Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range, 81794-81815 [2010-32628]
Download as PDF
81794
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R9–IA–2009–0028; 92210–1111–
0000–B6]
RIN 1018–AV74
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Listing Seven Brazilian
Bird Species as Endangered
Throughout Their Range
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status for the following
seven Brazilian bird species and
subspecies (collectively referred to as
‘‘species’’ for purposes of this rule)
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 hummingbird (Phaethornis
malaris margarettae), and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo
(Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis).
DATES: This rule becomes effective
January 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation
of this rule, will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Program, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite
400, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420,
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703–
358–2171; 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:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
Background
On August 12, 2009, we published a
proposed rule (74 FR 154) to list the
following seven Brazilian bird species—
black-hooded antwren (Formicivora
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
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)—as
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). All of the above
species are found in the Atlantic Forest,
with the exception of the Brazilian
merganser, which is also found in the
Cerrado Biome.
We opened the public comment
period on the proposed rule for 60 days,
ending October 13, 2009, to allow all
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the proposed rule.
We are addressing the seven Brazilian
bird species identified above under a
single rule for three reasons. First, all of
these species are found in the Atlantic
Forest Biome and Cerrado Biome; thus,
it is reasonable to address them together
within a regional conservation
perspective. Biomes are large geographic
areas such as forests and deserts which
share similar climate and geography and
consist of similar naturally occurring
vegetation and fauna. Second, each of
these seven species is subject to similar
threats of comparable magnitude. The
major threat to these species is the loss
and degradation of habitat due to
deforestation and other ongoing
development practices affecting
southeastern Brazil, as well as
associated threats due to severely
restricted distributions of these species
and small, declining populations (such
as potential loss of genetic viability).
Third, combining species that face
similar threats within the same general
geographic area into one 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 final
rule. Two other foreign species
identified in the petition were already
listed under the Act. In response to the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
an 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
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 final 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 (72 FR 20183,
April 23, 2007) identified the listing
priority numbers (LPNs) (ranging from 1
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to 12) for all outstanding foreign
species. The LPNs for the seven
Brazilian bird species that are the
subject of this final rule are as follows:
The black-hooded antwren, Brazilian
merganser, cherry-throated tanager,
fringe-backed fire-eye, and Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant are LPN 2; and the
Margaretta’s hermit and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo are 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
final 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) claiming 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 (CBD v.
Salazar, 09–CV–2578–CRB), the Service
was required to submit to the Federal
Register proposed listing rules for the
black-hooded antwren, Brazilian
merganser, cherry-throated tanager,
fringe-backed fire-eye, Kaempfer’s todytyrant, Margaretta’s hermit, and
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo by July 31, 2009. On August 12,
2009, we published the proposed rule
(74 FR 154) to list these species as
endangered.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
This final rule incorporates changes to
our proposed listing based on new
information and on comments that we
received. Specifically, we included new
information on recent location data for
Brazilian merganser and the cherrythroated tanager. We also updated the
population estimate, range, and
conservation status on the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant and clarified what is known
about the taxonomy of the Margaretta’s
hermit hummingbird.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on
August 12, 2009 (74 FR 154), we
requested that all interested parties
submit information that might
contribute to the development of a final
rule. We also contacted appropriate
scientific experts and organizations and
invited them to comment on the
proposed listings. We received four
comments on the proposed rule,
including two from peer reviewers and
two from the public. One comment from
the public expressed support for the
proposed listings but provided no
substantive information. Based on our
request in our proposed rule for
information on climate change, this
commenter requested that we take
climate change into account when
evaluating threats to the cherry-throated
tanager, and cited Birdlife
International’s Web site for this species.
The science of climate change is still
uncertain, particularly with respect to
how it will affect the long-term
persistence of protected species as well
as the quality and quantity of
ecosystems upon which they depend.
We did evaluate climate change as a
threat to all of these species in this final
rule (refer to the evaluation under
Factor E for each species).
The other comment received from the
public was also nonsubstantive—the
commenter asked why these seven
species should be listed under the Act
if they are nonnative to the United
States. The Act provides for the listing
of any species that qualifies as an
endangered or threatened species,
regardless of its native range.
Protections under the Act that apply to
species not native to the United States
include restrictions on importation into
the United States; sale or offer for sale
in foreign commerce; and delivery,
receipt, carrying, transport, or shipment
in foreign commerce and in the course
of a commercial activity. Listing also
serves to heighten awareness of the
importance of conserving these species
among foreign governments,
conservation organizations, and the
public.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions
from nine knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with these seven species, the
geographic region in which the species
occur, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from
two of the peer reviewers. The peer
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81795
reviewers generally agreed that the
description of the biology and habitat
for each species was accurate and based
on the best available information. New
location data were provided for the
Brazilian merganser and the cherrythroated tanager, and we incorporated
the information into the rulemaking as
appropriate.
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado Biome—
Habitat Descriptions
The Atlantic Forest Biome and the
Cerrado Biome, in which all of these
species occur, are two main ecological
regions that exist almost entirely in
Brazil. The Atlantic Forest extends
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
(Morellato and Haddad 2000, pp. 786–
787; Conservation International 2007a,
¨
p. 1; Hofling 2007, p. 1). The Atlantic
Forest extends up to 600 km (373 mi)
west of the Atlantic Ocean. It consists of
tropical and subtropical moist forests,
tropical dry forests, and mangrove
forests at mostly low-to-medium
elevations less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft);
however, altitude can reach as high as
2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea level.
According to Conservation
International, less than 10 percent of
this habitat remains intact; other
estimates are that 7 percent remains
intact (Morellato and Haddad 2000, p.
786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p.
794). Based on a number of other
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; Butler 2007, p. 2;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) 2007, p. 1; 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 Cerrado Biome is in central Brazil
and is considered one of the most
biodiverse savannas in the world (Ratter
et al. 1997, p. 223; Conservation
International 2007b; World Bank 2010).
It has an annual rainfall between 800
and 2,000 millimeters (mm) (31 to 79
in). This tropical savannah ecoregion is
characterized by woody savanna
generally 2–8 m (6–26 ft) in height and
well-drained soil. The altitude in this
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
81796
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
region is between 300 and 1,200 m (984
and 3,937 ft), and the habitat has
specific soil characteristics. Other
characteristics of this biome are soil
depths of at least 3 m (9.8 ft) and
aluminum-rich soils (Schmidt 2008, pp.
3–4).
Species Descriptions
Below is a species-by-species
description. The species are described
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 hummingbird, and 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)
2010d, p. 1; Sick 1993, p. 414). Males
are black with a reddish-brown back.
They have a black narrow bill and a
long tail. The wings are black with three
thin white stripes on the wings (wing
bars). Females have similar coloring,
except they have brown-olive feathers
where black feathers appear on males
(BLI 2010d, p. 1).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Taxonomy
The black-hooded antwren is a small
member of the diverse ‘‘antbird’’ family
(Thamnophilidae). The species was
previously recognized under the genus
Myrmotherula (Collar et al. 1992, p. 667;
Sick 1993, p. 414; BLI 2010d, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
The black-hooded antwren inhabits
lush understories of remnant old-growth
and early successional secondarygrowth coastal forests, and it may also
occur in dense understories of modified
restinga (BLI 2010d, p. 1; Tobias and
Williams 1996, p. 64). Restinga is a
Brazilian term that describes white sand
forest habitat consisting of a patchwork
of vegetation types, such as beach
vegetation; open shrubby vegetation;
herbaceous, shrubby coastal sand dune
habitat; and dry and swamp forests
distributed over coastal plains from
northeastern to southeastern Brazil
(McGinley 2007, pp. 1–2; Rocha et al.
2005, p. 263).
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
1992, p. 667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616;
Sick 1993, p. 405; Tobias and Williams
1996, p. 65). Their foraging zone is in
dense vegetation generally between
ground level and 3 meters (m) (10 feet
(ft)) above the ground, but they are also
known to forage in higher vegetation
zones up to 7 m (23 ft) above the
ground. 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 portion of the State of Rio de
Janeiro (BLI 2010d, p. 1; Collar et al.
1992, pp. 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 (Association
for the Defense of the Environment in
´
Jacarepia (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
2010d, 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
km (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 2010d, 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 2010d, pp. 1–3).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 2010d, p. 3). The species is
also protected by Brazilian law and
occurs in the buffer area of Serra da
´
Bocaına National Park (BLI 2010d, p. 2).
The species is not listed in the
Appendices of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) (https://www.cites.org).
II. Brazilian Merganser (Mergus
octosetaceus)
Species Description
The Brazilian merganser is described
as resembling a cormorant (Sick 1993, p.
163). The species has a distinctive green
crest, which extends over the nape of
the neck and which is more developed
in males (Sick 1993, p. 163). The bird
has a white wing speculum and red feet,
and is 49–56 cm (19–22 in) in length
(BLI 2007a, p. 1). The breast is pale grey
with dark markings, and dark grey
coloring in the upper breast (BLI 2007a,
p. 1).
Taxonomy
The Brazilian merganser was first
described by Vieillot in 1817 (Partridge
1956, p. 473). The species is in the
family Anatidae (BLI 2007a, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
The Brazilian merganser is highly
adapted to mountainous, highly
oxygenated clear-water streams and
rivers, generally with pools greater than
1 m (3 ft) in depth, and typically
bordered by evergreen forests (Bruno et
al. 2006, p. 26; Collar et al. 1992, pp.
80–86; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1;
Hughes et al. 2006, p. 23; Lamas and
Lins 2009, p. 3; Partridge 1956, pp. 478–
480; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 41;
Silveira and Bartman 2001, pp. 294–
295). The Brazilian merganser’s original
distribution area encompassed the
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biome
(Bianchi et al. 2005, p. 73; Braz et al.
2003, p. 70; Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 3;
Silveira and Bartman 2001, pp. 294–
295; Silveira 2008, pp. 420–421).
Brazilian mergansers are strong
swimmers and divers, and have been
observed to dive to a depth of 0.5 m (1.6
ft) (Silveira et al. 2001, p. 291). They
typically feed in river rapids, still
waters, or pools adjacent to waterfalls,
whereas they rest and preen on exposed
rocks in more slack water areas or at the
river edges (Braz et al. 2003, p. 70;
Hughes et al. 2006, p. 21; Lamas and
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Lins 2009, p. 4; Partridge 1956, pp. 481–
482; Silveira and Bartman 2001, p. 291).
Brazilian mergansers feed primarily on
a variety of fish species such as the
Lambari (Astyanax species), and
occasionally on insects, snails, and
other aquatic macro-invertebrates
(Partridge 1956, p. 483, Silveira et al.
2001, p. 291; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 32;
Lamas 2006, p. 151; Lamas and Lins
2009, p. 4).
Brazilian mergansers are not
migratory and are believed to be
monogamous. Breeding pairs appear to
maintain their territories along a stretch
of river (up to ca. 12 km (7.5 mi))
throughout the year (Partridge 1956, p.
477; Silveira and Bartman 2001, p. 295;
Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Hughes et al.
2006, pp. 23, 33; Lamas 2006, p. 149;
Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1). The
breeding season begins in June, and
young hatch around August (Partridge
1956, p. 487; Lamas and Santos 2004;
Bruno et al. 2006, p 27). Their brood
size is between two and six (Silveira et
al. 2001, p. 296; Bruno et al. 2006, p.
26). Females establish their nests in the
cavities of trees that are adjacent to the
river. The females 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 in the
cavities of cliffs or rocky outcrops or in
river banks (Bruno et al. in press; Lamas
and Santos 2004, pp. 38–39; Lamas and
Lins 2009, p. 4).
Range and Distribution
For as long as the Brazilian merganser
has been known, it has always been
considered a rare species, possibly due
to its shy nature (Lamas 2006, p. 151).
It occurs in a few fragmented locations
in south-central Brazil, including the
upper tributaries of rivers within the
Atlantic Forest biome and to the west in
the Cerrado biome (Silveira and
Bartmann 2001, pp. 287–288). The
Brazilian merganser 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 disjunct
localities of Brazil, and possibly in
northeastern Argentina and eastern
Paraguay (BLI 2007a, pp. 1–5; Hughes et
al. 2006, pp. 28–31; Lamas and Lins
2009, p. 3). The Brazilian merganser
may be extirpated from Argentina and
Paraguay, and from Mato Grosso do Sul,
˜
Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Santa
Catarina, in Brazil (BLI 2009b, pp. 1–2).
The vast majority of the species’ extant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
population and remaining suitable
habitats occur in Brazil, including its
largest population, which is estimated
to contain around 80 pairs (Lamas 2006,
p. 151).
The species likely still occurs in the
Brazilian States of Tocantins, Bahia,
´
´
Goias, Minas Gerais, and Parana
(Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 51–52). It was
found in 2002 at the Serra de Canastra
National Park (SCNP), Minas Gerais. In
2004 it was found at Itacolomi State
Park, Minas Gerais (DePaula et al. 2008,
p. 289). Although SCNP is a 200,000hectare (ha) (494,211-acre (ac))
nationally protected park, only 71,500
ha (176,680 ac) are under strict
protection (Lamas 2006, p. 150). In
2001–2002, the species was observed in
nine localities in SCNP (Lamas 2006, p.
145). The SCNP is the only site where
this species is being regularly monitored
(Hughes et al. 2006, p. 52). Other recent
sightings of the species in previously
undocumented areas of Brazil indicate
that the Brazilian merganser may be
more abundant and widespread than
previously believed (Bianchi et al. 2005,
p. 72; Lamas 2006, p. 145). For example,
the species was recently confirmed in a
nonprotected area in the State of Minas
Gerais, Brazil (Lamas et al. 2009).
Historically, the Brazilian merganser
occurred in Argentina, Brazil, and
Paraguay. In Argentina, the Brazilian
merganser was documented in three
´
protected areas: The Iguazu National
´
Park, the Parque Provincial Urugua-ı,
´
and the Private Reserve Urugua-ı
(Chebez 1994; Antas 1996; Chebez et al.,
1998 in Hughes et al. 2006, p. 49). Some
researchers believe that sizable overall
populations may still exist in the
extensive river systems of Misiones in
´
Argentina, specifically in the Uruguaı
Provincial Park (Hughes et al. 2006, pp.
31, 50–51). In 2002, it was reported to
´
have been found on the Arroyo Uruzu
in Misiones, Argentina, the first record
in the country in 10 years, despite
extensive surveys (BLI 2010b). However,
it is unclear whether the species still
exists in Argentina. In Paraguay, the last
confirmed sighting of the species is from
1984 (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 31). We are
unable to confirm that the species exists
in areas outside of Brazil, and therefore
are unable to evaluate any threats.
Because we do not know if populations
of this species still exist outside of
Brazil, for the purpose of this rule, we
are limiting our analysis of threats to the
current Brazilian population of the
species.
Population Estimate
BLI estimates the total population is
between 50 and 249 individuals, and
the population is presumed to be
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81797
declining (BLI 2010b, p. 1). Recent
records indicate the population size
may be larger than 250, although
researchers have not been able to
estimate the total population size
(Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 5).
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 2009b,
p. 1). The species is not listed in any of
the Appendices of CITES
(https://www.cites.org).
III. Cherry-Throated Tanager (Nemosia
rourei)
Species Description
The cherry-throated tanager has black
plumage on its head with a white
crown, black coloring on its back, wings
with gray scapular feathers, white
feathers on its undersides, and red
coloring on its throat and upper chest.
Its tail is square tipped, its bill is black,
and it has pink feet (Bauer et al. 2000,
p. 102; BLI 2010d, p. 1; Venturini and
Paz 2007, p. 609). It has a distinct
vocalization with calls between 5 and 8
kilohertz (described in Bauer et al. 2000,
pp. 103–104) and has been observed
both singly and in small flocks. The
species’ diet includes caterpillars,
butterflies, ants, and various other
arthropods (Bauer et al. 2000, p. 104;
Venturini et al. 2005, p. 65).
Taxonomy
The cherry-throated tanager is a
member of the Thraupidae family. It
was first described by Cabanis in 1870
(BLI 2010d, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
The cherry-throated tanager is
endemic to the Atlantic Forest in
southeast Brazil. It inhabits the upper
canopies of trees within humid,
montane primary forests at elevations
850–1,250 m (2,789–4,101 ft) above sea
level (Bauer et al. 2000, pp. 97–104;
Venturini et al. 2005, pp. 60–66). 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 canopy levels
(ca. 2 m (7 ft)) at the forest edge. Cherrythroated tanagers can be found in
mixed-species flocks. Observations
indicate that they require relatively
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
81798
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
large territories (ca. 4 km2 (1.5 mi2))
(Venturini et al. 2005, p. 66). Within its
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). A nest (observed in November)
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).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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 2010d, p. 1).
In 1941, it was found in the mountains
´
of Espırito Santo State at three sites:
Itarana, Jatiboca (elevation 900 m (2,953
ft)), and the Augusto Ruschi Biological
Reserve (Venturini et al. 2005, p. 63).
Since 1998, the cherry-throated tanager
has been documented at various sites of
remnant primary forest in south-central
´
Espırito Santo. In February 1998, it was
located in a private reserve, Fazenda
Pindobas IV, in the municipality of
Conceicao. It was also documented 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). Bauer et al. (2000, p. 99)
reported a sighting in Pirapetinga
(Minas Gerais) at an altitude of 150 m
(492 ft). In October 2002 and in January
2003, researchers heard Nemosia
vocalizations in the Augusto Ruschi
´
Biological Reserve (Biologica Augusto
Ruschi), which may have been this
species (Venturini et al. 2005, pp. 63–
64). However, the cherry-throated
tanager may only currently exist in
´
Espırito Santo, where a corridor was just
established specifically for this species
via Decree no. 2529–R (BLI 2010h).
´
Espırito Santo contains Atlantic Forest
remnants, which may contain the only
viable remaining habitat for this species.
Population Estimates
The cherry-throated tanager was
presumed to be extinct until 1998. Prior
to that, the species was only known
from a single specimen collected in the
1800s and from a reliable sighting of
eight individuals in 1941 (Collar et al.
1992, p. 896; Ridgely and Tudor 1989,
p. 34; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 126).
The species was rediscovered in 1998
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
(Bauer et al. 2000, p. 97; Venturini et al.
2005, p. 60). BLI estimates the
population to range from 50 to 249
individuals, and it is believed to be
declining (BLI 2010d, p. 1). Venturini et
al. (2005, p. 66) believe the IUCN
population estimate of 250 birds may be
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 2010d, p. 1). On the
Brazilian Red list the species is
‘‘threatened’’ (MMA 2003, Machado et
al. 2008). Within Brazil, similar to U.S.
State wildlife categories of conservation
status, this species is categorized
differently based on each ‘‘state’’ within
´
which it is found. In Espırito Santo, it
is considered ‘‘critically endangered’’
(ES–DOE 2005). In the Minas Gerais
Region, it is considered ‘‘Probably
extinct’’ (Machado et al. 2008). The
species is not listed in any of the
Appendices of CITES (https://
www.cites.org).
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) in length.
Males are black with a small patch of
black feathers on their backs lined with
white edges. Females are more of a
reddish-brown color, with a black tail,
brown underparts, and a whitish throat
(BLI 2010e, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The fringe-backed fire-eye belongs in
the ‘‘antbird’’ family Thamnophilidae,
and was first described by Swainson in
1825 (BLI 2010e, 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, ‘‘FleckenmantelFeuerauge’’ in German, and ‘‘Ojodefuego
´
de Bahıa’’ in Spanish (del Hoyo 2003, p.
637).
Habitat and Life History
The fringe-backed fire-eye is endemic
to the Atlantic Forest biome and
typically inhabits dense understory at
the edges of lowland primary tropical
forests (BLI 2007e, p. 2; Collar et al.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1992, p. 677; del Hoyo et al. 2003, p.
637). The species has also been found to
occupy degraded forests and dense
understory 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
in the canopy (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 relies on army ant (Eciton
spp.) swarms to flush their prey, which
may include cockroaches (superfamily
Blattoidea), grasshoppers (family
Acrididae), winged ants (class
Chilopoda), caterpillars (order
Lepidopera), and geckos (family
Gekkonidae) (Sick 1993, pp. 403–404;
del Hoyo et al. 2003, pp. 637–638).
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 the ground (Sick 1993, pp. 405–406).
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
habitat from southern Sergipe to
northeastern Bahia, Brazil (del Hoyo et
al. 2003, p. 637; BLI 2010e, p. 1). The
fringe-backed fire-eye’s distribution is
less disjunct than previously believed
(BLI 2010e). 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). Its current estimated range is 5,000
km2 (1,930 mi2), although it exists in
fragmented or degraded habitat within
its range (BLI 2010e).
Population Estimates
The fringe-backed fire-eye’s
population is estimated to be between
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
1,000 and 2,499 individuals (BLI 2010e,
p. 1). The available information
indicates that the species’ population is
fragmented among 6 to 10 occupied
areas (BLI 2010e, p. 3). Its population,
along with the extent and quality of its
habitat, continues to decline (BLI 2010e,
p. 1).
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the fringe-backed fireeye to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because it has ‘‘a
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
2010e, p. 1). In addition, the species is
protected under Brazilian law (Collar et
al. 1992, p. 678). The species is not
listed in any of the Appendices of
CITES (https://www.cites.org).
V. Kaempfer’s Tody-Tyrant (Hemitriccus
kaempferi)
Species Description
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is an
olive-green bird measuring 10 cm (4 in)
in length (BLI 2010c, p. 1). The head
and face have olive-brown coloring,
while the upper parts and breast are a
dull olive-green, the underparts are a
pale greenish-yellow, and the throat is
a pale yellow color. The primary wing
feathers are dark and the secondary
wing feathers have greenish-yellow
borders. Each eye has a pale ring (BLI
2010c, p. 1).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Taxonomy
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is a
member of the flycatcher family
(Tyrannidae) (BLI 2010c, p. 1). The
species was previously recognized
under the genus Idioptilon, and was first
described by Zimmer in 1953 (BLI
2010c, p. 1).
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
alluvial forests that are typically in close
proximity to rivers. The species appears
to avoid tall, mature primary forest
habitats (Collar et al. 1992, p. 776;
Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 372–373; BLI
2010c, pp. 1–2). The Kaempfer’s todytyrant feeds predominantly in the midstory within roughly 1 to 3 m (3.3 to 10
ft) off the ground, but may also feed
higher up (ca. 6 m (20 ft)) in the tree
canopy.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
catch while in flight (Sick 1993, pp.
452–453). Breeding pairs typically
forage together and appear to maintain
small, well-defined, permanent
territories (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 373;
BLI 2010c, 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 of the coasts of
´
Parana and northeastern Santa Catarina,
Brazil (Collar et al. 1992, p. 776; Collar
et al. 1994, p. 139; Barnett et al. 2000,
p. 371; Belmontes-Lopez et al. 2008, p.
2; BLI 2010c, p. 1). The Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant has been located in the
following 11 localities in southeast
´
Brazil: Salto Piraı; Brusque; the RPPN
´ ˜
Volta Velha near Itapoa; Sao Francisco
do Sul municipality; Barra Velha
municipality; Blumenau municipality;
Picarras/Itajuba (Picarras municipality);
¸
¸
Morro do Bau (Ilhota municipality);
˜
˜
Sanepar bridge (Sao Joao River);
National Park Saint-Hilare/Langue;
Santa Catarina; and Guaraguacu
¸
´
Ecological Station in southeast Parana
(BLI 2010c, p. 1). Recent survey records
have extended the known range to 7,800
km2 (3,012 m2), although within this
range the species’ existence is sporadic
due to fragmented habitat. According to
BLI, the species is rare, but has been
recorded in recent years in all of the
locations above except Brusque. The last
record for Brusque is from 1950, and the
area has not been resurveyed since that
time.
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
9,000 and 18,500 individuals and is
believed to be declining (BLI 2010c, pp.
1–2).
Conservation Status
The IUCN considers the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because
it is estimated to have an extremely
small and fragmented range (BLI 2010c,
p. 1). It is protected by Brazilian
´
legislation and by the State of Parana
(Belmontes-Lopez et al 2008, p. 2; BLI
2010c). The species is not listed in any
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81799
of the Appendices of CITES (https://
www.cites.org).
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 malaris bolivianus, with a
paler underside.
Taxonomy
The Margaretta’s hermit is in the
hummingbird family, Trochilidae, but
its taxonomic classification has been
unclear for many years and is still
disputed. This species is in the
subfamily, Phaethornithinae, which are
the ‘‘hermit’’ hummingbirds that occur
in southern Mexico, Central America,
and in South America as far south as
northern Argentina. The 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
(Phaethornis superciliosus) and the
great-billed hermit (Phaethornis
malaris). A multitude of information
indicates that Margaretta’s hermit is
most appropriately considered to be a
subspecies of the great-billed hermit (P.
malaris) (Howard and Moore 1980, p.
205; King 1981, p. 2; Sibley and Monroe
1990, p. 143; Sick 1993, p. 341;
Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 125–135; del
Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543). Neither the
IUCN nor BirdLife International
currently recognizes the subspecies
Margaretta’s hermit (Phaethornis
malaris margarettae); only the species
level is recognized (BLI 2010j; IUCN
2010). IUCN’s conservation status for
both P. malaris and P. superciliosus is
‘‘least concern.’’ Birdlife International
recognizes Phaethornis malaris
margarettae as Phaethornis
superciliosus (BLI 2010j). Avibase, a
database of all birds of the world
maintained by Bird Studies Canada,
indicates that it is a full species,
Phaethornis margarettae (Avibase
2010). However, Phaethornis malaris
margarettae is recognized by the
Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (ITIS) (ITIS 2010, https://
www.itis.gov) as a subspecies. The 2009
Clement’s Checklist, maintained by
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, also accepts
the taxonomy as Phaethornis malaris
margarettae. Absent peer-reviewed
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
81800
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of the very limited area the subspecies
may occupy (King 1981, p. 2).
information to the contrary and based
on the best available information, we
consider Margaretta’s hermit to be a
subspecies of Phaethornis malaris:
Phaethornis malaris margarettae.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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 (King 1981, p. 2; Hinkelmann
1996, pp. 133–140; Sibley and Monroe
1990, p. 143; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p.
543). 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 (Sick
1993, pp. 324–326; del Hoyo et al. 1999,
p. 543; Buzato et al. 2000, p. 824). 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 (Sick 1993, pp. 324–336; del
Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543).
Range and Distribution
The Margaretta’s hermit historically
occurred in coastal forested habitats
´
from Penambuco to Espırito Santo,
Brazil (Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 143;
del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543;
Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 132–135). 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 and presently includes 40
km2 (15.5 mi2) of land (King 1981, p. 2).
A portion of this area (ca. 15 km2 (5.8
´
mi2)) was designated as the Corrego
Grande Biological Reserve in 1989
(Willis and Oniki 2002, p. 21; Costa
2007, p. 20). We consider this to be the
species’ current range. Margaretta’s
hermit likely also occurred at the
´
Sooretama Biological Reserve in Espırito
Santo until around 1977 (King 1981, p.
2).
Population Estimates
The current population of
Margaretta’s hermit is unknown,
although it is likely to be small in light
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Conservation Status
IUCN considered the Margaretta’s
hermit to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because its
extant population was believed to have
an extremely restricted distribution and
the population is likely very small, if it
survives at all (King 1981, p. 2).
Phaethornis superciliosus and
Phaethornis malaris are both currently
classified as ‘‘Least Concern’’ by the
IUCN, although the taxonomy of
Margaretta’s hermit is still uncertain.
Both Phaethornis superciliosus and
Phaethornis malaris are included in
Appendix II of CITES (https://
www.cites.org).
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 (Roth
1981, p. 388; Payne 2005, p. 206). 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
subspecies of the rufous-vented groundcuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi) in the
Cuculidae family that occur at several
disjunct localities from Nicaragua to
central South America (Howard and
Moore 1980, p. 178; Sibley and Monroe
1990, p. 107; del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp.
606–607; Payne 2005, pp. 204–207).
Neither the IUCN nor BirdLife
International currently addresses this
subspecies; only the species level is
addressed (BLI 2008; IUCN 2009).
However, the subspecies is recognized
by ITIS (ITIS 2009). Absent peerreviewed information to the contrary
and based on the best available
information, we consider it to be a valid
subspecies.
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 (King 1981, p. 1; Sick
1993, p. 286; del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp.
606–607; Payne 2005, pp. 204–207).
This species is unable to sustain flight
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for long distances, and researchers
believe that major rivers and other
extensive areas of nonhabitat impede
their movements.
Southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoos feed on large insects, scorpions,
centipedes, spiders, small frogs, lizards,
and occasionally 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 spp.)
and red ant (Solenopsis spp.) 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. They build their own nests
approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) above ground
level 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).
Range and Distribution
Although the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo had a widespread
distribution historically, it has likely
always been locally rare (King 1981, p.
1). Historic distributions included the
Brazilian states of Bahia, Minas Gerais,
´
Espırito Santo, and possibly Rio de
Janeiro (King 1981, p. 1; Payne 2005, p.
207). The last confirmed sighting of this
subspecies was in the Sooretama
Biological Reserve north of the Doce
´
River in Espırito Santo in 1977, and the
subspecies was thought to be extinct
(Roth 1981, p. 388; Scott and Brooke
1985, pp. 125–126; Payne 2005, p. 207).
However, a recent photographic record
(ca. 2004) indicates that the subspecies
may still occur at Doce River State Park
in Minas Gerais (Scoss et al. 2006, p. 1).
Population Estimates
The current population of rufousvented ground cuckoos is unknown,
although likely very low if the
subspecies still exists (King 1981, p. 1).
Conservation Status
In 1981, when the original petition to
list this subspecies was submitted,
IUCN considered the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo to be
‘‘Endangered’’ because although the
subspecies was ‘‘never numerous, this
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
extremely shy species is among the first
to disappear if its primary forest habitat
is disturbed and in southeastern Brazil
where it occurs, most of such forest has
been destroyed’’ (King 1981, p. 1). As of
2009, IUCN characterizes the rufousvented ground-cuckoo as ‘‘Least
Concern.’’ Neither the species nor the
subspecies are listed in any of the
Appendices of CITES (https://
www.cites.org).
Summary of 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.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats, we look beyond the
exposure of the species to determine
whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species and we look at
the magnitude of the effect. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or
only a beneficial response, that factor is
not a threat. If there is exposure and the
species responds negatively, the factor
may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant the factor is.
If the factor is significant and therefore
a threat, it may drive or contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species such
that the species warrants listing as
threatened or endangered as those terms
are defined by the Act. In making this
final listing determination, we evaluated
threats to each of these seven Brazilian
bird species. Our evaluation of this
information is discussed below.
These seven species all occur in the
same biome: The Atlantic Forest, and
with respect to the Brazilian merganser,
also in the Cerrado Biome. These
species depend on similar physical and
biological features and on the successful
functioning of their ecosystems to
survive. They also face the same or very
similar threats. Although the listing
determination for each species is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
analyzed separately, we have organized
the specific analysis for each species
within the context of the broader scale
and threat factor in which it occurs to
avoid redundancy. Since these species
face a suite of common threat factors,
similar management actions will reduce
or eliminate those threats. Effective
management of these threat factors often
requires implementation of conservation
actions at a broader scale to enhance or
restore critical ecological processes and
provide for long-term viability of those
species in their native environment.
Thus, by taking this broader approach,
we hope to organize this final rule
effectively.
We are listing each of the seven
species (species may also include
subspecies, as defined in Section 3(15)
of the Act) addressed in this rule as
endangered. Many of the threats are the
same or similar for all seven species. For
each species, we identified and
evaluated those factors that threaten the
species and that may be common to all
of the species. For example, the
degradation of habitat and habitat loss
due to deforestation is a threat to each
species. We also identified and
evaluated threats that may be unique to
certain species, and that may not apply
to all of the species addressed in this
final rule. For example, the Brazilian
merganser may be the only species
addressed in this rule that is found in
the Cerrado biome, and we have
addressed threats that are unique to that
species specifically, although most of
the threats in the Atlantic Forest are the
same in the Cerrado biome.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
The best available information
indicates that the threats to all of the
seven Brazilian species addressed under
this factor occur throughout the entire
range of each species. These threats
include the loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of native habitats within
the Atlantic Forest biome and, with
respect to the Brazilian Merganser, in
the Cerrado Biome. Habitat loss and
fragmentation are the most significant
threats to these species (Marini and
Garcia 2005, p. 667). The major human
activities that have resulted in the
destruction, modification, or
curtailment 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81801
(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants,
and hydropower reservoirs). The
Cerrado biome faces similar threats
(Ratter et al. 1997, p. 223; Marini 2009,
p. 1558). Forestry practices such as
commercial logging, subsistence
activities such as fuel wood collection,
and changes in fire frequencies also
contribute to the degradation of the
native habitat (Scott and Brooke 1985, p.
´
118; Junior et al. 1995, p. 147; Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Saatchi et al.
2001, pp. 868–869; BLI 2003a, p. 4; TNC
2007, p. 2; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). In
addition to the overall loss and
degradation of native habitat within
these biomes, the remaining tracts of
habitat are severely fragmented.
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
(IUCN 1999, p. 22; Morellato and
Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000,
pp. 853–854; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868;
Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation
¨
International 2007a, p. 1; Hofling 2007,
p. 1; TNC 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife
Fund 2007, pp. 2–41). The Atlantic
Forest 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
(Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF) 2002; The Brazilian Institute of
Geography and Statistics (IBGE) 2007,
Central Intelligence Agency Factbook,
2010).
Conversion to agriculture or
plantations creates disturbed areas that
are conducive to weedy plant invasion
and establishment of alien plants from
dispersed fruits and seeds. Over time,
this results in the conversion of a
community dominated by native
vegetation to one dominated by
nonnative vegetation (leading to
negative impacts typically associated
with nonnative plants, detailed below).
Conversion to agriculture or plantations
also increases watershed erosion, runoff,
and sedimentation which further
degrade habitat. These threats are
significant, ongoing, and are expected to
continue and increase in magnitude and
intensity into the foreseeable future
without adequate control.
Fire is a relatively new human-related
threat to native species and natural
vegetation in Brazil. (Nepstad et al.
2001, p. 395). Farmers practice slashand-burn agriculture that creates open
lowland areas suitable for the later
colonization of nonnative plant species
(Nunes and Kraas 2000, pp. 44–47).
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
81802
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Fires of all intensities, seasons, and
sources are destructive to the Atlantic
Forest and Cerrado Biome (Nepstad et
al. 2001, p. 395–407). Fire can destroy
dormant seeds as well as plants, even in
steep or inaccessible areas. Successive
fires that burn farther and farther into
native habitat destroy native plants and
remove habitat for native species. These
fires alter microclimate conditions and
cause conditions to be more favorable to
alien plants. Alien plant species most
likely to be spread as a consequence of
fire are those that produce a high fuel
load, are adapted to survive and
regenerate after fire, and establish
rapidly in newly burned areas. The
threat from intentional and accidental
ignition of fires related to slash-andburn clearing to the species in this final
rule that depend on forested ecosystems
is significant. Fire damages native
vegetation and these species’ habitat,
including seedlings and juvenile and
adult plants.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Species-Specific Evaluation Under
Factor A
Black-Hooded Antwren
The black-hooded antwren appears
not to be strictly tied to primary forest
habitats. It may make use of secondarygrowth forests or other disturbed areas
such as modified restinga (described
under Black-Hooded Antwren Habitat
and Life history above), eucalyptus
stands, abandoned banana plantations,
and recently burned sites (Tobias and
Williams 1996, p. 64; BLI 2010a, p. 1).
However, its use of secondary-growth
forests or other disturbed areas does not
necessarily lessen the threat to the
species from the effects of deforestation
and habitat degradation. This species,
although it may be tolerant of
secondary-growth forests or other
disturbed sites, has a small and
declining population size (estimated to
be 1,000—2,499 birds) and a severely
restricted range of less than 130 km2 (50
mi2). Its habitat continues to be
impacted. Habitat degradation can
adversely impact this 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 2010a, pp. 1–
2).
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
degraded due to the wide range of
human activities identified above (BLI
2003a, p. 4; BLI 2010d, p. 2; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 667; Conservation
International 2007a, p. 1; del Hoyo
¨
2003, p. 616; Hofling 2007, p. 1; TNC
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
(also known as Acai palms) (Collar et al.
1992, p. 667; BLI 2003a, p. 4; del Hoyo
2003, p. 616; World Wildlife Fund 2007,
pp. 7 and 36–37; BLI 2010d, p. 2). 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 Ariro.
The remaining occupied habitats at
these sites are subject to ongoing human
disturbances such as off-road vehicle
use, burning, and recreational activities
(Collar et al. 1994, p. 134; del Hoyo
2003, p. 616; BLI 2010a, p. 2).
Summary of Factor A—Black-Hooded
Antwren
A significant portion of Atlantic
Forest habitat has been, and continues
to be, lost and degraded by various
ongoing human activities, including
logging, establishment and expansion of
plantations and livestock pastures,
urban and industrial developments
(including many new hydroelectric
dams), slash-and-burn clearing,
intentional and accidental ignition of
fires (CEPF 2001, pp. 9–15). Even with
the recent passage of a national forest
policy and despite 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 (Hodge et al. 1997,
p. 1; CEPF 2001, p. 10; Rocha et al.
2005, p. 270). 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 blackhooded antwren’s extant population is
already small, highly fragmented, and
believed to be declining (BLI 2010a, pp.
1–3), any further loss or degradation of
its remaining suitable habitat represents
a significant threat to the species.
Therefore, we find that destruction and
modification of habitat are threats to the
continued existence of the black-hooded
antwren.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Brazilian Merganser
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;
Silveira 1998, p. 58; Silveira and
Bartman 2001, pp. 297–298; Hughes et
al. 2006, pp. 36–41; Lamas 2006, pp.
151–153; Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 5).
This species’ habitat, particularly at the
Serra de Canastra National Park (SCNP)
in Minas Gerais, has been heavily
impacted by changes to the hydrology
around the park. These human activities
include the establishment of
hydroelectric power plants, building of
dams and reservoirs, and deforestation
(Lamas 2006, pp. 151–152). This species
is adapted to highly oxygenated
mountainous flowing riverine
conditions, and therefore cannot occupy
the lacustrine (lake-like) conditions of
reservoirs that result from dam building
activities within its 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 the degradation of water
quality. Current estimates indicate that
between 67 and 80 percent of the
tropical savannah habitat historically
comprising the Cerrado biome has been
converted or severely degraded
(Mantovani and Pereira 1998, p. 1455;
Myers et al. 2000, p. 854; Butler 2007,
p. 1; Conservation International 2007b,
p. 1; World Wildlife Fund 2007, p. 50).
Specific threats in SCNP include
deforestation and subsequent erosion of
river banks and siltation; erosion due to
cattle grazing, mining, and associated
dynamiting and waste disposal;
domestic sewage; and pesticides (Lamas
2006, p. 152). In addition to the overall
loss and degradation of native habitat
within this species’ habitat, the
remaining tracts of habitat are severely
fragmented.
Several 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 human impacts
from 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) (del Hoyo et al. 1992, p.
625; Benstead 1994, p. 8; Collar et al.
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
1994, p. 51; Pineschi 1999, p. 1; Silveira
and Bartman 2001, pp. 297–298; Braz et
al. 2003, p. 70; Lamas and Santos 2004,
p. 40; Bianchi et al. 2005, p. 73; Hughes
et al. 2006, pp. 40–48; Lamas 2006, pp.
151–153; BLI 2007a, pp. 1–6; Ducks
Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Silveira 2008, p.
421; Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 5). 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,
and introducing toxic compounds.
These secondary impacts may also
increase the risk of introducing disease
vectors and expanding populations of
potential predator and competitor
species into areas occupied by the
Brazilian merganser.
The loss of habitat throughout the
historic range of the Brazilian merganser
due to the above human activities has
drastically reduced the species’
abundance and extent of its occupied
range. These activities are currently a
significant risk to the species’ continued
existence because populations are being
limited to highly fragmented patches of
habitat (Collar and Andrew 1988, p. 21;
Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83–84; Collar et
al. 1994, p. 51; Benstead 1994, p. 8;
Benstead et al. 1994, p. 36; Silveira
1998, pp. 57–58; Hughes et al. 2006, pp.
37–48; BLI 2007a, pp. 1–6). Although
this species seems to tolerate some
environmental degradation if there are
well preserved stretches in its territory
in which the birds can seek shelter
(Lamas 2006, p. 151), we expect the
degree of these threats will continue and
likely increase in the future.
Summary of Factor A—Brazilian
Merganser
The above-mentioned human
activities and their secondary impacts
have significantly reduced the amount
of suitable habitat for the Brazilian
merganser, and the remaining areas of
occupied habitat are highly fragmented.
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. Even with the recent passage
of national forest policy and despite
many other legal protections in Brazil
(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss
throughout southeastern Brazil has
increased since the mid-1990s (Hodge et
al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF 2001, p. 10; 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 2010b, pp. 1–4), any
further loss or degradation of its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
remaining suitable habitat will severely
impact the species (see Factor E).
Therefore, based on the best scientific
data currently available, we find that the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
species’ habitat or range threatens the
continued existence of the Brazilian
merganser.
Cherry-Throated Tanager
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 human activities (Ridgely and
Tudor 1989, p. 34; Bauer et al. 2000, pp.
98–105; Venturini et al. 2005, p. 68; BLI
2010d, p. 2). Degraded and fragmented
forests cause a decrease in gene flow,
which may cause inbreeding and
decreased fitness of forest species
(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932).
In the Atlantic Forest, there is a high
percentage of rare tree species (these
researchers defined rare species as being
found only once in the forest fragment).
Due to their method of reproduction, if
these rare tree species are not able to
cross-pollinate, rather if they are selfpollinating or self-incompatible (inbreeding), reduction in fitness may
occur. This inbreeding could lead to an
increase in local extinction of tree
species on which species such as the
cherry-throated tanager depends. The
degradation of forests has led to an
increase in density of liana (woody
vines that may be native or non-native)
in the Atlantic forests of Brazil in part
due to the increase in light availability.
Liana infestation of these forest
fragments cause tree falls and encourage
gap-opportunistic species to take over
(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932),
thus further altering the old forest
structure of the cherry-throated
tanager’s preferred habitat.
Secondary impacts that are associated
with forest fragmentation and
degradation include the potential
introduction of disease vectors and
exotic predators within the species’
historic range. 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—Cherry-Throated
Tanager
The activities described above and
their secondary impacts continue to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81803
threaten the last known tracts of habitat
within the Atlantic Forest biome that
may still harbor the cherry-throated
tanager. Because the species’ extant
population is extremely small, highly
fragmented, and believed to be
declining (BLI 2010d, 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.
Fringe-Backed Fire-Eye
The fringe-backed fire-eye occurs in
one of the most densely human
populated regions of Brazil. Most of the
tropical forest habitats believed to have
been used historically by the species
have been converted or are severely
degraded due to a wide range of human
activities described above (Collar and
Andrew 1988, p. 102; Collar et al. 1992,
p. 678; Sick 1993, p. 407; Collar et al.
1994, p. 135; BLI 2003a, p. 4; del Hoyo
et al. 2003, p. 638; Conservation
¨
International 2007a, p. 1; Hofling 2007,
p. 1; TNC 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife
Fund 2007, pp. 3–51; BLI 2010e, p. 2).
This species is not believed to be
strictly tied to primary forest habitats
and may be able to make use of early
successional, secondary-growth forests
with dense understory vegetation
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 677; del Hoyo et
al. 2003, p. 637; BLI 2007e, p. 2).
However, this does not necessarily
lessen the risk to the species from the
effects of deforestation and habitat
degradation. Habitat degradation can
adversely impact species that tolerate
secondary-growth forests 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; BLI 2010e).
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. These reasons may include
when a species’ remaining population is
already too small or its distribution too
fragmented such that it may no longer
be demographically or genetically viable
(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613).
In addition, while the fringe-backed fireeye may be tolerant of secondary-growth
forests or other disturbed sites, these
areas may not represent optimal
conditions for the species, which could
include dense understories and
abundant prey species. For example,
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
81804
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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 loss of potential prey species (Scott
and Brooke 1985, p. 118; Saatchi et al.
2001, pp. 868–869; Rolim and Chiarello
2004, pp. 2687–2691). Such
management practices eventually result
in the loss of native understory plant
species and create relatively open
understories, which the fringe-backed
fire-eye avoids (Collar et al. 1992, p.
677; del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637; BLI
2007e, p. 2).
Secondary impacts associated with
the above human activities 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). 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 gapopportunistic 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—Fringe-Backed
Fire-Eye
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. 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
(Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF 2001, p.
10; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and native
habitat at many of the remaining sites
where this species exists may be lost
over the next several years (Rocha et al.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
2005, pp. 263, 270). Furthermore,
because the species’ extant population
is already small, highly fragmented, and
believed to be declining (BLI 2010e, p.
1), any further loss or degradation of its
remaining suitable habitat represents
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.
Kaempfer’s Tody-Tyrant
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is not
strictly tied to primary forest habitats
and can inhabit secondary-growth areas
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 776; Barnett et al.
2000, pp. 372–373, 377; BLI 2010c, pp.
1–2). However, this does not lessen the
threat to the species from the effects of
ongoing deforestation and habitat
degradation. This species has a
restricted range (i.e., less than 21,000
km2 (8,100 mi2)), and its habitat is likely
to continue to shrink and become more
degraded due to development along the
coast and secondary impacts that
accompany development. 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 susceptibility to extirpation of
limited-range species that are tolerant of
secondary growth occurs for a variety of
reasons. These reasons include when a
species’ remaining population is already
too small or its distribution too
fragmented such that it may no longer
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,
some 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 increased incidence of potential
prey species (Scott and Brooke 1985, p.
118; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868–869;
Rolim and Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687–
2691). 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).
While the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant may
inhabit some degraded habitat, this
species does not appear to occupy
altered sites such as plantations (Barnett
et al. 2000, p. 377).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Even when potentially occupied sites
are formally protected (see Factor D),
the remaining fragments of forested
habitat may undergo further
degradation. The degradation is due to
the area’s altered dynamics and species
isolation. This is characterized by
decreased gene flow, an increase in
inbreeding, decrease in species fitness,
increase in liana infestation, and
dominance of gap-obligate species
(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932).
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
and 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.
Summary of Factor A—Kaempfer’s
Tody-Tyrant
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 range of human
activities identified above. 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 (Collar et al.
1992, p. 776; Barnett et al. 2000, pp.
377–378; BLI 2010c, p. 4).
Even with the recent passage of
national forest policy and despite 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
(Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF 2001, p.
10; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270). Native
habitat at many of the remaining sites
may continue to be lost over the next
several years (Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263).
In addition, because the extant
population of the Kaempfer’s todytyrant is already small, highly
fragmented, and believed to be
declining (BLI 2010c, pp. 1–3), any
further loss or degradation of its
remaining suitable habitat will
adversely impact the species. Therefore,
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
we find that destruction and
modification of habitat are threats to the
continued existence of the Kaempfer’s
tody-tyrant.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Margaretta’s Hermit
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 habitat destruction for uses such as
agriculture, development, or firewood,
similar to the other species above. The
Margaretta’s hermit cannot occupy these
extensively altered areas (ICBP 1981, p.
2; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick
1993, p. 338; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p.
543). While the Margaretta’s hermit is
not strictly tied to primary forest
habitats and can make use of secondarygrowth forests, this does not lessen the
threat to the subspecies from the effects
of deforestation and habitat degradation.
Habitat degradation can adversely
impact species that are tolerant of
secondary-growth forests just as equally
as it impacts primary forest obligate
species (Harris and Pimm 2004, pp.
1612–1613).
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 no longer
be demographically or genetically viable
(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).
While the Margaretta’s hermit may be
tolerant of secondary-growth forests,
they may not represent optimal
conditions for the species. For example,
many hummingbird species are
susceptible to excessive sunlight and
readily abandon their nests in altered
forested sites that receive too much
exposure from sunlight (Sick 1993, p.
331). This exposure can occur due to
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 as well as
food sources (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 species such as
the Margaretta’s hermit.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Additionally, 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). The potential
introduction of disease vectors or exotic
predators within the subspecies’ historic
range (see Factor C) is a secondary
impact that can be associated with
human activities and that can further
degrade the remaining tracts of forested
habitat potentially used by the
subspecies. As a result of 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—Margaretta’s
Hermit
The Margaretta’s hermit’s range
occurs within one of the most densely
populated regions of Brazil. 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
Margaretta’s hermit. Even with the
recent passage of national forest policy
and despite 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, and native habitats
at many of the remaining sites where
this species is likely to occur 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.
Southeastern Rufous-Vented GroundCuckoo
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 human
activities discussed above (ICBP 1981,
p. 1; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick
1993, p. 286; del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81805
606–607; Payne 2005, p. 207).
Terrestrial insectivorous birds that are
primary forest-obligate species, such as
the southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo, are especially vulnerable to
habitat modifications (Goerck 1997, p.
116), and cannot occupy these
extensively altered habitats. Del Hoyo et
al. (1997, p. 207) suggest that the rufousvented ground-cuckoo would be one of
the first species to be extirpated from an
area when its primary forest habitat is
isolated. This is based on the extirpation
of 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).
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 associated with human
activities 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—Southeastern
Rufous-Vented Ground-Cuckoo
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 (del Hoyo et al. 1997,
pp. 606–607; BLI 2003a, p. 4;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1;
¨
Hofling 2007, p. 1; TNC 2007, p. 1;
Payne 2005, p. 207; World Wildlife
Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). Even with the
recent passage of national forest policy,
and despite many other legal
protections in Brazil (see Factor D), the
rate of habitat loss throughout
southeastern Brazil has increased since
the mid-1990s (Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1;
CEPF 2001, p. 10; Rocha et al. 2005, p.
270). The subspecies’ population has
already been 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). Any
further loss or degradation of remaining
suitable habitat could cause the
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
81806
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
extinction of this subspecies. Therefore,
we find that destruction and
modification of habitat are threats to the
continued existence of the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Black-hooded antwren, Cherry-throated
tanager, Fringe-backed fire-eye,
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, and
Southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo
Other than bird watching, we are
unaware of any commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purpose for which the black-hooded
antwren, Cherry-throated tanager,
Fringe-backed fire-eye, Kaempfer’s todytyrant, and Southeastern rufous-vented
ground-cuckoo are currently being used.
Ecotourism such as bird watching is a
vital component of conservation efforts.
These efforts focus people’s awareness
on the forest and its value. Ecotourism,
although it may have detrimental effects
in some cases, is generally considered
important to species’ long-term
conservation (Riley & Wardill 2001;
Whitten 2006). The best available
information does not indicate that
tourism, particularly bird watching,
threatens any of these species. As a
result, we do not consider
overutilization to threaten the continued
existence of the black-hooded antwren,
cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed
fire-eye, Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, and
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo.
For the following two species,
Brazilian merganser and Margaretta’s
hermit, additional discussion of threats
follows.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Brazilian Merganser
Historically, there was likely little
rangewide 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; Silveira and Bartman 2001,
p. 297; Lamas 2006, pp. 152–153). Since
the first formal description of the
species in the early 1800s, the Brazilian
merganser was collected for scientific
study and museum exhibition (Hughes
et al. 2006, p. 46; BLI 2007a, p. 2). Past
hunting and specimen collection may
have contributed to the species’ decline
in some areas (Hughes et al. 2006, p.
46). These activities may continue
today, although presumably at very low
levels (Benstead 1994, p. 8; Hughes et
al. 2006, p. 48). In the proposed rule,
species collection for scientific study,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
museum exhibition, and hunting were
mentioned as possibly affecting
populations of the Brazilian merganser.
Although these may occur, the best
available information does not indicate
that they are occurring on a scale that
threatens this species (BLI 2010b, p. 2).
Therefore, we do not believe these
activities are threats to the species.
Tourism is known to occur in SCNP;
however, it currently does not appear to
be a threat to the species (Lamas 2006,
p. 152). SCNP’s protected area is
approximately 715 km2 (276 mi2)
(Lamas 2006, p. 146). The park was
specifically created to protect the
˜
headwaters of the Sao Francisco River
(2,830 km (1,760 mi) in length), and to
protect wildlife in Southeastern Brazil.
Although the Brazilian merganser is a
shy species, some birds may become
habituated to tourism. A breeding pair
was observed for several years that
inhabited a frequently visited area of the
park (Bartmann 1988; Silveira and
Bartmann 2001 in Lamas 2006, p. 152).
This is uncommon behavior for this
species, but it demonstrates that some of
these birds are able to tolerate some
amount of tourism. Additionally,
although tourism occurs in the park,
tourists do not access the entire area
that may be potentially inhabited by the
Brazilian merganser. Not all of the
suitable habitat for this species is easily
accessible to tourists (Lamas 2006, pp.
146–147). Based on surveys done by
Lamas, it appears that there is adequate
habitat in the park for the species to
conduct breeding and feeding activities
despite the level of tourism that occurs.
During the 2001–2002 period, 49 stream
segments were surveyed, and this
species was found in 9 locations; 81
birds were believed to inhabit the areas
sampled (Lamas 2006, pp. 145, 149).
There appears to be a healthy
population of Brazilian mergansers in
this park, and again, not all of the
suitable habitat for this species is easily
accessible to tourists. The amount of
tourism occurring does not appear to
negatively affect this species based on
the unexpectedly high number of birds
encountered during the 2001–2002
survey results. Therefore, we do not find
that tourism is a threat to the species.
We are unaware of any other
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purpose for which the
Brazilian merganser is currently being
used. As a result, we do not consider
overutilization to threaten the continued
existence of the Brazilian merganser.
Margaretta’s Hermit
In the past, many species of
hummingbirds that occur in
southeastern Brazil such as the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Margaretta’s hermit were collected for
use in the fashion industry due to their
colorful plumage. 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 (www.cites.org). CITES is a
treaty that implements a system of
permits to regulate international trade in
certain protected animal and plant
species.
Appendix II of CITES includes
species that, although not necessarily
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
(www.cites.org).
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, United Nations
Environment Programme, World
Conservation Monitoring Centre
(UNEP–WCMC), pers. comm., May 13,
2008). According to WCMC, the 8
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, declining population and
restricted range of the Margaretta’s
hermit, we believe that the 30
specimens reported in trade were not
this 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 (Scott and
Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick 1993, pp.
337–338; Rolim and Chiarello 2004, pp.
2679–2680). However, the best available
information does not indicate that these
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
activities occur with respect to the
Margaretta’s hermit.
The 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 unaware of
any other commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purpose for
which the Margaretta’s hermit is
currently being utilized.
Summary of Factor B
The best available information does
not indicate that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes are threats to the
seven bird species addressed in this
rule. Therefore, we find that
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is not a threat to any of these
seven species.
C. Disease or Predation
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Black-Hooded Antwren, Brazilian
Merganser, Cherry-Throated Tanager,
Fringe-Backed Fire-eye, Kaempfer’s
Tody-Tyrant, Margaretta’s Hermit, and
Southeastern Rufous-Vented GroundCuckoo
Diseases of these seven species are
poorly known and are not currently
considered to be a threat 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, or a
factor in their decline. Large, stable
populations of wildlife species are
generally able to adapt to natural levels
of disease within their historic ranges.
However, the extant populations of
these seven species are considered to be
small, fragmented, and declining (see
species descriptions above). Extensive
human activity in previously
undisturbed or isolated areas has been
known to lead to the introduction and
spread of exotic diseases such as West
Nile virus. Some of these diseases can
negatively impact endemic bird
populations (Neotropical News 2003, p.
1; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 704). However,
there is no evidence that disease is
negatively impacting any of these seven
bird species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Extensive human activity in
previously undisturbed or isolated areas
can also lead to altered predator
populations and the introduction of
various exotic predator species, such as
feral cats (Felis catus) and rats (Ratus
spp.), which can be especially harmful
to populations of endemic bird species
(Courchamp et al. 1999, p. 219; Small
2005, p. 257; American Bird
Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Duncan and
Blackburn 2007, pp. 149–150; Salo et al.
2007, pp. 1241–1242). Large, stable
populations of wildlife species generally
adapt to natural levels of predation
within their historic ranges. However,
the best available scientific and
commercial information does not
indicate that the occurrence of
predation is of sufficient magnitude that
it threatens the Black-hooded antwren,
Cherry-throated tanager, Fringe-backed
fire-eye, Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, and
Southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo. Nor do we expect the degree of
predation on each of these species to
increase in the future.
For the following two species,
Brazilian merganser and Margaretta’s
hermit, additional discussion of
potential predation threats follows.
Brazilian Merganser
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). Lins and colleagues observed a
great black-hawk (Buteogallus
urubitinga) swooping over a merganser
in Serra da Canastra. The merganser
evaded capture by diving under the
water each time the hawk got close
(Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 4). Partridge
(1956, p. 480) also drew attention to the
black-and-white hawk-eagle as amongst
the most dangerous predators of
Brazilian merganser in Argentina. The
same author highlighted the ‘‘dourado’’
(Salminus brasiliensis, syn. maxillosus),
one of the most voracious fish of the
´
upper Parana, as a potential enemy to
young ducklings of any species.
Partridge 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. In
addition, extensive human activity in
previously undisturbed or isolated areas
can result in altered predator or
competitor (e.g., cormorant
(Phalacrocorax spp.)) populations and
the introduction of various exotic
predator species, such as feral dogs
(Canis familiaris) and fish such as the
largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 44–
45). However, the best available
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81807
scientific and commercial information
does not indicate that the occurrence of
these predators causes significant
threats to the Brazilian merganser.
Margaretta’s Hermit
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). Young
hummingbirds can be parasitized by
botflies (Philornis spp.) (Sick 1993, pp.
336–337). Furthermore, nestling
hummingbirds can be killed by raiding
army ants (Eciton spp.), while some
hornets and bees are potential
competitors for flower nectar and have
been known to lethally sting adult
hummingbirds. Although this species is
affected by predators, the available
information suggests that predation is
naturally occurring at a normal level
and is a normal aspect of population
dynamics. As a result, we do not believe
that predation is considered to currently
pose a threat to this species. The best
available scientific and commercial
information does not indicate that the
occurrence of these predators or
parasites causes significant threats to
the Margaretta’s hermit.
Summary of Factor C
Disease and predation remain a
concern for the management of each of
these seven species (black-hooded
antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherrythroated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye,
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, Margaretta’s
hermit, and the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo). However, the
best available information does not
indicate that the occurrence of disease
or predation incurred by these species
rises to the level of threats that place
any of these species at risk of extinction.
As a result, we do not find that disease
or predation threatens the continued
existence of any of these seven species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
All of these seven species are formally
recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil
(Order No. 1.522) and are directly
protected by various laws promulgated
by the Brazilian government (Collar et
al. 1992, p. 667; ECOLEX 2007, pp. 1–
2; BLI 2010d, 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.,
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
81808
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Decree No. 3.179). These measures (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).
There are also various regulatory
mechanisms (Law No. 11.516, Act No.
7.735, Decree No. 78, Order No. 1, Act
No. 6.938) in Brazil that direct Federal
and State agencies to promote the
protection of lands and that govern the
formal establishment and management
of protected areas to promote
conservation of the country’s natural
resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–7).
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 were developed in 2000
and are categorized based on their
overall management objectives. These
include national parks, biological
reserves, ecological reserves, ecological
stations, environmental protection
areas, and national forests (Ryland 2005,
pp. 612–618). These areas allow varying
uses and provide varying levels of
protection for specific resources (Costa
2007, pp. 5–19). For example, Biological
Reserves are restricted to a greater
extent than the National Parks. Official
uses of reserves include scientific study,
environmental monitoring, and
scientific education (Costa 2007, p. 9).
Protected areas were recommended
for the majority of 900 priority areas for
biodiversity conservation for Brazil’s
major biomes. Establishment of
biodiversity corridors, with parks and
reserves as key elements and the
creation of protected areas in the 23
Amazonian ecoregions identified by
World Wildlife Fund, was also
recommended. As of 2005, there were
478 protected areas totaling 37,019,697
ha (14,981,340 ac). In addition to the
Federal and State protected areas, there
are also 450 private natural heritage
reserves (RPPNs). In June 2010, 4 new
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
protected areas in the Atlantic Forest’s
Bahia region were established through
decree encompassing 65,070 ha
(160,791 ac) (Conservation International
2010). Although these protected areas
exist, activities such as deforestation
and sustainable-use practices still occur
in the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest
regions (Ryland 2005, p. 616).
Brazil is faced with competing
priorities of encouraging development
for economic growth and resource
protection. 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 and
Cerrado biomes (Ratter et al. 1997, pp.
227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874;
Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 2007, p.
3; Conservation International 2007c, p.
1; Pivello 2007, p. 2). These
development projects include logging,
housing and tourism developments, and
expansion of plantations (Collar et al.
1992, p. 776; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227–
228; Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 377–378;
Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874; Butler 2007,
p. 3). All of these projects impact
potentially important sites for each of
these seven species and would affect
habitat within and adjacent to
established protection areas (Collar et
al. 1992, p. 776; Barnett et al. 2000, p.
377–378). The Brazilian government
encouraged further development of
dams for hydroelectric power, irrigation,
or municipal water supplies; expansion
of agricultural practices, primarily for
soybean production; and tourism
enterprises (Braz et al. 2003, p. 70;
Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 51–56). These
competing priorities make it difficult to
enforce regulations that protect the
habitat of these seven species.
Thus, for the above reasons as well as
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
(Neotropical News 1996, pp. 9–10;
Neotropical News 1999, p. 9; IUCN
1999, pp. 23–24; Bruner et al. 2001, p.
125; ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; Costa 2007,
p. 7). The Worldwide Fund for Nature
found that 47 of 86 protected areas were
below the minimum level of
implementation of Federal
requirements, with only seven
considered to be fully implemented
(Neotropical News 1999, p. 9). More
recently, the Brazilian government has
given greater recognition to the
environmental consequences of such
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rapid expansion, and has taken steps to
better manage some of the natural
resources potentially impacted (Nunes
and Kraas 2000, p. 45; Neotropical News
2003, p. 13; Venturini et al. 2005, p. 68;
Butler 2007, p. 7; Costa 2007, p. 7).
Despite these efforts, threats to areas
containing habitat for each of these
seven species continue (ADEJA 2007,
pp. 1–2; BLI 2010d, p. 2). Therefore,
even with the expansion or further
designation of protected areas, it is
unlikely that the identified impacts to
each of these seven species (e.g., habitat
loss due to residential and agricultural
encroachment, resource extraction, and
grazing) will be adequately addressed
through existing regulatory mechanisms
at the sites where these species are
found or in their habitat.
Species-Specific Evaluations under
Factor D
Black-Hooded Antwren
The black-hooded antwren occurs in
a narrow coastal band below Rio de
Janeiro. It has been seen in the buffer
´
zone around Serra da Bocaına National
Park and possibly within Tamoios
Environmental Protection Area and the
´
Ecological Reserve of Jacarepia (del
Hoyo 2003, p. 616; World Twitch 2007,
p. 12; BLI 2010d, p. 2). It has been
recommended that some of the sites
where the species has been found be
expanded and other sites be designated
to ensure the species’ currently
occupied range is within protected
areas.
Brazil’s laws requiring resource
protection that should benefit the blackhooded antwren are not effective due to
the pressure to develop that is occurring
in coastal areas south of Rio de Janeiro.
Despite the existence of regulatory
mechanisms to protect the species and
its habitat, habitat loss throughout the
Atlantic Forest biome has increased for
more than a decade, with adverse
impacts continuing and likely
increasing into the foreseeable future.
The existing regulatory mechanisms
have proven difficult to enforce (Scott
and Brooke 1985, pp. 118, 130;
Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11; BLI
2003a, p. 4; Conservation International
2007c, p. 1; Costa 2007, p. 7; TNC 2007,
p. 2; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5). 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 conservation
priorities. Therefore, when viewed in
combination with the habitat threats
identified in Factor A, we find that the
existing regulatory mechanisms are
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
inadequate to ameliorate the current
threats to the black-hooded antwren.
Brazilian Merganser
The Brazilian merganser is legally
protected by national legislation
promulgated by the governments in all
three countries (Brazil, Argentina, and
Paraguay) where it historically occurred
(Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 50–57).
According to the best available
information, the vast majority of the
species’ remaining suitable habitats
occurs (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 28–31;
BLI 2009a, pp. 1–2) in Brazil, and it is
unclear whether there are populations
remaining in Argentina and Paraguay
(BLI 2010b). The Brazilian merganser is
formally recognized as ‘‘endangered’’
(Order No. 1.522) in Brazil, and there
are regulatory mechanisms that require
direct protection of the species
(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 1–2).
Four of Brazil’s protected areas
represent the major sites where the
Brazilian merganser still occurs (Hughes
et al. 2006, pp. 53–54). It occurs in a few
fragmented locations in south-central
Brazil, including the upper tributaries of
rivers within the Atlantic Forest biome
and to the west in the Cerrado biome
(Silveira and Bartmann 2001, pp. 287–
288; DePaula et al. 2008, p. 289).
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;
Lamas 2006, p. 151); the Chapada dos
´
Veadeiros National Park in Goias
(Bianchi et al. 2005, pp. 72–73); and
Jalapao State Park in Tocantins State
(DePaula 2008, p. 289). These areas are
considered critical for protecting some
of the species’ key remaining
subpopulations (Collar et al. 1992, pp.
84–85; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625;
Silveira 1998, pp. 57–58; Silveira and
Bartman 2001, pp. 287–300; Braz et al.
2003, pp. 68–71; Lamas and Santos
2004, pp. 39–40; Bianchi et al. 2005, pp.
72–74; Bruno et al. 2006, p. 30; Lamas
2006, pp. 145–154; BLI 2010a, pp. 1–2).
Some conservation initiatives are under
way. For example, 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 (US FWS 2006, p.
3). Additionally, in March 2010, the
Global Environmental Facility (GEF)
approved a $13 million grant for the
Sustainable Cerrado Initiative, which
seeks to conserve the Cerrado Biome
(World Bank 2010.)
Although the four areas protected
under Brazilian law include important
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:18 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
sites where the species occurs, resource
extraction and livestock grazing
continue in Brazilian merganser habitat
and pose threats to this species. In
addition, not all of the remaining
Brazilian mergansers occur in protected
areas. Some key areas where the species
occur are not formally protected and are
subject to ongoing threats, such as
proposed hydropower projects, logging,
and continuing development (Lamas
2006; BLI 2010b). For these reasons, we
expect these threats will continue into
the future.
Despite the existence of these
regulatory mechanisms, habitat loss
throughout the Atlantic Forest biome
has increased for more than a decade,
with adverse impacts continuing and
expected to increase into the future
(Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; Collar
et al. 1992, p. 84; BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI
2003b, pp. 1–2; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70;
Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 40; Hughes
et al. 2006, p. 61; TNC 2007, p. 2).
Illegal or unauthorized activities
continue to impact the Brazilian
merganser, including logging of gallery
forests within riverine buffer areas.
These activities include encroachment
of logging; livestock grazing, subsistence
activities within protected primary and
secondary forests; and intentional
burning (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 61; TNC
2007, p. 2; BLI 2009, p. 1).
Brazil’s resource protection laws are
inadequate to combat the intense
development pressure that exists within
the species’ range. Despite the existence
of these regulatory mechanisms, and the
establishment in 2003 of a Brazilian
Merganser Recovery Team, there are
additional challenges. Protected areas
do not address all the threats to the
Brazilian merganser, nor do they
encompass all occupied habitat of the
species. There are governmentsponsored programs that encourage
development within the range of the
species, and there is an absence of
adequate enforcement. As a result,
threats to the species’ remaining habitat
are ongoing (see Factor A). Therefore,
when viewed in combination with the
habitat threats and small population
size identified under Factors A and E,
we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to
ameliorate the current threats to the
Brazilian merganser.
Cherry-Throated Tanager
Few sites have recently confirmed
observations of the cherry-throated
tanager. Possible sightings of the cherrythroated tanager have occurred in the
Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve (also
known as Nova Lombardia Biological
Reserve), which is approximately 5,000
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81809
hectares (ha) (12,355 acres (ac)) in
Espirito Santo. Espirito Santo is likely
the only State in Brazil where this
species still exists. One of the key sites
still occupied by the species is the
Pindobas IV Farm. It was 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 2010d, p. 2).
Under Brazilian law, the remaining
native forest on the owner’s land could
be designated as a private natural
heritage reserve. In addition, in June
2010, the cherry-throated tanager
received additional protections in the
form of a decree (no. 2529–R) and
wildlife corridors. Ten priority
conservation areas were recognized by
the State of Espirito Santo (BLI 2010h).
These conservation measures represent
progress for the conservation of this
species.
Although Brazil still has various
government-sponsored measures that
continue to facilitate development
projects, there is also a wide variety of
regulatory mechanisms that require
protection of the cherry-throated tanager
and its habitat throughout the species’
potentially occupied range.
Conservation measures have improved
within Brazil. However, due to
competing priorities, threats to the
species’ remaining habitat are ongoing
and are expected to continue. Therefore,
when viewed with Factors A and E, we
find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to
ameliorate the current threats to the
cherry-throated tanager.
Fringe-Backed Fire-Eye
As of 2007, the fringe-backed fire-eye
did not occur within any protected
areas, although it has been
recommended that some of the key sites
it occupies should be formally
designated as protected areas to help
ensure the species’ future protection
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 678; del Hoyo et
al. 2003, p. 638; BLI 2007e, p. 2). Six
Important Bird Areas have been
identified in northern Bahia where this
species may or is likely to occur (BLI
2010f). However, even with any future
designation of protected areas, it is
unlikely that all of the previously
identified resource concerns for the
fringe-backed fire-eye would be
sufficiently addressed at these sites.
Although there is a wide variety of
regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that
require protection of the fringe-backed
fire-eye and its habitat throughout the
species’ potentially occupied range,
Brazil still has various government-
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
81810
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
sponsored measures that continue to
facilitate potentially harmful
development projects. Due to competing
priorities, significant threats to the
species’ remaining habitat are ongoing
and are expected to continue. Therefore,
when viewed in combination with
habitat threats and small population
size identified under Factors A and E,
we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to
ameliorate the current threats to the
fringe-backed fire-eye.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Kaempfer’s Tody-Tyrant
Currently, the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant
is known to occur in 11 localities in
southeast Brazil (Belmonte-Lopes in litt.
in BLI 2010c). Although Brazil still has
various government-sponsored
measures that continue to facilitate
development projects, there is 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. The existing regulatory
mechanisms that apply to this species
have proven difficult to enforce (Scott
and Brooke 1985, pp. 118, 130; BLI
2003a, p. 4; Conservation International
2007c, p. 1; Costa 2007, p. 7; TNC 2007,
p. 2; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5). As
a result, significant threats to the
species’ remaining habitats are ongoing
(see Factor A) due to competing
priorities. Therefore, when viewed in
combination with habitat threats and
small population size identified under
Factors A and E, we find that the
existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to ameliorate the current
threats to the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant.
Margaretta’s Hermit
The Margaretta’s hermit is included in
Appendix II of CITES (https://
www.cites.org). CITES is an
international treaty among 175 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
Endangered Species Act (Act). The Act
designates the Secretary of the Interior
as the Scientific and Management
Authorities to implement the treaty.
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 and re-export of CITES-listed
animal and plant species (https://
www.cites.org). As discussed under
Factor B, we do not consider
international trade under CITES to be a
threat to the Margaretta’s hermit.
Therefore, CITES is an effective
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
mechanism to control international
trade through valid CITES permits. Any
international trade that occurs in the
future would be effectively regulated
under CITES.
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).
Therefore, even with formal designation
of protected areas, it is unlikely that the
identified threats to the Margaretta’s
hermit are sufficiently addressed at
these sites.
Although there is 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,
there are government-sponsored
measures that remain in place in Brazil
that continue to facilitate potentially
harmful development projects. The
existing regulatory mechanisms that
apply to the Margaretta’s hermit have
been difficult to enforce (Scott and
Brooke 1985, p. 118, 130; BLI 2003a, p.
4; Conservation International 2007c, p.
1; Costa 2007, p. 7; TNC 2007, p. 2;
Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5). As a
result, significant threats to the
subspecies’ remaining habitats are
ongoing (see Factor A). Therefore, when
viewed in combination with habitat
threats and small population size
identified under Factors A and E, we
find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to
ameliorate the current threats to the
Margaretta’s hermit.
Southeastern Rufous-Vented GroundCuckoo
Two protected areas, Sooretama
Biological Reserve and Doce River State
Park, represent the major sites where the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo may still occur (Scott and
Brooke 1985, pp. 125–126; Payne 2005,
p. 207). 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 are
sufficiently addressed at the two
protected areas that may still harbor the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo (AMDA 2006, p. 2; Barbosa
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2007, p. 1; Bruner et al. 2001, pp. 125–
128; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44).
Although there is a wide variety of
regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that
require protection of the southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo and its
habitat throughout the subspecies’
range, there are various governmentsponsored measures that remain in
place in Brazil that continue to facilitate
development projects that could harm
the species. 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; TNC 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 viewed in combination with
habitat threats and small population
size identified under Factors A and E,
we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to
ameliorate the current threats to the
southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo.
Summary of Factor D
Regulatory mechanisms exist in Brazil
to protect these seven species. In
addition, a $13 million grant was
awarded for the Sustainable Cerrado
Initiative, which seeks to conserve the
Cerrado Biome (World Bank 2010, p. 1).
However, it is difficult to manage the
protected areas, and several challenges
still remain to be adequately addressed.
The lack of implementation and
enforcement, coupled with Brazil’s past
and current incentives to develop areas
which may contain suitable habitat for
these species, have resulted in a failure
to protect or curb habitat destruction in
the species’ only known habitats (Factor
A). Because we are unaware of any
regulatory mechanisms that effectively
limit or restrict habitat destruction, we
believe that the inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms is a contributory
risk factor for these seven species. In
summary, we find that the existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to ameliorate the current threats to these
seven species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
All seven species have limited
geographic ranges and small population
sizes. Their existing populations are
extremely localized, and sometimes
geographically isolated from one
another, leaving them vulnerable to
localized extinctions from habitat
modification and destruction, natural
catastrophic changes to their habitat
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(e.g., flood scour, drought); other
stochastic disturbances; decreased
fitness from reduced genetic diversity;
and climate change.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Potential Loss of Genetic Diversity and
Stochastic Disturbance and Population
Isolation
Under this factor we first explore
whether the risks, represented by
demographic, genetic, and
environmental stochastic events,
threaten the continued existence of each
of these seven species. All seven species
addressed in this rule have limited
geographic ranges and small, declining
populations. Their existing populations
are extremely localized and
geographically isolated from one
another, leaving them vulnerable to
localized extinctions from habitat
modification, progressive degradation
from erosion or runoff (non-point source
pollutants), natural catastrophic changes
to their habitat (e.g., drought), other
stochastic disturbances, and decreased
fitness from reduced genetic diversity.
Demographic stochasticity is defined by
chance changes in the population
growth rate for a 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, 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 each
species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
Small, isolated populations of wildlife
species that have gone through a
reduction in population numbers can be
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. These
small populations are also susceptible to
natural levels of environmental
variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’
events (e.g., severe storms, 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).
There is very little information
available regarding the historic
distribution and abundance of 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. However,
these species’ historic populations were
likely larger and more widely
distributed than today, and they likely
maintained a minimum level of genetic
interchange among 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).
Demographic and genetic stochastic
forces typically operate synergistically.
Initial effects of one threat factor can
later exacerbate the effects of other
´
threat factors (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
pp. 25–26). Any further fragmentation of
populations will, by definition, result in
the further removal or dispersal of
individuals, which will exacerbate 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.
The combined effects of habitat
fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic
and demographic stochasticity (Factor
E) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81811
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). 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.
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). We find that these factors threaten
the continued existence of each of these
species.
Climate Change
Climate is influenced primarily by
long-term patterns in air temperature
and precipitation. The exact nature of
the impacts of climate change and
increasing temperatures on these seven
Brazilian species is unknown. However,
changes to climatic conditions, such as
temperature and precipitation regimes,
are occurring and are expected to
continue over the next 100 years
(Solomon et al. 2007, p. 70; Trenberth
et al. 2007, pp. 252–253, 262–263). For
example, NASA researchers found that
during one August of the Amazon dry
season, there was a distinct pattern of
higher rainfall and warmer temperatures
over deforested regions (Negri et al.
2003, pp. 1306–1320). In other parts of
the world, species have been observed
to migrate upward in elevation in
response to rises in temperature. The
species in this final rule may be among
the species most vulnerable to
extinction due to anticipated increases
in temperature because they are not
migratory and therefore highly
dependent on their habitat (Moore et al.
2008, p. 960). Since temperature and
precipitation affect ecosystem
characteristics, any change in climate is
˜
likely to affect these species. El Nino is
a disruption of the ocean atmospheric
system which affects regional weather
and climate such as rainfall. Although
we are able to make general predictions
˜
about the severity of El Nino events, we
are still unable to make reliable, precise
˜
projections of changes in El Nino events
due to the complexity of the factors
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
81812
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
involved in these weather patterns.
Periodic climatic and weather patterns
˜
˜
such as El Nino and La Nina can cause
or exacerbate negative impacts on
terrestrial ecosystems and neotropical
bird populations (England 2000, p. 86;
Holmgren et al. 2001, p. 89; Crick 2004,
p. 1; Plumart 2007, pp. 1–2; Sorte and
Jetz 2010, p. 862). However, future
changes in precipitation are uncertain
because they depend in part on how
˜
these El Nino events might change.
Climate change could potentially
affect ecosystems by changes in rainfall
patterns, drought, species distributions,
and phenology. The probability of
species going extinct due to changes in
climate increases when ranges are
restricted and population numbers
decline (IPCC 2007, p. 8; Helmuth 2009,
p. 753). This could be experienced by
each of these seven Brazilian bird
species, which are characterized by
limited ranges, restricted habitat
requirements, and small, declining
populations. Climate change may
exacerbate habitat loss or modification
of habitats that are affected by
deforestation (IPCC 1997, p. 11; Negri et
al. 2003, pp. 1306–1320). In the Atlantic
Forest, increased rainfall in combination
with deforestation has increased the
frequency and magnitude of landslides,
which add to the destruction of these
seven birds’ habitat. The projected
effects of climate change such as
increasing temperatures on each of the
seven species addressed in this final
rule may affect microclimatic
conditions, which may in turn lead to
the loss of native species due to
physiological stress and the loss or
alteration of habitat.
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
(Negri et al. 2003, p. 1306; Parmesan
and Mathews 2005, p. 337). These seven
Brazilian species are particularly
vulnerable to extinction due to these
kinds of environmental changes. Local
changes in climate can also act in
concert with other threats to the species
such as habitat loss and degradation,
magnifying the detrimental effects on
the seven Brazilian species identified in
this rule.
Although we can speculate, climate
change models that are currently
available are not yet able to make
meaningful predictions of local climate
change for specific areas (Parmesan and
Matthews 2005, p. 354), such as the
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado bioregions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
In addition, we do not have models to
predict how the local 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. Recent models and
research suggest that climate change
may be an additional stress for species
already threatened by other changes to
their habitats (McCarty 2001, p. 325;
Brook et al. 2008, p. 453, Sorte and Jetz
2010, pp. 862–869).
Species-Specific Discussion Under
Factor E
Brazilian Merganser
Another factor possibly affecting the
Brazilian merganser is increased
competition with exotic fish species.
The peacock bass (Cichla spp.) was
introduced into reservoirs within
Brazilian merganser habitat. Bass
populations may expand and
outcompete Brazilian merganser with
respect to food (Lamas 2006, p. 152).
Although the Brazilian merganser
undoubtedly competes with exotic fish
species for food, the available
information does not suggest that this
occurs at a magnitude that threatens the
Brazilian merganser. Therefore, we do
not find that competition with exotic
fish species is a threat to the continued
existence of the Brazilian merganser.
Kaempfer’s Tody-Tyrant
Sea level rise was suggested to affect
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant (BLI 2010c). In
Santos Bay on the coast, sea level rise
scenarios were conducted based on
predictions of increases between 0.5 and
1.5 m (1.64 and 4.92 ft) by the year
2100. Small increases in sea level could
cause flooding, erosion, and change salt
marsh zones (Alfredini et al. 2008, pp.
379–379) within this species’ habitat.
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant inhabits
riverine lowland forests between 0–50
m (164 ft) above sea level. As sea level
rises, there will not only be less habitat
available for the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant,
but also increased demand for coastal
land for human development such as
housing as land becomes more scarce.
The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant will likely
attempt to move inland as its habitat
disappears in search of suitable habitat,
however, there may not be suitable
habitat remaining for the species.
Therefore, the species is likely to be
affected by continued sea level rise.
Summary of Factor E
In summary, these seven species all
have limited geographic ranges and
small population sizes and they are
subject to ongoing natural and manmade
threats that are considered to be
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
imminent. The small and declining
numbers that make up the populations
of these seven Brazilian species: The
Black-hooded antwren, Brazilian
Merganser, Cherry-Throated Tanager,
Fringe-Backed Fire-Eye, Kaempfer’s
Tody-Tyrant, Margaretta’s Hermit, and
the Southeastern Rufous-Vented Ground
Cuckoo, make them susceptible to the
potential loss of genetic diversity,
stochastic disturbance, and population
isolation. We assessed the potential
risks of loss of genetic diversity and
environmentally-stochastic disturbance
to each of these seven species
populations. We currently do not know
if levels of genetic diversity are
adequate to sustain populations of these
species. We cannot completely predict
the effects of the potential loss of
genetic diversity and stochastic
disturbance and population isolation at
this time, but each threat is likely to
occur to some extent and may be
compounded by the others (Nepstad
2001, pp. 395–407; Brook et al. 2008, p.
453). Without efforts to maintain buffer
areas and reconnect some of the
remaining tracts of suitable habitat near
these 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
these, and the eventual loss of any
small, isolated, and declining
populations appears to be inevitable.
We expect that these species’ increased
vulnerability to demographic
stochasticity and inbreeding will be
operative even in the absence of any
human-induced threats or stochastic
environmental events, which will likely
further exacerbate the species’
vulnerability to local extirpations and
eventual extinction.
Climate change has the potential to
increase the vulnerability of these seven
species to random catastrophic events
and other threats. The probability of
species going extinct increases when
ranges are restricted, habitat is
decreased, and population numbers
decline (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1558).
These combined potential threats
reduce the ability of these species to
cope with other stressors. In addition to
their declining numbers, the high level
of population fragmentation makes them
susceptible to genetic and demographic
stochasticity. The magnitude of these
threats is high for each of these species
because of their reduced ranges and
population sizes which result in a
reduced ability to adapt to
environmental change. We are not able
to definitely state, based on the best
available information, that climate
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
change affects these seven species to
such a magnitude that it is considered
a threat.
However, based on the best scientific
and commercial information available,
we conclude that these seven species
are threatened by potential loss of
genetic diversity, environmentallystochastic disturbance, small, declining
populations, and with respect to
Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, sea level rise.
Habitat loss is by far the greatest
threat to each of these seven species.
The threats identified in Factors D and
E intensify the effects of habitat loss due
to deforestation from activities such as
slash and burn agriculture, conversion
to livestock pastures and areas of human
habitation or industrial development,
and conversion to plantations as
described in Factor A. Therefore, we
find that these seven Brazilian species
are at risk of extinction due to other
natural and manmade factors such as
the potential loss of genetic diversity,
stochastic disturbance, and small,
declining and isolated populations.
Conclusion and Status Determinations
Section 3 of the Act defines an
endangered species as any species that
is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.’’
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding threats to each of
these seven Brazilian bird species.
Significant effects have already occurred
as a result of habitat loss, and some
populations have likely been extirpated.
The most significant threat to the seven
species in this rule is habitat loss and
alteration (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1558).
Various past and ongoing human
activities and their secondary influences
continue to impact all of the remaining
suitable habitats that may still harbor
each of these seven species (see Factors
A and D). We expect that any additional
loss or degradation of habitats that are
used by these species will have impacts
on the species due to each species’
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 reproductive isolation
increases.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Each of these species in this
listing rule is highly restricted in its
range. In each case, the threats to the
survival of these species occur
throughout the species’ range and are
not restricted to any particular portion
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
of that range. Accordingly, our
assessment and determination apply to
each species throughout its entire range.
We find that each of these seven
species is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its entire range,
based on the immediacy, severity, and
scope of the threats described above.
These species face immediate and
significant threats, primarily from the
threatened destruction and modification
of their habitats due to deforestation and
habitat degradation. The habitat
conversion is compounded because of
these species’ small, declining
populations and limited distribution. As
described earlier, reasons for habitat
loss include extensive establishment of
agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans,
sugarcane, and corn), changes in fire
frequencies, 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) (Factor A). We
determined that the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is a
contributory risk factor that endangers
these species’ continued existence
(Factor D). Although we acknowledge
that there is limited information on the
specific nature of potential impacts from
climate change to the species included
in this final rule (Factor E), we are
concerned about projected climate
change. Stronger and more frequent El
˜
Nino events are predicted to occur.
These events and rising temperatures
associated with climate change, in
combination with the potential loss of
genetic diversity, stochastic disturbance,
and population isolation, are likely to
occur. However we are not able to
definitely state, based on the best
available information, that climate
change affects these seven species to
such a magnitude that it is considered
a threat. We also assessed the potential
risks of loss of genetic diversity and
environmentally-stochastic disturbance
to each of these seven species
populations (Factor E). We expect that
these species’ increased vulnerability to
demographic stochasticity and
inbreeding will likely further exacerbate
the species’ vulnerability to local
extirpations and eventual extinction.
Based on our analysis, we have no
reason to believe that population trends
for any of the species addressed in this
final rule will improve, nor will the
effects of current threats acting on the
species be ameliorated in the future.
These species are in danger of
extinction throughout all of their ranges.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
81813
information, we are listing the following
seven species as endangered under the
Act: 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 rufousvented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus
geoffroyi dulcis).
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
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
81814
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
part, make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to ‘‘take’’ (take includes to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to 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; to deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of
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.
Required Determinations
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
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).
Accordingly, we 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:
■
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this rule is available on the Internet
at https://www.regulations.gov or upon
request from the Endangered Species
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule
are the staff members of the Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203.
Species
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
Historic range
Common name
Regulation Promulgation
Scientific name
*
*
Antwren, black-hooded.
*
Formicivora
erythronotos.
*
Brazil .......................
*
Fire-eye, fringedbacked.
*
Pyriglena atra .........
*
Ground-cuckoo,
southeastern rufous-vented.
*
Status
*
*
(h) * * *
*
When listed
*
Critical
habitat
*
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
774
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
774
NA
*
Neomorphus
geoffroyi dulcis.
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
774
NA
*
Phaethornis malaris
margarettae.
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
774
NA
*
Merganser, Brazilian
*
Mergus
octosetaceus.
*
Brazil, Argentina,
Paraguay.
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
774
NA
*
Tanager, cherrythroated.
*
Nemosia rourei .......
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
774
NA
*
Tody-tyrant,
Kaempfer’s.
*
Hemitriccus
kaempferi.
*
Brazil .......................
*
Entire ......................
*
E
*
774
NA
Special
rules
NA
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
*
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
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:
■
*
Hermit, Margaretta’s
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
*
BIRDS
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.
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
*
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
*
NA
81815
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Species
Historic range
Common name
*
Scientific name
*
*
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
*
Status
When listed
*
*
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–32628 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:55 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM
28DER3
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81794-81815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32628]
[[Page 81793]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
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; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 81794]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-IA-2009-0028; 92210-1111-0000-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status for the following seven Brazilian bird species and
subspecies (collectively referred to as ``species'' for purposes of
this rule) 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 hummingbird (Phaethornis malaris margarettae), and southeastern
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis).
DATES: This rule becomes effective January 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703-358-2171; 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:
Background
On August 12, 2009, we published a proposed rule (74 FR 154) to
list the following seven Brazilian bird species--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)--as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). All of the above species are found in the
Atlantic Forest, with the exception of the Brazilian merganser, which
is also found in the Cerrado Biome.
We opened the public comment period on the proposed rule for 60
days, ending October 13, 2009, to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
We are addressing the seven Brazilian bird species identified above
under a single rule for three reasons. First, all of these species are
found in the Atlantic Forest Biome and Cerrado Biome; thus, it is
reasonable to address them together within a regional conservation
perspective. Biomes are large geographic areas such as forests and
deserts which share similar climate and geography and consist of
similar naturally occurring vegetation and fauna. Second, each of these
seven species is subject to similar threats of comparable magnitude.
The major threat to these species is the loss and degradation of
habitat due to deforestation and other ongoing development practices
affecting southeastern Brazil, as well as associated threats due to
severely restricted distributions of these species and small, declining
populations (such as potential loss of genetic viability). Third,
combining species that face similar threats within the same general
geographic area into one 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 final rule. Two other foreign species identified in the
petition were already listed under the Act. In response to the 1980
petition, we published a substantial 90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46
FR 26464), for 58 foreign species and initiated a status review.
On January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12-month finding
within an annual review on pending petitions and description of
progress on all pending petition findings. In 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 an 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 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
final 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 (72 FR 20183, April 23, 2007) identified
the listing priority numbers (LPNs) (ranging from 1
[[Page 81795]]
to 12) for all outstanding foreign species. The LPNs for the seven
Brazilian bird species that are the subject of this final rule are as
follows: The black-hooded antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherry-throated
tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, and Kaempfer's tody-tyrant are LPN 2;
and the Margaretta's hermit and southeastern rufous-vented ground-
cuckoo are 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 final 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) claiming
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 (CBD v. Salazar, 09-CV-2578-CRB), the Service was required to
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. On August
12, 2009, we published the proposed rule (74 FR 154) to list these
species as endangered.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
This final rule incorporates changes to our proposed listing based
on new information and on comments that we received. Specifically, we
included new information on recent location data for Brazilian
merganser and the cherry-throated tanager. We also updated the
population estimate, range, and conservation status on the Kaempfer's
tody-tyrant and clarified what is known about the taxonomy of the
Margaretta's hermit hummingbird.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on August 12, 2009 (74 FR 154), we
requested that all interested parties submit information that might
contribute to the development of a final rule. We also contacted
appropriate scientific experts and organizations and invited them to
comment on the proposed listings. We received four comments on the
proposed rule, including two from peer reviewers and two from the
public. One comment from the public expressed support for the proposed
listings but provided no substantive information. Based on our request
in our proposed rule for information on climate change, this commenter
requested that we take climate change into account when evaluating
threats to the cherry-throated tanager, and cited Birdlife
International's Web site for this species. The science of climate
change is still uncertain, particularly with respect to how it will
affect the long-term persistence of protected species as well as the
quality and quantity of ecosystems upon which they depend. We did
evaluate climate change as a threat to all of these species in this
final rule (refer to the evaluation under Factor E for each species).
The other comment received from the public was also
nonsubstantive--the commenter asked why these seven species should be
listed under the Act if they are nonnative to the United States. The
Act provides for the listing of any species that qualifies as an
endangered or threatened species, regardless of its native range.
Protections under the Act that apply to species not native to the
United States include restrictions on importation into the United
States; sale or offer for sale in foreign commerce; and delivery,
receipt, carrying, transport, or shipment in foreign commerce and in
the course of a commercial activity. Listing also serves to heighten
awareness of the importance of conserving these species among foreign
governments, conservation organizations, and the public.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from nine knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
these seven species, the geographic region in which the species occur,
and conservation biology principles. We received responses from two of
the peer reviewers. The peer reviewers generally agreed that the
description of the biology and habitat for each species was accurate
and based on the best available information. New location data were
provided for the Brazilian merganser and the cherry-throated tanager,
and we incorporated the information into the rulemaking as appropriate.
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado Biome--Habitat Descriptions
The Atlantic Forest Biome and the Cerrado Biome, in which all of
these species occur, are two main ecological regions that exist almost
entirely in Brazil. The Atlantic Forest extends 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 (Morellato and Haddad 2000, pp. 786-787;
Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1). The
Atlantic Forest extends up to 600 km (373 mi) west of the Atlantic
Ocean. It consists of tropical and subtropical moist forests, tropical
dry forests, and mangrove forests at mostly low-to-medium elevations
less than 1,000 m (3,281 ft); however, altitude can reach as high as
2,000 m (6,562 ft) above sea level. According to Conservation
International, less than 10 percent of this habitat remains intact;
other estimates are that 7 percent remains intact (Morellato and Haddad
2000, p. 786; Oliveira-Filho and Fontes 2000, p. 794). Based on a
number of other 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; Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation
International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife Fund 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 Cerrado Biome is in central Brazil and is considered one of the
most biodiverse savannas in the world (Ratter et al. 1997, p. 223;
Conservation International 2007b; World Bank 2010). It has an annual
rainfall between 800 and 2,000 millimeters (mm) (31 to 79 in). This
tropical savannah ecoregion is characterized by woody savanna generally
2-8 m (6-26 ft) in height and well-drained soil. The altitude in this
[[Page 81796]]
region is between 300 and 1,200 m (984 and 3,937 ft), and the habitat
has specific soil characteristics. Other characteristics of this biome
are soil depths of at least 3 m (9.8 ft) and aluminum-rich soils
(Schmidt 2008, pp. 3-4).
Species Descriptions
Below is a species-by-species description. The species are
described 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
hummingbird, and 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) 2010d, p. 1; Sick
1993, p. 414). Males are black with a reddish-brown back. They have a
black narrow bill and a long tail. The wings are black with three thin
white stripes on the wings (wing bars). Females have similar coloring,
except they have brown-olive feathers where black feathers appear on
males (BLI 2010d, 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 (Collar et al. 1992, p. 667;
Sick 1993, p. 414; BLI 2010d, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
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 (BLI 2010d,
p. 1; Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64). Restinga is a Brazilian term
that describes white sand forest habitat consisting of a patchwork of
vegetation types, such as beach vegetation; open shrubby vegetation;
herbaceous, shrubby coastal sand dune habitat; and dry and swamp
forests distributed over coastal plains from northeastern to
southeastern Brazil (McGinley 2007, pp. 1-2; Rocha et al. 2005, p.
263).
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). Their foraging zone is in dense
vegetation generally between ground level and 3 meters (m) (10 feet
(ft)) above the ground, but they are also known to forage in higher
vegetation zones up to 7 m (23 ft) above the ground. 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 portion of the State of Rio de Janeiro (BLI 2010d, p. 1;
Collar et al. 1992, pp. 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 (Association for the Defense of the
Environment in Jacarepi[aacute] (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 2010d, 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 km (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 2010d, 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 2010d, 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
2010d, 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 2010d,
p. 2). The species is not listed in the Appendices of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) (https://www.cites.org).
II. Brazilian Merganser (Mergus octosetaceus)
Species Description
The Brazilian merganser is described as resembling a cormorant
(Sick 1993, p. 163). The species has a distinctive green crest, which
extends over the nape of the neck and which is more developed in males
(Sick 1993, p. 163). The bird has a white wing speculum and red feet,
and is 49-56 cm (19-22 in) in length (BLI 2007a, p. 1). The breast is
pale grey with dark markings, and dark grey coloring in the upper
breast (BLI 2007a, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The Brazilian merganser was first described by Vieillot in 1817
(Partridge 1956, p. 473). The species is in the family Anatidae (BLI
2007a, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
The Brazilian merganser is highly adapted to mountainous, highly
oxygenated clear-water streams and rivers, generally with pools greater
than 1 m (3 ft) in depth, and typically bordered by evergreen forests
(Bruno et al. 2006, p. 26; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 80-86; Ducks
Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 23; Lamas and Lins 2009,
p. 3; Partridge 1956, pp. 478-480; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 41;
Silveira and Bartman 2001, pp. 294-295). The Brazilian merganser's
original distribution area encompassed the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado
biome (Bianchi et al. 2005, p. 73; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Lamas and
Lins 2009, p. 3; Silveira and Bartman 2001, pp. 294-295; Silveira 2008,
pp. 420-421).
Brazilian mergansers are strong swimmers and divers, and have been
observed to dive to a depth of 0.5 m (1.6 ft) (Silveira et al. 2001, p.
291). They typically feed in river rapids, still waters, or pools
adjacent to waterfalls, whereas they rest and preen on exposed rocks in
more slack water areas or at the river edges (Braz et al. 2003, p. 70;
Hughes et al. 2006, p. 21; Lamas and
[[Page 81797]]
Lins 2009, p. 4; Partridge 1956, pp. 481-482; Silveira and Bartman
2001, p. 291). Brazilian mergansers feed primarily on a variety of fish
species such as the Lambari (Astyanax species), and occasionally on
insects, snails, and other aquatic macro-invertebrates (Partridge 1956,
p. 483, Silveira et al. 2001, p. 291; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 32; Lamas
2006, p. 151; Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 4).
Brazilian mergansers are not migratory and are believed to be
monogamous. Breeding pairs appear to maintain their territories along a
stretch of river (up to ca. 12 km (7.5 mi)) throughout the year
(Partridge 1956, p. 477; Silveira and Bartman 2001, p. 295; Braz et al.
2003, p. 70; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23, 33; Lamas 2006, p. 149; Ducks
Unlimited 2007, p. 1). The breeding season begins in June, and young
hatch around August (Partridge 1956, p. 487; Lamas and Santos 2004;
Bruno et al. 2006, p 27). Their brood size is between two and six
(Silveira et al. 2001, p. 296; Bruno et al. 2006, p. 26). Females
establish their nests in the cavities of trees that are adjacent to the
river. The females 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 in the cavities
of cliffs or rocky outcrops or in river banks (Bruno et al. in press;
Lamas and Santos 2004, pp. 38-39; Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 4).
Range and Distribution
For as long as the Brazilian merganser has been known, it has
always been considered a rare species, possibly due to its shy nature
(Lamas 2006, p. 151). It occurs in a few fragmented locations in south-
central Brazil, including the upper tributaries of rivers within the
Atlantic Forest biome and to the west in the Cerrado biome (Silveira
and Bartmann 2001, pp. 287-288). The Brazilian merganser 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
disjunct localities of Brazil, and possibly in northeastern Argentina
and eastern Paraguay (BLI 2007a, pp. 1-5; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 28-
31; Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 3). The Brazilian merganser may be
extirpated from Argentina and Paraguay, and from Mato Grosso do Sul,
S[atilde]o Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Santa Catarina, in Brazil (BLI
2009b, pp. 1-2). The vast majority of the species' extant population
and remaining suitable habitats occur in Brazil, including its largest
population, which is estimated to contain around 80 pairs (Lamas 2006,
p. 151).
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). It was found in 2002 at the Serra de Canastra
National Park (SCNP), Minas Gerais. In 2004 it was found at Itacolomi
State Park, Minas Gerais (DePaula et al. 2008, p. 289). Although SCNP
is a 200,000-hectare (ha) (494,211-acre (ac)) nationally protected
park, only 71,500 ha (176,680 ac) are under strict protection (Lamas
2006, p. 150). In 2001-2002, the species was observed in nine
localities in SCNP (Lamas 2006, p. 145). The SCNP is the only site
where this species is being regularly monitored (Hughes et al. 2006, p.
52). Other recent sightings of the species in previously undocumented
areas of Brazil indicate that the Brazilian merganser may be more
abundant and widespread than previously believed (Bianchi et al. 2005,
p. 72; Lamas 2006, p. 145). For example, the species was recently
confirmed in a nonprotected area in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil
(Lamas et al. 2009).
Historically, the Brazilian merganser occurred in Argentina,
Brazil, and Paraguay. In Argentina, the Brazilian merganser was
documented in three protected areas: The Iguaz[uacute] National Park,
the Parque Provincial Urugua-[iacute], and the Private Reserve Urugua-
[iacute] (Chebez 1994; Antas 1996; Chebez et al., 1998 in Hughes et al.
2006, p. 49). Some researchers believe that sizable overall populations
may still exist in the extensive river systems of Misiones in
Argentina, specifically in the Urugua[iacute] Provincial Park (Hughes
et al. 2006, pp. 31, 50-51). In 2002, it was reported to have been
found on the Arroyo Uruz[uacute] in Misiones, Argentina, the first
record in the country in 10 years, despite extensive surveys (BLI
2010b). However, it is unclear whether the species still exists in
Argentina. In Paraguay, the last confirmed sighting of the species is
from 1984 (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 31). We are unable to confirm that
the species exists in areas outside of Brazil, and therefore are unable
to evaluate any threats. Because we do not know if populations of this
species still exist outside of Brazil, for the purpose of this rule, we
are limiting our analysis of threats to the current Brazilian
population of the species.
Population Estimate
BLI estimates the total population is between 50 and 249
individuals, and the population is presumed to be declining (BLI 2010b,
p. 1). Recent records indicate the population size may be larger than
250, although researchers have not been able to estimate the total
population size (Lamas and Lins 2009, p. 5).
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
2009b, p. 1). The species is not listed in any of the Appendices of
CITES (https://www.cites.org).
III. Cherry-Throated Tanager (Nemosia rourei)
Species Description
The cherry-throated tanager has black plumage on its head with a
white crown, black coloring on its back, wings with gray scapular
feathers, white feathers on its undersides, and red coloring on its
throat and upper chest. Its tail is square tipped, its bill is black,
and it has pink feet (Bauer et al. 2000, p. 102; BLI 2010d, p. 1;
Venturini and Paz 2007, p. 609). It has a distinct vocalization with
calls between 5 and 8 kilohertz (described in Bauer et al. 2000, pp.
103-104) and has been observed both singly and in small flocks. The
species' diet includes caterpillars, butterflies, ants, and various
other arthropods (Bauer et al. 2000, p. 104; Venturini et al. 2005, p.
65).
Taxonomy
The cherry-throated tanager is a member of the Thraupidae family.
It was first described by Cabanis in 1870 (BLI 2010d, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
The cherry-throated tanager is endemic to the Atlantic Forest in
southeast Brazil. It inhabits the upper canopies of trees within humid,
montane primary forests at elevations 850-1,250 m (2,789-4,101 ft)
above sea level (Bauer et al. 2000, pp. 97-104; Venturini et al. 2005,
pp. 60-66). 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 canopy levels (ca. 2
m (7 ft)) at the forest edge. Cherry-throated tanagers can be found in
mixed-species flocks. Observations indicate that they require
relatively
[[Page 81798]]
large territories (ca. 4 km\2\ (1.5 mi\2\)) (Venturini et al. 2005, p.
66). Within its 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). A nest
(observed in November) 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
Esp[iacute]rito Santo and possibly Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil (BLI 2010d, p. 1). In 1941, it was found in the mountains of
Esp[iacute]rito Santo State at three sites: Itarana, Jatiboca
(elevation 900 m (2,953 ft)), and the Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve
(Venturini et al. 2005, p. 63). Since 1998, the cherry-throated tanager
has been documented at various sites of remnant primary forest in
south-central Esp[iacute]rito Santo. In February 1998, it was located
in a private reserve, Fazenda Pindobas IV, in the municipality of
Concei[ccedil][atilde]o. It was also documented in Caet[eacute]s, in
the Vargem Alta municipality in southern Esp[iacute]rito Santo (30 km
(18.6 mi) southeast of Pindobas) (Venturini et al. 2005, p. 61). Bauer
et al. (2000, p. 99) reported a sighting in Pirapetinga (Minas Gerais)
at an altitude of 150 m (492 ft). In October 2002 and in January 2003,
researchers heard Nemosia vocalizations in the Augusto Ruschi
Biological Reserve (Biol[oacute]gica Augusto Ruschi), which may have
been this species (Venturini et al. 2005, pp. 63-64). However, the
cherry-throated tanager may only currently exist in Esp[iacute]rito
Santo, where a corridor was just established specifically for this
species via Decree no. 2529-R (BLI 2010h). Esp[iacute]rito Santo
contains Atlantic Forest remnants, which may contain the only viable
remaining habitat for this species.
Population Estimates
The cherry-throated tanager was presumed to be extinct until 1998.
Prior to that, the species was only known from a single specimen
collected in the 1800s and from a reliable sighting of eight
individuals in 1941 (Collar et al. 1992, p. 896; Ridgely and Tudor
1989, p. 34; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 126). The species was
rediscovered in 1998 (Bauer et al. 2000, p. 97; Venturini et al. 2005,
p. 60). BLI estimates the population to range from 50 to 249
individuals, and it is believed to be declining (BLI 2010d, p. 1).
Venturini et al. (2005, p. 66) believe the IUCN population estimate of
250 birds may be too high, considering that the maximum number of
individuals recently recorded was 14, including 6 birds in Pindobas and
8 birds in Caet[eacute]s.
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 2010d, p. 1). On the Brazilian Red
list the species is ``threatened'' (MMA 2003, Machado et al. 2008).
Within Brazil, similar to U.S. State wildlife categories of
conservation status, this species is categorized differently based on
each ``state'' within which it is found. In Esp[iacute]rito Santo, it
is considered ``critically endangered'' (ES-DOE 2005). In the Minas
Gerais Region, it is considered ``Probably extinct'' (Machado et al.
2008). The species is not listed in any of the Appendices of CITES
(https://www.cites.org).
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) in length. Males are black with a small
patch of black feathers on their backs lined with white edges. Females
are more of a reddish-brown color, with a black tail, brown underparts,
and a whitish throat (BLI 2010e, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The fringe-backed fire-eye belongs in the ``antbird'' family
Thamnophilidae, and was first described by Swainson in 1825 (BLI 2010e,
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 Bah[iacute]a'' in Spanish (del Hoyo 2003, p. 637).
Habitat and Life History
The fringe-backed fire-eye is endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome
and typically inhabits dense understory 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 understory of secondary-growth forest
stands. It can also occupy early-successional 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 in the canopy (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 relies on
army ant (Eciton spp.) swarms to flush their prey, which may include
cockroaches (superfamily Blattoidea), grasshoppers (family Acrididae),
winged ants (class Chilopoda), caterpillars (order Lepidopera), and
geckos (family Gekkonidae) (Sick 1993, pp. 403-404; del Hoyo et al.
2003, pp. 637-638).
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 the ground (Sick 1993, pp.
405-406). 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 habitat from southern Sergipe to northeastern Bahia, Brazil (del
Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637; BLI 2010e, p. 1). The fringe-backed fire-
eye's distribution is less disjunct than previously believed (BLI
2010e). The species' entire population was previously believed to be
restricted to a few sites of remnant primary forest, totaling roughly 9
km\2\ (3.5 mi\2\) 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). Its current estimated range is 5,000 km\2\ (1,930 mi\2\),
although it exists in fragmented or degraded habitat within its range
(BLI 2010e).
Population Estimates
The fringe-backed fire-eye's population is estimated to be between
[[Page 81799]]
1,000 and 2,499 individuals (BLI 2010e, p. 1). The available
information indicates that the species' population is fragmented among
6 to 10 occupied areas (BLI 2010e, p. 3). Its population, along with
the extent and quality of its habitat, continues to decline (BLI 2010e,
p. 1).
Conservation Status
IUCN considers the fringe-backed fire-eye to be ``Endangered''
because it has ``a 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 2010e, p. 1). In addition, the
species is protected under Brazilian law (Collar et al. 1992, p. 678).
The species is not listed in any of the Appendices of CITES (https://www.cites.org).
V. Kaempfer's Tody-Tyrant (Hemitriccus kaempferi)
Species Description
The Kaempfer's tody-tyrant is an olive-green bird measuring 10 cm
(4 in) in length (BLI 2010c, p. 1). The head and face have olive-brown
coloring, while the upper parts and breast are a dull olive-green, the
underparts are a pale greenish-yellow, and the throat is a pale yellow
color. The primary wing feathers are dark and the secondary wing
feathers have greenish-yellow borders. Each eye has a pale ring (BLI
2010c, p. 1).
Taxonomy
The Kaempfer's tody-tyrant is a member of the flycatcher family
(Tyrannidae) (BLI 2010c, p. 1). The species was previously recognized
under the genus Idioptilon, and was first described by Zimmer in 1953
(BLI 2010c, p. 1).
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 alluvial forests that are
typically in close proximity to rivers. The species appears to avoid
tall, mature primary forest habitats (Collar et al. 1992, p. 776;
Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 372-373; BLI 2010c, pp. 1-2). The Kaempfer's
tody-tyrant feeds predominantly in the mid-story within roughly 1 to 3
m (3.3 to 10 ft) off the ground, but may also feed higher up (ca. 6 m
(20 ft)) in the tree canopy.
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. 452-453). Breeding pairs typically forage
together and appear to maintain small, well-defined, permanent
territories (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 373; BLI 2010c, 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 of the
coasts of Paran[aacute] and northeastern Santa Catarina, Brazil (Collar
et al. 1992, p. 776; Collar et al. 1994, p. 139; Barnett et al. 2000,
p. 371; Belmontes-Lopez et al. 2008, p. 2; BLI 2010c, p. 1). The
Kaempfer's tody-tyrant has been located in the following 11 localities
in southeast Brazil: Salto Pira[iacute]; Brusque; the RPPN Volta Velha
near Itapo[aacute]; S[atilde]o Francisco do Sul municipality; Barra
Velha municipality; Blumenau municipality; Pi[ccedil]arras/Itajuba
(Pi[ccedil]arras municipality); Morro do Bau (Ilhota municipality);
Sanepar bridge (S[atilde]o Jo[atilde]o River); National Park Saint-
Hilare/Langue; Santa Catarina; and Guaragua[ccedil]u Ecological Station
in southeast Paran[aacute] (BLI 2010c, p. 1). Recent survey records
have extended the known range to 7,800 km\2\ (3,012 m\2\), although
within this range the species' existence is sporadic due to fragmented
habitat. According to BLI, the species is rare, but has been recorded
in recent years in all of the locations above except Brusque. The last
record for Brusque is from 1950, and the area has not been resurveyed
since that time.
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 9,000 and 18,500
individuals and is believed to be declining (BLI 2010c, pp. 1-2).
Conservation Status
The IUCN considers the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant to be ``Endangered''
because it is estimated to have an extremely small and fragmented range
(BLI 2010c, p. 1). It is protected by Brazilian legislation and by the
State of Paran[aacute] (Belmontes-Lopez et al 2008, p. 2; BLI 2010c).
The species is not listed in any of the Appendices of CITES (https://www.cites.org).
VI. Margaretta's Hermit (Phaethornis malaris margarettae)
Species Description
The Margaretta's hermit is a long-billed 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
malaris bolivianus, with a paler underside.
Taxonomy
The Margaretta's hermit is in the hummingbird family, Trochilidae,
but its taxonomic classification has been unclear for many years and is
still disputed. This species is in the subfamily, Phaethornithinae,
which are the ``hermit'' hummingbirds that occur in southern Mexico,
Central America, and in South America as far south as northern
Argentina. The 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 (Phaethornis superciliosus)
and the great-billed hermit (Phaethornis malaris). A multitude of
information indicates that Margaretta's hermit is most appropriately
considered to be a subspecies of the great-billed hermit (P. malaris)
(Howard and Moore 1980, p. 205; King 1981, p. 2; Sibley and Monroe
1990, p. 143; Sick 1993, p. 341; Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 125-135; del Hoyo
et al. 1999, p. 543). Neither the IUCN nor BirdLife International
currently recognizes the subspecies Margaretta's hermit (Phaethornis
malaris margarettae); only the species level is recognized (BLI 2010j;
IUCN 2010). IUCN's conservation status for both P. malaris and P.
superciliosus is ``least concern.'' Birdlife International recognizes
Phaethornis malaris margarettae as Phaethornis superciliosus (BLI
2010j). Avibase, a database of all birds of the world maintained by
Bird Studies Canada, indicates that it is a full species, Phaethornis
margarettae (Avibase 2010). However, Phaethornis malaris margarettae is
recognized by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) (ITIS
2010, https://www.itis.gov) as a subspecies. The 2009 Clement's
Checklist, maintained by Cornell Lab of Ornithology, also accepts the
taxonomy as Phaethornis malaris margarettae. Absent peer-reviewed
[[Page 81800]]
information to the contrary and based on the best available
information, we consider Margaretta's hermit to be a subspecies of
Phaethornis malaris: Phaethornis malaris margarettae.
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 (King 1981, p. 2; Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 133-
140; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 143; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543).
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 (Sick 1993, pp.
324-326; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543; Buzato et al. 2000, p. 824).
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 (Sick 1993, pp.
324-336; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543).
Range and Distribution
The Margaretta's hermit historically occurred in coastal forested
habitats from Penambuco to Esp[iacute]rito Santo, Brazil (Sibley and
Monroe 1990, p. 143; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543; Hinkelmann 1996, pp.
132-135). 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
Esp[iacute]rito Santo and presently includes 40 km\2\ (15.5 mi\2\) of
land (King 1981, p. 2). A portion of this area (ca. 15 km\2\ (5.8
mi\2\)) was designated as the C[oacute]rrego Grande Biological Reserve
in 1989 (Willis and Oniki 2002, p. 21; Costa 2007, p. 20). We consider
this to be the species' current range. Margaretta's hermit likely also
occurred at the Sooretama Biological Reserve in Esp[iacute]rito Santo
until around 1977 (King 1981, p. 2).
Population Estimates
The current population of Margaretta's hermit is unknown, although
it is likely to be small in light of the very limited area the
subspecies may occupy (King 1981, p. 2).
Conservation Status
IUCN considered the Margaretta's hermit to be ``Endangered''
because its extant population was believed to have an extremely
restricted distribution and the population is likely very small, if it
survives at all (King 1981, p. 2). Phaethornis superciliosus and
Phaethornis malaris are both currently classified as ``Least Concern''
by the IUCN, although the taxonomy of Margaretta's hermit is still
uncertain. Both Phaethornis superciliosus and Phaethornis malaris are
included in Appendix II of CITES (https://www.cites.org).
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 (Roth 1981, p.
388; Payne 2005, p. 206). 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
subspecies of the rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi) in
the Cuculidae family that occur at several disjunct localities from
Nicaragua to central South America (Howard and Moore 1980, p. 178;
Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 107; del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606-607;
Payne 2005, pp. 204-207). Neither the IUCN nor BirdLife International
currently addresses this subspecies; only the species level is
addressed (BLI 2008; IUCN 2009). However, the subspecies is recognized
by ITIS (ITIS 2009). Absent peer-reviewed information to the contrary
and based on the best available information, we consider it to be a
valid subspecies.
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 (King 1981, p.
1; Sick 1993, p. 286; del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606-607; Payne 2005,
pp. 204-207). This species is unable to sustain flight for long
distances, and researchers believe that major rivers and other
extensive areas of nonhabitat impede their movements.
Southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoos feed on large insects,
scorpions, centipedes, spiders, small frogs, lizards, and occasionally
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
spp.) and red ant (Solenopsis spp.) 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
ground-cuckoos are not believed to be parasitic nesters. They build
their own nests approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) above ground level 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).
Range and Distribution
Although the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo had a
widespread distribution historically, it has likely always been locally
rare (King 1981, p. 1). Historic distributions included the Brazilian
states of Bahia, Minas Gerais, Esp[iacute]rito Santo, and possibly Rio
de Janeiro (King 1981, p. 1; Payne 2005, p. 207). The last confirmed
sighting of this subspecies was in the Sooretama Biological Reserve
north of the Doce River in Esp[iacute]rito Santo in 1977, and the
subspecies was thought to be extinct (Roth 1981, p. 388; Scott and
Brooke 1985, pp. 125-126; Payne 2005, p. 207). However, a recent
photographic record (ca. 2004) indicates that the subspecies may still
occur at Doce River State Park in Minas Gerais (Scoss et al. 2006, p.
1).
Population Estimates
The current population of rufous-vented ground cuckoos is unknown,
although likely very low if the subspecies still exists (King 1981, p.
1).
Conservation Status
In 1981, when the original petition to list this subspecies was
submitted, IUCN considered the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo
to be ``Endangered'' because although the subspecies was ``never
numerous, this
[[Page 81801]]
extremely shy species is among the first to disappear if its primary
forest habitat is disturbed and in southeastern Brazil where it occurs,
most of such forest has been destroyed'' (King 1981, p. 1). As of 2009,
IUCN characterizes the rufous-vented ground-cuckoo as ``Least
Concern.'' Neither the species nor the subspecies are listed in any of
the Appendices of CITES (https://www.cites.org).
Summary of 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. In considering what factors might constitute threats, we
look beyond the exposure of the species to determine whether the
species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to
the species and we look at the magnitude of the effect. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a beneficial response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant the factor is. If the factor is significant
and therefore a threat, it may drive or contribute to the risk of
extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as
threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the Act. In
making this final listing determination, we evaluated threats to each
of these seven Brazilian bird species. Our evaluation of this
information is discussed below.
These seven species all occur in the same biome: The Atlantic
Forest, and with respect to the Brazilian merganser, also in the
Cerrado Biome. These species depend on similar physical and biological
features and on the successful functioning of their ecosystems to
survive. They also face the same or very similar threats. Although the
listing determination for each species is analyzed separately, we have
organized the specific analysis for each species within the context of
the broader scale and threat factor in which it occurs to avoid
redundancy. Since these species face a suite of common threat factors,
similar management actions will reduce or eliminate those threats.
Effective management of these threat factors often requires
implementation of conservation actions at a broader scale to enhance or
restore critical ecological processes and provide for long-term
viability of those species in their native environment. Thus, by taking
this broader approach, we hope to organize this final rule effectively.
We are listing each of the seven species (species may also include
subspecies, as defined in Section 3(15) of the Act) addressed in this
rule as endangered. Many of the threats are the same or similar for all
seven species. For each species, we identified and evaluated those
factors that threaten the species and that may be common to all of the
species. For example, the degradation of habitat and habitat loss due
to deforestation is a threat to each species. We also identified and
evaluated threats that may be unique to certain species, and that may
not apply to all of the species addressed in this final rule. For
example, the Brazilian merganser may be the only species addressed in
this rule that is found in the Cerrado biome, and we have addressed
threats that are unique to that species specifically, although most of
the threats in the Atlantic Forest are the same in the Cerrado biome.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
The best available information indicates that the threats to all of
the seven Brazilian species addressed under this factor occur
throughout the entire range of each species. These threats include the
loss, degradation, and fragmentation of native habitats within the
Atlantic Forest biome and, with respect to the Brazilian Merganser, in
the Cerrado Biome. Habitat loss and fragmentation are the most
significant threats to these species (Marini and Garcia 2005, p. 667).
The major human activities that have resulted in the destruction,
modification, or curtailment 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). The Cerrado biome
faces similar threats (Ratter et al. 1997, p. 223; Marini 2009, p.
1558). Forestry practices such as commercial logging, subsistence
activities such as fuel wood collection, and changes in fire
frequencies also contribute to the degradation of the native habitat
(Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147;
Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; BLI
2003a, p. 4; TNC 2007, p. 2; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; World
Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51). In addition to the overall loss and
degradation of native habitat within these biomes, the remaining tracts
of habitat are severely fragmented.
Based on a number of recent estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area
(over 1,250,000 km\2\ (482,628 mi\2\)) historically covered by tropical
forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely
degraded as a result of various human activities (IUCN 1999, p. 22;
Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853-854;
Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation
International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; TNC 2007, p. 1;
World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2-41). The Atlantic Forest 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
(Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2002; The Brazilian
Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) 2007, Central Intelligence
Agency Factbook, 2010).
Conversion to agriculture or plantations creates disturbed areas
that are conducive to weedy plant invasion and establishment of alien
plants from dispersed fruits and seeds. Over time, this results in the
conversion of a community dominated by native vegetation to one
dominated by nonnative vegetation (leading to negative impacts
typically associated with nonnative plants, detailed below). Conversion
to agriculture or plantations also increases watershed erosion, runoff,
and sedimentation which further degrade habitat. These threats are
significant, ongoing, and are expected to continue and increase in
magnitude and intensity into the foreseeable future without adequate
control.
Fire is a relatively new human-related threat to native species and
natural vegetation in Brazil. (Nepstad et al. 2001, p. 395). Farmers
practice slash-and-burn agriculture that creates open lowland areas
suitable for the later colonization of nonnative plant species (Nunes
and Kraas 2000, pp. 44-47).
[[Page 81802]]
Fires of all intensities, seasons, and sources are destructive to the
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado Biome (Nepstad et al. 2001, p. 395-407).
Fire can destroy dormant seeds as well as plants, even in steep or
inaccessible areas. Successive fires that burn farther and farther into
native habitat destroy native plants and remove habitat for native
species. These fires alter microclimate conditions and cause conditions
to be more favorable to alien plants. Alien plant species most likely
to be spread as a consequence of fire are those that produce a high
fuel load, are adapted to survive and regenerate after fire, and
establish rapidly in newly burned areas. The threat from intentional
and accidental ignition of fires related to slash-and-burn clearing to
the species in this final rule that depend on forested ecosystems is
significant. Fire damages native vegetation and these species' habitat,
including seedlings and juvenile and adult plants.
Species-Specific Evaluation Under Factor A
Black-Hooded Antwren
The black-hooded antwren appears not to be strictly tied to primary
forest habitats. It may make use of secondary-growth forests or other
disturbed areas such as modified restinga (described under Black-Hooded
Antwren Habitat and Life history above), eucalyptus stands, abandoned
banana plantations, and recently burned sites (Tobias and Williams
1996, p. 64; BLI 2010a, p. 1). However, its use of secondary-growth
forests or other disturbed areas does not necessarily lessen the threat
to the species from the effects of deforestation and habitat
degradation. This species, although it may be tolerant of secondary-
growth forests or other disturbed sites, has a small and declining
population size (estimated to be 1,000--2,499 birds) and a severely
restricted range of less than 130 km\2\ (50 mi\2\). Its habitat
continues to be impacted. Habitat degradation can adversely impact this
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 2010a, pp. 1-2).
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 2010d, p. 2; Collar
et al. 1992, p. 667; Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; del Hoyo
2003, p. 616; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; TNC 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 (also
known as Acai palms) (Collar et al. 1992, p. 667; BLI 2003a, p. 4; del
Hoyo 2003, p. 616; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 7 and 36-37; BLI
2010d, p. 2). 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]. The remaining occupied
habitats at these sites are subject to ongoing human disturbances such
as off-road vehicle use, burning, and recreational activities (Collar
et al. 1994, p. 134; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; BLI 2010a, p. 2).
Summary of Factor A--Black-Hooded Antwren
A significant portion of Atlantic Forest habitat has been, and
continues to be, lost and degraded by various ongoing human activities,
including logging, establishment and expansion of plantations and
livestock pastures, urban and industrial developments (including many
new hydroelectric dams), slash-and-burn clearing, intentional and
accidental ignition of fires (CEPF 2001, pp. 9-15). Even with the
recent passage of a national forest policy and despite 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
(Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; CEPF 2001, p. 10; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270).
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 2010a, pp. 1-3), any
further loss or degradation of its remaining suitable habitat
represents a significant threat to the species. Therefore, we find that
destruction and modification of habitat are threats to the continued
existence of the black-hooded antwren.
Brazilian Merganser
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; Silveira 1998, p. 58;
Silveira and Bartman