[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40650-40683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18691]



[[Page 40649]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Seven Brazilian 
Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 40650]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-IA-2009-0028; 96100-1671-0000-B6]
RIN 1018-AV74


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Seven 
Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered Throughout Their Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the following seven Brazilian bird species and subspecies 
(collectively referred to as ``species'' for purposes of this proposed 
rule) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.): black-hooded antwren 
(Formicivora erythronotos), Brazilian merganser (Mergus octosetaceus), 
cherry-throated tanager (Nemosia rourei), fringe-backed fire-eye 
(Pyriglena atra), Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (Hemitriccus kaempferi), 
Margaretta's hermit (Phaethornis malaris margarettae), and southeastern 
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus geoffroyi dulcis). This 
proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's protection to these 
species. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this 
proposed rule.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
October 13, 2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section by September 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> 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 rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (Neomorphus 
geoffroyi dulcis). All of the above species are found in the Atlantic 
Forest and neighboring regions of southeastern Brazil.

[[Page 40651]]

    We are addressing the seven Brazilian bird species identified above 
under a single proposed rule primarily for three reasons. First, all of 
these species are found in the Atlantic Forest and neighboring regions 
of southeastern Brazil, thus addressing them together makes sense from 
a regional conservation perspective. Second, these seven species are 
subject to similar threats of comparable magnitude, primarily the loss 
and degradation of habitat due to deforestation and other ongoing 
development practices affecting southeastern Brazil, as well as 
concomitant threats due to severely restricted distributions and small 
population sizes (such as potential loss of genetic viability). 
Combining species that face similar threats within the same general 
geographic area into one proposed rule allows us to maximize our 
limited staff resources, thus increasing our ability to complete the 
listing process for warranted-but-precluded species.

Previous Federal Actions

    On November 28, 1980, we received a petition (the 1980 petition) 
from Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman, United States Section of the 
International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign 
bird species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 
17.11(h)), including 5 of the 7 Brazilian bird species (black-hooded 
antwren, cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, Margaretta's 
hermit, and southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo) that are the 
subject of this proposed rule. Two of the foreign species identified in 
the petition were already listed under the Act; therefore, in response 
to the 1980 petition, we published a substantial 90-day finding on May 
12, 1981 (46 FR 26464), for 58 foreign species and initiated a status 
review. On January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we published a 12-month 
finding within an annual review on pending petitions and description of 
progress on all pending petition findings. In that notice, we found 
that all 58 foreign bird species from the 1980 petition were warranted 
but precluded by higher priority listing actions. On May 10, 1985, we 
published the first annual notice (50 FR 19761) in which we continued 
to find that listing all 58 foreign bird species from the 1980 petition 
was warranted but precluded. We published additional annual notices on 
the 58 species included in the 1980 petition on January 9, 1986 (51 FR 
996), July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511), December 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746), 
April 25, 1990 (55 FR 17475), November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58664), and May 
21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). These notices indicated that the black-hooded 
antwren, cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, Margaretta's 
hermit, and southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo, along with the 
remaining species in the 1980 petition, continued to be warranted but 
precluded.
    On May 6, 1991, we received a second petition (the 1991 petition) 
from ICBP to add an additional 53 foreign bird species to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, including the 2 remaining Brazilian 
bird species (Brazilian merganser and Kaempfer's tody-tyrant) that are 
the subject of this proposed rule. In response to the 1991 petition, we 
published a substantial 90-day finding on December 16, 1991 (56 FR 
65207), for all 53 species and initiated a status review. On March 28, 
1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12-month finding on the 1991 
petition, along with a proposed rule to list 30 African birds under the 
Act (15 each from the 1980 petition and 1991 petition). In that 
document, we announced our finding that listing the remaining 38 
species from the 1991 petition, including the Brazilian merganser and 
Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, was warranted but precluded by higher priority 
listing actions. We made a subsequent warranted-but-precluded finding 
for all outstanding foreign species from the 1980 and 1991 petitions, 
including the seven Brazilian bird species that are the subject of this 
proposed rule, as published in our annual notice of review (ANOR) on 
May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354).
    Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983; 
48 FR 43098), our 2007 ANOR identified the listing priority numbers 
(LPNs) (ranging from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign species. The 
LPNs for the seven Brazilian bird species that are the subject of this 
proposed rule are as follows: The black-hooded antwren, Brazilian 
merganser, cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, and 
Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (LPN 2); and the Margaretta's hermit and 
southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo (LPN 3). Listing priorities of 
2 and 3 indicate that the subject species and subspecies, respectively, 
face imminent threats of high magnitude. With the exception of listing 
priority ranking of 1, which addresses monotypic genera that face 
imminent threats of high magnitude, categories 2 and 3 represent the 
Service's highest priorities.
    On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published in the Federal 
Register a notice announcing our annual petition findings for foreign 
species. In that notice, we announced listing to be warranted for 30 
foreign bird species, including the seven Brazilian bird species which 
are the subject of this proposed rule, and stated that we would 
``promptly publish proposals to list these 30 taxa.''
    On September 8, 2008, the Service received a 60-day notice of 
intent to sue from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) over 
violations of section 4 of the Act for the Service's failure to 
promptly publish listing proposals for the 30 ``warranted'' species 
identified in our 2008 ANOR. Under a settlement agreement approved by 
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 
15, 2009, (CDB v. Salazar, 09-cv-02578-CRB), the Service must submit to 
the Federal Register proposed listing rules for the black-hooded 
antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherry-throated tanager, fringe-backed 
fire-eye, Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, Margaretta's hermit, and southeastern 
rufous-vented ground-cuckoo by July 31, 2009.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding 
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination.
    If we consider that wildlife habitat is not only defined by 
substrates (vegetation, soil, water), but also atmospheric conditions, 
then changes in air temperature and moisture can effectively change a 
species' habitat. Climate change is characterized by variations in the 
earth's temperature and precipitation causing changes in atmospheric, 
oceanic, and terrestrial conditions (Parmesan and Mathews 2005, p. 
334). Global climate change and other periodic climatic patterns (e.g., 
El Ni[ntilde]o and La Ni[ntilde]a) can cause or exacerbate such 
negative impacts on a broad range of terrestrial ecosystems and 
neotropical bird populations (Crick 2004, p. 1; England 2000, p. 86;

[[Page 40652]]

Holmgren et al. 2001, p. 89; Plumart 2007, pp. 1-2). For example, trees 
cool their area of influence through high rates of evapotranspiration, 
or water loss to the atmosphere from their leaves (Parmesan and Mathews 
2005, p. 337). Areas where trees have been replaced with pastures have 
lower evapotranspiration rates, thus causing local areas to be warmer 
(Parmesan and Mathews 2005, p. 337). According to the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change can contribute to 
modifications of Amazonian rainforest habitats that are affected by 
deforestation (IPCC 1997, p. 11). Parmesan and Mathews (2005, p. 373) 
suggest that climate change is more likely to cause range reductions 
rather than range shifts. This may be due to the lack of areas where a 
species could shift to or the spaces between habitat patches are too 
large for individuals to reach. This suggests that climate change could 
be an agent of habitat loss or modification.
    Despite the fact that global climate changes are occurring and 
affecting habitat, the climate change models that are currently 
available are not yet able to make meaningful predictions of climate 
change for specific, local areas (Parmesan and Matthews 2005, p. 354), 
such as the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado (savanna) bioregions. In 
addition, we do not have models to predict how the climate in the range 
of these Brazilian bird species will change, and we do not know how any 
change that may occur, would affect these species. We also do not have 
information on past and future weather patterns within the specific 
range of these species. Therefore, based on the current lack of 
information and data, we did not evaluate climate change as a threat to 
these species. We are, however, seeking additional information on this 
subject (see Public Comments) that can be used in preparing the final 
rule.
    Below is a species-by-species analysis of the five factors. The 
species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning with the black-
hooded antwren, followed by the Brazilian merganser, cherry-throated 
tanager, fringe-backed fire-eye, Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, Margaretta's 
hermit, and the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo.

I. Black-hooded Antwren (Formicivora erythronotos)

Species Description
    The black-hooded antwren measures 10.5 to 11.5 centimeters (cm) (4 
to 4.5 inches (in)) (BirdLife International (BLI) 2007d, p. 1; Sisk 
1993, p. 414). Males are black with a reddish-brown back. They have a 
black narrow bill and a long tail. There are three thin white stripes 
on the wings. Females have similar coloring, except they have brown-
olive feathers where black feathers appear on males (BLI 2007d, p. 1).
Taxonomy
    The black-hooded antwren is a small member of the diverse 
``antbird'' family (Thamnophilidae). The species was previously 
recognized under the genus Myrmotherula (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Collar et al. 
1992, p. 667; Sick 1993, p. 414).
Habitat and Life History
    The Atlantic Forest biome encompasses a region of tropical and 
subtropical moist forests, tropical dry forests, and mangrove forests, 
that extend along the Atlantic coast of Brazil from Rio Grande do Norte 
in the north to Rio Grande do Sul in the south, and inland as far as 
Paraguay and Misiones Province of northeastern Argentina (Conservation 
International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and 
Haddad 2000, pp. 786-787). The black-hooded antwren inhabits lush 
understories of remnant old-growth and early successional secondary-
growth coastal forests, and it may also occur in dense understories of 
modified ``restinga,'' (``restinga'' is a Brazilian term that describes 
a patchwork of vegetation types consisting of beach vegetation, open 
shrubby vegetation, and dry and swamp forests distributed over coastal 
plains from northeastern to southeastern Brazil (McGinley 2007, pp. 1-
2)), swampy woodlands, abandoned banana plantations, and eucalyptus 
stands (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64).
    Although the specific habitat requirements of the black-hooded 
antwren are still unclear, the species is not considered a tropical 
forest specialist. The black-hooded antwren typically forages in pairs 
or small family groups and consumes various insects, spiders, and small 
frogs (Collar et al. 1992, p. 667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; Sick 1993, p. 
405; Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 65). Black-hooded antwrens usually 
forage in dense vegetation within approximately 3 meters (m) (10 feet 
(ft)) of the ground, but they are also known to feed higher up (ca. 7 m 
(23 ft)).
    Females typically lay two eggs in fragile nests resembling small 
cups made of plant material (e.g., rootlets, stems, moss) that are 
attached to horizontal branches within roughly 1 m (3.3 ft) of the 
ground (Collar et al. 1992, p. 667; Sick 1993, p. 405). Both sexes help 
to build the nests, brood clutches, and attend their young.
Range and Distribution
    The black-hooded antwren is endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome in 
the southeast of the state of Rio de Janeiro (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Collar 
et al. 1992, p. 667). Currently, the only confirmed population is 
believed to be restricted to remnant patches of forest habitat along 
roughly 30 kilometers (km) (19 miles (mi)) of coast in southern Rio de 
Janeiro, near the border with S[atilde]o Paulo (Browne 2005, p. 95; 
Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64). However, there have also been recent 
unconfirmed reports that the species may occur at the state Ecological 
Reserve of Jacarepi[aacute], located roughly 75 km (47 mi) northeast of 
the city of Rio de Janeiro (ADEJA 2007, p. 3; WorldTwitch 2007, p. 12).
Population Estimates
    The black-hooded antwren was known from 20 specimens that were 
purportedly collected in the 1800s in montane forest habitats of 
central Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The species had not been reported since 
that collection until it was rediscovered in 1987 in the Atlantic 
forest in south Rio de Janeiro (BLI 2007d, p. 1).
    The extant population is estimated to be between 1,000 and 2,499 
birds, and is fragmented among seven occupied sites, including 
Bracu[iacute], Frade, S[atilde]o Gon[ccedil]alo, Taquari and Barra 
Grande, Arir[oacute], and Vale do Mambucaba. Vale do Mambucaba has the 
highest known density of pairs (156 pairs per square kilometer 
(km\2\)), followed by Mambucaba (densities of 89 pairs/km\2\). There 
are no known estimates for the other locations, but it is believed that 
the numbers are few (BLI 2007d, p. 1). At least one of the fragmented 
populations is believed to be reproductively isolated. The population, 
as a whole, is also believed to be declining rapidly due to continued 
loss of habitat (BLI 2007d, pp. 1-3).
Conservation Status
    The IUCN considers the black-hooded antwren to be ``Endangered'' 
because ``it has a very small and severely fragmented range that is 
likely to be declining rapidly in response to habitat loss'' (BLI 
2007d, p. 3). The species is also protected by Brazilian law and occurs 
in the buffer area of Serra da Boca[iacute]na National Park (BLI 2007d, 
p. 2).

[[Page 40653]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Black-hooded Antwren
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Species' Habitat or Range
    Based on a number of recent estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 
historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest 
biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various 
human activities (Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation International 2007a, 
p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers 
et al. 2000, pp. 853-854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi et 
al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2-41). In addition to 
the overall loss and degradation of native habitats within this biome, 
the remaining tracts of habitat are severely fragmented. The current 
rate of habitat decline is unknown.
    The region has the two largest cities in Brazil, S[atilde]o Paulo 
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of Brazil's 
169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human activities 
that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 
native habitats within the Atlantic Forest biome include extensive 
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, 
corn), plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber, 
bananas), livestock pastures, centers of human habitation, and 
industrial developments (e.g., charcoal production, steel plants, 
hydropower reservoirs). Forestry practices (e.g., commercial logging, 
subsistence activities, fuelwood collection) and changes in fire 
frequencies (BLI 2003a, p. 4; J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The 
Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and 
Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke 
1985, p. 118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51) also contribute to 
the degradation of native habitat.
    The black-hooded antwren is not strictly tied to primary forest 
habitats and can make use of secondary-growth forests or other 
disturbed areas, such as modified ``restinga,'' eucalyptus stands, 
abandoned banana plantations, and recently burned sites (BLI 2007d, p. 
1; Tobias and Williams 1996, p. 64). However, this does not necessarily 
lessen the threat to the species from the effects of deforestation and 
habitat degradation. Atlantic Forest birds, such as the black-hooded 
antwren, which are tolerant of secondary-growth forests or other 
disturbed sites, are also rare or have severely restricted ranges 
(i.e., less than 21,000 km\2\ (8,100 square miles (mi\2\))). Thus 
habitat degradation can adversely impact such species, just as equally 
as it impacts primary forest-obligate species (Harris and Pimm 2004, 
pp. 1612-1613). While the black-hooded antwren is relatively abundant 
locally, the entire range of the species encompasses only about 130 
km\2\ (50 mi\2\), with only 45 percent of this area considered occupied 
(BLI 2007d, pp. 3-4).
    The susceptibility to habitat destruction of limited-range species 
that are tolerant of secondary-growth forests or other disturbed sites 
can occur for a variety of reasons, such as when a species' remaining 
population is already too small or its distribution too fragmented such 
that it may not be demographically or genetically viable (Harris and 
Pimm 2004, pp. 1612-1613). In addition, while the black-hooded antwren 
may be tolerant of secondary-growth forests or other disturbed sites, 
these areas may not represent optimal conditions for the species, which 
would include dense understories and abundant prey species. For 
example, management of plantations often involves intensive control of 
the site's understory vegetation and long-term use of pesticides, which 
eventually results in severely diminished understory cover and 
potential prey species (Rolim and Chiarello 2004, pp. 2687-2691; 
Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118). Such 
management activities make these sites unsuitable for the black-hooded 
antwren (BLI 2007d, p. 2).
    Impacts associated with the destruction of native habitat by human 
activities within the Atlantic Forest biome include extensive 
fragmentation of the remaining tracts of forested habitat potentially 
used by the black-hooded antwren (see Factor E). As a secondary impact, 
habitat destruction of these remaining tracts increases the potential 
introduction of disease vectors or exotic predators within the species' 
historic range (see Factor C). Furthermore, even when potentially 
occupied sites may be formally protected, such as the state Ecological 
Reserve of Jacarepi[aacute] (see Factor D), the remaining fragments of 
forested habitat will likely undergo further degradation due to their 
altered dynamics and isolation (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1-2; Tabanez and Viana 
2000, pp. 929-932). Altered dynamics and isolation are characterized by 
a decrease in gene flow and inbreeding, which decrease the fitness of 
forest species (Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929-932). In addition, 
fragmented Atlantic forests of Brazil are observed to be overtaken by 
lianas (long-stemmed woody vines), which cause tree falls and gaps in 
the forest structure. These gaps in the forest encourage gap-
opportunistic vegetation to grow. Hence, a decrease in gene flow, and 
increases in inbreeding, liana density, and presence of gap-
opportunistic species change the character and dynamics of the Atlantic 
Forest biome and isolate fragmented habitat patches (Tabanez and Viana 
2000, pp. 930-931). These changes may result in the loss of important 
species that comprise the black-hooded antwren habitat. As a result of 
these secondary impacts, there is often a time lag between the initial 
conversion or degradation of suitable habitats and the extinction of 
endemic bird populations (Brooks et al. 1999a, p. 1; Brooks et al. 
1999b, p. 1140). Therefore, even without further habitat loss or 
degradation, the black-hooded antwren remains at risk from past impacts 
to its suitable habitats.
    The black-hooded antwren occurs in one of the most densely 
populated regions of Brazil, and most of the tropical forest habitats 
believed to have been used historically by the species have been 
converted or are severely degraded due to the wide range of human 
activities identified above (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar 
et al. 1992, p. 667; Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; del Hoyo 
2003, p. 616; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 
1; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51). In addition, the remaining 
tracts of suitable habitat in Rio de Janeiro and S[atilde]o Paulo are 
threatened by ongoing development of coastal areas, primarily for 
tourism enterprises (e.g., large hotel complexes, beachside housing) 
and associated infrastructure support, as well as widespread clearing 
for expansion of livestock pastures and plantations, primarily for 
Euterpe palms (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 
667; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 7 and 36-37). 
These impacts have recently reduced suitable habitats at various key 
sites known to be occupied by the black-hooded antwren such as Vale do 
Mambucaba and Arir[oacute], and the remaining occupied habitats at 
these sites are subject to ongoing human disturbances, such as off-road 
vehicle use, burning, and recreational activities (BLI 2007d, p. 2; 
Collar et al. 1994, p. 134; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616).
Summary of Factor A
    A significant portion of Atlantic Forest habitats have been, and 
continue to be, lost and degraded by various ongoing human activities, 
including

[[Page 40654]]

logging, establishment and expansion of plantations and livestock 
pastures, urban and industrial developments (including many new 
hydroelectric dams), slash-and-burn clearing, intentional and 
accidental ignition of fires, and establishment of invasive species 
(CEPF 2001, pp. 9-15). Even with the recent passage of a national 
forest policy and in light of many other legal protections in Brazil 
(see Factor D), the rate of habitat loss throughout the Atlantic Forest 
biome has increased since the mid-1990s (CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 
1997, p. 1; Rocha et al. 2005, p. 270), and native habitats at many of 
the remaining sites may be lost over the next several years (Rocha et 
al. 2005, p. 263). Furthermore, because the black-hooded antwren's 
extant population is already small, highly fragmented, and believed to 
be declining (BLI 2007d, pp. 1-3), any further loss or degradation of 
its remaining suitable habitat represents a significant threat to the 
species (see Factor E). Therefore, we find that destruction and 
modification of habitat are threats to the continued existence of the 
black-hooded antwren throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    The extant population of the black-hooded antwren is considered to 
be small, fragmented, and declining. The species was deliberately not 
collected when it was rediscovered in 1987 (Collar et al. 1992, p. 
667). This is because the removal or dispersal of just a few 
individuals from any of the black-hooded antwren's subpopulations or 
even a slight decline in their fitness due to intentional or 
inadvertent hunting, specimen collection, or other human disturbances 
(e.g., scientific research, birding) could represent significant risks 
to the species' overall viability (see Factor E). However, while these 
potential influences remain a concern for future management of the 
species, we are not aware of any other information currently available 
that indicates the use of this species for any commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purpose. As a result, we are 
not considering overutilization to be a contributing factor to the 
continued existence of the black-hooded antwren.
C. Disease or Predation
    Large, stable populations of wildlife species have adapted to 
natural levels of disease and predation within their historic ranges. 
However, the extant population of the black-hooded antwren is 
considered to be small, fragmented, and declining. In addition, 
extensive human activity in previously undisturbed or isolated areas 
can lead to the introduction and spread of exotic diseases, some of 
which (e.g., West Nile virus) can negatively impact endemic bird 
populations (Naugle et al. 2004, p. 704; Neotropical News 2003, p. 1). 
Extensive human activity in previously undisturbed or isolated areas 
can also result in altered predator populations and the introduction of 
various exotic predator species, some of which (e.g., feral cats (Felis 
catus) and rats (Ratus sp.)) can be especially harmful to populations 
of endemic bird species (American Bird Conservancy 2007, p. 1; 
Courchamp et al. 1999, p. 219; Duncan and Blackburn 2007, pp. 149-150; 
Salo et al. 2007, pp. 1241-1242; Small 2005, p. 257). Any additive 
mortality to the black-hooded antwren's subpopulations or a decrease in 
their fitness due to an increase in the incidence of disease or 
predation could represent significant threats to the species' overall 
viability (see Factor E).
    Although disease and predation may be a concern for future 
management of the black-hooded antwren, we are not aware of any 
species-specific information currently available that indicates that 
disease or predation poses a threat to the species. As a result, we are 
not considering disease or predation to be a contributing factor to the 
continued existence of the black-hooded antwren.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    The black-hooded antwren is formally recognized as ``endangered'' 
in Brazil (Order No. 1.522) and is directly protected by various laws 
promulgated by the Brazilian government (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Collar et al. 
1992, p. 667; ECOLEX 2007, pp. 1-2). For example, there are measures 
that prohibit, or regulate through Federal agency oversight, the 
following activities with regard to endangered species: export and 
international trade (e.g., Decree No. 76.623, Order No. 419-P), hunting 
(e.g., Act No. 5.197), collection and research (Order No. 332), captive 
propagation (Order No. 5), and general harm (e.g., Decree No. 3.179). 
In addition, there are a wide range of regulatory mechanisms in Brazil 
that indirectly protect the black-hooded antwren through measures that 
protect its remaining suitable habitat (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 2-5). For 
example, there are measures that: (1) Prohibit exploitation of the 
remaining primary forests within the Atlantic Forest biome (e.g., 
Decree No. 750, Resolution No. 10); (2) govern various practices 
associated with the management of primary and secondary forests, such 
as logging, charcoal production, reforestation, recreation, and water 
resources (e.g., Resolution No. 9, Act No. 4.771, Decree No. 1.282, 
Decree No. 3.420, Order No. 74-N, Act No. 7.803); (3) establish 
provisions for controlling forest fires (e.g., Decree No. 97.635, Order 
No. 231-P, Order No. 292-P, Decree No. 2.661); and (4) regulate 
industrial developments, such as hydroelectric plants and biodiesel 
production (e.g., Normative Instruction No. 65, Law No. 11.116). 
Finally, there are various measures (e.g., Law No. 11.516, Act No. 
7.735, Decree No. 78, Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) that direct Federal 
and state agencies to promote the protection of lands and natural 
resources under their jurisdictions (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5-6).
    There are also various regulatory mechanisms in Brazil that govern 
the formal establishment and management of protected areas to promote 
conservation of the country's natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 6-7). 
These mechanisms generally aim to protect endangered wildlife and plant 
species, genetic resources, overall biodiversity, and native ecosystems 
on Federal, state, and privately owned lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law 
No. 11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 1.922). Brazil's formally 
established protection areas are categorized based on their overall 
management objectives (e.g., National Parks versus Biological 
Reserves); and based on those categories, they allow varying uses and 
provide varying levels of protection for specific resources (Costa 
2007, pp. 5-19).
    The black-hooded antwren occurs in the buffer zone around Serra da 
Bocaina National Park and, possibly, within Tamoios Environmental 
Protection Area and the Ecological Reserve of Jacarepi[aacute] (BLI 
2007d, p. 2; del Hoyo 2003, p. 616; WorldTwitch 2007, p. 12). It has 
been recommended that some of these sites should be expanded and other 
sites designated to ensure the species' currently occupied range is 
encompassed within protected areas. However, for various reasons (e.g., 
lack of funding, personnel, or local management commitment), some of 
Brazil's protected areas exist without the current capacity to achieve 
their stated natural resource objectives (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1-2; Bruner 
et al. 2001, p. 125; Costa 2007, p. 7; IUCN 1999, pp. 23-24; 
Neotropical News 1996, pp. 9-10; Neotropical News 1999, p. 9). 
Therefore, even with the expansion or further designation of protected 
areas, it is likely that not all of the identified resource concerns 
for

[[Page 40655]]

the black-hooded antwren (e.g., residential and agricultural 
encroachment, resource extraction, unregulated tourism, grazing) would 
be sufficiently addressed at these sites.
    In the past, the Brazilian government, through various regulations, 
policies, incentives, and subsidies, has actively encouraged settlement 
of previously undeveloped lands in southeastern Brazil, which helped 
facilitate the large-scale habitat conversions that have occurred 
throughout the Atlantic Forest biome (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 
2007, p. 3; Conservation International 2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; 
Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227-228; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874). More 
recently, the Brazilian government has given greater recognition to the 
environmental consequences of such rapid expansion, and has taken steps 
to better manage some of the natural resources potentially impacted 
(Butler 2007, p. 7; Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News 1997a, p. 10; 
Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9; 
Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 45). Despite 
these efforts, pressures to develop coastal areas containing black-
hooded antwren habitat for tourism (e.g., large hotel complexes, 
beachside housing) and plantation agriculture continue to be a threat 
to the species (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1-2; BLI 2007d, p. 2; Tobias and 
Williams 1996, p. 65).
Summary of Factor D
    Brazil's wide variety of laws requiring resource protection that 
would ultimately benefit the black-hooded antwren are tested by the 
intense development pressure that exists in coastal areas south of Rio 
de Janeiro. Despite the existence of these regulatory mechanisms, 
habitat loss throughout the Atlantic Forest biome has increased for 
more than a decade. The existing regulatory mechanisms have proven 
difficult to enforce (BLI 2003a, p. 4; Conservation International 
2007c, p. 1; Costa 2007, p. 7; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; 
Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; Scott and 
Brooke 1985, pp. 118, 130). As a result, threats to the black-hooded 
antwren's remaining habitat are ongoing (see Factor A) due to the 
challenges that Brazil faces to balance its competing development and 
environmental priorities. Therefore, when combined with Factors A and 
E, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to 
ameliorate the current threats to the black-hooded antwren throughout 
its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence 
of the Species
    Under this factor we explore whether three risks, represented by 
demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events, are 
substantive to threaten the continued existence of the black-hooded 
antwren. In basic terms, demographic stochasticity is defined by chance 
changes in the population growth rate for the species (Gilpin and 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Population growth rates are influenced by 
individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27), 
immigration and emigration rates, as well as changes in population sex 
ratios. Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of 
individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert 
to contribute to demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes in gene 
frequencies due to genetic drift, and diminished genetic diversity, 
and/or effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Lande 
1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or population-level 
consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the 
outward appearance, or observable structure, function, or behavior of a 
living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by reducing the 
overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and 
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Environmental 
stochasticity is defined as the susceptibility of small, isolated 
populations of wildlife species to natural levels of environmental 
variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms, 
prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) (Dunham et al. 1999, 
p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412). Each risk 
will be analyzed specifically for the black-hooded antwren.
    Small, isolated populations of wildlife species are susceptible to 
demographic and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 130-134). These 
threat factors, which may act in concert, include: natural variation in 
survival and reproductive success of individuals, chance disequilibrium 
of sex ratios, changes in gene frequencies due to genetic drift, 
diminished genetic diversity and associated effects due to inbreeding 
(i.e., inbreeding depression), dispersal of just a few individuals, a 
few clutch failures, a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring over 
just one or a few years, and chance mortality of just a few 
reproductive-age individuals.
    There is very little information available regarding the historic 
distribution and abundance of the black-hooded antwren. However, the 
species' historic population was likely larger and more widely 
distributed than today, and it must have maintained a minimum level of 
genetic interchange among its local subpopulations in order for them to 
have persisted (Middleton and Nisbet 1997, p. 107; Vil[agrave] et al. 
2002, p. 91; Wang 2004, p. 332). The available information indicates 
that suitable habitats currently occupied by the black-hooded antwren 
are highly fragmented and that the species' extant population is small 
and declining (BLI 2007d, pp. 1-3). Without efforts to maintain buffer 
areas and reconnect some of the remaining tracts of suitable habitat 
near the species' currently occupied sites, it is doubtful that the 
individual tracts are currently large enough to support viable 
populations of many birds endemic to the Atlantic Forest, like the 
black-hooded antwren, and the eventual loss of any small, isolated 
populations appears to be inevitable (Goerck 1997, p. 117; Harris and 
Pimm 2004, pp. 1609-1610; IUCN 1999, pp. 23-24; Machado and Da Fonseca 
2000, pp. 914, 921-922; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 873; Scott and Brooke 
1985, p. 118).
    Various past and ongoing human activities and their secondary 
influences continue to impact all of the remaining suitable habitats 
that may still harbor the black-hooded antwren (see Factors A and D). 
We expect that any additional loss or degradation of habitats that are 
used by the black-hooded antwren will have disproportionately greater 
impacts on the species due to the population's fragmented state. This 
is because with each contraction of an existing subpopulation, the 
likelihood of interchange with other subpopulations within patches 
decreases, while the likelihood of its complete reproductive isolation 
increases.
    The combined effects of habitat fragmentation (Factor A) and 
genetic and demographic stochasticity on a species population are 
referred to as patch dynamics. Patch dynamics can have profound effects 
on fragmented subpopulations and can potentially reduce a species' 
respective effective population by orders of magnitude (Gilpin and 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat 
fragmentation can separate subpopulations to the point where 
individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches, 
causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and 
a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986,

[[Page 40656]]

p. 31). Furthermore, as a species' status continues to decline, often 
as a result of deterministic forces such as habitat loss or 
overutilization, it will become increasingly vulnerable to a broad 
array of other forces. If this trend continues, its ultimate extinction 
due to one or more stochastic events becomes more likely.
    We expect that the black-hooded antwren's increased vulnerability 
to demographic stochasticity and inbreeding will be operative even in 
the absence of any human-induced threats or stochastic environmental 
events, which only act to further exacerbate the species' vulnerability 
to local extirpations and eventual extinction. Demographic and genetic 
stochastic forces typically operate synergistically. Initial effects of 
one threat factor can later exacerbate the effects of other threat 
factors, as well as itself (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-26). 
For example, any further fragmentation of the populations will, by 
definition, result in the further removal or dispersal of individuals, 
which will exacerbate the other threats. Conversely, lack of a 
sufficient number of individuals in a local area or a decline in their 
individual or collective fitness may cause a decline in the population 
size, despite the presence of suitable habitat patches.
    Small, isolated populations of wildlife species, such as the black-
hooded antwren, are also susceptible to natural levels of environmental 
variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms, 
prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire), which we will refer 
to as environmental stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and 
Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412). A single stochastic 
environmental event can severely reduce existing wildlife populations 
and, if the affected population is already small or severely 
fragmented, it is likely that demographic stochasticity or inbreeding 
will become operative, which would place the population in jeopardy 
(Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27; Lande 1995, pp. 787-789).
Summary of Factor E
    The small and declining numbers that make up the black-hooded 
antwren's population makes it susceptible to natural environmental 
variability or chance events. In addition to its declining numbers, the 
high level of population fragmentation makes the species susceptible to 
genetic and demographic stochasticity. Therefore, we find that 
demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events are a threat 
to the continued existence of the black-hooded antwren throughout its 
range.
Status Determination for the Black-hooded Antwren
    We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential 
future threats faced by the black-hooded antwren. The species is 
currently at risk throughout all of its range due to ongoing threats of 
habitat destruction and modification (Factor A), and demographic, 
genetic, and environmental stochastic events associated with the 
species' high level of population fragmentation (Factor E). 
Furthermore, we have determined that the existing regulatory mechanisms 
(Factor D) are not adequate to ameliorate the current threats to the 
species.
    Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Based on the threats to the black-hooded antwren throughout 
its entire range, as described above, we determine that the black-
hooded antwren is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. 
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we are proposing to list the black-hooded antwren as an 
endangered species throughout all of its range.

II. Brazilian Merganser (Mergus Octosetaceus)

Species Description
    The 49-56 cm (19-22 in) (BLI 2007a, p. 1) Brazilian merganser is 
described as resembling a cormorant (Sisk 1993, p. 163). The bird has a 
white wing speculum and red feet. The breast is pale grey with dark 
markings, and there is dark grey coloring in the upper breast (BLI 
2007a, p. 1). The species has a distinctive green crest that extends 
over the nape of the neck (more developed in the male) (Sisk 1993, p. 
163).
Taxonomy
    The Brazilian merganser was first described by Vieillot in 1817 
(Partridge 1956, p. 473). The species belongs in the family Anatidae 
(BLI 2007a, p. 1).
Habitat and Life History
    The Brazilian merganser is highly adapted to shallow, rapid, clear-
water streams and rivers, typically bordered by dense, tropical forest 
(Bruno et al. 2006, p. 26; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 80-86; Ducks 
Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 23; Partridge 1956, pp. 
478-480; Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 41). Where suitable riverine 
conditions exist, the Brazilian merganser also occurs in the Cerrado 
biome, which is characterized by open tropical savannah and 
comparatively sparse ``gallery'' forest at the river margins, 
indicating that the species is not strictly tied to tropical forest 
habitats (Bianchi et al. 2005, p. 73; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70).
    Brazilian mergansers are strong swimmers and divers. They typically 
feed in river rapids or in pools adjacent to waterfalls, whereas they 
rest and perch in more slack water areas or at the river edges (Braz et 
al. 2003, p. 70; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 21; Partridge 1956, pp. 481-
482). Brazilian mergansers feed primarily on a variety of fish species, 
with sizes up to approximately 19 cm (7.5 in), and occasionally on 
insects, snails, and other aquatic macro-invertebrates (Hughes et al. 
2006, p. 32; Partridge 1956, p. 483).
    Brazilian mergansers are believed to be monogamous and sedentary. 
Breeding pairs appear to maintain their territories along a stretch of 
river (up to ca. 12 km (7.5 mi)) throughout the year (Braz et al. 2003, 
p. 70; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23, 33; 
Partridge 1956, p. 477). The breeding season begins in June and young 
hatch around August (Partridge 1956, p. 487). Females establish their 
nests relatively high up (25 m (82 ft)) in the cavities of tall trees 
that overlook the river and incubate their eggs alone, although males 
are attentive and remain nearby feeding and perching at the river 
shoreline (Bruno et al. 2006, p. 29; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 38; 
Partridge 1956, pp. 484-485). Females may also locate their nests lower 
down (10 m (33 ft)) in the cavities of cliffs or rocky outcrops near 
preferred riverine habitat in areas where suitable nesting trees are 
absent (Lamas and Santos 2004, pp. 38-39).
Range and Distribution
    The Brazilian merganser occurs in a few fragmented locations in 
south-central Brazil, including the upper-tributaries of rivers within 
the Atlantic Forest biome and to the east in the Cerrado (savanna) 
biome (BLI 2007a, p. 1). The species is a diving duck that occurred 
historically in riverine habitats throughout southeastern Brazil, 
northeastern Argentina, and eastern Paraguay (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 
24). Currently, the species is found in extremely low numbers at six 
highly disjunct localities, of which five are in southeastern Brazil 
and one is in northeastern Argentina and, possibly,

[[Page 40657]]

extreme eastern Paraguay (BLI 2007a, pp. 1-5; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 
28-31). The vast majority of the species' extant population and 
remaining suitable habitats occur in Brazil, including its largest 
subpopulation that is estimated to contain fewer than 50 individuals 
(BLI 2007a, p. 5).
    The Brazilian merganser is thought to have been extirpated from 
Mato Grosso do Sul, S[atilde]o Paolo, Rio de Janeiro, and Santa 
Catarina (BLI 2007a, pp. 1-2). There is only a single recent record of 
the Brazilian merganser (ca. 2002) in the province of Misiones, 
Argentina, while the last confirmed sighting of the species in Paraguay 
is from 1984 (BLI 2007a, p. 2; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 31). For purposes 
of this proposed rule, our analysis will focus on the most current 
estimates of the species, which are based in Brazil.
    The species likely still occurs in the Brazilian states of 
Tocantins, Bahia, Goi[aacute]s, Minas Gerais, and Paran[aacute] (Hughes 
et al. 2006, pp. 51-52). Along with other recent sightings of the 
species in previously undocumented areas of Brazil (Bianchi et al. 
2005, p. 72; Pineschi 1999, p. 1), this information indicates that the 
Brazilian merganser may be more abundant and widespread than previously 
considered.
Population Estimates
    The extant population is estimated to be between 50 and 249 
individuals and is presumed to be declining, as evidenced by the 
species' recent history of extirpation from major portions of its 
historic range (BLI 2007a, p. 1).
Conservation Status
    IUCN considers the Brazilian merganser to be ``Critically 
Endangered'' because ``although recent records from Brazil, and 
particularly a recent northerly range extension, indicate that this 
species' status is better than previously thought, the remaining 
population is still extremely small and severely fragmented, and the 
perturbation and pollution of rivers continues to cause declines'' (BLI 
2007a, p. 1). In addition, the species occurs in three parks in Brazil 
and in the Urugua[iacute] Provincial Park in Argentina (BLI 2007a, p. 
1).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Brazilian Merganser
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Species' Habitat or Range
    Based on a number of recent estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 
historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest 
biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various 
human activities (Conservation International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]fling 
2007, p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et al. 2000, pp. 
853-854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 
868; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2-41). The Cerrado biome has also 
been heavily impacted by human activities, and current estimates 
indicate that between 67 and 80 percent of the tropical savannah 
habitat historically comprising this biome has been converted or 
severely degraded (Butler 2007, p. 1; Conservation International 2007b, 
p. 1; Mantovani and Pereira 1998, p. 1455; Myers et al. 2000, p. 854; 
World Wildlife Fund 2007, p. 50). In addition to the overall loss and 
degradation of native habitat within these biomes, the remaining tracts 
of habitat are severely fragmented. The current rate of habitat loss in 
the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes is unknown.
    The region has the two largest cities in Brazil, S[atilde]o Paulo 
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of Brazil's 
169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human activities 
that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 
native habitats within these biomes include extensive establishment of 
agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, and corn), plantations 
(e.g., eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas), livestock 
pastures, centers of human habitation, and industrial developments 
(e.g., diamond mining, hydropower reservoirs, and charcoal production). 
Forestry practices (e.g., commercial logging), subsistence activities 
(e.g., collection of fuelwood), and changes in fire frequencies also 
contribute to the degradation of native habitat (BLI 2003a, p. 4; BLI 
2003b, pp. 1-2; Butler 2007, p. 1; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 37-48; 
J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Pivello 
2007, pp. 1-2; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227-228; Saatchi et al. 2001, 
pp. 868-869; World Food Prize 2007, pp. 1-5; World Wildlife Fund 2007, 
pp. 3-51).
    The Brazilian merganser is extremely susceptible to habitat loss 
and degradation, habitat fragmentation, and hydrological changes from 
human activity (Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83-84; Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 
36-41; Silveira 1998, p. 58). The loss of appropriate aquatic and 
terrestrial habitats throughout the historic range of the Brazilian 
merganser due to the above human activities is believed to have 
drastically reduced the species' abundance and extent of occupied 
range, and these activities currently represent a significant risk to 
the species' continued existence because populations are being limited 
to highly fragmented patches of habitat (Benstead 1994, p. 8; Benstead 
et al. 1994, p. 36; BLI 2007a, pp. 1-6; Collar and Andrew 1988, p. 21; 
Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83-84; Collar et al. 1994, p. 51; Hughes et al. 
2006, pp. 37-48; Silveira 1998, pp. 57-58).
    The species is highly adapted to shallow, rapid-flowing riverine 
conditions and, therefore, can not occupy the lacustrine conditions of 
reservoirs that result from dam building activities within their 
occupied range (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 23, 41). The loss of the 
species' terrestrial habitat has occurred due to the removal of forest 
cover and suitable nesting trees adjacent to occupied river corridors.
    A variety of secondary impacts that degrade suitable habitats have 
also resulted from the above activities and represent significant risks 
to the Brazilian merganser. These secondary impacts include increased 
runoff and severe siltation from agricultural fields, livestock 
pastures, deforestation, diamond mining, and population centers; 
changes in hydrologic conditions and local water tables as a result of 
dam operations (e.g., flood control, power generation) and excessive 
pumping for irrigation or domestic and industrial water use; and 
increases in water pollutants due to agricultural, industrial, and 
domestic waste products (Benstead 1994, p. 8; Bianchi et al. 2005, p. 
73; BLI 2007a, pp. 1-6; Braz et al. 2003, p. 70; Collar et al. 1994, p. 
51; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 625; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Hughes et 
al. 2006, pp. 40-48; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 40; Pineschi 1999, p. 
1). These secondary impacts negatively affect the Brazilian merganser 
by reducing water clarity, altering water depths and flow patterns, 
removing or limiting populations of preferred prey species; introducing 
toxic compounds; and creating barriers to movements and producing 
hazardous conditions along river corridors that limit interchange 
between the species' remaining subpopulations (see Factor E). These 
secondary impacts also increase the risk of introducing disease vectors 
and expanding populations of potential predator and competitor species 
into areas occupied by the Brazilian merganser (see Factor C).
Summary of Factor A
    The above mentioned human activities and their secondary impacts 
have significantly reduced the amount of suitable habitat for the 
Brazilian merganser (Benstead 1994, p. 8;

[[Page 40658]]

Benstead et al. 1994, p. 36; BLI 2007a, pp. 1-6; Collar and Andrew 
1988, p. 21; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 83-84; Collar et al. 1994, p. 51; 
Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 37-48; Silveira 1998, pp. 57-58), and the 
remaining areas of occupied habitat are highly fragmented (see Factor 
E). In addition, these activities are ongoing and continue to adversely 
impact all of the remaining suitable habitat within the Atlantic Forest 
and Cerrado biomes that may still harbor the Brazilian merganser (BLI 
2003a, p. 4; BLI 2003b, pp. 1-2; BLI 2007a, pp. 1-7; Brannstrom 2000, 
p. 326; Ducks Unlimited 2007, p. 1; Harris and Pimm 2004, p. 1610; 
Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 37-48; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; 
Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-873; Tabanez and Viana 2000, pp. 929-932). 
Even with the recent passage of national forest policy and in light of 
many other legal protections in Brazil (see Factor D), the rate of 
habitat loss throughout southeastern Brazil has increased since the 
mid-1990s (CEPF 2001, p. 10; Hodge et al. 1997, p. 1; Rocha et al. 
2005, p. 270). Furthermore, because the Brazilian merganser's extant 
population is already extremely small, highly fragmented, and believed 
to be declining (BLI 2007a, pp. 1-4), any further loss or degradation 
of its remaining suitable habitat will severely impact the species (see 
Factor E). Therefore, we find that destruction and modification of 
habitat are threats to the continued existence of the Brazilian 
merganser throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    Historically, there was likely little range-wide hunting pressure 
on the Brazilian merganser, presumably due to the species' secretive 
nature, naturally low densities in relatively inaccessible areas, and 
poor palatability (Partridge 1956, p. 478). However, low levels of 
subsistence hunting of some local populations still occurs, most 
notably in Argentina (Benstead 1994, p. 8; del Hoyo et al. 1992, p. 
625; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 48).
    Since the first formal description of the species in the early 
1800s, the Brazilian merganser has also been collected for scientific 
study and museum exhibition (BLI 2007a, p. 2; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 
46). Past hunting and specimen collection may have contributed to the 
species' decline in some areas (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 46). These 
activities continue today, although presumably at low levels (Benstead 
1994, p. 8; Hughes et al. 2006, p. 48; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 39).
Summary of Factor B
    Species collection for scientific study and museum exhibition, and 
hunting, are believed to affect the population of the Brazilian 
merganser. Considering the extremely small size and level of 
fragmentation of the extant Brazilian merganser population, the removal 
or dispersal of any individuals from a local area, or even a slight 
decline in the population's fitness, represent significant risks to the 
species' overall viability (see Factor E). However, we do not have 
information on the extent of species collection or hunting to determine 
whether these activities are a threat to the continued existence of the 
species. As a result, we are not considering overutilization to be a 
contributing factor to the continued existence of the Brazilian 
merganser.
C. Disease or Predation
    Extensive human activity in previously undisturbed or isolated 
areas can lead to the introduction and spread of exotic diseases, some 
of which (e.g., West Nile virus) can negatively impact endemic bird 
populations (Neotropical News 2003, p. 1; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 704). 
In addition, there are a number of suspected predators of the Brazilian 
merganser (Hughes et al. 2006, p. 44; Lamas and Santos 2004, p. 39; 
Partridge 1956, p. 486). Partridge (1956, p. 480) hypothesized that the 
species' distribution may be naturally limited to upper river 
tributaries above waterfalls due to predation of their young by large 
predatory fish, such as the dourado (Salminus brasiliensis, syn. 
maxillosus). Finally, extensive human activity in previously 
undisturbed or isolated areas can result in altered predator or 
competitor (e.g., cormorant (Phalacrocorax sp.)) populations and the 
introduction of various exotic predator species, such as feral dogs 
(Canis familiaris) and game fish like largemouth bass (Micropterus 
salmoides) (Hughes et al. 2006, pp. 44-45).
    The available information indicates that there is a greatly 
expanded human 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.

[[Page 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 Goi[aacute]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 large-scale 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 Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Population growth rates are influenced 
by individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 
27), immigration and emigration rates, as well as changes in population 
sex ratios. Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of 
individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert 
to contribute to demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes in gene 
frequencies due to genetic drift, and diminished genetic diversity, 
and/or effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Lande 
1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or population-level 
consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the 
outward appearance or observable structure, function or behavior of a 
living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by reducing the 
overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and 
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Environmental 
stochasticity is defined as the susceptibility of small, isolated 
populations of wildlife species to natural levels of environmental 
variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms, 
prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire)

[[Page 40660]]

(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 (Vil[agrave] 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 species-specific 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 (N<INF>e</INF>) of 50 individuals is the minimum 
size required to avoid imminent risks from inbreeding. N<INF>e</INF> 
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 N<INF>e</INF> 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 
(N<INF>e</INF> = 50). The current maximum estimate of 249 individuals 
for the entire population (BLI 2007a, p. 1) is only half of the upper 
threshold (N<INF>e</INF> = 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 
well-interconnected 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 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat 
fragmentation can separate subpopulations to the point where 
individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches, 
causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and 
a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, 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 Soul[eacute] 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

[[Page 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 Soul[eacute] 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 km<SUP>2</SUP> 
(1.544 mi<SUP>2</SUP>)) (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 
Esp[iacute]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 
Esp[iacute]rito Santo. One site is located in Fazenda Pindobas IV in 
the municipality of Concei[ccedil][atilde]o; the other is found in 
Caet[eacute]s, in the Vargem Alta municipality in southern 
Esp[iacute]rito Santo (30 km (18.6 mi) southeast of Pindobas) 
(Venturini et al. 2005, p. 61).
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 Caet[eacute]s.
Conservation Status
    IUCN considers the cherry-throated tanager to be ``Critically 
Endangered'' because its extant population is extremely small 
(estimated to be between 50 and 249 individuals), highly fragmented, 
and presumed to be declining (BLI 2007g, p. 1).

[[Page 40662]]

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; 
H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers et 
al. 2000, pp. 853-854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi et 
al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2-41). In addition to 
the overall loss and degradation of native 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, S[atilde]o Paulo 
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of Brazil's 
169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human activities 
that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 
native habitats within the Atlantic Forest biome include extensive 
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, 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; J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The Nature Conservancy 
2007, p. 2; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; 
Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; World 
Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51).
    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; 
H[ouml]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 cherry-throated tanager is considered 
to be extremely small, highly fragmented, and declining (BLI 2007g, p. 
1; Venturini et al. 2005, p. 66). Because of the cherry-throated 
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 
cherry-throated 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.

[[Page 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 cherry-throated 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 cherry-throated 
tanager. In basic terms, demographic stochasticity is defined by chance 
changes in the population growth rate for the species (Gilpin and 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Population growth rates are influenced by 
individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27), 
immigration and emigration rates, as well as changes in population sex 
ratios. Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of 
individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert 
to contribute to demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes in gene 
frequencies due to genetic drift, and diminished genetic diversity, 
and/or effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Lande 
1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or population-level 
consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the 
outward appearance or observable structure, function or behavior of a 
living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by reducing the 
overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and 
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Environmental 
stochasticity is defined as the susceptibility of small, isolated 
populations of wildlife species to natural levels of environmental 
variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms, 
prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) (Dunham et al. 1999, 
p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412). Each risk 
will be analyzed specifically for the cherry-throated tanager.
    Small, isolated populations of wildlife species are susceptible to 
demographic

[[Page 40664]]

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; 
Vil[agrave] et al. 2002, p. 91; Wang 2004, p. 332).
    In the absence of more species-specific 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 
(N<INF>e</INF> = 50). The current maximum estimate of 249 individuals 
for the entire population is only half of the upper threshold 
(N<INF>e</INF> = 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 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat 
fragmentation can separate subpopulations to the point where 
individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches, 
causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and 
a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, 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 Soul[eacute] 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 Soul[eacute] 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 Cherry-throated 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 
cherry-throated 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

[[Page 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 Bah[iacute]a'' in Spanish (del Hoyo 2003, p. 637).
Habitat and Life History
    The fringe-backed fire-eye is endemic to the Atlantic Forest biome 
and typically inhabits dense 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 early-successional forest stands, but 
avoids any areas with open understories (e.g., sunny openings, interior 
forest) (del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 637).
    The fringe-backed fire-eye forages in dense, tangled vegetation 
with numerous horizontal perches within approximately 3 m (10 ft) of 
the ground, although it occasionally feeds higher up (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 km\2\ (3.5 mi\2\) in northeastern Bahia. In 2002, 
approximately 18 individuals were observed in a forested site in 
Sergipe (del Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638). This discovery extended the 
species' known range to the north by approximately 175 km (109 mi) (del 
Hoyo et al. 2003, p. 638). However, the fringe-backed fire-eye 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 fire-eye 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; 
H[ouml]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 km\2\ 
(482,628 mi\2\)) historically covered by tropical forests within the 
Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely degraded as a 
result of various human activities (Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation 
International 2007a, p. 1; H[ouml]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, S[atilde]o 
Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of 
Brazil's 169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human 
activities that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation of native habitats within the Atlantic Forest biome 
include extensive establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., soy 
beans, sugarcane, 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; 
J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 2; 
Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; Saatchi et 
al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke 1985,

[[Page 40666]]

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 km\2\ (8,100 mi\2\)). 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 
km\2\ (1,924 mi\2\), 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; H[ouml]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 fringe-backed 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

[[Page 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 Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Population growth rates are influenced 
by individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 
27), immigration and emigration rates, as well as changes in population 
sex ratios. Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of 
individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert 
to contribute to demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes in gene 
frequencies due to genetic drift, and diminished genetic diversity, 
and/or effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Lande 
1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or population-level 
consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the 
outward appearance or observable structure, function or behavior of a 
living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by reducing the 
overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and 
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Environmental 
stochasticity is defined as the susceptibility of small, isolated 
populations of wildlife species to natural levels of environmental 
variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms, 
prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) (Dunham et al. 1999, 
p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412). Each risk 
will be analyzed specifically for the fringe-backed fire-eye.
    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

[[Page 40668]]

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 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). 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 (N<INF>e</INF> = 50). The current maximum 
estimate of 249 individuals for the largest subpopulation (BLI 2007e, 
p. 3) is only half of the upper threshold (N<INF>e</INF> = 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 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat 
fragmentation can separate subpopulations to the point where 
individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches, 
causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and 
a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, 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 fringe-backed 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 fire-eye's increased vulnerability 
to demographic stochasticity and inbreeding will be operative even in 
the absence of any human-induced threats or stochastic environmental 
events, which only act to further exacerbate the species' vulnerability 
to local extirpations and eventual extinction. Demographic and genetic 
stochastic forces typically operate synergistically. Initial effects of 
one threat factor can later exacerbate the effects of other threat 
factors, as well as itself (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-26). 
For example, any further fragmentation of 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 Soul[eacute] 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 Fringe-Backed 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

[[Page 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 fire-eye 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 olive-green, 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 tody-tyrant 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, Itapo[aacute], 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 Itapo[aacute]. This reserve is close to the state border with 
Paran[aacute]; thus it is possible that the species may be found in 
similar habitat in Paran[aacute]; 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 tody-tyrant 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; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers 
et al. 2000, pp. 853-854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi et 
al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2-41). In addition to 
the overall loss and degradation of native 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, S[atilde]o Paulo 
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of Brazil's 
169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human activities 
that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 
native habitats within the Atlantic Forest biome include extensive 
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, 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; J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The Nature 
Conservancy 2007, p. 2; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva 
2007, p. 5; Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 
118; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51).
    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 km\2\ (8,100 mi\2\)). Thus, habitat degradation can 
adversely impact such species just as equally as it

[[Page 40670]]

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 km\2\ (7.3 mi\2\) (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 tody-tyrant may be tolerant of 
secondary-growth 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 tody-tyrant 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; H[ouml]fling 
2007, p. 1; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; World Wildlife Fund 
2007, pp. 3-51). In addition, the remaining tracts of suitable habitat 
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 tody-tyrant 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 
tody-tyrant 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

[[Page 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 tody-tyrant 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 km\2\ (6 mi\2\) 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 km\2\ (1.5 mi\2\) 
protected area, the Bracinho State Ecological Station, which was 
established as a water-catchment buffer zone for a hydroelectric plant. 
It has been recommended that both of these sites should be expanded to 
ensure that the species' currently occupied range and other potentially 
suitable habitats are encompassed within protected areas (Barnett et 
al. 2000, pp. 377-378; BLI 2007f, p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 776). 
However, for various reasons (e.g., lack of funding, personnel, or 
local management commitment), some of Brazil's protected areas exist 
without the current capacity to achieve their stated natural resource 
objectives (ADEJA 2007, pp. 1-2; Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125; Costa 
2007, p. 7; IUCN 1999, pp. 23-24; Neotropical News 1996, pp. 9-10; 
Neotropical News 1999, p. 9). Therefore, even with the expansion or 
further designation of protected areas, it is unlikely that all of the 
identified impacts to the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (e.g., residential and 
agricultural encroachment, resource extraction, unregulated tourism, 
and grazing) would be sufficiently addressed at these sites.
    In the past, the Brazilian government, through various regulations, 
policies, incentives, and subsidies, has actively encouraged settlement 
of previously undeveloped lands in southeastern Brazil (Brannstrom 
2000, p. 326; Butler 2007, p. 3; Conservation International 2007c, p. 
1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227-228; Saatchi et al. 
2001, p. 874). More recently, the Brazilian government has given 
greater recognition to the environmental consequences of such rapid 
expansion, and has taken steps to better manage some of the natural 
resources potentially impacted (Butler 2007, p. 7; Costa 2007, p. 7; 
Neotropical News 1997a, p. 10; Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11; 
Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9; Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes and 
Kraas 2000, p. 45). However, there are still various government-
sponsored measures in place, both at the national and state levels, 
that help facilitate development projects (Barnett et al. 2000, pp. 
377-378; Butler 2007, p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 776; Neotropical 
News 1998a, p. 10; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227-228; Saatchi et al. 
2001, p. 874) some of which, such as continued logging, housing and 
tourism developments, and expansion of plantations, could impact 
potentially important sites for the Kaempfer's tody-tyrant (Barnett et 
al. 2000, p. 377-378; Collar et al. 1992, p. 776).
Summary of Factor D
    Although there are 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 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 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Population growth rates are influenced by 
individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27), 
immigration and emigration rates, as well as changes in population sex 
ratios. Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of 
individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert 
to contribute to demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes in gene 
frequencies due to genetic drift, and diminished genetic diversity, 
and/or effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Lande 
1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or population-level 
consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the 
outward appearance or observable structure, function or behavior of a 
living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by reducing the 
overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and 
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981,

[[Page 40672]]

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 tody-tyrant.
    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; Vil[agrave] et al. 
2002, p. 91; Wang 2004, p. 332).
    In the absence of more species-specific 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 tody-tyrant 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 (N<INF>e</INF> = 50), but may be only half of the 
upper threshold (N<INF>e</INF> = 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 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat 
fragmentation can separate subpopulations to the point where 
individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches, 
causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and 
a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, 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 tody-tyrant's increased vulnerability 
to demographic stochasticity and inbreeding will be operative even in 
the absence of any human-induced threats or stochastic environmental 
events, which only act to further exacerbate the species' vulnerability 
to local extirpations and eventual extinction. Demographic and genetic 
stochastic forces typically operate synergistically. Initial effects of 
one threat factor can later exacerbate the effects of other threat 
factors, as well as itself (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-26). 
For example, any further fragmentation of 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 tody-tyrant, are also susceptible to natural levels of 
environmental variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., 
severe storms, prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire), which 
we will refer to as environmental stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 
9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412). A single 
stochastic environmental event can severely reduce existing wildlife 
populations and, if the affected population is already small or 
severely fragmented, it is likely that demographic stochasticity or 
inbreeding will become operative, which would place the population in 
jeopardy (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27; Lande 1995, pp. 787-
789).
Summary of Factor E
    The small and declining numbers that make up the 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

[[Page 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 tody-tyrant 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 long-billed hummingbird. The average 
bill length is 37 millimeters (mm) (1.5 in) and the average tail length 
is 42 mm (1.7 in) (Hinkelmann 1996, pp. 122-123). Hinkelmann (1996, p. 
147) describes the species to be morphologically similar to Phaethornis 
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 Esp[iacute]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 
Esp[iacute]rito Santo which presently includes 40 km\2\ (15.46 mi\2\) 
of land (ICBP 1981, p. 2). A portion of this area (ca. 15 km\2\ (5.79 
mi\2\)) was designated as the C[oacute]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 
Esp[iacute]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; H[ouml]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, S[atilde]o Paulo 
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of Brazil's 
169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human activities 
that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 
native habitats within the Atlantic Forest biome include extensive 
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, 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; J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The Nature Conservancy 
2007, p. 2; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; 
Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; World 
Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51).
    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

[[Page 40674]]

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 km\2\ (8,100 mi\2\)). Thus, habitat degradation 
can adversely impact such species just as equally as it impacts primary 
forest obligate species (Harris and Pimm 2004, pp. 1612-1613). The last 
site known to be occupied by the Margaretta's hermit totaled only about 
40 km\2\ (15 mi\2\) (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 
secondary-growth 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; H[ouml]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

[[Page 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 CITES-listed 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 
C[oacute]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 Esp[iacute]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

[[Page 40676]]

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 large-scale habitat conversions that have occurred 
throughout the Atlantic Forest biome (Brannstrom 2000, p. 326; Butler 
2007, p. 3; Conservation International 2007c, p. 1; Pivello 2007, p. 2; 
Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227-228; Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 874). More 
recently, the Brazilian government has given greater recognition to the 
environmental consequences of such rapid expansion, and has taken steps 
to better manage some of the natural resources potentially impacted 
(Butler 2007, p. 7; Costa 2007, p. 7; Neotropical News 1997a, p. 10; 
Neotropical News 1997b, p. 11; Neotropical News 1998b, p. 9; 
Neotropical News 2003, p. 13; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 45). However, 
due to competing priorities, these regulatory mechanisms have proven 
difficult to enforce.
Summary of Factor D
    Although there are 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 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 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Population growth rates are influenced by 
individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27), 
immigration and emigration rates, as well as changes in population sex 
ratios. Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of 
individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert 
to contribute to demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes in gene 
frequencies due to genetic drift, and diminished genetic diversity, 
and/or effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Lande 
1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or population-level 
consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the 
outward appearance or observable structure, function or behavior of a 
living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by reducing the 
overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and 
Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Environmental 
stochasticity is defined as the susceptibility of small, isolated 
populations of wildlife species to natural levels of environmental 
variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms, 
prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) (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; Vil[agrave] 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 (N<INF>e</INF> = 50 
and N<INF>e</INF> = 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 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat 
fragmentation can separate subpopulations to the point where 
individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches, 
causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and 
a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, 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

[[Page 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 Soul[eacute] 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 Soul[eacute] 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 ground-cuckoo (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 ground-cuckoos 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 
ground-cuckoos 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 rufous-vented 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, Esp[iacute]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 Esp[iacute]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

[[Page 40678]]

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 Ground-
cuckoo
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of the Species' Habitat or Range
    Based on a number of recent estimates, 92 to 95 percent of the area 
historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest 
biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of various 
human activities (Butler 2007, p. 2; Conservation International 2007a, 
p. 1; H[ouml]fling 2007, p. 1; Morellato and Haddad 2000, p. 786; Myers 
et al. 2000, pp. 853-854; The Nature Conservancy 2007, p. 1; Saatchi et 
al. 2001, p. 868; World Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 2-41). In addition to 
the overall loss and degradation of native 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, S[atilde]o Paulo 
and Rio de Janeiro, and is home to approximately 70 percent of Brazil's 
169 million people (CEPF 2002; IBGE 2007). The major human activities 
that have resulted in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 
native habitats within the Atlantic Forest biome include extensive 
establishment of agricultural fields (e.g., soy beans, sugarcane, 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; J[uacute]nior et al. 1995, p. 147; The Nature Conservancy 
2007, p. 2; Nunes and Kraas 2000, p. 44; Peixoto and Silva 2007, p. 5; 
Saatchi et al. 2001, pp. 868-869; Scott and Brooke 1985, p. 118; World 
Wildlife Fund 2007, pp. 3-51).
    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 rufous-vented 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 ground-cuckoo 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; H[ouml]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 ground-cuckoo throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    The extant population of the southeastern rufous-vented ground-
cuckoo 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 rufous-vented 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 ground-cuckoo 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

[[Page 40679]]

News 2003, p. 1; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 704).
    Any additive mortality to the southeastern rufous-vented ground-
cuckoo 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 ground-cuckoo, 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 ground-cuckoo.
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 ground-cuckoo 
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 
rufous-vented 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 large-scale 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 rufous-vented 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 ground-cuckoo 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 ground-cuckoo 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 Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Population growth rates 
are influenced by individual birth and death rates (Gilpin and 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27), immigration and emigration rates, as well as 
changes in population sex ratios. Natural variation in survival and 
reproductive success of individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex 
ratios may

[[Page 40680]]

act in concert to contribute to demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27). Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes 
in gene frequencies due to genetic drift, and diminished genetic 
diversity, and/or effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding 
depression) (Lande 1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or 
population-level consequences either by increasing the phenotypic 
expression (the outward appearance or observable structure, function or 
behavior of a living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or by 
reducing the overall fitness of individuals in the population 
(Charlesworth and Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). 
Environmental stochasticity is defined as the susceptibility of small, 
isolated populations of wildlife species to natural levels of 
environmental variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., 
severe storms, prolonged drought, extreme cold spells, wildfire) 
(Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, 
pp. 410-412). Each risk will be analyzed specifically for the 
southeastern rufous-vented 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; Vil[agrave] et al. 2002, 
p. 91; Wang 2004, p. 332). However, the tropical forest habitats 
throughout the Doce River valley, where the southeastern rufous-vented 
ground-cuckoo 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 species-specific 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 rufous-vented 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 
(N<INF>e</INF> = 50 and N<INF>e</INF> = 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 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase in habitat 
fragmentation can separate subpopulations to the point where 
individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat patches, 
causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a population and 
a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, 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 Soul[eacute] 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 rufous-vented 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,

[[Page 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 
Soul[eacute] 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 Ground-cuckoo
    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 ground-cuckoo. 
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 ground-cuckoo 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, cherry-throated 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 black-hooded antwren, Brazilian merganser, cherry-throated tanager, 
fringe-backed fire-eye, Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, Margaretta's hermit, 
and southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo. 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, cherry-
throated tanager, fringed-backed fire-eye, Kaempfer's tody-tyrant, 
Margaretta's hermit, and the southeastern rufous-vented ground-cuckoo.
    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

[[Page 40682]]

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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
              Birds
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Antwren, black-hooded............  Formicivora           Brazil.............  Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           NA
                                    erythronotos.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cuckoo, southeastern rufous-       Neomorphus geoffroyi   Brazil............  Entire.............   E              ...........           NA           NA
 vented ground.                     dulcis.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Fire-eye, fringed-backed.........  Pyriglena atra......  Brazil.............  Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Hermit, Margaretta's.............  Phaethornis malaris   Brazil.............  Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           NA
                                    margarettae.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Merganser, Brazilian.............  Mergus octosetaceus.  Brazil, Argentina,   Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           NA
                                                          Paraguay.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Tanager, cherry-throated.........  Nemosia rourei......  Brazil.............  Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Tody-tyrant, Kaempfer's..........  Hemitriccus           Brazil.............  Entire.............  E               ...........           NA           NA
                                    kaempferi.
 

[[Page 40683]]

 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    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