40650 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R9–IA–2009–0028; 96100–1671– 

0000–B6] 

RIN 1018–AV74 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing Seven Brazilian 

Bird Species as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the following seven Brazilian bird 

species and subspecies (collectively 

referred to as ‘‘species’’ for purposes of 

this proposed rule) as endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.): 

black-hooded antwren (Formicivora 

erythronotos), Brazilian merganser 

(Mergus octosetaceus), cherry-throated 

tanager (Nemosia rourei), fringe-backed 

fire-eye (Pyriglena atra), Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus kaempferi), 

Margaretta’s hermit (Phaethornis 

malaris margarettae), and southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo 

(Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis). This 

proposal, if made final, would extend 

the Act’s protection to these species. 

The Service seeks data and comments 

from the public on this proposed rule. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

October 13, 2009. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

September 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

IA–2009–0028; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Krofta, Chief, Branch of Listing, 

Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax 

Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; 

telephone 703–358–2105; facsimile 

703–358–1735. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

suggestions on this proposed rule. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to these species 

and regulations that may be addressing 

those threats. 

(2) Additional information concerning 

the taxonomy, range, distribution, and 

population size of these species, 

including the locations of any 

additional populations of these species. 

(3) Any information on the biological 

or ecological requirements of these 

species. 

(4) Current or planned activities in the 

areas occupied by these species and 

possible impacts of these activities on 

these species. 

(5) Any information concerning the 

effects of climate change on these 

species or their habitats. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not 

consider comments sent by e-mail or fax 

or to an address not listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Endangered Species Program, 

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 

Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– 

358–2171. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

us to make a finding (known as a ‘‘90- 

day finding’’) on whether a petition to 

add a species to, remove a species from, 

or reclassify a species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants has presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the requested action may be warranted. 

To the maximum extent practicable, the 

finding must be made within 90 days 

following receipt of the petition and 

must be published promptly in the 

Federal Register. If we find that the 

petition has presented substantial 

information indicating that the 

requested action may be warranted (a 

positive finding), section 4(b)(3)(A) of 

the Act requires us to commence a 

status review of the species if one has 

not already been initiated under our 

internal candidate assessment process. 

In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act 

requires us to make a finding within 12 

months following receipt of the petition 

(‘‘12-month finding’’) on whether the 

requested action is warranted, not 

warranted, or warranted but precluded 

by higher priority listing. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a 

finding of warranted but precluded for 

petitioned species should be treated as 

having been resubmitted on the date of 

the warranted but precluded finding, 

and is, therefore, subject to a new 

finding within 1 year and subsequently 

thereafter until we publish a proposal to 

list or a finding that the petitioned 

action is not warranted. The Service 

publishes an annual notice of 

resubmitted petition findings (annual 

notice) for all foreign species for which 

listings were previously found to be 

warranted but precluded. 

The following seven Brazilian bird 

species are addressed in this proposed 

rule: Black-hooded antwren 

(Formicivora erythronotos), previously 

recognized under the genus 

Myrmotherula; Brazilian merganser 

(Mergus octosetaceus); cherry-throated 

tanager (Nemosia rourei); fringe-backed 

fire-eye (Pyriglena atra), previously 

referred to as Swainson’s fire-eye; 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus 

kaempferi), previously recognized 

under the genus Idioptilon; Margaretta’s 

hermit (Phaethornis malaris 

margarettae), previously referred to as 

the Klabin Farm long-tailed hermit and 

recognized at the species level as P. 

margarettae; and southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus 

geoffroyi dulcis). All of the above 

species are found in the Atlantic Forest 

and neighboring regions of southeastern 

Brazil. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40651 

We are addressing the seven Brazilian 

bird species identified above under a 

single proposed rule primarily for three 

reasons. First, all of these species are 

found in the Atlantic Forest and 

neighboring regions of southeastern 

Brazil, thus addressing them together 

makes sense from a regional 

conservation perspective. Second, these 

seven species are subject to similar 

threats of comparable magnitude, 

primarily the loss and degradation of 

habitat due to deforestation and other 

ongoing development practices affecting 

southeastern Brazil, as well as 

concomitant threats due to severely 

restricted distributions and small 

population sizes (such as potential loss 

of genetic viability). Combining species 

that face similar threats within the same 

general geographic area into one 

proposed rule allows us to maximize 

our limited staff resources, thus 

increasing our ability to complete the 

listing process for warranted-butprecluded species. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On November 28, 1980, we received 

a petition (the 1980 petition) from Dr. 

Warren B. King, Chairman, United 

States Section of the International 

Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to 

add 60 foreign bird species to the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(50 CFR 17.11(h)), including 5 of the 7 

Brazilian bird species (black-hooded 

antwren, cherry-throated tanager, fringebacked fire-eye, Margaretta’s hermit, 

and southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo) that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. Two of the foreign 

species identified in the petition were 

already listed under the Act; therefore, 

in response to the 1980 petition, we 

published a substantial 90-day finding 

on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464), for 58 

foreign species and initiated a status 

review. On January 20, 1984 (49 FR 

2485), we published a 12-month finding 

within an annual review on pending 

petitions and description of progress on 

all pending petition findings. In that 

notice, we found that all 58 foreign bird 

species from the 1980 petition were 

warranted but precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. On May 10, 

1985, we published the first annual 

notice (50 FR 19761) in which we 

continued to find that listing all 58 

foreign bird species from the 1980 

petition was warranted but precluded. 

We published additional annual notices 

on the 58 species included in the 1980 

petition on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996), 

July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511), December 

29, 1988 (53 FR 52746), April 25, 1990 

(55 FR 17475), November 21, 1991 (56 

FR 58664), and May 21, 2004 (69 FR 

29354). These notices indicated that the 

black-hooded antwren, cherry-throated 

tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, 

Margaretta’s hermit, and southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo, along 

with the remaining species in the 1980 

petition, continued to be warranted but 

precluded. 

On May 6, 1991, we received a second 

petition (the 1991 petition) from ICBP to 

add an additional 53 foreign bird 

species to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife, including the 2 

remaining Brazilian bird species 

(Brazilian merganser and Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant) that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. In response to the 1991 

petition, we published a substantial 90- 

day finding on December 16, 1991 (56 

FR 65207), for all 53 species and 

initiated a status review. On March 28, 

1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12- 

month finding on the 1991 petition, 

along with a proposed rule to list 30 

African birds under the Act (15 each 

from the 1980 petition and 1991 

petition). In that document, we 

announced our finding that listing the 

remaining 38 species from the 1991 

petition, including the Brazilian 

merganser and Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, 

was warranted but precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. We made a 

subsequent warranted-but-precluded 

finding for all outstanding foreign 

species from the 1980 and 1991 

petitions, including the seven Brazilian 

bird species that are the subject of this 

proposed rule, as published in our 

annual notice of review (ANOR) on May 

21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). 

Per the Service’s listing priority 

guidelines (September 21, 1983; 48 FR 

43098), our 2007 ANOR identified the 

listing priority numbers (LPNs) (ranging 

from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign 

species. The LPNs for the seven 

Brazilian bird species that are the 

subject of this proposed rule are as 

follows: The black-hooded antwren, 

Brazilian merganser, cherry-throated 

tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, and 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant (LPN 2); and the 

Margaretta’s hermit and southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (LPN 3). 

Listing priorities of 2 and 3 indicate that 

the subject species and subspecies, 

respectively, face imminent threats of 

high magnitude. With the exception of 

listing priority ranking of 1, which 

addresses monotypic genera that face 

imminent threats of high magnitude, 

categories 2 and 3 represent the 

Service’s highest priorities. 

On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice announcing our annual petition 

findings for foreign species. In that 

notice, we announced listing to be 

warranted for 30 foreign bird species, 

including the seven Brazilian bird 

species which are the subject of this 

proposed rule, and stated that we would 

‘‘promptly publish proposals to list 

these 30 taxa.’’ 

On September 8, 2008, the Service 

received a 60-day notice of intent to sue 

from the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) over violations of section 4 of the 

Act for the Service’s failure to promptly 

publish listing proposals for the 30 

‘‘warranted’’ species identified in our 

2008 ANOR. Under a settlement 

agreement approved by the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of 

California on June 15, 2009, (CDB v. 

Salazar, 09–cv–02578–CRB), the Service 

must submit to the Federal Register 

proposed listing rules for the blackhooded antwren, Brazilian merganser, 

cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed 

fire-eye, Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, 

Margaretta’s hermit, and southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo by 

July 31, 2009. 

Species Information and Factors 

Affecting the Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

If we consider that wildlife habitat is 

not only defined by substrates 

(vegetation, soil, water), but also 

atmospheric conditions, then changes in 

air temperature and moisture can 

effectively change a species’ habitat. 

Climate change is characterized by 

variations in the earth’s temperature and 

precipitation causing changes in 

atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial 

conditions (Parmesan and Mathews 

2005, p. 334). Global climate change and 

other periodic climatic patterns (e.g., El 

Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a) can cause or 

exacerbate such negative impacts on a 

broad range of terrestrial ecosystems 

and neotropical bird populations (Crick 

2004, p. 1; England 2000, p. 86; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40652 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Holmgren et al. 2001, p. 89; Plumart 

2007, pp. 1–2). For example, trees cool 

their area of influence through high 

rates of evapotranspiration, or water loss 

to the atmosphere from their leaves 

(Parmesan and Mathews 2005, p. 337). 

Areas where trees have been replaced 

with pastures have lower 

evapotranspiration rates, thus causing 

local areas to be warmer (Parmesan and 

Mathews 2005, p. 337). According to the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), climate change can 

contribute to modifications of 

Amazonian rainforest habitats that are 

affected by deforestation (IPCC 1997, 

p. 11). Parmesan and Mathews (2005, 

p. 373) suggest that climate change is 

more likely to cause range reductions 

rather than range shifts. This may be 

due to the lack of areas where a species 

could shift to or the spaces between 

habitat patches are too large for 

individuals to reach. This suggests that 

climate change could be an agent of 

habitat loss or modification. 

Despite the fact that global climate 

changes are occurring and affecting 

habitat, the climate change models that 

are currently available are not yet able 

to make meaningful predictions of 

climate change for specific, local areas 

(Parmesan and Matthews 2005, p. 354), 

such as the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado 

(savanna) bioregions. In addition, we do 

not have models to predict how the 

climate in the range of these Brazilian 

bird species will change, and we do not 

know how any change that may occur, 

would affect these species. We also do 

not have information on past and future 

weather patterns within the specific 

range of these species. Therefore, based 

on the current lack of information and 

data, we did not evaluate climate 

change as a threat to these species. We 

are, however, seeking additional 

information on this subject (see Public 

Comments) that can be used in 

preparing the final rule. 

Below is a species-by-species analysis 

of the five factors. The species are 

considered in alphabetical order, 

beginning with the black-hooded 

antwren, followed by the Brazilian 

merganser, cherry-throated tanager, 

fringe-backed fire-eye, Kaempfer’s todytyrant, Margaretta’s hermit, and the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo. 

I. Black-hooded Antwren (Formicivora 

erythronotos) 

Species Description 

The black-hooded antwren measures 

10.5 to 11.5 centimeters (cm) (4 to 4.5 

inches (in)) (BirdLife International (BLI) 

2007d, p. 1; Sisk 1993, p. 414). Males 

are black with a reddish-brown back. 

They have a black narrow bill and a 

long tail. There are three thin white 

stripes on the wings. Females have 

similar coloring, except they have 

brown-olive feathers where black 

feathers appear on males (BLI 2007d, 

p. 1). 

Taxonomy 

The black-hooded antwren is a small 

member of the diverse ‘‘antbird’’ family 

(Thamnophilidae). The species was 

previously recognized under the genus 

Myrmotherula (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 667; Sick 1993, p. 414). 

Habitat and Life History 

The Atlantic Forest biome 

encompasses a region of tropical and 

subtropical moist forests, tropical dry 

forests, and mangrove forests, that 

extend along the Atlantic coast of Brazil 

from Rio Grande do Norte in the north 

to Rio Grande do Sul in the south, and 

inland as far as Paraguay and Misiones 

Province of northeastern Argentina 

(Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; 

Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and 

Haddad 2000, pp. 786–787). The blackhooded antwren inhabits lush 

understories of remnant old-growth and 

early successional secondary-growth 

coastal forests, and it may also occur in 

dense understories of modified 

‘‘restinga,’’ (‘‘restinga’’ is a Brazilian 

term that describes a patchwork of 

vegetation types consisting of beach 

vegetation, open shrubby vegetation, 

and dry and swamp forests distributed 

over coastal plains from northeastern to 

southeastern Brazil (McGinley 2007, pp. 

1–2)), swampy woodlands, abandoned 

banana plantations, and eucalyptus 

stands (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Tobias and 

Williams 1996, p. 64). 

Although the specific habitat 

requirements of the black-hooded 

antwren are still unclear, the species is 

not considered a tropical forest 

specialist. The black-hooded antwren 

typically forages in pairs or small family 

groups and consumes various insects, 

spiders, and small frogs (Collar et al. 

1992, p. 667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; 

Sick 1993, p. 405; Tobias and Williams 

1996, p. 65). Black-hooded antwrens 

usually forage in dense vegetation 

within approximately 3 meters (m) (10 

feet (ft)) of the ground, but they are also 

known to feed higher up (ca. 7 m (23 

ft)). 

Females typically lay two eggs in 

fragile nests resembling small cups 

made of plant material (e.g., rootlets, 

stems, moss) that are attached to 

horizontal branches within roughly 1 m 

(3.3 ft) of the ground (Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 667; Sick 1993, p. 405). Both sexes 

help to build the nests, brood clutches, 

and attend their young. 

Range and Distribution 

The black-hooded antwren is endemic 

to the Atlantic Forest biome in the 

southeast of the state of Rio de Janeiro 

(BLI 2007d, p. 1; Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 667). Currently, the only confirmed 

population is believed to be restricted to 

remnant patches of forest habitat along 

roughly 30 kilometers (km) (19 miles 

(mi)) of coast in southern Rio de Janeiro, 

near the border with 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 (ADEJA 2007, p. 3; 

WorldTwitch 2007, p. 12). 

Population Estimates 

The black-hooded antwren was 

known from 20 specimens that were 

purportedly collected in the 1800s in 

montane forest habitats of central Rio de 

Janeiro, Brazil. The species had not been 

reported since that collection until it 

was rediscovered in 1987 in the Atlantic 

forest in south Rio de Janeiro (BLI 

2007d, p. 1). 

The extant population is estimated to 

be between 1,000 and 2,499 birds, and 

is fragmented among seven occupied 

sites, including Bracuı ́, Frade, 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 

kilometer (km2)), followed by 

Mambucaba (densities of 89 pairs/km2). 

There are no known estimates for the 

other locations, but it is believed that 

the numbers are few (BLI 2007d, p. 1). 

At least one of the fragmented 

populations is believed to be 

reproductively isolated. The population, 

as a whole, is also believed to be 

declining rapidly due to continued loss 

of habitat (BLI 2007d, pp. 1–3). 

Conservation Status 

The IUCN considers the black-hooded 

antwren to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because ‘‘it 

has a very small and severely 

fragmented range that is likely to be 

declining rapidly in response to habitat 

loss’’ (BLI 2007d, p. 3). The species is 

also protected by Brazilian law and 

occurs in the buffer area of Serra da 

Bocaı ́na National Park (BLI 2007d, p. 2). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40653 

Summary of Factors Affecting the Blackhooded Antwren 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Based on a number of recent 

estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 

historically covered by tropical forests 

within the Atlantic Forest biome has 

been converted or severely degraded as 

a result of various human activities 

(Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation 

International 2007a, p. 1; Ho ̈fling 2007, 

p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 

786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 

2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the 

overall loss and degradation of native 

habitats within this biome, the 

remaining tracts of habitat are severely 

fragmented. The current rate of habitat 

decline is unknown. 

The region has the two largest cities 

in Brazil, Sa ̃o Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 

and is home to approximately 70 

percent of Brazil’s 169 million people 

(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major 

human activities that have resulted in 

the loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of native habitats within the Atlantic 

Forest biome include extensive 

establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., 

soy beans, sugarcane, corn), plantations 

(e.g., eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa, 

rubber, bananas), livestock pastures, 

centers of human habitation, and 

industrial developments (e.g., charcoal 

production, steel plants, hydropower 

reservoirs). Forestry practices (e.g., 

commercial logging, subsistence 

activities, fuelwood collection) and 

changes in fire frequencies (BLI 2003a, 

p. 4; Ju ́nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes 

and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva 

2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868– 

869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; 

World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51) 

also contribute to the degradation of 

native habitat. 

The black-hooded antwren is not 

strictly tied to primary forest habitats 

and can make use of secondary-growth 

forests or other disturbed areas, such as 

modified ‘‘restinga,’’ eucalyptus stands, 

abandoned banana plantations, and 

recently burned sites (BLI 2007d, p. 1; 

Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64). 

However, this does not necessarily 

lessen the threat to the species from the 

effects of deforestation and habitat 

degradation. Atlantic Forest birds, such 

as the black-hooded antwren, which are 

tolerant of secondary-growth forests or 

other disturbed sites, are also rare or 

have severely restricted ranges (i.e., less 

than 21,000 km2 (8,100 square miles 

(mi2))). Thus habitat degradation can 

adversely impact such species, just as 

equally as it impacts primary forestobligate species (Harris and Pimm 2004, 

pp. 1612–1613). While the black-hooded 

antwren is relatively abundant locally, 

the entire range of the species 

encompasses only about 130 km2 (50 

mi2), with only 45 percent of this area 

considered occupied (BLI 2007d, pp. 

3–4). 

The susceptibility to habitat 

destruction of limited-range species that 

are tolerant of secondary-growth forests 

or other disturbed sites can occur for a 

variety of reasons, such as when a 

species’ remaining population is already 

too small or its distribution too 

fragmented such that it may not be 

demographically or genetically viable 

(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613). 

In addition, while the black-hooded 

antwren may be tolerant of secondarygrowth forests or other disturbed sites, 

these areas may not represent optimal 

conditions for the species, which would 

include dense understories and 

abundant prey species. For example, 

management of plantations often 

involves intensive control of the site’s 

understory vegetation and long-term use 

of pesticides, which eventually results 

in severely diminished understory cover 

and potential prey species (Rolim and 

Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687–2691; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, pp. 868–869; Scott and 

Brooke 1985, p. 118). Such management 

activities make these sites unsuitable for 

the black-hooded antwren (BLI 2007d, 

p. 2). 

Impacts associated with the 

destruction of native habitat by human 

activities within the Atlantic Forest 

biome include extensive fragmentation 

of the remaining tracts of forested 

habitat potentially used by the blackhooded antwren (see Factor E). As a 

secondary impact, habitat destruction of 

these remaining tracts increases the 

potential introduction of disease vectors 

or exotic predators within the species’ 

historic range (see Factor C). 

Furthermore, even when potentially 

occupied sites may be formally 

protected, such as the state Ecological 

Reserve of Jacarepia ́ (see Factor D), the 

remaining fragments of forested habitat 

will likely undergo further degradation 

due to their altered dynamics and 

isolation (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; 

Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932). 

Altered dynamics and isolation are 

characterized by a decrease in gene flow 

and inbreeding, which decrease the 

fitness of forest species (Tabanez and 

Viana 2000, pp. 929–932). In addition, 

fragmented Atlantic forests of Brazil are 

observed to be overtaken by lianas 

(long-stemmed woody vines), which 

cause tree falls and gaps in the forest 

structure. These gaps in the forest 

encourage gap-opportunistic vegetation 

to grow. Hence, a decrease in gene flow, 

and increases in inbreeding, liana 

density, and presence of gapopportunistic species change the 

character and dynamics of the Atlantic 

Forest biome and isolate fragmented 

habitat patches (Tabanez and Viana 

2000, pp. 930–931). These changes may 

result in the loss of important species 

that comprise the black-hooded antwren 

habitat. As a result of these secondary 

impacts, there is often a time lag 

between the initial conversion or 

degradation of suitable habitats and the 

extinction of endemic bird populations 

(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al. 

1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without 

further habitat loss or degradation, the 

black-hooded antwren remains at risk 

from past impacts to its suitable 

habitats. 

The black-hooded antwren occurs in 

one of the most densely populated 

regions of Brazil, and most of the 

tropical forest habitats believed to have 

been used historically by the species 

have been converted or are severely 

degraded due to the wide range of 

human activities identified above (BLI 

2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 667; Conservation 

International 2007a, p. 1; del Hoyo 

2003, p. 616; Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 1; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; World 

Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). In 

addition, the remaining tracts of suitable 

habitat in Rio de Janeiro and 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 (BLI 2003a, 

p. 4; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; World 

Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 7 and 36–37). 

These impacts have recently reduced 

suitable habitats at various key sites 

known to be occupied by the blackhooded antwren such as Vale do 

Mambucaba and Ariro ́, and the 

remaining occupied habitats at these 

sites are subject to ongoing human 

disturbances, such as off-road vehicle 

use, burning, and recreational activities 

(BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et al. 1994, 

p. 134; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616). 

Summary of Factor A 

A significant portion of Atlantic 

Forest habitats have been, and continue 

to be, lost and degraded by various 

ongoing human activities, including 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40654 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

logging, establishment and expansion of 

plantations and livestock pastures, 

urban and industrial developments 

(including many new hydroelectric 

dams), slash-and-burn clearing, 

intentional and accidental ignition of 

fires, and establishment of invasive 

species (CEPF 2001, pp. 9–15). Even 

with the recent passage of a national 

forest policy and in light of many other 

legal protections in Brazil (see Factor D), 

the rate of habitat loss throughout the 

Atlantic Forest biome has increased 

since the mid-1990s (CEPF 2001, p. 10; 

Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; Rocha et al. 

2005, p. 270), and native habitats at 

many of the remaining sites may be lost 

over the next several years (Rocha et al. 

2005, p. 263). Furthermore, because the 

black-hooded antwren’s extant 

population is already small, highly 

fragmented, and believed to be 

declining (BLI 2007d, pp. 1–3), any 

further loss or degradation of its 

remaining suitable habitat represents a 

significant threat to the species (see 

Factor E). Therefore, we find that 

destruction and modification of habitat 

are threats to the continued existence of 

the black-hooded antwren throughout 

its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The extant population of the blackhooded antwren is considered to be 

small, fragmented, and declining. The 

species was deliberately not collected 

when it was rediscovered in 1987 

(Collar et al. 1992, p. 667). This is 

because the removal or dispersal of just 

a few individuals from any of the blackhooded antwren’s subpopulations or 

even a slight decline in their fitness due 

to intentional or inadvertent hunting, 

specimen collection, or other human 

disturbances (e.g., scientific research, 

birding) could represent significant risks 

to the species’ overall viability (see 

Factor E). However, while these 

potential influences remain a concern 

for future management of the species, 

we are not aware of any other 

information currently available that 

indicates the use of this species for any 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purpose. As a result, we are 

not considering overutilization to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the black-hooded antwren. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Large, stable populations of wildlife 

species have adapted to natural levels of 

disease and predation within their 

historic ranges. However, the extant 

population of the black-hooded antwren 

is considered to be small, fragmented, 

and declining. In addition, extensive 

human activity in previously 

undisturbed or isolated areas can lead to 

the introduction and spread of exotic 

diseases, some of which (e.g., West Nile 

virus) can negatively impact endemic 

bird populations (Naugle et al. 2004, 

p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p. 1). 

Extensive human activity in previously 

undisturbed or isolated areas can also 

result in altered predator populations 

and the introduction of various exotic 

predator species, some of which (e.g., 

feral cats (Felis catus) and rats (Ratus 

sp.)) can be especially harmful to 

populations of endemic bird species 

(American Bird Conservancy 2007, p. 1; 

Courchamp et al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan 

and Blackburn 2007, pp. 149–150; Salo 

et al. 2007, pp. 1241–1242; Small 2005, 

p. 257). Any additive mortality to the 

black-hooded antwren’s subpopulations 

or a decrease in their fitness due to an 

increase in the incidence of disease or 

predation could represent significant 

threats to the species’ overall viability 

(see Factor E). 

Although disease and predation may 

be a concern for future management of 

the black-hooded antwren, we are not 

aware of any species-specific 

information currently available that 

indicates that disease or predation poses 

a threat to the species. As a result, we 

are not considering disease or predation 

to be a contributing factor to the 

continued existence of the black-hooded 

antwren. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The black-hooded antwren is formally 

recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil 

(Order No. 1.522) and is directly 

protected by various laws promulgated 

by the Brazilian government (BLI 2007d, 

p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 667; ECOLEX 

2007, pp. 1–2). For example, there are 

measures that prohibit, or regulate 

through Federal agency oversight, the 

following activities with regard to 

endangered species: export and 

international trade (e.g., Decree No. 

76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g., 

Act No. 5.197), collection and research 

(Order No. 332), captive propagation 

(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g., 

Decree No. 3.179). In addition, there are 

a wide range of regulatory mechanisms 

in Brazil that indirectly protect the 

black-hooded antwren through 

measures that protect its remaining 

suitable habitat (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 2– 

5). For example, there are measures that: 

(1) Prohibit exploitation of the 

remaining primary forests within the 

Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree No. 

750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern 

various practices associated with the 

management of primary and secondary 

forests, such as logging, charcoal 

production, reforestation, recreation, 

and water resources (e.g., Resolution 

No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282, 

Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act 

No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for 

controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No. 

97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No. 

292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4) 

regulate industrial developments, such 

as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel 

production (e.g., Normative Instruction 

No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there 

are various measures (e.g., Law No. 

11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, 

Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct 

Federal and state agencies to promote 

the protection of lands and natural 

resources under their jurisdictions 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6). 

There are also various regulatory 

mechanisms in Brazil that govern the 

formal establishment and management 

of protected areas to promote 

conservation of the country’s natural 

resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–7). 

These mechanisms generally aim to 

protect endangered wildlife and plant 

species, genetic resources, overall 

biodiversity, and native ecosystems on 

Federal, state, and privately owned 

lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 

11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 

1.922). Brazil’s formally established 

protection areas are categorized based 

on their overall management objectives 

(e.g., National Parks versus Biological 

Reserves); and based on those 

categories, they allow varying uses and 

provide varying levels of protection for 

specific resources (Costa 2007, pp. 

5–19). 

The black-hooded antwren occurs in 

the buffer zone around Serra da Bocaina 

National Park and, possibly, within 

Tamoios Environmental Protection Area 

and the Ecological Reserve of Jacarepia ́

(BLI 2007d, p. 2; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; 

WorldTwitch 2007, p. 12). It has been 

recommended that some of these sites 

should be expanded and other sites 

designated to ensure the species’ 

currently occupied range is 

encompassed within protected areas. 

However, for various reasons (e.g., lack 

of funding, personnel, or local 

management commitment), some of 

Brazil’s protected areas exist without 

the current capacity to achieve their 

stated natural resource objectives 

(ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; Bruner et al. 

2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, p. 7; IUCN 

1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical News 

1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News 1999, 

p. 9). Therefore, even with the 

expansion or further designation of 

protected areas, it is likely that not all 

of the identified resource concerns for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40655 

the black-hooded antwren (e.g., 

residential and agricultural 

encroachment, resource extraction, 

unregulated tourism, grazing) would be 

sufficiently addressed at these sites. 

In the past, the Brazilian government, 

through various regulations, policies, 

incentives, and subsidies, has actively 

encouraged settlement of previously 

undeveloped lands in southeastern 

Brazil, which helped facilitate the largescale habitat conversions that have 

occurred throughout the Atlantic Forest 

biome (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 

2007, p. 3; Conservation International 

2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et 

al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 

2001, p. 874). More recently, the 

Brazilian government has given greater 

recognition to the environmental 

consequences of such rapid expansion, 

and has taken steps to better manage 

some of the natural resources 

potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7; 

Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News 

1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b, 

p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9; 

Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes 

and Kraas 2000, p. 45). Despite these 

efforts, pressures to develop coastal 

areas containing black-hooded antwren 

habitat for tourism (e.g., large hotel 

complexes, beachside housing) and 

plantation agriculture continue to be a 

threat to the species (ADEJA 2007, pp. 

1–2; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Tobias and 

Williams 1996, p. 65). 

Summary of Factor D 

Brazil’s wide variety of laws requiring 

resource protection that would 

ultimately benefit the black-hooded 

antwren are tested by the intense 

development pressure that exists in 

coastal areas south of Rio de Janeiro. 

Despite the existence of these regulatory 

mechanisms, habitat loss throughout the 

Atlantic Forest biome has increased for 

more than a decade. The existing 

regulatory mechanisms have proven 

difficult to enforce (BLI 2003a, p. 4; 

Conservation International 2007c, p. 1; 

Costa 2007, p. 7; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Neotropical 

News 1997b, p. 11; Peixoto and Silva 

2007, p. 5; Scott and Brooke 1985, pp. 

118, 130). As a result, threats to the 

black-hooded antwren’s remaining 

habitat are ongoing (see Factor A) due 

to the challenges that Brazil faces to 

balance its competing development and 

environmental priorities. Therefore, 

when combined with Factors A and E, 

we find that the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to 

ameliorate the current threats to the 

black-hooded antwren throughout its 

range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Under this factor we explore whether 

three risks, represented by demographic, 

genetic, and environmental stochastic 

events, are substantive to threaten the 

continued existence of the black-hooded 

antwren. In basic terms, demographic 

stochasticity is defined by chance 

changes in the population growth rate 

for the species (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 27). Population growth rates are 

influenced by individual birth and 

death rates (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 

27), immigration and emigration rates, 

as well as changes in population sex 

ratios. Natural variation in survival and 

reproductive success of individuals and 

chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may 

act in concert to contribute to 

demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity 

is caused by changes in gene 

frequencies due to genetic drift, and 

diminished genetic diversity, and/or 

effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p. 

786). Inbreeding can have individual or 

population-level consequences either by 

increasing the phenotypic expression 

(the outward appearance, or observable 

structure, function, or behavior of a 

living organism) of recessive, 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, 

p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is 

defined as the susceptibility of small, 

isolated populations of wildlife species 

to natural levels of environmental 

variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged 

drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) 

(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and 

Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410– 

412). Each risk will be analyzed 

specifically for the black-hooded 

antwren. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species are susceptible to demographic 

and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 

130–134). These threat factors, which 

may act in concert, include: natural 

variation in survival and reproductive 

success of individuals, chance 

disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in 

gene frequencies due to genetic drift, 

diminished genetic diversity and 

associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression), dispersal of just 

a few individuals, a few clutch failures, 

a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring 

over just one or a few years, and chance 

mortality of just a few reproductive-age 

individuals. 

There is very little information 

available regarding the historic 

distribution and abundance of the blackhooded antwren. However, the species’ 

historic population was likely larger and 

more widely distributed than today, and 

it must have maintained a minimum 

level of genetic interchange among its 

local subpopulations in order for them 

to have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet 

1997, p. 107; Vila` et al. 2002, p. 91; 

Wang 2004, p. 332). The available 

information indicates that suitable 

habitats currently occupied by the 

black-hooded antwren are highly 

fragmented and that the species’ extant 

population is small and declining (BLI 

2007d, pp. 1–3). Without efforts to 

maintain buffer areas and reconnect 

some of the remaining tracts of suitable 

habitat near the species’ currently 

occupied sites, it is doubtful that the 

individual tracts are currently large 

enough to support viable populations of 

many birds endemic to the Atlantic 

Forest, like the black-hooded antwren, 

and the eventual loss of any small, 

isolated populations appears to be 

inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117; Harris 

and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610; IUCN 

1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da 

Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke 

1985, p. 118). 

Various past and ongoing human 

activities and their secondary influences 

continue to impact all of the remaining 

suitable habitats that may still harbor 

the black-hooded antwren (see Factors 

A and D). We expect that any additional 

loss or degradation of habitats that are 

used by the black-hooded antwren will 

have disproportionately greater impacts 

on the species due to the population’s 

fragmented state. This is because with 

each contraction of an existing 

subpopulation, the likelihood of 

interchange with other subpopulations 

within patches decreases, while the 

likelihood of its complete reproductive 

isolation increases. 

The combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic 

and demographic stochasticity on a 

species population are referred to as 

patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can 

have profound effects on fragmented 

subpopulations and can potentially 

reduce a species’ respective effective 

population by orders of magnitude 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 31). For 

example, an increase in habitat 

fragmentation can separate 

subpopulations to the point where 

individuals can no longer disperse and 

breed among habitat patches, causing a 

shift in the demographic characteristics 

of a population and a reduction in 

genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40656 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

p. 31). Furthermore, as a species’ status 

continues to decline, often as a result of 

deterministic forces such as habitat loss 

or overutilization, it will become 

increasingly vulnerable to a broad array 

of other forces. If this trend continues, 

its ultimate extinction due to one or 

more stochastic events becomes more 

likely. 

We expect that the black-hooded 

antwren’s increased vulnerability to 

demographic stochasticity and 

inbreeding will be operative even in the 

absence of any human-induced threats 

or stochastic environmental events, 

which only act to further exacerbate the 

species’ vulnerability to local 

extirpations and eventual extinction. 

Demographic and genetic stochastic 

forces typically operate synergistically. 

Initial effects of one threat factor can 

later exacerbate the effects of other 

threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin 

and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 25–26). For 

example, any further fragmentation of 

the populations will, by definition, 

result in the further removal or dispersal 

of individuals, which will exacerbate 

the other threats. Conversely, lack of a 

sufficient number of individuals in a 

local area or a decline in their 

individual or collective fitness may 

cause a decline in the population size, 

despite the presence of suitable habitat 

patches. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species, such as the black-hooded 

antwren, are also susceptible to natural 

levels of environmental variability and 

related ‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g., 

severe storms, prolonged drought, 

extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we 

will refer to as environmental 

stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; 

Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 

1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic 

environmental event can severely 

reduce existing wildlife populations 

and, if the affected population is already 

small or severely fragmented, it is likely 

that demographic stochasticity or 

inbreeding will become operative, 

which would place the population in 

jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 27; 

Lande 1995, pp. 787–789). 

Summary of Factor E 

The small and declining numbers that 

make up the black-hooded antwren’s 

population makes it susceptible to 

natural environmental variability or 

chance events. In addition to its 

declining numbers, the high level of 

population fragmentation makes the 

species susceptible to genetic and 

demographic stochasticity. Therefore, 

we find that demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events are a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

black-hooded antwren throughout its 

range. 

Status Determination for the Blackhooded Antwren 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

black-hooded antwren. The species is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A), 

and demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events 

associated with the species’ high level 

of population fragmentation (Factor E). 

Furthermore, we have determined that 

the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate 

the current threats to the species. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Based 

on the threats to the black-hooded 

antwren throughout its entire range, as 

described above, we determine that the 

black-hooded antwren is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are proposing to list the 

black-hooded antwren as an endangered 

species throughout all of its range. 

II. Brazilian Merganser (Mergus 

Octosetaceus) 

Species Description 

The 49–56 cm (19–22 in) (BLI 2007a, 

p. 1) Brazilian merganser is described as 

resembling a cormorant (Sisk 1993, p. 

163). The bird has a white wing 

speculum and red feet. The breast is 

pale grey with dark markings, and there 

is dark grey coloring in the upper breast 

(BLI 2007a, p. 1). The species has a 

distinctive green crest that extends over 

the nape of the neck (more developed in 

the male) (Sisk 1993, p. 163). 

Taxonomy 

The Brazilian merganser was first 

described by Vieillot in 1817 (Partridge 

1956, p. 473). The species belongs in the 

family Anatidae (BLI 2007a, p. 1). 

Habitat and Life History 

The Brazilian merganser is highly 

adapted to shallow, rapid, clear-water 

streams and rivers, typically bordered 

by dense, tropical forest (Bruno et al. 

2006, p. 26; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 80– 

86; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes 

et al. 2006, p. 23; Partridge 1956, pp. 

478–480; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 

41). Where suitable riverine conditions 

exist, the Brazilian merganser also 

occurs in the Cerrado biome, which is 

characterized by open tropical savannah 

and comparatively sparse ‘‘gallery’’ 

forest at the river margins, indicating 

that the species is not strictly tied to 

tropical forest habitats (Bianchi et al. 

2005, p. 73; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70). 

Brazilian mergansers are strong 

swimmers and divers. They typically 

feed in river rapids or in pools adjacent 

to waterfalls, whereas they rest and 

perch in more slack water areas or at the 

river edges (Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; 

Hughes et al. 2006, p. 21; Partridge 

1956, pp. 481–482). Brazilian 

mergansers feed primarily on a variety 

of fish species, with sizes up to 

approximately 19 cm (7.5 in), and 

occasionally on insects, snails, and 

other aquatic macro-invertebrates 

(Hughes et al. 2006, p. 32; Partridge 

1956, p. 483). 

Brazilian mergansers are believed to 

be monogamous and sedentary. 

Breeding pairs appear to maintain their 

territories along a stretch of river (up to 

ca. 12 km (7.5 mi)) throughout the year 

(Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Ducks Unlimited 

2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23, 

33; Partridge 1956, p. 477). The breeding 

season begins in June and young hatch 

around August (Partridge 1956, p. 487). 

Females establish their nests relatively 

high up (25 m (82 ft)) in the cavities of 

tall trees that overlook the river and 

incubate their eggs alone, although 

males are attentive and remain nearby 

feeding and perching at the river 

shoreline (Bruno et al. 2006, p. 29; 

Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 38; Partridge 

1956, pp. 484–485). Females may also 

locate their nests lower down (10 m (33 

ft)) in the cavities of cliffs or rocky 

outcrops near preferred riverine habitat 

in areas where suitable nesting trees are 

absent (Lamas and Santos 2004, pp. 38– 

39). 

Range and Distribution 

The Brazilian merganser occurs in a 

few fragmented locations in southcentral Brazil, including the uppertributaries of rivers within the Atlantic 

Forest biome and to the east in the 

Cerrado (savanna) biome (BLI 2007a, 

p. 1). The species is a diving duck that 

occurred historically in riverine habitats 

throughout southeastern Brazil, 

northeastern Argentina, and eastern 

Paraguay (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 24). 

Currently, the species is found in 

extremely low numbers at six highly 

disjunct localities, of which five are in 

southeastern Brazil and one is in 

northeastern Argentina and, possibly, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40657 

extreme eastern Paraguay (BLI 2007a, 

pp. 1–5; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 28–31). 

The vast majority of the species’ extant 

population and remaining suitable 

habitats occur in Brazil, including its 

largest subpopulation that is estimated 

to contain fewer than 50 individuals 

(BLI 2007a, p. 5). 

The Brazilian merganser is thought to 

have been extirpated from Mato Grosso 

do Sul, Sa ̃o Paolo, Rio de Janeiro, and 

Santa Catarina (BLI 2007a, pp. 1–2). 

There is only a single recent record of 

the Brazilian merganser (ca. 2002) in the 

province of Misiones, Argentina, while 

the last confirmed sighting of the 

species in Paraguay is from 1984 (BLI 

2007a, p. 2; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 31). 

For purposes of this proposed rule, our 

analysis will focus on the most current 

estimates of the species, which are 

based in Brazil. 

The species likely still occurs in the 

Brazilian states of Tocantins, Bahia, 

Goia ́s, Minas Gerais, and Parana ́

(Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 51–52). Along 

with other recent sightings of the 

species in previously undocumented 

areas of Brazil (Bianchi et al. 2005, 

p. 72; Pineschi 1999, p. 1), this 

information indicates that the Brazilian 

merganser may be more abundant and 

widespread than previously considered. 

Population Estimates 

The extant population is estimated to 

be between 50 and 249 individuals and 

is presumed to be declining, as 

evidenced by the species’ recent history 

of extirpation from major portions of its 

historic range (BLI 2007a, p. 1). 

Conservation Status 

IUCN considers the Brazilian 

merganser to be ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ 

because ‘‘although recent records from 

Brazil, and particularly a recent 

northerly range extension, indicate that 

this species’ status is better than 

previously thought, the remaining 

population is still extremely small and 

severely fragmented, and the 

perturbation and pollution of rivers 

continues to cause declines’’ (BLI 2007a, 

p. 1). In addition, the species occurs in 

three parks in Brazil and in the Uruguaı ́

Provincial Park in Argentina (BLI 2007a, 

p. 1). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Brazilian Merganser 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Based on a number of recent 

estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 

historically covered by tropical forests 

within the Atlantic Forest biome has 

been converted or severely degraded as 

a result of various human activities 

(Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; 

Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and 

Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, 

pp. 853–854; The Nature Conservancy 

2007, p. 1; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; 

World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2–41). 

The Cerrado biome has also been 

heavily impacted by human activities, 

and current estimates indicate that 

between 67 and 80 percent of the 

tropical savannah habitat historically 

comprising this biome has been 

converted or severely degraded (Butler 

2007, p. 1; Conservation International 

2007b, p. 1; Mantovani and Pereira 

1998, p. 1455; Myers et al. 2000, p. 854; 

World Wildlife Fund 2007, p. 50). In 

addition to the overall loss and 

degradation of native habitat within 

these biomes, the remaining tracts of 

habitat are severely fragmented. The 

current rate of habitat loss in the 

Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes is 

unknown. 

The region has the two largest cities 

in Brazil, Sa ̃o Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 

and is home to approximately 70 

percent of Brazil’s 169 million people 

(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major 

human activities that have resulted in 

the loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of native habitats within these biomes 

include extensive establishment of 

agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, 

sugarcane, and corn), plantations (e.g., 

eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber, 

and bananas), livestock pastures, centers 

of human habitation, and industrial 

developments (e.g., diamond mining, 

hydropower reservoirs, and charcoal 

production). Forestry practices (e.g., 

commercial logging), subsistence 

activities (e.g., collection of fuelwood), 

and changes in fire frequencies also 

contribute to the degradation of native 

habitat (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2003b, pp. 

1–2; Butler 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 

2006, pp. 37–48; Ju ́nior et al. 1995, 

p. 147; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; 

Pivello 2007, pp. 1–2; Ratter et al. 1997, 

pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 

868–869; World Food Prize 2007, pp. 1– 

5; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). 

The Brazilian merganser is extremely 

susceptible to habitat loss and 

degradation, habitat fragmentation, and 

hydrological changes from human 

activity (Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83–84; 

Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 36–41; Silveira 

1998, p. 58). The loss of appropriate 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats 

throughout the historic range of the 

Brazilian merganser due to the above 

human activities is believed to have 

drastically reduced the species’ 

abundance and extent of occupied 

range, and these activities currently 

represent a significant risk to the 

species’ continued existence because 

populations are being limited to highly 

fragmented patches of habitat (Benstead 

1994, p. 8; Benstead et al. 1994, p. 36; 

BLI 2007a, pp. 1–6; Collar and Andrew 

1988, p. 21; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83– 

84; Collar et al. 1994, p. 51; Hughes et 

al. 2006, pp. 37–48; Silveira 1998, pp. 

57–58). 

The species is highly adapted to 

shallow, rapid-flowing riverine 

conditions and, therefore, can not 

occupy the lacustrine conditions of 

reservoirs that result from dam building 

activities within their occupied range 

(Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23, 41). The loss 

of the species’ terrestrial habitat has 

occurred due to the removal of forest 

cover and suitable nesting trees adjacent 

to occupied river corridors. 

A variety of secondary impacts that 

degrade suitable habitats have also 

resulted from the above activities and 

represent significant risks to the 

Brazilian merganser. These secondary 

impacts include increased runoff and 

severe siltation from agricultural fields, 

livestock pastures, deforestation, 

diamond mining, and population 

centers; changes in hydrologic 

conditions and local water tables as a 

result of dam operations (e.g., flood 

control, power generation) and 

excessive pumping for irrigation or 

domestic and industrial water use; and 

increases in water pollutants due to 

agricultural, industrial, and domestic 

waste products (Benstead 1994, p. 8; 

Bianchi et al. 2005, p. 73; BLI 2007a, pp. 

1–6; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Collar et al. 

1994, p. 51; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625; 

Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et 

al. 2006, pp. 40–48; Lamas and Santos 

2004, p. 40; Pineschi 1999, p. 1). These 

secondary impacts negatively affect the 

Brazilian merganser by reducing water 

clarity, altering water depths and flow 

patterns, removing or limiting 

populations of preferred prey species; 

introducing toxic compounds; and 

creating barriers to movements and 

producing hazardous conditions along 

river corridors that limit interchange 

between the species’ remaining 

subpopulations (see Factor E). These 

secondary impacts also increase the risk 

of introducing disease vectors and 

expanding populations of potential 

predator and competitor species into 

areas occupied by the Brazilian 

merganser (see Factor C). 

Summary of Factor A 

The above mentioned human 

activities and their secondary impacts 

have significantly reduced the amount 

of suitable habitat for the Brazilian 

merganser (Benstead 1994, p. 8; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40658 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Benstead et al. 1994, p. 36; BLI 2007a, 

pp. 1–6; Collar and Andrew 1988, p. 21; 

Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83–84; Collar et 

al. 1994, p. 51; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 

37–48; Silveira 1998, pp. 57–58), and 

the remaining areas of occupied habitat 

are highly fragmented (see Factor E). In 

addition, these activities are ongoing 

and continue to adversely impact all of 

the remaining suitable habitat within 

the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes 

that may still harbor the Brazilian 

merganser (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2003b, 

pp. 1–2; BLI 2007a, pp. 1–7; Brannstrom 

2000, p. 326; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 

1; Harris and Pimm 2004, p. 1610; 

Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 37–48; Morellato 

and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Saatchi et al. 

2001, pp. 868–873; Tabanez and Viana 

2000, pp. 929–932). Even with the 

recent passage of national forest policy 

and in light of many other legal 

protections in Brazil (see Factor D), the 

rate of habitat loss throughout 

southeastern Brazil has increased since 

the mid-1990s (CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge 

et al. 1997, p. 1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 

270). Furthermore, because the Brazilian 

merganser’s extant population is already 

extremely small, highly fragmented, and 

believed to be declining (BLI 2007a, pp. 

1–4), any further loss or degradation of 

its remaining suitable habitat will 

severely impact the species (see Factor 

E). Therefore, we find that destruction 

and modification of habitat are threats 

to the continued existence of the 

Brazilian merganser throughout its 

range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Historically, there was likely little 

range-wide hunting pressure on the 

Brazilian merganser, presumably due to 

the species’ secretive nature, naturally 

low densities in relatively inaccessible 

areas, and poor palatability (Partridge 

1956, p. 478). However, low levels of 

subsistence hunting of some local 

populations still occurs, most notably in 

Argentina (Benstead 1994, p. 8; del 

Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625; Hughes et al. 

2006, p. 48). 

Since the first formal description of 

the species in the early 1800s, the 

Brazilian merganser has also been 

collected for scientific study and 

museum exhibition (BLI 2007a, p. 2; 

Hughes et al. 2006, p. 46). Past hunting 

and specimen collection may have 

contributed to the species’ decline in 

some areas (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 46). 

These activities continue today, 

although presumably at low levels 

(Benstead 1994, p. 8; Hughes et al. 2006, 

p. 48; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 39). 

Summary of Factor B 

Species collection for scientific study 

and museum exhibition, and hunting, 

are believed to affect the population of 

the Brazilian merganser. Considering 

the extremely small size and level of 

fragmentation of the extant Brazilian 

merganser population, the removal or 

dispersal of any individuals from a local 

area, or even a slight decline in the 

population’s fitness, represent 

significant risks to the species’ overall 

viability (see Factor E). However, we do 

not have information on the extent of 

species collection or hunting to 

determine whether these activities are a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

species. As a result, we are not 

considering overutilization to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the Brazilian merganser. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Extensive human activity in 

previously undisturbed or isolated areas 

can lead to the introduction and spread 

of exotic diseases, some of which (e.g., 

West Nile virus) can negatively impact 

endemic bird populations (Neotropical 

News 2003, p. 1; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 

704). In addition, there are a number of 

suspected predators of the Brazilian 

merganser (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 44; 

Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 39; Partridge 

1956, p. 486). Partridge (1956, p. 480) 

hypothesized that the species’ 

distribution may be naturally limited to 

upper river tributaries above waterfalls 

due to predation of their young by large 

predatory fish, such as the dourado 

(Salminus brasiliensis, syn. maxillosus). 

Finally, extensive human activity in 

previously undisturbed or isolated areas 

can result in altered predator or 

competitor (e.g., cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax sp.)) populations and 

the introduction of various exotic 

predator species, such as feral dogs 

(Canis familiaris) and game fish like 

largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides) (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 

44–45). 

The available information indicates 

that there is a greatly expanded human 

population within the Brazilian 

merganser’s historic range and that the 

species’ extant population is extremely 

small, highly fragmented, and likely 

declining. Although large, stable 

populations of wildlife species have 

adapted to natural levels of disease and 

predation within their historic ranges, 

any additive mortality to the Brazilian 

merganser population or a decrease in 

its fitness due to an increase in the 

incidence of disease or predation could 

adversely impact the species’ overall 

viability (see Factor E). However, while 

these potential influences remain a 

concern for future management of the 

species, we are not aware of any 

information currently available that 

specifically indicates the occurrence of 

disease in the Brazilian merganser, or 

that documents actual predation levels 

incurred by any of the species’ local 

subpopulations. As a result, we are not 

considering disease or predation to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the Brazilian merganser. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Brazilian merganser is legally 

protected by national legislation 

promulgated by the governments in all 

three countries where it historically 

occurred (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 50– 

57). In Brazil, where the vast majority of 

the species’ extant population and 

remaining suitable habitats occur (BLI 

2007a, pp. 1–2; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 

28–31), the Brazilian merganser is 

formally recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ 

(Order No. 1.522), and there are 

regulatory mechanisms that require 

direct protection of the species 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 1–2). These include 

measures that prohibit, or regulate 

through Federal agency oversight, the 

following activities with regard to 

endangered species: export and 

international trade (e.g., Decree No. 

76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g., 

Act No. 5.197), collection and research 

(Order No. 332), captive propagation 

(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g., 

Decree No. 3.179). 

There are also a wide range of 

regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that 

indirectly protect the Brazilian 

merganser through measures that 

protect its remaining suitable habitats 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 2–5). For example, 

there are measures that: (1) Prohibit 

exploitation of the remaining primary 

forests within the Atlantic Forest biome 

and gallery forests adjacent to river 

corridors (e.g., Decree No. 750, 

Resolution No. 10, Act No. 7.754); (2) 

govern various practices associated with 

the management of primary and 

secondary forests, such as logging, 

charcoal production, reforestation, 

recreation, and water resources (e.g., 

Resolution No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree 

No. 1.282, Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 

74–N, Act No. 7.803); (3) establish 

provisions for controlling forest fires 

(e.g., Decree No. 97.635, Order No. 

231–P, Order No. 292–P, Decree No. 

2.661); and (4) regulate industrial 

developments, such as hydroelectric 

plants and biodiesel production (e.g., 

Normative Instruction No. 65, Law No. 

11.116). Measures also exist (e.g., Law 

No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40659 

78, Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that 

direct Federal and State agencies to 

promote the protection of lands and 

natural resources under their 

jurisdictions (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6). 

Regulatory mechanisms in Brazil 

govern the formal establishment and 

management of protected areas to 

promote conservation of the country’s 

natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6– 

7). These mechanisms generally aim to 

protect endangered wildlife and plant 

species, genetic resources, overall 

biodiversity, and native ecosystems on 

Federal, State, and privately owned 

lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 

11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 

1.922). Brazil’s formally established 

protection areas are categorized based 

on their overall management objectives 

(e.g., National Parks versus Biological 

Reserves) and, based on those 

categories, allow varying uses and 

provide varying levels of protection for 

specific resources (Costa 2007, pp. 5– 

19). Four of Brazil’s protected areas 

represent the major sites where the 

Brazilian merganser still occurs (Hughes 

et al. 2006, pp. 53–54). These areas are 

considered critical for protecting some 

of the species’ key remaining 

subpopulations (Bianchi et al. 2005, pp. 

72–74; BLI 2007a, pp. 1–2; Braz et al. 

2003, pp. 68–71; Bruno et al. 2006, p. 

30; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 84–85; del 

Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625; Lamas and 

Santos 2004, pp. 39–40; Silveira 1998, 

pp. 57–58). Notable among these areas 

are the Serra da Canastra National Park 

in Minas Gerais, which currently 

encompasses a portion of the species’ 

largest known subpopulation (Bruno et 

al. 2006, p. 25), and the Chapada dos 

Veadeiros National Park in Goia ́s 

(Bianchi et al. 2005, pp. 72–73). The 

Service recently provided funding for a 

project to develop and strengthen 

conservation partnerships with local 

agricultural producers in the Serra da 

Canastra region, which could benefit the 

Brazilian merganser (USFWS 2006, 

p. 3). 

Although four categories of protected 

areas under Brazilian law include 

important sites where the species 

occurs, unregulated tourism, resource 

extraction, and livestock grazing 

continue in these areas and pose threats 

to the Brazilian merganser. In addition, 

not all of the remaining Brazilian 

mergansers occur in these protected 

areas. Some key areas where the species 

occurs are currently not formally 

protected and are subject to ongoing 

threats, such as proposed hydropower 

projects, logging, and continuing 

development. 

Due to various reasons (e.g., lack of 

funding, personnel, or local 

management commitment), some of 

Brazil’s protected areas exist without 

current capacity to achieve their stated 

natural resource objectives (IUCN 1999, 

pp. 23–24; Neotropical News 1996, pp. 

9–10; Neotropical News 1999, p. 9; 

Costa 2007, p. 7). For example, the 

Worldwide Fund for Nature found in its 

study that 47 of 86 protected areas were 

found to be below the minimum level of 

implementation of Federal 

requirements, with only 7 considered to 

be fully implemented (Neotropical 

News 1999, p. 9). 

Despite the existence of these 

regulatory mechanisms, habitat loss 

throughout the Atlantic Forest biome 

has increased for more than a decade 

(BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2003b, pp. 1–2; 

Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 84; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 61; Lamas 

and Santos 2004, p. 40; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Neotropical 

News 1997b, p. 11; Scott and Brooke 

1985, p. 118). Illegal or unauthorized 

activities that continue to impact the 

Brazilian merganser include logging of 

gallery forests within riverine buffer 

areas; encroachment of logging, 

livestock grazing, and subsistence 

activities within protected primary and 

secondary forests; hunting; intentional 

burning; and collection of eggs and 

adult birds from the wild (BLI 2003b, 

p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 61; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2). 

In the past, the Brazilian government, 

through various regulations, policies, 

incentives, and subsidies, has actively 

encouraged settlement of previously 

undeveloped lands in southeastern 

Brazil, which helped facilitate the largescale conversions that have occurred in 

the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes 

(Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 2007, 

p. 3; Conservation International 2007c, 

p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et al. 

1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001, 

p. 874). Some of these projects, if 

developed, would impact important 

sites for the Brazilian merganser and 

would affect habitat within and adjacent 

to established protection areas. These 

projects include further development of 

dams for hydroelectric power, irrigation, 

or municipal water supplies; expansion 

of agricultural practices, primarily for 

soybean production; and increasing 

tourism enterprises (Braz et al. 2003, 

p. 70; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 51–56). 

Summary of Factor D 

Brazil’s wide variety of laws requiring 

resource protection would ultimately 

benefit the Brazilian merganser, but they 

are tested by the intense development 

pressure that exists within the species’ 

range. Government-sponsored measures 

in Brazil continue to facilitate 

development projects, however 

regulatory mechanisms also exist that 

require protection of the Brazilian 

merganser and its habitat. Despite the 

existence of these regulatory 

mechanisms, there are a few challenges, 

including the fact that protected areas 

do not address all the threats to the 

Brazilian merganser, protected areas do 

not encompass all occupied habitat of 

the species, there are government 

sponsored programs that encourage 

development within the range of the 

species, and protections that would 

benefit the species are not adequately 

enforced. As a result, threats to the 

species’ remaining habitat are ongoing 

(see Factor A). Therefore, when 

combined with Factors A and E, we find 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the Brazilian merganser 

throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Under this factor we explore whether 

three risks, represented by demographic, 

genetic, and environmental stochastic 

events, are substantive to threaten the 

continued existence of the Brazilian 

merganser. In basic terms, demographic 

stochasticity is defined by chance 

changes in the population growth rate 

for the species (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 27). Population growth rates are 

influenced by individual birth and 

death rates (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 

27), immigration and emigration rates, 

as well as changes in population sex 

ratios. Natural variation in survival and 

reproductive success of individuals and 

chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may 

act in concert to contribute to 

demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity 

is caused by changes in gene 

frequencies due to genetic drift, and 

diminished genetic diversity, and/or 

effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p. 

786). Inbreeding can have individual or 

population-level consequences either by 

increasing the phenotypic expression 

(the outward appearance or observable 

structure, function or behavior of a 

living organism) of recessive, 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, 

p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is 

defined as the susceptibility of small, 

isolated populations of wildlife species 

to natural levels of environmental 

variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged 

drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40660 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(Young 1994, pp. 410–412; Mangel and 

Tier 1994, p. 612; Dunham et al. 1999, 

p. 9). Each risk will be analyzed 

specifically for the Brazilian merganser. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species are susceptible to demographic 

and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 

130–134). These threat factors, which 

may act in concert, include: natural 

variation in survival and reproductive 

success of individuals, chance 

disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in 

gene frequencies due to genetic drift, 

diminished genetic diversity and 

associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression), dispersal of just 

a few individuals, a few clutch failures, 

a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring 

over just one or a few years, and chance 

mortality of just a few reproductive-age 

individuals. 

The Brazilian merganser has likely 

always been a rare species, with small 

local populations occupying the 

naturally restricted sites of suitable 

habitat within the upper-tributaries of 

river systems in east-central South 

America (Lamas and Santos 2004, pp. 

38–39; Partridge 1956, pp. 477–478). In 

addition, while there is no direct 

evidence currently available, Yamashita 

(in Hughes et al. 2006, p. 43) speculated 

that the species has likely always had a 

naturally low level of genetic variability 

as a result of its life history strategy. 

It was further speculated that 

inbreeding in the Brazilian merganser 

has not significantly affected the 

species, presumably due to the species’ 

natural tolerance for low genetic 

variability (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 43). 

However, relatively low levels of genetic 

interchange between local 

subpopulations can act to maintain the 

genetic viability of a metapopulation 

(Vila` et al. 2002, p. 91; Wang 2004, p. 

332) and, historically, it seems likely 

that the Brazilian merganser maintained 

such minimum levels of interchange 

across its occupied range in order for its 

subpopulations to have persisted 

(Middleton and Nisbet 1997, p. 107). 

In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, a general 

approximation of a minimum viable 

population size is referred to as the 50/ 

500 rule (Franklin 1980, p. 147). This 

rule states that an effective population 

(Ne) of 50 individuals is the minimum 

size required to avoid imminent risks 

from inbreeding. Ne represents the 

number of animals in a population that 

actually contribute to reproduction, and 

is often much smaller than the total 

number of individuals in the population 

(N). For example, not all individuals 

reproduce. Furthermore, the rule states 

that the long-term fitness of a 

population requires an Ne of at least 500 

individuals so that it will not lose its 

genetic diversity over time and will 

maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt 

to changing conditions. 

The available information indicates 

that the extant Brazilian merganser 

population is extremely small (i.e., 

between 50 and 249 individuals) and 

highly fragmented. The lower limit of 

the population (50 individuals) teeters 

on the edge of the minimum number of 

individuals required to avoid imminent 

risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50). The 

current maximum estimate of 249 

individuals for the entire population 

(BLI 2007a, p. 1) is only half of the 

upper threshold (Ne = 500) required to 

maintain genetic diversity over time and 

to maintain an enhanced capacity to 

adapt to changing conditions. 

Furthermore, these small, fragmented 

populations are likely reproductively 

isolated due to extensive habitat 

modifications that have taken place 

throughout the species’ historic 

distribution (see Factor A). As such, we 

currently consider the Brazilian 

merganser to be at risk due to its lack 

of near- and long-term genetic viability. 

Available information indicates that 

the Brazilian merganser is still subject to 

low levels of hunting, specimen 

collection, and other human 

disturbances (see Factors E and D). For 

species with large and/or wellinterconnected subpopulations, low 

levels of the above influences would 

normally be of little consequence. 

However, considering the extremely 

small size and likely isolation of the 

species’ extant subpopulations, and the 

likelihood of continued fragmentation of 

its occupied habitats, the removal or 

dispersal of any individuals from a local 

area, or even a slight decline in the 

individual or population fitness of these 

birds, represent significant risks to the 

continued existence of the Brazilian 

merganser. 

Various past and ongoing human 

activities and their secondary influences 

continue to impact all of the remaining 

suitable habitats that may still harbor 

the Brazilian merganser (see Factors A 

and D). We expect that any additional 

loss or degradation of habitats that are 

used by the Brazilian merganser will 

have disproportionately greater impacts 

on the species due to the population’s 

fragmented state. This is because with 

each contraction of an existing 

subpopulation, the likelihood of 

interchange with other subpopulations 

within patches decreases, while the 

likelihood of its complete reproductive 

isolation increases. 

The combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic 

and demographic stochasticity on a 

species population are referred to as 

patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can 

have profound effects on fragmented 

subpopulations and can potentially 

reduce a species’ respective effective 

population by orders of magnitude 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 31). For 

example, an increase in habitat 

fragmentation can separate 

subpopulations to the point where 

individuals can no longer disperse and 

breed among habitat patches, causing a 

shift in the demographic characteristics 

of a population and a reduction in 

genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer 

areas and reconnect some of the 

remaining tracts of suitable habitat near 

the species’ currently occupied sites, it 

is doubtful that the individual tracts are 

currently large enough to support viable 

populations, and the eventual loss of 

any small, isolated populations appears 

to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117; 

Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610; 

IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da 

Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke 

1985, p. 118). Furthermore, as a species’ 

status continues to decline, often as a 

result of deterministic forces such as 

habitat loss or overutilization, it will 

become increasingly vulnerable to a 

broad array of other forces. If this trend 

continues, its ultimate extinction due to 

one or more stochastic events becomes 

more likely. 

We expect that the Brazilian 

merganser’s increased vulnerability to 

demographic stochasticity and 

inbreeding will be operative even in the 

absence of any human-induced threats 

or stochastic environmental events, 

which only act to further exacerbate the 

species’ vulnerability to local 

extirpations and eventual extinction. 

Demographic and genetic stochastic 

forces typically operate synergistically. 

Initial effects of one threat factor can 

later exacerbate the effects of other 

threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin 

and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 25–26). For 

example, any further fragmentation of 

populations will, by definition, result in 

the further removal or dispersal of 

individuals, which will exacerbate the 

other threats. Conversely, lack of a 

sufficient number of individuals in a 

local area or a decline in their 

individual or collective fitness may 

cause a decline in the population size, 

despite the presence of suitable habitat 

patches. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species, such as the Brazilian 

merganser, are also susceptible to 

natural levels of environmental 

variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40661 

drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire), 

which we will refer to as environmental 

stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; 

Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 

1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic 

environmental event can severely 

reduce existing wildlife populations 

and, if the affected population is already 

small or severely fragmented, it is likely 

that demographic stochasticity or 

inbreeding will become operative, 

which would place the population in 

jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 27; 

Lande 1995, pp. 787–789). 

In addition to these stochastic threats, 

the Brazilian merganser is sensitive to 

human disturbance activities. Each 

breeding pair of the Brazilian merganser 

requires relatively long segments of 

river (up to ca. 12 km (7.5 mi)) (Braz et 

al. 2003, p. 70; Bruno et al. 2006, p. 30; 

Silvera 1998, pp. 57–58). Breeding 

success and recruitment of young in a 

local area is believed to be negatively 

affected by human disturbance. Sources 

of human disturbance include various 

ongoing activities associated with a 

vastly expanded human population 

within the species’ occupied range, 

including tourism (e.g., birding, river 

rafting, trekking, off-road vehicle use) 

and scientific research programs (Braz et 

al. 2003, p. 70; Bruno et al. 2006, p. 30; 

Silvera 1998, pp. 57–58). 

Summary of Factor E 

The small and declining numbers that 

make up the Brazilian merganser’s 

population makes it susceptible to 

natural environmental variability or 

chance events. In addition to its 

declining numbers, the high level of 

population fragmentation makes the 

species susceptible to genetic and 

demographic stochasticity. Therefore, 

we find that demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events are a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

Brazilian merganser throughout its 

range. 

Status Determination for the Brazilian 

merganser 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Brazilian merganser. Activities 

associated with a vastly expanded 

human population within the species’ 

occupied range, including tourism (e.g., 

birding, river rafting, trekking, off-road 

vehicle use), scientific research 

programs, livestock grazing, and 

infrastructure development, all 

represent multiple sources of additional 

disturbance to the Brazilian merganser. 

The species is currently at risk 

throughout all of its range due to 

ongoing threats of habitat destruction 

and modification (Factor A), and its lack 

of near- and long-term genetic viability 

due to threats associated with 

demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochasticity (Factor E). 

Furthermore, we have determined that 

the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate 

the current threats to the species. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Based 

on the threats to the Brazilian merganser 

throughout its entire range, as described 

above, we determine that the Brazilian 

merganser is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, on 

the basis of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we are 

proposing to list the Brazilian merganser 

as an endangered species throughout all 

of its range. 

III. Cherry-throated Tanager (Nemosia 

rourei) 

Species Description 

The cherry-throated tanager has 

distinctive black plumage on its head 

with a white crown, black coloring on 

the back and wings, white feathers on 

its undersides, and red coloring on its 

throat and upper chest (BLI 2007g, p. 1). 

Taxonomy 

The cherry-throated tanager is a 

member of the Thraupidae family. It 

was first described by Cabanis in 1870 

(BLI 2007g, p. 1). 

Habitat and Life History 

The cherry-throated tanager is 

endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome 

and inhabits the upper canopies of trees 

within humid, montane, primary forests 

(Bauer et al. 2000, pp. 97–104; BLI 

2007g, pp. 1–2; Venturini et al. 2005, 

pp. 60–64). The cherry-throated tanager 

is a primary forest-obligate species that 

typically forages within the interior 

crowns of tall, epiphyte-laden trees and 

occasionally within lower levels (ca. 2 

m (6.6 ft)) at the forest edge. The 

species’ diet includes caterpillars, 

butterflies, ants, and various other 

arthropods (Bauer et al. 2000, BLI 

2007g, p. 1; p. 104; Venturini et al. 2005, 

p. 65). Cherry-throated tanagers can be 

found in mixed-species flocks and 

appear to require relatively large 

territories (ca. 3.99 km2 (1.544 mi2)) 

(Venturini et al. 2005, p. 66). Within its 

current distribution, the species makes 

sporadic use of coffee (Coffea spp.), pine 

(Pinus spp.), and eucalyptus 

(Eucalyptus spp.) plantations, 

presumably as travel corridors between 

remaining patches of primary forest 

(Venturini et al. 2005, p. 66). 

Little is known about the breeding 

behavior of the cherry-throated tanager. 

However, a single field observation 

indicates that perhaps both sexes help 

build nests (Venturini et al. 2002, 

pp. 43–44). An observed nest was 

constructed of moss, and possibly thin 

twigs, and the material was placed in 

natural depressions of branches near the 

trunk within the mid-canopy (Venturini 

et al. 2002, pp. 43–44). 

Range and Distribution 

The cherry-throated tanager is found 

in primary forest habitats in Espı ́rito 

Santo and, possibly, Minas Gerais and 

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BLI 2007g, p. 1). 

Since 1998, the cherry-throated tanager 

has been documented at two sites of 

remnant primary forest in south-central 

Espı ́rito Santo. One site is located in 

Fazenda Pindobas IV in the 

municipality of Conceic ̧a ̃o; the other is 

found 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). 

Population Estimates 

The cherry-throated tanager was 

presumed to be extinct because the 

species was only known from a single 

specimen collected in the 1800s and a 

reliable sighting of eight individuals 

from 1941 (Collar et al. 1992, p. 896; 

Ridgely and Tudor 1989, p. 34; Scott 

and Brooke 1985, p. 126). However, the 

species was rediscovered in 1998 (Bauer 

et al. 2000, p. 97; Venturini et al. 2005, 

p. 60). IUCN estimates the population to 

range from 50 to 249 individuals, and it 

is believed to be declining (BLI 2007g, 

p. 1). However, Venturini et al. (2005, 

p. 66) speculate that the IUCN 

population estimate is too high, 

considering that the maximum number 

of individuals recently recorded was 14, 

including 6 birds in Pindobas and 8 

birds in 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 2007g, p. 1). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40662 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Cherry-Throated Tanager 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Based on a number of recent 

estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 

historically covered by tropical forests 

within the Atlantic Forest biome has 

been converted or severely degraded as 

a result of human activities (Butler 

2007, p. 2; Conservation International 

2007a, p. 1; Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 1; 

Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; 

Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 

2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the 

overall loss and degradation of native 

habitat within this biome, the remaining 

tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. 

The current rate of habitat decline 

within the Atlantic Forest is unknown. 

The region has the two largest cites in 

Brazil, Sa ̃o Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 

and is home to approximately 70 

percent of Brazil’s 169 million people 

(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major 

human activities that have resulted in 

the loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of native habitats within the Atlantic 

Forest biome include extensive 

establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., 

soy beans, sugarcane, and corn), 

plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine, 

coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas), 

livestock pastures, centers of human 

habitation, and industrial developments 

(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants, 

and hydropower reservoirs). Forestry 

practices (e.g., commercial logging), 

subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood 

collection), and changes in fire 

frequencies also contribute to the 

degradation of native habitat (BLI 2003a, 

p. 4; Ju ́nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes 

and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva 

2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868– 

869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; 

World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). 

Most of the tropical forest habitats 

believed to have been used historically 

by the cherry-throated tanager have 

been converted or are severely degraded 

due to the above human activities 

(Bauer et al. 2000, pp. 98–105; BLI 2007, 

p. 2; Ridgely and Tudor 1989, p. 34; 

Venturini et al. 2005, p. 68). Degraded 

and fragmented forests experience a 

decrease in gene flow, which may cause 

inbreeding and decreased fitness of 

forest species (Tabanez and Viana 2000, 

pp. 929–932). In addition, increased 

liana density has been observed in 

degraded and fragmented Atlantic 

forests of Brazil. Liana infestation of 

these forest fragments cause tree falls 

and encourage gap-opportunistic 

species to take over (Tabanez and Viana 

2000, pp. 929–932), thus altering the old 

forest structure and the cherry-throated 

tanager’s habitat. 

Secondary impacts that are associated 

with forest fragmentation and 

degradation include the potential 

introduction of disease vectors or exotic 

predators within the species’ historic 

range (see Factor C). As a result of these 

secondary impacts, there is often a time 

lag between the initial conversion or 

degradation of suitable habitats and the 

extinction of endemic bird populations 

(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al. 

1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without 

further habitat loss or degradation, the 

cherry-throated tanager remains at risk 

from past impacts to its primary forest 

habitats. 

Summary of Factor A 

The above human activities and their 

secondary impacts continue to threaten 

the last known tracts of habitat within 

the Atlantic Forest biome that may still 

harbor the cherry-throated tanager (BLI 

2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007g, p. 5; 

Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; 

Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Venturini et al. 

2005, p. 68; World Wildlife Fund 2007, 

pp. 3–51). Because the species’ extant 

population is extremely small, highly 

fragmented, and believed to be 

declining (BLI 2007g, p. 1), any further 

loss or degradation of its remaining 

suitable habitat will adversely impact 

the cherry-throated tanager. Therefore, 

we find that past and ongoing 

destruction and modification of the 

cherry-throated tanager’s habitat are 

threats to the continued existence of the 

species throughout its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The extant population of the cherrythroated tanager is considered to be 

extremely small, highly fragmented, and 

declining (BLI 2007g, p. 1; Venturini et 

al. 2005, p. 66). Because of the cherrythroated tanager’s rarity, it has been 

recommended that no further specimen 

collection of the species occur (Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 896). However we do not 

have specific information as to the level 

of specimen collection, scientific 

research, or birding that occurs. 

Although the removal or dispersal of 

any individuals or even a slight decline 

in the species’ fitness due to any 

intentional or inadvertent disturbances 

would represent significant risks to the 

cherry-throated tanager’s overall 

viability (see Factor E), we are not aware 

of any information currently available 

that indicates overutilization of the 

cherry-throated tanager for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is occurring. As a result, we 

are not considering overutilization to be 

a contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the cherry-throated tanager. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Large, stable populations of wildlife 

species have adapted to natural levels of 

disease and predation within their 

historic ranges. However, the extant 

population of the cherry-throated 

tanager is considered to be extremely 

small, highly fragmented, and declining, 

making it particularly vulnerable to 

slight levels of disease and predation. 

Extensive human activity in 

previously undisturbed or isolated areas 

can lead to the introduction and spread 

of exotic diseases, some of which (e.g., 

West Nile virus) can negatively impact 

endemic bird populations (Naugle et al. 

2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p. 

1). It can also result in altered predator 

populations and the introduction of 

exotic predator species, some of which 

(e.g., feral cats (Felis catus) and rats 

(Ratus sp.)) can be especially harmful to 

populations of endemic bird species 

(American Bird Conservancy 2007, p. 1; 

Courchamp et al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan 

and Blackburn 2007, pp. 149–150; Salo 

et al. 2007, pp. 1241–1242; Small 2005, 

p. 257). Any additive mortality to the 

cherry-throated tanager population or a 

decrease in its fitness due to an increase 

in the incidence of disease or predation 

would represent significant risks to the 

species’ overall viability (see Factor E). 

However, while these potential 

influences remain a concern for future 

management of the species, we are not 

aware of any information currently 

available that indicates the occurrence 

of disease in the cherry-throated 

tanager, or that documents any 

predation incurred by the species. As a 

result, we are not considering disease or 

predation to be a contributing factor to 

the continued existence of the cherrythroated tanager. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The cherry-throated tanager is 

formally recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in 

Brazil (Order No. 1.522) and is directly 

protected by various laws promulgated 

by the Brazilian government (BLI 2007, 

p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 896; ECOLEX 

2007, pp. 1–2). For example, there are 

measures that prohibit, or regulate 

through Federal agency oversight, the 

following activities with regard to 

endangered species: export and 

international trade (e.g., Decree No. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40663 

76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g., 

Act No. 5.197), collection and research 

(Order No. 332), captive propagation 

(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g., 

Decree No. 3.179). 

In addition, there are a wide range of 

regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that 

indirectly protect the cherry-throated 

tanager through measures that protect 

its remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX 

2007, pp. 2–5). For example, there are 

measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation 

of the remaining primary forests within 

the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree 

No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern 

various practices associated with the 

management of primary and secondary 

forests, such as logging, charcoal 

production, reforestation, recreation, 

and water resources (e.g., Resolution 

No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282, 

Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act 

No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for 

controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No. 

97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No. 

292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4) 

regulate industrial developments, such 

as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel 

production (e.g., Normative Instruction 

No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there 

are various measures (e.g., Law No. 

11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, 

Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct 

Federal and state agencies to promote 

the protection of lands and natural 

resources under their jurisdictions 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6). 

There are also various regulatory 

mechanisms in Brazil that govern the 

formal establishment and management 

of protected areas to promote 

conservation of the country’s natural 

resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–7). 

These mechanisms generally aim to 

protect endangered wildlife and plant 

species, genetic resources, overall 

biodiversity, and native ecosystems on 

Federal, state, and privately owned 

lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 

11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 

1.922). Brazil’s formally established 

protection areas are categorized based 

on their overall management objectives 

(e.g., National Parks versus Biological 

Reserves) and, based on those 

categories, allow varying uses and 

provide varying levels of protection for 

specific resources (Costa 2007, pp. 

5–19). 

Few sites have recent confirmed 

observations of the cherry-throated 

tanager. There have been possible 

sightings of the cherry-throated tanager 

in the Augusto Ruschi Biological 

Reserve (also known as Nova Lombardia 

Biological Reserve), which comprises 

approximately 5,000 hectares (ha) 

(12,355 acres (ac)) in Espiritu Santo; 

however, there is doubt that the species 

occupies the reserve due to a lack of 

records by ornithologists, since the 

1970s, of birds that frequent the area 

(BLI 2007, p. 2; Bauer et al. 2000, p. 106; 

Scott 1997, p. 62). One of the key sites 

still occupied by the species is the 

Pindobas IV Farm. It has been 

recommended that the farm be formally 

designated as a protected area to help 

ensure the species’ future protection, 

and the owners of this farm have 

expressed interest in this 

recommendation (Bauer et al. 2000, p. 

106; BLI 2007g, p. 2). Under Brazilian 

law, the remaining native forest on the 

owner’s land could be designated as a 

Private Natural Heritage Reserve. 

For various reasons (e.g., lack of 

funding, personnel, or local 

management commitment), some of 

Brazil’s protected areas exist without 

the current capacity to achieve their 

stated natural resource objectives 

(ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; Bruner et al. 

2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, p. 7; IUCN 

1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical News 

1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News 1999, 

p. 9). Enforcement has been a challenge 

to implement. Therefore, even with the 

further designation of protected areas, it 

is unlikely that all of the identified 

resource concerns for the cherrythroated tanager (e.g., residential and 

agricultural encroachment, resource 

extraction, unregulated tourism, and 

grazing) would be sufficiently addressed 

at these sites. 

In the past, the Brazilian government, 

through various regulations, policies, 

incentives, and subsidies, has actively 

encouraged settlement of previously 

undeveloped lands in southeastern 

Brazil (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 

2007, p. 3; Conservation International 

2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et 

al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 

2001, p. 874). More recently, the 

Brazilian government has given greater 

recognition to the environmental 

consequences of such rapid expansion, 

and has taken steps to better manage 

some of the natural resources 

potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7; 

Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News 

1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b, 

p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9; 

Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes 

and Kraas 2000, p. 45; Venturini et al. 

2005, p. 68). Despite these efforts, 

pressures to develop areas containing 

cherry-throated tanager habitat continue 

(ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; BLI 2007d, p. 2; 

Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 65). 

Summary of Factor D 

Brazil is faced with competing 

priorities of encouraging development 

for economic growth and resource 

protection. Although there are various 

government-sponsored measures that 

remain in place in Brazil that continue 

to facilitate development projects, there 

are also a wide variety of regulatory 

mechanisms in Brazil that require 

protection of the cherry-throated tanager 

and its habitat throughout the species’ 

potentially occupied range. Due to 

competing priorities, threats to the 

species’ remaining habitat are ongoing 

(see Factor A). Therefore, when 

combined with Factors A and E, we find 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the cherry-throated tanager 

throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Under this factor we explore whether 

three risks, represented by demographic, 

genetic, and environmental stochastic 

events, are substantive to threaten the 

continued existence of the cherrythroated tanager. In basic terms, 

demographic stochasticity is defined by 

chance changes in the population 

growth rate for the species (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). Population growth 

rates are influenced by individual birth 

and death rates (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 27), immigration and emigration 

rates, as well as changes in population 

sex ratios. Natural variation in survival 

and reproductive success of individuals 

and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios 

may act in concert to contribute to 

demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity 

is caused by changes in gene 

frequencies due to genetic drift, and 

diminished genetic diversity, and/or 

effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p. 

786). Inbreeding can have individual or 

population-level consequences either by 

increasing the phenotypic expression 

(the outward appearance or observable 

structure, function or behavior of a 

living organism) of recessive, 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, 

p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is 

defined as the susceptibility of small, 

isolated populations of wildlife species 

to natural levels of environmental 

variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged 

drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) 

(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and 

Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 

410–412). Each risk will be analyzed 

specifically for the cherry-throated 

tanager. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species are susceptible to demographic 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40664 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 

130–134). These threat factors, which 

may act in concert, include: Natural 

variation in survival and reproductive 

success of individuals, chance 

disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in 

gene frequencies due to genetic drift, 

diminished genetic diversity and 

associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression), dispersal of just 

a few individuals, a few clutch failures, 

a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring 

over just one or a few years, and chance 

mortality of just a few reproductive-age 

individuals. 

The cherry-throated tanager is 

believed to have been rare historically 

with a naturally patchy, low density 

distribution, as indicated by the paucity 

of confirmed sightings of this colorful 

bird in areas that have been heavily 

visited by experienced birders (Bauer et 

al. 2000, p. 98; Collar et al. 1994, p. 190; 

Venturini et al. 2005, pp. 63–64; BLI 

2007g, p. 1). However, the species must 

have maintained a minimum level of 

genetic interchange among its local 

subpopulations in order for them to 

have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet 

1997, p. 107; Vila` et al. 2002, p. 91; 

Wang 2004, p. 332). 

In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, a general 

approximation of a minimum viable 

population size is referred to as the 

50/500 rule (Franklin 1980, p. 147), as 

described under Factor E of the 

Brazilian merganser. Currently, the 

cherry-throated tanager is only known 

from two occupied sites where an 

approximate total of 14 birds have been 

observed since 1998 (Venturini et al. 

2005, p. 66). Given this information, 

current population estimates are 50 to 

249 individuals, or below (BLI 2007g, 

p. 1; Venturini et al. 2005, p. 66). The 

lower limit of the population is at or 

below the minimum number of 

individuals required to avoid imminent 

risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50). The 

current maximum estimate of 249 

individuals for the entire population is 

only half of the upper threshold (Ne = 

500) required to maintain genetic 

diversity over time and to maintain an 

enhanced capacity to adapt to changing 

conditions. As such, we currently 

consider the species to be at risk due to 

its lack of near- and long-term genetic 

viability. 

Various past and ongoing human 

activities and their secondary influences 

continue to impact all of the remaining 

suitable habitats that may still harbor 

the cherry-throated tanager (see Factors 

A and D). We expect that any additional 

loss or degradation of habitats that are 

used by the cherry-throated tanager will 

have disproportionately greater impacts 

on the species due to the population’s 

fragmented state. This is because with 

each contraction of an existing 

subpopulation, the likelihood of 

interchange with other subpopulations 

within patches decreases, while the 

likelihood of its complete reproductive 

isolation increases. 

The combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic 

and demographic stochasticity on a 

species population are referred to as 

patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can 

have profound effects on fragmented 

subpopulations and can potentially 

reduce a species’ respective effective 

population by orders of magnitude 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 31). For 

example, an increase in habitat 

fragmentation can separate 

subpopulations to the point where 

individuals can no longer disperse and 

breed among habitat patches, causing a 

shift in the demographic characteristics 

of a population and a reduction in 

genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer 

areas and reconnect some of the 

remaining tracts of suitable habitat near 

the species’ currently occupied sites, it 

is doubtful that the individual tracts are 

currently large enough to support viable 

populations of many birds endemic to 

the Atlantic Forest, and the eventual 

loss of any small, isolated populations 

appears to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, 

p. 117; Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 

1609–1610; IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; 

Machado and Da Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 

921–922; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 873; 

Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118). 

Furthermore, as a species’ status 

continues to decline, often as a result of 

deterministic forces such as habitat loss 

or overutilization, it will become 

increasingly vulnerable to a broad array 

of other forces. If this trend continues, 

its ultimate extinction due to one or 

more stochastic events becomes more 

likely. 

We expect that the cherry-throated 

tanager’s increased vulnerability to 

demographic stochasticity and 

inbreeding will be operative even in the 

absence of any human-induced threats 

or stochastic environmental events, 

which only act to further exacerbate the 

species’ vulnerability to local 

extirpations and eventual extinction. 

Demographic and genetic stochastic 

forces typically operate synergistically. 

Initial effects of one threat factor can 

later exacerbate the effects of other 

threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin 

and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 25–26). For 

example, any further fragmentation of 

populations will, by definition, result in 

the further removal or dispersal of 

individuals, which will exacerbate the 

other threats. Conversely, lack of a 

sufficient number of individuals in a 

local area or a decline in their 

individual or collective fitness may 

cause a decline in the population size, 

despite the presence of suitable habitat 

patches. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species, such as the cherry-throated 

tanager, are also susceptible to natural 

levels of environmental variability and 

related ‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g., 

severe storms, prolonged drought, 

extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we 

will refer to as environmental 

stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; 

Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 

1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic 

environmental event can severely 

reduce existing wildlife populations 

and, if the affected population is already 

small or severely fragmented, it is likely 

that demographic stochasticity or 

inbreeding will become operative, 

which would place the population in 

jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 27; 

Lande 1995, pp. 787–789). 

Summary of Factor E 

The small and declining numbers that 

make up the cherry-throated tanager’s 

population makes it susceptible to 

natural environmental variability or 

chance events. In addition to its 

declining numbers, the high level of 

population fragmentation makes the 

species susceptible to genetic and 

demographic stochasticity. Therefore, 

we find that demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events are a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

cherry-throated tanager throughout its 

range. 

Status Determination for the Cherrythroated Tanager 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

cherry-throated tanager. The species is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A), 

and its lack of near- and long-term 

genetic viability due to threats 

associated with demographic, genetic, 

and environmental stochasticity (Factor 

E). Furthermore, we have determined 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate 

the current threats to the cherrythroated tanager. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40665 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Based 

on the threats to the cherry-throated 

tanager throughout its entire range, as 

described above, we determine that the 

cherry-throated tanager is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are proposing to list the 

cherry-throated tanager as an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range. 

IV. Fringe-backed Fire-eye (Pyriglena 

atra) 

Species Description 

The fringe-backed fire-eye has 

distinctive red eyes and measures 

approximately 17.5 cm (7 in). Males are 

black with a small patch on their backs 

of black feathers lined with white edges. 

Females are more of a reddish-brown 

color, with a black tail, brown 

underparts and a whitish throat (BLI 

2007e, p. 1). 

Taxonomy 

The fringe-backed fire-eye belongs in 

the ‘‘antbird’’ family Thamnophilidae, 

and was first described by Swainson in 

1825 (BLI 2007e, p. 1). Sick (1991, p. 

416) describes this species to be similar 

to the white-backed fire-eye (Pyriglena 

leuconota). The fringe-backed fire-eye 

was previously referred to as 

Swainson’s fire-eye, and is also called 

‘‘Alapi noir’’ in French, 

‘‘Fleckenmantel-Feuerauge’’ in German, 

and ‘‘Ojodefuego de 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 understories at 

the edges of lowland primary tropical 

forests (BLI 2007e, p. 2; Collar et al. 

1992, p. 677; del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 

637). The species has also been found to 

occupy degraded forests and dense 

understories of secondary-growth forest 

stands. It can also occupy earlysuccessional forest stands, but avoids 

any areas with open understories (e.g., 

sunny openings, interior forest) (del 

Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637). 

The fringe-backed fire-eye forages in 

dense, tangled vegetation with 

numerous horizontal perches within 

approximately 3 m (10 ft) of the ground, 

although it occasionally feeds higher up 

(ca. 10 m (33 ft)) (Collar et al. 1992, p. 

677; del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637). The 

species typically occurs as individual 

birds, in closely associated pairs, or in 

small family groups. The bird often 

relies on army ant (Eciton sp.) swarms 

to flush their prey, which may include 

cockroaches (superfamily Blattoidea), 

grasshoppers (family Acrididae), winged 

ants (class Chilopoda), caterpillars 

(order Lepidoptera), and geckos (family 

Gekkonidae) (del Hoyo et al. 2003, pp. 

637–638; Sick 1993, pp. 403–404). 

Limited specific information is known 

about the species’ breeding behavior 

(del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638). However, 

females of this genus typically lay two 

eggs in spherical nests that are 

approximately 10 cm (4 in) in diameter, 

have a side entrance, and are attached 

to vegetation within roughly 1 m (3.3 ft) 

of ground (Sick 1993, pp. 405–406). In 

addition, both sexes in this genus 

typically help to build nests, brood 

clutches, and attend their young (Sick 

1993, pp. 405–406). 

Range and Distribution 

The fringe-backed fire-eye occurs 

along a narrow belt of coastal forest 

habitats from southern Sergipe to 

northeastern Bahia, Brazil (BLI 2007e, 

p. 1; Collar et al. 1992, p. 677; del Hoyo 

et al. 2003, p. 637; Sick 1993, p. 416). 

The species’ entire population was 

previously believed to be restricted to a 

few sites of remnant primary forest, 

totaling roughly 9 km2 (3.5 mi2) in 

northeastern Bahia. In 2002, 

approximately 18 individuals were 

observed in a forested site in Sergipe 

(del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638). This 

discovery extended the species’ known 

range to the north by approximately 175 

km (109 mi) (del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 

638). However, the fringe-backed fireeye has not been located at several sites 

from where it was previously known in 

Bahia (del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638). 

Population Estimates 

The fringe-backed fire-eye’s extant 

population is estimated to be between 

1,000 and 2,499 individuals. The 

available information indicates that the 

species’ population is fragmented 

among 6 to 10 occupied areas, with the 

largest subpopulation between 50 and 

249 individuals (BLI 2007e, p. 3). Its 

population, along with the extent and 

quality of its habitat, continues to 

decline (BLI 2007e, p. 1). 

Conservation Status 

IUCN considers the fringe-backed fireeye to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because it has 

‘‘a very small fragmented range, within 

which the extent and quality of its 

habitat are continuing to decline and 

where it is only known from a few 

localities’’ (BLI 2007e, p. 1). In addition, 

the species is protected under Brazilian 

law (Collar et al. 1992, p. 678). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Fringe-backed Fire-eye 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

The fringe-backed fire-eye occurs in 

one of the most densely populated 

regions of Brazil, and most of the 

tropical forest habitats believed to have 

been used historically by the species 

have been converted or are severely 

degraded due to the wide range of 

human activities (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 

2007e, p. 2; Collar and Andrew 1988, 

p. 102; Collar et al. 1992, p. 678; Collar 

et al. 1994, p. 135; Conservation 

International 2007a, p. 1; del Hoyo et al. 

2003, p. 638; Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 1; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Sick 

1993, p. 407; World Wildlife Fund 2007, 

pp. 3–51). Based on a number of recent 

estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 

(over 1,250,000 km2 (482,628 mi2)) 

historically covered by tropical forests 

within the Atlantic Forest biome has 

been converted or severely degraded as 

a result of various human activities 

(Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation 

International 2007a, p. 1; Ho ̈fling 2007, 

p. 1; IUCN 1999; Morellato and Haddad 

2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853– 

854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; 

Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; World 

Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2–41). The 

current rate of habitat decline within the 

Atlantic Forest biome is unknown. 

In addition to the overall loss and 

degradation of native habitat within this 

biome, the remaining tracts of habitat 

are severely fragmented. The region has 

the two largest cites in Brazil, Sa ̃o Paulo 

and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to 

approximately 70 percent of Brazil’s 169 

million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). 

The major human activities that have 

resulted in the loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation of native habitats within 

the Atlantic Forest biome include 

extensive establishment of agricultural 

fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, and 

corn), plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, 

pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and 

bananas), livestock pastures, centers of 

human habitation, and industrial 

developments (e.g., charcoal 

production, steel plants, and 

hydropower reservoirs). Forestry 

practices (e.g., commercial logging), 

subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood 

collection), and changes in fire 

frequencies also contribute to the 

degradation of the native habitat (BLI 

2003a, p. 4; Ju ́nior et al. 1995, p. 147; 

The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; 

Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto 

and Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, 

pp. 868–869; Scott and Brooke 1985, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40666 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

p. 118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 

3–51). 

The fringe-backed fire-eye is not 

strictly tied to primary forest habitats 

and can make use of early-successional, 

secondary-growth forests with dense 

understory vegetation (BLI 2007e, p. 2; 

Collar et al. 1992, p. 677; del Hoyo et 

al. 2003, p. 637). However, this does not 

necessarily lessen the risk to the species 

from the effects of deforestation and 

habitat degradation. Atlantic Forest 

birds, such as the fringe-backed fire-eye, 

which are tolerant of secondary-growth 

forests, are also rare or have severely 

restricted ranges (i.e., less than 21,000 

km2 (8,100 mi2)). Thus habitat 

degradation can adversely impact such 

species as equally as it impacts primary 

forest-obligate species (Harris and Pimm 

2004, pp. 1612–1613). The entire range 

of the fringe-backed fire-eye 

encompasses approximately 4,990 km2

(1,924 mi2), with only 20 percent of this 

area considered occupied (BLI 2007e, 

pp. 1–4). 

The susceptibility to extirpation of 

limited-range species that are tolerant of 

secondary-growth forests or other 

disturbed sites can occur for a variety of 

reasons, such as when a species’ 

remaining population is already too 

small or its distribution too fragmented 

such that it may not be demographically 

or genetically viable (Harris and Pimm 

2004, pp. 1612–1613). In addition, 

while the fringe-backed fire-eye may be 

tolerant of secondary-growth forests or 

other disturbed sites, these areas may 

not represent optimal conditions for the 

species, which would include dense 

understories and abundant prey species. 

For example, management of 

plantations often involves intensive 

control of the site’s understory 

vegetation and long-term use of 

pesticides, which eventually result in 

severely diminished understory cover 

and potential prey species (Rolim and 

Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687–2691; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, pp. 868–869; Scott and 

Brooke 1985, p. 118). Such management 

practices eventually result in the loss of 

native understory plant species, creating 

relatively open understories, which the 

fringe-backed fire-eye avoids (BLI 

2007e, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 677; 

del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637). 

Secondary impacts that are associated 

with the above human activities that 

fragment the remaining tracks of 

Atlantic forest used by the fringe-backed 

fire-eye include the potential 

introduction of disease vectors or exotic 

predators within the species’ historic 

range (see Factor C). As a result of these 

secondary impacts, there is often a time 

lag between the initial conversion or 

degradation of suitable habitats and the 

extinction of endemic bird populations 

(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al. 

1999b, p. 1140). Even when potentially 

occupied sites may be formally 

protected (see Factor D), the remaining 

fragments of forested habitat will likely 

undergo further degradation due to their 

altered dynamics and isolation (through 

infestation of gap-opportunistic species, 

which alter forest structure, and 

decrease in gene flow between species) 

(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932). 

Therefore, even without further habitat 

loss or degradation, the fringe-backed 

fire-eye remains at risk from past 

impacts to its suitable habitats. 

Summary of Factor A 

Most of the tropical forest habitats 

believed to have been used historically 

by the fringe-backed fire-eye have been 

converted or are severely degraded due 

to the above human activities (BLI 

2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007e, p. 2; Collar and 

Andrew 1988, p. 102; Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 678; Collar et al. 1994, p. 135; 

Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; 

del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638; Ho ̈fling 

2007, p. 1; The Nature Conservancy 

2007, p. 1; Sick 1993, p. 407; World 

Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). In 

addition, the remaining tracts of suitable 

habitat potentially used by the species, 

including many secondary-growth 

forests, are subject to ongoing clearing 

for agriculture fields and plantations 

(e.g., sugar cane and oil palm), livestock 

pastures, and industrial and residential 

developments (Collar and Andrew 1988, 

p. 102; Collar et al. 1992, p. 678). 

Even with the recent passage of 

national forest policy and in the face of 

many other legal protections in Brazil 

(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss 

throughout the Atlantic Forest biome 

has increased since the mid-1990s 

(CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, 

p. 1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and 

native habitats at many of the remaining 

sites may be lost over the next several 

years (Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263). 

Furthermore, because the species’ extant 

population is already small, highly 

fragmented, and believed to be 

declining (BLI 2007e, 

p. 1), any further loss or degradation of 

its remaining suitable habitat represent 

significant threat to the species (see 

Factor E). Therefore, we find that 

destruction and modification of habitat 

are threats to the continued existence of 

the fringe-backed fire-eye throughout its 

range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The extant population of the fringebacked fire-eye is considered to be 

small, fragmented, and declining. 

Therefore, the removal or dispersal of 

just a few individuals from any of the 

species’ subpopulations or even a slight 

decline in their fitness due to 

intentional or inadvertent hunting or 

specimen collection could represent a 

significant threat to the fringe-backed 

fire-eye’s overall viability (see Factor E). 

However, while these potential 

influences remain a concern for future 

management of the species, we are not 

aware of any information currently 

available that indicates that this species 

is being used for any commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purpose. As a result, we are not 

considering overutilization to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the fringe-backed fire-eye. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Extensive human activity in 

previously undisturbed or isolated areas 

can lead to the introduction and spread 

of exotic diseases, some of which (e.g., 

West Nile virus) can negatively impact 

endemic bird populations (Naugle et al. 

2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, 

p. 1). It can also result in altered 

predator populations and the 

introduction of exotic predator species, 

some of which (e.g., feral cats (Felis 

catus) and rats (Ratus sp.)) can be 

especially harmful to populations of 

endemic bird species (American Bird 

Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Courchamp et 

al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan and Blackburn 

2007, pp. 149–150; Salo et al. 2007, pp. 

1241–1242; Small 2005, p. 257). 

Although large, stable populations of 

wildlife species have adapted to natural 

levels of disease and predation within 

their historic ranges, the extant 

population of the fringe-backed fire-eye 

is considered to be small, fragmented, 

and declining (BLI 2007e, p. 1). Any 

additive mortality to the fringe-backed 

fire-eye’s subpopulations or a decrease 

in their fitness due to an increase in the 

incidence of disease or predation could 

adversely impact the species’ overall 

viability (see Factor E). However, while 

these potential influences remain a 

concern for future management of the 

species, we are not aware of any 

information currently available that 

specifically indicates the occurrence of 

disease in the fringe-backed fire-eye, or 

that documents any predation incurred 

by the species. As a result, we are not 

considering disease or predation to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the fringe-backed fire-eye. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The fringe-backed fire-eye is formally 

recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40667 

(Order No. 1.522) and is directly 

protected by various laws promulgated 

by the Brazilian government (BLI 2007e, 

p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 678; ECOLEX 

2007, pp. 1–2). For example, there are 

measures that prohibit, or regulate 

through Federal agency oversight, the 

following activities with regard to 

endangered species: Export and 

international trade (e.g., Decree No. 

76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g., 

Act No. 5.197), collection and research 

(Order No. 332), captive propagation 

(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g., 

Decree No. 3.179). In addition, there are 

a wide range of regulatory mechanisms 

in Brazil that indirectly protect the 

fringe-backed fire-eye through measures 

that protect its remaining suitable 

habitat (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 2–5). For 

example, there are measures that: (1) 

Prohibit exploitation of the remaining 

primary forests within the Atlantic 

Forest biome (e.g., Decree No. 750, 

Resolution No. 10); (2) govern various 

practices associated with the 

management of primary and secondary 

forests, such as logging, charcoal 

production, reforestation, recreation, 

and water resources (e.g., Resolution 

No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282, 

Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act 

No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for 

controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No. 

97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No. 

292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4) 

regulate industrial developments, such 

as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel 

production (e.g., Normative Instruction 

No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there 

are various measures (e.g., Law No. 

11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, 

Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct 

Federal and state agencies to promote 

the protection of lands and natural 

resources under their jurisdictions 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6). 

There are also various regulatory 

mechanisms in Brazil that govern the 

formal establishment and management 

of protected areas to promote 

conservation of the country’s natural 

resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–7). 

These mechanisms generally aim to 

protect endangered wildlife and plant 

species, genetic resources, overall 

biodiversity, and native ecosystems on 

Federal, State, and privately owned 

lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 

11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 

1.922). Brazil’s formally established 

protection areas are categorized based 

on their overall management objectives 

(e.g., National Parks versus Biological 

Reserves), and based on those categories 

they allow varying uses and provide 

varying levels of protection for specific 

resources (Costa 2007, pp. 5–19). 

Currently, the fringe-backed fire-eye 

does not occur within any protected 

areas, although it has been 

recommended that some of the key sites 

it still occupies should be formally 

designated as protected areas to help 

ensure the species’ future protection 

(BLI 2007e, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 678; del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638). 

However, for various reasons (e.g., lack 

of funding, personnel, or local 

management commitment), some of 

Brazil’s protected areas exist without 

the current capacity to achieve their 

stated natural resource objectives 

(Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, 

p. 7; IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical 

News 1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News 

1999, p. 9). Therefore, even with any 

future designation of protected areas, it 

is unlikely that all of the identified 

resource concerns for the fringe-backed 

fire-eye (e.g., residential and agricultural 

encroachment, resource extraction, 

unregulated tourism, and grazing) 

would be sufficiently addressed at these 

sites. 

In the past, the Brazilian government, 

through various regulations, policies, 

incentives, and subsidies, has actively 

encouraged settlement of previously 

undeveloped lands in southeastern 

Brazil (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 

2007, p. 3; Conservation International 

2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et 

al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 

2001, p. 874). More recently, the 

Brazilian government has given greater 

recognition to the environmental 

consequences of such rapid expansion, 

and has taken steps to better manage 

some of the natural resources 

potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7; 

Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News 

1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b, 

p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9; 

Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes 

and Kraas 2000, p. 45). Despite these 

efforts, development projects continue 

to degrade and clear potentially 

occupied habitat for plantations within 

the Atlantic Forest biome (Butler 2007, 

p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 678; 

Neotropical News 1998a, p. 10; Ratter et 

al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 

2001, p. 874). 

Summary of Factor D 

Brazil is faced with competing 

priorities of encouraging development 

for economic growth and resource 

protection. Although there are various 

government-sponsored measures that 

remain in place in Brazil that continue 

to facilitate potentially harmful 

development projects, there are also a 

wide variety of regulatory mechanisms 

in Brazil that require protection of the 

fringe-backed fire-eye and its habitat 

throughout the species’ potentially 

occupied range. Due to competing 

priorities, significant threats to the 

species’ remaining habitat are ongoing 

(see Factor A). Therefore, when 

combined with Factors A and E, we find 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the fringe-backed fire-eye 

throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Under this factor we explore whether 

three risks, represented by demographic, 

genetic, and environmental stochastic 

events, are substantive to threaten the 

continued existence of the fringe-backed 

fire-eye. In basic terms, demographic 

stochasticity is defined by chance 

changes in the population growth rate 

for the species (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 27). Population growth rates are 

influenced by individual birth and 

death rates (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 

27), immigration and emigration rates, 

as well as changes in population sex 

ratios. Natural variation in survival and 

reproductive success of individuals and 

chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may 

act in concert to contribute to 

demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity 

is caused by changes in gene 

frequencies due to genetic drift, and 

diminished genetic diversity, and/or 

effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p. 

786). Inbreeding can have individual or 

population-level consequences either by 

increasing the phenotypic expression 

(the outward appearance or observable 

structure, function or behavior of a 

living organism) of recessive, 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, 

p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is 

defined as the susceptibility of small, 

isolated populations of wildlife species 

to natural levels of environmental 

variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged 

drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) 

(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and 

Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410– 

412). Each risk will be analyzed 

specifically for the fringe-backed fireeye. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species are susceptible to demographic 

and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 

130–134). These threat factors, which 

may act in concert, include: Natural 

variation in survival and reproductive 

success of individuals, chance 

disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40668 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

gene frequencies due to genetic drift, 

diminished genetic diversity and 

associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression), dispersal of just 

a few individuals, a few clutch failures, 

a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring 

over just one or a few years, and chance 

mortality of just a few reproductive-age 

individuals. 

There is very little information 

available regarding the historic 

abundance and distribution of the 

fringe-backed fire-eye. However, the 

species’ historic population was likely 

larger and more widely distributed than 

today (BLI 2007e, p. 1), and it must have 

maintained a minimum level of genetic 

interchange among its local 

subpopulations in order for them to 

have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet 

1997, p. 107; Vila et al. 2002, p. 91; 

Wang 2004, p. 332). 

In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, the 50/500 rule 

(as explained under Factor E for the 

Brazilian merganser) may be used to 

approximate minimum viable 

population size (Franklin 1980, p. 147). 

The available information indicates that 

the fringe-backed fire-eye population is 

fragmented among 6 to 10 occupied 

areas, with little likelihood for 

interchange of individuals among the 

species’ subpopulations (BLI 2007e, p. 

3–4). The largest subpopulation is 

estimated between 50 and 249 

individuals, and therefore, it is at or just 

below the minimum number of 

individuals required to avoid imminent 

risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50). The 

current maximum estimate of 249 

individuals for the largest 

subpopulation (BLI 2007e, p. 3) is only 

half of the upper threshold (Ne = 500) 

required to maintain genetic diversity 

over time and to maintain an enhanced 

capacity to adapt to changing 

conditions. As such, we currently 

consider the species to be at risk due to 

its lack of near- and long-term genetic 

viability. 

Available information also indicates 

that suitable habitats currently occupied 

by the fringe-backed fire-eye are highly 

fragmented and that the species’ extant 

population is small and declining. In 

addition, the fringe-backed fire-eye has 

not been located at several sites from 

where it was previously known in 

Bahia, and the subpopulation recently 

discovered in Sergipe only included 

approximately 18 individuals (del Hoyo 

et al. 2003, p. 638). Continued loss of 

suitable habitats (see Factor A) will 

exacerbate fragmentation of the 

remaining occupied patches and will act 

to further isolate the species’ 

subpopulations. 

Various past and ongoing human 

activities and their secondary influences 

continue to impact all of the remaining 

suitable habitats that may still harbor 

the fringe-backed fire-eye (see Factors A 

and D). We expect that any additional 

loss or degradation of habitats that are 

used by the fringe-backed fire-eye will 

have disproportionately greater impacts 

on the species due to the population’s 

fragmented state. This is because with 

each contraction of an existing 

subpopulation, the likelihood of 

interchange with other subpopulations 

within patches decreases, while the 

likelihood of its complete reproductive 

isolation increases. 

The combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic 

and demographic stochasticity on a 

species population are referred to as 

patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can 

have profound effects on fragmented 

subpopulations and can potentially 

reduce a species’ respective effective 

population by orders of magnitude 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 31). For 

example, an increase in habitat 

fragmentation can separate 

subpopulations to the point where 

individuals can no longer disperse and 

breed among habitat patches, causing a 

shift in the demographic characteristics 

of a population and a reduction in 

genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer 

areas and reconnect some of the 

remaining tracts of suitable habitat near 

the species’ currently occupied sites, it 

is doubtful that the individual tracts are 

currently large enough to support viable 

populations of many birds endemic to 

the Atlantic Forest, such as the fringebacked fire-eye, and the eventual loss of 

any small, isolated populations appears 

to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117; 

Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610; 

IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da 

Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke 

1985, p. 118). Furthermore, as a species’ 

status continues to decline, often as a 

result of deterministic forces such as 

habitat loss or overutilization, it will 

become increasingly vulnerable to a 

broad array of other forces. If this trend 

continues, its ultimate extinction due to 

one or more stochastic events becomes 

more likely. 

We expect that the fringe-backed fireeye’s increased vulnerability to 

demographic stochasticity and 

inbreeding will be operative even in the 

absence of any human-induced threats 

or stochastic environmental events, 

which only act to further exacerbate the 

species’ vulnerability to local 

extirpations and eventual extinction. 

Demographic and genetic stochastic 

forces typically operate synergistically. 

Initial effects of one threat factor can 

later exacerbate the effects of other 

threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin 

and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 25–26). For 

example, any further fragmentation of 

populations will, by definition, result in 

the further removal or dispersal of 

individuals, which will exacerbate the 

other threats. Conversely, lack of a 

sufficient number of individuals in a 

local area or a decline in their 

individual or collective fitness may 

cause a decline in the population size, 

despite the presence of suitable habitat 

patches. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species, such as the fringe-backed fire 

eye, are also susceptible to natural 

levels of environmental variability and 

related ‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g., 

severe storms, prolonged drought, 

extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we 

will refer to as environmental 

stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; 

Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 

1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic 

environmental event can severely 

reduce existing wildlife populations 

and, if the affected population is already 

small or severely fragmented, it is likely 

that demographic stochasticity or 

inbreeding will become operative, 

which would place the population in 

jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 27; 

Lande 1995, pp. 787–789). 

Summary of Factor E 

The small and declining numbers that 

make up the fringe-backed fire-eye’s 

population makes it susceptible to 

natural environmental variability or 

chance events. In addition to its 

declining numbers, the high level of 

population fragmentation makes the 

species susceptible to genetic and 

demographic stochasticity. Therefore, 

we find that demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events are a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

fringe-backed fire-eye throughout its 

range. 

Status Determination for the FringeBacked Fire-Eye 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

fringe-backed fire-eye. The species is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A), 

and its lack of near- and long-term 

genetic viability due to threats 

associated with demographic, genetic, 

and environmental stochasticity (Factor 

E). Furthermore, we have determined 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40669 

(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate 

the current threats to the species. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Based 

on the threats to the fringe-backed fireeye throughout its entire range, as 

described above, we determine that the 

fringe-backed fire-eye is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are proposing to list the 

fringe-backed fire-eye as an endangered 

species throughout all of its range. 

V. Kaempfer’s Tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus 

kaempferi) 

Species Description 

The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is an 

olive-green bird measuring 10 cm (4 in) 

(BLI 2007f, p. 1). The head and face 

have olive-brown coloring, while the 

upper parts and breast are a dull olivegreen, the underparts are a pale 

greenish-yellow, and the throat is a pale 

yellow color. The primary wings are 

dark and the secondary wings have 

greenish-yellow borders. Each eye has a 

pale ring (BLI 2007f, p. 1). 

Taxonomy 

The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is a 

member of the flycatcher family 

(Tyrannidae) (BLI 2007f, p. 1). The 

species was previously recognized 

under the genus Idioptilon, and was first 

described by Zimmer in 1953 (BLI 

2007f, p. 1). 

Habitat and Life History 

The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is 

endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome 

and inhabits well shaded edges of 

medium-height (ca. 12 to 15 m (39 to 49 

ft)) primary- and secondary-growth 

forests that are typically in close 

proximity to rivers. The species appears 

to avoid tall, mature, primary forest 

habitats (Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 372– 

373; BLI 2007f, pp. 1–2; Collar et al. 

1992, p. 776). The Kaempfer’s todytyrant feeds predominantly in the outer 

canopies of trees within roughly 1 to 3 

m (3.3 to 10 ft) of the ground, but may 

also feed higher up (ca. 6 m (20 ft)). 

There is little information available 

describing the diet of the Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant; however, similar species 

within the Tyrannidae family feed on a 

variety of insects, which they often 

catch while in flight (Sick 1993, pp. 

452–453). Breeding pairs typically 

forage together and appear to maintain 

small, well-defined, permanent 

territories (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 373; 

BLI 2007f, p. 2). 

Both sexes help to build their nests, 

which can be located up to 

approximately 6 m (20 ft) above the 

ground and 2–3 m (6.6–10 ft) within the 

primary forest margin. Nests resemble 

elongated cups that can be up to 45 cm 

(18 in) long and are made of live 

mosses, grass, and dead leaves wrapped 

around a horizontal branch near the 

main trunk (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 373). 

Range and Distribution 

The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant inhabits 

humid, lowland forests in northeastern 

Santa Catarina, Brazil (Barnett et al. 

2000, p. 371; BLI 2007f, p. 1; Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 776; Collar et al. 1994, p. 

139). The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is only 

known with certainty from three 

localities in the state of Santa Catarina: 

Brusque, Itapoa ́, and Vila Nova and 

nearby areas. The last record for 

Brusque is from 1950, and the area has 

not been resurveyed since that time. The 

species has not been located at Vila 

Nova since 1991, despite repeated 

searches (BLI 2007f, pp. 1–2). The 

species was reported in 1998 and in 

2000 in a reserve called Reserva 

Particular do Patrimonio Natural de 

Ponta Velha in Itapoa ́. This reserve is 

close to the state border with Parana ́; 

thus it is possible that the species may 

be found in similar habitat in Parana ́; 

however, surveys have not been 

conducted (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 378). 

Population Estimates 

There is very little information 

currently available that specifically 

addresses the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant’s 

abundance; however, its extant 

population is estimated to be between 

1,000 and 2,499 individuals and is 

believed to be declining. The largest 

subpopulation of the species is 

estimated to be between 250 and 1,000 

individuals (BLI 2007f, pp. 1–3). 

Conservation Status 

IUCN considers the Kaempfer’s todytyrant to be ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ 

because ‘‘it is estimated to have an 

extremely small and severely 

fragmented range, with recent records 

from only two locations, and ongoing 

deforestation in the vicinity of these 

sites’’ (BLI 2007f, p. 1). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Kaempfer’s Tody-tyrant 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Based on a number of recent 

estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 

historically covered by tropical forests 

within the Atlantic Forest biome has 

been converted or severely degraded as 

a result of various human activities 

(Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation 

International 2007a, p. 1; Ho ̈fling 2007, 

p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 

786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 

2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the 

overall loss and degradation of native 

habitat within this biome, the remaining 

tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. 

The current rate of deforestation of 

Brazil’s Atlantic Forest is unknown. 

The region has the two largest cites in 

Brazil, Sa ̃o Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 

and is home to approximately 70 

percent of Brazil’s 169 million people 

(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major 

human activities that have resulted in 

the loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of native habitats within the Atlantic 

Forest biome include extensive 

establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., 

soy beans, sugarcane, and corn), 

plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine, 

coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas), 

livestock pastures, centers of human 

habitation, and industrial developments 

(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants, 

and hydropower reservoirs). Forestry 

practices (e.g., commercial logging), 

subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood 

collection), and changes in fire 

frequencies also contribute to the 

degradation of the native habitat (BLI 

2003a, p. 4; Ju ́nior et al. 1995, p. 147; 

The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; 

Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto 

and Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, 

pp. 868–869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 

118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3– 

51). 

The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is not 

strictly tied to primary forest habitats 

and can inhabit secondary-growth 

forests (Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 372–373; 

BLI 2007f, pp. 1–2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 

776). However, this does not lessen the 

threat to the species from the effects of 

ongoing deforestation and habitat 

degradation. Atlantic Forest birds, such 

as the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, which are 

tolerant of secondary-growth forests, are 

also rare or have restricted ranges (i.e., 

less than 21,000 km2 (8,100 mi2)). Thus, 

habitat degradation can adversely 

impact such species just as equally as it 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40670 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

impacts primary forest-obligate species 

(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613). 

Currently, the entire known range of the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is restricted to 

only 19 km2 (7.3 mi2) (BLI 2007f, p. 3). 

The susceptibility to extirpation of 

rare, limited-range species that are 

tolerant of secondary-growth forests 

occurs for a variety of reasons such as 

when a species’ remaining population is 

already too small or its distribution too 

fragmented such that it may not be 

demographically or genetically viable 

(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613). 

In addition, while the Kaempfer’s todytyrant may be tolerant of secondarygrowth forests or other disturbed sites, 

these areas may not represent optimal 

conditions for the species. For example, 

management of plantations often 

involves intensive control of the site’s 

understory vegetation and long-term use 

of pesticides, which eventually result in 

severely diminished understory cover 

and potential prey species (Rolim and 

Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687–2691; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, pp. 868–869; Scott and 

Brooke 1985, p. 118). Such management 

practices eventually result in the loss of 

native understory plant species and 

relatively open understories. 

Insectivorous birds that feed in the 

understory, including those in the genus 

Hemitriccus, are especially vulnerable 

to such habitat modifications (Goerck 

1997, p. 117), and the Kaempfer’s todytyrant does not occupy these types of 

altered sites (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 377). 

Even when potentially occupied sites 

may be formally protected (see Factor 

D), the remaining fragments of forested 

habitat will likely undergo further 

degradation due to their altered 

dynamics and isolation as defined by 

decreased gene flow, increase in 

inbreeding, decrease in species fitness, 

increase in liana infestation, and 

dominance of gap-obligate species 

(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932). 

Moreover, secondary impacts that are 

associated with human activities that 

degrade and remove native habitats 

within the Atlantic Forest biome 

include the potential introduction of 

disease vectors or exotic predators 

within the species’ historic range (see 

Factor C). As a result of these secondary 

impacts, there is often a time lag 

between the initial conversion or 

degradation of suitable habitats and the 

extinction of endemic bird populations 

(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al. 

1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without 

further habitat loss or degradation, the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant remains at risk 

from past impacts to its suitable forested 

habitats. 

Summary of Factor A 

The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant occurs in 

one of the most densely populated 

regions of Brazil, and most of the 

tropical forest habitats believed to have 

been used historically by the species 

have been converted or are severely 

degraded due to the wide range of 

human activities identified above 

(Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 377–378; BLI 

2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007f, p. 2; Collar et al. 

1992, p. 776; Collar et al. 1994, p. 139; 

Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; 

Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife 

Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). In addition, the 

remaining tracts of suitable habitat 

potentially used by the species, 

including many secondary-growth 

forests, are subject to ongoing clearing 

for agricultural fields, plantations (e.g., 

banana, palmetto, and rice), logging, 

livestock pastures, and industrial and 

residential developments (Barnett et al. 

2000, pp. 377–378; BLI 2007f, p. 4; 

Collar et al. 1992, p. 776). Even with the recent passage of 

national forest policy and in light of 

many other legal protections in Brazil 

(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss 

throughout the Atlantic Forest biome 

has increased since the mid-1990s 

(CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p. 

1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and native 

habitats at many of the remaining sites 

may be lost over the next several years 

(Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263). In addition, 

because the extant population of the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is already small, 

highly fragmented, and believed to be 

declining (BLI 2007f, pp. 1–3), any 

further loss or degradation of its 

remaining suitable habitat will 

adversely impact the species. Therefore, 

we find that destruction and 

modification of habitat are threats to the 

continued existence of the Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant throughout its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The extant population of the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is considered to 

be small, fragmented, and declining. 

Therefore, the removal or dispersal of 

just a few individuals from any of the 

species’ subpopulations or even a slight 

decline in their fitness due to 

intentional or inadvertent hunting, 

specimen collection, or other human 

disturbances (e.g., scientific research, 

birding) could represent a significant 

threat to the species’ overall viability 

(see Factor E). However, while these 

potential influences remain a concern 

for future management of the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, we are not 

aware of any information currently 

available that indicates the use of this 

species for any commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purpose. As a result, we are not 

considering overutilization to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Extensive human activity in 

previously undisturbed or isolated areas 

can lead to the introduction and spread 

of exotic diseases, some of which (e.g., 

West Nile virus) can negatively impact 

endemic bird populations (Naugle et al. 

2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, 

p. 1). It can also result in altered 

predator populations and the 

introduction of various exotic predator 

species, some of which (e.g., feral cats 

(Felis catus) and rats (Ratus sp.)) can be 

especially harmful to populations of 

endemic bird species (American Bird 

Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Courchamp et 

al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan and Blackburn 

2007, pp. 149–150; Salo et al. 2007, pp. 

1241–1242; Small 2005, p. 257). 

Although large, stable populations of 

wildlife species have adapted to natural 

levels of disease and predation within 

their historic ranges, the extant 

population of the Kaempfer’s todytyrant is considered to be small, 

fragmented, and declining (BLI 2007f, 

pp. 1–3). In addition, extensive human 

activity in previously undisturbed or 

isolated areas can lead to the 

introduction and spread of exotic 

diseases, some of which (e.g., West Nile 

virus) can negatively impact endemic 

bird populations (Naugle et al. 2004, 

p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p. 1). 

Any additive mortality to the 

subpopulations of the Kaempfer’s todytyrant or a decrease in their fitness due 

to an increase in the incidence of 

disease or predation could severely 

impact the species’ overall viability (see 

Factor E). However, while these 

potential influences remain a concern 

for future management of the species, 

we are not aware of any information 

currently available that indicates the 

occurrence of disease in the Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant, or that documents any 

predation incurred by the species. As a 

result, we are not considering disease or 

predation to be a contributing factor to 

the continued existence of the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is 

formally recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in 

Brazil (Order No. 1.522) and is directly 

protected by various laws promulgated 

by the Brazilian government (Barnett et 

al. 2000, p. 377; BLI 2007f, p. 2; Collar 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40671 

et al. 1992, p. 776; ECOLEX 2007, pp. 

1–2). For example, there are measures 

that prohibit, or regulate through 

Federal agency oversight, the following 

activities with regard to endangered 

species: export and international trade 

(e.g., Decree No. 76.623, Order No. 

419–P), hunting (e.g., Act No. 5.197), 

collection and research (Order No. 332), 

captive propagation (Order No. 5), and 

general harm (e.g., Decree No. 3.179). In 

addition, there are a wide range of 

regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that 

indirectly protect the Kaempfer’s todytyrant through measures that protect its 

remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX 

2007, pp. 2–5). For example, there are 

measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation 

of the remaining primary forests within 

the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree 

No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern 

various practices associated with the 

management of primary and secondary 

forests, such as logging, charcoal 

production, reforestation, recreation, 

and water resources (e.g., Resolution 

No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282, 

Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act 

No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for 

controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No. 

97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No. 

292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4) 

regulate industrial developments, such 

as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel 

production (e.g., Normative Instruction 

No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there 

are various measures (e.g., Law No. 

11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, 

Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct 

Federal and state agencies to promote 

the protection of lands and natural 

resources under their jurisdictions 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6). 

Various regulatory mechanisms in 

Brazil govern the formal establishment 

and management of protected areas to 

promote conservation of the country’s 

natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 

6–7). These mechanisms generally aim 

to protect endangered wildlife and plant 

species, genetic resources, overall 

biodiversity, and native ecosystems on 

Federal, state, and privately owned 

lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 

11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 

1.922). Brazil’s formally established 

protection areas are categorized based 

on their overall management objectives 

(e.g., National Parks versus Biological 

Reserves) and, based on those 

categories, they allow varying uses and 

provide varying levels of protection for 

specific resources (Costa 2007, pp. 

5–19). 

Currently, the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant 

is known to occur within one 15 km2 (6 

mi2) protected area, the privately owned 

Volta Velha Natural Heritage Reserve 

(Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 377–378; BLI 

2007f, p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 776). 

In addition, the species is known to 

occur in forested habitat adjacent to 

another 4 km2 (1.5 mi2) protected area, 

the Bracinho State Ecological Station, 

which was established as a watercatchment buffer zone for a 

hydroelectric plant. It has been 

recommended that both of these sites 

should be expanded to ensure that the 

species’ currently occupied range and 

other potentially suitable habitats are 

encompassed within protected areas 

(Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 377–378; BLI 

2007f, p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 776). 

However, for various reasons (e.g., lack 

of funding, personnel, or local 

management commitment), some of 

Brazil’s protected areas exist without 

the current capacity to achieve their 

stated natural resource objectives 

(ADEJA 2007, pp. 1–2; Bruner et al. 

2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, p. 7; IUCN 

1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical News 

1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News 1999, 

p. 9). Therefore, even with the 

expansion or further designation of 

protected areas, it is unlikely that all of 

the identified impacts to the Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant (e.g., residential and 

agricultural encroachment, resource 

extraction, unregulated tourism, and 

grazing) would be sufficiently addressed 

at these sites. 

In the past, the Brazilian government, 

through various regulations, policies, 

incentives, and subsidies, has actively 

encouraged settlement of previously 

undeveloped lands in southeastern 

Brazil (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 

2007, p. 3; Conservation International 

2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et 

al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 

2001, p. 874). More recently, the 

Brazilian government has given greater 

recognition to the environmental 

consequences of such rapid expansion, 

and has taken steps to better manage 

some of the natural resources 

potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7; 

Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News 

1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b, 

p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9; 

Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes 

and Kraas 2000, p. 45). However, there 

are still various government-sponsored 

measures in place, both at the national 

and state levels, that help facilitate 

development projects (Barnett et al. 

2000, pp. 377–378; Butler 2007, p. 3; 

Collar et al. 1992, p. 776; Neotropical 

News 1998a, p. 10; Ratter et al. 1997, 

pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874) 

some of which, such as continued 

logging, housing and tourism 

developments, and expansion of 

plantations, could impact potentially 

important sites for the Kaempfer’s todytyrant (Barnett et al. 2000, p. 377–378; 

Collar et al. 1992, p. 776). 

Summary of Factor D 

Although there are governmentsponsored measures that remain in 

place in Brazil that continue to facilitate 

development projects, there are also a 

wide variety of regulatory mechanisms 

in Brazil that require protection of the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant and its habitat 

throughout the species’ potentially 

occupied range. However, the existing 

regulatory mechanisms that apply to the 

species have proven difficult to enforce 

(BLI 2003a, p. 4; Conservation 

International 2007c, p. 1; Costa 2007, 

p. 7; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 

2; Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11; 

Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; Scott and 

Brooke 1985, pp. 118, 130). As a result, 

significant threats to the species’ 

remaining habitats are ongoing (see 

Factor A) due to competing priorities. 

Therefore, when combined with Factors 

A and E, we find that the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to ameliorate the current threats to the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant throughout its 

range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Under this factor we explore whether 

three risks, represented by demographic, 

genetic, and environmental stochastic 

events, are substantive to threaten the 

continued existence of the Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant. In basic terms, demographic 

stochasticity is defined by chance 

changes in the population growth rate 

for the species (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 27). Population growth rates are 

influenced by individual birth and 

death rates (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 

27), immigration and emigration rates, 

as well as changes in population sex 

ratios. Natural variation in survival and 

reproductive success of individuals and 

chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may 

act in concert to contribute to 

demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity 

is caused by changes in gene 

frequencies due to genetic drift, and 

diminished genetic diversity, and/or 

effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p. 

786). Inbreeding can have individual or 

population-level consequences either by 

increasing the phenotypic expression 

(the outward appearance or observable 

structure, function or behavior of a 

living organism) of recessive, 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40672 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is 

defined as the susceptibility of small, 

isolated populations of wildlife species 

to natural levels of environmental 

variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged 

drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) 

(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and 

Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 

410–412). Each risk will be analyzed 

specifically for the Kaempfer’s todytyrant. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species are susceptible to demographic 

and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 

130–134). These threat factors, which 

may act in concert, include: Natural 

variation in survival and reproductive 

success of individuals, chance 

disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in 

gene frequencies due to genetic drift, 

diminished genetic diversity and 

associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression), dispersal of just 

a few individuals, a few clutch failures, 

a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring 

over just one or a few years, and chance 

mortality of just a few reproductive-age 

individuals. 

There is very little information 

available regarding the historic 

distribution and abundance of the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant. However, the 

species’ historic population was likely 

larger and more widely distributed than 

today, and it must have maintained a 

minimum level of genetic interchange 

among its local subpopulations in order 

for them to have persisted (Middleton 

and Nisbet 1997, p. 107; Vila` et al. 2002, 

p. 91; Wang 2004, p. 332). 

In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, a general 

approximation of a minimum viable 

population size is referred to as the 

50/500 rule (Franklin 1980, p. 147), as 

described under Factor E for the 

Brazilian merganser. The extant 

population of the Kaempfer’s todytyrant is estimated to be between 1,000 

and 2,499 individuals that are 

fragmented among several potentially 

occupied sites, with the largest 

subpopulation estimated to be between 

250 and 1,000 individuals (BLI 2007f, 

p. 3). The other subpopulations are even 

smaller in size, and there is currently 

little likelihood for interchange of 

individuals among them. The largest 

subpopulation exceeds the minimum 

number of individuals required to avoid 

imminent risks from inbreeding (Ne = 

50), but may be only half of the upper 

threshold (Ne = 500) required to 

maintain genetic diversity and the 

capacity to adapt to changing conditions 

over time. Continued loss of suitable 

habitats (see Factor A) will exacerbate 

fragmentation of the remaining 

occupied patches and will act to further 

isolate the species’ subpopulations. As 

such, we currently consider the species 

to be at risk due to its lack of long-term 

genetic viability. 

Various past and ongoing human 

activities and their secondary influences 

continue to impact all of the remaining 

suitable habitats that may still harbor 

the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant (see Factors 

A and D). We expect that any additional 

loss or degradation of habitats that are 

used by the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant will 

have disproportionately greater impacts 

on the species due to the population’s 

fragmented state. This is because with 

each contraction of an existing 

subpopulation, the likelihood of 

interchange with other subpopulations 

within patches decreases, while the 

likelihood of its complete reproductive 

isolation increases. 

The combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic 

and demographic stochasticity on a 

species population are referred to as 

patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can 

have profound effects on fragmented 

subpopulations and can potentially 

reduce a species’ respective effective 

population by orders of magnitude 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 31). For 

example, an increase in habitat 

fragmentation can separate 

subpopulations to the point where 

individuals can no longer disperse and 

breed among habitat patches, causing a 

shift in the demographic characteristics 

of a population and a reduction in 

genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer 

areas and reconnect some of the 

remaining tracts of suitable habitat near 

the species’ currently occupied sites, it 

is doubtful that the individual tracts are 

currently large enough to support viable 

populations of many birds endemic to 

the Atlantic Forest, like the Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant, and the eventual loss of any 

small, isolated populations appears to 

be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117; 

Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610; 

IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da 

Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke 

1985, p. 118). Furthermore, as a species’ 

status continues to decline, often as a 

result of deterministic forces such as 

habitat loss or overutilization, it will 

become increasingly vulnerable to a 

broad array of other forces. If this trend 

continues, its ultimate extinction due to 

one or more stochastic events becomes 

more likely. 

We expect that the Kaempfer’s todytyrant’s increased vulnerability to 

demographic stochasticity and 

inbreeding will be operative even in the 

absence of any human-induced threats 

or stochastic environmental events, 

which only act to further exacerbate the 

species’ vulnerability to local 

extirpations and eventual extinction. 

Demographic and genetic stochastic 

forces typically operate synergistically. 

Initial effects of one threat factor can 

later exacerbate the effects of other 

threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin 

and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 25–26). For 

example, any further fragmentation of 

populations will, by definition, result in 

the further removal or dispersal of 

individuals, which will exacerbate the 

other threats. Conversely, lack of a 

sufficient number of individuals in a 

local area or a decline in their 

individual or collective fitness may 

cause a decline in the population size, 

despite the presence of suitable habitat 

patches. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species, such as the Kaempfer’s todytyrant, are also susceptible to natural 

levels of environmental variability and 

related ‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g., 

severe storms, prolonged drought, 

extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we 

will refer to as environmental 

stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; 

Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 

1994, pp. 410–412). A single stochastic 

environmental event can severely 

reduce existing wildlife populations 

and, if the affected population is already 

small or severely fragmented, it is likely 

that demographic stochasticity or 

inbreeding will become operative, 

which would place the population in 

jeopardy (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 27; 

Lande 1995, pp. 787–789). 

Summary of Factor E 

The small and declining numbers that 

make up the Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant’s 

population makes it susceptible to 

natural environmental variability or 

chance events. In addition to its 

declining numbers, the high level of 

population fragmentation makes the 

species susceptible to genetic and 

demographic stochasticity. Therefore, 

we find that demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events are a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant throughout its 

range. 

Status Determination for the Kaempfer’s 

Tody-tyrant 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant. The species is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A), 

and its lack of long-term genetic 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40673 

viability due to threats associated with 

demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochasticity (Factor E). 

Furthermore, we have determined that 

the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate 

the current threats to the Kaempfer’s 

tody-tyrant. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Based 

on the threats to the Kaempfer’s todytyrant throughout its entire range, as 

described above, we determine that the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are proposing to list the 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant as an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range. 

VI. Margaretta’s Hermit (Phaethornis 

malaris margarettae) 

Species Description 

The Margaretta’s hermit is a longbilled hummingbird. The average bill 

length is 37 millimeters (mm) (1.5 in) 

and the average tail length is 42 mm (1.7 

in) (Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 122–123). 

Hinkelmann (1996, p. 147) describes the 

species to be morphologically similar to 

Phaethornis margarettae bolvianus with 

a paler underside. 

Taxonomy 

The Margaretta’s hermit is in the 

hummingbird family, Trochilidae. 

Margaretta’s hermit was first described 

as a new species in 1972 by A. Ruschi 

(Sibley and Monroe 1990). This bird has 

variously been considered a full species 

(Phaethornis margarettae) and placed as 

a subspecies with the long-billed hermit 

(P. superciliosus). However, the 

available information indicates that it is 

most appropriately considered to be a 

subspecies of the great-billed hermit (P. 

malaris) (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543; 

Dickinson 2003, p. 256; Hinkelmann 

1996, pp. 125–135; Howard and Moore 

1980, p. 205; ICBP 1981, p. 2; Sibley and 

Monroe 1990, p. 143; Sick 1993, p. 341; 

Stiles 2005, pp. 1–5). 

Habitat and Life History 

The Margaretta’s hermit is endemic to 

the Atlantic Forest biome and is found 

in shrubby understories of primary- and 

secondary-growth tropical, lowland 

rainforest (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543; 

ICBP 1981, p. 2; Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 

133–140; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 

143). Hummingbirds feed on the nectar 

of a variety of plant species, especially 

bromeliads, and often have a symbiotic 

relationship with specific plants for 

which they function as pollinators 

(Buzato et al. 2000, p. 824; del Hoyo et 

al. 1999, p. 543; Sick 1993, pp. 324– 

326). They also feed on a variety of 

small arthropods, which are an 

especially important source of protein 

for raising their young. 

Females typically lay two eggs and are 

solely responsible for tending their 

young. Hummingbird nests are usually 

constructed on vegetation of items such 

as detritus, webs, leaves, and animal 

hair cemented together with 

regurgitated nectar and saliva (Sick 

1993, pp. 330–331). Little is known of 

the subspecies’ seasonal movements, 

but its daily movements within a local 

area are likely associated with the 

timing of flowering plants that are used 

for feeding (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543; 

Sick 1993, pp. 324–336). 

Range and Distribution 

The Margaretta’s hermit historically 

occurred in coastal forested habitats 

from Penambuco to Espı ́rito Santo, 

Brazil (del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543; 

Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 132–135; Sibley 

and Monroe 1990, p. 143). The last 

confirmed occurrence of the 

Margaretta’s hermit is from a relatively 

old (ca. 1978) sighting of the subspecies 

on a privately-owned, remnant forest 

called Klabin Farm, which is located in 

Espı ́rito Santo which presently includes 

40 km2 (15.46 mi2) of land (ICBP 1981, 

p. 2). A portion of this area (ca. 15 km2

(5.79 mi2)) was designated as the 

Co ́rrego Grande Biological Reserve in 

1989 (Costa 2007, p. 20; Willis and 

Oniki 2002, p. 21). Margaretta’s hermit 

likely also occurred at the Sooretama 

Biological Reserve in Espı ́rito Santo 

until around 1977 (ICBP 1981, p. 2). 

Population Estimates 

Unknown, although likely to be small 

in light of the very limited area the 

subspecies may occupy (ICBP 1981, p. 

2). 

Conservation Status 

IUCN considers the Margaretta’s 

hermit to be ‘‘Endangered’’ because its 

extant population is believed to have an 

extremely restricted distribution and it 

is likely very small, if it survives at all 

(ICBP 1981, p. 2). The species, as a 

whole, is listed under Appendix II of 

the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES) (UNEP–World 

Conservation Monitoring Centre 

(WCMC) 2009b). Appendix II includes 

species that are not necessarily 

threatened with extinction, but may 

become so unless trade is subject to 

strict regulation to avoid utilization 

becoming incompatible with the 

species’ survival. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Margaretta’s Hermit 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Based on a number of recent 

estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 

historically covered by tropical forests 

within the Atlantic Forest biome has 

been converted or severely degraded as 

a result of various human activities 

(Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; 

Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 868; Conservation 

International 2007a, p. 1; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife 

Fund 2007, pp. 2–41; Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 

1; Butler 2007, p. 2). In addition to the 

overall loss and degradation of native 

habitat within this biome, the remaining 

tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. 

The current rate of habitat loss in the 

Atlantic Forest biome is unknown. 

The region has the two largest cites in 

Brazil, Sa ̃o Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 

and is home to approximately 70 

percent of Brazil’s 169 million people 

(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major 

human activities that have resulted in 

the loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of native habitats within the Atlantic 

Forest biome include extensive 

establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., 

soy beans, sugarcane, and corn), 

plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine, 

coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas), 

livestock pastures, centers of human 

habitation, and industrial developments 

(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants, 

and hydropower reservoirs). Forestry 

practices (e.g., commercial logging), 

subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood 

collection), and changes in fire 

frequencies also contribute to the 

degradation of native habitat (BLI 2003a, 

p. 4; Ju ́nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes 

and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva 

2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868– 

869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; 

World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). 

Most of the tropical forest habitats 

believed to have been used historically 

by the Margaretta’s hermit have been 

converted or are severely degraded due 

to the above human activities, and the 

subspecies can not occupy these 

extensively altered areas (del Hoyo et al. 

1999, p. 543; ICBP 1981, p. 2; Scott and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40674 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick 1993, p. 338). 

While the Margaretta’s hermit is not 

strictly tied to primary forest habitats 

and can make use of secondary-growth 

forests, this does not lessen the threat to 

the subspecies from the effects of 

deforestation and habitat degradation. 

Atlantic Forest birds, such as 

Margaretta’s hermit, which are tolerant 

of secondary-growth forests, are also 

rare or have restricted ranges (i.e., less 

than 21,000 km2 (8,100 mi2)). Thus, 

habitat degradation can adversely 

impact such species just as equally as it 

impacts primary forest obligate species 

(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613). 

The last site known to be occupied by 

the Margaretta’s hermit totaled only 

about 40 km2 (15 mi2) (ICBP 1981, p. 2). 

The susceptibility to extirpation of 

rare, limited-range species that are 

tolerant of secondary-growth forests 

occurs for a variety of reasons such as 

when a species’ remaining population is 

already too small or its distribution too 

fragmented such that it may not be 

demographically or genetically viable 

(Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612–1613). 

In addition, while the Margaretta’s 

hermit may be tolerant of secondarygrowth forests, these areas may not 

represent optimal conditions for the 

species. For example, many 

hummingbird species are susceptible to 

excessive sun and readily abandon their 

nests at altered forested sites with too 

much exposure (Sick 1993, p. 331), as 

can occur with various human activities 

that result in partial clearing (e.g., 

selective logging). In addition, 

management of plantations often 

involves intensive control of the site’s 

understory vegetation, which eventually 

results in severely diminished 

understory cover (Rolim and Chiarello 

2004, pp. 2679–2680; Saatchi et al. 

2001, pp. 868–869). Even if the forest 

canopy structure remains largely intact, 

such management practices eventually 

result in loss of native understory plant 

species and severely altered understory 

structure and dynamics, which can be 

especially detrimental to pollinator 

species such as the Margaretta’s hermit. 

Even when forested lands are formally 

protected (see Factor D), the remaining 

fragments of habitat where the 

subspecies may still occur will likely 

continue to undergo degradation due to 

their altered dynamics and isolation 

(Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929–932). 

Moreover, secondary impacts that are 

associated with human activities that 

degrade the remaining tracts of forested 

habitat potentially used by the 

subspecies include the potential 

introduction of disease vectors or exotic 

predators within the subspecies’ historic 

range (see Factor C). As a result of these 

secondary impacts, there is often a time 

lag between the initial conversion or 

degradation of suitable habitats and the 

extinction of endemic bird populations 

(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al. 

1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without 

further habitat loss or degradation, the 

Margaretta’s hermit remains at risk from 

past impacts to its suitable forested 

habitats. 

Summary of Factor A 

The Margaretta’s hermit occurs in one 

of the most densely populated regions of 

Brazil, and human activities and their 

secondary impacts identified above 

continue to threaten the last known 

tracts of habitat within the Atlantic 

Forest biome that may still harbor the 

Margaretta’s hermit (BLI 2003a, p. 4; 

Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; 

del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 543; Ho ̈fling 

2007, p. 1; ICBP 1981, p. 2; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Sick 1993, p. 

338; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3– 

51). Even with the recent passage of 

national forest policy and in light of 

many other legal protections in Brazil 

(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss 

throughout the Atlantic Forest biome 

has increased since the mid-1990s 

(CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p. 

1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and native 

habitats at many of the remaining sites 

may be lost over the next several years 

(Rocha et al. 2005, p. 263). The 

Margaretta’s hermit has already been 

reduced to such an extent that it is now 

only known from a relatively old (ca. 

1978) sighting (ICBP 1981, p. 2; Willis 

and Oniki 2002, p. 21) and any further 

loss or degradation of its remaining 

suitable habitat could cause the 

extinction of this subspecies. Therefore, 

we find that destruction and 

modification of habitat are threats to the 

continued existence of the Margaretta’s 

hermit throughout its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

In the past, many species of 

hummingbirds that occur in 

southeastern Brazil were collected for 

use in the fashion industry due to their 

colorful plumage, and populations of 

some species have been extirpated or 

remain severely diminished as a result 

(Sick 1993, pp. 337–338). Due to 

concerns about hummingbirds in 

international trade, in 1987, the entire 

family, Trochilidae, was listed in 

Appendix II of CITES (UNEP–WCMC 

2009b), a treaty that regulates 

international trade in certain protected 

animal and plant species. 

Appendix II of CITES includes 

species that, although not necessarily 

threatened presently with extinction, 

may become so unless the trade in 

specimens is strictly controlled. 

International trade in specimens of 

Appendix-II species is authorized 

through permits or certificates, once the 

granting authorities have ascertained 

certain factors, including that trade will 

not be detrimental to the survival of the 

species in the wild and that the 

specimen was legally acquired (UNEP– 

WCMC 2009b). 

Since the listing of the family under 

CITES in 1987, there have been eight 

CITES-permitted international 

transactions in specimens of the species 

Phaethornis malaris; however, no trade 

has been reported at the subspecies 

level, Phaethornis malaris margarettae 

(John Caldwell, UNEP–WCMC, pers. 

comm., May 13, 2008). According to 

WCMC, the eight transactions involved 

a total of 30 specimens of Phaethornis 

malaris, which were imported into the 

United States from the United Kingdom, 

Peru and Suriname; the two latter 

countries are within the species’ range 

(John Caldwell, UNEP–WCMC, pers. 

comm., May 12, 2008). Due to the 

suspected small population size and 

restricted range of the Margaretta’s 

hermit, we believe that the 30 

specimens reported in trade were of the 

species and not the subspecies. 

Furthermore, we are unaware of any 

unreported CITES trade or illegal 

international trade in specimens of 

Margaretta’s hermit. Therefore, we 

believe that international trade is not a 

factor influencing the subspecies’ status 

in the wild. 

Local hummingbird populations may 

also be impacted by collection for 

various uses, including scientific 

research, preparation of ‘‘novelty’’ 

exhibits, consumption in local dishes, 

and for the zoo or pet trade (Rolim and 

Chiarello 2004, pp. 2679–2680; Scott 

and Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick 1993, pp. 

337–338). 

If it exists at all, the extant population 

of the Margaretta’s hermit is likely 

extremely small and occurs within a 

severely restricted range. Due to its 

rarity, the removal or dispersal of any 

individuals of this subspecies or even a 

slight decline in the population’s fitness 

due to any intentional or inadvertent 

hunting and specimen collection would 

adversely impact the subspecies’ overall 

viability (see Factor E). However, while 

these potential influences remain a 

concern for future management of the 

Margaretta’s hermit, we are not aware of 

any information currently available that 

specifically indicates the use of this 

subspecies for any commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purpose. As a result, we are not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40675 

considering overutilization to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the Margaretta’s hermit. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Young hummingbirds are sometimes 

severely affected by botflies (Philornis 

sp.) (Sick 1993, pp. 336–337). In 

addition, extensive human activity in 

previously undisturbed or isolated areas 

can lead to the introduction and spread 

of exotic diseases, some of which (e.g., 

West Nile virus) can negatively impact 

endemic bird populations (Naugle et al. 

2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p. 

1). With regard to predation, a variety of 

reptiles (e.g., snakes, lizards) and 

predatory birds (e.g., owls, hawks) are 

known to prey on hummingbirds (Sick 

1993, pp. 336–337). Furthermore, 

nestling hummingbirds can be killed by 

raiding army ants (Eciton sp.), while 

some hornets and bees are potential 

competitors for flower nectar and have 

been known to lethally sting adult 

hummingbirds. In addition, extensive 

human activity in previously 

undisturbed or isolated areas can result 

in altered predator populations and the 

introduction of various exotic predator 

species, some of which (e.g., feral cats 

(Felis catus) and rats (Ratus sp.)) can be 

especially harmful to populations of 

endemic bird species (American Bird 

Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Courchamp et 

al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan and Blackburn 

2007, pp. 149–150; Salo et al. 2007, pp. 

1241–1242; Small 2005, p. 257). 

Large, stable populations of wildlife 

species have adapted to natural levels of 

disease and predation within their 

historic ranges. However, the extant 

population of the Margaretta’s hermit is 

considered to be extremely small and 

occurs within a severely restricted 

range, if it currently exists at all, and 

there is a greatly expanded human 

population within the subspecies’ 

historic distribution. Any additive 

mortality to the Margaretta’s hermit 

population or a decrease in its fitness 

due to an increase in the incidence of 

disease or predation would severely 

impact the subspecies’ overall viability 

(see Factor E). Nevertheless, while these 

potential influences remain a concern 

for future management of the 

subspecies, we are not aware of any 

information currently available that 

indicates the occurrence of disease in 

the Margaretta’s hermit, or that 

documents any predation incurred by 

this subspecies. As a result, we are not 

considering disease or predation to be a 

contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the Margaretta’s hermit. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Margaretta’s hermit is formally 

recognized as ‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil 

(Order No. 1.522) and is directly 

protected by various laws promulgated 

by the Brazilian government (ECOLEX 

2007, pp. 1–2; ICBP 1981, p. 2). For 

example, there are measures that 

prohibit, or regulate through Federal 

agency oversight, the following 

activities with regard to endangered 

species: export and international trade 

(e.g., Decree No. 76.623, Order No. 419– 

P), hunting (e.g., Act No. 5.197), 

collection and research (Order No. 332), 

captive propagation (Order No. 5), and 

general harm (e.g., Decree No. 3.179). 

The Margaretta’s hermit is listed in 

Appendix II of CITES (UNEP–WCMC 

2009b). CITES is an international treaty 

among 173 nations, including Brazil and 

the United States, that entered into force 

in 1975 (UNEP–WCMC 2009a). In the 

United States, CITES is implemented 

through the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act (Act). The Act designates the 

Secretary of the Interior as the Scientific 

and Management Authorities to 

implement the treaty with all functions 

carried out by the Service. Under this 

treaty, countries work together to ensure 

that international trade in animal and 

plant species is not detrimental to the 

survival of wild populations by 

regulating the import, export, re-export, 

and introduction from the sea of CITESlisted animal and plant species (USFWS 

2009). As discussed under Factor B, we 

do not consider international trade to be 

a threat to the Margaretta’s hermit. 

Therefore, this international treaty does 

not reduce any current threats to the 

subspecies. Any international trade that 

occurs in the future would be effectively 

regulated under CITES. 

There are also a wide range of 

regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that 

indirectly protect the Margaretta’s 

hermit through measures that protect its 

remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX 

2007, pp. 2–5). For example, there are 

measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation 

of the remaining primary forests within 

the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree 

No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern 

various practices associated with the 

management of primary and secondary 

forests, such as logging, charcoal 

production, reforestation, recreation, 

and water resources (e.g., Resolution 

No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282, 

Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act 

No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for 

controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No. 

97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No. 

292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4) 

regulate industrial developments, such 

as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel 

production (e.g., Normative Instruction 

No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there 

are various measures (e.g., Law No. 

11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, 

Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct 

Federal and state agencies to promote 

the protection of lands and natural 

resources under their jurisdictions 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6). 

Various regulatory mechanisms exist 

in Brazil that govern the formal 

establishment and management of 

protected areas to promote conservation 

of the country’s natural resources 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6–7). These 

mechanisms generally aim to protect 

endangered wildlife and plant species, 

genetic resources, overall biodiversity, 

and native ecosystems on Federal, state, 

and privately owned lands (e.g., Law 

No. 9.985, Law No. 11.132, Resolution 

No. 4, Decree No. 1.922). Brazil’s 

formally established protection areas are 

categorized based on their overall 

management objectives (e.g., National 

Parks versus Biological Reserves), and 

based on those categories they allow 

varying uses and provide varying levels 

of protection for specific resources 

(Costa 2007, pp. 5–19). 

Successful efforts to protect the last 

site known to harbor the Margaretta’s 

hermit from further development 

occurred in the mid-1980s (Pereira 

2007, p. 2), and a portion of this area 

was designated as the 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). 

For various reasons (e.g., lack of 

funding, personnel, or local 

management commitment), some of 

Brazil’s protected areas exist without 

the current capacity to achieve their 

stated natural resource objectives 

(Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, 

p. 7; IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Neotropical 

News 1996, pp. 9–10; Neotropical News 

1999, p. 9; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; 

World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3–51). 

For example, according to a World Wide 

Fund for Nature report, 47 of 86 

management plans for protected areas 

that have been assessed are considered 

to remain below their minimum level of 

implementation of Federal 

requirements, with only 7 considered to 

be fully implemented (Neotropical 

News 1999, p. 9). Therefore, even with 

formal designation of protected areas, it 

is unlikely that all of the identified 

threats to the Margaretta’s hermit (e.g., 

residential and agricultural 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40676 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

encroachment, resource extraction, 

unregulated tourism, grazing, and fire) 

are sufficiently addressed at these sites. 

In the past, the Brazilian government, 

through various regulations, policies, 

incentives, and subsidies, has actively 

encouraged settlement of previously 

undeveloped lands in southeastern 

Brazil, which helped facilitate the largescale habitat conversions that have 

occurred throughout the Atlantic Forest 

biome (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 

2007, p. 3; Conservation International 

2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et 

al. 1997, pp. 227–228; Saatchi et al. 

2001, p. 874). More recently, the 

Brazilian government has given greater 

recognition to the environmental 

consequences of such rapid expansion, 

and has taken steps to better manage 

some of the natural resources 

potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7; 

Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News 

1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b, 

p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9; 

Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes 

and Kraas 2000, p. 45). However, due to 

competing priorities, these regulatory 

mechanisms have proven difficult to 

enforce. 

Summary of Factor D 

Although there are governmentsponsored measures that remain in 

place in Brazil that continue to facilitate 

potentially harmful development 

projects, there are also a wide variety of 

regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that 

require protection of the Margaretta’s 

hermit and its habitat throughout the 

subspecies’ potentially occupied range. 

The existing regulatory mechanisms that 

apply to the Margaretta’s hermit have 

been difficult to enforce (BLI 2003a, p. 

4; Conservation International 2007c, p. 

1; Costa 2007, p. 7; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Neotropical 

News 1997b, p. 11; Peixoto and Silva 

2007, p. 5; Scott and Brooke 1985, pp. 

118, 130). As a result, significant threats 

to the subspecies’ remaining habitats are 

ongoing (see Factor A). Therefore, when 

combined with Factors A and E, we find 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to ameliorate the current 

threats to the Margaretta’s hermit 

throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Under this factor we explore whether 

three risks, represented by demographic, 

genetic, and environmental stochastic 

events, are substantive to threaten the 

continued existence of the Margaretta’s 

hermit. In basic terms, demographic 

stochasticity is defined by chance 

changes in the population growth rate 

for the species (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 27). Population growth rates are 

influenced by individual birth and 

death rates (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 

27), immigration and emigration rates, 

as well as changes in population sex 

ratios. Natural variation in survival and 

reproductive success of individuals and 

chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may 

act in concert to contribute to 

demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity 

is caused by changes in gene 

frequencies due to genetic drift, and 

diminished genetic diversity, and/or 

effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p. 

786). Inbreeding can have individual or 

population-level consequences either by 

increasing the phenotypic expression 

(the outward appearance or observable 

structure, function or behavior of a 

living organism) of recessive, 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, 

p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is 

defined as the susceptibility of small, 

isolated populations of wildlife species 

to natural levels of environmental 

variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged 

drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) 

(Young 1994, pp. 410–412; Mangel and 

Tier 1994, p. 612; Dunham et al. 1999, 

p. 9). Each risk will be analyzed 

specifically for the Margaretta’s hermit. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species are susceptible to demographic 

and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 

130–134). These threat factors, which 

may act in concert, include: natural 

variation in survival and reproductive 

success of individuals, chance 

disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in 

gene frequencies due to genetic drift, 

diminished genetic diversity and 

associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression), dispersal of just 

a few individuals, a few clutch failures, 

a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring 

over just one or a few years, and chance 

mortality of just a few reproductive-age 

individuals. 

Historically, the Margaretta’s hermit 

population was more abundant and 

widespread throughout its range (ICBP 

1981, p. 2), and the subspecies must 

have maintained a minimum level of 

genetic interchange among its local 

subpopulations in order for them to 

have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet 

1997, p. 107; Vila` et al. 2002, p. 91; 

Wang 2004, p. 332). In the absence of 

more species-specific life history data, 

the 50/500 rule (as explained under 

Factor E for the Brazilian merganser) 

may be used to approximate minimum 

viable population size (Franklin 1980, p. 

147). There are no specific past or 

present abundance estimates for the 

Margaretta’s hermit. However, the 

available information indicates that its 

extant population, if it still exists, is 

likely well below both of the thresholds 

(Ne = 50 and Ne = 500) for an effective 

population size because of the very 

limited area that it is known to occupy 

(see Factor A) (ICBP 1981, p. 2). This 

means that the subspecies’ population 

likely does not have enough individuals 

to avoid risks from inbreeding or the 

ability to maintain genetic diversity and 

adapt to changing conditions over time. 

Furthermore, if the subspecies does still 

exist, continued loss of suitable habitats 

(see Factor A) is likely to further 

exacerbate fragmentation of any 

remaining occupied patches. As such, 

we currently consider the subspecies to 

be at risk due to its lack of near- and 

long-term genetic viability. 

Various past and ongoing human 

activities and their secondary influences 

continue to impact all of the remaining 

suitable habitats that may still harbor 

the Margaretta’s hermit (see Factors A 

and D). We expect that any additional 

loss or degradation of habitats that are 

used by the Margaretta’s hermit will 

have disproportionately greater impacts 

on the subspecies due to the 

population’s fragmented state. This is 

because with each contraction of an 

existing subpopulation, the likelihood 

of interchange with other 

subpopulations within patches 

decreases, while the likelihood of its 

complete reproductive isolation 

increases. 

The combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic 

and demographic stochasticity on a 

species population are referred to as 

patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can 

have profound effects on fragmented 

subpopulations and can potentially 

reduce a species’ respective effective 

population by orders of magnitude 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 31). For 

example, an increase in habitat 

fragmentation can separate 

subpopulations to the point where 

individuals can no longer disperse and 

breed among habitat patches, causing a 

shift in the demographic characteristics 

of a population and a reduction in 

genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer 

areas and reconnect some of the 

remaining tracts of suitable habitat near 

the subspecies’ currently occupied sites, 

it is doubtful that the individual tracts 

are currently large enough to support 

viable populations of many birds 

endemic to the Atlantic Forest, like the 

Margaretta’s hermit, and the eventual 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40677 

loss of any small, isolated populations 

appears to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 

117; Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609– 

1610; IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado 

and Da Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; 

Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and 

Brooke 1985, p. 118). Furthermore, as a 

species’ status continues to decline, 

often as a result of deterministic forces 

such as habitat loss or overutilization, it 

will become increasingly vulnerable to 

a broad array of other forces. If this 

trend continues, its ultimate extinction 

due to one or more stochastic events 

becomes more likely. 

We expect that the Margaretta’s 

hermit’s increased vulnerability to 

demographic stochasticity and 

inbreeding will be operative even in the 

absence of any human-induced threats 

or stochastic environmental events, 

which only act to further exacerbate the 

subspecies’ vulnerability to local 

extirpations and eventual extinction. 

Demographic and genetic stochastic 

forces typically operate synergistically. 

Initial effects of one threat factor can 

later exacerbate the effects of other 

threat factors, as well as itself (Gilpin 

and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 25–26). For 

example, any further fragmentation of 

populations will, by definition, result in 

the further removal or dispersal of 

individuals, which will exacerbate the 

other threats. Conversely, lack of a 

sufficient number of individuals in a 

local area or a decline in their 

individual or collective fitness may 

cause a decline in the population size, 

despite the presence of suitable habitat 

patches. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species, such as the Margaretta’s hermit, 

are also susceptible to natural levels of 

environmental variability and related 

‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g., severe 

storms, prolonged drought, extreme cold 

spells, wildfire), which we will refer to 

as environmental stochasticity (Dunham 

et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, 

p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410–412). A 

single stochastic environmental event 

can severely reduce existing wildlife 

populations and, if the affected 

population is already small or severely 

fragmented, it is likely that demographic 

stochasticity or inbreeding will become 

operative, which would place the 

population in jeopardy (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27; Lande 1995, pp. 787– 

789). 

Summary of Factor E 

The small and declining numbers that 

make up the Margaretta’s hermit’s 

population make it susceptible to 

natural environmental variability or 

chance events. In addition to its 

declining numbers, the high level of 

population fragmentation makes the 

subspecies susceptible to genetic and 

demographic stochasticity. Therefore, 

we find that demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events are a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

Margaretta’s hermit throughout its 

range. 

Status Determination for the 

Margaretta’s Hermit 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Margaretta’s hermit. The subspecies is 

currently at risk throughout all of its 

range due to ongoing threats of habitat 

destruction and modification (Factor A), 

and its lack of near- and long-term 

genetic viability due to threats 

associated with demographic, genetic, 

and environmental stochasticity (Factor 

E). Furthermore, we have determined 

that the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate 

the current threats to the Margaretta’s 

hermit. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Based 

on the threats to the Margaretta’s hermit 

throughout its entire range, as described 

above, we determine that the 

Margaretta’s hermit is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are proposing to list the 

Margaretta’s hermit as an endangered 

species throughout all of its range. 

VII. Southeastern Rufous-vented 

Ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi 

dulcis) 

Species Description 

The southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo is a large-sized terrestrial 

bird. The cuckoo has a distinctive flat 

frontal crest, a long tail and long legs, 

and a yellow-green curved bill (Payne 

2005, p. 206; Roth 1981, p. 388). The 

species is blackish-brown or reddish 

black in color, and has brown scale-like 

coloring on the breast with a black 

breast band and a reddish belly. It has 

a bare face with gray to blue coloring 

(Payne 2005, p. 206). 

Taxonomy 

The southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo is one of seven 

subspecies of the rufous-vented groundcuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi) that 

occur at several disjunct localities from 

Nicaragua to central South America (del 

Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606–607; Howard 

and Moore 1980, p. 178; Payne 2005, 

pp. 204–207; Sibley and Monroe 1990, 

p. 107). 

Habitat and Life History 

The southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo is an extremely shy, 

ground-foraging bird that requires large 

blocks of mature, undisturbed, tropical 

lowland forest within the Atlantic 

Forest biome (del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 

606–607; ICBP 1981, p. 1; Sick 1993, p. 

286; Payne 2005, pp. 204–207). This 

species is unable to sustain flight for 

long distances, and major rivers and 

other extensive areas of non-habitat are 

thought to impede their movements. 

Southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoos feed on large insects, scorpions, 

centipedes, spiders, small frogs, lizards, 

and occasionally on seeds and fruit. The 

species is agile when on the ground and 

highly adept at running and jumping 

through branches in pursuit of prey 

(Sick 1993, p. 278). The species is often 

associated with army ant (Eciton sp.) 

and red ant (Solenopsis sp.) colonies, 

whose foraying columns they use as 

‘‘beaters’’ to flush their prey (Sick 1993, 

p. 286). They are also known to forage 

for flushed prey behind other species, 

such as the white-lipped peccary 

(Tayassu pecari) (Sick 1993, p. 286). 

Unlike some other species of cuckoos, 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoos are not believed to be parasitic 

nesters and build their own nests 

approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) up in the 

branches of swampy vegetation (Roth 

1981, p. 388; Sick 1993, p. 286). The 

species’ nest resembles a shallow bowl, 

roughly 25 cm (10 in) across, made of 

sticks and lined with leaves. Once the 

young are fledged, the adults care for 

them away from the nest site (del Hoyo 

et al. 1997, pp. 606–607). 

Range and Distribution 

Although the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo had a widespread 

distribution historically, it has likely 

always been locally rare (ICBP 1981, p. 

1). Historic distributions included the 

Brazilian cities of Bahia, Minas Gerais, 

Espı ́rito Santo, and, possibly, Rio de 

Janeiro (ICBP 1981, p. 1; Payne 2005, p. 

207). The last confirmed sighting of this 

subspecies was from Sooretama 

Biological Reserve north of the Doce 

River in Espı ́rito Santo in 1977, and it 

may now be extinct (Payne 2005, p. 207; 

Roth 1981, p. 388; Scott and Brooke 

1985, pp. 125–126). However, a recent 

photographic record (ca. 2004) indicates 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40678 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

that the subspecies may still occur at 

Doce River State Park in Minas Gerais 

(Scoss et al. 2006, p. 1). 

Population Estimates 

Unknown, although certainly very 

low if it still exists (ICBP 1981, p. 1). 

Conservation Status 

IUCN considers the southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo to be 

‘‘Endangered’’ because although the 

subspecies was ‘‘never numerous, this 

extremely shy species is among the first 

to disappear if its primary forest habitat 

is disturbed and in south-eastern Brazil 

where it occurs, most of such forest has 

been destroyed’’ (ICBP 1981, p. 1). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Southeastern Rufous-vented Groundcuckoo 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Based on a number of recent 

estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 

historically covered by tropical forests 

within the Atlantic Forest biome has 

been converted or severely degraded as 

a result of various human activities 

(Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation 

International 2007a, p. 1; Ho ̈fling 2007, 

p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 

786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 853–854; The 

Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 

2007, pp. 2–41). In addition to the 

overall loss and degradation of native 

habitat within this biome, the remaining 

tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. 

The current rate of habitat decline 

within the Atlantic Forest is unknown. 

The region has the two largest cites in 

Brazil, Sa ̃o Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, 

and is home to approximately 70 

percent of Brazil’s 169 million people 

(CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major 

human activities that have resulted in 

the loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of native habitats within the Atlantic 

Forest biome include extensive 

establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., 

soy beans, sugarcane, and corn), 

plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine, 

coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas), 

livestock pastures, centers of human 

habitation, and industrial developments 

(e.g., charcoal production, steel plants, 

and hydropower reservoirs). Forestry 

practices (e.g., commercial logging), 

subsistence activities (e.g., fuelwood 

collection), and changes in fire 

frequencies also contribute to the 

destruction of native habitats (BLI 

2003a, p. 4; Ju ́nior et al. 1995, p. 147; 

The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; 

Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto 

and Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, 

pp. 868–869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 

118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 

3–51). 

Most of the tropical forest habitats 

believed to have been used historically 

by the southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo have been converted or 

severely degraded by the above human 

activities (del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606– 

607; ICBP 1981, p. 1; Payne 2005, p. 

207; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; Sick 

1993, p. 286). Terrestrial insectivorous 

birds that are primary forest-obligate 

species, such as the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo, are especially 

vulnerable to habitat modifications 

(Goerck 1997, p. 116), and can not 

occupy these extensively altered 

habitats. 

Even when they are formally 

protected (see Factor D), the remaining 

fragments of primary forest habitat 

where the subspecies may still occur 

will likely undergo further degradation 

due to their altered dynamics and 

isolation (Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 

929–932). 

In addition, secondary impacts that 

are associated with human activities 

that cause severe fragmentation of the 

remaining tracts of primary forest 

habitat potentially used by the 

subspecies include the potential 

introduction of disease vectors or exotic 

predators within the subspecies’ historic 

range (see Factor C). As a result of the 

above influences, there is often a time 

lag between the initial conversion or 

degradation of suitable habitats and the 

extinction of endemic bird populations 

(Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al. 

1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without 

further habitat loss or degradation, the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo remains at risk from past 

impacts to its primary forest habitats. 

Summary of Factor A 

The above human activities and their 

secondary impacts continue to threaten 

the remaining tracts of habitat within 

the Atlantic Forest biome that may still 

harbor the southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo (BLI 2003a, p. 4; 

Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; 

del Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606–607; 

Ho ̈fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Payne 2005, 

p. 207; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 

3–51). Even with the recent passage of 

national forest policy, and in light of 

many other legal protections in Brazil 

(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss 

throughout southeastern Brazil has 

increased since the mid-1990s (CEPF 

2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; 

Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270). The 

subspecies’ population has already been 

reduced to such an extent that it is now 

only known from one possible recent 

(ca. 2004) sighting of a single bird (Scoss 

et al. 2006, p. 1), and any further loss 

or degradation of remaining suitable 

habitat could cause the extinction of 

this subspecies. Therefore, we find that 

destruction and modification of habitat 

are threats to the continued existence of 

the southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo throughout its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The extant population of the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo is considered to be extremely 

small, if it currently exists at all. 

Therefore, the removal or dispersal of 

any individuals of this subspecies or 

even a slight decline in the population’s 

fitness due to any intentional or 

inadvertent hunting, specimen 

collection, or other human disturbances 

(e.g., birding, hunting, specimen 

collection, scientific research) would 

adversely impact the southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo’s overall 

viability (see Factor E). However, while 

these potential influences remain a 

concern for future management of the 

subspecies, we are not aware of any 

information currently available that 

indicates the use of this subspecies for 

any commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purpose. As a result, we 

are not considering overutilization to be 

a contributing factor to the continued 

existence of the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Extensive human activity in 

previously undisturbed or isolated areas 

can also result in altered predator 

populations and the introduction of 

various exotic predator species, some of 

which (e.g., feral cats (Felis catus) and 

rats (Ratus sp.)) can be especially 

harmful to populations of endemic bird 

species (American Bird Conservancy 

2007, p. 1; Courchamp et al. 1999, p. 

219; Duncan and Blackburn 2007, pp. 

149–150; Salo et al. 2007, pp. 1241– 

1242; Small 2005, p. 257). Although 

large, stable populations of wildlife 

species have adapted to natural levels of 

disease and predation within their 

historic ranges, the extant population of 

the southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo is considered to be extremely 

small, if it currently exists at all. In 

addition, extensive human activity in 

previously undisturbed or isolated areas 

can lead to the introduction and spread 

of exotic diseases, some of which (e.g., 

West Nile virus) can negatively impact 

endemic bird populations (Neotropical 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40679 

News 2003, p. 1; Naugle et al. 2004, 

p. 704). 

Any additive mortality to the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo population or a decrease in its 

fitness due to an increase in the 

incidence of disease or predation would 

adversely impact the subspecies’ overall 

viability (see Factor E). However, while 

these potential influences remain a 

concern for future management of the 

subspecies, we are not aware of any 

information currently available that 

indicates the occurrence of disease in 

the southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo, or that documents any 

predation incurred by the subspecies. 

As a result, we are not considering 

disease or predation to be a contributing 

factor to the continued existence of the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo is formally recognized as 

‘‘endangered’’ in Brazil (Order No. 

1.522) and is directly protected by 

various laws promulgated by the 

Brazilian government (ICBP 1981, p. 1; 

ECOLEX 2007, pp. 1–2). For example, 

there are measures that prohibit, or 

regulate through Federal agency 

oversight, the following activities with 

regard to endangered species: export 

and international trade (e.g., Decree No. 

76.623, Order No. 419–P), hunting (e.g., 

Act No. 5.197), collection and research 

(Order No. 332), captive propagation 

(Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g., 

Decree No. 3.179). In addition, there are 

a wide range of regulatory mechanisms 

in Brazil that indirectly protect the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo through measures that protect its 

remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX 

2007, pp. 2–5). For example, there are 

measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation 

of the remaining primary forests within 

the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., Decree 

No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern 

various practices associated with the 

management of primary and secondary 

forests, such as logging, charcoal 

production, reforestation, recreation, 

and water resources (e.g., Resolution 

No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282, 

Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74–N, Act 

No. 7.803); (3) establish provisions for 

controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No. 

97.635, Order No. 231–P, Order No. 

292–P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4) 

regulate industrial developments, such 

as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel 

production (e.g., Normative Instruction 

No. 65, Law No. 11.116). Finally, there 

are various measures (e.g., Law No. 

11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, 

Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct 

Federal and state agencies to promote 

the protection of lands and natural 

resources under their jurisdictions 

(ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–6). 

Various regulatory mechanisms in 

Brazil govern the formal establishment 

and management of protected areas to 

promote conservation of the country’s 

natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6– 

7). These mechanisms generally aim to 

protect endangered wildlife and plant 

species, genetic resources, overall 

biodiversity, and native ecosystems on 

Federal, state, and privately owned 

lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 

11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 

1.922). Brazil’s formally established 

protection areas are categorized based 

on their overall management objectives 

(e.g., National Parks versus Biological 

Reserves), and based on those categories 

they allow varying uses and provide 

varying levels of protection for specific 

resources (Costa 2007, pp. 5–19). 

Two of these protected areas, 

Sooretama Biological Reserve and Doce 

River State Park, represent the major 

sites where the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo may still occur 

(Payne 2005, p. 207; Scott and Brooke 

1985, pp. 125–126), and the protective 

measures potentially implemented at 

these two areas are considered critical 

for protecting any remaining 

populations of the subspecies. However, 

not all of the identified threats for the 

subspecies (e.g., unregulated tourism, 

residential encroachment, resource 

extraction, grazing, and intentional 

burning) are sufficiently addressed at 

the two protected areas that may still 

harbor the southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo (AMDA 2006, p. 2; 

Barbosa 2007, p. 1; Bruner et al. 2001, 

pp. 125–128; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 

44). Due to various reasons (e.g., lack of 

funding, personnel, or local 

management commitment), some of 

Brazil’s protected areas exist without 

the current capacity to achieve their 

stated natural resource objectives (Costa 

2007, p. 7; IUCN 1999, p. 23–24; 

Neotropical News 1996, pp. 9–10; 

Neotropical News 1999, p. 9). For 

example, the Worldwide Fund for 

Nature found that 47 of 86 protected 

areas are considered to remain below 

their minimum level of implementation 

of Federal requirements, with only 7 

considered to be fully implemented 

(Neotropical News 1999, p. 9). 

In the past, the Brazilian government, 

through various regulations, policies, 

incentives, and subsidies, has actively 

encouraged settlement of previously 

undeveloped lands in southeastern 

Brazil which helped facilitate the largescale conversions that have occurred in 

the Atlantic Forest biome (Brannstrom 

2000, p. 326; Butler 2007, p. 3; 

Conservation International 2007c, p. 1; 

Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 

227–228; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874). 

More recently, the Brazilian government 

has given greater recognition to the 

environmental consequences of such 

rapid expansion, and has taken steps to 

better manage some of the natural 

resources potentially impacted (Butler 

2007, p. 7; Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical 

News 1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 

1997b, p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, 

p. 9; Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; 

Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 45). These 

competing priorities make it difficult to 

enforce regulations that protect the 

habitat of the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo. 

Summary of Factor D 

Although there are various 

government-sponsored measures that 

remain in place in Brazil that continue 

to facilitate development projects that 

could harm the species, there are also a 

wide variety of regulatory mechanisms 

in Brazil that require protection of the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo and its habitat throughout the 

subspecies’ potentially occupied range. 

The existing regulatory mechanisms, as 

currently enforced, do not reduce the 

threats to the species (BLI 2003a, p. 4; 

Conservation International 2007c, p. 1; 

Costa 2007, p. 7; The Nature 

Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Neotropical 

News 1997b, p. 11; Peixoto and Silva 

2007, p. 5; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 

118, 130; Venturini et al. 2005, p. 68). 

Therefore, when combined with Factors 

A and E, we find that the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to ameliorate the current threats to the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo throughout its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Under this factor we explore whether 

three risks, represented by demographic, 

genetic, and environmental stochastic 

events, are substantive to threaten the 

continued existence of the southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo. In basic 

terms, demographic stochasticity is 

defined by chance changes in the 

population growth rate for the species 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). 

Population growth rates are influenced 

by individual birth and death rates 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 27), 

immigration and emigration rates, as 

well as changes in population sex ratios. 

Natural variation in survival and 

reproductive success of individuals and 

chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40680 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

act in concert to contribute to 

demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity 

is caused by changes in gene 

frequencies due to genetic drift, and 

diminished genetic diversity, and/or 

effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression) (Lande 1995, p. 

786). Inbreeding can have individual or 

population-level consequences either by 

increasing the phenotypic expression 

(the outward appearance or observable 

structure, function or behavior of a 

living organism) of recessive, 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, 

p. 131). Environmental stochasticity is 

defined as the susceptibility of small, 

isolated populations of wildlife species 

to natural levels of environmental 

variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

events (e.g., severe storms, prolonged 

drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) 

(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and 

Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410– 

412). Each risk will be analyzed 

specifically for the southeastern rufousvented ground-cuckoo. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species are susceptible to demographic 

and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 

130–134). These threat factors, which 

may act in concert, include: natural 

variation in survival and reproductive 

success of individuals, chance 

disequilibrium of sex ratios, changes in 

gene frequencies due to genetic drift, 

diminished genetic diversity and 

associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e., 

inbreeding depression), dispersal of just 

a few individuals, a few clutch failures, 

a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring 

over just one or a few years, and chance 

mortality of just a few reproductive-age 

individuals. 

The southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo requires large blocks of 

undisturbed tropical forest (del Hoyo et 

al. 1997, pp. 606–607; Payne 2005, pp. 

204–207; Sick 1993, p. 286). In addition, 

while the subspecies has likely always 

been rare throughout its historic range 

(ICBP 1981, p. 1), it must have 

maintained a minimum level of genetic 

interchange among its local 

subpopulations in order for them to 

have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet 

1997, p. 107; Vila` et al. 2002, p. 91; 

Wang 2004, p. 332). However, the 

tropical forest habitats throughout the 

Doce River valley, where the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo was last documented, have been 

severely fragmented (see Factor A) and 

the subspecies’ extant population is 

extremely small and isolated, if it 

currently exists at all. 

In the absence of more speciesspecific life history data, a general 

approximation of a minimum viable 

population size is referred to as the 50/ 

500 rule (Franklin 1980, p. 147), as 

described under Factor E for the 

Brazilian merganser. There are no 

specific past or present abundance 

estimates for the southeastern rufousvented ground cuckoo; however, the 

subspecies is only known from one 

possible recent (ca. 2004) sighting of a 

single bird (Scoss et al. 2006, p. 1), and 

the extant population is almost certainly 

well below both of the thresholds (Ne = 

50 and Ne = 500) for an effective 

population size. This means that the 

subspecies’ population likely does not 

have enough individuals to avoid risks 

from inbreeding or the ability to 

maintain genetic diversity and adapt to 

changing conditions over time. 

Furthermore, if the subspecies does still 

exist, continued loss of suitable habitats 

(see Factor A) is likely to further 

exacerbate fragmentation of any 

remaining occupied patches. As such, 

we currently consider the subspecies to 

be at risk due to its lack of near- and 

long-term genetic viability. 

Various past and ongoing human 

activities and their secondary influences 

continue to impact all of the remaining 

suitable habitats that may still harbor 

the southeastern rufous-vented ground 

cuckoo (see Factors A and D). We expect 

that any additional loss or degradation 

of habitats that are used by the 

southeastern rufous-vented ground 

cuckoo will have disproportionately 

greater impacts on the subspecies due to 

the population’s fragmented state. This 

is because with each contraction of an 

existing subpopulation, the likelihood 

of interchange with other 

subpopulations within patches 

decreases, while the likelihood of its 

complete reproductive isolation 

increases. 

The combined effects of habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) and genetic 

and demographic stochasticity on a 

species population are referred to as 

patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can 

have profound effects on fragmented 

subpopulations and can potentially 

reduce a species’ respective effective 

population by orders of magnitude 

(Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, p. 31). For 

example, an increase in habitat 

fragmentation can separate 

subpopulations to the point where 

individuals can no longer disperse and 

breed among habitat patches, causing a 

shift in the demographic characteristics 

of a population and a reduction in 

genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, 

p. 31). Without efforts to maintain buffer 

areas and reconnect some of the 

remaining tracts of suitable habitat near 

the subspecies’ currently occupied sites, 

it is doubtful that the individual tracts 

are currently large enough to support 

viable populations of many birds 

endemic to the Atlantic Forest, like the 

southeastern rufous-vented ground 

cuckoo, and the eventual loss of any 

small, isolated populations appears to 

be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117; 

Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1609–1610; 

IUCN 1999, pp. 23–24; Machado and Da 

Fonseca 2000, pp. 914, 921–922; Saatchi 

et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke 

1985, p. 118). Del Hoyo et al. (1997, p. 

207) suggests that the rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo would be one of the first 

species to be extirpated from an area 

when their primary forest habitat is 

isolated, as has occurred to another 

Neomorphus geoffroyi subspecies at 

Barro Colorado in response to 

operations of the Panama Canal (del 

Hoyo et al. 1997, pp. 606–607; Payne 

2005, p. 207). Furthermore, as a species’ 

status continues to decline, often as a 

result of deterministic forces such as 

habitat loss or overutilization, it will 

become increasingly vulnerable to a 

broad array of other forces. If this trend 

continues, its ultimate extinction due to 

one or more stochastic events becomes 

more likely. 

We expect that the southeastern 

rufous-vented ground cuckoo’s 

increased vulnerability to demographic 

stochasticity and inbreeding will be 

operative even in the absence of any 

human-induced threats or stochastic 

environmental events, which only act to 

further exacerbate the species’ 

vulnerability to local extirpations and 

eventual extinction. Demographic and 

genetic stochastic forces typically 

operate synergistically. Initial effects of 

one threat factor can later exacerbate the 

effects of other threat factors, as well as 

itself (Gilpin and Soule ́ 1986, pp. 25– 

26). For example, any further 

fragmentation of populations will, by 

definition, result in the further removal 

or dispersal of individuals, which will 

exacerbate the other threats. Conversely, 

lack of a sufficient number of 

individuals in a local area or a decline 

in their individual or collective fitness 

may cause a decline in the population 

size, despite the presence of suitable 

habitat patches. 

Small, isolated populations of wildlife 

species, such as the southeastern rufousvented ground cuckoo, are also 

susceptible to natural levels of 

environmental variability and related 

‘‘catastrophic’’ events (e.g., severe 

storms, prolonged drought, extreme cold 

spells, wildfire), which we will refer to 

as environmental stochasticity (Dunham 

et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40681 

p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410–412). A 

single stochastic environmental event 

can severely reduce existing wildlife 

populations and, if the affected 

population is already small or severely 

fragmented, it is likely that demographic 

stochasticity or inbreeding will become 

operative, which would place the 

population in jeopardy (Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 27; Lande 1995, pp. 

787–789). 

Summary of Factor E 

The small and declining numbers that 

make up the southeastern rufous-vented 

ground cuckoo’s population makes it 

susceptible to natural environmental 

variability or chance events. In addition 

to its declining numbers, the high level 

of population fragmentation makes the 

subspecies susceptible to genetic and 

demographic stochasticity. Therefore, 

we find that demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochastic events are a 

threat to the continued existence of the 

southeastern rufous-vented ground 

cuckoo throughout its range. 

Status Determination for the 

Southeastern Rufous-vented Groundcuckoo 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo. The subspecies is currently at 

risk throughout all of its range due to 

ongoing threats of habitat destruction 

and modification (Factor A), and its lack 

of near- and long-term genetic and 

viability due to threats associated with 

demographic, genetic, and 

environmental stochasticity (Factor E). 

Furthermore, we have determined that 

the existing regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate 

the current threats to the southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Based 

on the threats to the southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo 

throughout its entire range, as described 

above, we determine that the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, on 

the basis of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we are 

proposing to list the southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo as an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, requirements for Federal 

protection, and prohibitions against 

certain practices. Recognition through 

listing results in public awareness, and 

encourages and results in conservation 

actions by Federal and State 

governments, private agencies and 

interest groups, and individuals. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

and as implemented by regulations at 50 

CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies 

to evaluate their actions within the 

United States or on the high seas with 

respect to any species that is proposed 

or listed as endangered or threatened, 

and with respect to its critical habitat, 

if any has been proposed or designated. 

However, given that the black-hooded 

antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherrythroated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, 

Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, Margaretta’s 

hermit, and southeastern rufous-vented 

ground-cuckoo are not native to the 

United States, we are not designating 

critical habitat in this rule. 

Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the 

provision of limited financial assistance 

for the development and management of 

programs that the Secretary of the 

Interior determines to be necessary or 

useful for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species in 

foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) 

of the Act authorize the Secretary to 

encourage conservation programs for 

foreign endangered and threatened 

species and to provide assistance for 

such programs in the form of personnel 

and the training of personnel. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered and threatened 

wildlife. As such, these prohibitions 

would be applicable to the blackhooded antwren, Brazilian merganser, 

cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed 

fire-eye, Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, 

Margaretta’s hermit, and southeastern 

rufous-vented ground-cuckoo. These 

prohibitions, under 50 CFR 17.21, in 

part, make it illegal for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to ‘‘take’’ (take includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct) any 

endangered wildlife species within the 

United States or upon the high seas; or 

to import or export; deliver, receive, 

carry, transport, or ship in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; or to sell or offer 

for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce any endangered wildlife 

species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 

such wildlife that has been taken in 

violation of the Act. Certain exceptions 

apply to agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

Permits may be issued to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered and threatened 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for 

endangered species, and 17.32 for 

threatened species. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit may be 

issued for the following purposes: for 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species, 

and for incidental take in connection 

with otherwise lawful activities. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

with National Marine Fisheries Service, 

‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities,’’ published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34270), we will seek the expert 

opinions of at least three appropriate 

independent specialists regarding this 

proposed rule. The purpose of peer 

review is to ensure that our final 

determination is based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

We will send copies of this proposed 

rule to the peer reviewers immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. We will invite these peer 

reviewers to comment during the public 

comment period on our specific 

assumptions and conclusions regarding 

the proposal to list the black-hooded 

antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherrythroated tanager, fringed-backed fireeye, Kaempfer’s tody-tyrant, 

Margaretta’s hermit, and the 

southeastern rufous-vented groundcuckoo. 

We will consider all comments and 

information we receive during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during our preparation of a final 

determination. Accordingly, our final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if we 

receive any requests for hearings. We 

must receive your request for a public 

hearing within 45 days after the date of 

this Federal Register publication (see 

DATES). Such requests must be made in 

writing and be addressed to the Chief of 

the Branch of Listing at the address 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40682 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register at least 15 days before the first 

hearing. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

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

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988, and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

or upon request from the Branch of 

Listing, Endangered Species Program, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Division of 

Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 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 .................... NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Cuckoo, southeastern rufousvented ground.Neomorphus 

geoffroyi dulcis.

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

Hermit, Margaretta’s Phaethornis malaris 

margarettae.

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

* * * * * * * 

Merganser, Brazilian Mergus 

octosetaceus.

Brazil, Argentina, 

Paraguay.

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

Tody-tyrant, 

Kaempfer’s.

Hemitriccus 

kaempferi.

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 40683 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: July 15, 2009. 

James J. Slack, 

Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–18691 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2