Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range, 40650-40683 [E9-18691]
Download as PDF
40650
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703–358–2105; 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.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R9–IA–2009–0028; 96100–1671–
0000–B6]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
RIN 1018–AV74
Public Comments
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Listing Seven Brazilian
Bird Species as Endangered
Throughout Their Range
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.
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 Web site. 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.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the following seven Brazilian bird
species and subspecies (collectively
referred to as ‘‘species’’ for purposes of
this proposed rule) as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.):
black-hooded antwren (Formicivora
erythronotos), Brazilian merganser
(Mergus octosetaceus), cherry-throated
tanager (Nemosia rourei), fringe-backed
fire-eye (Pyriglena atra), Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus kaempferi),
Margaretta’s hermit (Phaethornis
malaris margarettae), and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo
(Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis). 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
October 13, 2009. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
September 28, 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: FWS–R9–
IA–2009–0028; 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
us to make a finding (known as a ‘‘90day 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, the
finding must be made within 90 days
following receipt of the petition and
must be 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
(‘‘12-month finding’’) on whether the
requested action is warranted, not
warranted, or warranted but precluded
by higher priority listing. 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.
The following seven Brazilian bird
species are addressed in this proposed
rule: Black-hooded antwren
(Formicivora erythronotos), previously
recognized under the genus
Myrmotherula; Brazilian merganser
(Mergus octosetaceus); cherry-throated
tanager (Nemosia rourei); fringe-backed
fire-eye (Pyriglena atra), previously
referred to as Swainson’s fire-eye;
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus
kaempferi), previously recognized
under the genus Idioptilon; Margaretta’s
hermit (Phaethornis malaris
margarettae), previously referred to as
the Klabin Farm long-tailed hermit and
recognized at the species level as P.
margarettae; and southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus
geoffroyi dulcis). All of the above
species are found in the Atlantic Forest
and neighboring regions of southeastern
Brazil.
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
We are addressing the seven Brazilian
bird species identified above under a
single proposed rule primarily for three
reasons. First, all of these species are
found in the Atlantic Forest and
neighboring regions of southeastern
Brazil, thus addressing them together
makes sense from a regional
conservation perspective. Second, these
seven species are subject to similar
threats of comparable magnitude,
primarily the loss and degradation of
habitat due to deforestation and other
ongoing development practices affecting
southeastern Brazil, as well as
concomitant threats due to severely
restricted distributions and small
population sizes (such as potential loss
of genetic viability). 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-butprecluded species.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 28, 1980, we received
a petition (the 1980 petition) from Dr.
Warren B. King, Chairman, United
States Section of the International
Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to
add 60 foreign bird species to the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(50 CFR 17.11(h)), including 5 of the 7
Brazilian bird species (black-hooded
antwren, cherry-throated tanager, fringebacked fire-eye, Margaretta’s hermit,
and southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo) that are the subject of this
proposed rule. Two of the foreign
species identified in the petition were
already listed under the Act; therefore,
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 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
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.
We published additional annual notices
on the 58 species included in the 1980
petition 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
29354). These notices indicated that the
black-hooded antwren, cherry-throated
tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye,
Margaretta’s hermit, and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo, along
with the remaining species in the 1980
petition, continued to be warranted but
precluded.
On May 6, 1991, we received a second
petition (the 1991 petition) from ICBP to
add an additional 53 foreign bird
species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, including the 2
remaining Brazilian bird species
(Brazilian merganser and Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant) that are the subject of this
proposed rule. In response to the 1991
petition, we published a substantial 90day finding on December 16, 1991 (56
FR 65207), for all 53 species and
initiated a status review. On March 28,
1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12month 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 Brazilian
merganser and Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant,
was warranted but precluded by higher
priority listing actions. We made a
subsequent warranted-but-precluded
finding for all outstanding foreign
species from the 1980 and 1991
petitions, including the seven Brazilian
bird species that are the subject of this
proposed rule, as published in our
annual notice of review (ANOR) on May
21, 2004 (69 FR 29354).
Per the Service’s listing priority
guidelines (September 21, 1983; 48 FR
43098), our 2007 ANOR identified the
listing priority numbers (LPNs) (ranging
from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign
species. The LPNs for the seven
Brazilian bird species that are the
subject of this proposed rule are as
follows: The black-hooded antwren,
Brazilian merganser, cherry-throated
tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, and
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant (LPN 2); and the
Margaretta’s hermit and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (LPN 3).
Listing priorities of 2 and 3 indicate that
the subject species and subspecies,
respectively, face imminent threats of
high magnitude. With the exception of
listing priority ranking of 1, which
addresses monotypic genera that face
imminent threats of high magnitude,
categories 2 and 3 represent the
Service’s highest priorities.
On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we
published in the Federal Register a
notice announcing our annual petition
findings for foreign species. In that
notice, we announced listing to be
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40651
warranted for 30 foreign bird species,
including the seven Brazilian bird
species which are the subject of this
proposed rule, and stated that we would
‘‘promptly publish proposals to list
these 30 taxa.’’
On September 8, 2008, the Service
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 the Service’s failure to promptly
publish listing proposals for the 30
‘‘warranted’’ species identified in our
2008 ANOR. 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), the Service
must submit to the Federal Register
proposed listing rules for the blackhooded antwren, Brazilian merganser,
cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed
fire-eye, Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant,
Margaretta’s hermit, and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo by
July 31, 2009.
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. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, singly or in combination.
If we consider that wildlife habitat is
not only defined by substrates
(vegetation, soil, water), but also
atmospheric conditions, then changes in
air temperature and moisture can
effectively change a species’ habitat.
Climate change is characterized by
variations in the earth’s temperature and
precipitation causing changes in
atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial
conditions (Parmesan and Mathews
2005, p. 334). Global climate change and
other periodic climatic patterns (e.g., El
˜
˜
Nino and La Nina) can cause or
exacerbate such negative impacts on a
broad range of terrestrial ecosystems
and neotropical bird populations (Crick
2004, p. 1; England 2000, p. 86;
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
40652
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Holmgren et al. 2001, p. 89; Plumart
2007, pp. 1–2). For example, trees cool
their area of influence through high
rates of evapotranspiration, or water loss
to the atmosphere from their leaves
(Parmesan and Mathews 2005, p. 337).
Areas where trees have been replaced
with pastures have lower
evapotranspiration rates, thus causing
local areas to be warmer (Parmesan and
Mathews 2005, p. 337). According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), climate change can
contribute to modifications of
Amazonian rainforest habitats that are
affected by deforestation (IPCC 1997,
p. 11). Parmesan and Mathews (2005,
p. 373) suggest that climate change is
more likely to cause range reductions
rather than range shifts. This may be
due to the lack of areas where a species
could shift to or the spaces between
habitat patches are too large for
individuals to reach. This suggests that
climate change could be an agent of
habitat loss or modification.
Despite the fact that global climate
changes are occurring and affecting
habitat, the climate change models that
are currently available are not yet able
to make meaningful predictions of
climate change for specific, local areas
(Parmesan and Matthews 2005, p. 354),
such as the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado
(savanna) bioregions. In addition, we do
not have models to predict how the
climate in the range of these Brazilian
bird species will change, and we do not
know how any change that may occur,
would affect these species. We also do
not have information on past and future
weather patterns within the specific
range of these species. Therefore, based
on the current lack of information and
data, we did not evaluate climate
change as a threat to these species. We
are, however, seeking additional
information on this subject (see Public
Comments) that can be used in
preparing the final rule.
Below is a species-by-species analysis
of the five factors. The species are
considered in alphabetical order,
beginning with the black-hooded
antwren, followed by the Brazilian
merganser, cherry-throated tanager,
fringe-backed fire-eye, Kaempfer’s todytyrant, Margaretta’s hermit, and the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo.
I. Black-hooded Antwren (Formicivora
erythronotos)
Species Description
The black-hooded antwren measures
10.5 to 11.5 centimeters (cm) (4 to 4.5
inches (in)) (BirdLife International (BLI)
2007d, p. 1; Sisk 1993, p. 414). Males
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
are black with a reddish-brown back.
They have a black narrow bill and a
long tail. There are three thin white
stripes on the wings. Females have
similar coloring, except they have
brown-olive feathers where black
feathers appear on males (BLI 2007d,
p. 1).
Taxonomy
The black-hooded antwren is a small
member of the diverse ‘‘antbird’’ family
(Thamnophilidae). The species was
previously recognized under the genus
Myrmotherula (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 667; Sick 1993, p. 414).
Habitat and Life History
The Atlantic Forest biome
encompasses a region of tropical and
subtropical moist forests, tropical dry
forests, and mangrove forests, that
extend along the Atlantic coast of Brazil
from Rio Grande do Norte in the north
to Rio Grande do Sul in the south, and
inland as far as Paraguay and Misiones
Province of northeastern Argentina
(Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and
Haddad 2000, pp. 786–787). The blackhooded antwren inhabits lush
understories of remnant old-growth and
early successional secondary-growth
coastal forests, and it may also occur in
dense understories of modified
‘‘restinga,’’ (‘‘restinga’’ is a Brazilian
term that describes a patchwork of
vegetation types consisting of beach
vegetation, open shrubby vegetation,
and dry and swamp forests distributed
over coastal plains from northeastern to
southeastern Brazil (McGinley 2007, pp.
1–2)), swampy woodlands, abandoned
banana plantations, and eucalyptus
stands (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Tobias and
Williams 1996, p. 64).
Although the specific habitat
requirements of the black-hooded
antwren are still unclear, the species is
not considered a tropical forest
specialist. The black-hooded antwren
typically forages in pairs or small family
groups and consumes various insects,
spiders, and small frogs (Collar et al.
1992, p. 667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616;
Sick 1993, p. 405; Tobias and Williams
1996, p. 65). Black-hooded antwrens
usually forage in dense vegetation
within approximately 3 meters (m) (10
feet (ft)) of the ground, but they are also
known to feed higher up (ca. 7 m (23
ft)).
Females typically lay two eggs in
fragile nests resembling small cups
made of plant material (e.g., rootlets,
stems, moss) that are attached to
horizontal branches within roughly 1 m
(3.3 ft) of the ground (Collar et al. 1992,
p. 667; Sick 1993, p. 405). Both sexes
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
help to build the nests, brood clutches,
and attend their young.
Range and Distribution
The black-hooded antwren is endemic
to the Atlantic Forest biome in the
southeast of the state of Rio de Janeiro
(BLI 2007d, p. 1; Collar et al. 1992,
p. 667). Currently, the only confirmed
population is believed to be restricted to
remnant patches of forest habitat along
roughly 30 kilometers (km) (19 miles
(mi)) of coast in southern Rio de Janeiro,
˜
near the border with Sao Paulo (Browne
2005, p. 95; Tobias and Williams 1996,
p. 64). However, there have also been
recent unconfirmed reports that the
species may occur at the state Ecological
´
Reserve of Jacarepia, located roughly 75
km (47 mi) northeast of the city of Rio
de Janeiro (ADEJA 2007, p. 3;
WorldTwitch 2007, p. 12).
Population Estimates
The black-hooded antwren was
known from 20 specimens that were
purportedly collected in the 1800s in
montane forest habitats of central Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. The species had not been
reported since that collection until it
was rediscovered in 1987 in the Atlantic
forest in south Rio de Janeiro (BLI
2007d, p. 1).
The extant population is estimated to
be between 1,000 and 2,499 birds, and
is fragmented among seven occupied
´
˜
sites, including Bracuı, Frade, Sao
Goncalo, Taquari and Barra Grande,
¸
´
Ariro, and Vale do Mambucaba. Vale do
Mambucaba has the highest known
density of pairs (156 pairs per square
kilometer (km2)), followed by
Mambucaba (densities of 89 pairs/km2).
There are no known estimates for the
other locations, but it is believed that
the numbers are few (BLI 2007d, p. 1).
At least one of the fragmented
populations is believed to be
reproductively isolated. The population,
as a whole, is also believed to be
declining rapidly due to continued loss
of habitat (BLI 2007d, pp. 1–3).
Conservation Status
The IUCN considers the black-hooded
antwren to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because ‘‘it
has a very small and severely
fragmented range that is likely to be
declining rapidly in response to habitat
loss’’ (BLI 2007d, p. 3). The species is
also protected by Brazilian law and
occurs in the buffer area of Serra da
´
Bocaına National Park (BLI 2007d, p. 2).
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factors Affecting the Blackhooded Antwren
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Based on a number of recent
estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
historically covered by tropical forests
within the Atlantic Forest biome has
been converted or severely degraded as
a result of various human activities
(Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation
¨
International 2007a, p. 1; Hofling 2007,
p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p.
786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund
2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the
overall loss and degradation of native
habitats within this biome, the
remaining tracts of habitat are severely
fragmented. The current rate of habitat
decline is unknown.
The region has the two largest cities
˜
in Brazil, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro,
and is home to approximately 70
percent of Brazil’s 169 million people
(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major
human activities that have resulted in
the loss, degradation, and fragmentation
of native habitats within the Atlantic
Forest biome include extensive
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g.,
soy beans, sugarcane, corn), plantations
(e.g., eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa,
rubber, bananas), livestock pastures,
centers of human habitation, and
industrial developments (e.g., charcoal
production, steel plants, hydropower
reservoirs). Forestry practices (e.g.,
commercial logging, subsistence
activities, fuelwood collection) and
changes in fire frequencies (BLI 2003a,
´
p. 4; Junior et al. 1995, p. 147; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva
2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868–
869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51)
also contribute to the degradation of
native habitat.
The black-hooded antwren is not
strictly tied to primary forest habitats
and can make use of secondary-growth
forests or other disturbed areas, such as
modified ‘‘restinga,’’ eucalyptus stands,
abandoned banana plantations, and
recently burned sites (BLI 2007d, p. 1;
Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64).
However, this does not necessarily
lessen the threat to the species from the
effects of deforestation and habitat
degradation. Atlantic Forest birds, such
as the black-hooded antwren, which are
tolerant of secondary-growth forests or
other disturbed sites, are also rare or
have severely restricted ranges (i.e., less
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
than 21,000 km2 (8,100 square miles
(mi2))). Thus habitat degradation can
adversely impact such species, just as
equally as it impacts primary forestobligate species (Harris and Pimm 2004,
pp. 1612–1613). While the black-hooded
antwren is relatively abundant locally,
the entire range of the species
encompasses only about 130 km2 (50
mi2), with only 45 percent of this area
considered occupied (BLI 2007d, pp.
3–4).
The susceptibility to habitat
destruction of limited-range species that
are tolerant of secondary-growth forests
or other disturbed sites can occur for a
variety of reasons, such as when a
species’ remaining population is already
too small or its distribution too
fragmented such that it may not be
demographically or genetically viable
(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613).
In addition, while the black-hooded
antwren may be tolerant of secondarygrowth forests or other disturbed sites,
these areas may not represent optimal
conditions for the species, which would
include dense understories and
abundant prey species. For example,
management of plantations often
involves intensive control of the site’s
understory vegetation and long-term use
of pesticides, which eventually results
in severely diminished understory cover
and potential prey species (Rolim and
Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687–2691; Saatchi
et al. 2001, pp. 868–869; Scott and
Brooke 1985, p. 118). Such management
activities make these sites unsuitable for
the black-hooded antwren (BLI 2007d,
p. 2).
Impacts associated with the
destruction of native habitat by human
activities within the Atlantic Forest
biome include extensive fragmentation
of the remaining tracts of forested
habitat potentially used by the blackhooded antwren (see Factor E). As a
secondary impact, habitat destruction of
these remaining tracts increases the
potential introduction of disease vectors
or exotic predators within the species’
historic range (see Factor C).
Furthermore, even when potentially
occupied sites may be formally
protected, such as the state Ecological
´
Reserve of Jacarepia (see Factor D), the
remaining fragments of forested habitat
will likely undergo further degradation
due to their altered dynamics and
isolation (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2;
Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932).
Altered dynamics and isolation are
characterized by a decrease in gene flow
and inbreeding, which decrease the
fitness of forest species (Tabanez and
Viana 2000, pp. 929–932). In addition,
fragmented Atlantic forests of Brazil are
observed to be overtaken by lianas
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40653
(long-stemmed woody vines), which
cause tree falls and gaps in the forest
structure. These gaps in the forest
encourage gap-opportunistic vegetation
to grow. Hence, a decrease in gene flow,
and increases in inbreeding, liana
density, and presence of gapopportunistic species change the
character and dynamics of the Atlantic
Forest biome and isolate fragmented
habitat patches (Tabanez and Viana
2000, pp. 930–931). These changes may
result in the loss of important species
that comprise the black-hooded antwren
habitat. As a result of these secondary
impacts, there is often a time lag
between the initial conversion or
degradation of suitable habitats and the
extinction of endemic bird populations
(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al.
1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without
further habitat loss or degradation, the
black-hooded antwren remains at risk
from past impacts to its suitable
habitats.
The black-hooded antwren occurs in
one of the most densely populated
regions of Brazil, and most of the
tropical forest habitats believed to have
been used historically by the species
have been converted or are severely
degraded due to the wide range of
human activities identified above (BLI
2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 667; Conservation
International 2007a, p. 1; del Hoyo
¨
2003, p. 616; Hofling 2007, p. 1; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; World
Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). In
addition, the remaining tracts of suitable
˜
habitat in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo
are threatened by ongoing development
of coastal areas, primarily for tourism
enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes,
beachside housing) and associated
infrastructure support, as well as
widespread clearing for expansion of
livestock pastures and plantations,
primarily for Euterpe palms (BLI 2003a,
p. 4; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992,
p. 667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; World
Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 7 and 36–37).
These impacts have recently reduced
suitable habitats at various key sites
known to be occupied by the blackhooded antwren such as Vale do
´
Mambucaba and Ariro, and the
remaining occupied habitats at these
sites are subject to ongoing human
disturbances, such as off-road vehicle
use, burning, and recreational activities
(BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et al. 1994,
p. 134; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616).
Summary of Factor A
A significant portion of Atlantic
Forest habitats have been, and continue
to be, lost and degraded by various
ongoing human activities, including
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
40654
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
logging, establishment and expansion of
plantations and livestock pastures,
urban and industrial developments
(including many new hydroelectric
dams), slash-and-burn clearing,
intentional and accidental ignition of
fires, and establishment of invasive
species (CEPF 2001, pp. 9–15). Even
with the recent passage of a national
forest policy and in light of many other
legal protections in Brazil (see Factor D),
the rate of habitat loss throughout the
Atlantic Forest biome has increased
since the mid-1990s (CEPF 2001, p. 10;
Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; Rocha et al.
2005, p. 270), and native habitats at
many of the remaining sites may be lost
over the next several years (Rocha et al.
2005, p. 263). Furthermore, because the
black-hooded antwren’s extant
population is already small, highly
fragmented, and believed to be
declining (BLI 2007d, pp. 1–3), any
further loss or degradation of its
remaining suitable habitat represents a
significant threat to the species (see
Factor E). Therefore, we find that
destruction and modification of habitat
are threats to the continued existence of
the black-hooded antwren throughout
its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The extant population of the blackhooded antwren is considered to be
small, fragmented, and declining. The
species was deliberately not collected
when it was rediscovered in 1987
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 667). This is
because the removal or dispersal of just
a few individuals from any of the blackhooded antwren’s subpopulations or
even a slight decline in their fitness due
to intentional or inadvertent hunting,
specimen collection, or other human
disturbances (e.g., scientific research,
birding) could represent significant risks
to 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 other
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 factor to the continued
existence of the black-hooded antwren.
C. Disease or Predation
Large, stable populations of wildlife
species have adapted to natural levels of
disease and predation within their
historic ranges. However, the extant
population of the black-hooded antwren
is considered to be small, fragmented,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
and declining. In addition, 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 (Naugle et al. 2004,
p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p. 1).
Extensive human activity in previously
undisturbed or isolated areas can also
result in altered predator populations
and the introduction of various exotic
predator species, some of which (e.g.,
feral cats (Felis catus) and rats (Ratus
sp.)) can be especially harmful to
populations of endemic bird species
(American Bird Conservancy 2007, p. 1;
Courchamp et al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan
and Blackburn 2007, pp. 149–150; Salo
et al. 2007, pp. 1241–1242; Small 2005,
p. 257). Any additive mortality to the
black-hooded antwren’s subpopulations
or a decrease in their fitness due to an
increase in the incidence of disease or
predation could represent significant
threats to the species’ overall viability
(see Factor E).
Although disease and predation may
be a concern for future management of
the black-hooded antwren, we are not
aware of any species-specific
information currently available that
indicates that disease or predation poses
a threat to the species. As a result, we
are not considering disease or predation
to be a contributing factor to the
continued existence of the black-hooded
antwren.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The black-hooded antwren is formally
recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil
(Order No. 1.522) and is directly
protected by various laws promulgated
by the Brazilian government (BLI 2007d,
p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 667; ECOLEX
2007, pp. 1–2). For example, there are
measures that prohibit, or regulate
through Federal agency oversight, the
following activities with regard to
endangered species: export and
international trade (e.g., Decree No.
76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g.,
Act No. 5.197), collection and research
(Order No. 332), captive propagation
(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g.,
Decree No. 3.179). In addition, there are
a wide range of regulatory mechanisms
in Brazil that indirectly protect the
black-hooded antwren through
measures that protect its remaining
suitable habitat (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 2–
5). For example, there are measures that:
(1) Prohibit exploitation of the
remaining primary forests within the
Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree No.
750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern
various practices associated with the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
management of primary and secondary
forests, such as logging, charcoal
production, reforestation, recreation,
and water resources (e.g., Resolution
No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282,
Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act
No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for
controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No.
97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No.
292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4)
regulate industrial developments, such
as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel
production (e.g., Normative Instruction
No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there
are various measures (e.g., Law No.
11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78,
Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct
Federal and state agencies to promote
the protection of lands and natural
resources under their jurisdictions
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6).
There are also various regulatory
mechanisms in Brazil that govern the
formal establishment and management
of protected areas to promote
conservation of the country’s natural
resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–7).
These mechanisms generally aim to
protect endangered wildlife and plant
species, genetic resources, overall
biodiversity, and native ecosystems on
Federal, state, and privately owned
lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No.
11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No.
1.922). Brazil’s formally established
protection areas are categorized based
on their overall management objectives
(e.g., National Parks versus Biological
Reserves); and based on those
categories, they allow varying uses and
provide varying levels of protection for
specific resources (Costa 2007, pp.
5–19).
The black-hooded antwren occurs in
the buffer zone around Serra da Bocaina
National Park and, possibly, within
Tamoios Environmental Protection Area
´
and the Ecological Reserve of Jacarepia
(BLI 2007d, p. 2; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616;
WorldTwitch 2007, p. 12). It has been
recommended that some of these sites
should be expanded and other sites
designated to ensure the species’
currently occupied range is
encompassed within protected areas.
However, for various reasons (e.g., lack
of funding, personnel, or local
management commitment), some of
Brazil’s protected areas exist without
the current capacity to achieve their
stated natural resource objectives
(ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; Bruner et al.
2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, p. 7; IUCN
1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical News
1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News 1999,
p. 9). Therefore, even with the
expansion or further designation of
protected areas, it is likely that not all
of the identified resource concerns for
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the black-hooded antwren (e.g.,
residential and agricultural
encroachment, resource extraction,
unregulated tourism, grazing) would be
sufficiently addressed at these sites.
In the past, the Brazilian government,
through various regulations, policies,
incentives, and subsidies, has actively
encouraged settlement of previously
undeveloped lands in southeastern
Brazil, which helped facilitate the largescale habitat conversions that have
occurred throughout the Atlantic Forest
biome (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler
2007, p. 3; Conservation International
2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et
al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al.
2001, p. 874). More recently, the
Brazilian government has given greater
recognition to the environmental
consequences of such rapid expansion,
and has taken steps to better manage
some of the natural resources
potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7;
Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News
1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b,
p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9;
Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 45). Despite these
efforts, pressures to develop coastal
areas containing black-hooded antwren
habitat for tourism (e.g., large hotel
complexes, beachside housing) and
plantation agriculture continue to be a
threat to the species (ADEJA 2007, pp.
1–2; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Tobias and
Williams 1996, p. 65).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factor D
Brazil’s wide variety of laws requiring
resource protection that would
ultimately benefit the black-hooded
antwren are tested by the intense
development pressure that exists in
coastal areas south of Rio de Janeiro.
Despite the existence of these regulatory
mechanisms, habitat loss throughout the
Atlantic Forest biome has increased for
more than a decade. The existing
regulatory mechanisms have proven
difficult to enforce (BLI 2003a, p. 4;
Conservation International 2007c, p. 1;
Costa 2007, p. 7; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Neotropical
News 1997b, p. 11; Peixoto and Silva
2007, p. 5; Scott and Brooke 1985, pp.
118, 130). As a result, threats to the
black-hooded antwren’s remaining
habitat are ongoing (see Factor A) due
to the challenges that Brazil faces to
balance its competing development and
environmental priorities. Therefore,
when combined with Factors A and E,
we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to
ameliorate the current threats to the
black-hooded antwren throughout its
range.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Under this factor we explore whether
three risks, represented by demographic,
genetic, and environmental stochastic
events, are substantive to threaten the
continued existence of the black-hooded
antwren. In basic terms, demographic
stochasticity is defined by chance
changes in the population growth rate
´
for the species (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 27). Population growth rates are
influenced by individual birth and
´
death rates (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p.
27), immigration and emigration rates,
as well as changes in population sex
ratios. Natural variation in survival and
reproductive success of individuals and
chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may
act in concert to contribute to
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity
is caused by changes in gene
frequencies due to genetic drift, and
diminished genetic diversity, and/or
effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p.
786). Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by
increasing the phenotypic expression
(the outward appearance, or observable
structure, function, or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive,
deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the
population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,
p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is
defined as the susceptibility of small,
isolated populations of wildlife species
to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged
drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire)
(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410–
412). Each risk will be analyzed
specifically for the black-hooded
antwren.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species are susceptible to demographic
and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp.
130–134). These threat factors, which
may act in concert, include: natural
variation in survival and reproductive
success of individuals, chance
disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in
gene frequencies due to genetic drift,
diminished genetic diversity and
associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression), dispersal of just
a few individuals, a few clutch failures,
a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring
over just one or a few years, and chance
mortality of just a few reproductive-age
individuals.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40655
There is very little information
available regarding the historic
distribution and abundance of the blackhooded antwren. However, the species’
historic population was likely larger and
more widely distributed than today, and
it must have maintained a minimum
level of genetic interchange among its
local subpopulations in order for them
to have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet
`
1997, p. 107; Vila et al. 2002, p. 91;
Wang 2004, p. 332). The available
information indicates that suitable
habitats currently occupied by the
black-hooded antwren are highly
fragmented and that the species’ extant
population is small and declining (BLI
2007d, pp. 1–3). Without efforts to
maintain buffer areas and reconnect
some of the remaining tracts of suitable
habitat near the species’ currently
occupied sites, it is doubtful that the
individual tracts are currently large
enough to support viable populations of
many birds endemic to the Atlantic
Forest, like the black-hooded antwren,
and the eventual loss of any small,
isolated populations appears to be
inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117; Harris
and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610; IUCN
1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da
Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke
1985, p. 118).
Various past and ongoing human
activities and their secondary influences
continue to impact all of the remaining
suitable habitats that may still harbor
the black-hooded antwren (see Factors
A and D). We expect that any additional
loss or degradation of habitats that are
used by the black-hooded antwren will
have disproportionately greater impacts
on the species due to the population’s
fragmented state. This is because with
each contraction of an existing
subpopulation, the likelihood of
interchange with other subpopulations
within patches decreases, while the
likelihood of its complete reproductive
isolation increases.
The combined effects of habitat
fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic
and demographic stochasticity on a
species population are referred to as
patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can
have profound effects on fragmented
subpopulations and can potentially
reduce a species’ respective effective
population by orders of magnitude
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 31). For
example, an increase in habitat
fragmentation can separate
subpopulations to the point where
individuals can no longer disperse and
breed among habitat patches, causing a
shift in the demographic characteristics
of a population and a reduction in
´
genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
40656
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
p. 31). Furthermore, as a species’ status
continues to decline, often as a result of
deterministic forces such as habitat loss
or overutilization, it will become
increasingly vulnerable to a broad array
of other forces. If this trend continues,
its ultimate extinction due to one or
more stochastic events becomes more
likely.
We expect that the black-hooded
antwren’s increased vulnerability to
demographic stochasticity and
inbreeding will be operative even in the
absence of any human-induced threats
or stochastic environmental events,
which only act to further exacerbate the
species’ vulnerability to local
extirpations and eventual extinction.
Demographic and genetic stochastic
forces typically operate synergistically.
Initial effects of one threat factor can
later exacerbate the effects of other
threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin
´
and Soule 1986, pp. 25–26). For
example, any further fragmentation of
the populations will, by definition,
result in the further removal or dispersal
of individuals, which will exacerbate
the other threats. Conversely, lack of a
sufficient number of individuals in a
local area or a decline in their
individual or collective fitness may
cause a decline in the population size,
despite the presence of suitable habitat
patches.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species, such as the black-hooded
antwren, are also susceptible to natural
levels of environmental variability and
related ‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g.,
severe storms, prolonged drought,
extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we
will refer to as environmental
stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9;
Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young
1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic
environmental event can severely
reduce existing wildlife populations
and, if the affected population is already
small or severely fragmented, it is likely
that demographic stochasticity or
inbreeding will become operative,
which would place the population in
´
jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 27;
Lande 1995, pp. 787–789).
black-hooded antwren throughout its
range.
Summary of Factor E
The small and declining numbers that
make up the black-hooded antwren’s
population makes it susceptible to
natural environmental variability or
chance events. In addition to its
declining numbers, the high level of
population fragmentation makes the
species susceptible to genetic and
demographic stochasticity. Therefore,
we find that demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events are a
threat to the continued existence of the
Taxonomy
The Brazilian merganser was first
described by Vieillot in 1817 (Partridge
1956, p. 473). The species belongs in the
family Anatidae (BLI 2007a, p. 1).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
Status Determination for the Blackhooded Antwren
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and potential future threats faced by the
black-hooded antwren. 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
associated with the species’ high level
of population fragmentation (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 threats to the black-hooded
antwren throughout its entire range, as
described above, we determine that the
black-hooded antwren is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list the
black-hooded antwren as an endangered
species throughout all of its range.
II. Brazilian Merganser (Mergus
Octosetaceus)
Species Description
The 49–56 cm (19–22 in) (BLI 2007a,
p. 1) Brazilian merganser is described as
resembling a cormorant (Sisk 1993, p.
163). The bird has a white wing
speculum and red feet. The breast is
pale grey with dark markings, and there
is dark grey coloring in the upper breast
(BLI 2007a, p. 1). The species has a
distinctive green crest that extends over
the nape of the neck (more developed in
the male) (Sisk 1993, p. 163).
Habitat and Life History
The Brazilian merganser is highly
adapted to shallow, rapid, clear-water
streams and rivers, typically bordered
by dense, tropical forest (Bruno et al.
2006, p. 26; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 80–
86; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
et al. 2006, p. 23; Partridge 1956, pp.
478–480; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p.
41). Where suitable riverine conditions
exist, the Brazilian merganser also
occurs in the Cerrado biome, which is
characterized by open tropical savannah
and comparatively sparse ‘‘gallery’’
forest at the river margins, indicating
that the species is not strictly tied to
tropical forest habitats (Bianchi et al.
2005, p. 73; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70).
Brazilian mergansers are strong
swimmers and divers. They typically
feed in river rapids or in pools adjacent
to waterfalls, whereas they rest and
perch in more slack water areas or at the
river edges (Braz et al. 2003, p. 70;
Hughes et al. 2006, p. 21; Partridge
1956, pp. 481–482). Brazilian
mergansers feed primarily on a variety
of fish species, with sizes up to
approximately 19 cm (7.5 in), and
occasionally on insects, snails, and
other aquatic macro-invertebrates
(Hughes et al. 2006, p. 32; Partridge
1956, p. 483).
Brazilian mergansers are believed to
be monogamous and sedentary.
Breeding pairs appear to maintain their
territories along a stretch of river (up to
ca. 12 km (7.5 mi)) throughout the year
(Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Ducks Unlimited
2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23,
33; Partridge 1956, p. 477). The breeding
season begins in June and young hatch
around August (Partridge 1956, p. 487).
Females establish their nests relatively
high up (25 m (82 ft)) in the cavities of
tall trees that overlook the river and
incubate their eggs alone, although
males are attentive and remain nearby
feeding and perching at the river
shoreline (Bruno et al. 2006, p. 29;
Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 38; Partridge
1956, pp. 484–485). Females may also
locate their nests lower down (10 m (33
ft)) in the cavities of cliffs or rocky
outcrops near preferred riverine habitat
in areas where suitable nesting trees are
absent (Lamas and Santos 2004, pp. 38–
39).
Range and Distribution
The Brazilian merganser occurs in a
few fragmented locations in southcentral Brazil, including the uppertributaries of rivers within the Atlantic
Forest biome and to the east in the
Cerrado (savanna) biome (BLI 2007a,
p. 1). The species is a diving duck that
occurred historically in riverine habitats
throughout southeastern Brazil,
northeastern Argentina, and eastern
Paraguay (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 24).
Currently, the species is found in
extremely low numbers at six highly
disjunct localities, of which five are in
southeastern Brazil and one is in
northeastern Argentina and, possibly,
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
extreme eastern Paraguay (BLI 2007a,
pp. 1–5; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 28–31).
The vast majority of the species’ extant
population and remaining suitable
habitats occur in Brazil, including its
largest subpopulation that is estimated
to contain fewer than 50 individuals
(BLI 2007a, p. 5).
The Brazilian merganser is thought to
have been extirpated from Mato Grosso
˜
do Sul, Sao Paolo, Rio de Janeiro, and
Santa Catarina (BLI 2007a, pp. 1–2).
There is only a single recent record of
the Brazilian merganser (ca. 2002) in the
province of Misiones, Argentina, while
the last confirmed sighting of the
species in Paraguay is from 1984 (BLI
2007a, p. 2; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 31).
For purposes of this proposed rule, our
analysis will focus on the most current
estimates of the species, which are
based in Brazil.
The species likely still occurs in the
Brazilian states of Tocantins, Bahia,
´
´
Goias, Minas Gerais, and Parana
(Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 51–52). Along
with other recent sightings of the
species in previously undocumented
areas of Brazil (Bianchi et al. 2005,
p. 72; Pineschi 1999, p. 1), this
information indicates that the Brazilian
merganser may be more abundant and
widespread than previously considered.
Population Estimates
The extant population is estimated to
be between 50 and 249 individuals and
is presumed to be declining, as
evidenced by the species’ recent history
of extirpation from major portions of its
historic range (BLI 2007a, p. 1).
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the Brazilian
merganser to be ‘‘Critically Endangered’’
because ‘‘although recent records from
Brazil, and particularly a recent
northerly range extension, indicate that
this species’ status is better than
previously thought, the remaining
population is still extremely small and
severely fragmented, and the
perturbation and pollution of rivers
continues to cause declines’’ (BLI 2007a,
p. 1). In addition, the species occurs in
´
three parks in Brazil and in the Uruguaı
Provincial Park in Argentina (BLI 2007a,
p. 1).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Brazilian Merganser
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Based on a number of recent
estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
historically covered by tropical forests
within the Atlantic Forest biome has
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
been converted or severely degraded as
a result of various human activities
(Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and
Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000,
pp. 853–854; The Nature Conservancy
2007, p. 1; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2–41).
The Cerrado biome has also been
heavily impacted by human activities,
and current estimates indicate that
between 67 and 80 percent of the
tropical savannah habitat historically
comprising this biome has been
converted or severely degraded (Butler
2007, p. 1; Conservation International
2007b, p. 1; Mantovani and Pereira
1998, p. 1455; Myers et al. 2000, p. 854;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, p. 50). In
addition to the overall loss and
degradation of native habitat within
these biomes, the remaining tracts of
habitat are severely fragmented. The
current rate of habitat loss in the
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes is
unknown.
The region has the two largest cities
˜
in Brazil, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro,
and is home to approximately 70
percent of Brazil’s 169 million people
(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major
human activities that have resulted in
the loss, degradation, and fragmentation
of native habitats within these biomes
include extensive establishment of
agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans,
sugarcane, and corn), plantations (e.g.,
eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber,
and bananas), livestock pastures, centers
of human habitation, and industrial
developments (e.g., diamond mining,
hydropower reservoirs, and charcoal
production). Forestry practices (e.g.,
commercial logging), subsistence
activities (e.g., collection of fuelwood),
and changes in fire frequencies also
contribute to the degradation of native
habitat (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2003b, pp.
1–2; Butler 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al.
´
2006, pp. 37–48; Junior et al. 1995,
p. 147; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44;
Pivello 2007, pp. 1–2; Ratter et al. 1997,
pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp.
868–869; World Food Prize 2007, pp. 1–
5; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51).
The Brazilian merganser is extremely
susceptible to habitat loss and
degradation, habitat fragmentation, and
hydrological changes from human
activity (Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83–84;
Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 36–41; Silveira
1998, p. 58). The loss of appropriate
aquatic and terrestrial habitats
throughout the historic range of the
Brazilian merganser due to the above
human activities is believed to have
drastically reduced the species’
abundance and extent of occupied
range, and these activities currently
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40657
represent a significant risk to the
species’ continued existence because
populations are being limited to highly
fragmented patches of habitat (Benstead
1994, p. 8; Benstead et al. 1994, p. 36;
BLI 2007a, pp. 1–6; Collar and Andrew
1988, p. 21; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83–
84; Collar et al. 1994, p. 51; Hughes et
al. 2006, pp. 37–48; Silveira 1998, pp.
57–58).
The species is highly adapted to
shallow, rapid-flowing riverine
conditions and, therefore, can not
occupy the lacustrine conditions of
reservoirs that result from dam building
activities within their occupied range
(Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23, 41). The loss
of the species’ terrestrial habitat has
occurred due to the removal of forest
cover and suitable nesting trees adjacent
to occupied river corridors.
A variety of secondary impacts that
degrade suitable habitats have also
resulted from the above activities and
represent significant risks to the
Brazilian merganser. These secondary
impacts include increased runoff and
severe siltation from agricultural fields,
livestock pastures, deforestation,
diamond mining, and population
centers; changes in hydrologic
conditions and local water tables as a
result of dam operations (e.g., flood
control, power generation) and
excessive pumping for irrigation or
domestic and industrial water use; and
increases in water pollutants due to
agricultural, industrial, and domestic
waste products (Benstead 1994, p. 8;
Bianchi et al. 2005, p. 73; BLI 2007a, pp.
1–6; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Collar et al.
1994, p. 51; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625;
Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et
al. 2006, pp. 40–48; Lamas and Santos
2004, p. 40; Pineschi 1999, p. 1). These
secondary impacts negatively affect the
Brazilian merganser by reducing water
clarity, altering water depths and flow
patterns, removing or limiting
populations of preferred prey species;
introducing toxic compounds; and
creating barriers to movements and
producing hazardous conditions along
river corridors that limit interchange
between the species’ remaining
subpopulations (see Factor E). These
secondary impacts also increase the risk
of introducing disease vectors and
expanding populations of potential
predator and competitor species into
areas occupied by the Brazilian
merganser (see Factor C).
Summary of Factor A
The above mentioned human
activities and their secondary impacts
have significantly reduced the amount
of suitable habitat for the Brazilian
merganser (Benstead 1994, p. 8;
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
40658
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Benstead et al. 1994, p. 36; BLI 2007a,
pp. 1–6; Collar and Andrew 1988, p. 21;
Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83–84; Collar et
al. 1994, p. 51; Hughes et al. 2006, pp.
37–48; Silveira 1998, pp. 57–58), and
the remaining areas of occupied habitat
are highly fragmented (see Factor E). In
addition, these activities are ongoing
and continue to adversely impact all of
the remaining suitable habitat within
the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes
that may still harbor the Brazilian
merganser (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2003b,
pp. 1–2; BLI 2007a, pp. 1–7; Brannstrom
2000, p. 326; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p.
1; Harris and Pimm 2004, p. 1610;
Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 37–48; Morellato
and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Saatchi et al.
2001, pp. 868–873; Tabanez and Viana
2000, pp. 929–932). Even with the
recent passage of national forest policy
and in light of many other legal
protections in Brazil (see Factor D), the
rate of habitat loss throughout
southeastern Brazil has increased since
the mid-1990s (CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge
et al. 1997, p. 1; Rocha et al. 2005, p.
270). Furthermore, because the Brazilian
merganser’s extant population is already
extremely small, highly fragmented, and
believed to be declining (BLI 2007a, pp.
1–4), any further loss or degradation of
its remaining suitable habitat will
severely impact the species (see Factor
E). Therefore, we find that destruction
and modification of habitat are threats
to the continued existence of the
Brazilian merganser throughout its
range.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Historically, there was likely little
range-wide hunting pressure on the
Brazilian merganser, presumably due to
the species’ secretive nature, naturally
low densities in relatively inaccessible
areas, and poor palatability (Partridge
1956, p. 478). However, low levels of
subsistence hunting of some local
populations still occurs, most notably in
Argentina (Benstead 1994, p. 8; del
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625; Hughes et al.
2006, p. 48).
Since the first formal description of
the species in the early 1800s, the
Brazilian merganser has also been
collected for scientific study and
museum exhibition (BLI 2007a, p. 2;
Hughes et al. 2006, p. 46). Past hunting
and specimen collection may have
contributed to the species’ decline in
some areas (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 46).
These activities continue today,
although presumably at low levels
(Benstead 1994, p. 8; Hughes et al. 2006,
p. 48; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 39).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
Summary of Factor B
Species collection for scientific study
and museum exhibition, and hunting,
are believed to affect the population of
the Brazilian merganser. Considering
the extremely small size and level of
fragmentation of the extant Brazilian
merganser population, the removal or
dispersal of any individuals from a local
area, or even a slight decline in the
population’s fitness, represent
significant risks to the species’ overall
viability (see Factor E). However, we do
not have information on the extent of
species collection or hunting to
determine whether these activities are a
threat to the continued existence of the
species. As a result, we are not
considering overutilization to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the Brazilian merganser.
C. Disease or Predation
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). In addition, there are a number of
suspected predators of the Brazilian
merganser (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 44;
Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 39; Partridge
1956, p. 486). Partridge (1956, p. 480)
hypothesized that the species’
distribution may be naturally limited to
upper river tributaries above waterfalls
due to predation of their young by large
predatory fish, such as the dourado
(Salminus brasiliensis, syn. maxillosus).
Finally, extensive human activity in
previously undisturbed or isolated areas
can result in altered predator or
competitor (e.g., cormorant
(Phalacrocorax sp.)) populations and
the introduction of various exotic
predator species, such as feral dogs
(Canis familiaris) and game fish like
largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) (Hughes et al. 2006, pp.
44–45).
The available information indicates
that there is a greatly expanded human
population within the Brazilian
merganser’s historic range and that the
species’ extant population is extremely
small, highly fragmented, and likely
declining. Although large, stable
populations of wildlife species have
adapted to natural levels of disease and
predation within their historic ranges,
any additive mortality to the Brazilian
merganser 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 Brazilian merganser, or
that documents actual predation levels
incurred by any of the species’ local
subpopulations. As a result, we are not
considering disease or predation to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the Brazilian merganser.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The Brazilian merganser is legally
protected by national legislation
promulgated by the governments in all
three countries where it historically
occurred (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 50–
57). In Brazil, where the vast majority of
the species’ extant population and
remaining suitable habitats occur (BLI
2007a, pp. 1–2; Hughes et al. 2006, pp.
28–31), the Brazilian merganser is
formally recognized as ‘‘endangered’’
(Order No. 1.522), and there are
regulatory mechanisms that require
direct protection of the species
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 1–2). These include
measures that prohibit, or regulate
through Federal agency oversight, the
following activities with regard to
endangered species: export and
international trade (e.g., Decree No.
76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g.,
Act No. 5.197), collection and research
(Order No. 332), captive propagation
(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g.,
Decree No. 3.179).
There are also a wide range of
regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that
indirectly protect the Brazilian
merganser through measures that
protect its remaining suitable habitats
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 2–5). For example,
there are measures that: (1) Prohibit
exploitation of the remaining primary
forests within the Atlantic Forest biome
and gallery forests adjacent to river
corridors (e.g., Decree No. 750,
Resolution No. 10, Act No. 7.754); (2)
govern various practices associated with
the management of primary and
secondary forests, such as logging,
charcoal production, reforestation,
recreation, and water resources (e.g.,
Resolution No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree
No. 1.282, Decree No. 3.420, Order No.
74–N, Act No. 7.803); (3) establish
provisions for controlling forest fires
(e.g., Decree No. 97.635, Order No.
231–P, Order No. 292–P, Decree No.
2.661); and (4) regulate industrial
developments, such as hydroelectric
plants and biodiesel production (e.g.,
Normative Instruction No. 65, Law No.
11.116). Measures also exist (e.g., Law
No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No.
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
78, Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that
direct Federal and State agencies to
promote the protection of lands and
natural resources under their
jurisdictions (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6).
Regulatory mechanisms in Brazil
govern the formal establishment and
management of protected areas to
promote conservation of the country’s
natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–
7). These mechanisms generally aim to
protect endangered wildlife and plant
species, genetic resources, overall
biodiversity, and native ecosystems on
Federal, State, and privately owned
lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No.
11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No.
1.922). Brazil’s formally established
protection areas are categorized based
on their overall management objectives
(e.g., National Parks versus Biological
Reserves) and, based on those
categories, allow varying uses and
provide varying levels of protection for
specific resources (Costa 2007, pp. 5–
19). Four of Brazil’s protected areas
represent the major sites where the
Brazilian merganser still occurs (Hughes
et al. 2006, pp. 53–54). These areas are
considered critical for protecting some
of the species’ key remaining
subpopulations (Bianchi et al. 2005, pp.
72–74; BLI 2007a, pp. 1–2; Braz et al.
2003, pp. 68–71; Bruno et al. 2006, p.
30; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 84–85; del
Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625; Lamas and
Santos 2004, pp. 39–40; Silveira 1998,
pp. 57–58). Notable among these areas
are the Serra da Canastra National Park
in Minas Gerais, which currently
encompasses a portion of the species’
largest known subpopulation (Bruno et
al. 2006, p. 25), and the Chapada dos
´
Veadeiros National Park in Goias
(Bianchi et al. 2005, pp. 72–73). The
Service recently provided funding for a
project to develop and strengthen
conservation partnerships with local
agricultural producers in the Serra da
Canastra region, which could benefit the
Brazilian merganser (USFWS 2006,
p. 3).
Although four categories of protected
areas under Brazilian law include
important sites where the species
occurs, unregulated tourism, resource
extraction, and livestock grazing
continue in these areas and pose threats
to the Brazilian merganser. In addition,
not all of the remaining Brazilian
mergansers occur in these protected
areas. Some key areas where the species
occurs are currently not formally
protected and are subject to ongoing
threats, such as proposed hydropower
projects, logging, and continuing
development.
Due to various reasons (e.g., lack of
funding, personnel, or local
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
management commitment), some of
Brazil’s protected areas exist without
current capacity to achieve their stated
natural resource objectives (IUCN 1999,
pp. 23–24; Neotropical News 1996, pp.
9–10; Neotropical News 1999, p. 9;
Costa 2007, p. 7). For example, the
Worldwide Fund for Nature found in its
study that 47 of 86 protected areas were
found to be below the minimum level of
implementation of Federal
requirements, with only 7 considered to
be fully implemented (Neotropical
News 1999, p. 9).
Despite the existence of these
regulatory mechanisms, habitat loss
throughout the Atlantic Forest biome
has increased for more than a decade
(BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2003b, pp. 1–2;
Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Collar et al. 1992,
p. 84; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 61; Lamas
and Santos 2004, p. 40; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Neotropical
News 1997b, p. 11; Scott and Brooke
1985, p. 118). Illegal or unauthorized
activities that continue to impact the
Brazilian merganser include logging of
gallery forests within riverine buffer
areas; encroachment of logging,
livestock grazing, and subsistence
activities within protected primary and
secondary forests; hunting; intentional
burning; and collection of eggs and
adult birds from the wild (BLI 2003b,
p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 61; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2).
In the past, the Brazilian government,
through various regulations, policies,
incentives, and subsidies, has actively
encouraged settlement of previously
undeveloped lands in southeastern
Brazil, which helped facilitate the largescale conversions that have occurred in
the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes
(Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 2007,
p. 3; Conservation International 2007c,
p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et al.
1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001,
p. 874). Some of these projects, if
developed, would impact important
sites for the Brazilian merganser and
would affect habitat within and adjacent
to established protection areas. These
projects include further development of
dams for hydroelectric power, irrigation,
or municipal water supplies; expansion
of agricultural practices, primarily for
soybean production; and increasing
tourism enterprises (Braz et al. 2003,
p. 70; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 51–56).
Summary of Factor D
Brazil’s wide variety of laws requiring
resource protection would ultimately
benefit the Brazilian merganser, but they
are tested by the intense development
pressure that exists within the species’
range. Government-sponsored measures
in Brazil continue to facilitate
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40659
development projects, however
regulatory mechanisms also exist that
require protection of the Brazilian
merganser and its habitat. Despite the
existence of these regulatory
mechanisms, there are a few challenges,
including the fact that protected areas
do not address all the threats to the
Brazilian merganser, protected areas do
not encompass all occupied habitat of
the species, there are government
sponsored programs that encourage
development within the range of the
species, and protections that would
benefit the species are not adequately
enforced. As a result, threats to the
species’ remaining habitat are ongoing
(see Factor A). Therefore, when
combined with Factors A and E, we find
that the existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to ameliorate the current
threats to the Brazilian merganser
throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Under this factor we explore whether
three risks, represented by demographic,
genetic, and environmental stochastic
events, are substantive to threaten the
continued existence of the Brazilian
merganser. In basic terms, demographic
stochasticity is defined by chance
changes in the population growth rate
´
for the species (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 27). Population growth rates are
influenced by individual birth and
´
death rates (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p.
27), immigration and emigration rates,
as well as changes in population sex
ratios. Natural variation in survival and
reproductive success of individuals and
chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may
act in concert to contribute to
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity
is caused by changes in gene
frequencies due to genetic drift, and
diminished genetic diversity, and/or
effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p.
786). Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by
increasing the phenotypic expression
(the outward appearance or observable
structure, function or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive,
deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the
population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,
p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is
defined as the susceptibility of small,
isolated populations of wildlife species
to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged
drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire)
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40660
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(Young 1994, pp. 410–412; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 612; Dunham et al. 1999,
p. 9). Each risk will be analyzed
specifically for the Brazilian merganser.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species are susceptible to demographic
and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp.
130–134). These threat factors, which
may act in concert, include: natural
variation in survival and reproductive
success of individuals, chance
disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in
gene frequencies due to genetic drift,
diminished genetic diversity and
associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression), dispersal of just
a few individuals, a few clutch failures,
a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring
over just one or a few years, and chance
mortality of just a few reproductive-age
individuals.
The Brazilian merganser has likely
always been a rare species, with small
local populations occupying the
naturally restricted sites of suitable
habitat within the upper-tributaries of
river systems in east-central South
America (Lamas and Santos 2004, pp.
38–39; Partridge 1956, pp. 477–478). In
addition, while there is no direct
evidence currently available, Yamashita
(in Hughes et al. 2006, p. 43) speculated
that the species has likely always had a
naturally low level of genetic variability
as a result of its life history strategy.
It was further speculated that
inbreeding in the Brazilian merganser
has not significantly affected the
species, presumably due to the species’
natural tolerance for low genetic
variability (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 43).
However, relatively low levels of genetic
interchange between local
subpopulations can act to maintain the
genetic viability of a metapopulation
`
(Vila et al. 2002, p. 91; Wang 2004, p.
332) and, historically, it seems likely
that the Brazilian merganser maintained
such minimum levels of interchange
across its occupied range in order for its
subpopulations to have persisted
(Middleton and Nisbet 1997, p. 107).
In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, a general
approximation of a minimum viable
population size is referred to as the 50/
500 rule (Franklin 1980, p. 147). This
rule states that an effective population
(Ne) of 50 individuals is the minimum
size required to avoid imminent risks
from inbreeding. Ne represents the
number of animals in a population that
actually contribute to reproduction, and
is often much smaller than the total
number of individuals in the population
(N). For example, not all individuals
reproduce. Furthermore, the rule states
that the long-term fitness of a
population requires an Ne of at least 500
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
individuals so that it will not lose its
genetic diversity over time and will
maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt
to changing conditions.
The available information indicates
that the extant Brazilian merganser
population is extremely small (i.e.,
between 50 and 249 individuals) and
highly fragmented. The lower limit of
the population (50 individuals) teeters
on the edge of the minimum number of
individuals required to avoid imminent
risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50). The
current maximum estimate of 249
individuals for the entire population
(BLI 2007a, p. 1) is only half of the
upper threshold (Ne = 500) required to
maintain genetic diversity over time and
to maintain an enhanced capacity to
adapt to changing conditions.
Furthermore, these small, fragmented
populations are likely reproductively
isolated due to extensive habitat
modifications that have taken place
throughout the species’ historic
distribution (see Factor A). As such, we
currently consider the Brazilian
merganser to be at risk due to its lack
of near- and long-term genetic viability.
Available information indicates that
the Brazilian merganser is still subject to
low levels of hunting, specimen
collection, and other human
disturbances (see Factors E and D). For
species with large and/or wellinterconnected subpopulations, low
levels of the above influences would
normally be of little consequence.
However, considering the extremely
small size and likely isolation of the
species’ extant subpopulations, and the
likelihood of continued fragmentation of
its occupied habitats, the removal or
dispersal of any individuals from a local
area, or even a slight decline in the
individual or population fitness of these
birds, represent significant risks to the
continued existence of the Brazilian
merganser.
Various past and ongoing human
activities and their secondary influences
continue to impact all of the remaining
suitable habitats that may still harbor
the Brazilian merganser (see Factors A
and D). We expect that any additional
loss or degradation of habitats that are
used by the Brazilian merganser will
have disproportionately greater impacts
on the species due to the population’s
fragmented state. This is because with
each contraction of an existing
subpopulation, the likelihood of
interchange with other subpopulations
within patches decreases, while the
likelihood of its complete reproductive
isolation increases.
The combined effects of habitat
fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic
and demographic stochasticity on a
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
species population are referred to as
patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can
have profound effects on fragmented
subpopulations and can potentially
reduce a species’ respective effective
population by orders of magnitude
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 31). For
example, an increase in habitat
fragmentation can separate
subpopulations to the point where
individuals can no longer disperse and
breed among habitat patches, causing a
shift in the demographic characteristics
of a population and a reduction in
´
genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer
areas and reconnect some of the
remaining tracts of suitable habitat near
the species’ currently occupied sites, it
is doubtful that the individual tracts are
currently large enough to support viable
populations, and the eventual loss of
any small, isolated populations appears
to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117;
Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610;
IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da
Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke
1985, p. 118). Furthermore, as a species’
status continues to decline, often as a
result of deterministic forces such as
habitat loss or overutilization, it will
become increasingly vulnerable to a
broad array of other forces. If this trend
continues, its ultimate extinction due to
one or more stochastic events becomes
more likely.
We expect that the Brazilian
merganser’s increased vulnerability to
demographic stochasticity and
inbreeding will be operative even in the
absence of any human-induced threats
or stochastic environmental events,
which only act to further exacerbate the
species’ vulnerability to local
extirpations and eventual extinction.
Demographic and genetic stochastic
forces typically operate synergistically.
Initial effects of one threat factor can
later exacerbate the effects of other
threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin
´
and Soule 1986, pp. 25–26). For
example, any further fragmentation of
populations will, by definition, result in
the further removal or dispersal of
individuals, which will exacerbate the
other threats. Conversely, lack of a
sufficient number of individuals in a
local area or a decline in their
individual or collective fitness may
cause a decline in the population size,
despite the presence of suitable habitat
patches.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species, such as the Brazilian
merganser, are also susceptible to
natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire),
which we will refer to as environmental
stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9;
Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young
1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic
environmental event can severely
reduce existing wildlife populations
and, if the affected population is already
small or severely fragmented, it is likely
that demographic stochasticity or
inbreeding will become operative,
which would place the population in
´
jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 27;
Lande 1995, pp. 787–789).
In addition to these stochastic threats,
the Brazilian merganser is sensitive to
human disturbance activities. Each
breeding pair of the Brazilian merganser
requires relatively long segments of
river (up to ca. 12 km (7.5 mi)) (Braz et
al. 2003, p. 70; Bruno et al. 2006, p. 30;
Silvera 1998, pp. 57–58). Breeding
success and recruitment of young in a
local area is believed to be negatively
affected by human disturbance. Sources
of human disturbance include various
ongoing activities associated with a
vastly expanded human population
within the species’ occupied range,
including tourism (e.g., birding, river
rafting, trekking, off-road vehicle use)
and scientific research programs (Braz et
al. 2003, p. 70; Bruno et al. 2006, p. 30;
Silvera 1998, pp. 57–58).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factor E
The small and declining numbers that
make up the Brazilian merganser’s
population makes it susceptible to
natural environmental variability or
chance events. In addition to its
declining numbers, the high level of
population fragmentation makes the
species susceptible to genetic and
demographic stochasticity. Therefore,
we find that demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events are a
threat to the continued existence of the
Brazilian merganser throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the Brazilian
merganser
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and potential future threats faced by the
Brazilian merganser. Activities
associated with a vastly expanded
human population within the species’
occupied range, including tourism (e.g.,
birding, river rafting, trekking, off-road
vehicle use), scientific research
programs, livestock grazing, and
infrastructure development, all
represent multiple sources of additional
disturbance to the Brazilian merganser.
The species is currently at risk
throughout all of its range due to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
ongoing threats of habitat destruction
and modification (Factor A), and its lack
of near- and long-term genetic viability
due to threats associated with
demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochasticity (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 threats to the Brazilian merganser
throughout its entire range, as described
above, we determine that the Brazilian
merganser is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Therefore, on
the basis of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we are
proposing to list the Brazilian merganser
as an endangered species throughout all
of its range.
III. Cherry-throated Tanager (Nemosia
rourei)
Species Description
The cherry-throated tanager has
distinctive black plumage on its head
with a white crown, black coloring on
the back and wings, white feathers on
its undersides, and red coloring on its
throat and upper chest (BLI 2007g, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The cherry-throated tanager is a
member of the Thraupidae family. It
was first described by Cabanis in 1870
(BLI 2007g, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
The cherry-throated tanager is
endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome
and inhabits the upper canopies of trees
within humid, montane, primary forests
(Bauer et al. 2000, pp. 97–104; BLI
2007g, pp. 1–2; Venturini et al. 2005,
pp. 60–64). The cherry-throated tanager
is a primary forest-obligate species that
typically forages within the interior
crowns of tall, epiphyte-laden trees and
occasionally within lower levels (ca. 2
m (6.6 ft)) at the forest edge. The
species’ diet includes caterpillars,
butterflies, ants, and various other
arthropods (Bauer et al. 2000, BLI
2007g, p. 1; p. 104; Venturini et al. 2005,
p. 65). Cherry-throated tanagers can be
found in mixed-species flocks and
appear to require relatively large
territories (ca. 3.99 km2 (1.544 mi2))
(Venturini et al. 2005, p. 66). Within its
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40661
current distribution, the species makes
sporadic use of coffee (Coffea spp.), pine
(Pinus spp.), and eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus spp.) plantations,
presumably as travel corridors between
remaining patches of primary forest
(Venturini et al. 2005, p. 66).
Little is known about the breeding
behavior of the cherry-throated tanager.
However, a single field observation
indicates that perhaps both sexes help
build nests (Venturini et al. 2002,
pp. 43–44). An observed nest was
constructed of moss, and possibly thin
twigs, and the material was placed in
natural depressions of branches near the
trunk within the mid-canopy (Venturini
et al. 2002, pp. 43–44).
Range and Distribution
The cherry-throated tanager is found
´
in primary forest habitats in Espırito
Santo and, possibly, Minas Gerais and
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BLI 2007g, p. 1).
Since 1998, the cherry-throated tanager
has been documented at two sites of
remnant primary forest in south-central
´
Espırito Santo. One site is located in
Fazenda Pindobas IV in the
municipality of Conceicao; the other is
¸˜
´
found in Caetes, in the Vargem Alta
´
municipality in southern Espırito Santo
(30 km (18.6 mi) southeast of Pindobas)
(Venturini et al. 2005, p. 61).
Population Estimates
The cherry-throated tanager was
presumed to be extinct because the
species was only known from a single
specimen collected in the 1800s and a
reliable sighting of eight individuals
from 1941 (Collar et al. 1992, p. 896;
Ridgely and Tudor 1989, p. 34; Scott
and Brooke 1985, p. 126). However, the
species was rediscovered in 1998 (Bauer
et al. 2000, p. 97; Venturini et al. 2005,
p. 60). IUCN estimates the population to
range from 50 to 249 individuals, and it
is believed to be declining (BLI 2007g,
p. 1). However, Venturini et al. (2005,
p. 66) speculate that the IUCN
population estimate is too high,
considering that the maximum number
of individuals recently recorded was 14,
including 6 birds in Pindobas and 8
´
birds in Caetes.
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the cherry-throated
tanager to be ‘‘Critically Endangered’’
because its extant population is
extremely small (estimated to be
between 50 and 249 individuals), highly
fragmented, and presumed to be
declining (BLI 2007g, p. 1).
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
40662
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Cherry-Throated Tanager
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Based on a number of recent
estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
historically covered by tropical forests
within the Atlantic Forest biome has
been converted or severely degraded as
a result of human activities (Butler
2007, p. 2; Conservation International
¨
2007a, p. 1; Hofling 2007, p. 1;
Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786;
Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund
2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the
overall loss and degradation of native
habitat within this biome, the remaining
tracts of habitat are severely fragmented.
The current rate of habitat decline
within the Atlantic Forest is unknown.
The region has the two largest cites in
˜
Brazil, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro,
and is home to approximately 70
percent of Brazil’s 169 million people
(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major
human activities that have resulted in
the loss, degradation, and fragmentation
of native habitats within the Atlantic
Forest biome include extensive
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g.,
soy beans, sugarcane, and corn),
plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine,
coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas),
livestock pastures, centers of human
habitation, and industrial developments
(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants,
and hydropower reservoirs). Forestry
practices (e.g., commercial logging),
subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood
collection), and changes in fire
frequencies also contribute to the
degradation of native habitat (BLI 2003a,
´
p. 4; Junior et al. 1995, p. 147; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva
2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868–
869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51).
Most of the tropical forest habitats
believed to have been used historically
by the cherry-throated tanager have
been converted or are severely degraded
due to the above human activities
(Bauer et al. 2000, pp. 98–105; BLI 2007,
p. 2; Ridgely and Tudor 1989, p. 34;
Venturini et al. 2005, p. 68). Degraded
and fragmented forests experience a
decrease in gene flow, which may cause
inbreeding and decreased fitness of
forest species (Tabanez and Viana 2000,
pp. 929–932). In addition, increased
liana density has been observed in
degraded and fragmented Atlantic
forests of Brazil. Liana infestation of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
these forest fragments cause tree falls
and encourage gap-opportunistic
species to take over (Tabanez and Viana
2000, pp. 929–932), thus altering the old
forest structure and the cherry-throated
tanager’s habitat.
Secondary impacts that are associated
with forest fragmentation and
degradation include the potential
introduction of disease vectors or exotic
predators within the species’ historic
range (see Factor C). As a result of these
secondary impacts, there is often a time
lag between the initial conversion or
degradation of suitable habitats and the
extinction of endemic bird populations
(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al.
1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without
further habitat loss or degradation, the
cherry-throated tanager remains at risk
from past impacts to its primary forest
habitats.
Summary of Factor A
The above human activities and their
secondary impacts continue to threaten
the last known tracts of habitat within
the Atlantic Forest biome that may still
harbor the cherry-throated tanager (BLI
2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007g, p. 5;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Venturini et al.
2005, p. 68; World Wildlife Fund 2007,
pp. 3–51). Because the species’ extant
population is extremely small, highly
fragmented, and believed to be
declining (BLI 2007g, p. 1), any further
loss or degradation of its remaining
suitable habitat will adversely impact
the cherry-throated tanager. Therefore,
we find that past and ongoing
destruction and modification of the
cherry-throated tanager’s habitat are
threats to the continued existence of the
species throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The extant population of the cherrythroated tanager is considered to be
extremely small, highly fragmented, and
declining (BLI 2007g, p. 1; Venturini et
al. 2005, p. 66). Because of the cherrythroated tanager’s rarity, it has been
recommended that no further specimen
collection of the species occur (Collar et
al. 1992, p. 896). However we do not
have specific information as to the level
of specimen collection, scientific
research, or birding that occurs.
Although the removal or dispersal of
any individuals or even a slight decline
in the species’ fitness due to any
intentional or inadvertent disturbances
would represent significant risks to the
cherry-throated tanager’s overall
viability (see Factor E), we are not aware
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of any information currently available
that indicates overutilization of the
cherry-throated tanager for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is occurring. As a result, we
are not considering overutilization to be
a contributing factor to the continued
existence of the cherry-throated tanager.
C. Disease or Predation
Large, stable populations of wildlife
species have adapted to natural levels of
disease and predation within their
historic ranges. However, the extant
population of the cherry-throated
tanager is considered to be extremely
small, highly fragmented, and declining,
making it particularly vulnerable to
slight levels of disease and predation.
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 (Naugle et al.
2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p.
1). It can also result in altered predator
populations and the introduction of
exotic predator species, some of which
(e.g., feral cats (Felis catus) and rats
(Ratus sp.)) can be especially harmful to
populations of endemic bird species
(American Bird Conservancy 2007, p. 1;
Courchamp et al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan
and Blackburn 2007, pp. 149–150; Salo
et al. 2007, pp. 1241–1242; Small 2005,
p. 257). Any additive mortality to the
cherry-throated tanager population or a
decrease in its fitness due to an increase
in the incidence of disease or predation
would represent significant risks to 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 indicates the occurrence
of disease in the cherry-throated
tanager, or that documents any
predation incurred by the species. As a
result, we are not considering disease or
predation to be a contributing factor to
the continued existence of the cherrythroated tanager.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The cherry-throated tanager is
formally recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in
Brazil (Order No. 1.522) and is directly
protected by various laws promulgated
by the Brazilian government (BLI 2007,
p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 896; ECOLEX
2007, pp. 1–2). For example, there are
measures that prohibit, or regulate
through Federal agency oversight, the
following activities with regard to
endangered species: export and
international trade (e.g., Decree No.
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g.,
Act No. 5.197), collection and research
(Order No. 332), captive propagation
(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g.,
Decree No. 3.179).
In addition, there are a wide range of
regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that
indirectly protect the cherry-throated
tanager through measures that protect
its remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX
2007, pp. 2–5). For example, there are
measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation
of the remaining primary forests within
the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree
No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern
various practices associated with the
management of primary and secondary
forests, such as logging, charcoal
production, reforestation, recreation,
and water resources (e.g., Resolution
No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282,
Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act
No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for
controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No.
97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No.
292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4)
regulate industrial developments, such
as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel
production (e.g., Normative Instruction
No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there
are various measures (e.g., Law No.
11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78,
Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct
Federal and state agencies to promote
the protection of lands and natural
resources under their jurisdictions
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6).
There are also various regulatory
mechanisms in Brazil that govern the
formal establishment and management
of protected areas to promote
conservation of the country’s natural
resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–7).
These mechanisms generally aim to
protect endangered wildlife and plant
species, genetic resources, overall
biodiversity, and native ecosystems on
Federal, state, and privately owned
lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No.
11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No.
1.922). Brazil’s formally established
protection areas are categorized based
on their overall management objectives
(e.g., National Parks versus Biological
Reserves) and, based on those
categories, allow varying uses and
provide varying levels of protection for
specific resources (Costa 2007, pp.
5–19).
Few sites have recent confirmed
observations of the cherry-throated
tanager. There have been possible
sightings of the cherry-throated tanager
in the Augusto Ruschi Biological
Reserve (also known as Nova Lombardia
Biological Reserve), which comprises
approximately 5,000 hectares (ha)
(12,355 acres (ac)) in Espiritu Santo;
however, there is doubt that the species
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
occupies the reserve due to a lack of
records by ornithologists, since the
1970s, of birds that frequent the area
(BLI 2007, p. 2; Bauer et al. 2000, p. 106;
Scott 1997, p. 62). One of the key sites
still occupied by the species is the
Pindobas IV Farm. It has been
recommended that the farm be formally
designated as a protected area to help
ensure the species’ future protection,
and the owners of this farm have
expressed interest in this
recommendation (Bauer et al. 2000, p.
106; BLI 2007g, p. 2). Under Brazilian
law, the remaining native forest on the
owner’s land could be designated as a
Private Natural Heritage Reserve.
For various reasons (e.g., lack of
funding, personnel, or local
management commitment), some of
Brazil’s protected areas exist without
the current capacity to achieve their
stated natural resource objectives
(ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; Bruner et al.
2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, p. 7; IUCN
1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical News
1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News 1999,
p. 9). Enforcement has been a challenge
to implement. Therefore, even with the
further designation of protected areas, it
is unlikely that all of the identified
resource concerns for the cherrythroated tanager (e.g., residential and
agricultural encroachment, resource
extraction, unregulated tourism, and
grazing) would be sufficiently addressed
at these sites.
In the past, the Brazilian government,
through various regulations, policies,
incentives, and subsidies, has actively
encouraged settlement of previously
undeveloped lands in southeastern
Brazil (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler
2007, p. 3; Conservation International
2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et
al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al.
2001, p. 874). More recently, the
Brazilian government has given greater
recognition to the environmental
consequences of such rapid expansion,
and has taken steps to better manage
some of the natural resources
potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7;
Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News
1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b,
p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9;
Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 45; Venturini et al.
2005, p. 68). Despite these efforts,
pressures to develop areas containing
cherry-throated tanager habitat continue
(ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; BLI 2007d, p. 2;
Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 65).
Summary of Factor D
Brazil is faced with competing
priorities of encouraging development
for economic growth and resource
protection. Although there are various
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40663
government-sponsored measures that
remain in place in Brazil that continue
to facilitate development projects, there
are also a wide variety of regulatory
mechanisms in Brazil that require
protection of the cherry-throated tanager
and its habitat throughout the species’
potentially occupied range. Due to
competing priorities, threats to the
species’ remaining habitat are ongoing
(see Factor A). Therefore, when
combined with Factors A and E, we find
that the existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to ameliorate the current
threats to the cherry-throated tanager
throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Under this factor we explore whether
three risks, represented by demographic,
genetic, and environmental stochastic
events, are substantive to threaten the
continued existence of the cherrythroated tanager. In basic terms,
demographic stochasticity is defined by
chance changes in the population
growth rate for the species (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27). Population growth
rates are influenced by individual birth
´
and death rates (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 27), immigration and emigration
rates, as well as changes in population
sex ratios. Natural variation in survival
and reproductive success of individuals
and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios
may act in concert to contribute to
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity
is caused by changes in gene
frequencies due to genetic drift, and
diminished genetic diversity, and/or
effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p.
786). Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by
increasing the phenotypic expression
(the outward appearance or observable
structure, function or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive,
deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the
population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,
p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is
defined as the susceptibility of small,
isolated populations of wildlife species
to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged
drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire)
(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp.
410–412). Each risk will be analyzed
specifically for the cherry-throated
tanager.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species are susceptible to demographic
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40664
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp.
130–134). These threat factors, which
may act in concert, include: Natural
variation in survival and reproductive
success of individuals, chance
disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in
gene frequencies due to genetic drift,
diminished genetic diversity and
associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression), dispersal of just
a few individuals, a few clutch failures,
a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring
over just one or a few years, and chance
mortality of just a few reproductive-age
individuals.
The cherry-throated tanager is
believed to have been rare historically
with a naturally patchy, low density
distribution, as indicated by the paucity
of confirmed sightings of this colorful
bird in areas that have been heavily
visited by experienced birders (Bauer et
al. 2000, p. 98; Collar et al. 1994, p. 190;
Venturini et al. 2005, pp. 63–64; BLI
2007g, p. 1). However, the species must
have maintained a minimum level of
genetic interchange among its local
subpopulations in order for them to
have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet
`
1997, p. 107; Vila et al. 2002, p. 91;
Wang 2004, p. 332).
In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, a general
approximation of a minimum viable
population size is referred to as the
50/500 rule (Franklin 1980, p. 147), as
described under Factor E of the
Brazilian merganser. Currently, the
cherry-throated tanager is only known
from two occupied sites where an
approximate total of 14 birds have been
observed since 1998 (Venturini et al.
2005, p. 66). Given this information,
current population estimates are 50 to
249 individuals, or below (BLI 2007g,
p. 1; Venturini et al. 2005, p. 66). The
lower limit of the population is at or
below the minimum number of
individuals required to avoid imminent
risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50). The
current maximum estimate of 249
individuals for the entire population is
only half of the upper threshold (Ne =
500) required to maintain genetic
diversity over time and to maintain an
enhanced capacity to adapt to changing
conditions. As such, we currently
consider the species to be at risk due to
its lack of near- and long-term genetic
viability.
Various past and ongoing human
activities and their secondary influences
continue to impact all of the remaining
suitable habitats that may still harbor
the cherry-throated tanager (see Factors
A and D). We expect that any additional
loss or degradation of habitats that are
used by the cherry-throated tanager will
have disproportionately greater impacts
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
on the species due to the population’s
fragmented state. This is because with
each contraction of an existing
subpopulation, the likelihood of
interchange with other subpopulations
within patches decreases, while the
likelihood of its complete reproductive
isolation increases.
The combined effects of habitat
fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic
and demographic stochasticity on a
species population are referred to as
patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can
have profound effects on fragmented
subpopulations and can potentially
reduce a species’ respective effective
population by orders of magnitude
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 31). For
example, an increase in habitat
fragmentation can separate
subpopulations to the point where
individuals can no longer disperse and
breed among habitat patches, causing a
shift in the demographic characteristics
of a population and a reduction in
´
genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer
areas and reconnect some of the
remaining tracts of suitable habitat near
the species’ currently occupied sites, it
is doubtful that the individual tracts are
currently large enough to support viable
populations of many birds endemic to
the Atlantic Forest, and the eventual
loss of any small, isolated populations
appears to be inevitable (Goerck 1997,
p. 117; Harris and Pimm 2004, pp.
1609–1610; IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24;
Machado and Da Fonseca 2000, pp. 914,
921–922; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 873;
Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118).
Furthermore, as a species’ status
continues to decline, often as a result of
deterministic forces such as habitat loss
or overutilization, it will become
increasingly vulnerable to a broad array
of other forces. If this trend continues,
its ultimate extinction due to one or
more stochastic events becomes more
likely.
We expect that the cherry-throated
tanager’s increased vulnerability to
demographic stochasticity and
inbreeding will be operative even in the
absence of any human-induced threats
or stochastic environmental events,
which only act to further exacerbate the
species’ vulnerability to local
extirpations and eventual extinction.
Demographic and genetic stochastic
forces typically operate synergistically.
Initial effects of one threat factor can
later exacerbate the effects of other
threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin
´
and Soule 1986, pp. 25–26). For
example, any further fragmentation of
populations will, by definition, result in
the further removal or dispersal of
individuals, which will exacerbate the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
other threats. Conversely, lack of a
sufficient number of individuals in a
local area or a decline in their
individual or collective fitness may
cause a decline in the population size,
despite the presence of suitable habitat
patches.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species, such as the cherry-throated
tanager, are also susceptible to natural
levels of environmental variability and
related ‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g.,
severe storms, prolonged drought,
extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we
will refer to as environmental
stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9;
Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young
1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic
environmental event can severely
reduce existing wildlife populations
and, if the affected population is already
small or severely fragmented, it is likely
that demographic stochasticity or
inbreeding will become operative,
which would place the population in
´
jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 27;
Lande 1995, pp. 787–789).
Summary of Factor E
The small and declining numbers that
make up the cherry-throated tanager’s
population makes it susceptible to
natural environmental variability or
chance events. In addition to its
declining numbers, the high level of
population fragmentation makes the
species susceptible to genetic and
demographic stochasticity. Therefore,
we find that demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events are a
threat to the continued existence of the
cherry-throated tanager throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the Cherrythroated Tanager
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and potential future threats faced by the
cherry-throated tanager. The species is
currently at risk throughout all of its
range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A),
and its lack of near- and long-term
genetic viability due to threats
associated with demographic, genetic,
and environmental stochasticity (Factor
E). Furthermore, we have determined
that the existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate
the current threats to the cherrythroated tanager.
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
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ Based
on the threats to the cherry-throated
tanager throughout its entire range, as
described above, we determine that the
cherry-throated tanager is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list the
cherry-throated tanager as an
endangered species throughout all of its
range.
IV. Fringe-backed Fire-eye (Pyriglena
atra)
Species Description
The fringe-backed fire-eye has
distinctive red eyes and measures
approximately 17.5 cm (7 in). Males are
black with a small patch on their backs
of black feathers lined with white edges.
Females are more of a reddish-brown
color, with a black tail, brown
underparts and a whitish throat (BLI
2007e, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The fringe-backed fire-eye belongs in
the ‘‘antbird’’ family Thamnophilidae,
and was first described by Swainson in
1825 (BLI 2007e, p. 1). Sick (1991, p.
416) describes this species to be similar
to the white-backed fire-eye (Pyriglena
leuconota). The fringe-backed fire-eye
was previously referred to as
Swainson’s fire-eye, and is also called
‘‘Alapi noir’’ in French,
‘‘Fleckenmantel-Feuerauge’’ in German,
´
and ‘‘Ojodefuego de Bahıa’’ in Spanish
(del Hoyo 2003, p. 637).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Habitat and Life History
The fringe-backed fire-eye is endemic
to the Atlantic Forest biome and
typically inhabits dense understories at
the edges of lowland primary tropical
forests (BLI 2007e, p. 2; Collar et al.
1992, p. 677; del Hoyo et al. 2003, p.
637). The species has also been found to
occupy degraded forests and dense
understories of secondary-growth forest
stands. It can also occupy earlysuccessional forest stands, but avoids
any areas with open understories (e.g.,
sunny openings, interior forest) (del
Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637).
The fringe-backed fire-eye forages in
dense, tangled vegetation with
numerous horizontal perches within
approximately 3 m (10 ft) of the ground,
although it occasionally feeds higher up
(ca. 10 m (33 ft)) (Collar et al. 1992, p.
677; del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637). The
species typically occurs as individual
birds, in closely associated pairs, or in
small family groups. The bird often
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
relies on army ant (Eciton sp.) swarms
to flush their prey, which may include
cockroaches (superfamily Blattoidea),
grasshoppers (family Acrididae), winged
ants (class Chilopoda), caterpillars
(order Lepidoptera), and geckos (family
Gekkonidae) (del Hoyo et al. 2003, pp.
637–638; Sick 1993, pp. 403–404).
Limited specific information is known
about the species’ breeding behavior
(del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638). However,
females of this genus typically lay two
eggs in spherical nests that are
approximately 10 cm (4 in) in diameter,
have a side entrance, and are attached
to vegetation within roughly 1 m (3.3 ft)
of ground (Sick 1993, pp. 405–406). In
addition, both sexes in this genus
typically help to build nests, brood
clutches, and attend their young (Sick
1993, pp. 405–406).
Range and Distribution
The fringe-backed fire-eye occurs
along a narrow belt of coastal forest
habitats from southern Sergipe to
northeastern Bahia, Brazil (BLI 2007e,
p. 1; Collar et al. 1992, p. 677; del Hoyo
et al. 2003, p. 637; Sick 1993, p. 416).
The species’ entire population was
previously believed to be restricted to a
few sites of remnant primary forest,
totaling roughly 9 km2 (3.5 mi2) in
northeastern Bahia. In 2002,
approximately 18 individuals were
observed in a forested site in Sergipe
(del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638). This
discovery extended the species’ known
range to the north by approximately 175
km (109 mi) (del Hoyo et al. 2003, p.
638). However, the fringe-backed fireeye has not been located at several sites
from where it was previously known in
Bahia (del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638).
Population Estimates
The fringe-backed fire-eye’s extant
population is estimated to be between
1,000 and 2,499 individuals. The
available information indicates that the
species’ population is fragmented
among 6 to 10 occupied areas, with the
largest subpopulation between 50 and
249 individuals (BLI 2007e, p. 3). Its
population, along with the extent and
quality of its habitat, continues to
decline (BLI 2007e, p. 1).
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the fringe-backed fireeye to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because it has
‘‘a very small fragmented range, within
which the extent and quality of its
habitat are continuing to decline and
where it is only known from a few
localities’’ (BLI 2007e, p. 1). In addition,
the species is protected under Brazilian
law (Collar et al. 1992, p. 678).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40665
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Fringe-backed Fire-eye
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
The fringe-backed fire-eye occurs in
one of the most densely populated
regions of Brazil, and most of the
tropical forest habitats believed to have
been used historically by the species
have been converted or are severely
degraded due to the wide range of
human activities (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI
2007e, p. 2; Collar and Andrew 1988,
p. 102; Collar et al. 1992, p. 678; Collar
et al. 1994, p. 135; Conservation
International 2007a, p. 1; del Hoyo et al.
¨
2003, p. 638; Hofling 2007, p. 1; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Sick
1993, p. 407; World Wildlife Fund 2007,
pp. 3–51). Based on a number of recent
estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
(over 1,250,000 km2 (482,628 mi2))
historically covered by tropical forests
within the Atlantic Forest biome has
been converted or severely degraded as
a result of various human activities
(Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation
¨
International 2007a, p. 1; Hofling 2007,
p. 1; IUCN 1999; Morellato and Haddad
2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–
854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1;
Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; World
Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2–41). The
current rate of habitat decline within the
Atlantic Forest biome is unknown.
In addition to the overall loss and
degradation of native habitat within this
biome, the remaining tracts of habitat
are severely fragmented. The region has
˜
the two largest cites in Brazil, Sao Paulo
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to
approximately 70 percent of Brazil’s 169
million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007).
The major human activities that have
resulted in the loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of native habitats within
the Atlantic Forest biome include
extensive establishment of agricultural
fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, and
corn), plantations (e.g., eucalyptus,
pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and
bananas), livestock pastures, centers of
human habitation, and industrial
developments (e.g., charcoal
production, steel plants, and
hydropower reservoirs). Forestry
practices (e.g., commercial logging),
subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood
collection), and changes in fire
frequencies also contribute to the
degradation of the native habitat (BLI
´
2003a, p. 4; Junior et al. 1995, p. 147;
The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2;
Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto
and Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001,
pp. 868–869; Scott and Brooke 1985,
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40666
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
p. 118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp.
3–51).
The fringe-backed fire-eye is not
strictly tied to primary forest habitats
and can make use of early-successional,
secondary-growth forests with dense
understory vegetation (BLI 2007e, p. 2;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 677; del Hoyo et
al. 2003, p. 637). However, this does not
necessarily lessen the risk to the species
from the effects of deforestation and
habitat degradation. Atlantic Forest
birds, such as the fringe-backed fire-eye,
which are tolerant of secondary-growth
forests, are also rare or have severely
restricted ranges (i.e., less than 21,000
km2 (8,100 mi2)). Thus habitat
degradation can adversely impact such
species as equally as it impacts primary
forest-obligate species (Harris and Pimm
2004, pp. 1612–1613). The entire range
of the fringe-backed fire-eye
encompasses approximately 4,990 km2
(1,924 mi2), with only 20 percent of this
area considered occupied (BLI 2007e,
pp. 1–4).
The susceptibility to extirpation of
limited-range species that are tolerant of
secondary-growth forests or other
disturbed sites can occur for a variety of
reasons, such as when a species’
remaining population is already too
small or its distribution too fragmented
such that it may not be demographically
or genetically viable (Harris and Pimm
2004, pp. 1612–1613). In addition,
while the fringe-backed fire-eye may be
tolerant of secondary-growth forests or
other disturbed sites, these areas may
not represent optimal conditions for the
species, which would include dense
understories and abundant prey species.
For example, management of
plantations often involves intensive
control of the site’s understory
vegetation and long-term use of
pesticides, which eventually result in
severely diminished understory cover
and potential prey species (Rolim and
Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687–2691; Saatchi
et al. 2001, pp. 868–869; Scott and
Brooke 1985, p. 118). Such management
practices eventually result in the loss of
native understory plant species, creating
relatively open understories, which the
fringe-backed fire-eye avoids (BLI
2007e, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 677;
del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637).
Secondary impacts that are associated
with the above human activities that
fragment the remaining tracks of
Atlantic forest used by the fringe-backed
fire-eye include the potential
introduction of disease vectors or exotic
predators within the species’ historic
range (see Factor C). As a result of these
secondary impacts, there is often a time
lag between the initial conversion or
degradation of suitable habitats and the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
extinction of endemic bird populations
(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al.
1999b, p. 1140). Even when potentially
occupied sites may be formally
protected (see Factor D), the remaining
fragments of forested habitat will likely
undergo further degradation due to their
altered dynamics and isolation (through
infestation of gap-opportunistic species,
which alter forest structure, and
decrease in gene flow between species)
(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932).
Therefore, even without further habitat
loss or degradation, the fringe-backed
fire-eye remains at risk from past
impacts to its suitable habitats.
Summary of Factor A
Most of the tropical forest habitats
believed to have been used historically
by the fringe-backed fire-eye have been
converted or are severely degraded due
to the above human activities (BLI
2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007e, p. 2; Collar and
Andrew 1988, p. 102; Collar et al. 1992,
p. 678; Collar et al. 1994, p. 135;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638; Hofling
2007, p. 1; The Nature Conservancy
2007, p. 1; Sick 1993, p. 407; World
Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). In
addition, the remaining tracts of suitable
habitat potentially used by the species,
including many secondary-growth
forests, are subject to ongoing clearing
for agriculture fields and plantations
(e.g., sugar cane and oil palm), livestock
pastures, and industrial and residential
developments (Collar and Andrew 1988,
p. 102; Collar et al. 1992, p. 678).
Even with the recent passage of
national forest policy and in the face of
many other legal protections in Brazil
(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss
throughout the Atlantic Forest biome
has increased since the mid-1990s
(CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997,
p. 1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and
native habitats at many of the remaining
sites may be lost over the next several
years (Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263).
Furthermore, because the species’ extant
population is already small, highly
fragmented, and believed to be
declining (BLI 2007e,
p. 1), any further loss or degradation of
its remaining suitable habitat represent
significant threat to the species (see
Factor E). Therefore, we find that
destruction and modification of habitat
are threats to the continued existence of
the fringe-backed fire-eye throughout its
range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The extant population of the fringebacked fire-eye is considered to be
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
small, fragmented, and declining.
Therefore, the removal or dispersal of
just a few individuals from any of the
species’ subpopulations or even a slight
decline in their fitness due to
intentional or inadvertent hunting or
specimen collection could represent a
significant threat to the fringe-backed
fire-eye’s 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 indicates that this species
is being used for any commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purpose. As a result, we are not
considering overutilization to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the fringe-backed fire-eye.
C. Disease or Predation
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 (Naugle et al.
2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003,
p. 1). It can also result in altered
predator populations and the
introduction of exotic predator species,
some of which (e.g., feral cats (Felis
catus) and rats (Ratus sp.)) can be
especially harmful to populations of
endemic bird species (American Bird
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Courchamp et
al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan and Blackburn
2007, pp. 149–150; Salo et al. 2007, pp.
1241–1242; Small 2005, p. 257).
Although large, stable populations of
wildlife species have adapted to natural
levels of disease and predation within
their historic ranges, the extant
population of the fringe-backed fire-eye
is considered to be small, fragmented,
and declining (BLI 2007e, p. 1). Any
additive mortality to the fringe-backed
fire-eye’s subpopulations or a decrease
in their 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 fringe-backed fire-eye, or
that documents any predation incurred
by the species. As a result, we are not
considering disease or predation to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the fringe-backed fire-eye.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The fringe-backed fire-eye is formally
recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(Order No. 1.522) and is directly
protected by various laws promulgated
by the Brazilian government (BLI 2007e,
p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 678; ECOLEX
2007, pp. 1–2). For example, there are
measures that prohibit, or regulate
through Federal agency oversight, the
following activities with regard to
endangered species: Export and
international trade (e.g., Decree No.
76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g.,
Act No. 5.197), collection and research
(Order No. 332), captive propagation
(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g.,
Decree No. 3.179). In addition, there are
a wide range of regulatory mechanisms
in Brazil that indirectly protect the
fringe-backed fire-eye through measures
that protect its remaining suitable
habitat (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 2–5). For
example, there are measures that: (1)
Prohibit exploitation of the remaining
primary forests within the Atlantic
Forest biome (e.g., Decree No. 750,
Resolution No. 10); (2) govern various
practices associated with the
management of primary and secondary
forests, such as logging, charcoal
production, reforestation, recreation,
and water resources (e.g., Resolution
No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282,
Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act
No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for
controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No.
97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No.
292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4)
regulate industrial developments, such
as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel
production (e.g., Normative Instruction
No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there
are various measures (e.g., Law No.
11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78,
Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct
Federal and state agencies to promote
the protection of lands and natural
resources under their jurisdictions
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6).
There are also various regulatory
mechanisms in Brazil that govern the
formal establishment and management
of protected areas to promote
conservation of the country’s natural
resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–7).
These mechanisms generally aim to
protect endangered wildlife and plant
species, genetic resources, overall
biodiversity, and native ecosystems on
Federal, State, and privately owned
lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No.
11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No.
1.922). Brazil’s formally established
protection areas are categorized based
on their overall management objectives
(e.g., National Parks versus Biological
Reserves), and based on those categories
they allow varying uses and provide
varying levels of protection for specific
resources (Costa 2007, pp. 5–19).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
Currently, the fringe-backed fire-eye
does not occur within any protected
areas, although it has been
recommended that some of the key sites
it still occupies should be formally
designated as protected areas to help
ensure the species’ future protection
(BLI 2007e, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992,
p. 678; del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638).
However, for various reasons (e.g., lack
of funding, personnel, or local
management commitment), some of
Brazil’s protected areas exist without
the current capacity to achieve their
stated natural resource objectives
(Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125; Costa 2007,
p. 7; IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical
News 1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News
1999, p. 9). Therefore, even with any
future designation of protected areas, it
is unlikely that all of the identified
resource concerns for the fringe-backed
fire-eye (e.g., residential and agricultural
encroachment, resource extraction,
unregulated tourism, and grazing)
would be sufficiently addressed at these
sites.
In the past, the Brazilian government,
through various regulations, policies,
incentives, and subsidies, has actively
encouraged settlement of previously
undeveloped lands in southeastern
Brazil (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler
2007, p. 3; Conservation International
2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et
al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al.
2001, p. 874). More recently, the
Brazilian government has given greater
recognition to the environmental
consequences of such rapid expansion,
and has taken steps to better manage
some of the natural resources
potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7;
Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News
1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b,
p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9;
Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 45). Despite these
efforts, development projects continue
to degrade and clear potentially
occupied habitat for plantations within
the Atlantic Forest biome (Butler 2007,
p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 678;
Neotropical News 1998a, p. 10; Ratter et
al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al.
2001, p. 874).
Summary of Factor D
Brazil is faced with competing
priorities of encouraging development
for economic growth and resource
protection. Although there are various
government-sponsored measures that
remain in place in Brazil that continue
to facilitate potentially harmful
development projects, there are also a
wide variety of regulatory mechanisms
in Brazil that require protection of the
fringe-backed fire-eye and its habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40667
throughout the species’ potentially
occupied range. Due to competing
priorities, significant threats to the
species’ remaining habitat are ongoing
(see Factor A). Therefore, when
combined with Factors A and E, we find
that the existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to ameliorate the current
threats to the fringe-backed fire-eye
throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Under this factor we explore whether
three risks, represented by demographic,
genetic, and environmental stochastic
events, are substantive to threaten the
continued existence of the fringe-backed
fire-eye. In basic terms, demographic
stochasticity is defined by chance
changes in the population growth rate
´
for the species (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 27). Population growth rates are
influenced by individual birth and
´
death rates (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p.
27), immigration and emigration rates,
as well as changes in population sex
ratios. Natural variation in survival and
reproductive success of individuals and
chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may
act in concert to contribute to
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity
is caused by changes in gene
frequencies due to genetic drift, and
diminished genetic diversity, and/or
effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p.
786). Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by
increasing the phenotypic expression
(the outward appearance or observable
structure, function or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive,
deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the
population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,
p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is
defined as the susceptibility of small,
isolated populations of wildlife species
to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged
drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire)
(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410–
412). Each risk will be analyzed
specifically for the fringe-backed fireeye.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species are susceptible to demographic
and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp.
130–134). These threat factors, which
may act in concert, include: Natural
variation in survival and reproductive
success of individuals, chance
disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40668
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
gene frequencies due to genetic drift,
diminished genetic diversity and
associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression), dispersal of just
a few individuals, a few clutch failures,
a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring
over just one or a few years, and chance
mortality of just a few reproductive-age
individuals.
There is very little information
available regarding the historic
abundance and distribution of the
fringe-backed fire-eye. However, the
species’ historic population was likely
larger and more widely distributed than
today (BLI 2007e, p. 1), and it must have
maintained a minimum level of genetic
interchange among its local
subpopulations in order for them to
have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet
1997, p. 107; Vila et al. 2002, p. 91;
Wang 2004, p. 332).
In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, the 50/500 rule
(as explained under Factor E for the
Brazilian merganser) may be used to
approximate minimum viable
population size (Franklin 1980, p. 147).
The available information indicates that
the fringe-backed fire-eye population is
fragmented among 6 to 10 occupied
areas, with little likelihood for
interchange of individuals among the
species’ subpopulations (BLI 2007e, p.
3–4). The largest subpopulation is
estimated between 50 and 249
individuals, and therefore, it is at or just
below the minimum number of
individuals required to avoid imminent
risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50). The
current maximum estimate of 249
individuals for the largest
subpopulation (BLI 2007e, p. 3) is only
half of the upper threshold (Ne = 500)
required to maintain genetic diversity
over time and to maintain an enhanced
capacity to adapt to changing
conditions. As such, we currently
consider the species to be at risk due to
its lack of near- and long-term genetic
viability.
Available information also indicates
that suitable habitats currently occupied
by the fringe-backed fire-eye are highly
fragmented and that the species’ extant
population is small and declining. In
addition, the fringe-backed fire-eye has
not been located at several sites from
where it was previously known in
Bahia, and the subpopulation recently
discovered in Sergipe only included
approximately 18 individuals (del Hoyo
et al. 2003, p. 638). Continued loss of
suitable habitats (see Factor A) will
exacerbate fragmentation of the
remaining occupied patches and will act
to further isolate the species’
subpopulations.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
Various past and ongoing human
activities and their secondary influences
continue to impact all of the remaining
suitable habitats that may still harbor
the fringe-backed fire-eye (see Factors A
and D). We expect that any additional
loss or degradation of habitats that are
used by the fringe-backed fire-eye will
have disproportionately greater impacts
on the species due to the population’s
fragmented state. This is because with
each contraction of an existing
subpopulation, the likelihood of
interchange with other subpopulations
within patches decreases, while the
likelihood of its complete reproductive
isolation increases.
The combined effects of habitat
fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic
and demographic stochasticity on a
species population are referred to as
patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can
have profound effects on fragmented
subpopulations and can potentially
reduce a species’ respective effective
population by orders of magnitude
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 31). For
example, an increase in habitat
fragmentation can separate
subpopulations to the point where
individuals can no longer disperse and
breed among habitat patches, causing a
shift in the demographic characteristics
of a population and a reduction in
´
genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer
areas and reconnect some of the
remaining tracts of suitable habitat near
the species’ currently occupied sites, it
is doubtful that the individual tracts are
currently large enough to support viable
populations of many birds endemic to
the Atlantic Forest, such as the fringebacked fire-eye, and the eventual loss of
any small, isolated populations appears
to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117;
Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610;
IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da
Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke
1985, p. 118). Furthermore, as a species’
status continues to decline, often as a
result of deterministic forces such as
habitat loss or overutilization, it will
become increasingly vulnerable to a
broad array of other forces. If this trend
continues, its ultimate extinction due to
one or more stochastic events becomes
more likely.
We expect that the fringe-backed fireeye’s increased vulnerability to
demographic stochasticity and
inbreeding will be operative even in the
absence of any human-induced threats
or stochastic environmental events,
which only act to further exacerbate the
species’ vulnerability to local
extirpations and eventual extinction.
Demographic and genetic stochastic
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
forces typically operate synergistically.
Initial effects of one threat factor can
later exacerbate the effects of other
threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin
´
and Soule 1986, pp. 25–26). For
example, any further fragmentation of
populations will, by definition, result in
the further removal or dispersal of
individuals, which will exacerbate the
other threats. Conversely, lack of a
sufficient number of individuals in a
local area or a decline in their
individual or collective fitness may
cause a decline in the population size,
despite the presence of suitable habitat
patches.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species, such as the fringe-backed fire
eye, are also susceptible to natural
levels of environmental variability and
related ‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g.,
severe storms, prolonged drought,
extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we
will refer to as environmental
stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9;
Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young
1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic
environmental event can severely
reduce existing wildlife populations
and, if the affected population is already
small or severely fragmented, it is likely
that demographic stochasticity or
inbreeding will become operative,
which would place the population in
´
jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 27;
Lande 1995, pp. 787–789).
Summary of Factor E
The small and declining numbers that
make up the fringe-backed fire-eye’s
population makes it susceptible to
natural environmental variability or
chance events. In addition to its
declining numbers, the high level of
population fragmentation makes the
species susceptible to genetic and
demographic stochasticity. Therefore,
we find that demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events are a
threat to the continued existence of the
fringe-backed fire-eye throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the FringeBacked Fire-Eye
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and potential future threats faced by the
fringe-backed fire-eye. The species is
currently at risk throughout all of its
range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A),
and its lack of near- and long-term
genetic viability due to threats
associated with demographic, genetic,
and environmental stochasticity (Factor
E). Furthermore, we have determined
that the existing regulatory mechanisms
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(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 threats to the fringe-backed fireeye throughout its entire range, as
described above, we determine that the
fringe-backed fire-eye is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list the
fringe-backed fire-eye as an endangered
species throughout all of its range.
V. Kaempfer’s Tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus
kaempferi)
Species Description
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is an
olive-green bird measuring 10 cm (4 in)
(BLI 2007f, p. 1). The head and face
have olive-brown coloring, while the
upper parts and breast are a dull olivegreen, the underparts are a pale
greenish-yellow, and the throat is a pale
yellow color. The primary wings are
dark and the secondary wings have
greenish-yellow borders. Each eye has a
pale ring (BLI 2007f, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is a
member of the flycatcher family
(Tyrannidae) (BLI 2007f, p. 1). The
species was previously recognized
under the genus Idioptilon, and was first
described by Zimmer in 1953 (BLI
2007f, p. 1).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Habitat and Life History
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is
endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome
and inhabits well shaded edges of
medium-height (ca. 12 to 15 m (39 to 49
ft)) primary- and secondary-growth
forests that are typically in close
proximity to rivers. The species appears
to avoid tall, mature, primary forest
habitats (Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 372–
373; BLI 2007f, pp. 1–2; Collar et al.
1992, p. 776). The Kaempfer’s todytyrant feeds predominantly in the outer
canopies of trees within roughly 1 to 3
m (3.3 to 10 ft) of the ground, but may
also feed higher up (ca. 6 m (20 ft)).
There is little information available
describing the diet of the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant; however, similar species
within the Tyrannidae family feed on a
variety of insects, which they often
catch while in flight (Sick 1993, pp.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
452–453). Breeding pairs typically
forage together and appear to maintain
small, well-defined, permanent
territories (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 373;
BLI 2007f, p. 2).
Both sexes help to build their nests,
which can be located up to
approximately 6 m (20 ft) above the
ground and 2–3 m (6.6–10 ft) within the
primary forest margin. Nests resemble
elongated cups that can be up to 45 cm
(18 in) long and are made of live
mosses, grass, and dead leaves wrapped
around a horizontal branch near the
main trunk (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 373).
Range and Distribution
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant inhabits
humid, lowland forests in northeastern
Santa Catarina, Brazil (Barnett et al.
2000, p. 371; BLI 2007f, p. 1; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 776; Collar et al. 1994, p.
139). The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is only
known with certainty from three
localities in the state of Santa Catarina:
´
Brusque, Itapoa, and Vila Nova and
nearby areas. The last record for
Brusque is from 1950, and the area has
not been resurveyed since that time. The
species has not been located at Vila
Nova since 1991, despite repeated
searches (BLI 2007f, pp. 1–2). The
species was reported in 1998 and in
2000 in a reserve called Reserva
Particular do Patrimonio Natural de
´
Ponta Velha in Itapoa. This reserve is
´
close to the state border with Parana;
thus it is possible that the species may
´
be found in similar habitat in Parana;
however, surveys have not been
conducted (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 378).
Population Estimates
There is very little information
currently available that specifically
addresses the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant’s
abundance; however, its extant
population is estimated to be between
1,000 and 2,499 individuals and is
believed to be declining. The largest
subpopulation of the species is
estimated to be between 250 and 1,000
individuals (BLI 2007f, pp. 1–3).
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the Kaempfer’s todytyrant to be ‘‘Critically Endangered’’
because ‘‘it is estimated to have an
extremely small and severely
fragmented range, with recent records
from only two locations, and ongoing
deforestation in the vicinity of these
sites’’ (BLI 2007f, p. 1).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40669
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Kaempfer’s Tody-tyrant
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Based on a number of recent
estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
historically covered by tropical forests
within the Atlantic Forest biome has
been converted or severely degraded as
a result of various human activities
(Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation
¨
International 2007a, p. 1; Hofling 2007,
p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p.
786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund
2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the
overall loss and degradation of native
habitat within this biome, the remaining
tracts of habitat are severely fragmented.
The current rate of deforestation of
Brazil’s Atlantic Forest is unknown.
The region has the two largest cites in
˜
Brazil, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro,
and is home to approximately 70
percent of Brazil’s 169 million people
(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major
human activities that have resulted in
the loss, degradation, and fragmentation
of native habitats within the Atlantic
Forest biome include extensive
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g.,
soy beans, sugarcane, and corn),
plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine,
coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas),
livestock pastures, centers of human
habitation, and industrial developments
(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants,
and hydropower reservoirs). Forestry
practices (e.g., commercial logging),
subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood
collection), and changes in fire
frequencies also contribute to the
degradation of the native habitat (BLI
´
2003a, p. 4; Junior et al. 1995, p. 147;
The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2;
Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto
and Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001,
pp. 868–869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p.
118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–
51).
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is not
strictly tied to primary forest habitats
and can inhabit secondary-growth
forests (Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 372–373;
BLI 2007f, pp. 1–2; Collar et al. 1992, p.
776). However, this does not lessen the
threat to the species from the effects of
ongoing deforestation and habitat
degradation. Atlantic Forest birds, such
as the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, which are
tolerant of secondary-growth forests, are
also rare or have restricted ranges (i.e.,
less than 21,000 km2 (8,100 mi2)). Thus,
habitat degradation can adversely
impact such species just as equally as it
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40670
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
impacts primary forest-obligate species
(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613).
Currently, the entire known range of the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is restricted to
only 19 km2 (7.3 mi2) (BLI 2007f, p. 3).
The susceptibility to extirpation of
rare, limited-range species that are
tolerant of secondary-growth forests
occurs for a variety of reasons such as
when a species’ remaining population is
already too small or its distribution too
fragmented such that it may not be
demographically or genetically viable
(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613).
In addition, while the Kaempfer’s todytyrant may be tolerant of secondarygrowth forests or other disturbed sites,
these areas may not represent optimal
conditions for the species. For example,
management of plantations often
involves intensive control of the site’s
understory vegetation and long-term use
of pesticides, which eventually result in
severely diminished understory cover
and potential prey species (Rolim and
Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687–2691; Saatchi
et al. 2001, pp. 868–869; Scott and
Brooke 1985, p. 118). Such management
practices eventually result in the loss of
native understory plant species and
relatively open understories.
Insectivorous birds that feed in the
understory, including those in the genus
Hemitriccus, are especially vulnerable
to such habitat modifications (Goerck
1997, p. 117), and the Kaempfer’s todytyrant does not occupy these types of
altered sites (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 377).
Even when potentially occupied sites
may be formally protected (see Factor
D), the remaining fragments of forested
habitat will likely undergo further
degradation due to their altered
dynamics and isolation as defined by
decreased gene flow, increase in
inbreeding, decrease in species fitness,
increase in liana infestation, and
dominance of gap-obligate species
(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932).
Moreover, secondary impacts that are
associated with human activities that
degrade and remove native habitats
within the Atlantic Forest biome
include the potential introduction of
disease vectors or exotic predators
within the species’ historic range (see
Factor C). As a result of these secondary
impacts, there is often a time lag
between the initial conversion or
degradation of suitable habitats and the
extinction of endemic bird populations
(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al.
1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without
further habitat loss or degradation, the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant remains at risk
from past impacts to its suitable forested
habitats.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:59 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
Summary of Factor A
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant occurs in
one of the most densely populated
regions of Brazil, and most of the
tropical forest habitats believed to have
been used historically by the species
have been converted or are severely
degraded due to the wide range of
human activities identified above
(Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 377–378; BLI
2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007f, p. 2; Collar et al.
1992, p. 776; Collar et al. 1994, p. 139;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife
Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). In addition, the
remaining tracts of suitable habitat
potentially used by the species,
including many secondary-growth
forests, are subject to ongoing clearing
for agricultural fields, plantations (e.g.,
banana, palmetto, and rice), logging,
livestock pastures, and industrial and
residential developments (Barnett et al.
2000, pp. 377–378; BLI 2007f, p. 4;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 776).
Even with the recent passage of
national forest policy and in light of
many other legal protections in Brazil
(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss
throughout the Atlantic Forest biome
has increased since the mid-1990s
(CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p.
1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and native
habitats at many of the remaining sites
may be lost over the next several years
(Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263). In addition,
because the extant population of the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is already small,
highly fragmented, and believed to be
declining (BLI 2007f, pp. 1–3), any
further loss or degradation of its
remaining suitable habitat will
adversely impact the species. Therefore,
we find that destruction and
modification of habitat are threats to the
continued existence of the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The extant population of the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is considered to
be small, fragmented, and declining.
Therefore, the removal or dispersal of
just a few individuals from any of the
species’ subpopulations or even a slight
decline in their fitness due to
intentional or inadvertent hunting,
specimen collection, or other human
disturbances (e.g., scientific research,
birding) could represent a significant
threat to the species’ overall viability
(see Factor E). However, while these
potential influences remain a concern
for future management of the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, we are not
aware of any information currently
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 factor to the continued
existence of the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant.
C. Disease or Predation
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 (Naugle et al.
2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003,
p. 1). It can also result in altered
predator populations and the
introduction of various exotic predator
species, some of which (e.g., feral cats
(Felis catus) and rats (Ratus sp.)) can be
especially harmful to populations of
endemic bird species (American Bird
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Courchamp et
al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan and Blackburn
2007, pp. 149–150; Salo et al. 2007, pp.
1241–1242; Small 2005, p. 257).
Although large, stable populations of
wildlife species have adapted to natural
levels of disease and predation within
their historic ranges, the extant
population of the Kaempfer’s todytyrant is considered to be small,
fragmented, and declining (BLI 2007f,
pp. 1–3). In addition, 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 (Naugle et al. 2004,
p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p. 1).
Any additive mortality to the
subpopulations of the Kaempfer’s todytyrant or a decrease in their fitness due
to an increase in the incidence of
disease or predation could severely
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 indicates the
occurrence of disease in the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant, or that documents any
predation incurred by the species. As a
result, we are not considering disease or
predation to be a contributing factor to
the continued existence of the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is
formally recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in
Brazil (Order No. 1.522) and is directly
protected by various laws promulgated
by the Brazilian government (Barnett et
al. 2000, p. 377; BLI 2007f, p. 2; Collar
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
et al. 1992, p. 776; ECOLEX 2007, pp.
1–2). For example, there are measures
that prohibit, or regulate through
Federal agency oversight, the following
activities with regard to endangered
species: export and international trade
(e.g., Decree No. 76.623, Order No.
419–P), hunting (e.g., Act No. 5.197),
collection and research (Order No. 332),
captive propagation (Order No. 5), and
general harm (e.g., Decree No. 3.179). In
addition, there are a wide range of
regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that
indirectly protect the Kaempfer’s todytyrant through measures that protect its
remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX
2007, pp. 2–5). For example, there are
measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation
of the remaining primary forests within
the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree
No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern
various practices associated with the
management of primary and secondary
forests, such as logging, charcoal
production, reforestation, recreation,
and water resources (e.g., Resolution
No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282,
Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act
No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for
controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No.
97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No.
292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4)
regulate industrial developments, such
as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel
production (e.g., Normative Instruction
No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there
are various measures (e.g., Law No.
11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78,
Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct
Federal and state agencies to promote
the protection of lands and natural
resources under their jurisdictions
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6).
Various regulatory mechanisms in
Brazil govern the formal establishment
and management of protected areas to
promote conservation of the country’s
natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp.
6–7). These mechanisms generally aim
to protect endangered wildlife and plant
species, genetic resources, overall
biodiversity, and native ecosystems on
Federal, state, and privately owned
lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No.
11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No.
1.922). Brazil’s formally established
protection areas are categorized based
on their overall management objectives
(e.g., National Parks versus Biological
Reserves) and, based on those
categories, they allow varying uses and
provide varying levels of protection for
specific resources (Costa 2007, pp.
5–19).
Currently, the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant
is known to occur within one 15 km2 (6
mi2) protected area, the privately owned
Volta Velha Natural Heritage Reserve
(Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 377–378; BLI
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
2007f, p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 776).
In addition, the species is known to
occur in forested habitat adjacent to
another 4 km2 (1.5 mi2) protected area,
the Bracinho State Ecological Station,
which was established as a watercatchment buffer zone for a
hydroelectric plant. It has been
recommended that both of these sites
should be expanded to ensure that the
species’ currently occupied range and
other potentially suitable habitats are
encompassed within protected areas
(Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 377–378; BLI
2007f, p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 776).
However, for various reasons (e.g., lack
of funding, personnel, or local
management commitment), some of
Brazil’s protected areas exist without
the current capacity to achieve their
stated natural resource objectives
(ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; Bruner et al.
2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, p. 7; IUCN
1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical News
1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News 1999,
p. 9). Therefore, even with the
expansion or further designation of
protected areas, it is unlikely that all of
the identified impacts to the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant (e.g., residential and
agricultural encroachment, resource
extraction, unregulated tourism, and
grazing) would be sufficiently addressed
at these sites.
In the past, the Brazilian government,
through various regulations, policies,
incentives, and subsidies, has actively
encouraged settlement of previously
undeveloped lands in southeastern
Brazil (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler
2007, p. 3; Conservation International
2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et
al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al.
2001, p. 874). More recently, the
Brazilian government has given greater
recognition to the environmental
consequences of such rapid expansion,
and has taken steps to better manage
some of the natural resources
potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7;
Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News
1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b,
p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9;
Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 45). However, there
are still various government-sponsored
measures in place, both at the national
and state levels, that help facilitate
development projects (Barnett et al.
2000, pp. 377–378; Butler 2007, p. 3;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 776; Neotropical
News 1998a, p. 10; Ratter et al. 1997,
pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874)
some of which, such as continued
logging, housing and tourism
developments, and expansion of
plantations, could impact potentially
important sites for the Kaempfer’s tody-
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40671
tyrant (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 377–378;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 776).
Summary of Factor D
Although there are governmentsponsored measures that remain in
place in Brazil that continue to facilitate
development projects, there are also a
wide variety of regulatory mechanisms
in Brazil that require protection of the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant and its habitat
throughout the species’ potentially
occupied range. However, the existing
regulatory mechanisms that apply to the
species have proven difficult to enforce
(BLI 2003a, p. 4; Conservation
International 2007c, p. 1; Costa 2007,
p. 7; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p.
2; Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11;
Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; Scott and
Brooke 1985, pp. 118, 130). As a result,
significant threats to the species’
remaining habitats are ongoing (see
Factor A) due to competing priorities.
Therefore, when combined with Factors
A and E, we find that the existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to ameliorate the current threats to the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant throughout its
range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Under this factor we explore whether
three risks, represented by demographic,
genetic, and environmental stochastic
events, are substantive to threaten the
continued existence of the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant. In basic terms, demographic
stochasticity is defined by chance
changes in the population growth rate
´
for the species (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 27). Population growth rates are
influenced by individual birth and
´
death rates (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p.
27), immigration and emigration rates,
as well as changes in population sex
ratios. Natural variation in survival and
reproductive success of individuals and
chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may
act in concert to contribute to
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity
is caused by changes in gene
frequencies due to genetic drift, and
diminished genetic diversity, and/or
effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p.
786). Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by
increasing the phenotypic expression
(the outward appearance or observable
structure, function or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive,
deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the
population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40672
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is
defined as the susceptibility of small,
isolated populations of wildlife species
to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged
drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire)
(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp.
410–412). Each risk will be analyzed
specifically for the Kaempfer’s todytyrant.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species are susceptible to demographic
and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp.
130–134). These threat factors, which
may act in concert, include: Natural
variation in survival and reproductive
success of individuals, chance
disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in
gene frequencies due to genetic drift,
diminished genetic diversity and
associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression), dispersal of just
a few individuals, a few clutch failures,
a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring
over just one or a few years, and chance
mortality of just a few reproductive-age
individuals.
There is very little information
available regarding the historic
distribution and abundance of the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant. However, the
species’ historic population was likely
larger and more widely distributed than
today, and it must have maintained a
minimum level of genetic interchange
among its local subpopulations in order
for them to have persisted (Middleton
`
and Nisbet 1997, p. 107; Vila et al. 2002,
p. 91; Wang 2004, p. 332).
In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, a general
approximation of a minimum viable
population size is referred to as the
50/500 rule (Franklin 1980, p. 147), as
described under Factor E for the
Brazilian merganser. The extant
population of the Kaempfer’s todytyrant is estimated to be between 1,000
and 2,499 individuals that are
fragmented among several potentially
occupied sites, with the largest
subpopulation estimated to be between
250 and 1,000 individuals (BLI 2007f,
p. 3). The other subpopulations are even
smaller in size, and there is currently
little likelihood for interchange of
individuals among them. The largest
subpopulation exceeds the minimum
number of individuals required to avoid
imminent risks from inbreeding (Ne =
50), but may be only half of the upper
threshold (Ne = 500) required to
maintain genetic diversity and the
capacity to adapt to changing conditions
over time. Continued loss of suitable
habitats (see Factor A) will exacerbate
fragmentation of the remaining
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
occupied patches and will act to further
isolate the species’ subpopulations. As
such, we currently consider the species
to be at risk due to its lack of long-term
genetic viability.
Various past and ongoing human
activities and their secondary influences
continue to impact all of the remaining
suitable habitats that may still harbor
the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant (see Factors
A and D). We expect that any additional
loss or degradation of habitats that are
used by the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant will
have disproportionately greater impacts
on the species due to the population’s
fragmented state. This is because with
each contraction of an existing
subpopulation, the likelihood of
interchange with other subpopulations
within patches decreases, while the
likelihood of its complete reproductive
isolation increases.
The combined effects of habitat
fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic
and demographic stochasticity on a
species population are referred to as
patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can
have profound effects on fragmented
subpopulations and can potentially
reduce a species’ respective effective
population by orders of magnitude
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 31). For
example, an increase in habitat
fragmentation can separate
subpopulations to the point where
individuals can no longer disperse and
breed among habitat patches, causing a
shift in the demographic characteristics
of a population and a reduction in
´
genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer
areas and reconnect some of the
remaining tracts of suitable habitat near
the species’ currently occupied sites, it
is doubtful that the individual tracts are
currently large enough to support viable
populations of many birds endemic to
the Atlantic Forest, like the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant, and the eventual loss of any
small, isolated populations appears to
be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117;
Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610;
IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da
Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke
1985, p. 118). Furthermore, as a species’
status continues to decline, often as a
result of deterministic forces such as
habitat loss or overutilization, it will
become increasingly vulnerable to a
broad array of other forces. If this trend
continues, its ultimate extinction due to
one or more stochastic events becomes
more likely.
We expect that the Kaempfer’s todytyrant’s increased vulnerability to
demographic stochasticity and
inbreeding will be operative even in the
absence of any human-induced threats
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or stochastic environmental events,
which only act to further exacerbate the
species’ vulnerability to local
extirpations and eventual extinction.
Demographic and genetic stochastic
forces typically operate synergistically.
Initial effects of one threat factor can
later exacerbate the effects of other
threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin
´
and Soule 1986, pp. 25–26). For
example, any further fragmentation of
populations will, by definition, result in
the further removal or dispersal of
individuals, which will exacerbate the
other threats. Conversely, lack of a
sufficient number of individuals in a
local area or a decline in their
individual or collective fitness may
cause a decline in the population size,
despite the presence of suitable habitat
patches.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species, such as the Kaempfer’s todytyrant, are also susceptible to natural
levels of environmental variability and
related ‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g.,
severe storms, prolonged drought,
extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we
will refer to as environmental
stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9;
Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young
1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic
environmental event can severely
reduce existing wildlife populations
and, if the affected population is already
small or severely fragmented, it is likely
that demographic stochasticity or
inbreeding will become operative,
which would place the population in
´
jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 27;
Lande 1995, pp. 787–789).
Summary of Factor E
The small and declining numbers that
make up the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant’s
population makes it susceptible to
natural environmental variability or
chance events. In addition to its
declining numbers, the high level of
population fragmentation makes the
species susceptible to genetic and
demographic stochasticity. Therefore,
we find that demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events are a
threat to the continued existence of the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the Kaempfer’s
Tody-tyrant
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and potential future threats faced by the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant. The species is
currently at risk throughout all of its
range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A),
and its lack of long-term genetic
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
viability due to threats associated with
demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochasticity (Factor E).
Furthermore, we have determined that
the existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate
the current threats to the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant.
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 threats to the Kaempfer’s todytyrant throughout its entire range, as
described above, we determine that the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list the
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant as an
endangered species throughout all of its
range.
VI. Margaretta’s Hermit (Phaethornis
malaris margarettae)
Species Description
The Margaretta’s hermit is a longbilled hummingbird. The average bill
length is 37 millimeters (mm) (1.5 in)
and the average tail length is 42 mm (1.7
in) (Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 122–123).
Hinkelmann (1996, p. 147) describes the
species to be morphologically similar to
Phaethornis margarettae bolvianus with
a paler underside.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Taxonomy
The Margaretta’s hermit is in the
hummingbird family, Trochilidae.
Margaretta’s hermit was first described
as a new species in 1972 by A. Ruschi
(Sibley and Monroe 1990). This bird has
variously been considered a full species
(Phaethornis margarettae) and placed as
a subspecies with the long-billed hermit
(P. superciliosus). However, the
available information indicates that it is
most appropriately considered to be a
subspecies of the great-billed hermit (P.
malaris) (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543;
Dickinson 2003, p. 256; Hinkelmann
1996, pp. 125–135; Howard and Moore
1980, p. 205; ICBP 1981, p. 2; Sibley and
Monroe 1990, p. 143; Sick 1993, p. 341;
Stiles 2005, pp. 1–5).
Habitat and Life History
The Margaretta’s hermit is endemic to
the Atlantic Forest biome and is found
in shrubby understories of primary- and
secondary-growth tropical, lowland
rainforest (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
ICBP 1981, p. 2; Hinkelmann 1996, pp.
133–140; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p.
143). Hummingbirds feed on the nectar
of a variety of plant species, especially
bromeliads, and often have a symbiotic
relationship with specific plants for
which they function as pollinators
(Buzato et al. 2000, p. 824; del Hoyo et
al. 1999, p. 543; Sick 1993, pp. 324–
326). They also feed on a variety of
small arthropods, which are an
especially important source of protein
for raising their young.
Females typically lay two eggs and are
solely responsible for tending their
young. Hummingbird nests are usually
constructed on vegetation of items such
as detritus, webs, leaves, and animal
hair cemented together with
regurgitated nectar and saliva (Sick
1993, pp. 330–331). Little is known of
the subspecies’ seasonal movements,
but its daily movements within a local
area are likely associated with the
timing of flowering plants that are used
for feeding (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543;
Sick 1993, pp. 324–336).
Range and Distribution
The Margaretta’s hermit historically
occurred in coastal forested habitats
´
from Penambuco to Espırito Santo,
Brazil (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543;
Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 132–135; Sibley
and Monroe 1990, p. 143). The last
confirmed occurrence of the
Margaretta’s hermit is from a relatively
old (ca. 1978) sighting of the subspecies
on a privately-owned, remnant forest
called Klabin Farm, which is located in
´
Espırito Santo which presently includes
40 km2 (15.46 mi2) of land (ICBP 1981,
p. 2). A portion of this area (ca. 15 km2
(5.79 mi2)) was designated as the
´
Corrego Grande Biological Reserve in
1989 (Costa 2007, p. 20; Willis and
Oniki 2002, p. 21). Margaretta’s hermit
likely also occurred at the Sooretama
´
Biological Reserve in Espırito Santo
until around 1977 (ICBP 1981, p. 2).
Population Estimates
Unknown, although likely to be small
in light of the very limited area the
subspecies may occupy (ICBP 1981, p.
2).
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the Margaretta’s
hermit to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because its
extant population is believed to have an
extremely restricted distribution and it
is likely very small, if it survives at all
(ICBP 1981, p. 2). The species, as a
whole, is listed under Appendix II of
the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) (UNEP–World
Conservation Monitoring Centre
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40673
(WCMC) 2009b). Appendix II includes
species that are not necessarily
threatened with extinction, but may
become so unless trade is subject to
strict regulation to avoid utilization
becoming incompatible with the
species’ survival.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Margaretta’s Hermit
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Based on a number of recent
estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
historically covered by tropical forests
within the Atlantic Forest biome has
been converted or severely degraded as
a result of various human activities
(Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786;
Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 868; Conservation
International 2007a, p. 1; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife
¨
Fund 2007, pp. 2–41; Hofling 2007, p.
1; Butler 2007, p. 2). In addition to the
overall loss and degradation of native
habitat within this biome, the remaining
tracts of habitat are severely fragmented.
The current rate of habitat loss in the
Atlantic Forest biome is unknown.
The region has the two largest cites in
˜
Brazil, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro,
and is home to approximately 70
percent of Brazil’s 169 million people
(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major
human activities that have resulted in
the loss, degradation, and fragmentation
of native habitats within the Atlantic
Forest biome include extensive
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g.,
soy beans, sugarcane, and corn),
plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine,
coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas),
livestock pastures, centers of human
habitation, and industrial developments
(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants,
and hydropower reservoirs). Forestry
practices (e.g., commercial logging),
subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood
collection), and changes in fire
frequencies also contribute to the
degradation of native habitat (BLI 2003a,
´
p. 4; Junior et al. 1995, p. 147; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva
2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868–
869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51).
Most of the tropical forest habitats
believed to have been used historically
by the Margaretta’s hermit have been
converted or are severely degraded due
to the above human activities, and the
subspecies can not occupy these
extensively altered areas (del Hoyo et al.
1999, p. 543; ICBP 1981, p. 2; Scott and
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40674
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick 1993, p. 338).
While the Margaretta’s hermit is not
strictly tied to primary forest habitats
and can make use of secondary-growth
forests, this does not lessen the threat to
the subspecies from the effects of
deforestation and habitat degradation.
Atlantic Forest birds, such as
Margaretta’s hermit, which are tolerant
of secondary-growth forests, are also
rare or have restricted ranges (i.e., less
than 21,000 km2 (8,100 mi2)). Thus,
habitat degradation can adversely
impact such species just as equally as it
impacts primary forest obligate species
(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613).
The last site known to be occupied by
the Margaretta’s hermit totaled only
about 40 km2 (15 mi2) (ICBP 1981, p. 2).
The susceptibility to extirpation of
rare, limited-range species that are
tolerant of secondary-growth forests
occurs for a variety of reasons such as
when a species’ remaining population is
already too small or its distribution too
fragmented such that it may not be
demographically or genetically viable
(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613).
In addition, while the Margaretta’s
hermit may be tolerant of secondarygrowth forests, these areas may not
represent optimal conditions for the
species. For example, many
hummingbird species are susceptible to
excessive sun and readily abandon their
nests at altered forested sites with too
much exposure (Sick 1993, p. 331), as
can occur with various human activities
that result in partial clearing (e.g.,
selective logging). In addition,
management of plantations often
involves intensive control of the site’s
understory vegetation, which eventually
results in severely diminished
understory cover (Rolim and Chiarello
2004, pp. 2679–2680; Saatchi et al.
2001, pp. 868–869). Even if the forest
canopy structure remains largely intact,
such management practices eventually
result in loss of native understory plant
species and severely altered understory
structure and dynamics, which can be
especially detrimental to pollinator
species such as the Margaretta’s hermit.
Even when forested lands are formally
protected (see Factor D), the remaining
fragments of habitat where the
subspecies may still occur will likely
continue to undergo degradation due to
their altered dynamics and isolation
(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932).
Moreover, secondary impacts that are
associated with human activities that
degrade the remaining tracts of forested
habitat potentially used by the
subspecies include the potential
introduction of disease vectors or exotic
predators within the subspecies’ historic
range (see Factor C). As a result of these
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
secondary impacts, there is often a time
lag between the initial conversion or
degradation of suitable habitats and the
extinction of endemic bird populations
(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al.
1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without
further habitat loss or degradation, the
Margaretta’s hermit remains at risk from
past impacts to its suitable forested
habitats.
Summary of Factor A
The Margaretta’s hermit occurs in one
of the most densely populated regions of
Brazil, and human activities and their
secondary impacts identified above
continue to threaten the last known
tracts of habitat within the Atlantic
Forest biome that may still harbor the
Margaretta’s hermit (BLI 2003a, p. 4;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543; Hofling
2007, p. 1; ICBP 1981, p. 2; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Sick 1993, p.
338; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–
51). Even with the recent passage of
national forest policy and in light of
many other legal protections in Brazil
(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss
throughout the Atlantic Forest biome
has increased since the mid-1990s
(CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p.
1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and native
habitats at many of the remaining sites
may be lost over the next several years
(Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263). The
Margaretta’s hermit has already been
reduced to such an extent that it is now
only known from a relatively old (ca.
1978) sighting (ICBP 1981, p. 2; Willis
and Oniki 2002, p. 21) and any further
loss or degradation of its remaining
suitable habitat could cause the
extinction of this subspecies. Therefore,
we find that destruction and
modification of habitat are threats to the
continued existence of the Margaretta’s
hermit throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
In the past, many species of
hummingbirds that occur in
southeastern Brazil were collected for
use in the fashion industry due to their
colorful plumage, and populations of
some species have been extirpated or
remain severely diminished as a result
(Sick 1993, pp. 337–338). Due to
concerns about hummingbirds in
international trade, in 1987, the entire
family, Trochilidae, was listed in
Appendix II of CITES (UNEP–WCMC
2009b), a treaty that regulates
international trade in certain protected
animal and plant species.
Appendix II of CITES includes
species that, although not necessarily
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
threatened presently with extinction,
may become so unless the trade in
specimens is strictly controlled.
International trade in specimens of
Appendix-II species is authorized
through permits or certificates, once the
granting authorities have ascertained
certain factors, including that trade will
not be detrimental to the survival of the
species in the wild and that the
specimen was legally acquired (UNEP–
WCMC 2009b).
Since the listing of the family under
CITES in 1987, there have been eight
CITES-permitted international
transactions in specimens of the species
Phaethornis malaris; however, no trade
has been reported at the subspecies
level, Phaethornis malaris margarettae
(John Caldwell, UNEP–WCMC, pers.
comm., May 13, 2008). According to
WCMC, the eight transactions involved
a total of 30 specimens of Phaethornis
malaris, which were imported into the
United States from the United Kingdom,
Peru and Suriname; the two latter
countries are within the species’ range
(John Caldwell, UNEP–WCMC, pers.
comm., May 12, 2008). Due to the
suspected small population size and
restricted range of the Margaretta’s
hermit, we believe that the 30
specimens reported in trade were of the
species and not the subspecies.
Furthermore, we are unaware of any
unreported CITES trade or illegal
international trade in specimens of
Margaretta’s hermit. Therefore, we
believe that international trade is not a
factor influencing the subspecies’ status
in the wild.
Local hummingbird populations may
also be impacted by collection for
various uses, including scientific
research, preparation of ‘‘novelty’’
exhibits, consumption in local dishes,
and for the zoo or pet trade (Rolim and
Chiarello 2004, pp. 2679–2680; Scott
and Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick 1993, pp.
337–338).
If it exists at all, the extant population
of the Margaretta’s hermit is likely
extremely small and occurs within a
severely restricted range. Due to its
rarity, the removal or dispersal of any
individuals of this subspecies or even a
slight decline in the population’s fitness
due to any intentional or inadvertent
hunting and specimen collection would
adversely impact the subspecies’ overall
viability (see Factor E). However, while
these potential influences remain a
concern for future management of the
Margaretta’s hermit, we are not aware of
any information currently available that
specifically indicates the use of this
subspecies for any commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purpose. As a result, we are not
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
considering overutilization to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the Margaretta’s hermit.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Disease or Predation
Young hummingbirds are sometimes
severely affected by botflies (Philornis
sp.) (Sick 1993, pp. 336–337). In
addition, 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 (Naugle et al.
2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p.
1). With regard to predation, a variety of
reptiles (e.g., snakes, lizards) and
predatory birds (e.g., owls, hawks) are
known to prey on hummingbirds (Sick
1993, pp. 336–337). Furthermore,
nestling hummingbirds can be killed by
raiding army ants (Eciton sp.), while
some hornets and bees are potential
competitors for flower nectar and have
been known to lethally sting adult
hummingbirds. In addition, extensive
human activity in previously
undisturbed or isolated areas can result
in altered predator populations and the
introduction of various exotic predator
species, some of which (e.g., feral cats
(Felis catus) and rats (Ratus sp.)) can be
especially harmful to populations of
endemic bird species (American Bird
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Courchamp et
al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan and Blackburn
2007, pp. 149–150; Salo et al. 2007, pp.
1241–1242; Small 2005, p. 257).
Large, stable populations of wildlife
species have adapted to natural levels of
disease and predation within their
historic ranges. However, the extant
population of the Margaretta’s hermit is
considered to be extremely small and
occurs within a severely restricted
range, if it currently exists at all, and
there is a greatly expanded human
population within the subspecies’
historic distribution. Any additive
mortality to the Margaretta’s hermit
population or a decrease in its fitness
due to an increase in the incidence of
disease or predation would severely
impact the subspecies’ overall viability
(see Factor E). Nevertheless, while these
potential influences remain a concern
for future management of the
subspecies, we are not aware of any
information currently available that
indicates the occurrence of disease in
the Margaretta’s hermit, or that
documents any predation incurred by
this subspecies. As a result, we are not
considering disease or predation to be a
contributing factor to the continued
existence of the Margaretta’s hermit.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The Margaretta’s hermit is formally
recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil
(Order No. 1.522) and is directly
protected by various laws promulgated
by the Brazilian government (ECOLEX
2007, pp. 1–2; ICBP 1981, p. 2). For
example, there are measures that
prohibit, or regulate through Federal
agency oversight, the following
activities with regard to endangered
species: export and international trade
(e.g., Decree No. 76.623, Order No. 419–
P), hunting (e.g., Act No. 5.197),
collection and research (Order No. 332),
captive propagation (Order No. 5), and
general harm (e.g., Decree No. 3.179).
The Margaretta’s hermit is listed in
Appendix II of CITES (UNEP–WCMC
2009b). CITES is an international treaty
among 173 nations, including Brazil and
the United States, that entered into force
in 1975 (UNEP–WCMC 2009a). 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 CITESlisted animal and plant species (USFWS
2009). As discussed under Factor B, we
do not consider international trade to be
a threat to the Margaretta’s hermit.
Therefore, this international treaty does
not reduce any current threats to the
subspecies. Any international trade that
occurs in the future would be effectively
regulated under CITES.
There are also a wide range of
regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that
indirectly protect the Margaretta’s
hermit through measures that protect its
remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX
2007, pp. 2–5). For example, there are
measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation
of the remaining primary forests within
the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree
No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern
various practices associated with the
management of primary and secondary
forests, such as logging, charcoal
production, reforestation, recreation,
and water resources (e.g., Resolution
No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282,
Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act
No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for
controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No.
97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No.
292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4)
regulate industrial developments, such
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40675
as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel
production (e.g., Normative Instruction
No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there
are various measures (e.g., Law No.
11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78,
Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct
Federal and state agencies to promote
the protection of lands and natural
resources under their jurisdictions
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6).
Various regulatory mechanisms exist
in Brazil that govern the formal
establishment and management of
protected areas to promote conservation
of the country’s natural resources
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–7). These
mechanisms generally aim to protect
endangered wildlife and plant species,
genetic resources, overall biodiversity,
and native ecosystems on Federal, state,
and privately owned lands (e.g., Law
No. 9.985, Law No. 11.132, Resolution
No. 4, Decree No. 1.922). Brazil’s
formally established protection areas are
categorized based on their overall
management objectives (e.g., National
Parks versus Biological Reserves), and
based on those categories they allow
varying uses and provide varying levels
of protection for specific resources
(Costa 2007, pp. 5–19).
Successful efforts to protect the last
site known to harbor the Margaretta’s
hermit from further development
occurred in the mid-1980s (Pereira
2007, p. 2), and a portion of this area
´
was designated as the Corrego Grande
Biological Reserve in 1989 (Costa 2007,
p. 20). However, nearly the entire site
burned in 1986, and the subspecies has
not been recorded there since that time
(Willis and Oniki 2002, p. 21). The
Margaretta’s hermit likely also occurred
at the Sooretama Biological Reserve in
´
Espırito Santo in 1977 (ICBP 1981, p. 2).
For various reasons (e.g., lack of
funding, personnel, or local
management commitment), some of
Brazil’s protected areas exist without
the current capacity to achieve their
stated natural resource objectives
(Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125; Costa 2007,
p. 7; IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical
News 1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News
1999, p. 9; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51).
For example, according to a World Wide
Fund for Nature report, 47 of 86
management plans for protected areas
that have been assessed are considered
to remain below their minimum level of
implementation of Federal
requirements, with only 7 considered to
be fully implemented (Neotropical
News 1999, p. 9). Therefore, even with
formal designation of protected areas, it
is unlikely that all of the identified
threats to the Margaretta’s hermit (e.g.,
residential and agricultural
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
40676
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
encroachment, resource extraction,
unregulated tourism, grazing, and fire)
are sufficiently addressed at these sites.
In the past, the Brazilian government,
through various regulations, policies,
incentives, and subsidies, has actively
encouraged settlement of previously
undeveloped lands in southeastern
Brazil, which helped facilitate the largescale habitat conversions that have
occurred throughout the Atlantic Forest
biome (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler
2007, p. 3; Conservation International
2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et
al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al.
2001, p. 874). More recently, the
Brazilian government has given greater
recognition to the environmental
consequences of such rapid expansion,
and has taken steps to better manage
some of the natural resources
potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7;
Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News
1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b,
p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9;
Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 45). However, due to
competing priorities, these regulatory
mechanisms have proven difficult to
enforce.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factor D
Although there are governmentsponsored measures that remain in
place in Brazil that continue to facilitate
potentially harmful development
projects, there are also a wide variety of
regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that
require protection of the Margaretta’s
hermit and its habitat throughout the
subspecies’ potentially occupied range.
The existing regulatory mechanisms that
apply to the Margaretta’s hermit have
been difficult to enforce (BLI 2003a, p.
4; Conservation International 2007c, p.
1; Costa 2007, p. 7; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Neotropical
News 1997b, p. 11; Peixoto and Silva
2007, p. 5; Scott and Brooke 1985, pp.
118, 130). As a result, significant threats
to the subspecies’ remaining habitats are
ongoing (see Factor A). Therefore, when
combined with Factors A and E, we find
that the existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to ameliorate the current
threats to the Margaretta’s hermit
throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Under this factor we explore whether
three risks, represented by demographic,
genetic, and environmental stochastic
events, are substantive to threaten the
continued existence of the Margaretta’s
hermit. In basic terms, demographic
stochasticity is defined by chance
changes in the population growth rate
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
´
for the species (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 27). Population growth rates are
influenced by individual birth and
´
death rates (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p.
27), immigration and emigration rates,
as well as changes in population sex
ratios. Natural variation in survival and
reproductive success of individuals and
chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may
act in concert to contribute to
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity
is caused by changes in gene
frequencies due to genetic drift, and
diminished genetic diversity, and/or
effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p.
786). Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by
increasing the phenotypic expression
(the outward appearance or observable
structure, function or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive,
deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the
population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,
p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is
defined as the susceptibility of small,
isolated populations of wildlife species
to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged
drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire)
(Young 1994, pp. 410–412; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 612; Dunham et al. 1999,
p. 9). Each risk will be analyzed
specifically for the Margaretta’s hermit.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species are susceptible to demographic
and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp.
130–134). These threat factors, which
may act in concert, include: natural
variation in survival and reproductive
success of individuals, chance
disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in
gene frequencies due to genetic drift,
diminished genetic diversity and
associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression), dispersal of just
a few individuals, a few clutch failures,
a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring
over just one or a few years, and chance
mortality of just a few reproductive-age
individuals.
Historically, the Margaretta’s hermit
population was more abundant and
widespread throughout its range (ICBP
1981, p. 2), and the subspecies must
have maintained a minimum level of
genetic interchange among its local
subpopulations in order for them to
have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet
`
1997, p. 107; Vila et al. 2002, p. 91;
Wang 2004, p. 332). In the absence of
more species-specific life history data,
the 50/500 rule (as explained under
Factor E for the Brazilian merganser)
may be used to approximate minimum
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
viable population size (Franklin 1980, p.
147). There are no specific past or
present abundance estimates for the
Margaretta’s hermit. However, the
available information indicates that its
extant population, if it still exists, is
likely well below both of the thresholds
(Ne = 50 and Ne = 500) for an effective
population size because of the very
limited area that it is known to occupy
(see Factor A) (ICBP 1981, p. 2). This
means that the subspecies’ population
likely does not have enough individuals
to avoid risks from inbreeding or the
ability to maintain genetic diversity and
adapt to changing conditions over time.
Furthermore, if the subspecies does still
exist, continued loss of suitable habitats
(see Factor A) is likely to further
exacerbate fragmentation of any
remaining occupied patches. As such,
we currently consider the subspecies to
be at risk due to its lack of near- and
long-term genetic viability.
Various past and ongoing human
activities and their secondary influences
continue to impact all of the remaining
suitable habitats that may still harbor
the Margaretta’s hermit (see Factors A
and D). We expect that any additional
loss or degradation of habitats that are
used by the Margaretta’s hermit will
have disproportionately greater impacts
on the subspecies due to the
population’s fragmented state. This is
because with each contraction of an
existing subpopulation, the likelihood
of interchange with other
subpopulations within patches
decreases, while the likelihood of its
complete reproductive isolation
increases.
The combined effects of habitat
fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic
and demographic stochasticity on a
species population are referred to as
patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can
have profound effects on fragmented
subpopulations and can potentially
reduce a species’ respective effective
population by orders of magnitude
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 31). For
example, an increase in habitat
fragmentation can separate
subpopulations to the point where
individuals can no longer disperse and
breed among habitat patches, causing a
shift in the demographic characteristics
of a population and a reduction in
´
genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer
areas and reconnect some of the
remaining tracts of suitable habitat near
the subspecies’ currently occupied sites,
it is doubtful that the individual tracts
are currently large enough to support
viable populations of many birds
endemic to the Atlantic Forest, like the
Margaretta’s hermit, and the eventual
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
loss of any small, isolated populations
appears to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p.
117; Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–
1610; IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado
and Da Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922;
Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and
Brooke 1985, p. 118). Furthermore, as a
species’ status continues to decline,
often as a result of deterministic forces
such as habitat loss or overutilization, it
will become increasingly vulnerable to
a broad array of other forces. If this
trend continues, its ultimate extinction
due to one or more stochastic events
becomes more likely.
We expect that the Margaretta’s
hermit’s increased vulnerability to
demographic stochasticity and
inbreeding will be operative even in the
absence of any human-induced threats
or stochastic environmental events,
which only act to further exacerbate the
subspecies’ vulnerability to local
extirpations and eventual extinction.
Demographic and genetic stochastic
forces typically operate synergistically.
Initial effects of one threat factor can
later exacerbate the effects of other
threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin
´
and Soule 1986, pp. 25–26). For
example, any further fragmentation of
populations will, by definition, result in
the further removal or dispersal of
individuals, which will exacerbate the
other threats. Conversely, lack of a
sufficient number of individuals in a
local area or a decline in their
individual or collective fitness may
cause a decline in the population size,
despite the presence of suitable habitat
patches.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species, such as the Margaretta’s hermit,
are also susceptible to natural levels of
environmental variability and related
‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g., severe
storms, prolonged drought, extreme cold
spells, wildfire), which we will refer to
as environmental stochasticity (Dunham
et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994,
p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410–412). A
single stochastic environmental event
can severely reduce existing wildlife
populations and, if the affected
population is already small or severely
fragmented, it is likely that demographic
stochasticity or inbreeding will become
operative, which would place the
population in jeopardy (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27; Lande 1995, pp. 787–
789).
Summary of Factor E
The small and declining numbers that
make up the Margaretta’s hermit’s
population make it susceptible to
natural environmental variability or
chance events. In addition to its
declining numbers, the high level of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
40677
population fragmentation makes the
subspecies susceptible to genetic and
demographic stochasticity. Therefore,
we find that demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events are a
threat to the continued existence of the
Margaretta’s hermit throughout its
range.
subspecies of the rufous-vented groundcuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi) that
occur at several disjunct localities from
Nicaragua to central South America (del
Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606–607; Howard
and Moore 1980, p. 178; Payne 2005,
pp. 204–207; Sibley and Monroe 1990,
p. 107).
Status Determination for the
Margaretta’s Hermit
Habitat and Life History
The southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo is an extremely shy,
ground-foraging bird that requires large
blocks of mature, undisturbed, tropical
lowland forest within the Atlantic
Forest biome (del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp.
606–607; ICBP 1981, p. 1; Sick 1993, p.
286; Payne 2005, pp. 204–207). This
species is unable to sustain flight for
long distances, and major rivers and
other extensive areas of non-habitat are
thought to impede their movements.
Southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoos feed on large insects, scorpions,
centipedes, spiders, small frogs, lizards,
and occasionally on seeds and fruit. The
species is agile when on the ground and
highly adept at running and jumping
through branches in pursuit of prey
(Sick 1993, p. 278). The species is often
associated with army ant (Eciton sp.)
and red ant (Solenopsis sp.) colonies,
whose foraying columns they use as
‘‘beaters’’ to flush their prey (Sick 1993,
p. 286). They are also known to forage
for flushed prey behind other species,
such as the white-lipped peccary
(Tayassu pecari) (Sick 1993, p. 286).
Unlike some other species of cuckoos,
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoos are not believed to be parasitic
nesters and build their own nests
approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) up in the
branches of swampy vegetation (Roth
1981, p. 388; Sick 1993, p. 286). The
species’ nest resembles a shallow bowl,
roughly 25 cm (10 in) across, made of
sticks and lined with leaves. Once the
young are fledged, the adults care for
them away from the nest site (del Hoyo
et al. 1997, pp. 606–607).
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and potential future threats faced by the
Margaretta’s hermit. The subspecies is
currently at risk throughout all of its
range due to ongoing threats of habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A),
and its lack of near- and long-term
genetic viability due to threats
associated with demographic, genetic,
and environmental stochasticity (Factor
E). Furthermore, we have determined
that the existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate
the current threats to the Margaretta’s
hermit.
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 threats to the Margaretta’s hermit
throughout its entire range, as described
above, we determine that the
Margaretta’s hermit is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list the
Margaretta’s hermit as an endangered
species throughout all of its range.
VII. Southeastern Rufous-vented
Ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi
dulcis)
Species Description
The southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo is a large-sized terrestrial
bird. The cuckoo has a distinctive flat
frontal crest, a long tail and long legs,
and a yellow-green curved bill (Payne
2005, p. 206; Roth 1981, p. 388). The
species is blackish-brown or reddish
black in color, and has brown scale-like
coloring on the breast with a black
breast band and a reddish belly. It has
a bare face with gray to blue coloring
(Payne 2005, p. 206).
Taxonomy
The southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo is one of seven
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Range and Distribution
Although the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo had a widespread
distribution historically, it has likely
always been locally rare (ICBP 1981, p.
1). Historic distributions included the
Brazilian cities of Bahia, Minas Gerais,
´
Espırito Santo, and, possibly, Rio de
Janeiro (ICBP 1981, p. 1; Payne 2005, p.
207). The last confirmed sighting of this
subspecies was from Sooretama
Biological Reserve north of the Doce
´
River in Espırito Santo in 1977, and it
may now be extinct (Payne 2005, p. 207;
Roth 1981, p. 388; Scott and Brooke
1985, pp. 125–126). However, a recent
photographic record (ca. 2004) indicates
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
40678
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
that the subspecies may still occur at
Doce River State Park in Minas Gerais
(Scoss et al. 2006, p. 1).
Population Estimates
Unknown, although certainly very
low if it still exists (ICBP 1981, p. 1).
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo to be
‘‘Endangered’’ because although the
subspecies was ‘‘never numerous, this
extremely shy species is among the first
to disappear if its primary forest habitat
is disturbed and in south-eastern Brazil
where it occurs, most of such forest has
been destroyed’’ (ICBP 1981, p. 1).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Southeastern Rufous-vented Groundcuckoo
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Based on a number of recent
estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
historically covered by tropical forests
within the Atlantic Forest biome has
been converted or severely degraded as
a result of various human activities
(Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation
¨
International 2007a, p. 1; Hofling 2007,
p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p.
786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund
2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the
overall loss and degradation of native
habitat within this biome, the remaining
tracts of habitat are severely fragmented.
The current rate of habitat decline
within the Atlantic Forest is unknown.
The region has the two largest cites in
˜
Brazil, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro,
and is home to approximately 70
percent of Brazil’s 169 million people
(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major
human activities that have resulted in
the loss, degradation, and fragmentation
of native habitats within the Atlantic
Forest biome include extensive
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g.,
soy beans, sugarcane, and corn),
plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine,
coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas),
livestock pastures, centers of human
habitation, and industrial developments
(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants,
and hydropower reservoirs). Forestry
practices (e.g., commercial logging),
subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood
collection), and changes in fire
frequencies also contribute to the
destruction of native habitats (BLI
´
2003a, p. 4; Junior et al. 1995, p. 147;
The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2;
Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
and Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001,
pp. 868–869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p.
118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp.
3–51).
Most of the tropical forest habitats
believed to have been used historically
by the southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo have been converted or
severely degraded by the above human
activities (del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606–
607; ICBP 1981, p. 1; Payne 2005, p.
207; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick
1993, p. 286). Terrestrial insectivorous
birds that are primary forest-obligate
species, such as the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo, are especially
vulnerable to habitat modifications
(Goerck 1997, p. 116), and can not
occupy these extensively altered
habitats.
Even when they are formally
protected (see Factor D), the remaining
fragments of primary forest habitat
where the subspecies may still occur
will likely undergo further degradation
due to their altered dynamics and
isolation (Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp.
929–932).
In addition, secondary impacts that
are associated with human activities
that cause severe fragmentation of the
remaining tracts of primary forest
habitat potentially used by the
subspecies include the potential
introduction of disease vectors or exotic
predators within the subspecies’ historic
range (see Factor C). As a result of the
above influences, there is often a time
lag between the initial conversion or
degradation of suitable habitats and the
extinction of endemic bird populations
(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al.
1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without
further habitat loss or degradation, the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo remains at risk from past
impacts to its primary forest habitats.
Summary of Factor A
The above human activities and their
secondary impacts continue to threaten
the remaining tracts of habitat within
the Atlantic Forest biome that may still
harbor the southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo (BLI 2003a, p. 4;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606–607;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Payne 2005,
p. 207; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp.
3–51). Even with the recent passage of
national forest policy, and in light of
many other legal protections in Brazil
(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss
throughout southeastern Brazil has
increased since the mid-1990s (CEPF
2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1;
Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270). The
subspecies’ population has already been
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reduced to such an extent that it is now
only known from one possible recent
(ca. 2004) sighting of a single bird (Scoss
et al. 2006, p. 1), and any further loss
or degradation of remaining suitable
habitat could cause the extinction of
this subspecies. Therefore, we find that
destruction and modification of habitat
are threats to the continued existence of
the southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The extant population of the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo is considered to be extremely
small, if it currently exists at all.
Therefore, the removal or dispersal of
any individuals of this subspecies or
even a slight decline in the population’s
fitness due to any intentional or
inadvertent hunting, specimen
collection, or other human disturbances
(e.g., birding, hunting, specimen
collection, scientific research) would
adversely impact the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo’s overall
viability (see Factor E). However, while
these potential influences remain a
concern for future management of the
subspecies, we are not aware 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 to be
a contributing factor to the continued
existence of the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo.
C. Disease or Predation
Extensive human activity in
previously undisturbed or isolated areas
can also result in altered predator
populations and the introduction of
various exotic predator species, some of
which (e.g., feral cats (Felis catus) and
rats (Ratus sp.)) can be especially
harmful to populations of endemic bird
species (American Bird Conservancy
2007, p. 1; Courchamp et al. 1999, p.
219; Duncan and Blackburn 2007, pp.
149–150; Salo et al. 2007, pp. 1241–
1242; Small 2005, p. 257). Although
large, stable populations of wildlife
species have adapted to natural levels of
disease and predation within their
historic ranges, the extant population of
the southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo is considered to be extremely
small, if it currently exists at all. In
addition, 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
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
News 2003, p. 1; Naugle et al. 2004,
p. 704).
Any additive mortality to the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo population or a decrease in its
fitness due to an increase in the
incidence of disease or predation would
adversely impact the subspecies’ overall
viability (see Factor E). However, while
these potential influences remain a
concern for future management of the
subspecies, we are not aware of any
information currently available that
indicates the occurrence of disease in
the southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo, or that documents any
predation incurred by the subspecies.
As a result, we are not considering
disease or predation to be a contributing
factor to the continued existence of the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo is formally recognized as
‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil (Order No.
1.522) and is directly protected by
various laws promulgated by the
Brazilian government (ICBP 1981, p. 1;
ECOLEX 2007, pp. 1–2). For example,
there are measures that prohibit, or
regulate through Federal agency
oversight, the following activities with
regard to endangered species: export
and international trade (e.g., Decree No.
76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g.,
Act No. 5.197), collection and research
(Order No. 332), captive propagation
(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g.,
Decree No. 3.179). In addition, there are
a wide range of regulatory mechanisms
in Brazil that indirectly protect the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo through measures that protect its
remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX
2007, pp. 2–5). For example, there are
measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation
of the remaining primary forests within
the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree
No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern
various practices associated with the
management of primary and secondary
forests, such as logging, charcoal
production, reforestation, recreation,
and water resources (e.g., Resolution
No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282,
Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act
No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for
controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No.
97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No.
292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4)
regulate industrial developments, such
as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel
production (e.g., Normative Instruction
No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there
are various measures (e.g., Law No.
11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct
Federal and state agencies to promote
the protection of lands and natural
resources under their jurisdictions
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6).
Various regulatory mechanisms in
Brazil govern the formal establishment
and management of protected areas to
promote conservation of the country’s
natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–
7). These mechanisms generally aim to
protect endangered wildlife and plant
species, genetic resources, overall
biodiversity, and native ecosystems on
Federal, state, and privately owned
lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No.
11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No.
1.922). Brazil’s formally established
protection areas are categorized based
on their overall management objectives
(e.g., National Parks versus Biological
Reserves), and based on those categories
they allow varying uses and provide
varying levels of protection for specific
resources (Costa 2007, pp. 5–19).
Two of these protected areas,
Sooretama Biological Reserve and Doce
River State Park, represent the major
sites where the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo may still occur
(Payne 2005, p. 207; Scott and Brooke
1985, pp. 125–126), and the protective
measures potentially implemented at
these two areas are considered critical
for protecting any remaining
populations of the subspecies. However,
not all of the identified threats for the
subspecies (e.g., unregulated tourism,
residential encroachment, resource
extraction, grazing, and intentional
burning) are sufficiently addressed at
the two protected areas that may still
harbor the southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo (AMDA 2006, p. 2;
Barbosa 2007, p. 1; Bruner et al. 2001,
pp. 125–128; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p.
44). Due to various reasons (e.g., lack of
funding, personnel, or local
management commitment), some of
Brazil’s protected areas exist without
the current capacity to achieve their
stated natural resource objectives (Costa
2007, p. 7; IUCN 1999, p. 23–24;
Neotropical News 1996, pp. 9–10;
Neotropical News 1999, p. 9). For
example, the Worldwide Fund for
Nature found that 47 of 86 protected
areas are considered to remain below
their minimum level of implementation
of Federal requirements, with only 7
considered to be fully implemented
(Neotropical News 1999, p. 9).
In the past, the Brazilian government,
through various regulations, policies,
incentives, and subsidies, has actively
encouraged settlement of previously
undeveloped lands in southeastern
Brazil which helped facilitate the largescale conversions that have occurred in
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40679
the Atlantic Forest biome (Brannstrom
2000, p. 326; Butler 2007, p. 3;
Conservation International 2007c, p. 1;
Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et al. 1997, pp.
227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874).
More recently, the Brazilian government
has given greater recognition to the
environmental consequences of such
rapid expansion, and has taken steps to
better manage some of the natural
resources potentially impacted (Butler
2007, p. 7; Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical
News 1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News
1997b, p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b,
p. 9; Neotropical News 2003, p. 13;
Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 45). These
competing priorities make it difficult to
enforce regulations that protect the
habitat of the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo.
Summary of Factor D
Although there are various
government-sponsored measures that
remain in place in Brazil that continue
to facilitate development projects that
could harm the species, there are also a
wide variety of regulatory mechanisms
in Brazil that require protection of the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo and its habitat throughout the
subspecies’ potentially occupied range.
The existing regulatory mechanisms, as
currently enforced, do not reduce the
threats to the species (BLI 2003a, p. 4;
Conservation International 2007c, p. 1;
Costa 2007, p. 7; The Nature
Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Neotropical
News 1997b, p. 11; Peixoto and Silva
2007, p. 5; Scott and Brooke 1985, p.
118, 130; Venturini et al. 2005, p. 68).
Therefore, when combined with Factors
A and E, we find that the existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to ameliorate the current threats to the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
Under this factor we explore whether
three risks, represented by demographic,
genetic, and environmental stochastic
events, are substantive to threaten the
continued existence of the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo. In basic
terms, demographic stochasticity is
defined by chance changes in the
population growth rate for the species
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 27).
Population growth rates are influenced
by individual birth and death rates
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 27),
immigration and emigration rates, as
well as changes in population sex ratios.
Natural variation in survival and
reproductive success of individuals and
chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40680
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
act in concert to contribute to
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity
is caused by changes in gene
frequencies due to genetic drift, and
diminished genetic diversity, and/or
effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p.
786). Inbreeding can have individual or
population-level consequences either by
increasing the phenotypic expression
(the outward appearance or observable
structure, function or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive,
deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the
population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,
p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is
defined as the susceptibility of small,
isolated populations of wildlife species
to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged
drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire)
(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410–
412). Each risk will be analyzed
specifically for the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species are susceptible to demographic
and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp.
130–134). These threat factors, which
may act in concert, include: natural
variation in survival and reproductive
success of individuals, chance
disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in
gene frequencies due to genetic drift,
diminished genetic diversity and
associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e.,
inbreeding depression), dispersal of just
a few individuals, a few clutch failures,
a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring
over just one or a few years, and chance
mortality of just a few reproductive-age
individuals.
The southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo requires large blocks of
undisturbed tropical forest (del Hoyo et
al. 1997, pp. 606–607; Payne 2005, pp.
204–207; Sick 1993, p. 286). In addition,
while the subspecies has likely always
been rare throughout its historic range
(ICBP 1981, p. 1), it must have
maintained a minimum level of genetic
interchange among its local
subpopulations in order for them to
have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet
`
1997, p. 107; Vila et al. 2002, p. 91;
Wang 2004, p. 332). However, the
tropical forest habitats throughout the
Doce River valley, where the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo was last documented, have been
severely fragmented (see Factor A) and
the subspecies’ extant population is
extremely small and isolated, if it
currently exists at all.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, a general
approximation of a minimum viable
population size is referred to as the 50/
500 rule (Franklin 1980, p. 147), as
described under Factor E for the
Brazilian merganser. There are no
specific past or present abundance
estimates for the southeastern rufousvented ground cuckoo; however, the
subspecies is only known from one
possible recent (ca. 2004) sighting of a
single bird (Scoss et al. 2006, p. 1), and
the extant population is almost certainly
well below both of the thresholds (Ne =
50 and Ne = 500) for an effective
population size. This means that the
subspecies’ population likely does not
have enough individuals to avoid risks
from inbreeding or the ability to
maintain genetic diversity and adapt to
changing conditions over time.
Furthermore, if the subspecies does still
exist, continued loss of suitable habitats
(see Factor A) is likely to further
exacerbate fragmentation of any
remaining occupied patches. As such,
we currently consider the subspecies to
be at risk due to its lack of near- and
long-term genetic viability.
Various past and ongoing human
activities and their secondary influences
continue to impact all of the remaining
suitable habitats that may still harbor
the southeastern rufous-vented ground
cuckoo (see Factors A and D). We expect
that any additional loss or degradation
of habitats that are used by the
southeastern rufous-vented ground
cuckoo will have disproportionately
greater impacts on the subspecies due to
the population’s fragmented state. This
is because with each contraction of an
existing subpopulation, the likelihood
of interchange with other
subpopulations within patches
decreases, while the likelihood of its
complete reproductive isolation
increases.
The combined effects of habitat
fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic
and demographic stochasticity on a
species population are referred to as
patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can
have profound effects on fragmented
subpopulations and can potentially
reduce a species’ respective effective
population by orders of magnitude
´
(Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 31). For
example, an increase in habitat
fragmentation can separate
subpopulations to the point where
individuals can no longer disperse and
breed among habitat patches, causing a
shift in the demographic characteristics
of a population and a reduction in
´
genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer
areas and reconnect some of the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
remaining tracts of suitable habitat near
the subspecies’ currently occupied sites,
it is doubtful that the individual tracts
are currently large enough to support
viable populations of many birds
endemic to the Atlantic Forest, like the
southeastern rufous-vented ground
cuckoo, and the eventual loss of any
small, isolated populations appears to
be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117;
Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610;
IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da
Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi
et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke
1985, p. 118). Del Hoyo et al. (1997, p.
207) suggests that the rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo would be one of the first
species to be extirpated from an area
when their primary forest habitat is
isolated, as has occurred to another
Neomorphus geoffroyi subspecies at
Barro Colorado in response to
operations of the Panama Canal (del
Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606–607; Payne
2005, p. 207). Furthermore, as a species’
status continues to decline, often as a
result of deterministic forces such as
habitat loss or overutilization, it will
become increasingly vulnerable to a
broad array of other forces. If this trend
continues, its ultimate extinction due to
one or more stochastic events becomes
more likely.
We expect that the southeastern
rufous-vented ground cuckoo’s
increased vulnerability to demographic
stochasticity and inbreeding will be
operative even in the absence of any
human-induced threats or stochastic
environmental events, which only act to
further exacerbate the species’
vulnerability to local extirpations and
eventual extinction. Demographic and
genetic stochastic forces typically
operate synergistically. Initial effects of
one threat factor can later exacerbate the
effects of other threat factors, as well as
´
itself (Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 25–
26). For example, any further
fragmentation of populations will, by
definition, result in the further removal
or dispersal of individuals, which will
exacerbate the other threats. Conversely,
lack of a sufficient number of
individuals in a local area or a decline
in their individual or collective fitness
may cause a decline in the population
size, despite the presence of suitable
habitat patches.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species, such as the southeastern rufousvented ground cuckoo, are also
susceptible to natural levels of
environmental variability and related
‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g., severe
storms, prolonged drought, extreme cold
spells, wildfire), which we will refer to
as environmental stochasticity (Dunham
et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994,
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410–412). A
single stochastic environmental event
can severely reduce existing wildlife
populations and, if the affected
population is already small or severely
fragmented, it is likely that demographic
stochasticity or inbreeding will become
operative, which would place the
population in jeopardy (Gilpin and
´
Soule 1986, p. 27; Lande 1995, pp.
787–789).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Factor E
The small and declining numbers that
make up the southeastern rufous-vented
ground cuckoo’s population makes it
susceptible to natural environmental
variability or chance events. In addition
to its declining numbers, the high level
of population fragmentation makes the
subspecies susceptible to genetic and
demographic stochasticity. Therefore,
we find that demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events are a
threat to the continued existence of the
southeastern rufous-vented ground
cuckoo throughout its range.
Status Determination for the
Southeastern Rufous-vented Groundcuckoo
We have carefully assessed the best
available scientific and commercial
information regarding the past, present,
and potential future threats faced by the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo. The subspecies is currently at
risk throughout all of its range due to
ongoing threats of habitat destruction
and modification (Factor A), and its lack
of near- and long-term genetic and
viability due to threats associated with
demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochasticity (Factor E).
Furthermore, we have determined that
the existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate
the current threats to the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo.
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 threats to the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo
throughout its entire range, as described
above, we determine that the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Therefore, on
the basis of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we are
proposing to list the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo as an
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
endangered species throughout all 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 State
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 has been proposed or designated.
However, given that the black-hooded
antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherrythroated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye,
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, Margaretta’s
hermit, and southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo are not native to the
United States, we are not designating
critical habitat in this rule.
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 blackhooded antwren, Brazilian merganser,
cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed
fire-eye, Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant,
Margaretta’s hermit, and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo. These
prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21, in
part, make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to ‘‘take’’ (take includes harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct) any
endangered wildlife species within the
United States or upon the high seas; or
to import or export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40681
commercial activity; or to sell or offer
for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any endangered wildlife
species. It is also 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 that our final
determination is 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 black-hooded
antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherrythroated tanager, fringed-backed fireeye, Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant,
Margaretta’s hermit, and the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo.
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
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
40682
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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
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. We published 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 on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
or upon request from the Branch of
Listing, Endangered Species Program,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are staff members of the Division of
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Species
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
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 § 17.11(h) by adding new
entries for ‘‘Antwren, Black-hooded,’’
‘‘Cuckoo, Southeastern Rufous-vented
Ground,’’ ‘‘Fire-eye, Fringe-backed,’’
‘‘Hermit, Margaretta’s,’’ ‘‘Merganser,
Brazilian,’’ ‘‘Tanager, Cherry-throated,’’
and ‘‘Tody-tyrant, Kaempfer’s’’ in
alphabetical order under BIRDS to the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife as follows:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
Status
*
*
(h) * * *
*
When listed
Critical
habitat
*
Formicivora
erythronotos.
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
*
Neomorphus
geoffroyi dulcis.
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
NA
*
Fire-eye, fringedbacked.
*
Pyriglena atra .........
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
NA
*
Hermit, Margaretta’s
*
Phaethornis malaris
margarettae.
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
NA
*
Merganser, Brazilian
*
Mergus
octosetaceus.
*
Brazil, Argentina,
Paraguay.
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
NA
*
Tanager, cherrythroated.
*
Nemosia rourei .......
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
NA
*
Tody-tyrant,
Kaempfer’s.
*
Hemitriccus
kaempferi.
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
....................
NA
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
Special
rules
NA
*
Cuckoo, southeastern rufousvented ground.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
Antwren, black-hooded.
Jkt 217001
*
*
*
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
*
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
*
BIRDS
VerDate Nov<24>2008
*
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
*
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
40683
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Species
Historic range
Common name
*
Scientific name
*
*
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
*
Status
When listed
*
*
Dated: July 15, 2009.
James J. Slack,
Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E9–18691 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Aug 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12AUP2.SGM
12AUP2
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40650-40683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18691]
[[Page 40649]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Seven Brazilian
Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 40650]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-IA-2009-0028; 96100-1671-0000-B6]
RIN 1018-AV74
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Seven
Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the following seven Brazilian bird species and subspecies
(collectively referred to as ``species'' for purposes of this proposed
rule) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.): black-hooded antwren
(Formicivora erythronotos), Brazilian merganser (Mergus octosetaceus),
cherry-throated tanager (Nemosia rourei), fringe-backed fire-eye
(Pyriglena atra), Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus kaempferi),
Margaretta's hermit (Phaethornis malaris margarettae), and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis). 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
October 13, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by September 28, 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: FWS-R9-IA-2009-0028; 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), 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.
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 Web site. 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 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, the finding must be made within 90 days
following receipt of the petition and must be 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 (``12-month
finding'') on whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted,
or warranted but precluded by higher priority listing. 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.
The following seven Brazilian bird species are addressed in this
proposed rule: Black-hooded antwren (Formicivora erythronotos),
previously recognized under the genus Myrmotherula; Brazilian merganser
(Mergus octosetaceus); cherry-throated tanager (Nemosia rourei);
fringe-backed fire-eye (Pyriglena atra), previously referred to as
Swainson's fire-eye; Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus kaempferi),
previously recognized under the genus Idioptilon; Margaretta's hermit
(Phaethornis malaris margarettae), previously referred to as the Klabin
Farm long-tailed hermit and recognized at the species level as P.
margarettae; and southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus
geoffroyi dulcis). All of the above species are found in the Atlantic
Forest and neighboring regions of southeastern Brazil.
[[Page 40651]]
We are addressing the seven Brazilian bird species identified above
under a single proposed rule primarily for three reasons. First, all of
these species are found in the Atlantic Forest and neighboring regions
of southeastern Brazil, thus addressing them together makes sense from
a regional conservation perspective. Second, these seven species are
subject to similar threats of comparable magnitude, primarily the loss
and degradation of habitat due to deforestation and other ongoing
development practices affecting southeastern Brazil, as well as
concomitant threats due to severely restricted distributions and small
population sizes (such as potential loss of genetic viability).
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.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 28, 1980, we received a petition (the 1980 petition)
from Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman, United States Section of the
International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign
bird species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR
17.11(h)), including 5 of the 7 Brazilian bird species (black-hooded
antwren, cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, Margaretta's
hermit, and southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo) that are the
subject of this proposed rule. Two of the foreign species identified in
the petition were already listed under the Act; therefore, 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 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 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. We published additional annual notices on
the 58 species included in the 1980 petition 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 the black-hooded
antwren, cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, Margaretta's
hermit, and southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo, along with the
remaining species in the 1980 petition, continued to be warranted but
precluded.
On May 6, 1991, we received a second petition (the 1991 petition)
from ICBP to add an additional 53 foreign bird species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, including the 2 remaining Brazilian
bird species (Brazilian merganser and Kaempfer's tody-tyrant) that are
the subject of this proposed rule. In response to the 1991 petition, we
published a substantial 90-day finding on December 16, 1991 (56 FR
65207), for all 53 species and initiated 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 Brazilian merganser and
Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, was warranted but precluded by higher priority
listing actions. We made a subsequent warranted-but-precluded finding
for all outstanding foreign species from the 1980 and 1991 petitions,
including the seven Brazilian bird species that are the subject of this
proposed rule, as published in our annual notice of review (ANOR) on
May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354).
Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983;
48 FR 43098), our 2007 ANOR identified the listing priority numbers
(LPNs) (ranging from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign species. The
LPNs for the seven Brazilian bird species that are the subject of this
proposed rule are as follows: The black-hooded antwren, Brazilian
merganser, cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, and
Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (LPN 2); and the Margaretta's hermit and
southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (LPN 3). Listing priorities of
2 and 3 indicate that the subject species and subspecies, respectively,
face imminent threats of high magnitude. With the exception of listing
priority ranking of 1, which addresses monotypic genera that face
imminent threats of high magnitude, categories 2 and 3 represent the
Service's highest priorities.
On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published in the Federal
Register a notice announcing our annual petition findings for foreign
species. In that notice, we announced listing to be warranted for 30
foreign bird species, including the seven Brazilian bird species which
are the subject of this proposed rule, and stated that we would
``promptly publish proposals to list these 30 taxa.''
On September 8, 2008, the Service 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 the Service's failure to
promptly publish listing proposals for the 30 ``warranted'' species
identified in our 2008 ANOR. 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), the Service must submit to
the Federal Register proposed listing rules for the black-hooded
antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed
fire-eye, Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, Margaretta's hermit, and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo by July 31, 2009.
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. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination.
If we consider that wildlife habitat is not only defined by
substrates (vegetation, soil, water), but also atmospheric conditions,
then changes in air temperature and moisture can effectively change a
species' habitat. Climate change is characterized by variations in the
earth's temperature and precipitation causing changes in atmospheric,
oceanic, and terrestrial conditions (Parmesan and Mathews 2005, p.
334). Global climate change and other periodic climatic patterns (e.g.,
El Ni[ntilde]o and La Ni[ntilde]a) can cause or exacerbate such
negative impacts on a broad range of terrestrial ecosystems and
neotropical bird populations (Crick 2004, p. 1; England 2000, p. 86;
[[Page 40652]]
Holmgren et al. 2001, p. 89; Plumart 2007, pp. 1-2). For example, trees
cool their area of influence through high rates of evapotranspiration,
or water loss to the atmosphere from their leaves (Parmesan and Mathews
2005, p. 337). Areas where trees have been replaced with pastures have
lower evapotranspiration rates, thus causing local areas to be warmer
(Parmesan and Mathews 2005, p. 337). According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change can contribute to
modifications of Amazonian rainforest habitats that are affected by
deforestation (IPCC 1997, p. 11). Parmesan and Mathews (2005, p. 373)
suggest that climate change is more likely to cause range reductions
rather than range shifts. This may be due to the lack of areas where a
species could shift to or the spaces between habitat patches are too
large for individuals to reach. This suggests that climate change could
be an agent of habitat loss or modification.
Despite the fact that global climate changes are occurring and
affecting habitat, the climate change models that are currently
available are not yet able to make meaningful predictions of climate
change for specific, local areas (Parmesan and Matthews 2005, p. 354),
such as the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado (savanna) bioregions. In
addition, we do not have models to predict how the climate in the range
of these Brazilian bird species will change, and we do not know how any
change that may occur, would affect these species. We also do not have
information on past and future weather patterns within the specific
range of these species. Therefore, based on the current lack of
information and data, we did not evaluate climate change as a threat to
these species. We are, however, seeking additional information on this
subject (see Public Comments) that can be used in preparing the final
rule.
Below is a species-by-species analysis of the five factors. The
species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning with the black-
hooded antwren, followed by the Brazilian merganser, cherry-throated
tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, Margaretta's
hermit, and the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo.
I. Black-hooded Antwren (Formicivora erythronotos)
Species Description
The black-hooded antwren measures 10.5 to 11.5 centimeters (cm) (4
to 4.5 inches (in)) (BirdLife International (BLI) 2007d, p. 1; Sisk
1993, p. 414). Males are black with a reddish-brown back. They have a
black narrow bill and a long tail. There are three thin white stripes
on the wings. Females have similar coloring, except they have brown-
olive feathers where black feathers appear on males (BLI 2007d, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The black-hooded antwren is a small member of the diverse
``antbird'' family (Thamnophilidae). The species was previously
recognized under the genus Myrmotherula (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Collar et al.
1992, p. 667; Sick 1993, p. 414).
Habitat and Life History
The Atlantic Forest biome encompasses a region of tropical and
subtropical moist forests, tropical dry forests, and mangrove forests,
that extend along the Atlantic coast of Brazil from Rio Grande do Norte
in the north to Rio Grande do Sul in the south, and inland as far as
Paraguay and Misiones Province of northeastern Argentina (Conservation
International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and
Haddad 2000, pp. 786-787). The black-hooded antwren inhabits lush
understories of remnant old-growth and early successional secondary-
growth coastal forests, and it may also occur in dense understories of
modified ``restinga,'' (``restinga'' is a Brazilian term that describes
a patchwork of vegetation types consisting of beach vegetation, open
shrubby vegetation, and dry and swamp forests distributed over coastal
plains from northeastern to southeastern Brazil (McGinley 2007, pp. 1-
2)), swampy woodlands, abandoned banana plantations, and eucalyptus
stands (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64).
Although the specific habitat requirements of the black-hooded
antwren are still unclear, the species is not considered a tropical
forest specialist. The black-hooded antwren typically forages in pairs
or small family groups and consumes various insects, spiders, and small
frogs (Collar et al. 1992, p. 667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; Sick 1993, p.
405; Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 65). Black-hooded antwrens usually
forage in dense vegetation within approximately 3 meters (m) (10 feet
(ft)) of the ground, but they are also known to feed higher up (ca. 7 m
(23 ft)).
Females typically lay two eggs in fragile nests resembling small
cups made of plant material (e.g., rootlets, stems, moss) that are
attached to horizontal branches within roughly 1 m (3.3 ft) of the
ground (Collar et al. 1992, p. 667; Sick 1993, p. 405). Both sexes help
to build the nests, brood clutches, and attend their young.
Range and Distribution
The black-hooded antwren is endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome in
the southeast of the state of Rio de Janeiro (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Collar
et al. 1992, p. 667). Currently, the only confirmed population is
believed to be restricted to remnant patches of forest habitat along
roughly 30 kilometers (km) (19 miles (mi)) of coast in southern Rio de
Janeiro, near the border with S[atilde]o Paulo (Browne 2005, p. 95;
Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64). However, there have also been recent
unconfirmed reports that the species may occur at the state Ecological
Reserve of Jacarepi[aacute], located roughly 75 km (47 mi) northeast of
the city of Rio de Janeiro (ADEJA 2007, p. 3; WorldTwitch 2007, p. 12).
Population Estimates
The black-hooded antwren was known from 20 specimens that were
purportedly collected in the 1800s in montane forest habitats of
central Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The species had not been reported since
that collection until it was rediscovered in 1987 in the Atlantic
forest in south Rio de Janeiro (BLI 2007d, p. 1).
The extant population is estimated to be between 1,000 and 2,499
birds, and is fragmented among seven occupied sites, including
Bracu[iacute], Frade, S[atilde]o Gon[ccedil]alo, Taquari and Barra
Grande, Arir[oacute], and Vale do Mambucaba. Vale do Mambucaba has the
highest known density of pairs (156 pairs per square kilometer
(km\2\)), followed by Mambucaba (densities of 89 pairs/km\2\). There
are no known estimates for the other locations, but it is believed that
the numbers are few (BLI 2007d, p. 1). At least one of the fragmented
populations is believed to be reproductively isolated. The population,
as a whole, is also believed to be declining rapidly due to continued
loss of habitat (BLI 2007d, pp. 1-3).
Conservation Status
The IUCN considers the black-hooded antwren to be ``Endangered''
because ``it has a very small and severely fragmented range that is
likely to be declining rapidly in response to habitat loss'' (BLI
2007d, p. 3). The species is also protected by Brazilian law and occurs
in the buffer area of Serra da Boca[iacute]na National Park (BLI 2007d,
p. 2).
[[Page 40653]]
Summary of Factors Affecting the Black-hooded Antwren
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
Based on a number of recent estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest
biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various
human activities (Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation International 2007a,
p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers
et al. 2000, pp. 853-854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi et
al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2-41). In addition to
the overall loss and degradation of native habitats within this biome,
the remaining tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. The current
rate of habitat decline is unknown.
The region has the two largest cities in Brazil, S[atilde]o Paulo
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of Brazil's
169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human activities
that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of
native habitats within the Atlantic Forest biome include extensive
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane,
corn), plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber,
bananas), livestock pastures, centers of human habitation, and
industrial developments (e.g., charcoal production, steel plants,
hydropower reservoirs). Forestry practices (e.g., commercial logging,
subsistence activities, fuelwood collection) and changes in fire
frequencies (BLI 2003a, p. 4; J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and
Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke
1985, p. 118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51) also contribute to
the degradation of native habitat.
The black-hooded antwren is not strictly tied to primary forest
habitats and can make use of secondary-growth forests or other
disturbed areas, such as modified ``restinga,'' eucalyptus stands,
abandoned banana plantations, and recently burned sites (BLI 2007d, p.
1; Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64). However, this does not necessarily
lessen the threat to the species from the effects of deforestation and
habitat degradation. Atlantic Forest birds, such as the black-hooded
antwren, which are tolerant of secondary-growth forests or other
disturbed sites, are also rare or have severely restricted ranges
(i.e., less than 21,000 km\2\ (8,100 square miles (mi\2\))). Thus
habitat degradation can adversely impact such species, just as equally
as it impacts primary forest-obligate species (Harris and Pimm 2004,
pp. 1612-1613). While the black-hooded antwren is relatively abundant
locally, the entire range of the species encompasses only about 130
km\2\ (50 mi\2\), with only 45 percent of this area considered occupied
(BLI 2007d, pp. 3-4).
The susceptibility to habitat destruction of limited-range species
that are tolerant of secondary-growth forests or other disturbed sites
can occur for a variety of reasons, such as when a species' remaining
population is already too small or its distribution too fragmented such
that it may not be demographically or genetically viable (Harris and
Pimm 2004, pp. 1612-1613). In addition, while the black-hooded antwren
may be tolerant of secondary-growth forests or other disturbed sites,
these areas may not represent optimal conditions for the species, which
would include dense understories and abundant prey species. For
example, management of plantations often involves intensive control of
the site's understory vegetation and long-term use of pesticides, which
eventually results in severely diminished understory cover and
potential prey species (Rolim and Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687-2691;
Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118). Such
management activities make these sites unsuitable for the black-hooded
antwren (BLI 2007d, p. 2).
Impacts associated with the destruction of native habitat by human
activities within the Atlantic Forest biome include extensive
fragmentation of the remaining tracts of forested habitat potentially
used by the black-hooded antwren (see Factor E). As a secondary impact,
habitat destruction of these remaining tracts increases the potential
introduction of disease vectors or exotic predators within the species'
historic range (see Factor C). Furthermore, even when potentially
occupied sites may be formally protected, such as the state Ecological
Reserve of Jacarepi[aacute] (see Factor D), the remaining fragments of
forested habitat will likely undergo further degradation due to their
altered dynamics and isolation (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1-2; Tabanez and Viana
2000, pp. 929-932). Altered dynamics and isolation are characterized by
a decrease in gene flow and inbreeding, which decrease the fitness of
forest species (Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929-932). In addition,
fragmented Atlantic forests of Brazil are observed to be overtaken by
lianas (long-stemmed woody vines), which cause tree falls and gaps in
the forest structure. These gaps in the forest encourage gap-
opportunistic vegetation to grow. Hence, a decrease in gene flow, and
increases in inbreeding, liana density, and presence of gap-
opportunistic species change the character and dynamics of the Atlantic
Forest biome and isolate fragmented habitat patches (Tabanez and Viana
2000, pp. 930-931). These changes may result in the loss of important
species that comprise the black-hooded antwren habitat. As a result of
these secondary impacts, there is often a time lag between the initial
conversion or degradation of suitable habitats and the extinction of
endemic bird populations (Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al.
1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without further habitat loss or
degradation, the black-hooded antwren remains at risk from past impacts
to its suitable habitats.
The black-hooded antwren occurs in one of the most densely
populated regions of Brazil, and most of the tropical forest habitats
believed to have been used historically by the species have been
converted or are severely degraded due to the wide range of human
activities identified above (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar
et al. 1992, p. 667; Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; del Hoyo
2003, p. 616; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p.
1; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51). In addition, the remaining
tracts of suitable habitat in Rio de Janeiro and S[atilde]o Paulo are
threatened by ongoing development of coastal areas, primarily for
tourism enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes, beachside housing)
and associated infrastructure support, as well as widespread clearing
for expansion of livestock pastures and plantations, primarily for
Euterpe palms (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p.
667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 7 and 36-37).
These impacts have recently reduced suitable habitats at various key
sites known to be occupied by the black-hooded antwren such as Vale do
Mambucaba and Arir[oacute], and the remaining occupied habitats at
these sites are subject to ongoing human disturbances, such as off-road
vehicle use, burning, and recreational activities (BLI 2007d, p. 2;
Collar et al. 1994, p. 134; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616).
Summary of Factor A
A significant portion of Atlantic Forest habitats have been, and
continue to be, lost and degraded by various ongoing human activities,
including
[[Page 40654]]
logging, establishment and expansion of plantations and livestock
pastures, urban and industrial developments (including many new
hydroelectric dams), slash-and-burn clearing, intentional and
accidental ignition of fires, and establishment of invasive species
(CEPF 2001, pp. 9-15). Even with the recent passage of a national
forest policy and in light of many other legal protections in Brazil
(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss throughout the Atlantic Forest
biome has increased since the mid-1990s (CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al.
1997, p. 1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and native habitats at many of
the remaining sites may be lost over the next several years (Rocha et
al. 2005, p. 263). Furthermore, because the black-hooded antwren's
extant population is already small, highly fragmented, and believed to
be declining (BLI 2007d, pp. 1-3), any further loss or degradation of
its remaining suitable habitat represents a significant threat to the
species (see Factor E). Therefore, we find that destruction and
modification of habitat are threats to the continued existence of the
black-hooded antwren throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The extant population of the black-hooded antwren is considered to
be small, fragmented, and declining. The species was deliberately not
collected when it was rediscovered in 1987 (Collar et al. 1992, p.
667). This is because the removal or dispersal of just a few
individuals from any of the black-hooded antwren's subpopulations or
even a slight decline in their fitness due to intentional or
inadvertent hunting, specimen collection, or other human disturbances
(e.g., scientific research, birding) could represent significant risks
to 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 other 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 factor to the
continued existence of the black-hooded antwren.
C. Disease or Predation
Large, stable populations of wildlife species have adapted to
natural levels of disease and predation within their historic ranges.
However, the extant population of the black-hooded antwren is
considered to be small, fragmented, and declining. In addition,
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 (Naugle et al. 2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p. 1).
Extensive human activity in previously undisturbed or isolated areas
can also result in altered predator populations and the introduction of
various exotic predator species, some of which (e.g., feral cats (Felis
catus) and rats (Ratus sp.)) can be especially harmful to populations
of endemic bird species (American Bird Conservancy 2007, p. 1;
Courchamp et al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan and Blackburn 2007, pp. 149-150;
Salo et al. 2007, pp. 1241-1242; Small 2005, p. 257). Any additive
mortality to the black-hooded antwren's subpopulations or a decrease in
their fitness due to an increase in the incidence of disease or
predation could represent significant threats to the species' overall
viability (see Factor E).
Although disease and predation may be a concern for future
management of the black-hooded antwren, we are not aware of any
species-specific information currently available that indicates that
disease or predation poses a threat to the species. As a result, we are
not considering disease or predation to be a contributing factor to the
continued existence of the black-hooded antwren.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The black-hooded antwren is formally recognized as ``endangered''
in Brazil (Order No. 1.522) and is directly protected by various laws
promulgated by the Brazilian government (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et al.
1992, p. 667; ECOLEX 2007, pp. 1-2). For example, there are measures
that prohibit, or regulate through Federal agency oversight, the
following activities with regard to endangered species: export and
international trade (e.g., Decree No. 76.623, Order No. 419-P), hunting
(e.g., Act No. 5.197), collection and research (Order No. 332), captive
propagation (Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g., Decree No. 3.179).
In addition, there are a wide range of regulatory mechanisms in Brazil
that indirectly protect the black-hooded antwren through measures that
protect its remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 2-5). For
example, there are measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation of the
remaining primary forests within the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g.,
Decree No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern various practices
associated with the management of primary and secondary forests, such
as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, recreation, and water
resources (e.g., Resolution No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282,
Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74-N, Act No. 7.803); (3) establish
provisions for controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No. 97.635, Order
No. 231-P, Order No. 292-P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4) regulate
industrial developments, such as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel
production (e.g., Normative Instruction No. 65, Law No. 11.116).
Finally, there are various measures (e.g., Law No. 11.516, Act No.
7.735, Decree No. 78, Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct Federal
and state agencies to promote the protection of lands and natural
resources under their jurisdictions (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5-6).
There are also various regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that govern
the formal establishment and management of protected areas to promote
conservation of the country's natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6-7).
These mechanisms generally aim to protect endangered wildlife and plant
species, genetic resources, overall biodiversity, and native ecosystems
on Federal, state, and privately owned lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law
No. 11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 1.922). Brazil's formally
established protection areas are categorized based on their overall
management objectives (e.g., National Parks versus Biological
Reserves); and based on those categories, they allow varying uses and
provide varying levels of protection for specific resources (Costa
2007, pp. 5-19).
The black-hooded antwren occurs in the buffer zone around Serra da
Bocaina National Park and, possibly, within Tamoios Environmental
Protection Area and the Ecological Reserve of Jacarepi[aacute] (BLI
2007d, p. 2; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; WorldTwitch 2007, p. 12). It has
been recommended that some of these sites should be expanded and other
sites designated to ensure the species' currently occupied range is
encompassed within protected areas. However, for various reasons (e.g.,
lack of funding, personnel, or local management commitment), some of
Brazil's protected areas exist without the current capacity to achieve
their stated natural resource objectives (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1-2; Bruner
et al. 2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, p. 7; IUCN 1999, pp. 23-24;
Neotropical News 1996, pp. 9-10; Neotropical News 1999, p. 9).
Therefore, even with the expansion or further designation of protected
areas, it is likely that not all of the identified resource concerns
for
[[Page 40655]]
the black-hooded antwren (e.g., residential and agricultural
encroachment, resource extraction, unregulated tourism, grazing) would
be sufficiently addressed at these sites.
In the past, the Brazilian government, through various regulations,
policies, incentives, and subsidies, has actively encouraged settlement
of previously undeveloped lands in southeastern Brazil, which helped
facilitate the large-scale habitat conversions that have occurred
throughout the Atlantic Forest biome (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler
2007, p. 3; Conservation International 2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2;
Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227-228; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874). More
recently, the Brazilian government has given greater recognition to the
environmental consequences of such rapid expansion, and has taken steps
to better manage some of the natural resources potentially impacted
(Butler 2007, p. 7; Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News 1997a, p. 10;
Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9;
Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 45). Despite
these efforts, pressures to develop coastal areas containing black-
hooded antwren habitat for tourism (e.g., large hotel complexes,
beachside housing) and plantation agriculture continue to be a threat
to the species (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1-2; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Tobias and
Williams 1996, p. 65).
Summary of Factor D
Brazil's wide variety of laws requiring resource protection that
would ultimately benefit the black-hooded antwren are tested by the
intense development pressure that exists in coastal areas south of Rio
de Janeiro. Despite the existence of these regulatory mechanisms,
habitat loss throughout the Atlantic Forest biome has increased for
more than a decade. The existing regulatory mechanisms have proven
difficult to enforce (BLI 2003a, p. 4; Conservation International
2007c, p. 1; Costa 2007, p. 7; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2;
Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; Scott and
Brooke 1985, pp. 118, 130). As a result, threats to the black-hooded
antwren's remaining habitat are ongoing (see Factor A) due to the
challenges that Brazil faces to balance its competing development and
environmental priorities. Therefore, when combined with Factors A and
E, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to
ameliorate the current threats to the black-hooded antwren throughout
its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
Under this factor we explore whether three risks, represented by
demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events, are
substantive to threaten the continued existence of the black-hooded
antwren. In basic terms, demographic stochasticity is defined by chance
changes in the population growth rate for the species (Gilpin and
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Population growth rates are influenced by
individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27),
immigration and emigration rates, as well as changes in population sex
ratios. Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of
individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert
to contribute to demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute]
1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes in gene
frequencies due to genetic drift, and diminished genetic diversity,
and/or effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Lande
1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or population-level
consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the
outward appearance, or observable structure, function, or behavior of a
living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by reducing the
overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Environmental
stochasticity is defined as the susceptibility of small, isolated
populations of wildlife species to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms,
prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) (Dunham et al. 1999,
p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412). Each risk
will be analyzed specifically for the black-hooded antwren.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife species are susceptible to
demographic and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 130-134). These
threat factors, which may act in concert, include: natural variation in
survival and reproductive success of individuals, chance disequilibrium
of sex ratios, changes in gene frequencies due to genetic drift,
diminished genetic diversity and associated effects due to inbreeding
(i.e., inbreeding depression), dispersal of just a few individuals, a
few clutch failures, a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring over
just one or a few years, and chance mortality of just a few
reproductive-age individuals.
There is very little information available regarding the historic
distribution and abundance of the black-hooded antwren. However, the
species' historic population was likely larger and more widely
distributed than today, and it must have maintained a minimum level of
genetic interchange among its local subpopulations in order for them to
have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet 1997, p. 107; Vil[agrave] et al.
2002, p. 91; Wang 2004, p. 332). The available information indicates
that suitable habitats currently occupied by the black-hooded antwren
are highly fragmented and that the species' extant population is small
and declining (BLI 2007d, pp. 1-3). Without efforts to maintain buffer
areas and reconnect some of the remaining tracts of suitable habitat
near the species' currently occupied sites, it is doubtful that the
individual tracts are currently large enough to support viable
populations of many birds endemic to the Atlantic Forest, like the
black-hooded antwren, and the eventual loss of any small, isolated
populations appears to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117; Harris and
Pimm 2004, pp. 1609-1610; IUCN 1999, pp. 23-24; Machado and Da Fonseca
2000, pp. 914, 921-922; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke
1985, p. 118).
Various past and ongoing human activities and their secondary
influences continue to impact all of the remaining suitable habitats
that may still harbor the black-hooded antwren (see Factors A and D).
We expect that any additional loss or degradation of habitats that are
used by the black-hooded antwren will have disproportionately greater
impacts on the species due to the population's fragmented state. This
is because with each contraction of an existing subpopulation, the
likelihood of interchange with other subpopulations within patches
decreases, while the likelihood of its complete reproductive isolation
increases.
The combined effects of habitat fragmentation (Factor A) and
genetic and demographic stochasticity on a species population are
referred to as patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can have profound effects
on fragmented subpopulations and can potentially reduce a species'
respective effective population by orders of magnitude (Gilpin and
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat
fragmentation can separate subpopulations to the point where
individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches,
causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and
a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986,
[[Page 40656]]
p. 31). Furthermore, as a species' status continues to decline, often
as a result of deterministic forces such as habitat loss or
overutilization, it will become increasingly vulnerable to a broad
array of other forces. If this trend continues, its ultimate extinction
due to one or more stochastic events becomes more likely.
We expect that the black-hooded antwren's increased vulnerability
to demographic stochasticity and inbreeding will be operative even in
the absence of any human-induced threats or stochastic environmental
events, which only act to further exacerbate the species' vulnerability
to local extirpations and eventual extinction. Demographic and genetic
stochastic forces typically operate synergistically. Initial effects of
one threat factor can later exacerbate the effects of other threat
factors, as well as itself (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-26).
For example, any further fragmentation of the populations will, by
definition, result in the further removal or dispersal of individuals,
which will exacerbate the other threats. Conversely, lack of a
sufficient number of individuals in a local area or a decline in their
individual or collective fitness may cause a decline in the population
size, despite the presence of suitable habitat patches.
Small, isolated populations of wildlife species, such as the black-
hooded antwren, are also susceptible to natural levels of environmental
variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms,
prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we will refer
to as environmental stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and
Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412). A single stochastic
environmental event can severely reduce existing wildlife populations
and, if the affected population is already small or severely
fragmented, it is likely that demographic stochasticity or inbreeding
will become operative, which would place the population in jeopardy
(Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27; Lande 1995, pp. 787-789).
Summary of Factor E
The small and declining numbers that make up the black-hooded
antwren's population makes it susceptible to natural environmental
variability or chance events. In addition to its declining numbers, the
high level of population fragmentation makes the species susceptible to
genetic and demographic stochasticity. Therefore, we find that
demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events are a threat
to the continued existence of the black-hooded antwren throughout its
range.
Status Determination for the Black-hooded Antwren
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the black-hooded antwren. 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 associated with the
species' high level of population fragmentation (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 threats to the black-hooded antwren throughout
its entire range, as described above, we determine that the black-
hooded antwren is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we are proposing to list the black-hooded antwren as an
endangered species throughout all of its range.
II. Brazilian Merganser (Mergus Octosetaceus)
Species Description
The 49-56 cm (19-22 in) (BLI 2007a, p. 1) Brazilian merganser is
described as resembling a cormorant (Sisk 1993, p. 163). The bird has a
white wing speculum and red feet. The breast is pale grey with dark
markings, and there is dark grey coloring in the upper breast (BLI
2007a, p. 1). The species has a distinctive green crest that extends
over the nape of the neck (more developed in the male) (Sisk 1993, p.
163).
Taxonomy
The Brazilian merganser was first described by Vieillot in 1817
(Partridge 1956, p. 473). The species belongs in the family Anatidae
(BLI 2007a, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
The Brazilian merganser is highly adapted to shallow, rapid, clear-
water streams and rivers, typically bordered by dense, tropical forest
(Bruno et al. 2006, p. 26; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 80-86; Ducks
Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 23; Partridge 1956, pp.
478-480; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 41). Where suitable riverine
conditions exist, the Brazilian merganser also occurs in the Cerrado
biome, which is characterized by open tropical savannah and
comparatively sparse ``gallery'' forest at the river margins,
indicating that the species is not strictly tied to tropical forest
habitats (Bianchi et al. 2005, p. 73; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70).
Brazilian mergansers are strong swimmers and divers. They typically
feed in river rapids or in pools adjacent to waterfalls, whereas they
rest and perch in more slack water areas or at the river edges (Braz et
al. 2003, p. 70; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 21; Partridge 1956, pp. 481-
482). Brazilian mergansers feed primarily on a variety of fish species,
with sizes up to approximately 19 cm (7.5 in), and occasionally on
insects, snails, and other aquatic macro-invertebrates (Hughes et al.
2006, p. 32; Partridge 1956, p. 483).
Brazilian mergansers are believed to be monogamous and sedentary.
Breeding pairs appear to maintain their territories along a stretch of
river (up to ca. 12 km (7.5 mi)) throughout the year (Braz et al. 2003,
p. 70; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23, 33;
Partridge 1956, p. 477). The breeding season begins in June and young
hatch around August (Partridge 1956, p. 487). Females establish their
nests relatively high up (25 m (82 ft)) in the cavities of tall trees
that overlook the river and incubate their eggs alone, although males
are attentive and remain nearby feeding and perching at the river
shoreline (Bruno et al. 2006, p. 29; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 38;
Partridge 1956, pp. 484-485). Females may also locate their nests lower
down (10 m (33 ft)) in the cavities of cliffs or rocky outcrops near
preferred riverine habitat in areas where suitable nesting trees are
absent (Lamas and Santos 2004, pp. 38-39).
Range and Distribution
The Brazilian merganser occurs in a few fragmented locations in
south-central Brazil, including the upper-tributaries of rivers within
the Atlantic Forest biome and to the east in the Cerrado (savanna)
biome (BLI 2007a, p. 1). The species is a diving duck that occurred
historically in riverine habitats throughout southeastern Brazil,
northeastern Argentina, and eastern Paraguay (Hughes et al. 2006, p.
24). Currently, the species is found in extremely low numbers at six
highly disjunct localities, of which five are in southeastern Brazil
and one is in northeastern Argentina and, possibly,
[[Page 40657]]
extreme eastern Paraguay (BLI 2007a, pp. 1-5; Hughes et al. 2006, pp.
28-31). The vast majority of the species' extant population and
remaining suitable habitats occur in Brazil, including its largest
subpopulation that is estimated to contain fewer than 50 individuals
(BLI 2007a, p. 5).
The Brazilian merganser is thought to have been extirpated from
Mato Grosso do Sul, S[atilde]o Paolo, Rio de Janeiro, and Santa
Catarina (BLI 2007a, pp. 1-2). There is only a single recent record of
the Brazilian merganser (ca. 2002) in the province of Misiones,
Argentina, while the last confirmed sighting of the species in Paraguay
is from 1984 (BLI 2007a, p. 2; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 31). For purposes
of this proposed rule, our analysis will focus on the most current
estimates of the species, which are based in Brazil.
The species likely still occurs in the Brazilian states of
Tocantins, Bahia, Goi[aacute]s, Minas Gerais, and Paran[aacute] (Hughes
et al. 2006, pp. 51-52). Along with other recent sightings of the
species in previously undocumented areas of Brazil (Bianchi et al.
2005, p. 72; Pineschi 1999, p. 1), this information indicates that the
Brazilian merganser may be more abundant and widespread than previously
considered.
Population Estimates
The extant population is estimated to be between 50 and 249
individuals and is presumed to be declining, as evidenced by the
species' recent history of extirpation from major portions of its
historic range (BLI 2007a, p. 1).
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the Brazilian merganser to be ``Critically
Endangered'' because ``although recent records from Brazil, and
particularly a recent northerly range extension, indicate that this
species' status is better than previously thought, the remaining
population is still extremely small and severely fragmented, and the
perturbation and pollution of rivers continues to cause declines'' (BLI
2007a, p. 1). In addition, the species occurs in three parks in Brazil
and in the Urugua[iacute] Provincial Park in Argentina (BLI 2007a, p.
1).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Brazilian Merganser
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
Based on a number of recent estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest
biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various
human activities (Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling
2007, p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp.
853-854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi et al. 2001, p.
868; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2-41). The Cerrado biome has also
been heavily impacted by human activities, and current estimates
indicate that between 67 and 80 percent of the tropical savannah
habitat historically comprising this biome has been converted or
severely degraded (Butler 2007, p. 1; Conservation International 2007b,
p. 1; Mantovani and Pereira 1998, p. 1455; Myers et al. 2000, p. 854;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, p. 50). In addition to the overall loss and
degradation of native habitat within these biomes, the remaining tracts
of habitat are severely fragmented. The current rate of habitat loss in
the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes is unknown.
The region has the two largest cities in Brazil, S[atilde]o Paulo
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of Brazil's
169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human activities
that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of
native habitats within these biomes include extensive establishment of
agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, and corn), plantations
(e.g., eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas), livestock
pastures, centers of human habitation, and industrial developments
(e.g., diamond mining, hydropower reservoirs, and charcoal production).
Forestry practices (e.g., commercial logging), subsistence activities
(e.g., collection of fuelwood), and changes in fire frequencies also
contribute to the degradation of native habitat (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI
2003b, pp. 1-2; Butler 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 37-48;
J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Pivello
2007, pp. 1-2; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227-228; Saatchi et al. 2001,
pp. 868-869; World Food Prize 2007, pp. 1-5; World Wildlife Fund 2007,
pp. 3-51).
The Brazilian merganser is extremely susceptible to habitat loss
and degradation, habitat fragmentation, and hydrological changes from
human activity (Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83-84; Hughes et al. 2006, pp.
36-41; Silveira 1998, p. 58). The loss of appropriate aquatic and
terrestrial habitats throughout the historic range of the Brazilian
merganser due to the above human activities is believed to have
drastically reduced the species' abundance and extent of occupied
range, and these activities currently represent a significant risk to
the species' continued existence because populations are being limited
to highly fragmented patches of habitat (Benstead 1994, p. 8; Benstead
et al. 1994, p. 36; BLI 2007a, pp. 1-6; Collar and Andrew 1988, p. 21;
Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83-84; Collar et al. 1994, p. 51; Hughes et al.
2006, pp. 37-48; Silveira 1998, pp. 57-58).
The species is highly adapted to shallow, rapid-flowing riverine
conditions and, therefore, can not occupy the lacustrine conditions of
reservoirs that result from dam building activities within their
occupied range (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23, 41). The loss of the
species' terrestrial habitat has occurred due to the removal of forest
cover and suitable nesting trees adjacent to occupied river corridors.
A variety of secondary impacts that degrade suitable habitats have
also resulted from the above activities and represent significant risks
to the Brazilian merganser. These secondary impacts include increased
runoff and severe siltation from agricultural fields, livestock
pastures, deforestation, diamond mining, and population centers;
changes in hydrologic conditions and local water tables as a result of
dam operations (e.g., flood control, power generation) and excessive
pumping for irrigation or domestic and industrial water use; and
increases in water pollutants due to agricultural, industrial, and
domestic waste products (Benstead 1994, p. 8; Bianchi et al. 2005, p.
73; BLI 2007a, pp. 1-6; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Collar et al. 1994, p.
51; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et
al. 2006, pp. 40-48; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 40; Pineschi 1999, p.
1). These secondary impacts negatively affect the Brazilian merganser
by reducing water clarity, altering water depths and flow patterns,
removing or limiting populations of preferred prey species; introducing
toxic compounds; and creating barriers to movements and producing
hazardous conditions along river corridors that limit interchange
between the species' remaining subpopulations (see Factor E). These
secondary impacts also increase the risk of introducing disease vectors
and expanding populations of potential predator and competitor species
into areas occupied by the Brazilian merganser (see Factor C).
Summary of Factor A
The above mentioned human activities and their secondary impacts
have significantly reduced the amount of suitable habitat for the
Brazilian merganser (Benstead 1994, p. 8;
[[Page 40658]]
Benstead et al. 1994, p. 36; BLI 2007a, pp. 1-6; Collar and Andrew
1988, p. 21; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83-84; Collar et al. 1994, p. 51;
Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 37-48; Silveira 1998, pp. 57-58), and the
remaining areas of occupied habitat are highly fragmented (see Factor
E). In addition, these activities are ongoing and continue to adversely
impact all of the remaining suitable habitat within the Atlantic Forest
and Cerrado biomes that may still harbor the Brazilian merganser (BLI
2003a, p. 4; BLI 2003b, pp. 1-2; BLI 2007a, pp. 1-7; Brannstrom 2000,
p. 326; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Harris and Pimm 2004, p. 1610;
Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 37-48; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786;
Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-873; Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929-932).
Even with the recent passage of national forest policy and in light of
many other legal protections in Brazil (see Factor D), the rate of
habitat loss throughout southeastern Brazil has increased since the
mid-1990s (CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; Rocha et al.
2005, p. 270). Furthermore, because the Brazilian merganser's extant
population is already extremely small, highly fragmented, and believed
to be declining (BLI 2007a, pp. 1-4), any further loss or degradation
of its remaining suitable habitat will severely impact the species (see
Factor E). Therefore, we find that destruction and modification of
habitat are threats to the continued existence of the Brazilian
merganser throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Historically, there was likely little range-wide hunting pressure
on the Brazilian merganser, presumably due to the species' secretive
nature, naturally low densities in relatively inaccessible areas, and
poor palatability (Partridge 1956, p. 478). However, low levels of
subsistence hunting of some local populations still occurs, most
notably in Argentina (Benstead 1994, p. 8; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p.
625; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 48).
Since the first formal description of the species in the early
1800s, the Brazilian merganser has also been collected for scientific
study and museum exhibition (BLI 2007a, p. 2; Hughes et al. 2006, p.
46). Past hunting and specimen collection may have contributed to the
species' decline in some areas (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 46). These
activities continue today, although presumably at low levels (Benstead
1994, p. 8; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 48; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 39).
Summary of Factor B
Species collection for scientific study and museum exhibition, and
hunting, are believed to affect the population of the Brazilian
merganser. Considering the extremely small size and level of
fragmentation of the extant Brazilian merganser population, the removal
or dispersal of any individuals from a local area, or even a slight
decline in the population's fitness, represent significant risks to the
species' overall viability (see Factor E). However, we do not have
information on the extent of species collection or hunting to determine
whether these activities are a threat to the continued existence of the
species. As a result, we are not considering overutilization to be a
contributing factor to the continued existence of the Brazilian
merganser.
C. Disease or Predation
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).
In addition, there are a number of suspected predators of the Brazilian
merganser (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 44; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 39;
Partridge 1956, p. 486). Partridge (1956, p. 480) hypothesized that the
species' distribution may be naturally limited to upper river
tributaries above waterfalls due to predation of their young by large
predatory fish, such as the dourado (Salminus brasiliensis, syn.
maxillosus). Finally, extensive human activity in previously
undisturbed or isolated areas can result in altered predator or
competitor (e.g., cormorant (Phalacrocorax sp.)) populations and the
introduction of various exotic predator species, such as feral dogs
(Canis familiaris) and game fish like largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 44-45).
The available information indicates that there is a greatly
expanded human