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 

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 http:// 

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-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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 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. 

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. 

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 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; Ho ̈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; 

Ho ̈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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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). 

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. 

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 Sa ̃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 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, Sa ̃o 

Gonc ̧alo, 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). 

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 

Bocaı ́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) (http://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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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, 

Sa ̃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, 

Goia ́s, 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 200,000- 

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 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 

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 

(http://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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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). 

Range and Distribution 

The cherry-throated tanager is found 

in primary forest habitats in Espı ́rito 

Santo and possibly Minas Gerais and 

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BLI 2010d, p. 1). 

In 1941, it was found in the mountains 

of Espı ́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 

Espı ́rito Santo. In February 1998, it was 

located in a private reserve, Fazenda 

Pindobas IV, in the municipality of 

Conceic ̧a ̃o. It was also documented in 

Caete ́s, in the Vargem Alta municipality 

in southern Espı ́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 (Biolo ́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 

Espı ́rito Santo, where a corridor was just 

established specifically for this species 

via Decree no. 2529–R (BLI 2010h). 

Espı ́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 Caete ́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 Espı ́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 (http:// 

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 Bahı ́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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 (http://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 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 

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 ́; Sa ̃o Francisco 

do Sul municipality; Barra Velha 

municipality; Blumenau municipality; 

Pic ̧arras/Itajuba (Pic ̧arras municipality); 

Morro do Bau (Ilhota municipality); 

Sanepar bridge (Sa ̃o Joa ̃o River); 

National Park Saint-Hilare/Langue; 

Santa Catarina; and Guaraguac ̧u 

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 

of the Appendices of CITES (http:// 

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, http:// 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
81800 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Espı ́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 

Espı ́rito 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 Co ́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 Espı ́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 (http:// 

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 

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, 

Espı ́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 Espı ́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 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 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 rufousvented ground-cuckoo as ‘‘Least 

Concern.’’ Neither the species nor the 

subspecies are listed in any of the 

Appendices of CITES (http:// 

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; Ju ́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 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; Ho ̈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, Sa ̃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 slashand-burn agriculture that creates open 

lowland areas suitable for the later 

colonization of nonnative plant species 

(Nunes and Kraas 2000, pp. 44–47). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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. 

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 

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; Ho ̈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 Sa ̃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 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. 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81803 

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 

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 

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; Ho ̈fling 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
81804 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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). 

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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81805 

we find that destruction and 

modification of habitat are threats to the 

continued existence of the Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant. 

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. 

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. 

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; 

Ho ̈fling 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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. 

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, 

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 Sa ̃o 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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81807 

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 

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. 

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 

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., 


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 

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 

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 Bocaı ́na 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81809 

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 Goia ́s 

(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 

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 

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 governmentVerDate Mar<15>2010 22:18 Dec 27, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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. 

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 (http:// 

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 (http:// 

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 

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 Co ́rrego 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 

Espı ́rito 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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81811 

(e.g., flood scour, drought); other 

stochastic disturbances; decreased 

fitness from reduced genetic diversity; 

and climate change. 

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. 

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 

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 Nin ̃o 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 Nin ̃ o events, we 

are still unable to make reliable, precise 

projections of changes in El Nin ̃o events 

due to the complexity of the factors 


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 Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a 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 Nin ̃ o 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. 

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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81813 

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 

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 

Nin ̃ o 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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
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 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the Internet 

at http://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. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ 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: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding new 

entries for ‘‘Antwren, Black-hooded,’’ 

‘‘Cuckoo, Southeastern Rufous-vented 

Ground,’’ ‘‘Fire-eye, Fringe-backed,’’ 

‘‘Hermit, Margaretta’s,’’ ‘‘Merganser, 

Brazilian,’’ ‘‘Tanager, Cherry-throated,’’ 

and ‘‘Tody-tyrant, Kaempfer’s’’ in 

alphabetical order under BIRDS to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

BIRDS

* * * * * * * 

Antwren, black-hooded.Formicivora 

erythronotos.

Brazil ....................... Entire ...................... E 774 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Fire-eye, fringedbacked.Pyriglena atra ......... Brazil ....................... Entire ...................... E 774 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Ground-cuckoo, 

southeastern rufous-vented.

Neomorphus 

geoffroyi dulcis.

Brazil ....................... Entire ...................... E 774 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Hermit, Margaretta’s Phaethornis malaris 

margarettae.

Brazil ....................... Entire ...................... E 774 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Merganser, Brazilian Mergus 

octosetaceus.

Brazil, Argentina, 

Paraguay.

Entire ...................... E 774 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Tanager, cherrythroated.Nemosia rourei ....... Brazil ....................... Entire ...................... E 774 NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Tody-tyrant, 

Kaempfer’s.

Hemitriccus 

kaempferi.

Brazil ....................... Entire ...................... E 774 NA NA 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 81815 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32628 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3