Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to List Five Foreign Bird Species in Colombia and Ecuador, South America, under the Endangered Species Act, 32308-32349 [E9-15826]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 7, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32308-32349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15826]



[[Page 32307]]

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

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to List 
Five Foreign Bird Species in Colombia and Ecuador, South America, Under 
the Endangered Species Act; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 32308]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-IA-2009-12; 96100-1671-9FLS-B6]
RIN 1018-AV75


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to 
List Five Foreign Bird Species in Colombia and Ecuador, South America, 
under the Endangered Species Act

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list as endangered four species of birds from Colombia -- the blue-
billed curassow (Crax alberti), the brown-banded antpitta (Grallaria 
milleri), the Cauca guan (Penelope perspicax), and the gorgeted wood-
quail (Odontophorus strophium) -- and one bird species from Ecuador -- 
the Esmeraldas woodstar (Chaetocercus berlepschi) -- as endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.). This proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's 
protection to these species. The Service seeks data and comments from 
the public on this proposed rule.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
September 8, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by August 21, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: RIN 1018-AV75; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, 
VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov . This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below 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-
358-2105; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), you may 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 are 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.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the website. 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. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on https://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 on https://www.regulations.gov , or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the 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 Act requires us to make a finding (known 
as a ``90-day finding'') on whether a petition to add, remove, or 
reclassify a species from the list of endangered or threatened species 
has presented substantial information indicating that the requested 
action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, the finding 
shall be made within 90 days following receipt of the petition and 
published 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 one has not already been initiated 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 on whether the requested action is warranted, not 
warranted, or warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing 
actions (this finding is referred to as the ``12-month finding''). 
Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a finding of warranted but 
precluded for petitioned species should be treated as having been 
resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded finding, and is, 
therefore, subject to a new finding within 1 year and subsequently 
thereafter until we publish a proposal to list or a finding that the 
petitioned action is not warranted. The Service publishes an annual 
notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign 
species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but 
precluded.

Previous Federal Action

    On November 24, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from 
Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman of the International Council for Bird 
Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign bird species to the list of 
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)), including two 
species from Colombia (the Cauca guan and the gorgeted wood-quail) that 
are the subject of this proposed rule. In response to the 1980 
petition, we published a positive 90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 
26464), to initiate a status review for 58 foreign species, noting that 
2 of the species identified in the petition were already listed under 
the Act. 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 species petition findings addressed therein. In that 
notice, we found that all 58 foreign bird species from the 1980 
petition were warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing 
actions. On May 10, 1985, we published the first annual

[[Page 32309]]

notice (50 FR 19761), in which we continued to find that listing all 58 
foreign bird species from the 1980 petition was warranted but 
precluded. In our next annual notice, published on January 9, 1986 (51 
FR 996), we found that listing 54 species from the 1980 petition, 
including the two Colombian species mentioned above, continued to be 
warranted but precluded, whereas new information caused us to find that 
listing four other species in the 1980 petition was no longer 
warranted. We published additional annual notices on the remaining 54 
species included in the 1980 petition on July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511); 
December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746); and November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664), 
in which we indicated that the Cauca guan and the gorgeted wood-quail, 
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 add 53 species of foreign birds to the list 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, including the blue-billed 
curassow and the brown-banded antpitta, from Colombia, and Esmeraldas 
woodstar, from Ecuador. In response to the 1991 petition, we published 
a positive 90-day finding on December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65207), for all 
53 species and announced the initiation of a status review. On March 
28, 1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12-month finding on the 1991 
petition, along with a proposed rule to list 30 African birds under the 
Act (15 each from the 1980 petition and 1991 petition). In that 
document, we announced our finding that listing the remaining 38 
species from the 1991 petition, including the blue-billed curassow and 
the brown-banded antpitta, from Colombia, and Esmeraldas woodstar, from 
Ecuador, was warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing 
actions. On January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2899), we reiterated the warranted-
but-precluded status of the remaining species from the 1991 petition. 
We made subsequent warranted but precluded findings for all outstanding 
foreign species from the 1980 and 1991 petitions, including all five of 
the Colombian and Ecuadorian bird species that are the subject of this 
proposed rule, as published in our annual notices of review (ANOR) on 
May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354), and April 23, 2007 (72 FR 20184).
    Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983; 
48 FR 43098), we identified the listing priority numbers (LPNs) 
(ranging from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign species in our 2007 
ANOR (72 FR 20184), published on April 23, 2007. In that notice, the 
five species included in this proposed rule were designated with an LPN 
of 2, and it was determined that their listing continued to be 
warranted but precluded because of other listing activity. A listing 
priority of 2 indicates that the subject species face imminent threats 
of high magnitude. With the exception of LPN 1, which addresses 
monotypic genera that face imminent threats of high magnitude, category 
2 represents the Service's highest priority.
    On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published in the Federal 
Register a notice announcing our annual petition findings for foreign 
species (2008 ANOR). In that notice, we announced that listing was 
warranted for 30 foreign bird species, including the five species that 
are the subject of this proposed rule. The five species were selected 
from the list of warranted-but-precluded species because of their LPN, 
their similarity of habitat, and the similarity of threats to these 
species. Combining species that face similar threats within the same 
general geographic area into one proposed rule allows us to maximize 
our limited staff resources, thus increasing 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. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (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.
    Under the Act, we may determine a species to be endangered or 
threatened. An endangered species is defined as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. A threatened species is defined as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we evaluated the 
best available scientific and commercial information on each species 
under the five listing factors to determine whether they met the 
definition of endangered or threatened.
    Below is a species-by-species analysis of these five factors using 
the best available scientific and commercial information to determine 
whether the species meet the definition of endangered or threatened. 
The species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning with the 
Colombian species: blue-billed curassow, brown-banded antpitta, Cauca 
guan, gorgeted wood-quail, and followed by the Ecuadorian species: the 
Esmeraldas woodstar.

Colombian Bird Species

I. Blue-Billed Curassow (Crax alberti)

Species Description

    The blue-billed curassow, endemic to Colombia, is a large (82-92 
centimeters (cm) (32-36 inches (in)), tree-dwelling member of the 
Cracid family (Cracidae) (Collar et al. 1992, p. 154; del Hoyo 1994, p. 
361; Salaman et al. 2001, p. 183). The species is locally known as 
``Pauj[iacute]l de pico azul'' or ``Pav[oacute]n Colombiano'' and is 
also referred to in English as the blue-knobbed curassow (Cuervo 2002, 
p. 138; United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation 
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 2008c, p. 1). In older literature, the 
species is referred to as Prince Albert's curassow (Throp 1964, p. 
124). The blue-billed curassow is described as mainly black with blue 
at the base of its bill. The male has a white-plumaged crissum (the 
area under the tail), whereas the female has a black and white crest 
and black and white barring on her wings (BirdLife International (BLI) 
2007d, p. 1; Throp 1964, p. 124).

Taxonomy

    The species was first taxonomically described by Fraser in 1852 and 
placed in the family Cracidae.

Habitat and Life History

    Blue-billed curassows prefer undisturbed, heterogeneous primary 
forests in the humid lowlands of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 
Mountains at elevations up to 1,200 meters (m) (3,937 feet (ft)) 
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 154; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Salaman et al. 
2001, p. 183). The blue-billed curassow requires a large home range of 
primary tropical forest (Cuervo 2002, pp. 138-140). The species will 
rarely cross narrow deforested corridors, such as those caused by roads 
or oil pipelines, and will not cross large open areas between forest 
fragments (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). The species is described as 
being trusting of humans (del Hoyo 1994, p. 336).

[[Page 32310]]

    This terrestrial bird feeds mostly on fruit and leaves, and 
sometimes feeds upon worms and carrion. It plays an important role in 
dispersing seeds and regenerating tropical forests (BLI 2007d, p. 1; 
Brooks 2006, p. 17; Brooks and Strahl 2000, pp. 5-8; Cuervo and Salaman 
1999, p. 8).
    Cracids are also slow to reproduce, with a replacement rate of at 
least 6 years (Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 50). Curassows reach sexual 
maturity in their second year (Throp 1964, p. 130). Blue-billed 
curassows form monogamous pairs that share responsibilities for young 
(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 9; Todd et al. 2008). The breeding season 
begins in December and goes through March (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 
8). During the mating season, the male blue-billed curassows makes 
``booming'' calls that can be heard 500 m (0.31 mi) away (Ochoa-
Quintero et al. 2005, pp. 42, 44). Large nests made of sticks and 
leaves are built in dense lianas (woody vines) (Cuervo and Salaman 
1999, p. 8). The typical blue-billed curassow clutch size is 1-2 large 
white eggs, which is a low clutch size relative to other Galliformes 
(del Hoyo 1994, p. 336; Throp 1964, p. 130), and young are hatched in 
July after an approximately 29-day incubation period (del Hoyo 1994, p. 
361; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 129; Throp 1964, p. 131). In captivity, 
curassows are long-lived species (Todd et al. 2008, p.7). Throp (1964, 
p. 132) recorded a blue-billed curassow still laying eggs at 20 years 
of age. However, in the wild, one generation is considered to be 10 
years (Cuervo 2002, p. 141).

Historical Range and Distribution

    The blue-billed curassow historically occurred in northern 
Colombia, from the base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (in the 
northern Departments of Magdalena La Guijaira, and Cesar), west to the 
Sin[uacute] valley (Department of C[oacute]rdoba), through the 
R[iacute]o Magdalena (through the Departments (from south to north) of 
Huila, Tolima, Caldas, Antioquia, Santander, Bolivar, Magdalena, and La 
Guajira) (BLI 2007a, p. 1; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 
1994, p. 361). The species' historic range encompassed an area of 
approximately 106,700 square kilometers (km\2\) (41,197 square miles 
(mi\2\)) (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). There were no confirmed observations of 
blue-billed curassows between 1978 and 1997 (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 
2001, p. 183), and surveys conducted in 1998 failed to locate any males 
(BLI 2007d, p. 3) (as detailed under Factor B, below), prompting 
researchers to believe the species to be extinct in the wild (del Hoyo 
1994, p. 361). However, a series of reported observations made in 1993 
were confirmed in the year 2000 (Cuervo 2002, pp. 136-137).

Current Range and Distribution

    The current range of the blue-billed curassow is estimated to be a 
2,090-km\2\ (807-mi\2\) area (BLI 2007d, p. 2) of fragmented, disjunct, 
and isolated tropical moist and humid lowlands and premontane forested 
foothills in the R[iacute]o Magdalena and lower Cauca Valleys of the 
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Mountains. The species may be found at 
elevations up to 1,200 m (3,937 ft) (Collar et al. 1992, p. 154; Cuervo 
and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Donegan and Huertas 
2005, p. 29; Salaman et al. 2001, p. 183), but it is more commonly 
found below 600 m (del Hoyo 1994, p. 361). Little information is 
available on the size of the forest fragments in which the species has 
been observed. However, researchers conducting fieldwork in the 
Department of Antioqu[iacute]a in 1999 and 2001 noted that the patch 
sizes varied from 3 km\2\ (1.2 mi\2\) to 10 km\2\ (3.9 mi\2\) in size 
(Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, p. 46).
    In 1993, sightings were reported in the northern Departments of 
C[oacute]rdoba (at La Terretera, near Alto Sin[uacute]) and 
Bol[iacute]var (in the Serran[iacute]a de San Jacinto (San Jacinto 
Mountains)) (Williams, in litt., as cited in BLI 2007d, p. 2). 
Additional observations were made in the northernmost Department of La 
Guajira in 2003 (in the Valle de San Salvador Valley) (Strewe and 
Navarro 2003, p. 32). More recently, individuals have been observed in 
the tropical forests of the central Departments of Antioqu[iacute]a (on 
the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-
Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve area), the Departments of Santander and 
Boyac[aacute] (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas), 
and in the southeastern Department of Cauca (in northeastern and lower 
Cauca Valley) (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Cuervo 2002, pp. 135-138; Donegan and 
Huertas 2005, p. 29; Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, p. 43-4; Urue[ntilde]a 
et al. 2006, p. 42). Experts consider the most important refuges for 
this species to be: (1) Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas 
(Antioqu[iacute]a); (2) Paramillo National Park (Antioqu[iacute]a and 
C[oacute]rdoba Departments); (3) Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional 
Reserve (Antioqu[iacute]a and C[oacute]rdoba Departments); and, (4) 
Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas Bird Reserve (Santander and 
Boyac[aacute] Departments) (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, p. 139). 
These refugia are discussed under Factor A, below.

Population Estimates

    There is little information on population numbers for the various 
reported locations of the species, and political instability within the 
country makes it difficult to know the exact population size of this 
species (Houston Zoo 2008). In 2002, Cuervo (2002, p. 141) considered 
the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas and Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas 
populations to be the stronghold of the species. However, surveys in 
2003 led researchers to believe that Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas 
serves as the species' stronghold (BLI 2007d, pp. 2, 5-6). In 2003, the 
population at Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas (Boyac[aacute] 
Department) location was estimated to be between 250 and 1,000 birds. 
The only other information on the subpopulation level is a report from 
Strewe and Navarro (2003, p. 32), based on field studies conducted 
between 2000 and 2001, that hunting had nearly extirpated the blue-
billed curassow from a site in San Salvador (La Guijara) (Factor B).
    Using the International Union for Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources (IUCN) categories, the blue-billed curassow 
population was estimated according to IUCN criteria to be more than 
1,000 but fewer than 2,500 in 1994 (BLI 2007d, p. 2). In 2001, Brooks 
and Gonzalez-Garcia (2001, p. 184) estimated the total population to be 
much fewer than 2,000 individuals. In 2002, it was estimated that the 
species had lost 88 percent of its habitat and half of its population 
within the last three generations, or 30 years (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). 
Local reports indicate an overall declining trend characterized by 
recent rapid declines of all subpopulations (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Cuervo 
2002, p. 138; Strahl et al. 1995, p.25). For further information on 
population size, see Factor E, below.

Conservation Status

    The blue-billed curassow is identified as a critically endangered 
species under Colombian law (EcoLex 2002, p. 12). The species is 
considered one of the most threatened cracids by the IUCN Cracid 
Specialist Group. The species is categorized by the IUCN as `Critically 
Endangered,' with habitat loss as a primary threat (BLI 2004b, p. 1; 
Cuervo 2002, p. 141; del Hoyo 1994 p. 340; Strahl et al. 1995, pp. 4-5; 
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, pp. 41-2).

[[Page 32311]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Blue-Billed Curassow

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Habitat or Range

    The blue-billed curassow prefers undisturbed, heterogeneous forests 
and is rarely found in secondary or even slightly disturbed forests 
(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). The blue-billed curassow occur today 
in several disjunct locations along a much-restricted part of its 
historic distribution (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Collar 
et al. 1992, pp. 61-62; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). Researchers 
note that the blue-billed curassow requires large territories, but 
there is little information as to the actual size of the remaining 
forest fragments (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). In 1999 and 2001, 
researchers conducting fieldwork in the Department of Antioqui[aacute] 
noted that the patch sizes in which the species were observed or heard 
varied from 3 km\2\ (1.2 mi\2\) to 10 km\2\ (3.9 mi\2\) in size (Ochoa-
Quintero et al. 2005, p. 46). Since the 1990s, the species has been 
observed in the Departments of C[oacute]rdoba (at La Terretera, near 
Alto Sin[uacute], 1993) and Bol[iacute]var (in the Serran[iacute]a de 
San Jacinto, 1993) (Williams in litt., as cited in BLI 2007d, p. 2); La 
Guajira (in the Valle de San Salvador Valley, 2003) (Strewe and Navarro 
2003, p. 32); Antioqu[iacute]a (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de 
San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve area, 1999 and 
2001) (Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, p. 43-44); Santander and 
Boyac[aacute] (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas); 
and Cauca (in northeastern and lower Cauca Valley) (BLI 2007d, p. 2; 
Cuervo 2002, pp. 135-138; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; 
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42).
    Deforestation rates and patterns: Primary forest habitats 
throughout Colombia have undergone extensive deforestation. Vi[ntilde]a 
et al. (2004, pp. 123-124) used satellite imagery to analyze 
deforestation rates and patterns along the Colombian-Ecuadorian Border 
(in the Departments of Putumayo and Sucumbios, respectively), finding 
that, from 1973 to 1996, a total of 829 km\2\ (320 mi\2\) of tropical 
forests within the study area were converted to other uses. This 
corresponds to a nearly one-third total loss of primary forest habitat, 
or a nearly 2 percent mean annual rate of deforestation within the 
study area. During the study, the area within Colombia experienced a 
three-times-larger annual rate of loss than that in Ecuador, due to 
more intense pressures from human colonization and illegal crop 
cultivation (Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, p. 124). The human population 
within the area increased from approximately 50,000 to over 250,000 
people during the 23-year period (Perz et al. 2005, pp. 26-28). A 
similar phenomenon occurred in the R[iacute]o Magdalena Valley, which 
coincides with the species' historic range as well as its disjunct and 
restricted current range. The R[iacute]o Magdalena runs from south to 
north approximately 1,540 km (950 mi) through western Colombia and 
served as the main waterway connecting coffee (Coffea spp.) plantations 
to the ports on the Western Colombian coast in the 1920s, when the 
river was reportedly plagued by occasional droughts and erosion. In the 
1930s, a railway was completed along much of the R[iacute]o Magdalena 
Valley; this infrastructural improvement contributed to a growth in 
several industries, including coffee (throughout the R[iacute]o 
Magdalena valley), bananas (Musa spp.) (Magdalena Department), and oil 
fields (Santander Department) (Ocampo and Botero 2000, pp. 76-78). 
Deforestation and habitat loss throughout the lowland forests across 
northern Colombia over the past 100 years contributed to the increasing 
rarity of the species, and extirpated the species from a large portion 
of its previous range by the 1980s (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 
183; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 61-62; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7).
    In a similar study specific to the western Andean Amazon area of 
Colombia (in the Departments of Arauca, Casemere, Meta, Vichada, 
Amazonas, Caquet[aacute], Guainia, Guaviare, Putumayo, and 
Vaup[eacute]s), deforestation between 1980 and 1990 totaled 52,320 
km\2\ (20,201 mi\2\) (Perz et al. 2005, pp. 26-28). The most recent 
reports indicate that habitat loss is ongoing and may be accelerating. 
Between the years 1990 and 2005, Colombia lost a total of 7,920 km\2\ 
(3,058 mi\2\) of primary forest (Butler 2006a, pp. 1-3; Food and 
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2003a, p. 1). 
Researchers have observed that road building and other infrastructure 
improvements in previously remote forested areas have increased 
accessibility and facilitated further habitat destruction, 
exploitation, and human settlement ([Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2042; 
C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, pp. 125-130; Etter 
et al. 2006, p. 1; Hunter 1996, p. 158-159; Vi[ntilde]a et al. 2004, 
pp. 118-119). In Antioquia, cattle ranches are extensive in areas where 
the blue-billed curassow occurs; cattle ranching is considered a less 
labor-intensive land use, meaning that more people need to turn to 
alternative sources of income generation, such as cultivation or 
extractive industries (Melo and Ochoa 2004, as cited in Urue[ntilde]a 
et al. 2006, p. 42). In Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas, the economy is 
based principally on timber extraction, agriculture, and cattle 
ranching (Urue[ntilde]a and Quevedo unpubl. data 2004, as cited in 
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 47). These activities contribute to 
further habitat fragmentation and reduction. In terms of habitat 
destruction, an influx of settlers displaced from the Departments of 
Antioquia, Tolima, and Cundinamarca, due to violence and public 
disorder in these Departments, are the principal threat to the 
mountainous regions in these Departments (Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 
42).
    The decline in blue-billed curassow population numbers (see 
Population estimates, above) is inextricably linked to habitat loss. 
The blue-billed curassow became increasingly rare during the 20th 
Century, as much of the lower-elevation forests in their historic range 
of the R[iacute]o Magdalena and R[iacute]o Cauca Valleys were 
deforested, forcing the blue-billed curassow to move to higher 
elevations (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 8). By the 1980s, the species 
had disappeared from a large portion of its previous range (Collar et 
al. 1992, pp. 61-62), which historically encompassed approximately 
106,700 km\2\ (41,197 mi\2\) (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). In 2002, it was 
estimated that, within the three prior generations (30 years), the 
species had lost 88 percent of its original habitat and that the 
remaining suitable habitat had been reduced to 13,300 km\2\ (5135 m2) 
(Cuervo 2002, p. 141). The current range of the blue-billed curassow is 
estimated to be 2,090 km\2\ (807 mi\2\) (BLI 2007d, p.2) (see also 
``Small Population Size,'' Factor E).
    Deforestation and fragmentation caused by human encroachment are 
ongoing throughout the blue-billed curassow's range, including: 
Antioqu[iacute]a (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas and 
Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve area); Santander and 
Boyac[aacute] Departments (on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de las 
Quinchas); and in the southeastern Department of Cauca (in northeastern 
and lower Cauca Valley), where timber extraction and mining continue 
(Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42). Human activities that are 
contributing to habitat loss include: forest clearing for subsistence 
agriculture, cash crops (such as coffee), and grazing ([Aacute]lvarez 
2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez 
Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12; Urue[ntilde]a 
et al. 2006, p. 42); habitat alteration, human population displacement, 
and hunting as a result of armed conflict ([Aacute]lvarez 2001, p. 305; 
[Aacute]lvarez 2003, pp. 51-52); habitat

[[Page 32312]]

destruction and alteration as a result of fire ([Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 
2041; Moreno et al. 2006, p. 1); habitat loss for dams and reservoir 
development (Cuervo 2002, p. 139; Kreger 2005, pp.5-6); illicit crop 
cultivation (such as the coca plant (Erythroxylum coca)) 
([Aacute]lvarez 2001, pp. 1086-1087; [Aacute]lvarez 2007, pp. 133-135; 
C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and 
Massey 2002, pp. 9-12); gold mining activities (Cuervo 2002, p. 139); 
habitat pollution due to oil development and distribution 
([Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2041; C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez 
Becerra 2004, p. 355); and increased access and habitat destruction 
resulting from road development (Cuervo 2002, pp. 139-140). Roads 
create barriers to animal movements, expose animals to traffic hazards, 
and increase human access into habitat, thus facilitating further 
exploitation and habitat destruction (Hunter 1996, 158-159). Local 
human populations have recently settled in forested areas that 
previously provided habitat for blue-billed curassows. This human 
settlement is accelerating habitat loss and fragmentation with only 5 
percent of the species' restricted range now covered by forest (Brooks 
and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, pp. 183-184), and is leaving only fragmented, 
disjunct, and isolated populations in the remaining four or five 
patches of tropical humid and premontane forests ([Aacute]lvarez 2003, 
p. 51; Brooks and Strahl 2000, pp. 14-15; Collar et al. 1994, pp. 61-
62; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29).
    Illegal drugs and their eradication: The cultivation of illegal 
crops (including coca) poses additional threats to the environment 
beyond encouraging the destruction of montane forests (Balslev 1993, p. 
3). Van Schoik and Schulberg (1993, p. 21) noted that coca crop 
production destroys the soil quality by causing the soil to become more 
acidic, which depletes the soil nutrients and ultimately impedes the 
regrowth of secondary forests in abandoned fields. Although Colombia 
continues to be the leading coca bush producer (United Nations Office 
of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) et al. 2007, p. 7), since 2003, cocaine 
cultivation has remained stable at about 800 km\2\ (309 mi\2\) of land 
under cultivation (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 8). This stabilization of 
production is partially attributed to alternative development projects 
that were implemented between 1999 and 2004 to encourage pursuits other 
than illegal crop cultivation (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 77). This is also 
attributed to heightened eradication efforts. Between 2002 and 2004, 
aerial spraying occurred over more than 1,300 km\2\ (502 mi\2\) 
annually, peaking in 2004, when 1,360 km\2\ (525 mi\2\) of illicit 
crops were sprayed (UNODC and the Government of Colombia (GOC) 2005, p. 
11). In 2006, eradication efforts were undertaken on over 2,130 km\2\ 
(822 mi\2\) of land, which included sraying of 1,720 km\2\ (664 mi\2\) 
and manual eradication on the remaining land. Eradication efforts 
undertaken in 2006 occurred over an area 2.7 times greater than the net 
cultivation area (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 8). Drug eradication efforts in 
Colombia have further degraded and destroyed primary forest habitat by 
using nonspecific aerial herbicides to destroy illegal crops 
([Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; C[aacute]rdenas and 
Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-
12). Herbicide spraying has introduced harmful chemicals into blue-
billed curassow habitat and has led to further destruction of the 
habitat by forcing illicit growers to move to new, previously untouched 
forested areas ([Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; [Aacute]lvarez 
2005, p. 2042; [Aacute]lvarez 2007, pp. 133-143; BLI 2007d, p. 3; 
C[aacute]rdenas and Rodr[iacute]guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and 
Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Between 1998 and 2002, cultivation of illicit 
crops increased by 21 percent each year, with a concomitant increase in 
deforestation of formerly pristine areas of approximately 60 percent 
([Aacute]lvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093).
    Effects of habitat fragmentation: A study conducted on the effects 
of habitat fragmentation on Andean birds within western Colombia 
determined two primary conditions that increased a species' 
vulnerability to habitat fragmentation and susceptibility to local 
extirpation and extinction: (1) species that were located at the upper 
or lower limit of their altitudinal or geographical distribution (as is 
the case for the blue-billed curassow, which formerly occupied the now-
cleared lower elevation forests and is relegated to isolated forest 
fragments within its current range), and (2) species that were large 
fruit-eating birds with limited distributions and narrow habitat 
preferences (also traits of the blue-billed curassow) (Kattan and 
[Aacute]lvarez-Lopez 1996, pp. 5-6). The study also determined that 31 
percent of the historical bird populations in western Colombia had 
become extinct or locally extirpated by 1990, largely as a result of 
habitat fragmentation from deforestation and human encroachment (Kattan 
and [Aacute]lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 5; Kattan et al. 1994, p. 141). The 
most direct physical consequence of habitat fragmentation is loss of 
habitat heterogeneity; habitat heterogeneity is a characteristic 
preferred by the blue-billed curassow (see Habitat and Life History, 
above) (Kattan and [Aacute]lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 6). Local reports 
indicate an overall declining trend characterized by recent rapid 
declines of all the populations of blue-billed curassows (BLI 2007d, p. 
1; Cuervo 2002, p. 138; Strahl et al. 1995, p. 25). Moreover, the 
ability of the blue-billed curassow to repopulate an isolated patch of 
suitable habitat following decline or extirpation is highly unlikely 
due to the species' small overall population size, its tendency to 
avoid degraded habitats, and the large distances between the remaining 
primary forest fragments in addition to the species' reticence to cross 
large areas of open habitat (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; Hanski 
1998, pp. 45-46).
    In addition to the direct detrimental effect of habitat loss, blue-
billed curassows and other cracids are susceptible to indirect effects 
of habitat disturbance and fragmentation (Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 
10; Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38). A study conducted in northwestern 
Colombia suggests that habitat destruction and fragmentation may 
increase a species' vulnerability to predation (Arango-V[eacute]lez and 
Kattan 1997, pp. 140-142) (Factor C). Habitat fragmentation, in 
combination with growing numbers of human settlements, has made the 
species' habitat more accessible and more vulnerable to hunting (Factor 
B) and predation (Factor C). Habitat loss also compounds the species' 
decline in population numbers (estimated to be between 1,000 and 2,500 
individuals) (BLI 2004b, p. 1) (see Factor E, Small population size).
    Refugia: Several areas within the blue-billed curassow's current 
range are designated as national parks or other types of preserves, 
including Tayrona and Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta National Parks (both 
in Antioqu[iacute]a Department) (Cuervo 2002, p. 140) and the Colorados 
Sanctuary (Bol[iacute]var Department), which protects part of the 
Serran[iacute]a de San Jacinto (BLI 2007d, pp. 2-3; Urue[ntilde]a et 
al. 2006, p. 42). Experts consider the most important refuges for this 
species, containing the largest remaining areas of suitable habitat, to 
be in the following areas (arranged geographically, from north to 
south): (1) Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas, (2) Paramillo National Park, 
(3) Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve, and (4) El Pauj[iacute]l 
Bird Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, p. 139-140; Urue[ntilde]a 
et al. 2006, p. 42), four of the five locations where the species has 
been observed in the 21st Century (see Current Range, above). The 
habitat within these refugia underserves

[[Page 32313]]

the needs of the species for various reasons (including past and 
ongoing habitat destruction and incomplete habitat inclusion), as 
enumerated below. In addition, inadequate regulatory mechanisms hamper 
protection of the species and its habitat (Factor D).
    (1) Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas (Antioqu[iacute]a) is not a 
protected area, but is one of the largest remaining tracts of forest 
that is the least disturbed (WWF 2001b, p. 1). Even so, only a few 
isolated forest patches survive above 1,000 m (3,280 ft) in the 
northern lowlands (Antioqui[aacute] Department) (Donegan and Salaman 
1999, p. 4). Ongoing pressures on this habitat include human 
encroachment for natural resources, colonization, ranching, logging, 
and crop production, as well as pollution of the Magdelena and Cauca 
Rivers (WWF 2001b, p. 3). In 1996, there was a gold rush that led to 
deforestation for logging, settlements, conversion to agriculture, and 
coca production (BLI 2007d, p 3). Using satellite imagery and 
fieldwork, Cuervo (2002, p. 140) determined that deforestation on the 
eastern slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas was extensive 
between 1995 and 1996. In 2005, highway construction was underway as 
part of a national plan to connect the East Andes, the West Andes, and 
the Pacific ports, including roadbuilding through the Serran[iacute]a 
de San Lucas and adjacent lowlands ([Aacute]lvarez 2005, p. 2042). 
Because the species prefers pristine habitat, this ongoing habitat 
alteration negatively impacts the integrity of this location and the 
survival of the species therein.
    (2) The Paramillo National Park (Antioqu[iacute]a and 
C[oacute]rdoba Departments), created in 1977, encompasses an area 4600 
km\2\ (1776 mi\2\) in size and includes moist and cloud forest habitats 
(Corantioquia 2008, p. 1). However, it only protects the upper 
elevational limit of the habitat occupied by the species, where the 
species is rarer (Cuervo 2002, p. 140). This Park is inhabited by an 
indigenous community (Ember[aacute]), for whom the Park was created. 
Farmers also inhabit the interior regions of the Park (BLI 2007a, p. 1-
2). The areas to the south of the Park have undergone intense habitat 
disturbance from logging, drug crop production, and inundation from 
flooding caused by the construction of the Urr[aacute] Dam (Cuervo 
2002, p. 139). Deforestation has occurred throughout a large portion of 
the Park's buffer zone as well as in the extreme southern reaches 
within Park boundaries (Cuervo 2002, p. 140). Between 2003 and 2004, 
cocaine cultivation within the Paramillo National Park went from 
1.1km\2\ to 4.6 km\2\ (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 45). The Urr[aacute] Dam 
was constructed on the Sin[uacute] River between 1993 and 1998; the 
Sin[uacute] River Valley was part of the blue-billed curassows' 
historic range (BirdLife International (BLI) 2007a, p. 1; Cuervo and 
Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361). The reservoir flooded the 
area and led to displacement of human populations and other habitat 
alterations, including fish kills caused by blocked spawning and 
migratory routes (NGO Working Group on Export Development Canada 2003, 
p.31).
    (3) The Bajo Cauca-Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve (Antioqu[iacute]a 
and C[oacute]rdoba Departments), created in 1999, is located within a 
large tract (450 km\2\ (174 mi\2\)) of forested land at an elevation of 
800 m (2,625 ft). Bajo Cauca is the second most populated region in the 
Department of Antioquia. Logging is important in this region, and the 
Reserve allows commercial exploitation of wood (Fundaci[oacute]n Viztaz 
2007, p. 2). Surveys are scant in this area, which is believed to be 
home to many species as yet unidentified by science (Cuervo 2002, p. 
137; Donegan and Salaman 1999, p. 12). Although the Reserve provides 
suitable habitat for the species, and the blue-billed curassow is 
presumed to inhabit this area, it has not been confirmed within the 
Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3).
    (4) El Pauj[iacute]l Bird Reserve (Santander and Boyac[aacute] 
Departments) is a private reserve established in Serran[iacute]a de las 
Quinchas (WorldTwitch Colombia 2004, p.3). In the early 1990s, the 
Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas (Boyac[aacute] Department, central 
Colombia) was considered one of the last remaining well-preserved cloud 
forests and the largest tract of lowland wet forest in the region, with 
up to 500 km\2\ (193 mi\2\) of forest remaining. Within a decade, the 
forest had dwindled to 120 km\2\ (46 mi\2\) (WorldTwitch Colombia 2004, 
p. 3). In 2002, the largest known subpopulation of blue-billed curassow 
was located in the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas and became regarded 
as the stronghold of the species (BLI 2007d, p. 2). El Pauj[iacute]l 
Bird Reserve was created in 2004 specifically to protect the blue-
billed curassow and its habitat (BLI 2007b, p. 2). Comprising 10 km\2\ 
(3.9 mi\2\) of lowland tropical forest up to elevations of 700 m (2297 
ft), the Reserve includes suitable habitat for the species. However, 
collection of eggs and chicks are ongoing within the region (Cuervo 
2002, p. 139; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42) (Factor B), and there 
are questions as to the effectiveness of this Reserve to protect the 
species (Factor D).

Summary of Factor A

    The blue-billed curassow prefers undisturbed habitat, and the 
remaining small populations are limited to four or five small, 
disjunct, and isolated areas in seven different Departments. Within the 
past three generations, or 30 years, the species is estimated to have 
lost 88 percent of its habitat and half of its population. 
Deforestation and conversion of primary forests for human settlements 
and agriculture has led to habitat fragmentation throughout the 
species' range and to isolation of remaining populations. Habitat loss 
and fragmentation were factors in the species' historical decline (over 
the past 50 years) and caused localized extirpations, and continue to 
be factors negatively affecting the blue-billed curassow in the wild. 
Human encroachment into the species' preferred primary forest habitat 
has resulted in habitat alteration and disturbance activities that have 
caused declines in the blue-billed curassow population. Cultivation of 
illegal drug crops, such as cocaine, leads to further deforestation and 
alters soil compositions, hindering regeneration of abandoned fields. 
In addition, drug eradication programs involving the aerial spraying of 
non-specific herbicides lead to further environmental degradation and 
destruction of primary forest habitat. Three of the four most important 
refugia continue to undergo habitat destruction, and regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to mitigate the primary threats to this 
species (Factor D). A private refuge, the El Pauj[iacute]l Bird 
Reserve, was formed to protect the blue-billed curassow and its 
habitat, which includes a large amount of suitable habitat, but may be 
lacking in its ability to adequately protect the species (Factors B and 
D). Habitat fragmentation contributes to the species' vulnerability to 
hunting (discussed under Factor B) and predation (discussed under 
Factor C) by increasing human and predator access to the habitat. The 
species' historic range, which encompassed approximately 106,700 km\2\ 
(41,197 mi\2\), has been reduced to 2,090 km\2\ (807 mi\2\). Experts 
estimate that 88 percent of this habitat loss has occurred within the 
last three generations, or 30 years. Habitat destruction and 
fragmentation of the remaining primary forest habitat is expected to 
continue, as human encroachment and associated activities continue 
within the blue-billed curassow's range. Therefore, we find that the 
present destruction, modification, and curtailment of habitat

[[Page 32314]]

are threats to the blue-billed curassow throughout all of its range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Blue-billed curassows are hunted by indigenous people and local 
residents for subsistence, sport, trade, and entertainment (Brooks and 
Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 10; Cuervo and 
Salaman 1999, p. 9; Throp 1964, p. 127; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 
42). Cracids, including the blue-billed curassow, are considered 
particularly vulnerable to hunting pressures and are among those 
species most rapidly depleted by hunting (Redford 1992, p. 419). 
Several factors contribute to the species' vulnerability to hunting and 
collection: their large size, ease of location during the breeding 
season, trusting nature, and low productivity (1-2 eggs) relative to 
other Galliformes (del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). Cracids are also slow to 
reproduce, with a replacement rate of at least 6 years (Silva and 
Strahl 1991, p. 50), which makes it difficult for the species to 
rebound from hunting pressures.
    Hunting affects the blue-billed curassow in all life stages. In 
1999, hunters in Antioqu[iacute]o (where the blue-billed curassow is 
known on the slopes of the Serran[iacute]a de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-
Nech[iacute] Regional Reserve area) reported killing as many as 20 
blue-billed curassows within the prior 20 years (Donegan and Salaman 
1999, p. 21). In 2004, it was reported that hunting had abated 
somewhat, because productive hunting grounds had become too remote from 
villages and because the communities have access to domestic meat (Melo 
and Ochoa 2004, as cited in Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42). However, 
both eggs and chicks continue to be collected in some areas (such as 
Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas, where El Pauj[iacute]l Reserve is 
located) to be sold at local markets (Cuervo 2002, p. 139; 
Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42), despite measures to protect the 
species from collection (Factor D). In 1999, live trapped birds 
(typically chicks) sold for up to US$100 (greater than the average 
monthly income) (Donegan and Salaman 1999, p. 21). These birds are 
either consumed or maintained as captive animals. The blue-billed 
curassow, as well as other cracids (e.g., chachalacas (Ortalis spp.) 
and guans (Penelope spp.)) serve as a major source of protein for 
indigenous people and attract a great deal of ecotourism (Brooks and 
Strahl 2000, p. 8). People colonizing forested areas capture juvenile 
birds as pets and hold them in captivity in fenced yards or in cages 
(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 8; Donegan and Salaman 1999, p. 21). 
Indigenous people also collect feathers and other body parts of 
curassows for rituals, ornamentation, arrowheads, and for sale to 
tourists (Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38).
    Most hunting occurs during the mating season, when males are more 
easily located by their booming mating calls (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, 
p. 9; del Hoyo 1994, p. 336), which can be heard from up to 500 m (0.31 
mi) away (Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, pp. 42, 44). The direct take of 
males leads to disequilibrium of sex ratios for this species, which 
forms monogamous pairs (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 9; Todd et al. 
2008), and it also leads to the disruption of mating activities (Cuervo 
and Salaman 1999, p. 9; del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). Researchers attribute 
hunting pressure as the cause for the near extinction of the blue-
billed curassow population in the San Salvador Valley (Strewe and 
Navarro 2003, p. 32). Researchers also attribute to hunting the absence 
of blue-billed curassows from parts of its historical range where 
suitable habitat (primary forest) still exists to hunting (Brooks and 
Strahl 2000, p. 10). In 1998, for instance, no males were observed 
during field surveys, prompting researchers to conclude that hunting 
continued to be a serious risk to the species (BLI 2007d, p. 3).
    Habitat fragmentation and concomitant human encroachment (Factor A) 
have made the species' habitat more accessible and more vulnerable to 
hunting. A study conducted in French Guiana provided a quantitative 
estimate of the effect of hunting on a related cracid species, the 
black curassow (Crax alector) (del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). The black 
curassow has similar habitat requirements (undisturbed primary tropical 
to subtropical humid forest at 0-1,400 m (0-4600 ft) elevation) as the 
blue-billed curassow (BLI 2007e). The estimated population density of 
black curassows in non-hunted areas was between 7 and 9 birds per 1 
km\2\ (0.4 mi\2\); in areas with intermittent hunting, the numbers fell 
to between 0.5 and 2.25 birds; and in areas where hunting was regular, 
numbers fell to between 0.5 and 0.73 birds (del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). We 
believe that the effects of hunting on the blue-billed curassow would 
result in similar population reductions based on its similarity of 
habitat requirements and life history traits.
    In 1988, Colombia listed the blue-billed curassow in Appendix III 
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES) (UNEP-WCMC 2008c). An Appendix-III listing 
requires that: (1) the listing range country (in this case, Colombia) 
must issue an export permit for all exports of the species; (2) 
specimens for these exports must be legally obtained; (3) live 
specimens must be transported such that risk of injury, damage, and 
cruelty are minimized; (4) exports from any other range countries 
require a certificate of origin; and (5) re-exports require a re-export 
certificate issued by the country of re-export (UNEP-WCMC 2008a). 
According to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), a total 
of 12 live birds have been traded internationally since 1990 (UNEP-WCMC 
2008e). This trade included imports of two individuals into the United 
States and five birds into Mexico in the early 1990s. Therefore, 
commercial international trade in wild specimens over the past 20 years 
has not been extensive.
    The remaining CITES-documented trade has consisted of exports of 
captive-bred specimens from the United States to Colombia and Belgium. 
The blue-billed curassow has been collected from the wild for use in 
zoos and in captive-breeding programs, both domestically and abroad. A 
small number of birds have been collected by the Cali Zoo and Santa Fe 
de Medellin Zoo in Colombia (Cuervo 2002, p. 142), and small 
collections are held in the United States, including the Houston Zoo 
and San Diego Zoo, as well as in Japan and Mexico (Brooks and Strahl 
2000, p. 15; Cuervo 2002, p. 142). The Cali and Houston Zoo collections 
are being used for captive breeding, which we consider vital to 
conserving and recovering this species (Factor E). International trade 
for zoos and captive-breeding purposes does not contribute to the 
endangerment of the species. We believe that this limited amount of 
international trade, controlled via CITES, is not a threat to the 
species.

Summary of Factor B

    The blue-billed curassow is hunted and collected from the wild at 
all life stages throughout its current range. Blue-billed curassow eggs 
and chicks are collected for food and sale in local markets, or are 
often captured and held in captivity as pets or as a future food 
source. Hunting results in the direct removal of eggs, juveniles, and 
adults from the population. Blue-billed curassows are slow to 
reproduce, produce a low clutch size, and exhibit a poor replacement 
rate (see Habitat and Life History). Hunting can destroy pair bonds and 
remove potentially reproductive adults from the breeding

[[Page 32315]]

pool. The species is particularly vulnerable to hunting and collection 
pressures due to the ease in locating this large bird during its 
breeding season. The majority of hunting occurs during the mating 
season, when males are heard calling for females, leading to 
disproportionate hunting of males. Hunting disturbances during the 
breeding season disrupt breeding activities, further compounding the 
threats associated with hunting mortalities. There are continued 
reports of hunting pressures on the species; these pressures have been 
and continue to be compounded by ongoing human encroachment into 
previously undisturbed forests (Factor A). Hunting and collection 
negatively affect the global population of the blue-billed curassow, 
due to its small population size and fragmented distribution. Hunting, 
combined with habitat fragmentation (Factor A), increases the 
possibility of local extirpation since the blue-billed curassow is 
unlikely to re-occupy an area that has been depleted through hunting 
because it avoids crossing large, open areas between habitat fragments 
(see Factor E, Likelihood to Disperse). Therefore, we find that 
hunting, collection, and associated disturbances are threats to the 
blue-billed curassow.

C. Disease or Predation

    Disease: We are unaware of information regarding disease or the 
potential for significant disease outbreaks in the blue-billed 
curassow. As a result, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the 
species.
    Predation: According to Delacour and Amadon (1973), predators of 
cracids include snakes (suborder Serpentes), foxes (family Canidae), 
wild cats (Felis silvestris), feral dogs (Canus lupus familiaris), and 
raptors (order Falconiformes). Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan (1997, 
pp. 137-143) studied nest predation rates on Andean birds within 
fragmented forest habitats of northwestern Colombia. Although not 
specific to the blue-billed curassow, the study focused on understory 
nesting birds with similar nesting habits and in forest fragment sizes 
similar to where the blue-billed curassow is currently found (Arango-
V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, p. 138). The study found that nest 
predation by generalist predators is more prevalent in smaller, 
isolated forest patches. However, in the study, increased predation in 
smaller habitat fragments could not be solely attributed to the ``edge 
effect,'' whereby smaller patch sizes facilitate predators' access and 
ability to capture prey throughout the fragments. Rather, reduced 
habitat patch sizes caused a shift from larger to smaller predators, 
which tended to prey upon the eggs and juveniles of understory birds, 
rendering ground-dwelling birds such as blue-billed curassows 
particularly susceptible (Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 140-
142). Other studies concerning the effects of habitat fragmentation on 
avian predation show similar results (Hoover et al. 1995, p. 151; 
Keyser 2002, p. 186; Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; Renjifo 1999, p. 1133; 
Wilcove 1985, p. 1214). Gibbs (1991, p. 157) found that a larger 
proportion of ground-nests and elevated nests were predated in patches 
smaller than 1 km\2\ (0.39 mi\2\) and that ground-nesting birds were 
predated more heavily than elevated-nesting birds. In addition to the 
importance of patch size for influencing the level of predation, the 
composition of the areas surrounding the patch is also important 
(Arango-V[eacute]lez and Kattan 1997, p. 141). For instance, in lowland 
Costa Rica, the edge effect (where predation is greater at the edge of 
forest patches than in the interior of the patch) was greatest in 
forest patches bordered by secondary growth than by pasture (Gibbs 
1991, p. 157).

Summary of Factor C

    Snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral dogs, and raptors are all 
predators of cracids. Predation results in the direct removal of eggs, 
juveniles, and adults from the population. Blue-billed curassows are 
slow to reproduce, produce a low clutch size, and exhibit a poor 
replacement rate (see Habitat and Life History). Predation can destroy 
pair bonds and remove potentially reproductive adults from the breeding 
pool. Studies on similar species in similar Andean habitats indicate 
that vulnerability to predation by generalist predators increases with 
increased habitat fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. Predation 
exacerbates the genetic complications associated with the species' 
small population size (Factor E). Because of the species' small 
population size and inability to recolonize isolated habitat fragments 
(Factor E), predation renders the species vulnerable to local 
extirpation. Therefore, we find that predation, compounded by ongoing 
habitat destruction (Factor A) and hunting (Factor B), is a threat to 
the blue-billed curassow.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Regulatory mechanisms may provide species-specific or habitat-
specific protections. An evaluation of the adequacy of regulatory 
mechanisms within Colombia to mitigate or remove the threats to the 
blue-billed curassow is provided below, beginning with species-specific 
and followed by habitat-specific protection mechanisms.
    The Colombian government has enacted and ratified numerous domestic 
and international laws, decrees, and resolutions for managing and 
conserving wildlife and flora (Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121). Colombian 
Law No. 99 of 1993 (Creating the Ministry of the Environment and 
Renewable Natural Resources and organizing the National Environmental 
System (SINA)) sets out the principles governing environmental policy 
in Colombia, and provides that the country's biodiversity be protected 
and used primarily in a sustainable manner (EcoLex 1993, p. 2). 
Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (Species that are endangered wildlife in the 
national territory) provides a list of Colombian wildlife and flora 
that are considered threatened. Threatened is defined as those species 
whose natural populations are at risk of extinction, as their habitat, 
range, or ecosystems that support them have been affected by either 
natural causes or human actions. Threatened species are further 
categorized as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. A 
critically endangered species (CR) is one that faces a very high 
probability of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, based on 
a drastic reduction of its natural populations and a severe 
deterioration of its range; an endangered species (EN) is one that has 
a high probability of extinction in the wild in the near future, based 
on a declining trend of its natural populations and a deterioration of 
its range; and a vulnerable species (VU) is one that is not in imminent 
danger of extinction in the near future, but it could be if natural 
population trends continue downward and deterioration of its range 
continues (EcoLex 2002, p. 10).
    The blue-billed curassow is considered a critically endangered 
species under Colombian law pursuant to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of 
Law No. 99, as outlined in Resolution No. 584 (EcoLex 2002, p. 12). 
This status confers certain protections upon the species. Resolution 
No. 849 of 1973 ([Laws governing] commercial hunting of sa[iacute]nos, 
boas, anacondas and birds throughout the country) and Resolution No. 
787of 1977 ([Laws governing] sport hunting of mammals, birds and 
reptiles of wildlife), regulate and prohibit commercial and sport 
hunting of all wild bird species, respectively, except those 
specifically identified by the Ministry of the Environment or otherwise 
permitted (EcoLex 1973, p.1; EcoLex 1977, p. 3). Because of its status 
as a critically endangered species, the

[[Page 32316]]

Ministry of the Environment does not permit the blue-billed curassow to 
be hunted commercially or for sport. Neither Resolution prohibits 
subsistence hunting. As discussed under Factor B, commercial and sport 
hunting are not threats to this species, but subsistence hunting 
continues to threaten the species throughout its range, including 
within protected areas. Thus, these Resolutions are ineffective at 
reducing the existing threat of subsistence hunting to the blue-billed 
curassow.
    Additional efforts to protect the species from subsistence hunting 
are inadequate. Within El Pauj[iacute]l Reserve, for instance, there 
are penalties for shooting or trapping the species (BLI 2007d, p. 3). 
However, as recently as 2006, it was reported that both chicks and eggs 
continued to be collected in the Serran[iacute]a de las Quinchas 
region, where the Reserve is located, for domestic use and for sale at 
local markets (Cuervo 2002, p. 139; Urue[ntilde]a et al. 2006, p. 42) 
(Factor B). Thus, private efforts to protect the species from hunting 
appear to be inadequate within a region where national laws are 
ineffective at protecting the species from such take.
    The blue-billed curassow is listed in Appendix III of CITES (see 
Factor B). CITES is an international treaty among 174 nations, 
including Colombia (which became a Party in 1981) and the United States 
(which became a Party in 1975) (UNEP-WCMC 2008a, p. 1). In the United 
States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. Endangered Species Act 
(Act). The Act designates the Secretary of the Interior as the 
Scientific and Management Authorities to implement the treaty, with all 
functions carried out by the Service. Under this treaty, countries work 
together to ensure that international trade in animal and plant species 
is not detrimental to the survival of wild populations, by regulating 
the import, export, re-export, and introduction from the sea of CITES-
listed animal and plant species (USFWS 2008, p. 1). As discussed under 
Factor B, we do not consider commercial international trade to be a 
threat impacting the blue-billed curassow.
    Colombia has numerous laws and regulations pertaining to forests 
and forestry management, including: the Forestry Law of 1959 (Law 2 - 
[On] forest economy [of the] nation and conservation [of] renewable 
natural resources) (EcoLex 1959); the Forestry Code of 1974 (Decree 
2,811 - National code of renewable natural resources and protection of 
the environment) (Faolex 1974), and the forest plan of 1996 (Decree 
1,791 - Forest Improvement Plan) (Faolex 1996). A new forest law was 
developed and approved in 2006 (Law No. 1,021, General [Forestry] Law). 
The new law seeks to: (1) further promote forest plantations and create