Page 309]]

governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may not 
conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection 
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

     We have determined that Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted under 
section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Clarity of the Rule

     We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
     (a) Be logically organized;
     (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
     (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
     (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
     (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
     If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

References Cited

     A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Author(s)

     The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
Branch of Listing, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
    2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding new entries for ``Adjutant, 
Greater,'' ``Capercaillie, Cantabrian,'' ``Courser, Jerdon's,'' 
``Curlew, Slender-billed,'' ``Pigeon, Marquesan Imperial,'' and 
``Warbler, Eiao Polynesian'' in alphabetical order under BIRDS to the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

    * * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    SPECIES                                           Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------                   population where                                         Critical
                                                  Historic Range     endangered or        Status         When Listed        Habitat       Special Rules
         Common name            Scientific name                       threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Birds                                                                                                                                    ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjutant, greater              Leptoptilos                         Entire            E                                  NA               NA
                                dubius
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Capercaillie, Cantabrian      Tetrao urogallus                    Entire            E                                  NA               NA
                                cantabricus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courser, Jerdon's              Rhinoptilus       India             Entire            E                                  NA               NA
                                bitorquatus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curlew, slender-billed         Numenius                            Entire            E                                  NA               NA
                                tenuirostris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pigeon, Marquesan Imperial     Ducula galeata    French Polynesia  Entire            E                                  NA               NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 310]]

 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warbler, Eiao Polynesian       Acrocephalus                        Entire            E                                  NA               NA
                                percernis
                                aquilonis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: December 16, 2009
Daniel M. Ashe,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service
[FR Doc. E9-31101 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S