32308 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R9-IA-2009-12; 96100-1671-9FLS–B6] 

RIN 1018–AV75 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Rule to List Five 

Foreign Bird Species in Colombia and 

Ecuador, South America, under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list as endangered four species of birds 

from Colombia — the blue-billed 

curassow (Crax alberti), the brownbanded antpitta (Grallaria milleri), the 

Cauca guan (Penelope perspicax), and 

the gorgeted wood-quail (Odontophorus 

strophium) — and one bird species from 

Ecuador — the Esmeraldas woodstar 

(Chaetocercus berlepschi) — as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 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 

September 8, 2009. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in the ADDRESSES

section by August 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018- 

AV75; 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), you may 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 

are 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 website. 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, remove, or reclassify a species from 

the list of endangered or threatened 

species has presented substantial 

information indicating that the 

requested action may be warranted. To 

the maximum extent practicable, the 

finding shall be made within 90 days 

following receipt of the petition and 

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 on whether the 

requested action is warranted, not 

warranted, or warranted but precluded 

by higher-priority listing actions (this 

finding is referred to as the ‘‘12–month 

finding’’). 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-butprecluded 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. 

Previous Federal Action 

On November 24, 1980, we received 

a petition (1980 petition) from Dr. 

Warren B. King, Chairman of the 

International Council for Bird 

Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign 

bird species to the list of Threatened 

and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 

17.11(h)), including two species from 

Colombia (the Cauca guan and the 

gorgeted wood-quail) that are the subject 

of this proposed rule. In response to the 

1980 petition, we published a positive 

90–day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 

26464), to initiate a status review for 58 

foreign species, noting that 2 of the 

species identified in the petition were 

already listed under the Act. 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 species 

petition findings addressed therein. In 

that notice, we found that all 58 foreign 

bird species from the 1980 petition were 

warranted but precluded by higherpriority listing actions. On May 10, 

1985, we published the first annual 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32309 

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. 

In our next annual notice, published on 

January 9, 1986 (51 FR 996), we found 

that listing 54 species from the 1980 

petition, including the two Colombian 

species mentioned above, continued to 

be warranted but precluded, whereas 

new information caused us to find that 

listing four other species in the 1980 

petition was no longer warranted. We 

published additional annual notices on 

the remaining 54 species included in 

the 1980 petition on July 7, 1988 (53 FR 

25511); December 29, 1988 (53 FR 

52746); and November 21, 1991 (56 FR 

58664), in which we indicated that the 

Cauca guan and the gorgeted woodquail, along with the remaining species 

in the 1980 petition, continued to be 

warranted but precluded. 

On May 6, 1991, we received a 

petition (1991 petition) from Alison 

Stattersfield, of ICBP, to add 53 species 

of foreign birds to the list of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife, including the 

blue-billed curassow and the brownbanded antpitta, from Colombia, and 

Esmeraldas woodstar, from Ecuador. In 

response to the 1991 petition, we 

published a positive 90–day finding on 

December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65207), for all 

53 species and announced the initiation 

of 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 blue-billed 

curassow and the brown-banded 

antpitta, from Colombia, and 

Esmeraldas woodstar, from Ecuador, 

was warranted but precluded by higherpriority listing actions. On January 12, 

1995 (60 FR 2899), we reiterated the 

warranted-but-precluded status of the 

remaining species from the 1991 

petition. We made subsequent 

warranted but precluded findings for all 

outstanding foreign species from the 

1980 and 1991 petitions, including all 

five of the Colombian and Ecuadorian 

bird species that are the subject of this 

proposed rule, as published in our 

annual notices of review (ANOR) on 

May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354), and April 

23, 2007 (72 FR 20184). 

Per the Service’s listing priority 

guidelines (September 21, 1983; 48 FR 

43098), we identified the listing priority 

numbers (LPNs) (ranging from 1 to 12) 

for all outstanding foreign species in our 

2007 ANOR (72 FR 20184), published 

on April 23, 2007. In that notice, the 

five species included in this proposed 

rule were designated with an LPN of 2, 

and it was determined that their listing 

continued to be warranted but 

precluded because of other listing 

activity. A listing priority of 2 indicates 

that the subject species face imminent 

threats of high magnitude. With the 

exception of LPN 1, which addresses 

monotypic genera that face imminent 

threats of high magnitude, category 2 

represents the Service’s highest priority. 

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

published in the Federal Register a 

notice announcing our annual petition 

findings for foreign species (2008 

ANOR). In that notice, we announced 

that listing was warranted for 30 foreign 

bird species, including the five species 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. The five species were selected 

from the list of warranted-but-precluded 

species because of their LPN, their 

similarity of habitat, and the similarity 

of threats to these species. Combining 

species that face similar threats within 

the same general geographic area into 

one proposed rule allows us to 

maximize our limited staff resources, 

thus increasing our ability to complete 

the listing process for warranted-butprecluded species. 

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. 

Under the Act, we may determine a 

species to be endangered or threatened. 

An endangered species is defined as a 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. A threatened species is 

defined as a species that is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we evaluated the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information on each species under the 

five listing factors to determine whether 

they met the definition of endangered or 

threatened. 

Below is a species-by-species analysis 

of these five factors using the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information to determine whether the 

species meet the definition of 

endangered or threatened. The species 

are considered in alphabetical order, 

beginning with the Colombian species: 

blue-billed curassow, brown-banded 

antpitta, Cauca guan, gorgeted woodquail, and followed by the Ecuadorian 

species: the Esmeraldas woodstar. 

Colombian Bird Species 

I. Blue-Billed Curassow (Crax alberti) 

Species Description 

The blue-billed curassow, endemic to 

Colombia, is a large (82-92 centimeters 

(cm) (32-36 inches (in)), tree-dwelling 

member of the Cracid family (Cracidae) 

(Collar et al. 1992, p. 154; del Hoyo 

1994, p. 361; Salaman et al. 2001, p. 

183). The species is locally known as 

‘‘Paujı ́l de pico azul’’ or ‘‘Pavo ́n 

Colombiano’’ and is also referred to in 

English as the blue-knobbed curassow 

(Cuervo 2002, p. 138; United Nations 

Environment Programme – World 

Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEPWCMC) 2008c, p. 1). In older literature, 

the species is referred to as Prince 

Albert’s curassow (Throp 1964, p. 124). 

The blue-billed curassow is described as 

mainly black with blue at the base of its 

bill. The male has a white-plumaged 

crissum (the area under the tail), 

whereas the female has a black and 

white crest and black and white barring 

on her wings (BirdLife International 

(BLI) 2007d, p. 1; Throp 1964, p. 124). 

Taxonomy 

The species was first taxonomically 

described by Fraser in 1852 and placed 

in the family Cracidae. 

Habitat and Life History 

Blue-billed curassows prefer 

undisturbed, heterogeneous primary 

forests in the humid lowlands of the 

Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 

Mountains at elevations up to 1,200 

meters (m) (3,937 feet (ft)) (Collar et al. 

1992, p. 154; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; 

Salaman et al. 2001, p. 183). The bluebilled curassow requires a large home 

range of primary tropical forest (Cuervo 

2002, pp. 138-140). The species will 

rarely cross narrow deforested corridors, 

such as those caused by roads or oil 

pipelines, and will not cross large open 

areas between forest fragments (Cuervo 

and Salaman 1999, p. 7). The species is 

described as being trusting of humans 

(del Hoyo 1994, p. 336). 

32310 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

This terrestrial bird feeds mostly on 

fruit and leaves, and sometimes feeds 

upon worms and carrion. It plays an 

important role in dispersing seeds and 

regenerating tropical forests (BLI 2007d, 

p. 1; Brooks 2006, p. 17; Brooks and 

Strahl 2000, pp. 5-8; Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 8). 

Cracids are also slow to reproduce, 

with a replacement rate of at least 6 

years (Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 50). 

Curassows reach sexual maturity in 

their second year (Throp 1964, p. 130). 

Blue-billed curassows form 

monogamous pairs that share 

responsibilities for young (Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 9; Todd et al. 2008). 

The breeding season begins in December 

and goes through March (Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 8). During the mating 

season, the male blue-billed curassows 

makes ‘‘booming’’ calls that can be 

heard 500 m (0.31 mi) away (OchoaQuintero et al. 2005, pp. 42, 44). Large 

nests made of sticks and leaves are built 

in dense lianas (woody vines) (Cuervo 

and Salaman 1999, p. 8). The typical 

blue-billed curassow clutch size is 1-2 

large white eggs, which is a low clutch 

size relative to other Galliformes (del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 336; Throp 1964, p. 130), 

and young are hatched in July after an 

approximately 29–day incubation 

period (del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Hilty and 

Brown 1986, p. 129; Throp 1964, p. 

131). In captivity, curassows are longlived species (Todd et al. 2008, p.7). 

Throp (1964, p. 132) recorded a bluebilled curassow still laying eggs at 20 

years of age. However, in the wild, one 

generation is considered to be 10 years 

(Cuervo 2002, p. 141). 

Historical Range and Distribution 

The blue-billed curassow historically 

occurred in northern Colombia, from the 

base of the Sierra Nevada de Santa 

Marta (in the northern Departments of 

Magdalena La Guijaira, and Cesar), west 

to the Sinu ́ valley (Department of 

Co ́rdoba), through the Rı ́o Magdalena 

(through the Departments (from south to 

north) of Huila, Tolima, Caldas, 

Antioquia, Santander, Bolivar, 

Magdalena, and La Guajira) (BLI 2007a, 

p. 1; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 361). The species’ historic 

range encompassed an area of 

approximately 106,700 square 

kilometers (km2) (41,197 square miles 

(mi2)) (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). There were 

no confirmed observations of blue-billed 

curassows between 1978 and 1997 

(Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 

183), and surveys conducted in 1998 

failed to locate any males (BLI 2007d, p. 

3) (as detailed under Factor B, below), 

prompting researchers to believe the 

species to be extinct in the wild (del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 361). However, a series of 

reported observations made in 1993 

were confirmed in the year 2000 

(Cuervo 2002, pp. 136-137). 

Current Range and Distribution 

The current range of the blue-billed 

curassow is estimated to be a 2,090-km2

(807-mi2) area (BLI 2007d, p. 2) of 

fragmented, disjunct, and isolated 

tropical moist and humid lowlands and 

premontane forested foothills in the Rı ́o 

Magdalena and lower Cauca Valleys of 

the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 

Mountains. The species may be found at 

elevations up to 1,200 m (3,937 ft) 

(Collar et al. 1992, p. 154; Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 

361; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; 

Salaman et al. 2001, p. 183), but it is 

more commonly found below 600 m 

(del Hoyo 1994, p. 361). Little 

information is available on the size of 

the forest fragments in which the 

species has been observed. However, 

researchers conducting fieldwork in the 

Department of Antioquı ́a in 1999 and 

2001 noted that the patch sizes varied 

from 3 km2 (1.2 mi2) to 10 km2 (3.9 mi2) 

in size (Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, p. 

46). 

In 1993, sightings were reported in 

the northern Departments of Co ́rdoba (at 

La Terretera, near Alto Sinu ́) and 

Bolı ́var (in the Serranı ́a de San Jacinto 

(San Jacinto Mountains)) (Williams, in 

litt., as cited in BLI 2007d, p. 2). 

Additional observations were made in 

the northernmost Department of La 

Guajira in 2003 (in the Valle de San 

Salvador Valley) (Strewe and Navarro 

2003, p. 32). More recently, individuals 

have been observed in the tropical 

forests of the central Departments of 

Antioquı ́a (on the slopes of the Serranı ́a 

de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nechı ́

Regional Reserve area), the Departments 

of Santander and Boyaca ́ (on the slopes 

of the Serranı ́a de las Quinchas), and in 

the southeastern Department of Cauca 

(in northeastern and lower Cauca 

Valley) (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Cuervo 2002, 

pp. 135-138; Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 29; Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, p. 43- 

4; Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). Experts 

consider the most important refuges for 

this species to be: (1) Serranı ́a de San 

Lucas (Antioquı ́a); (2) Paramillo 

National Park (Antioquı ́a and Co ́rdoba 

Departments); (3) Bajo Cauca-Nechı ́

Regional Reserve (Antioquı ́a and 

Co ́rdoba Departments); and, (4) Serranı ́a 

de las Quinchas Bird Reserve 

(Santander and Boyaca ́ Departments) 

(BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, p. 139). 

These refugia are discussed under 

Factor A, below. 

Population Estimates 

There is little information on 

population numbers for the various 

reported locations of the species, and 

political instability within the country 

makes it difficult to know the exact 

population size of this species (Houston 

Zoo 2008). In 2002, Cuervo (2002, p. 

141) considered the Serranı ́a de las 

Quinchas and Serranı ́a de San Lucas 

populations to be the stronghold of the 

species. However, surveys in 2003 led 

researchers to believe that Serranı ́a de 

las Quinchas serves as the species’ 

stronghold (BLI 2007d, pp. 2, 5-6). In 

2003, the population at Serranı ́a de las 

Quinchas (Boyaca ́ Department) location 

was estimated to be between 250 and 

1,000 birds. The only other information 

on the subpopulation level is a report 

from Strewe and Navarro (2003, p. 32), 

based on field studies conducted 

between 2000 and 2001, that hunting 

had nearly extirpated the blue-billed 

curassow from a site in San Salvador (La 

Guijara) (Factor B). 

Using the International Union for 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) categories, the bluebilled curassow population was 

estimated according to IUCN criteria to 

be more than 1,000 but fewer than 2,500 

in 1994 (BLI 2007d, p. 2). In 2001, 

Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia (2001, p. 

184) estimated the total population to be 

much fewer than 2,000 individuals. In 

2002, it was estimated that the species 

had lost 88 percent of its habitat and 

half of its population within the last 

three generations, or 30 years (Cuervo 

2002, p. 141). Local reports indicate an 

overall declining trend characterized by 

recent rapid declines of all 

subpopulations (BLI 2007d, p. 1; Cuervo 

2002, p. 138; Strahl et al. 1995, p.25). 

For further information on population 

size, see Factor E, below. 

Conservation Status 

The blue-billed curassow is identified 

as a critically endangered species under 

Colombian law (EcoLex 2002, p. 12). 

The species is considered one of the 

most threatened cracids by the IUCN 

Cracid Specialist Group. The species is 

categorized by the IUCN as ‘Critically 

Endangered,’ with habitat loss as a 

primary threat (BLI 2004b, p. 1; Cuervo 

2002, p. 141; del Hoyo 1994 p. 340; 

Strahl et al. 1995, pp. 4-5; Uruen ̃ a et al. 

2006, pp. 41-2). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32311 

Summary of Factors Affecting the BlueBilled Curassow 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Habitat or Range 

The blue-billed curassow prefers 

undisturbed, heterogeneous forests and 

is rarely found in secondary or even 

slightly disturbed forests (Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 7). The blue-billed 

curassow occur today in several disjunct 

locations along a much-restricted part of 

its historic distribution (Brooks and 

Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Collar et 

al. 1992, pp. 61-62; Cuervo and Salaman 

1999, p. 7). Researchers note that the 

blue-billed curassow requires large 

territories, but there is little information 

as to the actual size of the remaining 

forest fragments (Cuervo and Salaman 

1999, p. 7). In 1999 and 2001, 

researchers conducting fieldwork in the 

Department of Antioquia ́ noted that the 

patch sizes in which the species were 

observed or heard varied from 3 km2

(1.2 mi2) to 10 km2 (3.9 mi2) in size 

(Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, p. 46). 

Since the 1990s, the species has been 

observed in the Departments of Co ́rdoba 

(at La Terretera, near Alto Sinu ́, 1993) 

and Bolı ́var (in the Serranı ́a de San 

Jacinto, 1993) (Williams in litt., as cited 

in BLI 2007d, p. 2); La Guajira (in the 

Valle de San Salvador Valley, 2003) 

(Strewe and Navarro 2003, p. 32); 

Antioquı ́a (on the slopes of the Serranı ́a 

de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nechı ́

Regional Reserve area, 1999 and 2001) 

(Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, p. 43-44); 

Santander and Boyaca ́ (on the slopes of 

the Serranı ́a de las Quinchas); and 

Cauca (in northeastern and lower Cauca 

Valley) (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Cuervo 2002, 

pp. 135-138; Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 29; Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). 

Deforestation rates and patterns: 

Primary forest habitats throughout 

Colombia have undergone extensive 

deforestation. Vin ̃ a et al. (2004, pp. 123- 

124) used satellite imagery to analyze 

deforestation rates and patterns along 

the Colombian-Ecuadorian Border (in 

the Departments of Putumayo and 

Sucumbios, respectively), finding that, 

from 1973 to 1996, a total of 829 km2

(320 mi2) of tropical forests within the 

study area were converted to other uses. 

This corresponds to a nearly one-third 

total loss of primary forest habitat, or a 

nearly 2 percent mean annual rate of 

deforestation within the study area. 

During the study, the area within 

Colombia experienced a three-timeslarger annual rate of loss than that in 

Ecuador, due to more intense pressures 

from human colonization and illegal 

crop cultivation (Vin ̃ a et al. 2004, p. 

124). The human population within the 

area increased from approximately 

50,000 to over 250,000 people during 

the 23–year period (Perz et al. 2005, pp. 

26-28). A similar phenomenon occurred 

in the Rı ́o Magdalena Valley, which 

coincides with the species’ historic 

range as well as its disjunct and 

restricted current range. The Rı ́o 

Magdalena runs from south to north 

approximately 1,540 km (950 mi) 

through western Colombia and served as 

the main waterway connecting coffee 

(Coffea spp.) plantations to the ports on 

the Western Colombian coast in the 

1920s, when the river was reportedly 

plagued by occasional droughts and 

erosion. In the 1930s, a railway was 

completed along much of the Rı ́o 

Magdalena Valley; this infrastructural 

improvement contributed to a growth in 

several industries, including coffee 

(throughout the Rı ́o Magdalena valley), 

bananas (Musa spp.) (Magdalena 

Department), and oil fields (Santander 

Department) (Ocampo and Botero 2000, 

pp. 76-78). Deforestation and habitat 

loss throughout the lowland forests 

across northern Colombia over the past 

100 years contributed to the increasing 

rarity of the species, and extirpated the 

species from a large portion of its 

previous range by the 1980s (Brooks and 

Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Collar et 

al. 1992, pp. 61-62; Cuervo and Salaman 

1999, p. 7). 

In a similar study specific to the 

western Andean Amazon area of 

Colombia (in the Departments of 

Arauca, Casemere, Meta, Vichada, 

Amazonas, Caqueta ́, Guainia, Guaviare, 

Putumayo, and Vaupe ́s), deforestation 

between 1980 and 1990 totaled 52,320 

km2 (20,201 mi2) (Perz et al. 2005, pp. 

26-28). The most recent reports indicate 

that habitat loss is ongoing and may be 

accelerating. Between the years 1990 

and 2005, Colombia lost a total of 7,920 

km2 (3,058 mi2) of primary forest (Butler 

2006a, pp. 1-3; Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations 

(FAO) 2003a, p. 1). Researchers have 

observed that road building and other 

infrastructure improvements in 

previously remote forested areas have 

increased accessibility and facilitated 

further habitat destruction, exploitation, 

and human settlement (A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 

2042; Ca ́rdenas and Rodrı ́guez Becerra 

2004, pp. 125-130; Etter et al. 2006, p. 

1; Hunter 1996, p. 158-159; Vin ̃ a et al. 

2004, pp. 118-119). In Antioquia, cattle 

ranches are extensive in areas where the 

blue-billed curassow occurs; cattle 

ranching is considered a less laborintensive land use, meaning that more 

people need to turn to alternative 

sources of income generation, such as 

cultivation or extractive industries 

(Melo and Ochoa 2004, as cited in 

Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). In Serranı ́a 

de las Quinchas, the economy is based 

principally on timber extraction, 

agriculture, and cattle ranching (Uruen ̃ a 

and Quevedo unpubl. data 2004, as 

cited in Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 47). These 

activities contribute to further habitat 

fragmentation and reduction. In terms of 

habitat destruction, an influx of settlers 

displaced from the Departments of 

Antioquia, Tolima, and Cundinamarca, 

due to violence and public disorder in 

these Departments, are the principal 

threat to the mountainous regions in 

these Departments (Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, 

p. 42). 

The decline in blue-billed curassow 

population numbers (see Population 

estimates, above) is inextricably linked 

to habitat loss. The blue-billed curassow 

became increasingly rare during the 

20th Century, as much of the lowerelevation forests in their historic range 

of the Rı ́o Magdalena and Rı ́o Cauca 

Valleys were deforested, forcing the 

blue-billed curassow to move to higher 

elevations (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, 

p. 8). By the 1980s, the species had 

disappeared from a large portion of its 

previous range (Collar et al. 1992, pp. 

61-62), which historically encompassed 

approximately 106,700 km2 (41,197 mi2) 

(Cuervo 2002, p. 141). In 2002, it was 

estimated that, within the three prior 

generations (30 years), the species had 

lost 88 percent of its original habitat and 

that the remaining suitable habitat had 

been reduced to 13,300 km2 (5135 m2) 

(Cuervo 2002, p. 141). The current range 

of the blue-billed curassow is estimated 

to be 2,090 km2 (807 mi2) (BLI 2007d, 

p.2) (see also ‘‘Small Population Size,’’ 

Factor E). 

Deforestation and fragmentation 

caused by human encroachment are 

ongoing throughout the blue-billed 

curassow’s range, including: Antioquı ́a 

(on the slopes of the Serranı ́a de San 

Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nechı ́ Regional 

Reserve area); Santander and Boyaca ́

Departments (on the slopes of the 

Serranı ́a de las Quinchas); and in the 

southeastern Department of Cauca (in 

northeastern and lower Cauca Valley), 

where timber extraction and mining 

continue (Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). 

Human activities that are contributing to 

habitat loss include: forest clearing for 

subsistence agriculture, cash crops 

(such as coffee), and grazing (A ́ lvarez 

2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Ca ́rdenas 

and Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; 

Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12; 

Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42); habitat 

alteration, human population 

displacement, and hunting as a result of 

armed conflict (A ́ lvarez 2001, p. 305; 

A ́ lvarez 2003, pp. 51-52); habitat 

32312 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

destruction and alteration as a result of 

fire (A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 2041; Moreno et 

al. 2006, p. 1); habitat loss for dams and 

reservoir development (Cuervo 2002, p. 

139; Kreger 2005, pp.5-6); illicit crop 

cultivation (such as the coca plant 

(Erythroxylum coca)) (A ́ lvarez 2001, pp. 

1086-1087; A ́ lvarez 2007, pp. 133-135; 

Ca ́rdenas and Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, 

p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9- 

12); gold mining activities (Cuervo 2002, 

p. 139); habitat pollution due to oil 

development and distribution (A ́ lvarez 

2005, p. 2041; Ca ́rdenas and Rodrı ́guez 

Becerra 2004, p. 355); and increased 

access and habitat destruction resulting 

from road development (Cuervo 2002, 

pp. 139-140). Roads create barriers to 

animal movements, expose animals to 

traffic hazards, and increase human 

access into habitat, thus facilitating 

further exploitation and habitat 

destruction (Hunter 1996, 158-159). 

Local human populations have recently 

settled in forested areas that previously 

provided habitat for blue-billed 

curassows. This human settlement is 

accelerating habitat loss and 

fragmentation with only 5 percent of the 

species’ restricted range now covered by 

forest (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 

2001, pp. 183-184), and is leaving only 

fragmented, disjunct, and isolated 

populations in the remaining four or 

five patches of tropical humid and 

premontane forests (A ́ lvarez 2003, p. 51; 

Brooks and Strahl 2000, pp. 14-15; 

Collar et al. 1994, pp. 61-62; Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 7; Donegan and 

Huertas 2005, p. 29). 

Illegal drugs and their eradication: 

The cultivation of illegal crops 

(including coca) poses additional threats 

to the environment beyond encouraging 

the destruction of montane forests 

(Balslev 1993, p. 3). Van Schoik and 

Schulberg (1993, p. 21) noted that coca 

crop production destroys the soil 

quality by causing the soil to become 

more acidic, which depletes the soil 

nutrients and ultimately impedes the 

regrowth of secondary forests in 

abandoned fields. Although Colombia 

continues to be the leading coca bush 

producer (United Nations Office of 

Drugs and Crime (UNODC) et al. 2007, 

p. 7), since 2003, cocaine cultivation has 

remained stable at about 800 km2 (309 

mi2) of land under cultivation (UNODC 

et al. 2007, p. 8). This stabilization of 

production is partially attributed to 

alternative development projects that 

were implemented between 1999 and 

2004 to encourage pursuits other than 

illegal crop cultivation (UNODC et al. 

2007, p. 77). This is also attributed to 

heightened eradication efforts. Between 

2002 and 2004, aerial spraying occurred 

over more than 1,300 km2 (502 mi2) 

annually, peaking in 2004, when 1,360 

km2 (525 mi2) of illicit crops were 

sprayed (UNODC and the Government 

of Colombia (GOC) 2005, p. 11). In 2006, 

eradication efforts were undertaken on 

over 2,130 km2 (822 mi2) of land, which 

included sraying of 1,720 km2 (664 mi2) 

and manual eradication on the 

remaining land. Eradication efforts 

undertaken in 2006 occurred over an 

area 2.7 times greater than the net 

cultivation area (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 

8). Drug eradication efforts in Colombia 

have further degraded and destroyed 

primary forest habitat by using 

nonspecific aerial herbicides to destroy 

illegal crops (A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 

2007d, p. 3; Ca ́rdenas and Rodrı ́guez 

Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and 

Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Herbicide 

spraying has introduced harmful 

chemicals into blue-billed curassow 

habitat and has led to further 

destruction of the habitat by forcing 

illicit growers to move to new, 

previously untouched forested areas 

(A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; A ́ lvarez 

2005, p. 2042; A ́ lvarez 2007, pp. 133- 

143; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Ca ́rdenas and 

Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham 

and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Between 

1998 and 2002, cultivation of illicit 

crops increased by 21 percent each year, 

with a concomitant increase in 

deforestation of formerly pristine areas 

of approximately 60 percent (A ́ lvarez 

2002, pp. 1088-1093). 

Effects of habitat fragmentation: A 

study conducted on the effects of habitat 

fragmentation on Andean birds within 

western Colombia determined two 

primary conditions that increased a 

species’ vulnerability to habitat 

fragmentation and susceptibility to local 

extirpation and extinction: (1) species 

that were located at the upper or lower 

limit of their altitudinal or geographical 

distribution (as is the case for the bluebilled curassow, which formerly 

occupied the now-cleared lower 

elevation forests and is relegated to 

isolated forest fragments within its 

current range), and (2) species that were 

large fruit-eating birds with limited 

distributions and narrow habitat 

preferences (also traits of the blue-billed 

curassow) (Kattan and A ́ lvarez-Lopez 

1996, pp. 5-6). The study also 

determined that 31 percent of the 

historical bird populations in western 

Colombia had become extinct or locally 

extirpated by 1990, largely as a result of 

habitat fragmentation from deforestation 

and human encroachment (Kattan and 

A ́ lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 5; Kattan et al. 

1994, p. 141). The most direct physical 

consequence of habitat fragmentation is 

loss of habitat heterogeneity; habitat 

heterogeneity is a characteristic 

preferred by the blue-billed curassow 

(see Habitat and Life History, above) 

(Kattan and A ́ lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 6). 

Local reports indicate an overall 

declining trend characterized by recent 

rapid declines of all the populations of 

blue-billed curassows (BLI 2007d, p. 1; 

Cuervo 2002, p. 138; Strahl et al. 1995, 

p. 25). Moreover, the ability of the bluebilled curassow to repopulate an 

isolated patch of suitable habitat 

following decline or extirpation is 

highly unlikely due to the species’ small 

overall population size, its tendency to 

avoid degraded habitats, and the large 

distances between the remaining 

primary forest fragments in addition to 

the species’ reticence to cross large areas 

of open habitat (Cuervo and Salaman 

1999, p. 7; Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46). 

In addition to the direct detrimental 

effect of habitat loss, blue-billed 

curassows and other cracids are 

susceptible to indirect effects of habitat 

disturbance and fragmentation (Brooks 

and Strahl 2000, p. 10; Silva and Strahl 

1991, p. 38). A study conducted in 

northwestern Colombia suggests that 

habitat destruction and fragmentation 

may increase a species’ vulnerability to 

predation (Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 

1997, pp. 140-142) (Factor C). Habitat 

fragmentation, in combination with 

growing numbers of human settlements, 

has made the species’ habitat more 

accessible and more vulnerable to 

hunting (Factor B) and predation (Factor 

C). Habitat loss also compounds the 

species’ decline in population numbers 

(estimated to be between 1,000 and 

2,500 individuals) (BLI 2004b, p. 1) (see 

Factor E, Small population size). 

Refugia: Several areas within the 

blue-billed curassow’s current range are 

designated as national parks or other 

types of preserves, including Tayrona 

and Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 

National Parks (both in Antioquı ́a 

Department) (Cuervo 2002, p. 140) and 

the Colorados Sanctuary (Bolı ́var 

Department), which protects part of the 

Serranı ́a de San Jacinto (BLI 2007d, pp. 

2-3; Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). Experts 

consider the most important refuges for 

this species, containing the largest 

remaining areas of suitable habitat, to be 

in the following areas (arranged 

geographically, from north to south): (1) 

Serranı ́a de San Lucas, (2) Paramillo 

National Park, (3) Bajo Cauca-Nechı ́

Regional Reserve, and (4) El Paujı ́l Bird 

Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, 

p. 139-140; Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42), 

four of the five locations where the 

species has been observed in the 21st 

Century (see Current Range, above). The 

habitat within these refugia underserves 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32313 

the needs of the species for various 

reasons (including past and ongoing 

habitat destruction and incomplete 

habitat inclusion), as enumerated below. 

In addition, inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms hamper protection of the 

species and its habitat (Factor D). 

(1) Serranı ́a de San Lucas (Antioquı ́a) 

is not a protected area, but is one of the 

largest remaining tracts of forest that is 

the least disturbed (WWF 2001b, p. 1). 

Even so, only a few isolated forest 

patches survive above 1,000 m (3,280 ft) 

in the northern lowlands (Antioquia ́

Department) (Donegan and Salaman 

1999, p. 4). Ongoing pressures on this 

habitat include human encroachment 

for natural resources, colonization, 

ranching, logging, and crop production, 

as well as pollution of the Magdelena 

and Cauca Rivers (WWF 2001b, p. 3). In 

1996, there was a gold rush that led to 

deforestation for logging, settlements, 

conversion to agriculture, and coca 

production (BLI 2007d, p 3). Using 

satellite imagery and fieldwork, Cuervo 

(2002, p. 140) determined that 

deforestation on the eastern slopes of 

the Serranı ́a de San Lucas was extensive 

between 1995 and 1996. In 2005, 

highway construction was underway as 

part of a national plan to connect the 

East Andes, the West Andes, and the 

Pacific ports, including roadbuilding 

through the Serranı ́a de San Lucas and 

adjacent lowlands (A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 

2042). Because the species prefers 

pristine habitat, this ongoing habitat 

alteration negatively impacts the 

integrity of this location and the 

survival of the species therein. 

(2) The Paramillo National Park 

(Antioquı ́a and Co ́rdoba Departments), 

created in 1977, encompasses an area 

4600 km2 (1776 mi2) in size and 

includes moist and cloud forest habitats 

(Corantioquia 2008, p. 1). However, it 

only protects the upper elevational limit 

of the habitat occupied by the species, 

where the species is rarer (Cuervo 2002, 

p. 140). This Park is inhabited by an 

indigenous community (Embera ́), for 

whom the Park was created. Farmers 

also inhabit the interior regions of the 

Park (BLI 2007a, p. 1-2). The areas to the 

south of the Park have undergone 

intense habitat disturbance from 

logging, drug crop production, and 

inundation from flooding caused by the 

construction of the Urra ́ Dam (Cuervo 

2002, p. 139). Deforestation has 

occurred throughout a large portion of 

the Park’s buffer zone as well as in the 

extreme southern reaches within Park 

boundaries (Cuervo 2002, p. 140). 

Between 2003 and 2004, cocaine 

cultivation within the Paramillo 

National Park went from 1.1km2 to 4.6 

km2 (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 45). The 

Urra ́ Dam was constructed on the Sinu ́

River between 1993 and 1998; the Sinu ́

River Valley was part of the blue-billed 

curassows’ historic range (BirdLife 

International (BLI) 2007a, p. 1; Cuervo 

and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, 

p. 361). The reservoir flooded the area 

and led to displacement of human 

populations and other habitat 

alterations, including fish kills caused 

by blocked spawning and migratory 

routes (NGO Working Group on Export 

Development Canada 2003, p.31). 

(3) The Bajo Cauca-Nechı ́ Regional 

Reserve (Antioquı ́a and Co ́rdoba 

Departments), created in 1999, is 

located within a large tract (450 km2

(174 mi2)) of forested land at an 

elevation of 800 m (2,625 ft). Bajo Cauca 

is the second most populated region in 

the Department of Antioquia. Logging is 

important in this region, and the 

Reserve allows commercial exploitation 

of wood (Fundacio ́n Viztaz 2007, p. 2). 

Surveys are scant in this area, which is 

believed to be home to many species as 

yet unidentified by science (Cuervo 

2002, p. 137; Donegan and Salaman 

1999, p. 12). Although the Reserve 

provides suitable habitat for the species, 

and the blue-billed curassow is 

presumed to inhabit this area, it has not 

been confirmed within the Reserve (BLI 

2007d, p. 3). 

(4) El Paujı ́l Bird Reserve (Santander 

and Boyaca ́ Departments) is a private 

reserve established in Serranı ́a de las 

Quinchas (WorldTwitch Colombia 2004, 

p.3). In the early 1990s, the Serranı ́a de 

las Quinchas (Boyaca ́ Department, 

central Colombia) was considered one of 

the last remaining well-preserved cloud 

forests and the largest tract of lowland 

wet forest in the region, with up to 500 

km2 (193 mi2) of forest remaining. 

Within a decade, the forest had 

dwindled to 120 km2 (46 mi2) 

(WorldTwitch Colombia 2004, p. 3). In 

2002, the largest known subpopulation 

of blue-billed curassow was located in 

the Serranı ́a de las Quinchas and 

became regarded as the stronghold of 

the species (BLI 2007d, p. 2). El Paujı ́l 

Bird Reserve was created in 2004 

specifically to protect the blue-billed 

curassow and its habitat (BLI 2007b, p. 

2). Comprising 10 km2 (3.9 mi2) of 

lowland tropical forest up to elevations 

of 700 m (2297 ft), the Reserve includes 

suitable habitat for the species. 

However, collection of eggs and chicks 

are ongoing within the region (Cuervo 

2002, p. 139; Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42) 

(Factor B), and there are questions as to 

the effectiveness of this Reserve to 

protect the species (Factor D). 

Summary of Factor A 

The blue-billed curassow prefers 

undisturbed habitat, and the remaining 

small populations are limited to four or 

five small, disjunct, and isolated areas 

in seven different Departments. Within 

the past three generations, or 30 years, 

the species is estimated to have lost 88 

percent of its habitat and half of its 

population. Deforestation and 

conversion of primary forests for human 

settlements and agriculture has led to 

habitat fragmentation throughout the 

species’ range and to isolation of 

remaining populations. Habitat loss and 

fragmentation were factors in the 

species’ historical decline (over the past 

50 years) and caused localized 

extirpations, and continue to be factors 

negatively affecting the blue-billed 

curassow in the wild. Human 

encroachment into the species’ 

preferred primary forest habitat has 

resulted in habitat alteration and 

disturbance activities that have caused 

declines in the blue-billed curassow 

population. Cultivation of illegal drug 

crops, such as cocaine, leads to further 

deforestation and alters soil 

compositions, hindering regeneration of 

abandoned fields. In addition, drug 

eradication programs involving the 

aerial spraying of non-specific 

herbicides lead to further environmental 

degradation and destruction of primary 

forest habitat. Three of the four most 

important refugia continue to undergo 

habitat destruction, and regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to mitigate 

the primary threats to this species 

(Factor D). A private refuge, the El Paujı ́l 

Bird Reserve, was formed to protect the 

blue-billed curassow and its habitat, 

which includes a large amount of 

suitable habitat, but may be lacking in 

its ability to adequately protect the 

species (Factors B and D). Habitat 

fragmentation contributes to the species’ 

vulnerability to hunting (discussed 

under Factor B) and predation 

(discussed under Factor C) by increasing 

human and predator access to the 

habitat. The species’ historic range, 

which encompassed approximately 

106,700 km2 (41,197 mi2), has been 

reduced to 2,090 km2 (807 mi2). Experts 

estimate that 88 percent of this habitat 

loss has occurred within the last three 

generations, or 30 years. Habitat 

destruction and fragmentation of the 

remaining primary forest habitat is 

expected to continue, as human 

encroachment and associated activities 

continue within the blue-billed 

curassow’s range. Therefore, we find 

that the present destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of habitat 

32314 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

are threats to the blue-billed curassow 

throughout all of its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Blue-billed curassows are hunted by 

indigenous people and local residents 

for subsistence, sport, trade, and 

entertainment (Brooks and GonzalezGarcia 2001, p. 183; Brooks and Strahl 

2000, p. 10; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, 

p. 9; Throp 1964, p. 127; Uruen ̃ a et al. 

2006, p. 42). Cracids, including the 

blue-billed curassow, are considered 

particularly vulnerable to hunting 

pressures and are among those species 

most rapidly depleted by hunting 

(Redford 1992, p. 419). Several factors 

contribute to the species’ vulnerability 

to hunting and collection: their large 

size, ease of location during the 

breeding season, trusting nature, and 

low productivity (1-2 eggs) relative to 

other Galliformes (del Hoyo 1994, p. 

336). Cracids are also slow to reproduce, 

with a replacement rate of at least 6 

years (Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 50), 

which makes it difficult for the species 

to rebound from hunting pressures. 

Hunting affects the blue-billed 

curassow in all life stages. In 1999, 

hunters in Antioquı ́o (where the bluebilled curassow is known on the slopes 

of the Serranı ́a de San Lucas and Bajo 

Cauca-Nechı ́ Regional Reserve area) 

reported killing as many as 20 bluebilled curassows within the prior 20 

years (Donegan and Salaman 1999, p. 

21). In 2004, it was reported that 

hunting had abated somewhat, because 

productive hunting grounds had become 

too remote from villages and because 

the communities have access to 

domestic meat (Melo and Ochoa 2004, 

as cited in Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). 

However, both eggs and chicks continue 

to be collected in some areas (such as 

Serranı ́a de las Quinchas, where El 

Paujı ́l Reserve is located) to be sold at 

local markets (Cuervo 2002, p. 139; 

Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42), despite 

measures to protect the species from 

collection (Factor D). In 1999, live 

trapped birds (typically chicks) sold for 

up to US$100 (greater than the average 

monthly income) (Donegan and 

Salaman 1999, p. 21). These birds are 

either consumed or maintained as 

captive animals. The blue-billed 

curassow, as well as other cracids (e.g., 

chachalacas (Ortalis spp.) and guans 

(Penelope spp.)) serve as a major source 

of protein for indigenous people and 

attract a great deal of ecotourism 

(Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 8). People 

colonizing forested areas capture 

juvenile birds as pets and hold them in 

captivity in fenced yards or in cages 

(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 8; 

Donegan and Salaman 1999, p. 21). 

Indigenous people also collect feathers 

and other body parts of curassows for 

rituals, ornamentation, arrowheads, and 

for sale to tourists (Silva and Strahl 

1991, p. 38). 

Most hunting occurs during the 

mating season, when males are more 

easily located by their booming mating 

calls (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 9; 

del Hoyo 1994, p. 336), which can be 

heard from up to 500 m (0.31 mi) away 

(Ochoa-Quintero et al. 2005, pp. 42, 44). 

The direct take of males leads to 

disequilibrium of sex ratios for this 

species, which forms monogamous pairs 

(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 9; Todd 

et al. 2008), and it also leads to the 

disruption of mating activities (Cuervo 

and Salaman 1999, p. 9; del Hoyo 1994, 

p. 336). Researchers attribute hunting 

pressure as the cause for the near 

extinction of the blue-billed curassow 

population in the San Salvador Valley 

(Strewe and Navarro 2003, p. 32). 

Researchers also attribute to hunting the 

absence of blue-billed curassows from 

parts of its historical range where 

suitable habitat (primary forest) still 

exists to hunting (Brooks and Strahl 

2000, p. 10). In 1998, for instance, no 

males were observed during field 

surveys, prompting researchers to 

conclude that hunting continued to be 

a serious risk to the species (BLI 2007d, 

p. 3). 

Habitat fragmentation and 

concomitant human encroachment 

(Factor A) have made the species’ 

habitat more accessible and more 

vulnerable to hunting. A study 

conducted in French Guiana provided a 

quantitative estimate of the effect of 

hunting on a related cracid species, the 

black curassow (Crax alector) (del Hoyo 

1994, p. 336). The black curassow has 

similar habitat requirements 

(undisturbed primary tropical to 

subtropical humid forest at 0-1,400 m 

(0-4600 ft) elevation) as the blue-billed 

curassow (BLI 2007e). The estimated 

population density of black curassows 

in non-hunted areas was between 7 and 

9 birds per 1 km2 (0.4 mi2); in areas with 

intermittent hunting, the numbers fell to 

between 0.5 and 2.25 birds; and in areas 

where hunting was regular, numbers fell 

to between 0.5 and 0.73 birds (del Hoyo 

1994, p. 336). We believe that the effects 

of hunting on the blue-billed curassow 

would result in similar population 

reductions based on its similarity of 

habitat requirements and life history 

traits. 

In 1988, Colombia listed the bluebilled curassow in Appendix III of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) (UNEP-WCMC 2008c). An 

Appendix-III listing requires that: (1) the 

listing range country (in this case, 

Colombia) must issue an export permit 

for all exports of the species; (2) 

specimens for these exports must be 

legally obtained; (3) live specimens 

must be transported such that risk of 

injury, damage, and cruelty are 

minimized; (4) exports from any other 

range countries require a certificate of 

origin; and (5) re-exports require a reexport certificate issued by the country 

of re-export (UNEP-WCMC 2008a). 

According to the World Conservation 

Monitoring Centre (WCMC), a total of 12 

live birds have been traded 

internationally since 1990 (UNEPWCMC 2008e). This trade included 

imports of two individuals into the 

United States and five birds into Mexico 

in the early 1990s. Therefore, 

commercial international trade in wild 

specimens over the past 20 years has not 

been extensive. 

The remaining CITES-documented 

trade has consisted of exports of 

captive-bred specimens from the United 

States to Colombia and Belgium. The 

blue-billed curassow has been collected 

from the wild for use in zoos and in 

captive-breeding programs, both 

domestically and abroad. A small 

number of birds have been collected by 

the Cali Zoo and Santa Fe de Medellin 

Zoo in Colombia (Cuervo 2002, p. 142), 

and small collections are held in the 

United States, including the Houston 

Zoo and San Diego Zoo, as well as in 

Japan and Mexico (Brooks and Strahl 

2000, p. 15; Cuervo 2002, p. 142). The 

Cali and Houston Zoo collections are 

being used for captive breeding, which 

we consider vital to conserving and 

recovering this species (Factor E). 

International trade for zoos and captivebreeding purposes does not contribute 

to the endangerment of the species. We 

believe that this limited amount of 

international trade, controlled via 

CITES, is not a threat to the species. 

Summary of Factor B 

The blue-billed curassow is hunted 

and collected from the wild at all life 

stages throughout its current range. 

Blue-billed curassow eggs and chicks 

are collected for food and sale in local 

markets, or are often captured and held 

in captivity as pets or as a future food 

source. Hunting results in the direct 

removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults 

from the population. Blue-billed 

curassows are slow to reproduce, 

produce a low clutch size, and exhibit 

a poor replacement rate (see Habitat and 

Life History). Hunting can destroy pair 

bonds and remove potentially 

reproductive adults from the breeding 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32315 

pool. The species is particularly 

vulnerable to hunting and collection 

pressures due to the ease in locating this 

large bird during its breeding season. 

The majority of hunting occurs during 

the mating season, when males are 

heard calling for females, leading to 

disproportionate hunting of males. 

Hunting disturbances during the 

breeding season disrupt breeding 

activities, further compounding the 

threats associated with hunting 

mortalities. There are continued reports 

of hunting pressures on the species; 

these pressures have been and continue 

to be compounded by ongoing human 

encroachment into previously 

undisturbed forests (Factor A). Hunting 

and collection negatively affect the 

global population of the blue-billed 

curassow, due to its small population 

size and fragmented distribution. 

Hunting, combined with habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A), increases the 

possibility of local extirpation since the 

blue-billed curassow is unlikely to reoccupy an area that has been depleted 

through hunting because it avoids 

crossing large, open areas between 

habitat fragments (see Factor E, 

Likelihood to Disperse). Therefore, we 

find that hunting, collection, and 

associated disturbances are threats to 

the blue-billed curassow. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease: We are unaware of 

information regarding disease or the 

potential for significant disease 

outbreaks in the blue-billed curassow. 

As a result, we do not consider disease 

to be a threat to the species. 

Predation: According to Delacour and 

Amadon (1973), predators of cracids 

include snakes (suborder Serpentes), 

foxes (family Canidae), wild cats (Felis 

silvestris), feral dogs (Canus lupus 

familiaris), and raptors (order 

Falconiformes). Arango-Ve ́lez and 

Kattan (1997, pp. 137-143) studied nest 

predation rates on Andean birds within 

fragmented forest habitats of 

northwestern Colombia. Although not 

specific to the blue-billed curassow, the 

study focused on understory nesting 

birds with similar nesting habits and in 

forest fragment sizes similar to where 

the blue-billed curassow is currently 

found (Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 1997, 

p. 138). The study found that nest 

predation by generalist predators is 

more prevalent in smaller, isolated 

forest patches. However, in the study, 

increased predation in smaller habitat 

fragments could not be solely attributed 

to the ‘‘edge effect,’’ whereby smaller 

patch sizes facilitate predators’ access 

and ability to capture prey throughout 

the fragments. Rather, reduced habitat 

patch sizes caused a shift from larger to 

smaller predators, which tended to prey 

upon the eggs and juveniles of 

understory birds, rendering grounddwelling birds such as blue-billed 

curassows particularly susceptible 

(Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 140- 

142). Other studies concerning the 

effects of habitat fragmentation on avian 

predation show similar results (Hoover 

et al. 1995, p. 151; Keyser 2002, p. 186; 

Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; Renjifo 1999, 

p. 1133; Wilcove 1985, p. 1214). Gibbs 

(1991, p. 157) found that a larger 

proportion of ground-nests and elevated 

nests were predated in patches smaller 

than 1 km2 (0.39 mi2) and that groundnesting birds were predated more 

heavily than elevated-nesting birds. In 

addition to the importance of patch size 

for influencing the level of predation, 

the composition of the areas 

surrounding the patch is also important 

(Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 1997, p. 141). 

For instance, in lowland Costa Rica, the 

edge effect (where predation is greater at 

the edge of forest patches than in the 

interior of the patch) was greatest in 

forest patches bordered by secondary 

growth than by pasture (Gibbs 1991, p. 

157). 

Summary of Factor C 

Snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral dogs, 

and raptors are all predators of cracids. 

Predation results in the direct removal 

of eggs, juveniles, and adults from the 

population. Blue-billed curassows are 

slow to reproduce, produce a low clutch 

size, and exhibit a poor replacement rate 

(see Habitat and Life History). Predation 

can destroy pair bonds and remove 

potentially reproductive adults from the 

breeding pool. Studies on similar 

species in similar Andean habitats 

indicate that vulnerability to predation 

by generalist predators increases with 

increased habitat fragmentation and 

smaller patch sizes. Predation 

exacerbates the genetic complications 

associated with the species’ small 

population size (Factor E). Because of 

the species’ small population size and 

inability to recolonize isolated habitat 

fragments (Factor E), predation renders 

the species vulnerable to local 

extirpation. Therefore, we find that 

predation, compounded by ongoing 

habitat destruction (Factor A) and 

hunting (Factor B), is a threat to the 

blue-billed curassow. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Regulatory mechanisms may provide 

species-specific or habitat-specific 

protections. An evaluation of the 

adequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

within Colombia to mitigate or remove 

the threats to the blue-billed curassow is 

provided below, beginning with speciesspecific and followed by habitat-specific 

protection mechanisms. 

The Colombian government has 

enacted and ratified numerous domestic 

and international laws, decrees, and 

resolutions for managing and conserving 

wildlife and flora (Matallana-T. 2005, p. 

121). Colombian Law No. 99 of 1993 

(Creating the Ministry of the 

Environment and Renewable Natural 

Resources and organizing the National 

Environmental System (SINA)) sets out 

the principles governing environmental 

policy in Colombia, and provides that 

the country’s biodiversity be protected 

and used primarily in a sustainable 

manner (EcoLex 1993, p. 2). Resolution 

No. 584 of 2002 (Species that are 

endangered wildlife in the national 

territory) provides a list of Colombian 

wildlife and flora that are considered 

threatened. Threatened is defined as 

those species whose natural populations 

are at risk of extinction, as their habitat, 

range, or ecosystems that support them 

have been affected by either natural 

causes or human actions. Threatened 

species are further categorized as 

critically endangered, endangered, or 

vulnerable. A critically endangered 

species (CR) is one that faces a very high 

probability of extinction in the wild in 

the immediate future, based on a drastic 

reduction of its natural populations and 

a severe deterioration of its range; an 

endangered species (EN) is one that has 

a high probability of extinction in the 

wild in the near future, based on a 

declining trend of its natural 

populations and a deterioration of its 

range; and a vulnerable species (VU) is 

one that is not in imminent danger of 

extinction in the near future, but it 

could be if natural population trends 

continue downward and deterioration of 

its range continues (EcoLex 2002, p. 10). 

The blue-billed curassow is 

considered a critically endangered 

species under Colombian law pursuant 

to paragraph 23 of Article 5 of Law No. 

99, as outlined in Resolution No. 584 

(EcoLex 2002, p. 12). This status confers 

certain protections upon the species. 

Resolution No. 849 of 1973 ([Laws 

governing] commercial hunting of 

saı ́nos, boas, anacondas and birds 

throughout the country) and Resolution 

No. 787of 1977 ([Laws governing] sport 

hunting of mammals, birds and reptiles 

of wildlife), regulate and prohibit 

commercial and sport hunting of all 

wild bird species, respectively, except 

those specifically identified by the 

Ministry of the Environment or 

otherwise permitted (EcoLex 1973, p.1; 

EcoLex 1977, p. 3). Because of its status 

as a critically endangered species, the 

32316 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Ministry of the Environment does not 

permit the blue-billed curassow to be 

hunted commercially or for sport. 

Neither Resolution prohibits subsistence 

hunting. As discussed under Factor B, 

commercial and sport hunting are not 

threats to this species, but subsistence 

hunting continues to threaten the 

species throughout its range, including 

within protected areas. Thus, these 

Resolutions are ineffective at reducing 

the existing threat of subsistence 

hunting to the blue-billed curassow. 

Additional efforts to protect the 

species from subsistence hunting are 

inadequate. Within El Paujı ́l Reserve, for 

instance, there are penalties for shooting 

or trapping the species (BLI 2007d, p. 3). 

However, as recently as 2006, it was 

reported that both chicks and eggs 

continued to be collected in the Serranı ́a 

de las Quinchas region, where the 

Reserve is located, for domestic use and 

for sale at local markets (Cuervo 2002, 

p. 139; Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42) (Factor 

B). Thus, private efforts to protect the 

species from hunting appear to be 

inadequate within a region where 

national laws are ineffective at 

protecting the species from such take. 

The blue-billed curassow is listed in 

Appendix III of CITES (see Factor B). 

CITES is an international treaty among 

174 nations, including Colombia (which 

became a Party in 1981) and the United 

States (which became a Party in 1975) 

(UNEP-WCMC 2008a, p. 1). In the 

United States, CITES is implemented 

through the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act (Act). The Act designates the 

Secretary of the Interior as the Scientific 

and Management Authorities to 

implement the treaty, with all functions 

carried out by the Service. Under this 

treaty, countries work together to ensure 

that international trade in animal and 

plant species is not detrimental to the 

survival of wild populations, by 

regulating the import, export, re-export, 

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

2008, p. 1). As discussed under Factor 

B, we do not consider commercial 

international trade to be a threat 

impacting the blue-billed curassow. 

Colombia has numerous laws and 

regulations pertaining to forests and 

forestry management, including: the 

Forestry Law of 1959 (Law 2 – [On] 

forest economy [of the] nation and 

conservation [of] renewable natural 

resources) (EcoLex 1959); the Forestry 

Code of 1974 (Decree 2,811 – National 

code of renewable natural resources and 

protection of the environment) (Faolex 

1974), and the forest plan of 1996 

(Decree 1,791 – Forest Improvement 

Plan) (Faolex 1996). A new forest law 

was developed and approved in 2006 

(Law No. 1,021, General [Forestry] Law). 

The new law seeks to: (1) further 

promote forest plantations and create 

financial mechanisms for investments, 

(2) provide for rigorous control and 

expanded sustainable use of natural 

forests, (3) and regulate and further 

develop forest concessions in the 

country (International Tropical Timber 

Organization (ITTO) 2006, p. 218). 

However, the ITTO considers the 

Colombian forestry sector to be lacking 

in law enforcement and on-the-ground 

control of forest resources, with no 

specific standards for large-scale 

forestry production, no forestry 

concession policies, and a lack of 

transparency in the application of the 

various laws regulating wildlife and 

their habitats (ITTO 2006, p. 222). 

Resource management in Colombia is 

highly decentralized. Resources are 

managed within local municipalities by 

one of 33 Autonomous Regional 

Corporations known as CARs 

(Corporaciones Auto ́nomas Regionales) 

(Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121). CARs are 

corporate bodies of a public nature, 

endowed with administrative and 

financial autonomy to manage the 

environment and renewable natural 

resources (Law 99 of 1993). The bluebilled curassow is currently known to 

occur within seven different 

Departments, each of which is managed 

by a separate local entity. These 

corporations grant concessions, permits, 

and authorizations for forest harvesting 

(ITTO 2006, p. 219). Forty percent of 

Colombia’s public resources are 

managed by local municipalities, 

making Colombia one of the most 

decentralized countries in terms of 

forestry management in Latin America 

(Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121). Monitoring 

of resource use and forest development 

authorized by these corporations is 

conducted mostly by local 

nongovernmental organizations. 

Governmental institutions responsible 

for oversight appear to be 

underresourced and unable to maintain 

an effective presence in the field (ITTO 

2006, p. 222). Consequently, there is no 

vehicle for overall coordination of 

species management for 

multijurisdictional species such as the 

blue-billed curassow. The private 

Proaves-Colombia Foundation plans to 

generate a national strategy for the 

conservation of the blue-billed curassow 

through the project, ‘‘Saving the Bluebilled Curassow’’ (Quevedo et al. 2005, 

as cited in Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). In 

2004, this project evaluated and 

prioritized threats in Serranı ́a de las 

Quinchas region (Machado 2004, as 

cited in Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42), 

assessed population density and 

structure (Arias 2005, as cited in Uruen ̃ a 

et al. 2006, p. 42), studied habitat use 

and behavioral aspects in Paujı ́l de Pico 

Bird Reserve (Uruen ̃ a 2005, as cited in 

Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42), and promoted 

an environmental education campaign 

and the creation of El Paujı ́l Bird 

Reserve (Uruen ̃ a and Quevedo 2005, as 

cited in Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). 

However, a national strategy for the 

conservation of blue-billed curassows is 

not currently in place, and it is unclear 

if or when it will be enacted, and 

whether the Colombian government will 

adopt the strategy. Therefore, we are 

unable to determine that this 

conservation strategy will mitigate 

threats to the blue-billed curassow. 

Currently there are approximately 49 

nationally recognized protected areas in 

Colombia (Matallano-T. 2005, p. 121). 

The five most common categories of 

habitat protection are: (1) National 

Natural Park (an area whose ecosystems 

have not been substantially altered by 

human exploitation or occupation, and 

where plant and animal species, or 

complex geomorphological landscapes 

have historical, cultural, scientific, 

educational, aesthetic, or recreational 

value); (2) Wildlife Sanctuary for Fauna 

and Flora (an area dedicated to preserve 

species or communities of wildlife, and 

to conserve genetic resources of 

wildlife); (3) National Natural Reserve 

(an area that preserves flora and fauna 

and is established for the study of its 

natural wealth); (4) Panoramic Park (a 

parcel of land of panoramic, cultural or 

natural value preserved for education 

and relaxation); and (5) Unique National 

Area (a rare or unique ecosystem) 

(Matallano-T. 2005, p. 121). Several 

areas considered to be important refuges 

for the blue-billed curassow are 

protected areas and are managed by 

autonomous corporations, including: (1) 

The Paramillo National Natural Park 

(Antioquı ́a and Co ́rdoba Departments) 

and (2) The Bajo Cauca–Nechı ́ Regional 

Natural Reserve (Antioquı ́a and Co ́rdoba 

Departments) (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 

2002, p. 139), both of which are 

managed by Corantioquia (Corantioquia 

2008, p. 1). 

(1) The Paramillo National Natural 

Park (Antioquı ́a and Co ́rdoba 

Departments) is a large Park, but no 

protective measures have been 

implemented to curb human impacts on 

the habitat and species by the 

indigenous and farming residents 

within the park (BLI 2007a, pp. 1-2; BLI 

2007d, p. 3) (Factor A). Cocaine 

cultivation is occurring within the Park 

boundaries (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 

45). Dam construction on the Sinı ́ River, 

part of the species’ historic range (BLI 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32317 

2007a, p. 1; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, 

p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361), has caused 

ongoing flooding in the area since its 

completion in 1998 (Cuervo 2002, p. 

139; NGO Working Group on Export 

Development Canada 2003, p. 31). Thus, 

the designation of this area as a Park has 

not mitigated human-induced habitat 

destruction (Factor A). 

(2) The Bajo Cauca-Nechı ́ Regional 

Natural Reserve (Antioquı ́a and Co ́rdoba 

Departments) encompasses suitable 

habitat for the blue-billed curassow, but 

the species has not been confirmed 

within the Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3). 

Nonetheless, it is notable that this 

Reserve, which is designated to preserve 

and research flora and fauna, allows 

logging (Fundacio ́n Viztaz 2007, p. 2). 

Thus, should the species be located 

therein, this Reserve’s designation as a 

preserve would not mitigate the threat 

from habitat destruction (Factor A). 

The privately-owned El Paujı ́l Bird 

Preserve, which was established 

specifically to protect the blue-billed 

curassow and its habitat (BLI 2007d, p. 

2) (Factor A), has measures in place to 

penalize shooting or trapping the 

species (BLI 2007d, p. 3). However, egg 

and chick collection are ongoing within 

the Serranı ́a de las Quinchas area, 

where the private reserve is located 

(Factor B). Aside from the Paramillo 

National Park, which includes habitat in 

the upper elevational limit of the bluebilled curassow’s preferred range 

(Cuervo 2002, p. 140), no effective 

protective measures have been 

undertaken (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Brooks and 

Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183) such that 

the regulatory mechanisms in place in 

these protected areas do not mitigate 

habitat destruction, which is a primary 

risk factor for this species (Factor A). 

Thus, these protected areas do not 

provide sufficient protections to 

mitigate the effects from habitat loss 

(Factor A) or reduce threats from 

hunting and collection (Factor B). 

Summary of Factor D 

Colombia has numerous laws and 

regulatory mechanisms intended to 

protect and manage wildlife and their 

habitats. The blue-billed curassow is 

considered critically endangered under 

Colombian law and lives within several 

managed forests or protected areas. 

However, on-the-ground enforcement of 

existing wildlife protection and forestry 

laws and oversight of the local 

jurisdictions implementing and 

regulating activities are ineffective at 

mitigating the primary threats to the 

blue-billed curassow. As discussed for 

Factor A, habitat destruction, 

degradation, and fragmentation 

continue throughout the existing range 

of the blue-billed curassow. As 

discussed for Factor B, uncontrolled 

hunting and commercial use of the bluebilled curassow are ongoing and 

continue to negatively affect the 

continued existence of the species. 

Moreover, the lack of a species 

conservation strategy and the 

decentralized management of natural 

resources in Colombia provide no 

overall coordination in the conservation 

for species such as the blue-billed 

curassow, which ranges in multiple 

jurisdictions. Despite ongoing work 

toward developing a national 

conservation strategy for the species, it 

has not yet been developed, it is not 

known whether it will be formally 

adopted by the Government of 

Colombia, and we are unable to 

determine that the strategy will be 

effective in reducing the threats to this 

species on a local or rangewide basis. 

Therefore, we find that the existing 

regulatory mechanisms currently in 

place for the blue-billed curassow do 

not reduce or remove the factors 

threatening the species. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Three additional factors affect the 

blue-billed curassow: its limited ability 

to disperse to unoccupied habitat, the 

species’ small population size and 

captive-breeding programs. 

Likelihood to Disperse: The bluebilled curassow exhibits several 

characteristics that make it unlikely that 

the species would disperse into isolated 

habitat fragments to repopulate 

extirpated patches of suitable habitat. 

The blue-billed curassow requires a 

large home range of primary tropical 

forest (Cuervo 2002, pp. 138-140). The 

habitat patches within the blue-billed 

curassow’s current range are described 

by researchers as fragmented, disjunct, 

and isolated (Collar et al. 1992, p. 154; 

Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Donegan and 

Huertas 2005, p. 29; Salaman et al. 2001, 

p. 183). The species will rarely cross 

narrow deforested corridors, such as 

those caused by roads or oil pipelines, 

and it will not cross large open areas 

between forest fragments (Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 7). In addition to the 

species’ small overall population size 

(see below), researchers believe it is 

unlikely that the blue-billed curassow 

would repopulate an isolated patch of 

suitable habitat following decline or 

extirpation of the species from that 

patch (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; 

Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46) (see Factor E, 

Captive Breeding Program). 

Small Population Size: Deforestation 

and habitat loss throughout the bluebilled curassow’s historic range has 

resulted in fragmented, disjunct, and 

isolated populations in the remaining 

four or five patches of tropical humid 

and premontane forests and caused 

regional extirpations of the blue-billed 

curassow (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 

2001, p. 183; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 61- 

62; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7). It 

is estimated that the largest 

subpopulation (in the Serranı ́a de las 

Quinchas, Boyaca ́ Department) contains 

between 250 and 999 birds (BLI 2007d, 

p. 2), and that the total population is 

much fewer than 2,000 individuals 

(Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 

184). Cuervo (2002, p. 141) estimated 

that the species had lost more than half 

of its population over the last three 

generations, or 30 years. Further, it is 

estimated that, at the current rate of 

decline, the blue-billed curassow could 

lose up to 79 percent of its current 

population within the next 10 years and 

could be extinct within the next three 

generations, or 30 years (BLI 2007d, p. 

3; Cuervo 2002, p. 141). 

The blue-billed curassow’s restricted 

and fragmented range, combined with 

its small population size (Cuervo 2002, 

p. 138; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; 

del Hoyo 1994, p. 361), makes the 

species particularly vulnerable to the 

threat of adverse genetic effects and 

susceptible to extinction through 

natural or manmade events that destroy 

individuals and their habitat (BLI 

2007d, pp. 1-2; Brooks and GonzalezGarcia 2001, pp. 185-190; Cuervo 2002, 

p. 140). Meta-population analysis 

involves the study of the dynamics of an 

entire population by studying 

movements within local populations 

(Hanski 1998, p. 41). ‘‘A metapopulation composed of extinctionprone local populations in a small patch 

network is necessarily more threatened 

than are meta-populations in large and 

well connected networks’’ (Hanski 1998, 

p. 42). Considering that not all bluebilled curassow individuals in a 

population are breeding at any one time, 

the actual number of individuals 

contributing to population growth will 

be a smaller number than the total 

number of individuals. 

Small population sizes render species 

vulnerable to any of several risks, 

including loss of genetic variation, 

inbreeding depression, and 

accumulation of deleterious genes. 

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, 

32318 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

deleterious alleles or by reducing the 

overall fitness of individuals in the 

population (Charlesworth and 

Charlesworth 1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, 

p. 131). Small, isolated populations of 

wildlife species are also susceptible to 

demographic problems (Shaffer 1981, p. 

131), which may include reduced 

reproductive success of individuals and 

chance disequilibrium of sex ratios. 

Chance disequilibrium of sex ratios 

would be further exacerbated by 

preferential hunting of male birds 

(Factor B). This species’ risk of 

extinction is further compounded by 

ongoing collection of eggs and chicks, 

and by hunting-related disturbances that 

may disrupt breeding pairs (Factor B). 

Once a population is reduced below a 

certain number of individuals, it tends 

to rapidly decline towards extinction 

(Franklin 1980, pp. 147-148; Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 

64-65; Soule ́ 1987, p.181). 

Captive-Breeding Program: A captivebreeding program is being developed 

within the species’ range (see Current 

Range and Distribution, above)by 

Fundacio ́n Ecolombia, based at the 

Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre in Los 

Farallones (Antioquı ́a Department, 

Colombia). The captive-held population 

includes three males and two females. 

The program has met with little success 

because attempts to breed the species in 

captivity have been unsuccessful to date 

(two sterile eggs laid in 2003 and none 

since). The species is historically known 

to be a poor breeder in captivity (Throp 

1964, p. 127). The program is exploring 

artificial insemination for future 

breeding (Wildlife Protection 

Foundation (WPF) 2007, p. 2). The 

Houston Zoo, however, which has 

maintained cracids since the 1960s, has 

bred the species for 30 years and has 

successfully raised at least 10 bluebilled curassows in captivity (Houston 

Zoo 2008, p. 2; Todd et al. 2008, p. 1). 

The Houston Zoo also conducts 

outreach and breeding research. While 

this has resulted in limited exports of 

captive-bred birds for scientific 

purposes (i.e., to zoos; see also Factor 

B), the number of birds in captivity has 

dropped worldwide. In addition, the 

number of specimens originally 

imported into the United States was 

small (Houston Zoo 2008, p. 2), which 

would limit their conservation value for 

reintroduction into the wild. Thus, the 

captive breeding program is not 

currently contributing to reintroduction, 

but serves a conservation value by 

providing specimens for zoos that 

conduct outreach and breeding research. 

Further, reintroduction would appear to 

be important for recovery of this species 

because the species is not likely to 

disperse into or repopulate suitable 

habitat on its own. 

Summary of Factor E 

The blue-billed curassow’s small 

population size increases its 

vulnerability to genetic risks associated 

with small population sizes that 

negatively impact the species’ long-term 

viability and increase the possibility of 

localized extirpations of the remaining 

fragmented populations. Further, the 

species is unlikely to repopulate areas of 

suitable habitat from which a 

subpopulation has been extirpated 

because it avoids crossing the disturbed 

areas that separate the remaining 

suitable habitat for this species. Rangecountry attempts at captive breeding 

have been unsuccessful, and the stock 

in U.S. captive-breeding programs is 

limited; therefore, the captive-breeding 

program is not contributing to 

reintroduction of the species in the wild 

and so is not currently mitigating the 

problem of small population size. 

Therefore, we believe that, in 

combination with the risks to the 

species from habitat destruction (Factor 

A), hunting (Factor B), and predation 

(Factor C), the blue-billed curassow is 

vulnerable to localized extirpation or 

extinction from which the species 

would be unable to recover, due it its 

small population size and apparent 

inability to repopulate fragmented, 

isolated habitats such as those currently 

present within this species’ range. 

Status Determination for the Blue-Billed 

Curassow 

The five primary factors that threaten 

the survival of the blue-billed curassow 

are: (1) habitat destruction, 

fragmentation, and degradation (Factor 

A); (2) overexploitation due to hunting 

and collecting of eggs and chicks (Factor 

B); (3) predation (Factor C); (4) 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to 

reduce the threats to the species (Factor 

D); and (5) small population size and 

isolation of remaining populations 

(Factor E). 

The direct loss of habitat through 

widespread deforestation and 

conversion of primary forests to human 

settlement and agricultural uses has led 

to the fragmentation of habitat 

throughout the range of the blue-billed 

curassow and isolation of the remaining 

populations (Factor A). The species’ 

historic range, which encompassed 

approximately 106,700 km2 (41,197 

mi2), has been reduced to 2,090 km2

(807 mi2). Experts estimate that 88 

percent of this habitat loss has occurred 

within the last three generations, or 30 

years. The best available information 

indicates that the species’ population 

was reduced by 50 percent in the 30 

years prior to 2002 and that ongoing 

habitat destruction and degradation are 

continuing at a rate that would lead to 

the extinction of the blue-billed 

curassow in the next 30 years if 

measures are not taken to ameliorate the 

loss of habitat. Thus, habitat loss poses 

an imminent threat of extinction and is 

a factor that currently endangers the 

species. 

The blue-billed curassow is hunted or 

collected, whole or in parts, in all life 

stages (eggs, juveniles, adults, feathers, 

and other body parts) throughout its 

current range by both indigenous people 

and by local settlers for both sustenance 

and sport; for domestic use in rituals; 

and for sale to tourists (Factor B). 

Several life-history traits of the species 

contribute to its vulnerability to hunting 

and collection: its large size, ease of 

location during breeding season, 

trusting nature, low productivity (1-2 

eggs), and a replacement rate of 6 years 

(taking an individual of the species an 

average of 6 years to replace itself). 

Adults are hunted mainly during the 

breeding season, when males are most 

vulnerable and more easily located by 

their loud mating calls that are audible 

at long distances. The direct take of 

males disrupts sex ratios in this species, 

which forms monogamous pairs, and 

this take also disrupts mating activities. 

Hunting pressure has caused severe 

depletion or near extirpation in portions 

of its historical range, despite the 

continued availability of suitable habitat 

(primary forest). The effects of hunting 

are exacerbated by ongoing habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A), which 

increases accessibility into the species’ 

habitat, rendering it more vulnerable to 

hunting. Concomitantly, increased 

conversion of primary forest habitat has 

encouraged further human settlement 

within the blue-billed curassow’s 

habitat. Hunting poses an imminent 

threat of extinction and is a factor that 

currently endangers the species. 

Blue-billed curassows are vulnerable 

to predation by generalist predators, 

including snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral 

dogs, and raptors (Factor C). Habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) contributes to 

this vulnerability, because research 

indicates that predation increases with 

increased habitat fragmentation and 

smaller patch sizes. Predation leads to 

the direct removal of eggs, juveniles, 

and adults from the population, 

exacerbating risks associated with the 

species’ small population size (see 

below). Predation can destroy pair 

bonds and remove potentially 

reproductive adults from the breeding 

pool. The blue-billed curassow is slow 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32319 

to reproduce and produces a low clutch 

size, and predation exacerbates this 

species’ already poor replacement rate 

(see Habitat and Life History). 

The threats from habitat destruction, 

hunting, and predation are compounded 

by the species’ small population size 

(Factor E). The blue-billed curassow’s 

population has been reduced by 50 

percent within the last 30 years. The 

species’ low population estimate of 

fewer than 2,000 individuals, combined 

with its restricted, fragmented, and 

isolated habitat, makes the species 

particularly vulnerable to numerous 

human factors (e.g., agricultural 

development, armed conflict, fire, dams 

and reservoir development, increased 

human settlement, illicit drug 

production and control, mining 

activities, oil development and 

distribution, and road development). 

Further, the species’ reticence to cross 

large open areas makes it unlikely that 

the species would repopulate suitable 

habitat in remaining isolated forest 

patches that are separated by large 

distances, all of which put the species 

at a risk of extinction. 

Finally, despite numerous laws and 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) to 

administer and manage wildlife and 

their habitats, on-the-ground 

enforcement of these laws and oversight 

of the local jurisdictions implementing 

and regulating activities within the 

species’ habitat are inadequate to 

mitigate the effects of habitat loss 

(Factor A) and hunting (Factor B). 

Habitat destruction and hunting 

continues within the species’ range and, 

aside from El Paujı ́l Bird Preserve, no 

other areas provide effective protective 

measures for protecting the blue-billed 

curassow from ongoing hunting or its 

habitat from ongoing destruction. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

blue-billed curassow. We consider the 

ongoing threats to the blue-billed 

curassow, habitat destruction (Factor A), 

hunting (Factor B), and predation 

(Factor C), exacerbated by the species’ 

small population size and limited 

dispersal ability (Factor E), and 

compounded by inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms to mitigate these threats 

(Factor D), to be equally present and of 

the same magnitude throughout the 

species’ entire current range. Based on 

this information, we determine that the 

blue-billed curassow is endangered 

throughout its range. Therefore, we are 

proposing to list the blue-billed 

curassow as an endangered species. 

II. Brown-Banded Antpitta (Grallaria 

milleri) 

Species Description 

The brown-banded antpitta is a 

member of the Ground-Antbird Family 

(Formicariidae), is approximately 18 cm 

(7 in) long from bill to tail, and endemic 

to the west slope of the central Andes 

of Colombia (Krabbe and Schulenberg 

2003, p. 682; Fjeldsa ̈ and Krabbe 1990, 

p. 414; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 422). 

The species is locally known as 

‘‘Tororoi’’ (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002). 

This bird is a uniform dark brown, with 

a dingy white throat and underbelly. 

Taxonomy 

The brown-banded antpitta was first 

taxonomically described by Chapman in 

1911 and placed in the Ground-Antbird 

Family (Formicariidae). The type 

specimen (the actual specimen that was 

first described by Chapman) was 

obtained from Laguneta (Quindı ́o 

Department) (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, 

p. 327). Laguneta is, therefore, referred 

to as the ‘‘type locality.’’ 

Habitat and Life History 

The brown-banded antpitta currently 

inhabits the humid understory and 

forest floor habitats of mid-montane and 

cloud forests between 2,400 and 2,600 

m (7,874 and 8,530 ft) with high density 

of herbaceous plants and shrubs (Krabbe 

and Schulenberg 2003, p. 719; Kattan 

and Beltra ́n 1999, p. 272). The species 

has been observed in older (30–year-old) 

secondary-growth forest habitats and 

alder (Alnus acuminata) plantations 

(Cuervo 2002, pp. 326-327; Krabbe and 

Schulenberg 2003, p. 719). 

Researchers consider antpitta life 

histories to be among the least known of 

Neotropical bird species (Dobbs et al. 

2001, p. 225). The brown-banded 

antpitta, as with other antpittas, is a 

secretive species, with a low population 

density and high habitat specificity 

(Kattan and Beltra ́n 2002, p. 232). 

Antpittas are considered to be nearly 

flightless (Krabbe and Schulenberg 

2003, p. 698) and their dispersal 

capabilities are not well known (Cuervo 

2002, p. 327), except that one banded 

individual traveled a distance of 0.041 

km2 (0.02 mi2) (Kattan and Beltra ́n 2002, 

p. 234). This ground-dwelling species 

lives either singly or in pairs (Beltra ́n 

and Kattan 2002, p. 327) and has a high 

territorial fidelity (Cuervo 2002, p. 327). 

It can be seen running along the forest 

floor picking up prey (Krabbe and 

Schulenberg 2003, p. 719), which 

apparently consists of beetles 

(Coleoptera spp.) and earthworms. 

Nothing is known about the brownbanded antpitta’s reproductive ecology, 

except that its peak reproductive period 

is between March and May (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, pp. 326-327) and that both 

parents feed the young (del Hoyo 2003, 

p. 719). Drawing from studies on similar 

species, including the Colombian 

species, scaled antpitta (Grallaria 

guatimalensis) and chestnut-crowned 

antpitta (Grallaria ruficapilla), antpittas 

tend to nest on fallen logs, on the forks 

of tree trunks, or atop the crowns of 

low-growing palms, situated at nearly 

groundlevel to no higher than 3 m (10 

ft) off the ground (Dobbs et al. 2001, p. 

226; Wiedenfeld 1982, p. 581). The 

typical clutch size for antpittas is 

considered to be two eggs (Dobbs et al. 

2001, p. 227; Wiedenfeld 1982, p. 581). 

Antpitta nests are roughly circular cups, 

loosely constructed of dead leaves that 

are generally hard to distinguish from 

the surroundings (Dobbs et al. 2001, p. 

227; Wiedenfeld 1982, p. 581). Antpittas 

appear to rely on camouflage, both to 

hide the location of their nests 

(Wiedenfeld 1982, p. 580), as well as in 

response to disturbance, when birds 

remain absolutely still to avoid 

detection by potential predators (Dobbs 

et al. 2001, p. 226). 

Historical Range and Distribution 

The brown-banded antpitta was 

historically known from a single 

location, near Laguneta in the central 

Andes (centrally located in the 

Department of Quindı ́o), which ranges 

in altitude from 1,859 m (6,100 ft) in the 

surrounding valleys to 3,140 m (10,300 

ft) at its highest point (Chapman 1917, 

pp. 35-36, 396). In 1917, the valley 

leading to Laguneta was described as 

gently rising until about 2,530 m (8,300 

ft), when the terrain rose steeply up to 

2,896 ft (9,500 ft). The vegetation was 

described as open, with scattered palms 

and little other vegetation until about 

2,835 m (9,300 ft), where the forest 

began (Chapman 1917, p. 36). At 3,140 

m (10,300 ft), the forest was described 

as dense with little undergrowth, except 

in occasional clearings dominated by 

dense shrubs so thick as to be 

impenetrable without a knife (Chapman 

1917, p. 35). Eleven specimens were 

collected between 1911 and 1942; the 

species was last observed and 

collections were made at the type 

locality at Laguneta in 1942 (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, p. 325; Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 698). 

Chapman (1917, p. 36) described the 

practice of slash-and-burn agriculture 

around Laguneta in 1917, noting that 

much of the hillside between 2,530 and 

2,835 m (8,300-9,300 ft) was bare and 

close-cropped, having been burned and 

cleared. By 1994, the forested area 

providing habitat for the brown-banded 

32320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

antpitta in and around the type locality 

near Laguneta had been mostly 

destroyed (Collar et al. 1994, p. 136), 

and despite subsequent surveys (in 

1986, 1988, and 1991), the species was 

not observed there. In 1992, researchers 

considered the brown-banded antpitta 

to be locally extirpated, if not extinct 

throughout its range (Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 689; Cuervo 2002, pp. 326-327; 

Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, pp. 367-369). 

Although the brown-banded antpitta 

was rediscovered in 1994 (Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1997, pp. 367-369), researchers 

continue to consider the species to be 

locally extinct (extirpated) from its type 

locality of Laguneta (Quindı ́o 

Department) (Beltra ́n 2002 in litt., as 

cited in Beltra ́n and Kattan, p. 327) due 

to extensive deforestation (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, p. 327). 

Current Range and Distribution 

The current range of the brownbanded antpitta is described as humid 

understory and forest floors of midmontane and cloud forests, preferring 

altitudes between 2,400 and 2,600 m 

(7,874 and 8,530 ft), in areas with a high 

density of herbs and shrubs (Krabbe and 

Schulenberg 2003, p. 719; Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1999, p. 272). The current range 

is estimated to be 300 km2 (116 mi2) 

(BLI 2007f, p. 1). The species is known 

today from only three areas in the upper 

Rı ́o Magdalena valley. The first area is 

the humid forests in the Central Andes 

of Colombia’s Ucumarı ́ Regional Park 

(Risaralda Department), where it was 

first sighted in 1994 (Kattan and Beltra ́n 

1997, pp. 369-370) and recently 

observed in 2000 (Beltra ́n and Kattan 

2002, p. 326). The site is approximately 

44 km2 (17 mi2) in the Otu ́n River 

watershed (Kattan and Beltra ́n 1999, p. 

273). The second areas is the south-east 

slope of Volca ́n Tolima in the Rı ́o Toche 

Valley on private land (the house of La 

Carbonera) (Tolima Department), where 

it was first observed in 1998 and 

recently observed in 2000 (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, p. 325). This location is 

0.05 km2 (0.02 mi2) in size at elevations 

ranging from 2,750 to 2,900 m (9,022 to 

9,514 ft) (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 

326). The third area is the Rı ́o Blanco 

river basin (Caldas Department), where 

it was most recently observed in 2000 

(Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 326). This 

site is a strip of land less than 200 linear 

km (124 linear mi) on the Central 

Cordilla, between 2,300 and 3,100 m 

(7,546 and 10,171 ft) in elevation (BLI 

2004c, p. 2; Kattan and Beltra ́n 2002, p. 

238). Experts consider the most 

important refuges for this species to be: 

(1) the Ucumarı ́ Regional Park 

(Risaralda Department), (2) the Rı ́o 

Toche Valley (Tolima), (3) the Rı ́o 

Blanco river basin (Caldas Department), 

and (4) the Reserve of Can ̃ on and 

Quindı ́o Departments, where suitable 

habitat exists but the species may be 

extirpated. These refugia are further 

discussed under Factor A, below. 

Population Estimates 

There have been few quantitative 

surveys of the brown-banded antpitta. 

Available population information is 

provided for the four areas considered 

to be important refugia for the species 

(as discussed in Factor A). The 

population located within the Ucumarı ́

Regional Park has been surveyed twice. 

In the first survey, conducted from 1994 

to 1997, 11 brown-banded antpittas 

were captured and banded. In a 

subsequent survey of a 0.17-1-km2- 

(0.07-0.62-mi2) area within the Ucumarı ́

Regional Park during 1995-2000, Kattan 

and Beltra ́n (2002, p. 232-3) captured 

and banded 36 brown-banded antpittas. 

Based on these surveys, the 

subpopulation within the 0.63 km2 (0.24 

mi2) Park was estimated to include up 

to 106 individuals, averaging to 

approximately 1.3 individuals per 0.01 

km2 (0.004 mi2) (Kattan and Beltra ́n 

1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltra ́n 

1999, p. 276). Thus, this subpopulation 

contains at least 36, and possibly as 

many as 106 individuals. 

Qualitative surveys conducted from 

1998 to 2000 in the Rı ́o Toche Valley 

determined that the brown-banded 

antpitta is uncommon and local (Beltra ́n 

and Kattan 2002, p. 326). One 

individual was observed in 1999 

(Cuervo in litt., as cited in Beltra ́n (2002 

p. 326). There is no information on the 

estimated population size of brownbanded antpitta within the Rı ́o Toche. 

Thus, this subpopulation contains at 

least one individual, but there is no 

estimate of the upper limit of the 

population. 

A census of the population in the Rı ́o 

Blanco river basin was undertaken in 

June 2000, within an approximately 5- 

km (3-mi) transect. Researchers inferred 

the presence of at least 30 individuals, 

based on vocalizations they elicited in 

response to recordings of the species’ 

alarm call (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 

326). There is no information on the 

estimated population size of brownbanded antpitta within the Rı ́o Blanco 

area. Thus, this population may contain 

30 individuals, but the upper limit of 

the population estimate is unknown. 

The species is not currently known to 

inhabit the Reserve del Can ̃ on del 

Quindı ́o. Although the species was 

observed there in 1911 and 1942 

(Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 325; Collar 

et al. 1992, p. 698) and the area contains 

suitable habitat, the species has not 

been observed there since 1942 (Beltra ́n 

and Kattan 2002, p. 235). 

The IUCN estimates that the largest 

subpopulation contains 424 individuals 

(BLI 2007f, p. 4), but it is unclear as to 

which subpopulation this estimate 

refers. The global population of brownbanded antpitta is estimated by the 

IUCN to be larger than 250 individuals, 

but not more than 999 birds (BLI 2007f, 

p. 1), equating to approximately 338 to 

756 individuals (BLI 2007f, p. 4). It is 

estimated that the species has lost up to 

9 percent of its population in the last 10 

years, or 3 generations, and that this rate 

of decline will continue over the next 10 

years (BLI 2007f, p. 4). Additional 

information on the population size of 

this species is provided in the 

discussion of Factor E, below. 

Conservation Status 

The brown-banded antpitta is 

identified as an endangered species 

under Colombian law pursuant to 

paragraph 23 of Article 5 of the Law 99 

of 1993, as outlined in Resolution No. 

584 of 2002 (EcoLex 2002, p. 12). The 

IUCN has classified the species as 

‘‘Endangered’’ since 1994 because it is 

known from very few locations and 

occupies a very small range (BLI 2004c, 

p. 1). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Brown-Banded Antpitta 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Habitat or Range 

The brown-banded antpitta inhabits 

the humid understory and forest floor 

habitats of mid-montane and cloud 

forests between 1,800 and 2,600 m 

(5,905 and 8,530 ft) that have a high 

density of herbs and shrubs (Krabbe and 

Schulenberg 2003, p. 719; Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1999, p. 272). The current range 

is estimated to be 300 km2 (116 mi2) 

(BLI 2007f, p. 1), and the species is 

known today in only three locations: (1) 

Urcumaı ́ Regional Park (Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1997, pp. 369-370) (Risaralda 

Department), (2) the south-east slope of 

Volca ́n Tolima in the Rı ́o Toche Valley 

(Tolima Department), and (3) the Rı ́o 

Blanco catchment (Caldas Department). 

These locations are discussed further 

under Refugia, below. 

Deforestation rates and patterns: 

Colombia has experienced extensive 

deforestation in the last half of the 20th 

Century as a result of habitat conversion 

for human settlements, road building, 

agriculture, and timber extraction. A 

23–year study, from 1973 to 1996, 

demonstrated that these activities 

reduced the amount of primary forest 

cover in Colombia by approximately 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32321 

3,605 hectares (ha) (8,908 acres (ac)) 

annually, representing a nearly onethird total loss of primary forest habitat 

(Vin ̃ a et al. 2004, pp. 123-124). 

Beginning in the 1980s, habitat loss 

increased dramatically as a result of 

influxes of people settling in formerly 

pristine areas (Perz et al. 2005, pp. 26- 

28; Vin ̃ a et al. 2004, p. 124). More recent 

studies indicate that the rate of habitat 

destruction is accelerating. Between the 

years 1990 and 2005, Colombia lost 

approximately 52,800 ha (130,471 ac) of 

primary forest annually (Butler 2006a, 

pp. 1-3; FAO 2003a, p. 1). Human 

activities, such as encroachment, 

cultivation, grazing, and infrastructural 

development, have resulted in extensive 

deforestation and environmental 

degradation of primary forests in the Rı ́o 

Magdalena valley, part of the brownbanded antpitta’s range (Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 8; Ocampo and Botero 

2000, pp. 76-78). These studies and 

activities in Colombia are described in 

greater detail above for the blue-billed 

curassow (Factor A, Deforestation Rates 

and Patterns). 

A study conducted on the effects of 

habitat fragmentation on Andean birds 

within western Colombia determined 

that 31 percent of the historical bird 

populations in western Colombia had 

become extinct or locally extirpated by 

1990, largely as a result of habitat 

fragmentation from deforestation and 

human encroachment (Kattan and 

A ́ lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 5; Kattan et al. 

1994, p. 141). Deforestation has led to 

local extirpation of the brown-banded 

antpitta in its type locality, near 

Laguneta in the central Andes (Quindı ́o 

Department), where the natural 

vegetation has been reduced to 10 

percent of its former area (Beltra ́n 2002 

in litt., as cited in Beltra ́n and Kattan, 

p. 327). Deforestation continues in midmontane and cloud forests in the 

Departments Caldas and Risaralda, 

where this species has been observed 

(Dolphijn 2005, p. 2). Human 

encroachment and ongoing 

deforestation throughout this species’ 

current range are discussed under 

Refugia, below. 

In addition to the direct detrimental 

effect of habitat loss, there are several 

indirect effects of habitat disturbance 

and fragmentation (Brooks and Strahl 

2000, p. 10; Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 

38). Roads create barriers to animal 

movement, expose animals to traffic 

hazards, and increase human access into 

habitat, facilitating further exploitation 

and habitat destruction (Hunter 1996, 

158-159). Researchers have observed 

that road building and other 

infrastructure improvements in 

previously remote forested areas have 

increased accessibility and facilitated 

further habitat destruction, exploitation, 

and human settlement (A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 

2042; Ca ́rdenas and Rodrı ́guez Becerra 

2004, pp. 125-130; Etter et al. 2006, p. 

1; Hunter 1996, 158-159; Vin ̃ a et al. 

2004, pp. 118-119). 

Illegal drugs and their eradication: 

Illegal drug crops are cultivated within 

the brown-banded antpitta’s range. In 

2003, nearly 80 percent of the heroin 

entering the United States came from 

opium (Papaver somniferum) farms in 

the Department of Tolima (Forero and 

Weiner 2003, p. 1). Cocaine cultivation 

occurs in other parts of the species’ 

range. In 2003, authorities first detected 

cocaine being cultivated in Caldas, 

traditionally the center of the 

Colombian coffee-growing industry; it 

was estimated that less than 1 km2 of 

land was under cocaine cultivation 

(0.54 km2 (0.21 mi2)). By 2004, 

cultivation had risen 563 percent, 

covering a 36 km2- (14 mi2-) area 

(UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 27). Coca 

crops deplete the soil of nutrients, 

which hampers regeneration following 

abandonment of fields (Van Schoik and 

Schulberg 1993, p. 21). Drug eradication 

efforts in Colombia have further 

degraded and destroyed primary forest 

habitat by using nonspecific aerial 

herbicides to destroy illegal crops 

(A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; 

Ca ́rdenas and Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, 

p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9- 

12). Herbicide spraying has introduced 

harmful chemicals into brown-banded 

antpitta habitat and has led to further 

destruction of the habitat by forcing 

illicit growers to move to new, 

previously untouched forested areas 

(A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; A ́ lvarez 

2005, p. 2042; A ́ lvarez 2007, pp. 133- 

143; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Ca ́rdenas and 

Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham 

and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Between 

1998 and 2002, cultivation of illicit 

crops increased by 21 percent each year, 

with a concomitant increase in 

deforestation of formerly pristine areas 

of approximately 60 percent (A ́ lvarez 

2002, pp. 1088-1093). 

Refugia: The most important refugia 

for the brown-banded antpitta include: 

(1) Ucumarı ́ Regional Park, (2) the Rı ́o 

Toche Valley, (3) the Rı ́o Blanco 

catchment, and (4) Reserva 

Departamental del Can ̃ on del Quindı ́o. 

These refugia are discussed below. 

(1) Ucumarı ́ Regional Park (Risaralda 

Department) covers an area of 

approximately 44 km2 (17 mi2) in the 

Otu ́n River watershed, with elevations 

ranging from 1,700 to 2,600m (5,577 to 

8,530 ft) (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, pp. 

325-326; Kattan and Beltra ́n 1999, p. 

273; Kattan et al. 2006, pp. 301-302). 

The brown-banded antpitta prefers 

habitat within the upper range limits of 

this Park, at altitudes between 2,400 and 

2,600 m (7,874 and 8,530 ft) (Krabbe and 

Schulenberg 2003, p. 719; Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1999, p. 272). Most of the 

forested habitat within the park was 

cleared in the 1960s for cattle ranching, 

leaving the remaining natural forests 

only on the steepest slopes (Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1999, p. 273). Much of the Park 

has been allowed to naturally 

regenerate, and plantations of alder 

(Alnus acuminata) and ash (Fraxinus 

chinensis) are overgrown with natural 

vegetation (Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, p. 

369). The Park also contains a small area 

of private pasturelands (Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1997, p. 369), and agricultural 

expansion, selective logging, and 

firewood collection are ongoing in the 

region (BLI 2008a, p. 1). 

(2) In Rı ́o Toche Valley (Tolima 

Department), on the south-east slope of 

Volca ́n Tolima, the brown-banded 

antpitta is considered uncommon and 

local (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 326; 

BLI 2004c, p. 2; Kattan and Beltra ́n 

2002, p. 238). This habitat is described 

as fragmented, and it is estimated that 

the natural cover has been reduced by 

15 percent at elevations between 1,900 

and 3,200 m (6,234 and 10,499 ft). The 

majority of suitable habitat is above 

2,200 m (7,218 ft) in elevation, and 

Kattan and Beltra ́n (2002, p. 238) 

consider it to be of sufficient size to 

support a population of brown-banded 

antpitta, making this an important area 

of suitable habitat for the species (p. 

327). 

(3) Rı ́o Blanco catchment (Caldas 

Department) comprises a strip less than 

200 km (124 mi) long on the Central 

Cordilla, between 2,300 and 3,100 m 

(7,546 and 10,171 ft) (Beltra ́n and Kattan 

2002, p. 325; BLI 2004c, p. 2; Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 2002, p. 238). The area is 

considered to be of sufficient size to 

support the species (Kattan and Beltra ́n 

2002, p. 238). However, the species has 

only been observed at this location 

once, in the year 2000 (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, p. 328). 

(4) Reserva Departamental del Can ̃on 

del Quindı ́o (Quindı ́o Department): The 

Department of Conservation and 

Management of Alto Quindı ́o owns and 

manages this 56-km2 (22-mi2) reserve, 

which ranges in elevation from 2,600 to 

4,000 m (ft) (8,530 to 13,123 ft) 

(Corporacio ́n Auto ́noma Regional del 

Quindı ́o 2008). The type locality for the 

brown-banded antpitta (Laguneta) is 

located in the Department of Quindı ́o 

(Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 325). 

Beltra ́n and Kattan (2002, pp. 238, 327) 

believe that this Reserve comprises 

habitat suitable for the brown-banded 

32322 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

antpitta (as described under Current 

Range, above) and represents an 

important habitat conservation area for 

the species (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 

327). However, the species has not been 

observed in Quindı ́o since 1942 (Beltra ́n 

and Kattan 2002, p. 325; Collar et al. 

1992, p. 698) and is considered to be 

locally extinct there (Beltra ́n 2002 in 

litt., as cited in Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, 

p. 327). 

Nearly all the other forested habitat 

below 3,300 m (10,827 ft) in the Central 

Andes where the brown-banded antpitta 

occurred historically has been 

deforested and cleared for agricultural 

land use (BLI 2004c, p. 2). The 

remaining forests providing suitable 

habitat for the brown-banded antpitta 

have become fragmented and isolated 

and are either surrounded by or being 

converted to pasture and agricultural 

crops (e.g., coffee plantations, potatoes, 

and beans) (BLI 2004c, p. 2). 

Approximately 85 percent of forested 

habitat at altitudes between 1,900 m 

(6,234 ft) and 3,200 m (10,499 ft) has 

been converted to other land uses (BLI 

2004c, p. 2; Cuervo 2002, p. 327; 

Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 205). In 1998, 

forest conversion within the range of the 

brown-banded antpitta was projected to 

continue (Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 

205). Cuervo (2002, p. 328) estimated 

that the available suitable habitat for 

this species totals no more than 500 km2

(310 mi2); BirdLife International 

estimated that the species currently 

occupies an area 300 km2 (116 mi2) in 

size (BLI 2007f, p. 1). 

Deforestation has greatly affected the 

current population size and 

distributional range of the brownbanded antpitta (Collar et al. 1992, p. 

698; Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, p. 367). 

The species was thought to be extinct or 

on the verge of extinction (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, pp. 326-327; Collar et al. 

1992, p. 689; Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, 

pp. 367-369), until its rediscovery in 

1994 (Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, pp. 367- 

369). The brown-banded antpitta is now 

confirmed within three localities, 

including the Ucumarı ́ Regional Park, 

the Rı ́o Toche Valley, and the Rı ́o 

Blanco basin. These habitats are 

characterized as heterogeneous and 

fragmented (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 

327; Kattan and Beltra ́n 2002, p. 237). 

The species is considered extirpated 

from its type locality (Beltra ́n 2002 in 

litt., as cited in Beltra ́n and Kattan, p. 

327), despite the existence of suitable 

habitat (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 

328), suggesting that the species is 

unable to recolonize areas from which it 

has been extirpated. 

Summary of Factor A 

The brown-banded antpitta prefers 

the humid understory and forest floor 

habitats of mid-montane and cloud 

forests between 2,400 and 2,600 m 

(7,874 and 8,530 ft) and has been 

observed in older (30–year-old) 

secondary-growth forest habitats and 

alder plantations. Habitat destruction, 

alteration, conversion, and 

fragmentation continue to be factors 

affecting the brown-banded antpitta. 

The direct loss of habitat through 

widespread deforestation and 

conversion of primary forests for human 

settlement and agricultural uses has led 

to the habitat fragmentation throughout 

the brown-banded antpitta’s range. 

Cultivation of illegal drug crops, such as 

cocaine, leads to further deforestation 

and alters soil compositions, hindering 

regeneration of abandoned fields. In 

addition, drug eradication programs 

involving the aerial spraying of 

nonspecific herbicides lead to further 

environmental degradation and 

destruction of primary forest habitat. 

The current populations are small, very 

localized, and limited to a narrow 

elevational band that contains 

fragmented, disjunct, and isolated 

habitat. The species does not appear 

capable of recolonizing areas of suitable 

habitat that are isolated from extant 

locations (see Factor E, Likelihood to 

Disperse). 

Historically, the species was known 

only in one location, near Laguneta, 

which had been reduced to 10 percent 

of its original vegetative cover by 1994. 

Currently, the species’ range is 

estimated to be 300 km2. The 

destruction and fragmentation of the 

remaining primary forested habitat is 

expected to continue, with ongoing 

human encroachment bringing 

increased population pressures and 

drug crop production, along with 

infrastructural improvements that 

facilitate encroachment into previously 

inaccessible areas. Therefore, we find 

that the present destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of habitat 

are a threat to the brown-banded 

antpitta throughout all of its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We are not aware of any information 

currently available that addresses the 

occurrence of overutilization that may 

be causing a decline of the brownbanded antpitta. Therefore, we do not 

consider overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes to be a threat to the brownbanded antpitta. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease: We are unaware of 

information regarding disease or the 

potential for significant disease 

outbreaks in the brown-banded antpitta. 

As a result, we do not consider disease 

to be impacting the status of the species 

in the wild. 

Predation: Both terrestrial and avian 

predators prey upon antpittas, including 

the mountain coati (Nasuella olivacea), 

tayra (Eira barbara—in the weasel 

family), squirrel cuckoo (Piaya cayana), 

and crimson-rumped toucanet 

(Aulacorhynchus haematopygus) (Dobbs 

et al. 2001, p. 231). Brown-banded 

antpittas are a ground dwelling, nearly 

flightless species (Beltra ́n and Kattan 

2002, p. 327; Krabbe and Schulenberg 

2003, p. 719). Antpittas generally react 

non-confrontationally in response to 

potential predators, relying on 

camouflage as a defense mechanism. 

Nesting birds rarely call from atop their 

nests (Wiedenfeld 1982, p. 580); they 

rely on their cryptic plumage and 

remain still to avoid detection when 

potential predators approach (Dobbs et 

al. 2001, pp. 226, 230). As discussed in 

detail above for the blue-billed curassow 

(Factor C, Predation), research on 

Andean understory nesting birds that 

are similar to the ground-dwelling 

brown-banded antpitta (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, p. 327) indicated that 

predation rates increase in isolated and 

fragmented forest habitats, especially 

smaller forest patches that facilitate 

predator access to the understory 

(Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 1997, p. 138; 

Gibbs 1991, p. 157; Hoover et al. 1995, 

p. 151; Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; Keyser 

2002, p. 186; Renjifo 1999, p. 1133; 

Wilcove 1985, p. 1214). 

Summary of Factor C 

Mountain coatis, tayras, squirrel 

cuckoos, and crimson-rumped toucanets 

are known antpitta predators. Predation 

results in the direct removal of eggs, 

juveniles, and adults from the 

population. The brown-banded antpitta 

produces a low clutch size (see Habitat 

and Life History), and predation can 

remove potentially reproductive adults 

from the breeding pool. Moreover, 

habitat fragmentation has occurred and 

is ongoing throughout the brownbanded antpitta’s range (Factor A). 

Studies on similar species in similar 

Andean habitats indicate that 

vulnerability to predation increases 

with increased habitat fragmentation 

and smaller patch sizes. The brownbanded antpitta does not have 

sophisticated anti-predator response 

mechanisms, making this species 

particularly vulnerable to an increased 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32323 

risk of predation. Predation exacerbates 

the genetic complications associated 

with the species’ small population size 

(Factor E). Because of the species’ small 

population size and inability to 

recolonize isolated habitat fragments 

(Factor E), predation renders the species 

vulnerable to local extirpation. 

Therefore, we find that predation, 

exacerbated by ongoing habitat 

destruction (Factor A), is a threat to the 

brown-banded antpitta. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Regulatory mechanisms may provide 

species-specific or habitat-specific 

protections. An evaluation of the 

adequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

within Colombia to mitigate or remove 

the threats to the brown-banded antpitta 

is provided below, beginning with 

species-specific and followed by 

habitat-specific protection mechanisms. 

Colombia has enacted numerous laws 

to protect species and their habitats 

(Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121). The brownbanded antpitta is listed as an 

endangered species under Colombian 

Law 99 of 1993 (EcoLex 1993, p. 2) and 

Resolution No. 584 of 2002 (EcoLex 

2002, pp. 10, 12). A full description of 

these laws and the categorization of 

threatened species in Colombia were 

provided above, as part of the Factor D 

analysis for the blue-billed curassow. 

This threat status confers protections 

upon the species, including protection 

from commercial take under Resolution 

No. 849 of 1973 and Resolution No. 787 

of 1977 (EcoLex 1973, p.1; EcoLex 1977, 

p. 3). Hunting is not a threat to this 

species. Therefore, this law is not 

effective at reducing the primary threat 

to the species—habitat destruction. 

Colombia has enacted numerous 

forestry laws and forestry management 

practices (Law No. 2 (EcoLex 1959); 

Decree No. 2,811 (Faolex 1974); Decree 

No. 1,791 (Faolex 1996); Law No. 1,021 

(EcoLex 2006)). Weaknesses in the 

implementation of these laws and the 

decentralized nature of Colombian 

resource management are described in 

detail above for the blue-billed curassow 

(Factor D) (ITTO 2006, pp. 218-9, 222; 

Matallana-T. 2005, pp. 121-122). The 

brown-banded antpitta ranges in 

multiple Departments (currently known 

in Risaralda, Caldas, and Tolima), all of 

which are administered by different 

autonomous Corporacio ́nes. Habitat 

destruction, the primary threat to the 

brown-banded antpitta, is ongoing 

throughout the species’ range (Factor A). 

The lack of a national conservation 

strategy for the brown-banded antpitta, 

combined with decentralized natural 

resource management in Colombia, may 

hamper conservation of the brownbanded antpitta. The existing laws and 

the decentralized nature of forestry 

management are ineffective at protecting 

the brown-banded antpitta and its 

habitat even within protected areas 

(Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 

183). 

Colombia has several categories of 

national habitat protection (Matallana-T. 

2005, p. 121-122), which were described 

above, as part of the Factor D analysis 

for the blue-billed curassow (MatallanaT. 2005, p. 121-122). Of the four areas 

identified as refugia for the brownbanded antpitta, two are considered 

protected areas under Colombian law: 

(1) the Ucumarı ́ Regional Park and (2) 

Reserva del Can ̃ on del Quindı ́o. 

(1) The Ucumarı ́ Regional Park 

(Risaralda Department) is managed by 

the Corporacio ́n Auto ́noma Regional de 

Risaralda (CARDER) (BLI 2008a, p. 3), 

with the primary goals of conservation 

and ecotourism. The Park is managed 

for multiple uses, including agriculture 

and cattle grazing (BLI 2008a, p. 1), and 

includes recreation and commercial 

areas for activities such as camping and 

freshwater fishing (CARDER 1995, pp. 

3-4). According to the management plan 

for the Park that was instituted in 1995, 

recreational and commercial activities 

are permitted only when they do not 

significantly alter the environment 

(CARDER 1995, pp. 3-4). However, 

according to BirdLife International 

(2008a, p. 3), there has been little in the 

way of conservation planning, and the 

habitat within the protected area 

continues to undergo pressures from 

agricultural expansion, firewood 

collection, and selective cutting. 

Consequently, the threat from habitat 

destruction (Factor A) is not reduced or 

ameliorated. 

(2) Reserva del Can ̃ on del Quindı ́o 

(Quindı ́o Department) is managed by 

the Corporacio ́n Auto ́noma Regional del 

Quindı ́o (2008, p. 1). According to the 

management plan for the Department of 

Quindı ́o <www.crq.gov.co/documentos/ 

PAT_CRQ_2007_2009.pdf>, between 

2007 and 2009, forestry planning will 

commence for the entire Department 

with the goal of completing forest plans 

for four different areas within the 

Department by the end of 2009. There 

is no information to indicate which 

areas will be included in this initial 

planning development phase. Therefore, 

we are unable to determine what 

protections may exist for the brownbanded antpitta within this Reserve. 

Moreover, as discussed under Factor A, 

although this Reserve contains suitable 

habitat for the brown-banded antpitta 

(Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 328), there 

are no known populations of the brownbanded antpitta within this Reserve 

(Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 325; Collar 

et al. 1992, p. 698). Threfore, the threat 

from habitat destruction (Factor A) is 

not reduced or ameliorated within this 

area. 

Summary of Factor D 

Colombia has numerous laws and 

regulatory mechanisms to administer 

and manage wildlife and their habitats. 

The brown-banded antpitta is listed as 

endangered under Colombian law and 

lives within forested or protected areas 

that are regulated by law. However, onthe-ground enforcement of existing 

wildlife protection and forestry laws 

and oversight of the local jurisdictions 

implementing and regulating activities 

are ineffective at mitigating the primary 

threat to the brown-banded antpitta. As 

discussed for Factor A, habitat 

destruction, degradation, and 

fragmentation continue throughout the 

existing range of the brown-banded 

antpitta. Under Colombian law, there 

are two protected areas containing 

suitable habitat for the brown-banded 

antpitta. The species is known to occur 

in only one of these areas, wherein 

resources are managed for commercial 

and recreational uses. Conservation 

planning within both areas is lacking, so 

that the existence of these protected 

areas does not mitigate the threat of 

habitat loss. Therefore, we find that the 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

currently in place are inadequate to 

mitigate the primary threats to the 

brown-banded antpitta. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Two additional factors affect the 

brown-banded antpitta: itslikelihood to 

disperse and their small population 

size. 

Likelihood to Disperse: The brownbanded antpitta exhibits several 

characteristics indicative of its 

vulnerability to local extirpation and 

inability to recolonize previously 

inhabited locations, despite the 

presence of suitable habitat. This 

ground-dwelling species (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, p. 327) has a high 

territorial fidelity and, although 

dispersal capabilities are not wellknown (Cuervo 2002, p. 327) except 

those in the banding study by Kattan 

and Beltra ́n (2002, p. 234), the farthest 

known distance traveled by any one 

individual bird was 0.041 km2 (0.02 

mi2). This suggests that the brownbanded antpitta is unable to repopulate 

an isolated patch of suitable habitat 

following decline or local extirpation of 

that patch (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 

32324 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

7; Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46). The local 

extirpation of this species from its type 

locality in Laguneta, Quindı ́o (Beltra ́n 

and Kattan 2002, p. 327), and the lack 

of recolonization despite the existence 

of suitable habitat in the Can ̃ on del 

Quindı ́o Reserve, support the 

hypothesis that the species may be 

incapable of dispersing to suitable 

habitat fragments without human 

intervention. To the best of our 

knowledge, there are no recovery or 

reintroduction programs in place for 

this species. 

Small Population Size: There have 

been few quantitative studies of brownbanded antpitta populations. A total of 

48 individuals have been directly 

observed at two locations (Ucumarı ́

Regional Park and Rı ́o Toche) (Cuervo 

in litt., as cited in Beltra ́n 2002 p. 326; 

Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, pp. 367-369; 

Kattan and Beltra ́n 1999, p. 276; Kattan 

and Beltra ́n 2002, pp. 232-233), 30 have 

been inferred at one location (Rı ́o 

Blanco) (Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 

326), and up to 106 have been predicted 

to occur in one subpopulation within 

the brown-banded antpitta’s current 

range (Ucumarı ́ Regional Park) (Kattan 

and Beltra ́n 1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan 

and Beltra ́n 1999, p. 276; Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 2002, pp. 232-233). From work 

at Ucumarı ́ Regional Park, Kattan and 

Beltra ́n (1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1999, p. 276) predicted a 

population density of approximately 1.3 

individuals per .01 km2 (0.004 mi2). 

The IUCN has estimated the brownbanded antpitta’s total population size 

to be more than 250 and fewer than 999 

adult individuals in a 300-km2 (116-mi2) 

area (BLI 2007f, p. 1). However, this is 

a categorical approximation based on 

the following extrapolation: an expected 

average of 2.5 to 5.6 individuals per 

square kilometer multiplied by 45 

percent of the extent of occurrence (300 

km2) (116 mi2) (BLI 2007f, p. 1), leading 

to estimated population numbers 

between 338 and 756 individuals (BLI 

2007f, p. 4). While this density is well 

within Kattan and Beltra ́n’s (1997, pp. 

367-369; Kattan and Beltra ́n 1999, p. 

276) predicted population density of 1.3 

individuals per .01 km2 (116 mi2), it 

should be noted that extrapolating 

population sizes based on the 

availability of suitable habitat may 

result in an overestimate for the brownbanded antpitta for several reasons: (1) 

the species may not be randomly 

distributed within the given habitat; (2) 

extrapolation does not take into account 

human-induced threats, such as 

disturbance or hunting; and (3) not all 

individuals within the population are 

breeding at any one time, so that the 

actual number of individuals 

contributing to population growth will 

be a smaller number than the total 

number of individuals. In a review by 

Jetz et al. (2008, p. 110) of 1,158 wellstudied bird species in Australia, North 

America, and southern Africa, Jetz et al. 

(2008, p. 115) found that most species 

occurred in only 40-70 percent of the 

predicted range. They further noted that 

narrow-ranging species, such as the 

brown-banded antpitta, are particularly 

subject to population size 

overestimation, because they are 

unlikely to be randomly distributed 

within the habitat (Jetz et al. 2008, p. 

116). Moreover, at-risk species, existing 

in declining, fragmented populations (as 

is the case for the brown-banded 

antpitta) are often absent from suitable 

but suboptimal habitat, thus 

exacerbating range overestimates (Jetz et 

al. 2008, p. 115). For instance, although 

suitable habitat exists in the species’ 

type locality (Laguneta) in the Can ̃ on 

del Quindı ́o Reserve, the species has not 

been observed there since 1942 and is 

considered extirpated from this locality 

(Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 327; Collar 

et al. 1992, p. 698). Thus, the species 

appears to be incapable of repopulating 

suitable habitat on its own accord 

(Beltra ́n and Kattan 2002, p. 328; Jetz et 

al. 2008, p. 115) and the existence of 

suitable habitat does not connote the 

presence of the species. This conclusion 

is supported by Beltra ́n and Kattan 

(2002, p. 328), who noted that, out of a 

potential habitat of 855 km2 (330 mi2), 

the species did not occupy two of the 

seven historical localities, prompting 

them to reduce the estimated area of 

occupancy to no more than 500 km2. 

Thus, ground-truthing is essential to 

accurate population-size estimations. 

The IUCN is reviewing this situation to 

improve upon conservation assessments 

(Jetz et al. 2008, p. 117), and although 

it may be an overestimate, the figure 

ranging from 338 to 756 individuals 

represents the best information on 

population size. 

Based on genetic considerations, in 

the absence of quantitative studies 

specific to this species, a generally 

accepted approximation of minimum 

viable population size is described by 

the 50/500 rule (Shaffer 1981, p. 133; 

Soule ́ 1980, pp. 160-162). According to 

this rule, the minimum viable 

population size is defined as the 

minimum number of individuals that is 

sufficient to respond over time to 

unexpected environmental conditions 

within the species’ habitat (Shaffer 

1981, pp. 132-133; Soule ́ 1980, pp. 160- 

162). This rule states that an effective 

population size (Ne) of 50 individuals is 

the minimum size required to avoid 

imminent risks from inbreeding. Ne

represents the number of animals in a 

population that actually contribute to 

reproduction, and is often much smaller 

than the census, or total number of 

individuals in the population (N). 

Furthermore, the rule states that the 

long-term fitness of a population 

requires an Ne of at least 500 

individuals, so that it will not lose its 

genetic diversity over time and will 

maintain an enhanced capacity to adapt 

to changing conditions. Therefore, an 

analysis of the fitness of this population 

would be a good indicator of the 

species’ overall survivability. The 

available information for 2007 indicates 

that the total global population of the 

brown-banded antpitta may range 

between 338 and 756 individuals (BLI 

2007f, p. 4); 338 is above the minimum 

effective population size required to 

avoid risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50), 

and 756 is above the upper threshold for 

long-term fitness (Ne = 500). 

Given that the global population size 

is a qualitative assessment that may be 

an overestimate, that the actual number 

of breeding pairs is unknown but 

smaller than this number, and that the 

species exists in subpopulations that are 

unlikely to disperse into other locations, 

it is beneficial to analyze the fitness of 

the subpopulations that have been 

quantitatively assessed. The beststudied subpopulation is located within 

the Ucumarı ́ Regional Park. A total of 47 

individuals have been directly observed, 

and researchers estimate that the area 

may support as many as 106 individuals 

(Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, pp. 367-369; 

Kattan and Beltra ́n 1999, p. 276; Kattan 

and Beltra ́n 2002, pp. 232-233). Fortyseven is just below the minimum 

effective population size required to 

avoid risks from inbreeding (Ne = 50 

individuals). Moreover, the upper 

estimate of 106 individuals (not all of 

which will be reproducing) is 

approximately one-fifth of the upper 

threshold (Ne = 500 individuals) 

required for long-term fitness of a 

population that will not lose its genetic 

diversity over time and will maintain an 

enhanced capacity to adapt to changing 

conditions. Therefore, we currently 

consider the species to be at risk due to 

the lack of near- and long-term viability. 

Small population sizes render species 

vulnerable to genetic risks that can have 

individual or population-level 

consequences on the genetic level and 

can increase the species’ susceptibility 

to demographic problems, as explained 

in more detail above for the blue-billed 

curassow (Factor E, Small Population 

Size) (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 

1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Once 

a population is reduced below a certain 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32325 

number of individuals, it tends to 

rapidly decline towards extinction 

(Franklin 1980, pp. 147-148; Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 

64-65; Soule ́ 1987, p. 181). 

The brown-banded antpitta’s 

restricted range, combined with its 

small population size (Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 7; Cuervo 2002, p. 

138; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361) and low 

prospect for dispersal (Beltra ́n and 

Kattan 2002, p. 326; BLI 2004c, p. 2; 

Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Kattan and Beltra ́n 

1997, pp. 369-370; Kattan and Beltra ́n 

1999, p. 273; Kattan and Beltra ́n 2002, 

p. 238) makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to the threat of adverse 

natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or 

stochastic) and manmade (e.g., habitat 

alteration and destruction) events that 

destroy individuals and their habitats 

(Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, pp. 

185-190; Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; 

Primack 1998, pp. 279-308; Young and 

Clarke 2000, pp. 361-366). 

Summary of Factor E 

The brown-banded antpitta’s small 

population size increases its 

vulnerability to genetic risks associated 

with small population sizes that 

negatively impact the species’ long-term 

viability and increase the possibility of 

localized extirpations of the remaining 

fragmented populations. Further, the 

species is unlikely to repopulate areas of 

suitable habitat from which it has been 

locally extirpated because it exhibits 

high territorial fidelity and has never 

repopulated suitable existing habitat 

within the Department of Quindı ́o, 

where the species’ type locality 

(Laguneta) is located and the species has 

not been observed since 1942. 

Consequently, we believe that, in 

combination with the risks to the 

species from habitat destruction (Factor 

A) and predation (Factor C), the brownbanded antpitta is vulnerable to 

localized extirpation or extinction from 

which the species would be unable to 

recover, due it its small population size 

and apparent inability to repopulate 

fragmented, isolated habitats such as 

that currently present within this 

species’ range. 

Status Determination for the BrownBanded Antpitta 

The four primary factors that threaten 

the survival of the brown-banded 

antpitta are: (1) habitat destruction, 

fragmentation, and degradation (Factor 

A); (2) predation (Factor C); (3) 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to 

reduce the threats to the species (Factor 

D); and (4) small population size and 

isolation of remaining populations 

(Factor E). 

The direct loss of habitat through 

widespread deforestation and 

conversion of primary forests to human 

settlement and agricultural uses has led 

to the fragmentation of habitat 

throughout the range of the brownbanded antpitta and isolation of the 

remaining populations. The species has 

been locally extirpated in its type 

locality and has experienced a 55 

percent reduction of suitable habitat, 

and its range is estimated to be 300 km2

(116 mi2). 

Brown-banded antpittas are 

vulnerable to predation by mountain 

coatis, tayras, squirrel cuckoos, and 

crimson-rumped toucanets (Factor C). 

Habitat fragmentation (Factor A) 

contributes to this vulnerability, 

because research indicates that 

predation increases with increased 

habitat fragmentation and smaller patch 

sizes. Predation leads to the direct 

removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults 

from the population, exacerbating risks 

associated with the species’ small 

population size and the risk of local 

extirpation (Factor E). Brown-banded 

antpittas, as with other antpittas, 

produce a low clutch size (see Habitat 

and Life History) and predation can 

destroy pair bonds and remove 

potentially reproductive adults from the 

breeding pool. 

The threats from habitat destruction 

(Factor A) and predation (Factor C) are 

compounded by the species’ small 

population size (Factor E). The brownbanded antpitta has undergone a 

population decline that is closely 

associated with a reduction in range 

caused by habitat destruction (Factor A). 

The brown-banded antpitta’s small 

population size of between 338 and 756 

individuals is likely to be an 

overestimate based on the fact that 

population sizes for narrow-ranging 

species are typically overestimated 

when based on extent of occurrence. 

The species’ subpopulations, one of 

which is estimated to include only 46 to 

106 individuals, are isolated from each 

other. The species’ confirmed absence 

from suitable habitat within its historic 

range, combined with the species’ high 

territorial fidelity, suggests that the 

species is incapable of repopulating 

suitable habitat without human 

intervention. We are unaware of any 

reintroduction or recovery programs for 

this species. The species’ small 

population size increases its 

vulnerability to natural and human 

factors (e.g., genetic isolation, 

agricultural development, increased 

human settlement, and road 

development) that could lead to local 

extirpation, which the species has 

already experienced in its type locality 

due to habitat destruction. Within the 

last three generations, or 10 years, the 

brown-banded antpitta has undergone 

up to a 9 percent reduction in 

population size and, at the current level 

of habitat destruction, this rate of 

decline is projected to continue over the 

next 10 years. Below a certain number, 

species are unable to recover and, given 

the small number and isolated nature of 

existing populations, such reductions in 

numbers could lead to extinction of the 

brown-banded antpitta. 

Although Colombia has adopted 

numerous laws and regulatory 

mechanisms to administer and manage 

wildlife and their habitats, on-theground enforcement of these laws and 

oversight of the local jurisdictions 

implementing and regulating activities 

are inadequate to address the primary 

threat to this species, which is habitat 

loss (Factor A). Several populations of 

brown-banded antpitta are within 

sanctuaries or preserves; however, 

habitat destruction and hunting 

continues within the areas, and 

regulations are not uniformly enforced, 

monitoring is limited, and management 

plans are not developed or 

implemented, resulting in ineffective 

protective measures for conservation of 

the species. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

brown-banded antpitta. We consider the 

ongoing threats to the brown-banded 

antpitta, habitat destruction (Factor A) 

and predation (Factor C), exacerbated by 

the species’ small population size and 

limited dispersal ability (Factor E), and 

compounded by inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms to mitigate these threats 

(Factor D), to be equally present and of 

the same magnitude throughout the 

species’ entire current range. Based on 

this information, we conclude that the 

brown-banded antpitta is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Therefore, we are proposing to list the 

brown-banded antpitta as an 

endangered species. 

III. Cauca Guan (Penelope perspicax) 

Species Description 

The Cauca guan, a member of the 

Cracid family, is endemic to the central 

and western slopes of the Andes of 

Colombia (Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 

13; Delacour and Amadon 2004, pp. 

133-135; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 125). 

It is a large bird, measuring 

approximately 76 cm (30 in) in length 

(Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 125). The 

32326 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

species is locally known as ‘‘Pava 

Caucana’’ (Renjifo 2002, p. 124; Rios et 

al. 2006, p. 17). The Cauca guan is 

described as a ‘‘drab’’ brown-gray, with 

a chestnut-colored rear part and tail, 

and a bright red dewlap (a flap of skin 

hanging beneath its lower jaw) (BLI 

2007h, p. 1). 

Taxonomy 

The Cauca guan was first 

taxonomically described by Bangs in 

1911 and placed in the Cracidae family 

(BLI 2007h, p. 1). 

Habitat and Life History 

The Cauca guan has been observed in 

mature tropical humid forests and in 

fragmented secondary forests, forest 

edges, and plantations of the exotic 

Chinese ash (Fraxinus chinensis) trees 

that are located within 1 km (0.62 mi) 

of primary forest (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 

299; Renjifo 2002, p. 127; Rios et al. 

2006, pp. 17-18). Older reports indicate 

that the species once inhabited dry 

forests in the Cauca, Patı ́a, and Dagua 

River valleys (Renjifo 2002, p. 126). The 

Cauca guan requires large territories for 

foraging (Kattan 2004, p. 11), but today 

is relegated mostly to small forest 

fragments (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301). 

This species, as with other guans, tends 

to aggregate within its habitat, generally 

based on resource availability. For 

instance, Cauca guans tend to 

congregate around fruit trees at certain 

times of year. Thus, depending on the 

time of year, improper sampling might 

tend to overestimate or underestimate 

the population (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 

305). Cauca guans are reportedly timid 

in the presence of humans (Rios et al. 

2006, p. 21). 

Cauca guans feed mostly on fruit and 

leaves (including those of the nonnative Chinese ash trees) and 

occasionally on invertebrates and 

flowers (Mun ̃ oz et al. 2006, p. 49; 

Renjifo 2002, p. 127; Rios et al. 2006, 

pp. 17-18). Although primarily 

terrestrial, the species is occasionally 

found in the upper stories of forests 

obtaining food. Because fruit availability 

within a forest is spatially and 

temporally variable, guans must 

undergo regional movements in pursuit 

of fruiting plants. The species is usually 

found singly, in pairs, or in groups of up 

to six individuals. The largest recorded 

gathering of Cauca guans was 30 

individuals (Rios et al. 2006, p. 16). 

There are two breeding seasons 

coinciding with the rainy seasons, one 

at the beginning of the year and another 

in August (Rios et al. 2006, p. 17). Nests 

are circular cups made of leaves and 

small branches (Renjifo 2002, p. 127), 

and the typical clutch size is two eggs, 

which is considered low. Guans remain 

paired during the breeding period and 

until chicks are 1 year in age; this is 

considered a long fledging period (Rios 

et al. 2006, p. 17). Cracids are also slow 

to reproduce, with a replacement rate of 

at least 6 years (Silva and Strahl 1991, 

p. 50). 

Historical Range and Distribution 

The Cauca guan’s historical 

distribution included the east slopes of 

the West Andes and the Cauca, Patı ́a, 

and Dagua Valleys, in the Departments 

of Cauca, Quindı ́o, Risaralda, and Valle 

de Cauca. The historic range is 

estimated to have been approximately 

24,900 km2 (9,614 mi2) (Renjifo 2002, p. 

128). In the early part of the 20th 

Century, the Cauca guan inhabited the 

dry forests of the Cauca, Dagua, and 

Patı ́a Valleys (Renjifo 2002, p. 128). The 

Cauca Valley lies between the central 

and western Andes and spans the 

Departments of Cauca, Valle de Cauca, 

Quindı ́o, and Risaralda (WWF 2001a, p. 

1). The Dagua Valley lies on the Pacific 

side of the western Andes, in Valle de 

Cauca; it is described as an isolated 

valley of dry forest that changes in 

elevation from 400 to 2,000 m (1,312 to 

6,562 ft) and is surrounded at upper 

elevations by humid forest to the west 

and cloud forest to the north, south, and 

east (Silva 2003, p. 4). The Patı ́a Valley 

lies between the central and western 

Andes in the Department of Cauca, in 

southwestern Colombia; it has a mean 

altitude of 600-900 m (1,969-2,953 ft) 

(WWF 2001c, p. 1). This area was once 

covered in wetlands, humid forests, and 

dry forests. Today, most of the dry 

forests have been eliminated and highly 

fragmented, such that continuous forest 

exists only above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) 

(Renjifo 2002, p. 128). 

From the beginning of the 20th 

Century through the 1950s, the species 

was considered common (BLI 2007h, p. 

1; Renjifo 2002, p. 126). Between the 

1970s and 1980s, there was extensive 

deforestation in the Cauca Valley, and 

the species went unobserved during this 

time, leading researchers to suspect that 

the Cauca guan was either extinct or on 

the verge of extinction (Brooks and 

Strahl 2000, p. 14; del Hoyo 1994, pp. 

337, 349; Hilty 1985, p. 1004; Hilty and 

Brown 1986, p. 125). The species was 

rediscovered in 1987 (Renjifo 2002, p. 

124). 

Current Range and Distribution 

Today, the Cauca guan inhabits the 

eastern and western slopes of the West 

and Central Andes Mountain ranges, in 

the Departments of Cauca, Quindı ́o, 

Risaralda, and Valle de Cauca (BLI 

2007h, p. 1; Kattan et al. 2006, pp. 299, 

301; Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-126). Since 

1987, most observations of this species 

have been at elevations ranging from 

1,400 to 2,000 m (4,593 to 6,562 ft) 

(Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125), with an 

occasional sighting at altitudes well 

below (i.e., 816 m (2,677 ft)) or well 

above (i.e., 2,690 m (8,825 ft)) this 

altitudinal range (Mun ̃ oz et al. 2006, p. 

54; Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125; Rios et al. 

2006, p. 17). The Ucumarı ́ Regional Park 

is considered the stronghold of the 

species (BLI 2007h, p. 1) (see Population 

Estimates). 

The habitat consists primarily of 

forest fragments, and although 

continuous cover remains at elevations 

above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 303), researchers have not 

ascertained whether the species inhabits 

these higher-altitude contiguous forest 

areas (Renjifo 2002, p. 129). The current 

range of the species totals less than 750 

km2 (290 mi2), of which only 560 km2

(216 mi2) is considered suitable habitat 

(BLI 2007h, p. 1; Kattan et al. 2006, p. 

299; Rios et al. 2006, p.17). 

Population Estimates 

Cauca guan populations are 

characterized as small, ranging from 

only tens of individuals or, in rare 

instances, hundreds (Renjifo 2002, p. 

12). BirdLife International reported that 

the largest subpopulation contained an 

estimated 50 to 249 individuals; 

however, they do not specify to which 

population this refers, and these figures 

are not found in any of the other 

literature regarding population surveys 

of the Cauca guan. Ucumarı ́ Regional 

Park has been considered the stronghold 

of the species (BLI 2007h, p. 1). Sixteen 

individuals were counted in 1990, and 

the species was characterized as 

‘‘common’’ in plantations in 1994-1995 

(Wege and Long 1995, p. 141). Since 

then, there have been scant sightings of 

Cauca guan there (Renjifo 2002, p. 125; 

Wege and Long 1995, p. 141), including 

the observation of one individual in the 

Park in 2004 (Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3). 

There have been no population surveys 

within the Park to determine the 

species’ current population size therein. 

Munchique National Natural Park 

(Cauca) is considered to be the most 

important locality for this species in the 

southern portion of its range because of 

the extensive remaining forest habitat, 

although habitat destruction is ongoing 

there (see Factor A). The species was 

last recorded in Munchique in 1987, but 

has not been confirmed there since 

(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 305; Mun ̃ oz et al. 

2006, p. 54; Salaman in litt. 1999, 2000, 

as cited in BLI 2007h, p. 2). 

Kattan et al. (2006, p. 302) conducted 

the only two population surveys in 2000 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32327 

and 2001 (Mun ̃ oz et al. 2006 p. 55). 

They estimated population densities at 

two locations, Otu ́n-Quimbaya Flora 

and Fauna Sanctuary (Risaralda) and 

Reserva Forestal de Yotoco (Valle de 

Cauca), to be 144-264 individuals and 

35-61 individuals, respectively (Kattan 

et al. 2006, p. 304). Kattan et al. (2006, 

p. 302) also examined 10 additional 

localities, based on locality data 

reported by Renjifo (2002, pp. 124-125). 

Visual confirmations were made at only 

2 of the 10 localities (Reserva La Sirena 

and Chorro de Plata, both in the 

Department of Valle de Cauca), where 

the extent and occurrence of the 

populations have yet to be determined 

(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 303). Auditory 

confirmations were made at 5 of the 10 

localities, including: La Zulia, Chicoral, 

Las Brisas, San Antonio, and Planes de 

San Rafael (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 302). 

In 2006, Kattan (in litt., as cited in 

Mun ̃ oz et al. 2006 p. 55) estimated the 

global population to be between 196 and 

342 individuals. The IUCN has placed 

the Cauca guan in the population 

category ranging from 250 to no more 

than 1,000 (BLI 2007h, pp. 1, 3). 

Overall, the population is considered to 

be in decline (BLI 2007h, p. 2; Kattan 

2004, p. 6; Renjifo 2002, p. 129). 

Conservation Status 

The Cauca guan is listed as 

endangered under Colombian law 

(EcoLex 2002, p. 12). The IUCN 

categorizes the species as ‘‘Endangered’’ 

due to its small, contracted range 

composed of widely fragmented patches 

of habitat (BLI 2004e, p. 1). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the Cauca 

Guan 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Habitat or Range 

Historically, Cauca guans were 

considered common (BLI 2007h, p. 1; 

Renjifo 2002, p. 126). They inhabited 

the eastern slopes of the west Andes and 

the dry forests of the Cauca, Dagua, and 

Patı ́a Valleys, in the Departments of 

Cauca, Quindı ́o, and Valle del Cauca 

(Renjifo 2002, p. 124) (see Historical 

Distribution, above), in a range 

extending over approximately 24,900 

km2 (9,614 mi2). Extensive habitat 

destruction and fragmentation since the 

1950s has resulted in an estimated 95 

percent range reduction (Chapman 

1917, p. 195; Collar et al. 1992, p. 126; 

Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299; Renjifo 2002, 

pp. 126-127; Rios et al. 2006, p. 17). As 

a result, although it prefers mature 

tropical humid forests, the Cauca guan 

exists primarily in fragmented and 

isolated secondary forest remnants, 

forest edges, and in feral plantations of 

the exotic Chinese ash trees that are 

located within 1 km (0.62 mi) of 

primary forest (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 

299; Renjifo 2002, p. 127; Rios et al. 

2006, pp. 17-18). Its current range is 

estimated to be less than 750 km2 (290 

mi2), of which only 560 km2 (216 mi2) 

is considered suitable habitat (BLI 

2007h, p. 2; Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299; 

Rios et al. 2006, p. 17). It is estimated 

that more than 30 percent of this loss of 

habitat has occurred within the last 

three generations, or 30 years (Renjifo 

2002, p. 129). 

Deforestation rates and patterns: 

Colombia has experienced extensive 

deforestation in the last half of the 20th 

Century as a result of habitat conversion 

for human settlements, road building, 

agriculture, and timber extraction. A 

23–year study, from 1973 to 1996, 

demonstrated that these activities 

reduced the amount of primary forest 

cover in Colombia by approximately 

3,605 ha (8,908 ac) annually, 

representing a nearly one-third total loss 

of primary forest habitat (Vin ̃ a et al. 

2004, pp. 123-124). Beginning in the 

1980s, habitat loss increased 

dramatically as a result of influxes of 

people settling in formerly pristine areas 

(Perz et al. 2005, pp. 26-28; Vin ̃ a et al. 

2004, p. 124). More recent studies 

indicate that the rate of habitat 

destruction is accelerating. During the 

period 1990-2005, Colombia lost 

approximately 52,800 ha (130,471 ac) of 

primary forest annually (Butler 2006a, 

pp. 1-3; FAO 2003a, p. 1). These studies 

and activities are described in greater 

detail above, as part of the Factor A 

analysis for the blue-billed curassow 

(Deforestation Rates and Patterns). 

Human-induced deforestation and 

environmental degradation have caused 

the Cauca guan to shift its range and 

elevational distribution to the few 

remaining forest remnants. The Cauca 

guan was once considered to occur only 

on the eastern slopes of the West Andes 

and Cauca, Patı ́a, and Dagua Valleys 

(Renjifo 2002, p. 128). Today, the 

species occurs on the western slopes of 

the central and western Andes of 

Colombia (BLI 2007h, p. 1; Delacour and 

Amadon 2004, p. 135; Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 299; Renjifo 2002, p. 124). 

During the latter half of the 20th 

Century, much of the lower-elevation 

forests in the Rı ́o Cauca Valley, where 

the species was observed most often 

between 1937 and 1963 (Renjifo 2002, p. 

124), were deforested. Habitat 

destruction and alteration in the subAndean slopes around the Cauca, Dagua 

and Patı ́a Valleys has left only a few 

hundred hectares (100 hectares = 1 km2

= 0.39 mi2) of isolated, small, 

fragmented forest remnants, and the 

Cauca guan is absent from most of these 

fragments (Renjifo 2002, p. 128). The 

species has been extirpated from the 

Cauca and Dagua Valleys, but may still 

exist in patches within the Patı ́a Valley 

(Renjifo 2002, p. 128). Beginning in 

1989, the species was observed several 

times in the Department of Risaralda, in 

an area and at elevations that were not 

part of the species’ historic range, but 

represent the extreme fringe of its 

former range (Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-5). 

Habitat destruction and alteration, in 

addition to shifting the species to the 

fringes of its former range, have caused 

the Cauca guan to shift in its altitudinal 

distribution (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, 

p. 8). Nearly all the forested habitat 

below 3,300 m (10,827 ft) in the Central 

Andes, where the Cauca guan occurs 

today, has been deforested and cleared 

for agricultural land use, such as 

pasture, coffee plantations, potatoes, 

and beans (BLI 2004c, p. 2). 

Approximately 85 percent of forested 

habitat at altitudes between 1,900 m 

(6,234 ft) and 3,200 m (10,499 ft) has 

been converted to other land uses (BLI 

2004c, p. 2; Cuervo 2002, p. 327; 

Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 205). By 

1994, in Quindı ́o, extensive 

deforestation at elevations between 

1,800 and 2,600 m (5,905 and 8,530 ft) 

led to the destruction of much of the 

Cauca guan’s preferred habitat of mature 

humid forests (Collar et al. 1994, p. 

136). Prior to the species’ rediscovery in 

1987, its altitudinal range was between 

1,300 and 2,100 m (4265 and 6890 ft) 

(del Hoyo 1994, p. 349; Hilty and Brown 

1986, p. 125), with occasional sightings 

at lower elevations in the Patı ́a Valley 

(between 642 and 650 m (2,106 and 

2,133 ft) (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 125; 

Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125). Since 1987, 

the Cauca guan has been observed only 

in the remaining and much-restricted 

forest remnants of the following 

Departments: Cauca (in the years 1987, 

1989, and 1992), Quindı ́o (1995 – 1997), 

Risaralda (1989, 1995-1997, 2000, 2001), 

and Valle de Cauca (1988, 1999, 2000) 

(Delacour and Amadon 2004, p. 135; 

Kattan et al. 2006, p. 299; Renjifo 2002, 

pp. 124-125). Renjifo (2002, pp. 124- 

125) provided detailed observation 

records indicating that reports since 

1987 ranged in altitude between one 

sighting at 900 m (2,953 ft) in the Patı ́a 

Valley in 1992, and the rest between 

1,350 and 2,690 m (4,429 and 8,825 ft). 

In 2006, Mun ̃ oz et al. (2006, p. 54) 

reported the species’ range as being 

between 1,200 and 2,600 m (3,937 and 

8,530 ft) and Rios et al. (2006, p. 17) 

reported the species’ range as 1,000- 

2,500 m (3,281-8,202 ft). These ranges 

32328 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

are consistent with recent observations 

of the species. Kattan et al. (2006, pp. 

299, 301) reported its range as 1,000- 

2,000 m (3,281-6,562 ft), noting that 

recent sightings at higher elevations 

demonstrated that the species has 

shifted its altitudinal range, as 

deforestation throughout much of 

Cauca, Dagua, and Patı ́a Valley has left 

only isolated forest fragments remaining 

at elevations below 2,000 m (6,562 ft). 

Although continuous cover remains in 

some locations above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) 

(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 303), researchers 

are uncertain whether the species 

inhabits these areas (Renjifo 2002, p. 

129). The mid-montane and cloud 

forests in the Department of Risaralda, 

where this species was observed as 

recently as the year 2000 (Renjifo 2002, 

p. 124), continue to undergo 

deforestation (Dolphijn 2005, p. 2). In 

Cauca, timber extraction and mining are 

ongoing (Uruen ̃ a et al. 2006, p. 42). 

Deforestation and habitat alteration are 

ongoing throughout the Cauca guan’s 

limited range of 560 km2 (216 mi2). 

Illegal drugs and their eradication: 

Cocaine and opium have been 

cultivated throughout the Cauca guan’s 

range. The cultivation of illegal crops 

(including coca and opium) in Colombia 

destroys montane forests (Balslev 1993, 

p. 3). Coca production destroys the soil 

quality by causing the soil to become 

more acidic, which depletes the soil 

nutrients and ultimately impedes the 

regrowth of secondary forests in 

abandoned fields (Van Schoik and 

Schulberg 1993, p. 21). As of 2004, the 

estimated total amount of land under 

cultivation for cocaine equaled 80,000 

ha (197,683 ac); 4,000 ha (9,884 ac) of 

land are under opium cultivation 

(UNODC et al. 2007, pp. 7-8). These 

figures include habitat within the Cauca 

guan’s range. Between 2003 and 2004, 

cocaine cultivation areas decreased from 

1,445 to 1,266 ha (3,571 to 3,128 ac) in 

Cauca, and increased 22 percent from 37 

ha (91 ac) to 45 ha (111 ac) in Valle de 

Cauca (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 15). 

At the same time, opium cultivation 

decreased in Cauca from 600 ha (1,483 

ac) to 450 ha (1,112 ac) (UNODC 2005, 

p. 50). 

Colombia continues to be the leading 

coca bush producer (UNODC et al. 2007, 

p. 7). However, since 2003, cocaine 

cultivation has remained stable at about 

800 km2 (309 mi2) of land under 

cultivation (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 8). 

This is attributed, in part, to the 

implementation of alternative 

development projects, which encourage 

people to pursue alternative vocations 

to planting illegal crops (UNODC et al. 

2007, p. 77). In 2004, the United Nations 

Office on Drugs and Crime and the 

Government of Colombia reported that 

no coca had been cultivated in the 

Departments of Quindı ́o and Risaralda 

since the year 2000 (UNODC and GOC 

2005, p. 48). This was attributed to 

alternative development programs being 

implemented between 1999 and 2007, 

for which US$200,000 was provided to 

Quindı ́o and US$800,000 to Risaralda 

(UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 48). During 

the same period, at least US$12.1 

million (mill) was spent in alternative 

development programs in Cauca, where 

coca production decreased, and another 

1.6 mill was spent in Valle de Cauca, 

where coca production increased 

(UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 48). 

This stabilization of the amount of 

land under cultivation for illegal drugs 

is also attributed to heightened 

eradication efforts. Between 2002 and 

2004, aerial spraying occurred over 

more than 1,300 km2 (502 mi2) 

annually, peaking in 2004, when 1,360 

km2 (525 mi2) of illicit crops were 

sprayed (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 11). 

In 2006, eradication efforts were 

undertaken on over 2,130 km2 (822 mi2) 

of land, consisting of 1,720 km2 (664 

mi2) of land being sprayed and manual 

eradication being used on the remaining 

land. Eradication efforts undertaken in 

2006 occurred over an area representing 

2.7 times more land than the net 

cultivation area (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 

8). In Cauca alone, 1,811 ha (4,475 ac) 

of coca fields and 435 ha (1,075 ac) of 

opium fields were sprayed or manually 

eradicated in 2004 (UNODC 2005, p. 

66). 

Drug eradication efforts in Colombia 

have further degraded and destroyed 

primary forest habitat by using 

nonspecific aerial herbicides to destroy 

illegal crops (A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 

2007d, p. 3; Ca ́rdenas and Rodrı ́guez 

Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and 

Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Herbicide 

spraying has introduced harmful 

chemicals into Cauca guan habitat and 

has led to further destruction of the 

habitat by forcing illicit growers to move 

to new, previously untouched forested 

areas (A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; 

A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 2042; A ́ lvarez 2007, pp. 

133-143; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Ca ́rdenas and 

Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham 

and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Between 

1998 and 2002, cultivation of illicit 

crops increased 21 percent each year, 

with a concomitant increase in 

deforestation of formerly pristine areas 

of approximately 60 percent (A ́ lvarez 

2002, pp. 1088-1093). 

Effects of habitat fragmentation: The 

Cauca guan requires large territories for 

foraging (Kattan 2004, p. 11), but today 

is relegated mostly to small forest 

fragments (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301), 

making it more susceptible to habitat 

disturbance, further fragmentation, and 

destruction from human activity (Brooks 

and Strahl 2000, p. 10; Silva and Strahl 

1991, p. 38). 

An analysis of the effects of habitat 

fragmentation on Andean birds within 

western Colombia established that 31 

percent of the historical bird 

populations in western Colombia had 

become extinct or locally extirpated by 

1990, largely as a result of habitat 

fragmentation from deforestation caused 

by human encroachment (Kattan and 

A ́ lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 5; Kattan et al. 

1994, p. 141). Kattan and A ́ lvarez-Lopez 

(1996, pp. 5-6) also identified two 

conditions that increase a species’ 

vulnerability to extinction or local 

extirpation as a result of habitat 

fragmentation: (1) species at the upper 

or lower limit of their altitudinal 

distribution (which is the case for the 

Cauca guan) are more susceptible to 

local extirpation and extinction, and (2) 

large fruit-eating birds with limited 

distributions and narrow habitat 

preferences were most vulnerable to 

extinction (also the case for the Cauca 

guan). Deforestation has eradicated the 

Cauca guan from much of its historic 

range and has led to local extirpation 

(Collar et al. 1994, pp. 61-62; Kattan et 

al. 2006, p. 299) in the Cauca and Dagua 

Valleys (Renjifo 2002, p. 128), such as 

in San Antonio (Valle de Cauca), where 

the species has not been observed since 

1917 (Renjifo 2002, p. 124). Moreover, 

in light of the species’ characteristics, 

the Cauca guan is unlikely to repopulate 

an isolated patch of suitable habitat 

following decline or local extirpation 

(see Factor E, Likelihood to Disperse). 

The Cauca guan, as with other 

cracids, is susceptible to indirect effects 

of habitat disturbance and fragmentation 

(Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38; Brooks 

and Strahl 2000, p. 10). A study 

conducted in northwestern Colombia 

demonstrated that habitat destruction 

and fragmentation may increase a 

species’ vulnerability to predation 

(Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 140- 

142) (Factor C). In addition, habitat 

fragmentation, combined with 

continuing human encroachment, 

increases the species’ vulnerability to 

hunting (Factor B). Habitat 

fragmentation may affect population 

densities by shifting the availability of 

resources, such as food (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 305). Habitat fragmentation also 

compounds problems for species with 

small population sizes, such as the 

Cauca guan, which has an estimated 

population between 196 and 342 

individuals (Kattan in litt., as cited in 

Mun ̃ oz et al. 2006 p. 55) (Factor E). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32329 

Refugia: The Cauca guan has recently 

been confirmed in the following 

locations: (1) Otu ́n-Quimbaya Flora and 

Fauna Sanctuary; (2) Reserva La Sirena; 

(3) Reserva Forestal de Yotoco; (4) 

Chorro de Plata; and (5) Munchique 

National Natural Park (Delacour and 

Amadon 2004, p. 135; Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 299, 305; Renjifo 2002, pp. 124- 

125). These locations are discussed 

below. 

(1) Otu ́n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna 

Sanctuary (Department of Risaralda), a 

4.9-km2 (1.9-mi2) reserve in the 

Department of Risaralda, contains a 

habitat mosaic of old-growth fragments 

and regenerating secondary forests, 

including abandoned ash plantations 

that cover 0.18 km2 (0.07 mi2) (CARDER 

2000, p. 1; Kattan and Beltra ́n 1997, p. 

369; Kattan et al. 2006, p. 303). Most of 

the forested habitat in the area was 

cleared in the 1960s for cattle ranching, 

leaving the remaining natural forests 

only on the steepest slopes (Kattan and 

Beltra ́n 1999, p. 273). In population 

surveys conducted by Kattan et al. 

(2006, p. 304) in 2000 and 2001, this 

subpopulation was estimated to include 

between 144 and 264 individuals. 

Kattan (2004, pp. 12-13) also advised 

that the Otu ́n-Quimbaya Sanctuary was 

not large enough to provide the space 

and resources needed to sustain a viable 

Cauca guan population. 

This Sanctuary is adjacent to the 

Ucumarı ́ Regional Park (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 302), which covers an area of 

approximately 44 km2 (17 mi2), with 

elevations ranging from 1,700 to 2,600 

m (5,577 to 8,530 ft) (Kattan and Beltra ́n 

1999, p. 273; Kattan et al. 2006, pp. 301- 

302). Ucumarı ́ Regional Park has been 

considered the stronghold of the species 

since the late 1990s (BLI 2007h, p. 1) 

(see Population Estimates, above). The 

largest number of Cauca guan 

individuals observed at this site was 16 

in 1990 (Wege and Long 1995, p. 141), 

and a single individual was sighted in 

2004 (Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3); however, 

there have been no population surveys 

within the Park to determine the current 

population size. Subsistence hunting 

was reportedly prevalent within the 

Park in the late 1990s (Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 60; del Hoyo 1994, p. 349; Strahl et 

al. 1995, p. 81) (Factors B and D). 

(2) Reserva La Sirena (Valle de Cauca) 

is located above 2,000 m (6,562 ft) and 

consists of fragmented riparian forest in 

various stages of succession (Kattan et 

al. 2006, pp. 302-303). Reserva La 

Sirena has an environmental education 

center, around which are located some 

protected areas as well as continuous 

forest above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Visual 

confirmation of the Cauca guan was 

made in this locality in surveys 

conducted in 2000 and 2001, but the 

extent and occurrence of the population 

have yet to be determined (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 303). 

(3) Reserva Forestal de Yotoco (Valle 

de Cauca) is an isolated 5.6-km2 (2.16- 

mi2) reserve on the eastern slopes of the 

Western Andes, ranging in altitude from 

1,400 to 1,600 m (4,593 to 5,249 ft) 

(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 302). In 

population surveys conducted by Kattan 

et al. (2006, p. 304) in 2000 and 2001, 

this subpopulation was estimated to 

include between 35 and 61 individuals. 

One of the last remaining humid 

tropical forests in the Valle de Cauca, 

the forest is mostly wellconserved, but 

human impacts are evidenced by an 

asphalt highway running through the 

middle of the Reserve and numerous 

footpaths crossing the Reserve to 

connect to coffee plantations, which, 

along with pasturelands, surround the 

forest (BLI 2007h, p. 13). 

(4) Chorro de Plata (Valle de Cauca) 

is a 2-km2 (0.77-mi2) forest located at 

1,200 m (3937 ft) (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 

299; Renjifo 2002, p. 302). Visual 

confirmation of the Cauca guan was 

made in this locality in surveys 

conducted in 2000 and 2001, but the 

extent and occurrence of the population 

have yet to be determined (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 303). 

(5) Munchique National Natural Park 

(Cauca) is considered an important 

locality in the southern portion of the 

species’ range, because the species was 

historically seen there several times and 

because suitable habitat still exists there 

(Kattan et al. 2006, pp. 305-306). 

However, the Cauca guan has not been 

confirmed there since 1987 (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 305; Mun ̃ oz et al. 2006, p. 54; 

Salaman in litt. 1999, 2000, as cited in 

BLI 2007h, p. 2) (see Population 

Estimates, above). Moreover, the 

location of this Park within the Pacific 

Region makes it particularly accessible 

and vulnerable to exploitation because 

of the numerous rivers in this part of the 

country, which facilitate movement of 

people and products through the region 

(Ojeda et al. 2001, pp. 308-309). In the 

1960s and 1970s, the harvest of native 

‘‘naranjilla’’ or ‘‘lulo’’ fruits (Solanum 

quitoense) became an important part of 

the local economy, which deterred 

logging. However, logging resumed in 

the 1980s after a fungal pathogen— 

anthracnose (Colletotrichum acutatum) 

(Caicedo and Higuera 2007, p. 41)— and 

invasion by a lepidopteran pest—tomato 

fruit borer (Neoleucinodes elegantalis) 

(Eiras and Blackmer 2003, p. 1)— 

destroyed the crops (BLI 2006, p. 2). 

Human pressures in the Pacific Region 

include unsustainable logging, 

colonization, and cash crop cultivation 

(Ojeda et al. 2001, pp. 308-309). Efforts 

are underway to replant lulo fruit trees 

to encourage a sustainable local 

economy, enhance local involvement in 

conservation, and provide technical 

skills for integrated pest management. 

However, logging is ongoing within the 

Park, and human population pressures 

and associated deforestation, as well as 

dam construction, are ongoing in the 

area (BLI 2007h, p. 2). 

There are several areas of suitable 

habitat in which the Cauca guan has not 

been observed, but that could serve as 

important potential habitat for the 

species (see Factor E, Likelihood to 

Disperse), including: (1) Bosques del 

Oriente del Risaralda, (2) Can ̃ on del Rı ́o 

Barbas y Bremen, (3) Finca la Betulia 

Reserva la Patasola,and (4) Reserva 

Natural Cajibı ́o. These areas are 

described below. 

(1) Bosques del Oriente del Risaralda 

(Risaralda): This 23 km2 (8.9 mi2) forest 

is located on the western slopes of the 

Central Andes, in eastern Risaralda. It 

ranges in altitude between 1,300 and 

3,800 m (5,905 and 12,467 ft). This highaltitude forest is important for the 

hydrology in lower-elevation areas, 

including the Otu ́n-Quimbaya Flora and 

Fauna Sanctuary (Department of 

Risaralda), where the Cauca guan has 

been observed. The forest has been 

recovering from deforestation for the 

past 30 years and includes a contiguous 

patch of montane and premontane forest 

over 85 percent of the area. About 15 

percent of the land is zoned for grazing 

and agriculture, leading to ongoing 

degradation of these deforested areas, 

along with conversion for human 

settlements within the forest (BLI 

2007h, p. 6). 

(2) Can ̃ on del Rı ́o Barbas y Bremen 

(Risaralda): This 51-km2 (20-mi2) forest 

is located on the western slopes of the 

Central Andes. It ranges in altitude 

between 1,600 and 2,100 m (5,249 and 

6890 ft). This area includes most of the 

Reserva Forestal Bremen (BLI 2007h, p. 

9), where the Cauca guan was observed 

several times between 1995 and 1997 

(Renjifo 2002, pp. 124-125). The Bremen 

Forest Reserve was established in the 

1970s to protect important waterways 

and is protected within the regional 

system of protected areas in the coffeegrowing region. Today, the Bremen 

forest is comprised of 3.4 km2 (1.31 mi2) 

of natural forest and 4.2 km2 (1.62 mi2) 

of exotic plantation forests, which are 

now being allowed to regenerate to 

natural forest. A sustainable forestry 

management plan was implemented in 

1996, and plans are underway to 

connect the isolated forest patches 

within the Can ̃ on. Currently, the forest 

patches within the Can ̃ on del Rı ́o Barbas 

32330 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

y Bremen are surrounded by cattle 

ranches and tree plantations, primarily 

including eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) 

and Mexican weeping pine (Pinus 

patula). There is no further information 

on the progress of this project. 

Currently, the forests located within the 

Can ̃ on are isolated from each other, and 

urbanization, agricultural activities, and 

deforestation are ongoing within the 

area. The forest is also in close 

proximity to a main highway in the 

region—the highway between Armenia 

and Pereira. A survey of the Can ̃ on in 

2003 did not reconfirm the presence of 

the Cauca guan within this area (BLI 

2007h, p. 9). 

(3) Finca la Betulia Reserva la 

Patasola (Quindı ́o): This 17-km2 (7-mi2) 

forest is located on the western slopes 

of the Central Andes. It ranges in 

altitude between 2,050 and 2,600 m 

(6,726 and 8,530 ft). Most of this 

Reserve is covered by primary forest 

interspersed with scrub forest and 

streams. As of 2003, the Cauca guan has 

been reported but not confirmed within 

this Reserve. The western border of this 

Reserve abuts the Otu ́n-Quimbaya Flora 

and Fauna Sanctuary (BLI 2007h, p. 12), 

where the population is estimated to be 

between 144 and 264 individuals 

(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304). 

(4) Reserva Natural Cajibı ́o (Cauca): 

This 0.52-km2 (0.2-mi2) reserve is 

located on the slopes of the West Andes. 

It ranges in altitude between 1,100 and 

1,250 m (3,609 and 4,101 ft). The habitat 

is mainly secondary forest, interspersed 

with agricultural fields (sugarcane 

(Saccharum officinarum), coffee, 

bananas, and corn (Zea mays)) and 

cattle ranching. This Reserve has been 

altered by human encroachment and 

indiscriminate logging. The Cauca guan 

was not confirmed in this location in a 

2003 survey (BLI 2007h, p. 15). 

These refugia are limited in size, 

isolated from each other, and 

undergoing varying levels of human 

encroachment and deforestation (Brooks 

and Strahl 2000, pp. 13-14; Collar et al. 

1994, pp. 61-62; del Hoyo 1994, pp. 337, 

349; Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301; Renjifo 

2002, p. 128). In addition, regulatory 

mechanisms within these areas are 

inadequate to protect the species from 

ongoing habitat destruction (Factor D). 

Summary of Factor A 

The habitat preferred by the Cauca 

guan—humid forests or secondary 

forests, forest edges, and plantations in 

proximity to humid forests—has been 

largely destroyed by cultivation, 

grazing, human settlements, road 

building, and other human activities. 

The species’ range has been reduced 

from 24,900 km2 (9,614 mi2) to 

approximately 560 km2 (216 mi2), much 

of this within the past 30 years. Habitat 

fragmentation has isolated remaining 

populations, relegated the species to the 

edges of its former range, and led to a 

shift in the species’ altitudinal range. 

Habitat destruction, alteration, 

conversion, and fragmentation have 

been factors in the Cauca guan’s 

historical decline (which commenced in 

the second half of the 20th Century) and 

continue to be factors in the species’ 

decline, even in areas designated as 

protected (see also Factor E). Therefore, 

we find that the present destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of habitat 

are a threat to the Cauca guan 

throughout all of its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Cracids are considered particularly 

vulnerable to hunting pressures and are 

among those species most rapidly 

depleted by hunting (Redford 1992, p. 

419). Several factors contribute to the 

sensitivity of Cauca guans to hunting, 

including: their large size, ease of 

locating them during their breeding 

season, their trusting nature, their low 

productivity (1-2 eggs) relative to other 

Galliformes, their long generation time, 

their dependence upon specific habitat, 

and their poor dispersal qualities 

(Brooks 1999, p. 43; del Hoyo 1994, p. 

336; Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 38). This 

species, as with other guans, tends to 

aggregate within its habitat, generally 

based on resource availability. For 

instance, Cauca guans tend to 

congregate around fruit trees at certain 

times of year (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 305). 

This aggregation of individuals may 

facilitate hunters in catching larger 

numbers of the species. Cracids are also 

slow to reproduce, with a replacement 

rate of at least 6 years (Silva and Strahl 

1991, p. 50). 

The Cauca guan, as well as other 

cracids (e.g., chachalacas (Ortalis sp.), 

serve as a major source of protein for 

indigenous people (Brooks and Strahl 

2000, p. 8). The Cauca guan is hunted 

by local residents for sustenance, 

although this activity is illegal (del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 337; Mun ̃oz et al. 2006, 

p. 50; Renjifo 2002, p. 128; Rios et al. 

2006, pp. 22-23) (Factor D). The species 

is sought after by hunters because it is 

the largest bird in its area of distribution 

(Renjifo 2002, p. 128). Rios et al. (2006, 

pp. 22-23) interviewed local settlers 

near the Otu ́n-Quimbaya Flora and 

Fauna Sanctuary (in Risaralda), where 

the population is estimated to be 

between 144 and 264 individuals 

(Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304), who 

admitted to hunting the Cauca guan 

within the Sanctuary, claiming to take 

between two and four birds per month. 

This equates to approximately 100 

Cauca guans per year (Rios et al. 2006, 

p. 23). 

Subsistence hunting may play a role 

in the decline or possible local 

extirpation of the species from at least 

two locations. In the late 1990s, 

subsistence hunting was widespread in 

the Ucumarı ́ Regional Park and 

Munchique National Natural Park 

(Collar et al. 1992, p. 60; del Hoyo 1994, 

p. 349; Strahl et al. 1995, p. 81). The 

Cauca guan may have been locally 

extirpated from the Munchique National 

Natural Park (Cauca) (BLI 2007h, p. 2: 

Renjifo 2002, p. 124), where the species 

was last observed in 1987 (Renjifo 2002, 

p. 124). Despite subsequent searches of 

the area (Wege and Long 1995, p. 149), 

there have been no recent confirmations 

at this locality (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 

305; Mun ̃oz et al. 2006, p. 54; Salaman 

in litt. 1999, 2000, as cited in BLI 2007h, 

p. 2). Ucumarı ́ Regional Park is 

considered the stronghold of the Cauca 

guan (BLI 2007h, p. 1). Although Renjifo 

(2002, p. 128) notes that the species has 

recuperated within this Park, there have 

only been scant reports of Cauca guan 

sightings there between 1994 and 2004 

(Renjifo 2002, p. 125; Scanlon 2004, pp. 

1-3; Wege and Long 1995, p. 141), and 

no population surveys have been 

undertaken there (see Population 

Estimates, above). 

Habitat fragmentation and 

concomitant human encroachment 

(Factor A) have made the species’ 

habitat more accessible and the species 

more vulnerable to hunting. A study 

conducted in French Guiana provided a 

quantitative estimate of the effect of 

hunting on a related cracid species, the 

black curassow (Crax alector) (del Hoyo 

1994, p. 336). The black curassow has 

similar habitat requirements 

(undisturbed primary tropical to 

subtropical humid forest at 0-1,400 m 

(0-4,600 ft) elevation) as the Cauca guan 

(BLI 2007e). The estimated population 

density of black curassows in nonhunted areas was between 7 and 9 birds 

per 1 km2 (0.4 mi2); in areas with 

intermittent hunting, the numbers fell to 

between 0.5 and 2.25 birds; and in areas 

where hunting was regular, numbers fell 

to between 0.5 and 0.73 birds (del Hoyo 

1994, p. 336). We believe that the effects 

of hunting on the Cauca guan would 

result in similar population declines 

based on similarities of habitat and 

species characteristics. 

Summary of Factor B 

Cracids serve as a major food source 

in Colombia, and the Cauca guan, as the 

largest cracid living within its area of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32331 

distribution, is sought after by locals. 

Hunting results in the direct removal of 

eggs, juveniles, and adults from the 

population. Cauca guans are slow to 

reproduce, produce a low clutch size, 

require a long fledging period, and 

exhibit a poor replacement rate (see 

Habitat and Life History, above). 

Hunting can destroy pair bonds and 

remove potentially reproductive adults 

from the breeding pool. Hunting is 

facilitated by habitat fragmentation 

(Factor A), which increases access to the 

forest by hunters. The Cauca guan is 

hunted throughout its current range, 

including within protected areas, and 

hunting may be responsible for a 

decline or local extirpation of the 

species from at least two of these 

protected areas (Ucumarı ́ Regional Park 

and Munchique National Natural Park). 

Therefore, we find that subsistence 

hunting for domestic consumption is a 

threat to the Cauca guan throughout its 

range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease: We are unaware of any 

information regarding disease or the 

potential for significant disease 

outbreaks in the Cauca guan 

populations. As a result, we do not 

consider disease to be a threat to the 

species. 

Predation: Predators of cracids 

include snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral 

dogs, and raptors (Delacour and 

Amadon 1973). Cauca guans are also 

slow to reproduce, with a long fledging 

period (up to 1 year) and a replacement 

rate of at least 6 years (Rios et al. 2006, 

p. 17; Silva and Strahl 1991, p. 50). 

Cauca guans require large territories for 

foraging (Kattan 2004, p. 11), but today 

are relegated mostly to small forest 

fragments (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301). As 

discussed in detail above for the bluebilled curassow (Factor C, Predation), 

studies have shown that habitat 

fragmentation increases the potential 

predation pressure within habitat 

fragments by facilitating the predators’ 

access throughout the fragment and 

because smaller fragments support 

smaller predators, which tend to 

depredate on the more vulnerable lifehistory stages of the Cauca guan, eggs 

and juveniles (Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 

1997, pp. 137-143; Gibbs 1991, p. 157; 

Hoover et al. 1995, p. 151; Keyser et al. 

1998, p. 991; 2002, p. 186; Renjifo 1999, 

p. 1133; Wilcove 1985, p. 1214). 

Summary of Factor C 

Snakes, foxes, feral cats, feral dogs, 

and raptors are all predators of cracids. 

Predation results in the direct removal 

of eggs, juveniles, and adults from the 

population. Cauca guans are slow to 

reproduce, produce a low clutch size, 

require a long fledging period, and 

exhibit a poor replacement rate (see 

Habitat and Life History, above). 

Predation can destroy pair bonds and 

remove potentially reproductive adults 

from the breeding pool. Cauca guan 

habitat is fragmented and small (Factor 

A), and studies on similar species in 

similar Andean habitats indicate that 

vulnerability to predation by generalist 

predators increases with increased 

habitat fragmentation and smaller patch 

sizes. Predation exacerbates the genetic 

complications associated with the 

species’ small population size (Factor 

E). Because of the species’ small 

population size and inability to 

recolonize isolated habitat fragments 

(Factor E), predation renders the species 

vulnerable to local extirpation. 

Therefore, we find that predation, 

exacerbated by ongoing habitat 

destruction (Factor A) and hunting 

(Factor B), is a threat to the Cauca guan. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Regulatory mechanisms may provide 

species-specific or habitat-specific 

protections. An evaluation of the 

adequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

within Colombia to mitigate or remove 

the threats to the Cauca guan is 

provided below, beginning with speciesspecific and followed by habitat-specific 

protection mechanisms. 

Colombia has enacted numerous laws 

to protect species and their habitats 

(Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121). The Cauca 

guan is listed as an endangered species 

under Colombian Law 99 of 1993 

(EcoLex 1993, p. 2) and Resolution No. 

584 of 2002 (EcoLex 2002, pp. 10, 12). 

A full description of these laws and the 

categorization of threatened species in 

Colombia were provided above, as part 

of the Factor D analysis for the bluebilled curassow. This threat status 

confers protections upon the species, 

including protection from commercial 

take under Resolution No. 849 of 1973 

and Resolution No. 787 of 1977 (EcoLex 

1973, p.1; EcoLex 1977, p. 3). Neither 

Resolution prohibits subsistence 

hunting. As discussed under Factor B, 

commercial and sport hunting are not 

threats to this species, but subsistence 

hunting continues to threaten the 

species throughout its range, including 

within protected areas. Hunting may 

play a role in the decline or possible 

local extirpation of the species from two 

protected areas, Munchique National 

Natural Park and Ucumarı ́ Regional 

Park, where subsistence hunting was 

widespread in the 1990s (Collar et al. 

1992, p. 60; del Hoyo 1994, p. 349; 

Strahl et al. 1995, p. 81) (Factor B). 

Cauca guans have not been observed in 

Munchique National Natural Park since 

1987 (BLI 2007h, p. 2: Renjifo 2002, p. 

124), despite subsequent searches of the 

area (Wege and Long 1995, p. 149). 

Similarly, since 1994, there have been 

only scant sightings of Cauca guans in 

the Ucumarı ́ Regional Park (Renjifo 

2002, p. 125; Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3; 

Wege and Long 1995, p. 141) (see 

Population Estimates, above). 

Researchers have indicated that local 

residents continue to hunt the Cauca 

guan despite the illegality of this 

activity (del Hoyo 1994, p. 337; Mun ̃ oz 

et al. 2006, p. 50; Renjifo 2002, p. 128; 

Rios et al. 2006, pp. 22-23), even within 

areas designated as ‘‘protected’’ under 

Colombian law (see also next 

paragraph). For instance, settlers in the 

Otu ́n-Quimbaya Flora and Fauna 

Sanctuary admit to taking between 24 

and 48 Cauca guans a year (Rios et al. 

2006, pp. 22-23) (Factor B). Thus, these 

Resolutions are ineffective at reducing 

the existing threat of subsistence 

hunting to the Cauca guan. 

Colombia has enacted numerous 

forestry laws and forestry management 

practices (Law No. 2 (EcoLex 1959); 

Decree No. 2,811 (Faolex 1974); Decree 

No. 1,791 (Faolex 1996); Law No. 1,021 

(EcoLex 2006)). Weaknesses in the 

implementation of these laws and the 

decentralized nature of Colombian 

resource management are described in 

detail above for the blue-billed curassow 

(Factor D) (ITTO 2006, pp. 218-9, 222; 

Matallana-T. 2005, pp. 121-122). Experts 

consider these decentralized 

management mechanisms to be 

ineffective at protecting the Cauca guan 

from habitat destruction (Factor A) or 

hunting (Factor B) (Mun ̃ oz et al. 2006, 

p. 50). Habitat destruction and hunting 

are ongoing throughout the species’ 

range, indicating that forestry 

regulations are ineffective at mitigating 

the threats to the Cauca guan from 

habitat destruction (Factor A) or hunting 

(Factor B). 

Colombia has several categories of 

national habitat protection (Matallana-T. 

2005, p. 121-122), which were described 

above, as part of the Factor D analysis 

for the blue-billed curassow (MatallanaT. 2005, p. 121-122). The Cauca guan 

occurs within national parks (including 

the Ucumarı ́ Regional Park, last 

confirmed Cauca guan sighting in 2004 

(Scanlon 2004, pp. 1-3), and Munchique 

National Natural Park, confirmed in 

1987 (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 305; Mun ̃ oz 

et al. 2006, p. 54; Salaman in litt. 1999, 

2000, as cited in BLI 2007h, p. 2)); 

reserves (Reserva Forestal de Bremen, 

confirmed in 1997 (Renjifo 2002, pp. 

124-125), Reserva Forestal de Yotoco, 

confirmed in 2000-2001 (Renjifo 2002, 

32332 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

pp. 124-125), and Reserva La Sirena, 

confirmed in 2000-2001 (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 302)); and sanctuaries (Otu ́nQuimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, 

confirmed in 2000-2001 (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 302)). Within the last 20 years, 

the Cauca guan population may have 

declined or been extirpated from at least 

two Parks, the Munchique National 

Natural Park and the Ucumarı ́ Regional 

Park, where the species has not been 

observed since 1987 (Renjifo 2002, pp. 

124-125) and 2004 (Scanlon 2004, pp. 1- 

3), respectively. These Parks were 

subject to subsistence hunting in the 

late 1990s (Collar et al. 1992, p. 60; del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 349; Strahl et al. 1995, p. 

81), and subsistence hunting of Cauca 

guan continues in these and other 

protected areas, such as Otu ́n-Quimbaya 

Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (Rios et al. 

2006, pp. 22-23) (Factor B). In addition, 

logging, population pressure and 

agriculture are ongoing within these 

Parks. Ucumarı ́ Regional Park, 

considered the stronghold for the 

species (BLI 2007h, p. 2), continues to 

be managed for multiple uses (including 

pasture land and other commercial 

ventures) (Factor A). In light of the 

multiple land uses allowed within the 

Park, and the ongoing human-induced 

habitat destruction, the Park provides 

little or no protection to the species 

from the threat of habitat destruction 

(Factor A). 

The Cauca guan ranges in multiple 

Departments (currently known in Cauca, 

Quindı ́o, Risaralda, Valle de Cauca), 

each of which administers their own 

natural resources under different 

autonomous Corporacio ́nes (ITTO 2006, 

p. 219; Law 99 of 1993). We are unaware 

of any coordinated species management 

plan. Therefore, in view of the 

decentralized resource management 

structure, the absence of a conservation 

strategy for the species, the threats to 

the Cauca guan from habitat destruction 

(Factor A) and hunting (Factor B) are 

not mitigated. 

Summary of Factor D 

Colombia has numerous laws and 

regulatory mechanisms to administer 

and manage wildlife and their habitats. 

The Cauca guan is listed as endangered 

under Colombian law and occurs within 

several protected areas. However, onthe-ground enforcement of existing 

wildlife protection and forestry laws 

and oversight of the local jurisdictions 

implementing and regulating activities 

are ineffective at mitigating the primary 

threats to the Cauca guan. As discussed 

for Factor A, habitat destruction, 

degradation, and fragmentation 

continue throughout the existing range 

of the Cauca guan. As discussed for 

Factor B, uncontrolled subsistence 

hunting of the Cauca guan is ongoing 

and continues to negatively affect the 

continued existence of the species. 

Moreover, the lack of a species 

conservation strategy and the 

decentralized management of natural 

resources in Colombia provide no 

overall coordination in the conservation 

of species such as Cauca guans, which 

range in multiple jurisdictions. 

Therefore, we find that the existing 

regulatory mechanisms currently in 

place are inadequate to mitigate the 

primary threats to the Cauca guan. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Two additional factors affect the 

Cauca guan: Its minimal likelihood for 

dispersal and the species’ small 

population size. 

Likelihood to Disperse: The Cauca 

guan exhibits characteristics indicative 

of an inability to disperse into isolated 

habitat fragments and recolonize 

patches of suitable habitat that have 

undergone a localized extirpation. The 

Cauca guan prefers habitat of mature 

humid forests (Collar et al. 1994, p. 

136), has generally been found only in 

secondary habitats that are situated 

within 1 km (0.62 mi) of primary forest 

(Renjifo 2002, p. 127), and is reported as 

timid in the presence of humans (Rios 

et al. 2006, p. 21). The remaining 

suitable habitat available to the Cauca 

guan is limited to a few disjunct and 

isolated forest fragments only a few 

hundred hectares (100 hectares = 1 km2

= 0.39 mi2) in size (Kattan 2004, p. 6; 

Kattan et al. 2006, p. 301; Renjifo 2002, 

p. 128). 

Existing habitat for the Cauca guan is 

fragmented, with large distances 

between the remaining primary forest 

fragments (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 

7; Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46) and an evergrowing human presence in and around 

the species’ existing habitat (BLI 2004c, 

p. 2; Cuervo 2002, p. 327; Cuervo and 

Salaman 1999, p. 8; Renjifo 2002, pp. 

124-128; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 

205). Without human intervention, the 

Cauca guan is unlikely to repopulate an 

isolated patch of suitable habitat 

following decline or local extirpation. 

Evidence for the Cauca guan’s inability 

to disperse across fragmented habitat 

patches is provided by the fact that 

there are several areas of suitable 

habitat, located near previously reported 

localities for the species, in which the 

Cauca guan has not been observed (see 

Factor A, Refugia). 

Small Population Size: Habitat 

destruction (Factor A) and hunting 

(Factor B) have affected the current 

population size and distributional range 

of the Cauca guan (Collar et al. 1992, pp. 

126-127; Collar et al. 1994, p. 60). By the 

1980s, the species was believed extinct 

or on the verge of extinction (Brooks 

and Strahl 2000, p. 14; del Hoyo 1994, 

pp. 337, 349; Hilty 1985, p. 1004; Hilty 

and Brown 1986, p. 125). The Cauca 

guan is now confirmed only in several 

isolated locations. Overall, the 

population is considered to be in 

decline, with the current isolated 

populations ranging from tens of 

individuals to a few hundred 

individuals at best (BLI 2007h, p. 2; 

Kattan 2004, p. 6; Renjifo 2002, p. 129), 

but there have been few population 

surveys of the Cauca guan. In 2006, 

Kattan (in litt., as cited in Mun ̃oz et al. 

2006 p. 55) estimated the global 

population to be between 196 and 342 

individuals. Kattan et al. (2006, p. 302) 

conducted the only two population 

surveys, in 2000 and 2001 (Mun ̃ oz et al. 

2006 p. 55). They estimated population 

densities at two locations, Otu ́nQuimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary 

(Risaralda) and Reserva Forestal de 

Yotoco (Valle de Cauca), to be between 

144 and 264 individuals, and 35 to 61 

individuals, respectively (Kattan et al. 

2006, p. 304). 

Small population sizes render species 

vulnerable to genetic risks that can have 

individual or population-level 

consequences on the genetic level and 

can increase the species’ susceptibility 

to demographic problems, as explained 

in more detail above for the blue-billed 

curassow (Factor E, Small Population 

Size) (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 

1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Once 

a population is reduced below a certain 

number of individuals, it tends to 

rapidly decline towards extinction 

(Franklin 1980, pp. 147-148; Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 

64-65; Soule ́ 1987, p. 181). 

In the absence of quantitative studies 

specific to this species, a general 

approximation of minimum viable 

population size is the 50/500 rule, as 

described above as part of the Factor E 

analysis for the brown-banded antpitta 

(Shaffer 1981, pp. 132-133; Soule ́ 1980, 

pp. 160-162). The total population size 

of the Cauca guan is estimated to be 

between 196 and 342 individuals. While 

196 individuals is above the minimum 

population size required to avoid shortterm genetic consequences, 342 falls 

below the threshold minimum number 

of 500 individuals required for longterm fitness of a population. 

Moreover, because the Cauca guan 

exists in isolated forest fragments and is 

unlikely or incapable of dispersing to 

disjunct patches, each disjunct locality 

likely acts as a subpopulation. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32333 

Therefore, the resiliency of each of these 

subpopulations will be lower than that 

of the global population. The largest 

reported subpopulation, in Otu ́nQuimbaya Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, 

contains between 144 and 264 

individuals (Kattan et al. 2006, p. 304). 

The lower figure, 144 individuals, is 

above the minimum effective 

population size required to avoid 

imminent risks from inbreeding (Ne = 

50). The upper limit of the 

subpopulation, 264 birds, represents the 

maximum number of individuals in the 

subpopulation, but does not take into 

account that not all members of the 

population will be reproductive. This 

figure is well below the upper threshold 

(Ne = 500 individuals) required for longterm fitness of a population to ensure 

that the species will not lose its genetic 

diversity over time and will maintain an 

enhanced capacity to adapt to changing 

conditions. The only other 

subpopulation figures are for Reserva 

Forestal de Yotoco, with an estimated 

35 to 61 individuals (Kattan et al. 2006, 

p. 304). Both of these figures are well 

below the 50/500 threshold. Therefore, 

we currently consider these 

subpopulations (and the species as a 

whole) to be at risk from genetic 

complications due to the lack of shortand long-term viability. 

The Cauca guan’s small population 

size, combined with its restricted range 

and inability to repopulate suitable 

habitat following local extirpations 

(Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Renjifo 2002, p. 138), 

makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to the threat of adverse 

natural (e.g., genetic, demographic, or 

environmental) and manmade (e.g., 

hunting or deforestation) events that 

destroy individuals and their habitat 

(BLI 2007, pp. 1-2; Holsinger 2000, pp. 

64-65; Renjifo 2002, p. 140; Young and 

Clarke 2000, pp. 361-366). 

Summary of Factor E 

The Cauca guan is now confirmed 

only in several isolated locations. The 

Cauca guan is unlikely or incapable of 

dispersing into suitable habitat that is 

isolated from extant populations, and 

the species’ overall small population 

size makes it vulnerable to genetic and 

demographic risks that negatively 

impact the species’ short- and long-term 

viability. The Cauca guan’s small 

population size, restricted range, and 

inability to repopulate suitable habitat 

following local extirpations expose the 

species to threats associated with 

adverse natural (e.g., genetic, 

demographic, or environmental) and 

manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) 

events that destroy individuals and their 

habitat. Therefore, we believe that, in 

combination with the risks to the 

species from habitat destruction (Factor 

A), hunting (Factor B), and predation 

(Factor C), the Cauca guan is vulnerable 

to localized extirpation or extinction 

from which the species would be unable 

to recover, due it its small population 

size and apparent inability to repopulate 

fragmented, isolated habitats such as 

those currently present within this 

species’ range. 

Status Determination for the Cauca 

Guan 

The five primary factors that threaten 

the survival of the Cauca guan are: (1) 

habitat destruction, fragmentation, and 

degradation; (2) overexploitation due to 

hunting; (3) predation (Factor C); (4) 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to 

reduce the threats to the species (Factor 

D); and (5) small population size and 

isolation of remaining populations 

(Factor E). The Cauca guan, a large, 

primarily terrestrial bird, prefers humid 

forests or secondary forests, forest edges 

and plantations that are in close 

proximity (within 1 km (0.62 mi)) to 

humid forests. 

Habitat destruction, alteration, 

conversion, and fragmentation were 

factors in the Cauca guan’s historical 

decline. The species has experienced a 

95 percent range reduction since the 

1950s, such that the estimated suitable 

habitat available to the species is 

approximately 560 km2 (216 mi2). 

Experts estimate that more than 30 

percent of this loss of habitat has 

occurred within the last three 

generations, or 30 years. Fifty years ago, 

the species’ historic range was estimated 

to have been an approximately 24,900- 

km2 (9,614-mi2) area, encompassing 

humid forests on the eastern slopes of 

the West Andes and the dry forests of 

the Cauca, Patı ́a, and Dagua Valleys, in 

the Departments of Cauca, Quindı ́o, 

Risaralda, and Valle de Cauca. Today, 

the species has been locally extirpated 

from the Cauca and Dagua Valleys. The 

Cauca guan inhabits the western slopes 

of the central and western Andes in the 

few remaining upper-elevation forest 

remnants at altitudes exceeding those 

reported in the first half of the 20th 

Century. These shifts to the extremes of 

its range and shifts in elevational 

distribution have resulted from 

extensive habitat destruction throughout 

the species’ range. The dry forests of the 

Cauca, Dauga, and Patı ́a Valleys and the 

humid forests on the slopes of these 

valleys up to 2,000 m have been largely 

destroyed for cultivation, grazing, 

human settlements, road building, and 

other human-induced habitat 

alterations. Cultivation of illegal drug 

crops, such as cocaine, has led to further 

deforestation and altered soil 

compositions, hindering regeneration of 

abandoned fields. In addition, drug 

eradication programs involving the 

aerial spraying of non-specific 

herbicides have led to further 

environmental degradation and habitat 

destruction (Factor A). 

Although the Cauca guan, which is 

listed in Colombia as endangered, 

occurs on lands designated by the 

Colombian government as ‘‘protected 

areas,’’ and it is illegal to commercially 

hunt the species, the existing laws and 

their enforcement are inadequate (Factor 

D) to mitigate the effects of ongoing 

habitat destruction (Factor A) and 

subsistence hunting (Factor B). 

Moreover, natural resource management 

within Colombia is highly 

decentralized, each district managing 

their resources autonomously. Thus, 

there is no overall coordination for the 

conservation and recovery of the Cauca 

guan, which ranges in several 

autonomous districts. 

Widespread deforestation and 

conversion of primary forests has led to 

the fragmentation of habitat throughout 

the Cauca guan’s range. The remaining 

suitable habitat is limited to a few 

disjunct and isolated forest fragments, 

only a few hundred hectares (100 

hectares = 1 km2 = 0.39 mi2) in size. 

Habitat fragmentation affects resource 

availability for the Cauca guan, which 

requires large territories for foraging on 

its preferred food source: seasonally 

available fruits. Experts believe that 

remaining refugia, such as the Otu ́nQuimbaya Sanctuary, may not be large 

enough to support viable populations, 

lacking sufficient space and resources 

needed for this large, terrestrial bird. 

Habitat fragmentation also increases 

the species’ susceptibility to hunting 

(Factor B). The Cauca guan is hunted 

throughout its current range. As the 

largest cracid living within its area of 

distribution, the Cauca guan is sought 

after by locals as a major food source. 

Despite being illegal (Factor D), 

subsistence hunting of Cauca guans 

continues throughout its range, 

including within protected areas. 

Hunting may be responsible for the 

species’ local extirpation from the 

Ucumarı ́ Regional Park, considered the 

stronghold for the species in the 1990s, 

and the Munchique National Natural 

Park. 

Habitat fragmentation exposes the 

species to greater risk of extinction 

caused by adverse natural (e.g., genetic, 

demographic, or environmental) and 

manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) 

events (Factor E). At the beginning of 

the 20th Century through the 1950s, the 

32334 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

species was considered common. 

Habitat fragmentation has led to the 

isolation of remaining subpopulations, 

which are estimated to range from tens 

of individuals or a few hundred 

individuals at most, thus affecting the 

species’ resiliency. The total population 

estimate of 196-342 individuals falls 

below the threshold minimum number 

of 500 individuals required for longterm fitness of a population. It is 

estimated that the species has lost up to 

9 percent of its population in the last 10 

years. Given that the Cauca guan is 

likely to act as subpopulations and its 

inability to disperse between 

fragmented habitat patches, the species’ 

effective population size is actually 

much less than the global population 

estimate would imply. The fitness of the 

subpopulations is vital to understanding 

the viability of the species. The largest 

subpopulation, estimated to contain 

between 144 and 264 individuals, falls 

below the threshold for long-term 

viability. The other subpopulation for 

which there is an estimate contains 

between 35 and 61 individuals, which 

figures are below the thresholds for both 

short-term and long-term viability. 

Thus, the Cauca guan is at risk from 

both near-term genetic complications 

(such as inbreeding and demographic 

shifts) and the lack of long-term fitness 

(such as the ability to adapt to changing 

conditions). Because the species exists 

in isolated subpopulations, the risk from 

near-term genetic consequences, such as 

inbreeding and demographic shifts, is 

further magnified. These potential 

genetic problems are exacerbated by 

ongoing human-induced threats, such as 

habitat destruction (Factor A) and 

hunting (Factor B), factors which are not 

being mitigated by existing regulations 

(Factor D), and are further magnified by 

the species’ inability to repopulate 

isolated, fragmented patches of suitable 

habitat, where Cauca guan populations 

have undergone decline or local 

extirpation (Factor E). 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Cauca guan. We consider the ongoing 

threats to the Cauca guan, habitat 

destruction (Factor A), hunting (Factor 

B), and predation (Factor C), 

exacerbated by the species’ small 

population size and limited dispersal 

ability (Factor E), and compounded by 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms to 

mitigate these threats (Factor D), to be 

equally present and of the same 

magnitude throughout the species’ 

entire current range. Based on this 

information, we determine that the 

Cauca guan is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

we are proposing to list the Cauca guan 

as an endangered species. 

IV. Gorgeted Wood-Quail 

(Odontophorus strophium) 

Species Description 

The gorgeted wood-quail, endemic to 

Colombia and a member of the New 

World Quail Family (Odontophoridae), 

is approximately 25 cm (10 in) long (del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 431; Fjeldsa ̈ and Krabbe 

1990, p. 141; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 

133). The species is locally known as 

‘‘perdiz Santandereana’’ or ‘‘perdiz de 

monte’’ (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 

158), and may be referred to by the more 

general term ‘‘forest partridge’’ in 

English (BLI 2007g, p. 1). Mainly dark 

brown with black spots on upper parts, 

the male has a speckled black and white 

face, and a white collar on his throat 

surrounded on the upper and lower side 

by a band of black. Underparts are 

rufous-chestnut colored with white 

spotting. The female appears similar to 

the male; however, the female has a 

black collar surrounded by white bands 

on her throat (BLI 2007g, p. 1). 

Taxonomy 

The gorgeted wood-quail was first 

taxonomically described in 1844 by 

Gould, who placed the species in the 

Odontophoridae family, also known as 

the New World Quails (BLI 2007g, p. 1). 

The type specimen (the actual specimen 

that was first described by Gould) was 

obtained in the Colombian Department 

of Cundinamarca (Hilty and Brown 

1986, p. 133), although details on the 

location were not provided with the 

description (Warren 1966, p. 318). 

Therefore, we will refer to the 

Department of Cundinamarca as the 

‘‘type locality.’’ 

Habitat and Life History 

The gorgeted wood-quail prefers 

montane temperate and humid 

subtropical forests dominated by roble, 

Tabebuia rosea, and secondary-growth 

forests in proximity to mature forests 

(Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 159), 

especially those dominated by oak 

(Quercus humboldtii). The species is 

most often found at elevations between 

1,750 and 2,050 m (5,741 and 6,726 ft) 

(BLI 2007g, p. 2; Donegan and Huertas 

2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; 

Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; 

Turner 2006, p. 22; Wege and Long 

1995, pp. 143-144). Fuller et al. (2000, 

pp. 27-28) suggested that the species’ 

range may be up to 2,500 m (8,202 ft) 

in elevation. However, Sarria and 

A ́ lvarez (2002, p. 160) noted that, 

despite the availability of suitable 

habitat adjacent to the species’ current 

locations, these areas are above the 

elevational range of the species and are 

not used. Moreover, in the most recent 

population surveys in the Yarguı ́es 

Mountains (Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es), 

which range up to 3,200 m (10,498 ft), 

researchers heard the species vocalizing 

primarily at elevations between 1,800 

and 1,900m (5,905 and 6,234 ft), and 

none were heard above 1,950-2,000 m 

(6,398-6,562 ft) (Donegan and Huertas 

2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 29; 

Donegan et al. 2004, p. 19). There are no 

recorded observations of this species at 

ranges above 2,050 m (6,726 ft) (BLI 

2007g, p. 2; Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160; Turner 2006, 

p. 22; Wege and Long 1995, pp. 143- 

144). Therefore, we conclude that the 

species’ preferred range remains at 

elevations between 1,750 and 2,050 m 

(5,741 and 6,726 ft). 

The gorgeted wood-quail is primarily 

terrestrial (Fuller et al. 2000, p. 2), living 

on the forest floor and feeding on fruit, 

seeds, and arthropods (Collar et al. 

1992, pp. 171-172; del Hoyo 1994, p. 

431; Fuller et al. 2000, pp. 27-28). There 

appear to be two breeding seasons per 

year, coinciding with the rainy seasons 

from March through May and 

September through November (BLI 

2007g, p. 3). Gorgeted wood-quails are 

ground-nesting birds, laying their eggs 

in a small depression lined with 

vegetation and almost always covered 

with brush from the understory (Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 159). Similar to 

other wood-quails, gorgeted woodquails associate in small groups and call 

to other groups by chorusing—singing 

together (Donegan et al. 2003, p. 29). 

Researchers consider this species to be 

dependent on primary forest for at least 

part of its life cycle (BLI 2007g, p. 3; 

Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 159). 

Historical Range and Distribution 

The gorgeted wood-quail historically 

occurred on the western slope of the 

East Andes, in the Departments of 

Santander and Cundinamarca in 

Colombia (del Hoyo 1994, p. 431; 

Fjeldsa ̈ and Krabbe 1990, p. 141; Hilty 

and Brown 1986, p. 133). Since the 17th 

Century, extensive logging and land 

conversion in Cundimarca to 

agricultural uses nearly denuded all the 

forests of this area below 2,500m (8,202 

ft) (BLI 2007g, p. 3; Hilty and Brown 

1986, p. 133). Habitat destruction is 

considered the primary factor that led to 

the historical decline and extirpation of 

this species from Cundinamarca (Fuller 

et al. 2000, pp. 4-5; Wege and Long 

1995, p. 146). 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32335 

For many years, the species was 

known only from two specimens 

collected in 1915 from its type locality 

in Cundinamarca (Hilty and Brown 

1986, p. 133). Although the species was 

reported at this site again in 1923 and 

1954, it has not been seen there since 

that time (Wege and Long 1995, p. 146). 

The species was believed extinct until a 

record of a male bird and chicks was 

reported in 1970 in Santander 

Department in the Cuchilla del Ramo 

forest (Collar et al. 1992, p. 171; Fuller 

et al. 2000, p. 27). 

Current Range and Distribution 

The gorgeted wood-quail is endemic 

to the west slope of the East Andes, in 

the Magdalena Valley (Donegan and 

Huertas 2005, p. 29), and is known only 

in the central Colombian Department of 

Santander (del Hoyo 1994, p. 431; 

Fjeldsa ̈ and Krabbe 1990, p. 141; Hilty 

and Brown 1986, p. 133). The current 

range of this species is between 10 km2

(4 mi2) (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160) 

and 27 km2 (10.42 mi2) (BLI 2007g, pp. 

2, 5). 

Since 1970, the species has only been 

reported in the central Colombian 

Department of Santandar, with fewer 

than 10 sightings. Visual observations of 

this species have been scant; most 

reports have been inferred from auditory 

detections (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 

158-159). In 1970, the species was 

observed in Cuchilla del Ramo forest 

(Wege and Long 1995, p. 143), but has 

not been confirmed there since that time 

(BLI 2007g, p. 2) (see also Factor A). The 

species has been observed and most 

recently confirmed in three locations: 

(1) Guanenta ́-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and 

Fauna Sanctuary, (2) Cachalu ́ Biological 

Reserve, and (3) Serranı ́a de los 

Yarguı ́es. These confirmed sightings are 

briefly described below. 

(1) Guanenta ́-Alto Rio Fonce Flora 

and Fauna Sanctuary (Santander 

Department): The gorgeted wood-quail 

was confirmed at this location in 1979 

(BLI 2007g, p. 2) and again in 1988 

(Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160; Wege 

and Long 1995, p. 144). In 2004, the 

species was reported in the oak forests 

within the Province of Guanenta ́ (BLI 

2007g, p. 2), but it is unclear whether 

these observations occurred within the 

Sanctuary. 

(2) Cachalu ́ Biological Reserve 

(Santander Department): The gorgeted 

wood-quail was confirmed in this 

Reserve in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (BLI 

2007g, p. 2; Fuller et al. 2000, p. 27; 

Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159). 

(3) Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es 

(Santander Department): The species 

has also been confirmed at this location 

in 2003 and 2004 (BLI 2007g, p. 2; 

Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; 

Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Turner 2006, 

p. 22). The Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es 

locale reportedly harbors the largest 

known population and is the stronghold 

for the species (Donegan and Huertas 

2005, p. 29; Turner 2006, p. 22) (see 

Population Estimates, below). 

Generally speaking, these localities 

are in two disjunct locations within the 

Department of Santander. Serranı ́a de 

los Yarguı ́es is in northern Santander 

and the other two localities are adjacent 

to each other in southern Santander 

(Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 30; 

Rainforest Alliance 2008, p. 2). These 

habitats are described more fully under 

Factor A (Refugia). 

Population Estimates 

To the best of our knowledge, there 

have been no quantitative studies to 

determine the species’ population size. 

The population estimates for the 

gorgeted wood-quail are based on 

qualitative surveys and extrapolations 

using suitable habitat estimates (BLI 

2007g, p. 2; Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Fuller 

et al. 2000, p. 27; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 

2002, pp. 158-159; Turner 2006, p. 22). 

As noted above (see Current Range), a 

total of 3 adults and 2 chicks were 

observed between 1923 and 1970 (Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 158; Wege and 

Long 1995, p. 143). The largest number 

of visual confirmations of individual 

birds has been reported in the Reserva 

Biolo ́gico Cachalu ́. In 1999, two groups 

of 7-9 individuals were observed. 

Between 2001 and 2002, six groups of 

5-11 individuals were observed (Sarria 

in litt., as cited in Sarria and A ́ lvarez 

2002, p. 159). Based on these direct 

observations, the population in the 

Reserva Biolo ́gico Cachalu ́ may consist 

of between 30 and 66 individuals. 

All other population estimates have 

been inferred from auditory calls or 

suitable habitat extrapolations. It is not 

unusual to infer population estimates 

for elusive, ground-dwelling species, 

such as the gorgeted wood-quail, for 

which direct observation is difficult. 

However, extrapolating population 

estimates based on suitable habitat can 

lead to overestimations of population 

sizes, especially for narrow-ranging 

species, such as the gorgeted woodquail. The potential for overestimation 

was discussed above, in the analysis of 

the brown-banded antpitta (Factor E, 

Small Population Size). For instance, 

researchers recently estimated that the 

Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es population may 

hold a significantly greater number of 

birds than ever known. Given the 

inferred density of the species (based on 

auditory observation) and the extent of 

forest cover in the Serranı ́a de los 

Yarguı ́es, researchers predicted that an 

excess of 250 individuals was present at 

the site (Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 

30; Donegan et al. 2004, p. 19). Turner 

(2006, p. 22) extrapolated the 

population size, based on satellite 

images of the area, which indicated that 

30,000 ha (74,131 ac) of forest at 

elevations between 1,500 and 2,200 m 

(4,921 and 7,218 ft) on the western slope 

and 2,700 and 2,900 m (8,858 and 9,514 

ft) on the eastern slope were available to 

the species. This yielded a predicted 

population size of between 1,800 and 

3,300 individuals. However, we believe 

that this population estimate, based on 

the availability of suitable habitat, may 

be an overestimate for this species for 

two reasons: (1) the population may not 

be randomly distributed throughout the 

suitable habitat, as assumed by these 

researchers, and (2) the extrapolation 

does not take into account humaninduced threats, such as hunting (Sarria 

and A ́ lavarez 2002, pp. 160-161) (Factor 

B). Therefore, until Turner’s (2006, p. 

22) predictions have been groundtruthed, we are unable to consider the 

predicted population estimate of 

between 1,800 and 3,300 individuals to 

be a reliable reflection of the current 

population size. Consequently, we 

consider the population estimate of 

between 189 to 486 individuals (BLI 

2007g, p. 1) to be the best available 

estimate of the gorgeted wood-quail. 

Conservation Status 

The gorgeted wood-quail is identified 

as a critically endangered species under 

Colombian law (EcoLex 2002, p. 12). 

The species is classified as ‘Critically 

Endangered’ on the IUCN Red List, due 

to its small and highly fragmented 

range, with recent population records 

from only two areas (BLI 2004d; BLI 

2007g, pp. 1, 5). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Gorgeted Wood-Quail 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Habitat or Range 

In the early part of the 20th Century, 

the gorgeted wood-quail was known 

only in the oak forests in the 

Department of Cundinamarca. However, 

extensive deforestation and habitat 

conversion for agricultural use nearly 

denuded all the oak forests in 

Cundinamarca below 2,500 m (8,202 ft) 

(BLI 2007g, p. 3; Hilty and Brown 1986, 

p. 133). Deforestation left little 

remaining suitable habitat for the 

gorgeted wood-quail, which prefers 

primary forests and tolerates secondarygrowth forests near primary forests (BLI 

32336 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2007g, p. 3; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 

159) at altitudes from 1,500 to 2,500 m 

(4,921 to 8,202 ft) (del Hoyo 1994, p. 

431; Fuller et al. 2000, pp. 27-28; Hilty 

and Brown 1986, p. 133). Subsequent 

surveys have not located the species in 

the Department of Cundinamarca since 

1954 (Collar et al. 1992, p. 171; Fuller 

et al. 2000, p. 27; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 

2002, p. 158), and researchers consider 

the gorgeted wood-quail to be locally 

extirpated from Cundinamarca (BLI 

2007g, p. 3; Fuller et al. 2000, pp. 4-5; 

Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160-161; 

Wege and Long 1995, p. 146). 

Deforestation, in combination with 

hunting (Factor B), may have led to the 

local extirpation of the gorgeted woodquail from another location. After no 

confirmed reports of the species in 

nearly 20 years (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 

2002, pp. 158-159), the species was 

rediscovered in Cuchilla del Ramo 

forest (in the Department of Santander) 

in 1970 (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 

158-159; Wege and Long 1995, p. 143) 

and last confirmed there in 1988 (Collar 

et al. 1992, p. 172). However the species 

has not been confirmed at that location 

since that time (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159). 

According to Wege and Long (1995, p. 

143), Cuchilla del Ramo, an unprotected 

area on the western slopes of the East 

Andes, has been largely cleared of its 

forest such that only fragments remain. 

Thus, it is possible that deforestation 

within the past 30 years has led to the 

extirpation of the gorgeted wood-quail 

from this location. 

Today, the gorgeted wood-quail is 

endemic to the western slopes of the 

East Andes in the Department of 

Santander, Colombia (Collar et al. 1994, 

p. 70; del Hoyo 1994, p. 431; Fjeldsa ̈

and Krabbe 1990, p. 141; Hilty and 

Brown 1986, p. 133). The gorgeted 

wood-quail is currently confirmed in 

three locations (see Refugia, below), and 

its current range is between 10 km2 (4 

mi2) (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160) 

and 27 km2 (10.42 mi2) (BLI 2007g, pp. 

2, 5). The species has lost 92 percent of 

its former habitat (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 

2002, p. 160), and habitat loss continues 

throughout its range (BLI 2007g, p. 2; 

Collar et al. 1992, p. 172; Collar et al. 

1994, p. 70; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 26; 

Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133; Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 159-160). 

Deforestation rates and patterns: 

Colombian forests have undergone 

extensive alteration during the 20th 

Century to establish human settlements, 

build roads, extract timber, and pursue 

agriculture. Between 1973 and 1996, 

these activities reduced the amount of 

primary forest cover in Colombia by 

approximately 3,605 ha (8,908 ac) 

annually, representing a nearly onethird total loss of primary forest habitat 

(Vin ̃ a et al. 2004, pp. 123-124). Habitat 

loss accelerated dramatically in the 

1980s as an influx of people settled in 

formerly pristine forests (Perz et al. 

2005, pp. 26-28; Vin ̃ a et al. 2004, p. 

124). Recent studies indicate that the 

rate of habitat destruction is 

accelerating. Between the years 1990 

and 2005, Colombia lost approximately 

52,800 ha (130,471 ac) of primary forest 

annually (Butler 2006a, pp. 1-3; FAO 

2003a, p. 1). These studies and activities 

were described in greater detail above, 

as part of the Factor A analysis for the 

blue-billed curassow (under 

Deforestation Rates and Patterns). 

Logging is especially common in the flat 

lower-elevation areas and areas below 

2,500 m (8,202 ft), where deforestation 

is nearly complete. Logging continues in 

steeper-sloped areas, where 

commercially valuable trees are still 

being extracted, and forested areas are 

being cleared for agricultural purposes 

(Fuller et al. 2000, p. 4; Stattersfield et 

al. 1998, p. 192). 

Human-induced deforestation and 

environmental degradation have caused 

the gorgeted wood-quail to shift its 

range from the Department of 

Cundinamarca to the Department of 

Santander. The species was first 

observed in Santander within Cuchilla 

del Ramo forest in 1970 (Wege and Long 

1995, p. 143), but has not been 

confirmed there since then (BLI 2007g, 

p. 2). The presence of the species has 

been documented only about 10 times, 

and most documentations have been 

auditory. The species has been most 

recently confirmed in the following 

three locations: (1) Guanenta ́-Alto Rio 

Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (BLI 

2007g, p. 2; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 

160; Wege and Long 1995, p. 144), (2) 

Cachalu ́ Biological Reserve (BLI 2007g, 

p. 2; Fuller et al. 2000, p. 27; Sarria and 

A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159), and (3) the 

Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es (BLI 2007g, p. 

2; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; 

Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Turner 2006, 

p. 22). 

Illegal drugs and their eradication: 

Cocaine and opium has been cultivated 

throughout the gorgeted wood-quail’s 

range. The cultivation of illegal crops 

(including coca and opium) in Colombia 

destroys montane forests (Balslev 1993, 

p. 3). Coca crops also destroy the soil 

quality by causing the soil to become 

more acidic, which depletes the soil 

nutrients and ultimately impedes the 

regrowth of secondary forests in 

abandoned fields (Van Schoik and 

Schulberg 1993, p. 21). As of 2004, an 

estimated 80,000 ha (197,683 ac) were 

under cocaine cultivation and 4,000 ha 

(9,884 ac) were under opium cultivation 

(UNODC et al. 2007, pp. 7-8). These 

figures include habitat within the 

gorgeted wood-quail’s range. Between 

2003 and 2004, cocaine cultivation areas 

increased 25 percent in Cundinamarca, 

from 57 to 71 ha (140 to 175 ac), and 

by 78 percent in Santander, from 632 to 

1,124 ha (1562 to 2777 ac) (UNODC and 

GOC 2005, p. 15). 

Colombia continues to be the leading 

coca bush producer (UNODC et al. 2007, 

p. 7). However, since 2003, cocaine 

cultivation has remained stable, with 

about 800 km2 (309 mi2) of land under 

cultivation (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 8). 

This stabilization of production is, in 

part, attributed to alternative 

development projects implemented 

between 1999 and 2004, to encourage 

pursuits other than illegal crop 

cultivation (UNODC et al. 2007, p. 77). 

This stabilization of production area is 

also attributed to heightened eradication 

efforts. Between 2002 and 2004, aerial 

spraying occurred over more than 1,300 

km2 (502 mi2) of land annually, peaking 

in 2004, when 1,360 km2 (525 mi2) of 

illicit crops were sprayed (UNODC and 

GOC 2005, p. 11). In 2006, eradication 

efforts were undertaken on over 2,130 

km2 (822 mi2) of land, consisting of 

1,720 km2 (664 mi2) of land being 

sprayed and manual eradication being 

used on the remaining land. Eradication 

efforts undertaken in 2006 occurred 

over an area representing 2.7 times more 

land than the net cultivation area 

(UNODC et al. 2007, p. 8). In Santander 

alone, 1,855 ha (4,583 ac) of coca fields 

were sprayed or manually eradicated in 

2004 (UNODC 2005, p. 66). Drug 

eradication efforts in Colombia have 

further degraded and destroyed primary 

forest habitat by using nonspecific aerial 

herbicides to destroy illegal crops 

(A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; 

Ca ́rdenas and Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, 

p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9- 

12). Herbicide spraying has introduced 

harmful chemicals into gorgeted woodquail habitat and has led to further 

destruction of the habitat by forcing 

illicit growers to move to new, 

previously untouched forested areas 

(A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; A ́ lvarez 

2005, p. 2042; A ́ lvarez 2007, pp. 133- 

143; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Ca ́rdenas and 

Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham 

and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12). Between 

1998 and 2002, cultivation of illicit 

crops increased by 21 percent each year, 

with a concomitant increase in 

deforestation of formerly pristine areas 

of approximately 60 percent (A ́ lvarez 

2002, pp. 1088-1093). 

Effects of habitat fragmentation: An 

analysis of the effects of habitat 

fragmentation on Andean birds within 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32337 

western Colombia determined that 31 

percent of the historical bird 

populations have become extinct or 

were locally extirpated by 1990, largely 

as a result of habitat fragmentation from 

deforestation and human encroachment 

(Kattan and A ́ lvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 5; 

Kattan et al. 1994, p. 141). The gorgeted 

wood-quail, which depends on primary 

forest for at least part of its life cycle 

(BLI 2007g, p. 3; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 

2002, p. 159), has been extirpated from 

its type locality in Cundinaramaca 

(Fuller et al. 2000, pp. 4-5; Wege and 

Long 1995, p. 146). The study also noted 

that species at the upper or lower limit 

of their altitudinal distribution are more 

susceptible to local extirpation and 

extinction (Kattan and A ́ lvarez-Lopez 

1996, pp. 5-6). This is the case for the 

gorgeted wood-quail; the species prefers 

habitat at 1,750-2,050 m (5,741-6,726 ft), 

most of which has been destroyed (BLI 

2007g, p. 2; Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; Turner 

2006, p. 22; Wege and Long 1995, pp. 

143-144), and it has not been 

documented at higher elevations, 

despite the availability of suitable 

habitat (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Donegan and 

Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 

2003, p. 27; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, 

pp. 158-160; Turner 2006, p. 22; Wege 

and Long 1995, pp. 143-144). Another 

study on the effects of habitat 

fragmentation in Colombia found that 

habitat fragmentation facilitates 

predation and hunting pressure 

(Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 140- 

142) (Factors B and C). 

Refugia: The gorgeted wood-quail has 

been observed, and most recently 

confirmed, in the following three 

locations: (1) Guanenta ́-Alto Rio Fonce 

Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, (2) Cachalu ́

Biological Reserve, and (3) the Serranı ́a 

de los Yarguı ́es. 

(1) Guanenta ́-Alto Rio Fonce Flora 

and Fauna Sanctuary (Santander 

Department): This 10,420-ha (25,748-ac) 

humid subtropical and temperate oak 

forest on the western slope of the East 

Andes was declared a protected natural 

area in 1993 (Andrade and Repizzo 

1994, p. 43; Rainforest Alliance, p. 2; 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2008, p. 

1). This area has long been considered 

the largest remaining sizeable oak forest 

tract remaining in the northern area of 

the East Andes, even as recently as the 

year 2005 (Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 11; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160; 

Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 193; Wege 

and Long 1995, p. 144). The gorgeted 

wood-quail was first observed in the 

Sanctuary in 1979 (BLI 2007g, p. 2) and 

again 1988 (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 

160; Wege and Long 1995, p. 144). In 

2004, the species was reported in the 

oak forests within the Province of 

Guanenta ́ (BLI 2007g, p. 2), but it is 

unclear whether these observations 

occurred within the Sanctuary. 

Beginning in the 1960s, habitat 

conversion accelerated in the East 

Andes (Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 192). 

The forests of the Colombian East Andes 

have been extensively degraded (Collar 

et al., 1992, p. 172; Fjeldsa ̈ and Krabbe 

1990; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 133; 

Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 192). The 

western slopes have been largely 

converted to agricultural use and to 

pastureland for cattle (Stattersfield et al. 

1998, p. 192), and deforestation 

continues on the lower slopes of the 

East Andes (Wege and Long 1995, p. 

143). Selective logging affects birds in 

the lower part of the Guanenta ́ Alto Rio 

Fonce (Fuller et al. 2000, p. 28; Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160), including the 

gorgeted wood-quail. Stattersfield et al. 

(1998, p. 192) reported that forest loss 

below 2,500 m (8,202 ft) has been 

almost complete, although Fuller et al. 

(2000, p. 28) noted that the forest was 

‘‘largely intact’’ above 1,950–2,200 m 

(6,398-7,218 ft). However, elevations 

above this altitude would not serve the 

needs of the gorgeted wood-quail, 

because this species is found most often 

at 1,750-2,050 m (5,741-6,726 ft) in 

altitude (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Donegan and 

Huertas 2005, p. 29; Donegan et al. 

2003, p. 27; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, 

pp. 158-159; Turner 2006, p. 22; Wege 

and Long 1995, pp. 143-144) (see 

discussion under Habitat and Life 

History for the gorgeted wood-quail). 

(2) Cachalu ́ Biological Reserve: This 

1,300-ha (3,212-ac) Reserve (TNC 2008, 

p. 1) was established in 1997 adjacent 

to Guanenta ́ Alto Rio Fonce Flora and 

Fauna Sanctuary (Rainforest Alliance 

2008, p. 2). It encompasses primarily 

mature oak forests and secondary areas 

(regenerating pastureland) at altitudes 

between 1,850 and 2,750 m (6,070 and 

9,022 ft). Most of the secondary areas 

within the Reserve have been 

regenerating for 20 years. About 4 

percent of land formerly used for 

pastureland and slash-and-burn 

agriculture has been left to regenerate 

within the last 8 years (BLI 2007g, p. 

10). The species was first observed at 

this location in 1999 and again in 2000 

and 2001 (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Fuller et al. 

2000, p. 27; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, 

pp. 158-159). 

While human population pressures in 

northern Santander have not been as 

great as in other parts of the Andes, 70 

percent of the subsistence population 

living locally has had a major influence 

on the upper montane forest system. 

Slash-and-burn agriculture (clearing 

small plots of land for agriculture and 

settlement) and subsistence extractive 

activities (such as harvesting wood, 

plant fibers, and animals) have turned 

the upper montane forests into 

extraction forests (Rainforest Alliance 

2008, p. 2). Ongoing slashing and 

burning on the outskirts of the Reserve 

could further degrade the integrity of 

the habitat within the Reserve (BLI 

2007g, p. 11). 

(3) Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es (Yarguı ́es 

Mountains): This 175,000-ha (432,425- 

ac) forest is located in southern 

Santander and ranges in altitude 

between 200 and 3200 m (656 and 

10,499 ft) (BLI 2007g, p. 12; Donegan 

and Huertas 2005, p. 30). This area was 

previously unsurveyed for birds, due to 

political instability and occupation by 

revolutionary armed forces (Donegan 

and Huertas 2005, pp. 11, 29-30; 

Donegan et al. 2004, p. 19; Sarria and 

A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160). The gorgeted 

wood-quail was first observed in 

Yarguı ́es in 2003 and again in 2004 (BLI 

2007g, p. 2; Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Turner 

2006, p. 22). This site is now considered 

to be the stronghold for the species 

(Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; 

Donegan et al. 2004, p. 19; Turner 2006, 

p. 22) (see Population Estimates, above). 

This forest does not have protected 

status (BLI 2007g, p. 13) and land 

clearing for slash-and-burn agriculture 

continues to be a problem within the 

Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es (BLI 2007g, p. 

13; Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 29; 

Turner 2006, p. 22). 

Summary of Factor A 

Habitat destruction, alteration, 

conversion, and fragmentation were 

factors in the species’ historical decline 

and continue to be factors affecting the 

gorgeted wood-quail. The direct loss of 

habitat through widespread 

deforestation and conversion of primary 

forests for agricultural uses has led to a 

95 percent range reduction for the 

species, leading to extirpation of the 

species in its type locality (in 

Cundinamarca) and an apparent shift in 

the species’ range (to Santander). The 

species is known only in three 

locations, where habitat conversion and 

poaching of the gorgeted wood-quail are 

ongoing. Deforestation, habitat 

conversion, and drug eradication efforts 

have reduced the amount of suitable 

habitat at elevations preferred by the 

species, such that its current range is 

between 10 and 27 km2 (4 and 10 mi2). 

The destruction and fragmentation of 

the remaining primary forested habitat 

are ongoing throughout the species’ 

range and are expected to continue. 

Therefore, we find that the present 

32338 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment of habitat are threats to the 

gorgeted wood-quail throughout all of 

its range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Galliformes such as the gorgeted 

wood-quail are chiefly terrestrial birds 

that are easily hunted or trapped, and 

they have been closely associated with 

humans throughout history as a source 

for food, ornamental collection, 

commercial trade, and recreational 

hunting (Fuller et al. 2000, p. 2). 

Hunting the gorgeted wood-quail is 

illegal in Colombia (Factor D) and is 

considered poaching. Poaching for 

subsistence use and for local food trade 

is ongoing throughout the species’ range 

(BLI 2007g, pp. 7, 11-13; Donegan and 

Huertas 2005, p. 29; Turner 2006, p. 22) 

(BLI 2007g, p. 7). Hunting affects birds 

in the lower part of the Guanenta ́-Alto 

Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary 

(Fuller et al. 2000, p. 28; Sarria and 

A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160), including the 

gorgeted wood-quail. Illegal hunting is 

an ongoing problem on the outskirts of 

the Cachalu ́ Biological Reserve, where 

the species has been observed within 

the past decade (BLI 2007g, p. 10; Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 158). Poaching of 

the gorgeted wood-quail continues to be 

a problem within the Serranı ́a de los 

Yarguı ́es, considered the stronghold for 

the species (BLI 2007g, p. 13; Donegan 

and Huertas 2005, p. 29; Turner 2006, 

p. 22). The IUCN Partridge, Quail, and 

Francolin Specialist Group (PQF 

Specialist Group) considers unregulated 

hunting to be a factor affecting gorgeted 

wood-quail populations throughout the 

species’ range (Fuller et al. 2000, p. 28). 

Hunting, in combination with 

deforestation, may have led to the local 

extirpation of this species from Cuchilla 

del Ramo (Department of Santander), 

where the species was first observed in 

1970 (Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 158- 

159; Wege and Long 1995, p. 143) and 

last confirmed in 1988 (Collar et al. 

1992, p. 172). The gorgeted wood-quail 

has not been confirmed at this location 

again (BLI 2007g, p. 2; Sarria and 

A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159), which may 

be due to a combination of habitat 

destruction and hunting pressures. This 

unprotected area on the western slopes 

of the East Andes is severely fragmented 

due to deforestation (Factor A). In 

addition, active hunting was reported in 

this location in the late 1980s. Collar et 

al. (1992, p. 172) interpreted this level 

of hunting to imply that the species was 

capable of withstanding some hunting 

pressure. Andrade (in litt., Collar et al. 

1992, p. 172) noted that this would be 

the case only where the species is 

capable of retreating into suitable 

adjacent habitat. However, little suitable 

habitat is located in this area. Thus, 

hunting, in combination with 

deforestation, may have led to the 

extirpation of the gorgeted wood-quail 

from Cuchilla del Ramo. 

In addition, Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 

(1997, pp. 140-142) conducted a study 

on the effect of habitat fragmentation on 

birds in Colombia and found that 

habitat fragmentation facilitates hunting 

because smaller habitat patches allow 

hunters to more easily penetrate the 

entire plot (Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan 

1997, pp. 140-142). 

Summary of Factor B 

The gorgeted wood-quail is hunted 

(poached) throughout its current range 

for local consumption or local food 

trade. Hunting results in the direct 

removal of individuals from the 

population and can remove potentially 

reproductive adults from the breeding 

pool. This primarily terrestrial species is 

particularly vulnerable to hunting 

pressures due to its small population 

size (Factor E) and fragmented 

distribution (Factor A). Researchers 

believe that the gorgeted wood-quail is 

only capable of escaping hunting 

pressures when adjacent suitable habitat 

exists. There are continued reports of 

hunting pressures on the species; these 

pressures have been and continue to be 

exacerbated by ongoing human 

encroachment into previously 

undisturbed forests (Factor A). Hunting, 

combined with habitat fragmentation 

(Factor A), increases the possibility of 

local extirpation since the gorgeted 

wood-quail is unlikely to re-occupy an 

area that has been depleted through 

hunting (Factor E, Likelihood to 

Disperse). Hunting may have led to the 

local extirpation of the species in a 

portion of its range. Hunting pressures 

are ongoing and affect the entire 

population of gorgeted wood-quail. 

Therefore, we find that hunting is a 

threat to the gorgeted wood-quail 

throughout its range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease: We are not aware of any 

information regarding disease or the 

potential for significant disease 

outbreaks in gorgeted wood-quail 

populations. As a result, we do not 

consider disease to be a threat to the 

species. 

Predation: Potential quail predators 

include feral dogs, tayras, dwarf 

squirrels (Microsciurus sp.), tree 

squirrels (Sciurus granatensis), common 

opossums (Didelphis marsupialis), 

kinkajous (Potos flavus), Central 

American agoutis (Dasyprocta 

punctata), and South American coatis 

(Nasua nasua) (Arango-Ve ́lez and 

Kattan 1997, p. 141). A predation study 

conducted in the Colombian Andes 

demonstrated that habitat fragmentation 

increased predation pressure on the eggs 

of the common quail (Coturnix coturnix) 

when situated within smaller, isolated 

habitat fragments (Arango-Ve ́lez and 

Kattan 1997, pp. 137-143). Similar 

studies have found that nest predation 

is more prevalent in smaller, isolated 

forest patches because the small size of 

the patch facilitated predators’ access to 

prey throughout the entire plot (Gibbs 

1991, p. 157; Hoover et al. 1995, p. 151; 

Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; 2002, p. 186; 

Renjifo 1999, p. 1133; Wilcove 1985, p. 

1214). Arango-Ve ́lez and Kattan (1997, 

pp. 140-142) also found that smaller 

fragments support smaller predators, 

which tend to depredate on eggs and 

juveniles, rendering understory nesting 

birds, such as the gorgeted wood-quail, 

particularly vulnerable to predation 

during these life-history stages (ArangoVe ́lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 140-142). 

These studies were described in more 

detail above, as part of the Factor C 

analysis for the blue-billed curassow. 

Summary of Factor C 

Feral dogs, tayras, dwarf squirrels, 

tree squirrels, common opossums, 

kinkajous, Central American agoutis, 

and South American coatis are potential 

gorgeted wood-quail predators. 

Predation results in the direct removal 

of individuals from the population and 

can remove potentially reproductive 

adults from the breeding pool. This 

primarily terrestrial species is 

particularly vulnerable to predation 

pressures due to its small population 

size (Factor E) and fragmented 

distribution (Factor A). Habitat 

fragmentation has occurred and is 

ongoing throughout the species’ range. 

Studies on similar species in similar 

Andean habitats indicate that 

vulnerability to predation increases 

with increased habitat fragmentation 

and smaller patch sizes. Predation 

exacerbates the genetic complications 

associated with the species’ small 

population size (Factor E). Because of 

the species’ small population size and 

inability to recolonize isolated habitat 

fragments (Factor E), predation renders 

the species vulnerable to local 

extirpation. Therefore, we find that 

predation, exacerbated by ongoing 

habitat destruction (Factor A) and 

hunting (Factor B), is a threat to the 

gorgeted wood-quail. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32339 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Regulatory mechanisms may provide 

species-specific or habitat-specific 

protections. An evaluation of the 

adequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

within Colombia to mitigate or remove 

the threats to the gorgeted wood-quail is 

provided below, beginning with speciesspecific and followed by habitat-specific 

protection mechanisms. 

Colombia has enacted numerous laws 

to protect species and their habitats 

(Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121). The 

gorgeted wood-quail is listed as a 

critically endangered species under 

Colombian Law 99 of 1993 (EcoLex 

1993, p. 2) and Resolution No. 584 of 

2002 (EcoLex 2002, pp. 10, 12). A full 

description of these laws and the 

categorization of threatened species in 

Colombia were provided above, as part 

of the Factor D analysis for the bluebilled curassow. Because of its status as 

a critically endangered species, the 

Ministry of the Environment does not 

permit the gorgeted wood-quail to be 

hunted commercially or for sport under 

Resolution No. 849 of 1973 and 

Resolution No. 787 of 1977 (EcoLex 

1973, p.1; EcoLex 1977, p. 3). Neither 

Resolution prohibits subsistence 

hunting, which is a threat to the species 

throughout its range (Factor B). 

Gorgeted wood-quail is hunted within 

the Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es, which has 

no protected status (BLI 2007g, p. 13) 

despite being considered the stronghold 

for the species (Donegan and Huertas 

2005, p. 29; Turner 2006, p. 22). Thus, 

these Resolutions are ineffective at 

reducing the existing threat of 

subsistence hunting to the gorgeted 

wood-quail (Factor B). 

Colombia has enacted numerous 

forestry laws and forestry management 

practices (Law No. 2 (EcoLex 1959); 

Decree No. 2,811 (Faolex 1974); Decree 

No. 1,791 (Faolex 1996); Law No. 1,021 

(EcoLex 2006)). Weaknesses in the 

implementation of these laws and the 

decentralized nature of Colombian 

resource management are described in 

detail above for the blue-billed curassow 

(Factor D) (ITTO 2006, pp. 218-9, 222; 

Matallana-T. 2005, pp. 121-122). These 

regulatory mechanisms are ineffective at 

protecting the gorgeted wood-quail (BLI 

2007g, p. 13; ITTO 2006, p. 222). Habitat 

destruction continues to be a problem 

within the unprotected forests of 

Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es (BLI 2007g, p. 

13), considered the stronghold of the 

species (Donegan and Huertas 2005, p. 

29; Turner 2006, p. 22), and on the 

outskirts of the Reserva Biolo ́gica 

Cachalu ́, where the species has also 

been observed (BLI 2007g, p. 10). 

Therefore, we determine that forestry 

regulations are not effective in 

mitigating the threats to the gorgeted 

wood-quail from habitat destruction 

(Factor A). 

Colombia has several categories of 

national habitat protection (Matallana-T. 

2005, p. 121-122), which were more 

fully described above, as part of the 

Factor D analysis for the blue-billed 

curassow (Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121- 

122). The gorgeted wood-quail occurs 

within two protected areas: the 

Guanenta ́-Alto Rio Fonce Flora and 

Fauna Sanctuary (Fuller et al. 2000, p. 

28; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160) and 

the Cachalu ́ Biological Reserve (BLI 

2007g, p. 10; Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, 

p. 158). Habitat destruction and 

subsistence hunting (poaching) are 

ongoing within these protected areas, 

despite being illegal (BLI 2007g, p. 10). 

Therefore, these sanctuaries and 

reserves provide little or no protection 

to the species from the threats of habitat 

destruction (Factor A) or poaching 

(Factor B). 

Summary of Factor D 

Colombia has adopted numerous laws 

and regulatory mechanisms to 

administer and manage wildlife and 

their habitats. The gorgeted wood-quail 

is considered critically endangered 

under Colombian law and lives within 

two protected areas. However, on-theground enforcement of existing wildlife 

protection and forestry laws and 

oversight of the local jurisdictions 

implementing and regulating activities 

are ineffective at mitigating the primary 

threats to the gorgeted wood-quail. As 

discussed for Factor A, habitat 

destruction, degradation, and 

fragmentation continue throughout the 

existing range of the gorgeted woodquail. As discussed for Factor B, 

uncontrolled hunting of the gorgeted 

wood-quail is ongoing and negatively 

affects the continued existence of the 

species. Therefore, we find that the 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

currently in place are inadequate to 

mitigate the primary threats of habitat 

destruction (Factor A) and hunting 

(Factor B) to the gorgeted wood-quail. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Two additional factors affect the 

gorgeted wood-quail: its minimal 

likelihood for dispersal and the species’ 

small population size. 

Likelihood to Disperse: The gorgeted 

wood-quail is currently known in three 

localities in two disjunct locations 

within the Department of Santander: 

Serranı ́a de los Yarguı ́es, in northern 

Santander, and Cachalu ́ Biological 

Reserve and Guanenta ́-Alto Rio Fonce 

Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, in southern 

Santander (Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 30; Rainforest Alliance 2008, p. 2; 

TNC 2008, p. 1). Although there is little 

information on the species’ dispersal 

capabilities, the isolated, fragmented 

nature of the remaining suitable habitat 

is considered by researchers to be a 

hindrance to its ability to disperse 

because: (1) gorgeted wood-quail is 

primarily a terrestrial species that is 

found at mid-to-upper-elevation forests 

(1,750-2,050 m (5,741-6,726 ft)) on the 

western slopes of the East Andes (BLI 

2007g, p. 2; Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

p. 29; Donegan et al. 2003, p. 27; Collar 

et al. 1992, pp. 171-172; del Hoyo 1994, 

p. 431; Fuller et al. 2000, pp. 2, 27-28; 

Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, pp. 158-159; 

Turner 2006, p. 22; Wege and Long 

1995, p. 143-144); (2) the species is 

dependent on mature forest for at least 

part of its life cycle and is not found in 

secondary habitats that are not adjacent 

to primary forests (BLI 2007g, p. 3; 

Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 159); (3) 

researchers believe that the species is 

capable of escaping hunting pressures 

only when adjacent to suitable habitat 

(Andrade in litt., as cited in Collar et al. 

1992, p. 172); (4) the species is currently 

located in two disjunct areas, one in 

northern Santander and the other in 

southern Santander; and (5) most of the 

habitat below 1,950-2,500 m (6,398- 

8,202 ft) in the East Andes has been 

destroyed, leaving only isolated, 

fragmented habitat patches (Fuller et al. 

2000, p. 28; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 

192). Because the species has not 

demonstrated an aptitude to disperse 

into secondary-growth areas that are not 

adjacent to primary forest, and given the 

isolated, disjunct nature of remaining 

forest fragments, the gorgeted woodquail as with other narrow-ranging 

species found in fragmented habitat 

(Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46), is unlikely or 

incapable of dispersing to suitable 

habitat that is not adjacent to existing 

locales. 

Small Population Size: Deforestation 

(Factor A) and overutilization (Factor B) 

have greatly affected the current 

population size and distributional range 

of the gorgeted wood-quail (Collar et al. 

1992, pp. 126-127; Collar et al. 1994, p. 

60). The species was thought to be 

extinct or on the verge of extinction 

until its rediscovery in 1970 (Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 171; Fuller et al. 2000, pp. 

4-5, 27; Wege and Long 1995, p. 146). 

The gorgeted wood-quail is now 

confirmed in three isolated areas: the 

Sanctuary of Fauna and Flora Guanenta ́- 

Alto Rio Fonce, the Natural Reserve 

32340 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Cachalu ́, and the Serranı ́a de los 

Yariguı ́es (Donegan and Huertas 2005, 

pp. 11, 29-30; Donegan et al. 2004, p. 19; 

Sarria and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 160). The 

population of the gorgeted wood-quail is 

currently estimated to include 189 to 

486 individuals, with a declining 

population trend (BLI 2007g, pp. 1, 5). 

The gorgeted wood-quail’s restricted 

range, combined with its small 

population size (Cuervo and Salaman 

1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Sarria 

and A ́ lvarez 2002, p. 138), makes the 

species particularly vulnerable to the 

threat of adverse natural (e.g., genetic, 

demographic, or environmental) and 

manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) 

events that destroy individuals and their 

habitat (Holsinger 2000, pp. 64-65; 

Primack 1998, pp. 279-308; Young and 

Clarke 2000, pp. 361-366). Small 

population sizes render species 

vulnerable to genetic risks that can have 

individual or population-level 

consequences on the genetic level and 

can increase the species’ susceptibility 

to demographic problems, as explained 

in more detail above for the blue-billed 

curassow (Factor E, Small Population 

Size) (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 

1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Once 

a population is reduced below a certain 

number of individuals, it tends to 

rapidly decline towards extinction 

(Franklin 1980, pp. 147-148; Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 

64-65; Soule ́ 1987, p. 181). 

In the absence of quantitative studies 

specific to this species, a general 

approximation of minimum viable 

population size is the 50/500 rule, as 

described above as part of the Factor E 

analysis for the brown-banded antpitta 

(Shaffer 1981, pp. 132-133; Soule ́ 1980, 

pp. 160-162). The total population size 

of the gorgeted wood-quail is estimated 

to be between 186 and 486 individuals. 

While 186 individuals is above the 

minimum population size required to 

avoid short-term genetic consequences, 

486 falls just below the threshold 

minimum number of 500 individuals 

required for long-term fitness of a 

population and does not take into 

account that not all members of the 

population will be contributing to 

population growth at any one time. 

Because the gorgeted wood-quail 

exists in two isolated, disjunct habitat 

fragments, between which they are 

unlikely to disperse, an examination of 

the fitness of each subpopulation is 

more appropriate. For the purposes of 

this analysis, although we have 

reservations about the precision of these 

estimates (see Population Estimates 

discussion above), we will use the 

following two population estimates: 250 

individuals in Northern Santander and 

30-66 individuals in southern 

Santander. Upon examination of these 

estimates, both populations are clearly 

below the threshold required for longterm fitness in a population. The lower 

limit of the population estimate for the 

southern Santander population is below 

the threshold required to avoid shortterm risks such as inbreeding and 

demographic shifts, whereas the upper 

limit is barely above the 50-individual 

threshold. Therefore, we currently 

consider these subpopulations (and the 

species as a whole) to be at risk due to 

the lack of short- and long-term 

viability. 

Summary of Factor E 

The gorgeted wood-quail is unlikely 

or incapable of dispersing into suitable 

habitat that is isolated from extant 

populations, and the species’ overall 

small population size makes it 

vulnerable to genetic and demographic 

risks that negatively impact the species’ 

short- and long-term viability. Habitat 

destruction through deforestation 

(Factor A) and overutilization through 

hunting (Factor B) have greatly affected 

the species’ current population size. 

Believed to be extinct or on the verge of 

extinction within the past 30 years, the 

species is now confirmed in 3 areas of 

2 disjunct locations. The gorgeted woodquail’s small population size, combined 

with its restricted range and inability to 

repopulate disjunct suitable habitat 

following local extirpations, makes the 

species particularly vulnerable to the 

threat of adverse natural (e.g., genetic, 

demographic, or environmental) and 

manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) 

events that destroy individuals and their 

habitat. 

Status Determination for the Gorgeted 

Wood-Quail 

The five primary factors that threaten 

the survival of the gorgeted wood-quail 

are: (1) Habitat destruction, 

fragmentation, and degradation (Factor 

A); (2) overexploitation due to hunting 

(Factor B); (3) predation (Factor C); (4) 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to 

reduce the threats to the species (Factor 

D); and (5) small population size and 

isolation of remaining populations 

(Factor E). The gorgeted wood-quail, a 

small terrestrial bird, prefers primary 

montane forests or adjacent secondary 

forests at altitudes between 1,750 and 

2,050 m (5,741 and 6,726 ft). The 

species’ historic range has been reduced 

by 92 percent, extirpating the species 

from its type locality in the Department 

of Cundinamarca and causing the 

species to shift to the extremes of its 

range and elevational distribution 

(Factor A). The estimated suitable 

habitat available to the species is 

approximately 10-27 km2 (4-10 mi2). 

Within the past decade, the gorgeted 

wood-quail has been confirmed in only 

three locations: Serranı ́a de los 

Yarguı ́es, in northern Santander, and 

adjacent localities in the Guanenta ́-Alto 

Rio Fonce Flora and Fauna Sanctuary 

and Cachalu ́ Biological Reserve, in 

southern Santander. Much of the 

primary forest, mid-elevation habitat 

preferred by the species has been 

destroyed by human activities, such as 

slash-and-burn agriculture, grazing, and 

extractive industries (Factor A). Illegal 

crop production, which continues 

throughout the species’ range, has 

altered soil compositions, hindering 

regeneration of abandoned fields. In 

addition, drug eradication programs 

involving the aerial spraying of nonspecific herbicides have further 

degraded the environment and 

destroyed primary forest habitat. 

In combination, these threats 

exacerbate the negative consequences to 

the species. For example, habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) increases the 

species’ vulnerability to hunting (Factor 

B). Poaching, in combination with 

habitat destruction, may have led to the 

local extirpation of the gorgeted woodquail from Cuchilla del Ramo. This 

population was only discovered in 1970 

and, amidst ongoing habitat destruction 

and hunting pressures, has not been 

observed there since 1988. Thus, 

deforestation and hunting within the 

past 30 years may have led to the 

extirpation of the gorgeted wood-quail 

from this location. 

Habitat fragmentation also exposes 

the species to greater risk of extinction 

caused by adverse natural (e.g., genetic, 

demographic, or environmental) and 

manmade (e.g., hunting or deforestation) 

events (Factor E). The species’ 

population has decreased by up to 9 

percent in the past 10 years and has 

likely been extirpated from at least one 

location (Cundinamarca) due to habitat 

loss and from another locality (Cuchilla 

del Ramo) due to a combination of 

habitat loss and hunting. The global 

population of the gorgeted wood-quail is 

estimated to be between 187 and 486 

individuals. Given that the gorgeted 

wood-quail is likely to interact as 

subpopulations and is unlikely to 

disperse between patches of fragmented 

habitat, the effective population size is 

actually much smaller. This small 

population size puts the gorgeted woodquail at risk from both near-term genetic 

complications (such as inbreeding and 

demographic shifts) and lack of longterm fitness (such as the ability to adapt 

to changing conditions). These potential 

genetic problems are exacerbated by 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32341 

ongoing human-induced threats, such as 

habitat destruction (Factor A) and 

hunting (Factor B), factors which are not 

being mitigated by existing regulations 

(Factor D) and are further magnified 

because the species is unlikely to 

repopulate isolated patches of suitable 

habitat where the species has undergone 

decline or local extirpation, increasing 

the likelihood of local extirpations 

(Factor E). 

The gorgeted wood-quail is listed as 

critically endangered, making it illegal 

to hunt the species, and two of the three 

known localities are within protected 

areas. However, habitat destruction and 

poaching are ongoing throughout the 

species’ range (Factor D). Thus, the 

regulations in place are ineffective in 

protecting the gorgeted wood-quail and 

its habitat. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

gorgeted wood-quail. We consider the 

ongoing threats to the gorgeted woodquail, habitat destruction (Factor A), 

hunting (Factor B), and predation 

(Factor C), exacerbated by the species’ 

small population size and limited 

dispersal ability (Factor E), and 

compounded by inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms to mitigate these threats 

(Factor D), to be equally present and of 

the same magnitude throughout the 

species’ entire current range. Based on 

this information, we conclude that the 

gorgeted wood-quail is in danger of 

extinction throughout its range. 

Therefore, we are proposing to list the 

gorgeted wood-quail as an endangered 

species. 

Ecuadorian Bird Species 

V. Esmeraldas Woodstar (Chaetocercus 

berlepschi) 

Species Description 

Esmeraldas woodstar, a member of the 

hummingbird family (Trochilidae) and 

endemic to Ecuador, is approximately 

6.5 cm (2.5 in.) in length (del Hoyo et 

al. 1999, p. 678; Ridgely and Greenfield 

2001b, p. 295; Schuchmann 1999, p. 

468; Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). 

The species is locally known as ‘‘Colibrı ́

de Esmeraldas’’ or ‘‘Estrellita 

esmeralden ̃ a’’ (UNEP-WCMC 2008b). 

Both sexes have striking violet, green, 

and white plumage. The male has a 

narrow band across its breast, whereas 

the female has a full white underbody 

(BLI 2007c, p. 1; Ridgely and Greenfield 

2001b, plate 42). 

Taxonomy 

Esmeraldas woodstar was first 

taxonomically described by Simon in 

1889 (BLI 2007e, p. 1). The type 

specimen (the actual specimen that was 

first described) of the Esmeraldas 

woodstar was obtained from the moist 

forest habitat near Esmeraldas City, in 

the Department of Esmeraldas (Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 533). Esmeraldas City is, 

therefore, referred to as the ‘‘type 

locality.’’ 

Simon placed the species in the 

Trochilidae family, under the name 

Chaetocercus berlepschi. The species is 

also known by the synonym Acestrura 

berlepschi. Both CITES and BirdLife 

International recognize the species as 

Chaetocercus berlepschi (BLI 2007e, p. 

1; UNEP-WCMC 2008b, p. 1). Therefore, 

we accept the species as Chaetocercus 

berlepschi, which follows the Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 

2008). 

Habitat and Life History 

Esmeraldas woodstar is a rangerestricted, forest-dwelling species with 

highly localized populations (BLI 2007f, 

pp.1-3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 533; 

Schuchmann 1999, p. 532). Esmeraldas 

woodstar prefers primary forest and is 

usually found in lowland semievergreen forests (cloud or fog forests) 

and has occasionally been seen in 

secondary-growth semi-humid (moist) 

habitat during the breeding season (Best 

and Kessler, p. 141; BLI 2004, p. 2; BLI 

2007c, p. 3; Collar et al. 1992, p. 533; 

del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 678; 

Hummingbird Monitoring Network 

2006, p. 1; Ridgely and Greenfield 

2001b, p. 295; Schuchmann 1999, p. 

468; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 211; 

Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). 

Esmeraldas woodstar has not been seen 

in secondary-growth forests at any other 

time of year, and researchers are not 

certain that the species can survive in 

secondary forests year-round (BLI 

2007c, p. 3). The species has mostly 

been recorded at elevations between 50 

and 150 m (164 and 492 ft) (Ridgely and 

Greenfield 2001a, p. 390; Ridgely and 

Greenfield 2001b, p. 295), but has 

occasionally been observed above 500 m 

(1,640 ft) (i.e., at Loma Alta; Factor A) 

(Best and Kessler, p. 141; del Hoyo et al. 

1999, p. 678; Ridgely and Greenfield 

2001b, p. 295; Schuchmann 1999, p. 

468; Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 211; 

Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). 

Esmeraldas woodstar has been seen 

most often along forest borders, with 

females especially seen perching on 

dead twigs (Ridgely and Greenfield 

2001b, p. 295). The species forages 

mainly in the canopy and has been 

recorded ‘‘hawking’’ insects from the 

air, as well as foraging nectar from 

flowers of the strawberry tree 

(Muntingia calabura), river koko (Inga 

vera), and mango tree (Mangifera spp.) 

(Becker et al. 2000, p. 55; del Hoyo et 

al. 1999, p. 678; Ridgely and Greenfield 

2001b, p. 295). As recently as 1999, 

there were no known breeding sites for 

the Esmeraldas woodstar (del Hoyo et 

al. 1999, p. 678). Today, one breeding 

site has been located in the cloud forests 

of the Colonche Hills (Hummingbird 

Monitoring Network 2006, p. 1), in the 

Department of Guayas (Best and Kessler 

1995, p. 54). The breeding season is 

from December to March (BLI 2007c, p. 

3). Little else is known of the 

Esmeraldas woodstar’s breeding habits 

or other activities during most of the 

year (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, pp. 

389-390). The species seems to 

‘‘disappear’’ from known locations 

during non-breeding months (BLI 2007c, 

p. 2; Becker et al. 2000, p. 55). In 

general, male hummingbirds breed with 

several females in one breeding season 

and the females take responsibility for 

all remaining reproductive 

responsibilities, including nest building, 

incubation, and rearing. Hummingbirds 

typically produce 2 eggs per clutch 

(Schuchmann 1999, pp. 506, 509). 

Historical Range and Distribution 

The type locality for the Esmeraldas 

woodstar (the location of its first 

discovery) was in Esmeraldas, near 

Esmeraldas City, and the last specimen 

was observed there and in the 

Department of Manabı ́ in 1912 (Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 533). The species’ historic 

range has been reduced by 99 percent 

(Dodson and Gentry 1991, p. 293). The 

area around its type locality (Esmeraldas 

City) has been replaced by pastureland 

and is nearly devoid of all trees (Collar 

et al. 1992, p. 533). After the species 

went unobserved following the 1912 

sightings, it was thought to be extinct, 

until it was rediscovered in 1990 

(Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, pp. 389- 

390; Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). 

Current Range and Distribution 

Today, Esmeraldas woodstar ranges in 

northwestern Ecuador, in the 

Departments of Esmeraldas, Manabı ́, 

and Guayas, along the slopes of the 

coastal cordillera up to 500 m (1,640 ft) 

(del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 678; Ridgely 

and Greenfield 2001b, p. 295; 

Schuchmann 1999, p. 468; Williams and 

Tobias 1991, p. 39). The current extent 

of the species’ range is approximately 

1,155 km2 (446 mi2), in three disjunct 

and isolated areas (BLI 2004, p. 2; 

Dodson and Gentry 1991, p. 293). 

The species was rediscovered on 

ridges above the lower Rı ́o Ayampe (in 

northwest Guayas/Manabı ́) in March 

1990, near the Machalilla National Park 

(Becker et al. 2000, p. 55; BLI 2007c, p. 

32342 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2; Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39), and 

again in January 1991 (Ridgely and 

Greenfield 2001a, p. 389). Subsequent 

attempts to relocate the species at Rı ́o 

Ayampe (in August 1991 and July 1993) 

were unsuccessful (Collar et al. 1992, p. 

533; Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, p. 

389). Researchers subsequently 

determined that the species occupies 

this habitat only seasonally, frequenting 

the Park from December through the 

spring (March), but is absent from this 

location during non-breeding months 

(Becker et al. 2000, p. 55; BLI 2007c, p. 

2; and Greenfield 2001a, p. 389). 

Since then, the species has been 

observed at the following locations: 

Esmeraldas: Sua ́, in January 1993, and 

Muisne, in 1994 (month unknown); 

Manabı ́: Isla de La Plata (part of the 

Machalilla National Park), DecemberJanuary 1998 (BLI 2007c, p. 2; Ridgely 

and Greenfield 2001a, p. 389; Williams 

and Tobias 1991, p. 39). The species 

was not observed on Isla de La Plata 

during a bird survey conducted in June 

2000 (Cisneros-Heredia 2005, p. 24), 

reconfirming their absence from this 

habitat during non-breeding months. 

Population Estimates 

Esmeraldas woodstar is considered a 

rare, range-restricted species with 

highly localized populations in three 

general areas (BLI 2007c, pp. 1-3; 

Schuchmann 1999, p. 532). There have 

been no population surveys of this 

species. BirdLife International estimated 

that the population currently includes 

between 186 and 373 individuals, based 

on estimates using similar species of 

hummingbirds (BLI 2007c, p. 6). 

Conservation Status 

The Esmeraldas woodstar is identified 

as an endangered species under 

Ecuadorian law (EcoLex 2003b, p. 36, p. 

36). This species is classified as 

‘Endangered’ on the IUCN Red List, due 

to severe fragmentation within the 

woodstar’s restricted range (IUCN 2006). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Esmeraldas Woodstar 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Habitat or Range 

The Esmeraldas woodstar is restricted 

to the semi-humid forests and 

woodlands from sealevel to 500 m 

(1,600 ft) along the Coastal Cordillera of 

western Ecuador (del Hoyo et al. 1999, 

p. 678; Ridgely and Greenfield 2001b, p. 

295). The current extent of the species’ 

range is approximately 1,155 km2 (446 

mi2), in three disjunct and isolated areas 

(BLI 2004, p. 2). 

Deforestation Rates and Patterns: The 

semi-humid, semi-evergreen forest 

environment preferred by the 

Esmeraldas woodstar is one of the most 

threatened forest habitats in the 

Neotropics (Collar et al. 1992, p. 533; 

Schuchmann 1999, p. 532). This region 

is also known as the Tumbesian region 

(which encompasses the coast and 

foothills beginning in southwestern 

Ecuador and into the mid-coastal area of 

northwestern Peru) (World Land Trust 

U.S. 2008, p. 1). This habitat type has 

been reduced by over 99 percent 

(Dodson and Gentry 1991, p. 293), 

making this region one of the most 

vulnerable endemic bird areas in South 

America (Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 

214). Deforestation, understory 

degradation, and limited habitat size are 

among the biggest impacts to resident 

birds in the Tumbesian region 

(Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 214). 

Forested habitat within western 

Ecuador, including that within the 

Esmeraldas woodstar’s range, has 

diminished rapidly due to logging, 

clearing for agriculture, and road 

development (Dodson and Gentry 1991, 

pp. 283-293). The primary moist forest 

habitat at the species’ type locality 

(Esmeraldas City) has been replaced 

with pastures and scattered trees (Collar 

et al. 1992, p. 533). Dodson and Gentry 

(1991, p. 293) indicated that rapid 

habitat loss is continuing and that 

extant forests will be eliminated in the 

near future if deforestation continues. 

Recent reports indicate that forest 

habitat loss continues in Ecuador. 

Between the years 1990 and 2005, 

Ecuador has lost a total of 2.96 million 

ha (7.31 million ac) of primary forest, 

which represents a 16.7 percent 

deforestation rate and a total loss of 21.5 

percent of forested habitat since 1990 

(Butler 2006b, pp. 1-3; FAO 2003b, p. 1). 

Very little suitable habitat remains for 

the species and remaining habitat is 

highly fragmented (BLI 2004a, p. 2). 

Other Human Factors: Ongoing 

deforestation has transformed forested 

habitat within the region to a patchwork 

of cropland, with fewer than 5 percent 

of the forested areas remaining only on 

steep slopes that cannot be cultivated 

(Best and Kessler 1995, p. 35; 

Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 214). 

Persistent grazing from goats and cattle 

has decimated the understory vegetation 

and any secondary forest growth (BLI 

2004a, p. 2). Researchers have observed 

that road building and other 

infrastructure improvements in 

previously remote forested areas have 

increased accessibility and further 

facilitated habitat destruction, 

exploitation, and human settlement 

(A ́ lvarez 2005, p. 2042; Ca ́rdenas and 

Rodrı ́guez Becerra 2004, pp. 125-130; 

Etter et al. 2006, p. 1; Hunter 1996, p. 

158-159; Vin ̃ a et al. 2004, pp. 118-119). 

Fragmented habitat also increases 

predator access to the forest, exposing 

the species to increased risk of 

predation (Factor C). 

Refugia: The species is currently 

known in three localities: (1) Isla de la 

Plata, (2) Machalilla National Park, and 

(3) Loma Alta Communal Ecological 

Reserve. 

(1) Isla de la Plata: This 1,420-ha 

(3,508-ac) island is approximately 27 

km (17 mi) from the coast of the 

Department of Manabı ́ and is actually 

part of the Machalilla National Park (see 

below). The species was last observed 

on the island in 1998 (Becker et al. 

2000, p. 55; BLI 2007c, p. 2). The island 

is mostly uninhabited, but tourism for 

bird-watching occurs there year-round 

(BLI 2007c, p. 9), which occasionally 

disturbs the native birds. Non-native 

domestic animals, including goats 

(Capra hircus), were introduced to the 

island many years ago (Curry 1993, p. 

24). Non-native predators, which have 

also been introduced to the island, are 

discussed below under Factor C. The 

grazing activity of the goats has 

destroyed understory habitat on the 

island. As of 2007, BirdLife 

International reports that an eradication 

program is underway to remove these 

feral animals from the island (BLI 

2007c, p. 10). Despite a report, in 1991, 

that the goat population on the island 

had reportedly been reduced from an 

estimated 300 to 30 animals (Curry 

1993, p. 24), the colony of goats 

apparently remains extant to this day 

(BLI 2007c, p. 10). 

(2) Machalilla National Park: This 

34,393-ha (84,985-ac) Park was 

established in 1979 (BLI 2007c, pp. 11, 

13) and is designated as a Ramsar 

Wetland of International Importance 

(BLI 2007c, p. 13) (see Factor D). In 

addition to the male sighting on Isla de 

La Plata, a female was also observed 

within the Park in 1998 (Becker et al. 

2000, p. 55). The Park encompasses a 

variety of habitats, including highelevation humid and cloud forests and 

lower-elevation slopes covered with 

semi-deciduous and deciduous forests 

(BLI 2007c, pp. 11). 

This park is populated, and residents 

subsist on farming and cattle-raising 

(BLI 2007c, pp. 11, 13; Lasso 1997, p. 3). 

Portions of land within the Park have 

been converted to pastures or cropland 

(Lasso 1997, p. 3). Some previously 

deforested areas have been left to 

regenerate (BLI 2007c, p. 13). However, 

ongoing grazing is hindering understory 

development in forest areas left to 

regenerate (BLI 2007c, pp. 10, 13, 17). 

Residents continue to selectively 

harvest trees and non-timber products; 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32343 

this activity is not monitored and the 

extent of the impact is unknown (BLI 

2007c, p. 13). The Park is surrounded by 

a matrix of altered habitat, dominated 

by agricultural crops such as bananas, 

corn, sugarcane, tomatoes (Lycopersicon 

esculentum), yucca (Yucca spp.), and 

pasturelands (BLI 2007c, p. 11; Lasso 

1997, p. 3). A highway built around the 

outskirts of the park provides greater 

access to more areas within the Park 

(BLI 2007c, p. 13). Other activities in the 

area, including a fish meal processing 

plant, petroleum waste discharges into 

the sea, and accumulation of solid 

waste, are potential sources of pollution 

within the Park (Lasso 1997, p. 3). 

(3) Loma Alta Communal Ecological 

Reserve: This 6,000-ha (14,826-ac) area 

was declared a Reserve in 1996 (BLI 

2007c, p. 17). The Reserve was created 

to protect the watershed and to help 

preserve the land of four groups of 

indigenous inhabitants. The Reserve 

encompasses a variety of habitats from 

dry to cloud forests (BLI 2007c, p. 15). 

About 500 ha (1,235 ac) of the Reserve 

is dedicated to cultivation of the 

Panama hat plant (Carludovica palmata, 

locally known as ‘‘Paja Toquilla’’), 

which is processed and sold by the 

community. Cattle-raising has increased 

in recent years and the regenerating 

forests have again been decimated by 

overgrazing. Logging, agriculture, and 

slash-and-burn farming continue to 

impact this Reserve (BLI 2007c, p. 17). 

Summary of Factor A 

Esmeraldas woodstars are rare, rangerestricted species with highly localized 

populations in three disjunct locations 

within an area of approximately 1,155 

km2 (446 mi2) (BLI 2004, p. 2; Dodson 

and Gentry 1991, p. 293). The evergreen 

forests preferred by this species have 

undergone extensive deforestation, and 

remaining habitat is highly fragmented. 

Habitat alteration and human activities, 

such as slash-and-burn agriculture and 

cattle and goat grazing, are occurring 

throughout the species’ range, including 

the protected areas in which the species 

occurs (Machalilla National Park, 

including Isla de la Plata, and Loma 

Alta Communal Ecological Reserve). 

Infrastructure development and 

economic activities (such as fish meal 

processing and non-timber forest 

product extraction) occur throughout 

the species’ known breeding range. 

Logging, road development, and 

pollution from industrial activities 

occur within or near protected areas. 

Habitat destruction, alteration, and 

conversion have reduced the available 

habitat for this species by 99 percent. 

These activities are ongoing throughout 

the species’ range, including within 

protected areas (Factor D), and are 

expected to continue. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Stattersfield et al. (1998, p. 214) 

reported that birds in the Tumbesian 

region are, in part, impacted by hunting 

and trade (Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 

214). However, we have no current 

information to suggest that hunting for 

domestic or international consumption 

or trade is impacting the Esmeraldas 

woodstar (including, Best and Kessler, 

pp. 124, 141; BLI 2007c, p. 3). Locally, 

the communities in Loma Alta, where 

this species occurs, are involved in 

conservation activities, including 

protecting native species in Loma Alta 

Communal Ecological Reserve against 

hunting, timber harvest and agricultural 

expansion. 

In 1987, the Esmeraldas woodstar was 

listed in CITES Appendix II (UNEPWCMC 2008b, p. 1), which includes 

species that are not necessarily 

threatened with extinction, but which 

require regulation of international trade 

to ensure that trade of the species is 

compatible with the species’ survival. 

International trade in specimens of 

Appendix-II species is authorized 

through permits or certificates under 

certain circumstances, including 

verification that trade will not be 

detrimental to the survival of the 

species in the wild and that the 

specimens were legally acquired (UNEPWCMC 2008a, p. 1). According to the 

World Conservation Monitoring Centre 

(WCMC), there has been one 

international transaction permitted by 

CITES since listing. In 1993, 100 

‘‘bodies’’ were imported to Mexico 

through the United States. According to 

the trade data, the specimens were being 

traded for commercial purposes and 

were seized by inspectors (UNEPWCMC 2008d, p. 1). There has been no 

further CITES-recorded trade in this 

species since that time. Although we are 

no longer able to determine the exact 

details surrounding this seizure, we 

consider the seizure and lack of ensuing 

trade to be supportive that CITES has 

been effective in controlling commercial 

trade in this species. Therefore, we do 

not consider international trade for 

commercial purposes to be a threat to 

the species. 

Tourism occurs year-round at Isla de 

la Plata and has been known to 

occasionally disturb the native birds 

(BLI 2007c, pp. 2, 9-10). There is no 

information regarding whether 

Esmeraldas woodstar is among the 

native species that is adversely affected 

by ecotourism or other human 

disturbance. 

We are unaware of any other 

information currently available that 

addresses the occurrence of 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreation, scientific, or education 

purposes that may be affecting the 

Esmeraldas woodstar population. 

Consequently, we do not consider this 

factor to be a threat to the species. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease: We are unaware of 

information regarding disease or the 

potential for significant disease 

outbreaks in the Esmeraldas woodstar. 

As a result, we do not consider disease 

to be a threat to the species. 

Predation: Hummingbird eggs and 

chicks are most vulnerable to predation. 

Known hummingbird predators that are 

found in cloud forest habitat in Ecuador 

include domestic cats (Felis catus), feral 

cats, hawks (family Accipitridae), owls 

(order Strigiformes), and snakes 

(suborder Serpentes) (Borchardt 2004, p. 

5; The Hummingbird Society no date 

(n.d.), p 1; Rosso 2006, p. 35). Because 

of their small size, many insect-eating 

predators have been known to prey on 

hummingbirds, including, praying 

mantis (family Mantidae), spiders (class 

Arachnida), bees and wasps (order 

Hymenoptera), frogs (order Anura), and 

largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides) (Borchardt 2004, p. 5; The 

Hummingbird Society no date (n.d.), p 

1; Rosso 2006, p. 35). According to the 

FAO-Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Department (2000, p. 1), largemouth 

bass is a non-native invasive species 

that was introduced to Ecuador 

sometime prior to 1988. Many of these 

potential Esmeraldas woodstar 

predators are found within the 

Machalilla National Park (Emmons and 

Albuja 1992, pp. 120-121), both on the 

mainland and on Isla de La Plata (see 

Factor A). 

On Isla de La Plata, non-native 

predators, including cats and spiny rats 

(Proechimys decumanus), were 

introduced to the island many years ago 

(BLI 2007c, p. 10; Curry 1993, p. 24). 

Cats are opportunistic predators and 

their diet is comprised of a variety of 

animals, including birds (Rosero 2006, 

p. 5). It was conjectured that the wild 

cats on Isla de La Plata would keep the 

rat population in check. However, Curry 

(1993, p. 24) examined the stomach 

contents of several cats on the Island 

and found that they contained egg shell 

fragments, not mammal hair, indicating 

that the cats were preying upon bird 

nests. Because Esmeraldas woodstar is 

only observed on Isla de La Plata during 

breeding season (BLI 2007c, p. 2; Becker 

32344 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

et al. 2000, p. 55; Cisneros-Heredia 

2005, p. 24), this renders the woodstar 

especially vulnerable to egg predation 

by cats. Cats are also considered among 

the most common predators of nonnesting hummingbirds, especially 

during torpor, a resting state induced in 

hummingbirds when energy levels are 

low (BLI 2008b, p. 1; The Hummingbird 

Society n.d., p. 1; Schuchmann 1999, p. 

485). During torpor, hummingbirds are 

slow to react to external stimuli 

(Schuchmann 1999, p. 485). Cats are 

responsible for endangering other 

island-dwelling hummingbirds, 

including the critically endangered 

Ferna ́ndez firecrown (Sephanoides 

fernandensis) (native to the Juan 

Ferna ́ndez Islands, Chile) (BLI 2008b, p. 

1; The Hummingbird Society n.d., p. 1). 

According to BirdLife International, 

an eradication program is underway to 

remove feral animals from the island 

(BLI 2007c, p. 10). One project to 

control the introduced cat population 

on Isla De La Plata, being supported by 

the World Conservation Foundation, 

would trap the feral cats, neuter them, 

and return them to the wild, with the 

eventual goal of preventing further 

reproduction of the feral population. 

This project will also help to better 

quantify the extent of the invasion on 

the island (Rosero 2006, p. 5). However, 

predation on the island continues to be 

a threat to native bird species, including 

the Esmeraladas woodstar, both on the 

Island and in Machalilla National Park 

(BLI 2007c, p. 10; Emmons and Albuja 

1992, pp. 120-121; Rosero 2006, p. 5). 

The Esmeraldas woodstar’s historic 

range has been reduced by 99 percent 

(Dodson and Gentry 1991, p. 293) and 

remaining suitable habitat is highly 

fragmented (Best and Kessler 1995, p. 

35; BLI 2004a, p. 2; Stattersfield et al. 

1998, p. 214). Studies have shown that 

habitat fragmentation increases the 

potential predation pressure within 

habitat fragments by facilitating the 

predators’ access throughout the 

fragment and because smaller fragments 

support smaller predators, which tend 

to prey upon the more vulnerable lifehistory stages of the Esmeraldas 

woodstar, eggs and juveniles (ArangoVe ́lez and Kattan 1997, pp. 137-143; 

Gibbs 1991, p. 157; Hoover et al. 1995, 

p. 151; Keyser et al. 1998, p. 991; 2002, 

p. 186; Renjifo 1999, p. 1133; Wilcove 

1985, p. 1214). These studies were 

described in more detail above, as part 

of the Factor C analysis for the bluebilled curassow. 

Summary of Factor C 

Domestic and feral cats, rats, hawks, 

owls, snakes, praying mantis, spiders, 

bees, wasps, frogs, and largemouth bass 

are all predators of hummingbirds that 

are found in Esmeraldas woodstar 

habitat. Predation results in the direct 

removal of eggs, juveniles, and adults 

from the population. Esmeraldas 

woodstars produce a low clutch size 

and are particularly vulnerable to egg 

predation by cats on Isla de la Plata (see 

Habitat and Life History). Esmeraldas 

woodstar habitat is much reduced and 

highly fragmented (Factor A), and 

studies on similar species in similar 

Andean habitats indicate that 

vulnerability to predation by generalist 

predators increases with increased 

habitat fragmentation and smaller patch 

sizes. Predation can remove potentially 

reproductive adults from the breeding 

pool and exacerbates the genetic 

complications associated with the 

species’ small population size (Factor 

E), increasing the species’ vulnerability 

to local extirpation. Therefore, we find 

that predation, exacerbated by ongoing 

habitat destruction (Factor A), is a threat 

to the Esmeraldas woodstar. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Regulatory mechanisms may provide 

species-specific or habitat-specific 

protections. An evaluation of the 

adequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

within Ecuador to mitigate or remove 

the threats to the Esmeraldas woodstar 

is provided below, beginning with 

species-specific and followed by 

habitat-specific protection mechanisms. 

The Esmeraldas woodstar is protected 

under Ecuadorian law by Decree No. 

3,516 of 2003 (Unified Text of the 

Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of 

Environment (EcoLex 2003b, pp. 1-2 

and 36). Decree No. 3,516 summarizes 

the laws governing environmental 

policy in Ecuador and provides that the 

country’s biodiversity be protected and 

used primarily in a sustainable manner. 

Appendix 1 of Decree No. 3,516 lists the 

Ecuadorian fauna and flora that are 

categorized as critically endangered (En 

peligro critico), endangered (En peligro), 

or vulnerable (Vulnerable) (EcoLex 

2003b, p.17). Under this law, 

Esmeraldas woodstar is categorized as 

endangered, under the synonym 

Acestrura berlepschi (EcoLex 2003b, p. 

36). This threat status confers 

protections upon the species, including 

protection from hunting or commercial 

take, under Resolution No. 105 of 2000 

(Regulatory control of hunting seasons 

and wildlife species in the country) and 

Agreement No. 143 of 2003 (Standards 

for the control of hunting seasons and 

licenses for hunting of wildlife). 

Resolution No. 105 and Agreement No. 

143 regulate and prohibit commercial 

and sport hunting of all wild bird 

species, except those specifically 

identified by the Ministry of the 

Environment or otherwise permitted 

(EcoLex 2000, p.1; EcoLex 2003a, p. 1). 

Under this law, the Ministry of the 

Environment does not permit 

commercial or sport hunting of the 

Esmeraldas woodstar because of its 

status as a critically endangered species 

(EcoLex 2002b, p. 17). However, we do 

not consider hunting (Factor B) to be a 

current threat to the Esmeraldas 

woodstar and these laws do not mitigate 

threats to the species from habitat 

destruction (Factor A), predation (Factor 

C), or its small population size (Factor 

E). Therefore, protection under these 

laws does not reduce any existing 

threats to the species. 

Esmeraldas woodstar is listed in 

Appendix II of CITES, to which Ecuador 

became a Party in 1975 (UNEP-WCMC 

2008a, p. 1; USFWS 2008, p. 1). CITES 

was described in more detail above, as 

part of the Factor E analysis for the bluebilled curassow. As discussed under 

Factor B for the Esmeraldas woodstar, 

we consider that this international 

treaty has minimized the potential 

threat to the species from international 

trade and do not consider international 

trade to be a threat impacting the 

Esmeraldas woodstar. However, this 

treaty does not mitigate threats to the 

species from habitat destruction (Factor 

A), predation (Factor C), or its small 

population size (Factor E). Therefore, 

protection under this Treaty does not 

reduce any existing threats to the 

species. 

Ecuador has numerous laws and 

regulations pertaining to forests and 

forestry management, including: the 

Forestry Act (comprised of Law No. 74 

of 1981 — Forest Act and conservation 

of natural areas and wildlife (Faolex 

1981, pp. 1-54)—and Law No. 17 of 

2004—Consolidation of the Forest Act 

and conservation of natural areas and 

wildlife (Faolex 2004, pp. 1-29); a 

Forestry Action Plan (1991-1995); the 

Ecuadorian Strategy for Forest 

Sustainable Development of 2000 

(Estrategia para el Desarrollo Forestal 

Sostenible); and Decree 346, which 

recognizes that natural forests are highly 

vulnerable (ITTO 2006, p. 225). 

However, the International Tropical 

Timber Organization considers 

ecosystem management and 

conservation in Ecuador, including 

effective implementation of mechanisms 

that would protect the Esmeraldas 

woodstar and its habitat, to be lacking 

(ITTO 2006, p. 229). Habitat destruction 

is ongoing (Butler 2006b, pp. 1-3; FAO 

2003b, p. 1) and extensive (Best and 

Kessler 1995, p. 35; BLI 2004a, p. 2; 

Stattersfield et al. 1998, p. 214) 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32345 

throughout the species’ range (Factor A). 

Thus, these laws are ineffective at 

protecting Esmeraldas woodstar habitat. 

Extractive harvest practices may pose 

a threat to the Esmeraldas woodstar (BLI 

2007c, p. 13) (Factor A). In 2004, Law 

No. 17 (Faolex 2004, pp. 1-29) amended 

the Forest Act of 1981 (Law No. 74) 

(Faolex 1981, pp. 1-54) to include five 

criteria for sustainable forest 

management: (i) sustainable timber 

production; (ii) the maintenance of 

forest cover; (iii) the conservation of 

biodiversity; (iv) co-responsibility in 

management; and (v) the reduction of 

negative social and environmental 

impacts (Aguilar and Vlosky 2005, pp. 

9-10; ITTO 2006, p. 225). In 2001, the 

Ecuadorian government worked with 

the private sector to develop a system of 

monitoring and control of forest harvest 

practices. However, in 2003, the 

Supreme Court of Ecuador declared that 

the control system was unconstitutional, 

and new control systems are now being 

developed (ITTO 2006, p. 225). 

Approximately 70 percent of the forest 

products harvested are harvested 

illegally, are used as fuel wood, or are 

discarded as waste (Aguilar and Vlosky 

2005, p. 4; ITTO 2006, p. 226). Because 

the extractive harvesting industry is not 

monitored, the extent of the impact is 

unknown (BLI 2007c, p. 13). However, 

we find this law is currently inadequate 

in monitoring the impacts of extractive 

harvesting on the Esmeraldas woodstar 

or to protect the species from potential 

impacts of extractive harvesting (Factor 

A). 

The governmental institutions 

responsible for natural resource 

oversight in Ecuador appear to be 

under-resourced, and there is a lack of 

law enforcement on the ground. Despite 

the creation of a national forest plan, 

there appears to be a lack of capacity to 

implement this plan due to insufficient 

political support, unclear or unrealistic 

forestry standards, inconsistencies in 

application of regulations, discrepancies 

between actual harvesting practices and 

forestry regulations, the lack of 

management plans for protected areas, 

and high bureaucratic costs. These 

inadequacies have facilitated logging 

(Dodson and Gentry 1991, pp. 283-293); 

cattle-raising and persistent grazing 

from goats and cattle (BLI 2004a, p. 2; 

BLI 2007c, pp. 11, 13, 17; Curry 1993, 

p. 24; Lasso 1997, p. 3); clearing for 

agriculture, subsistence farming, and 

small local industries (BLI 2007c, pp. 

11, 13, 17; Dodson and Gentry 1991, pp. 

283-293; Lasso 1997, p. 3); selective 

harvest of trees for fuelwood and nontimber products (Aguilar and Vlosky 

2005; BLI 2007c, p. 13); road 

development (BLI 2007c, p. 13; Dodson 

and Gentry 1991, pp. 283-293); and 

pollution from industrial activities 

occur within or near protected areas 

(Lasso 1997, p. 3). In addition, most of 

Ecuador’s forests are privately owned or 

owned by communities (ITTO 2006, p. 

224; Lasso 1997, pp. 2-3), and the 

management and administration of 

Ecuador’s forest resources and forest 

harvest practices is insufficient and 

unable to protect against unauthorized 

forest harvesting, degradation, and 

conversion (ITTO 2006, p. 229). Habitat 

conversion and alteration are ongoing 

throughout the range of the Esmeraldas 

woodstar, including within protected 

areas (BLI 2007c, pp. 10, 13, 17; Butler 

2006b, pp. 1-3; FAO 2003b, p. 1).Thus, 

Ecuadorian forestry regulations have not 

mitigated the threat of habitat 

destruction (Factor A). 

The Ecuadorian government 

recognizes 31 different legal categories 

of protected lands (e.g., national parks, 

biological reserves, geo-botanical 

reserves, bird reserves, wildlife reserves, 

etc.). Currently, the amount of protected 

land (both forested and non-forested) in 

Ecuador totals approximately 4.67 

million ha (11.5 million ac) (ITTO 2006, 

p. 228). However, only 38 percent of 

these lands have appropriate 

conservation measures in place to be 

considered protected areas according to 

international standards (i.e., areas that 

are managed for scientific study or 

wilderness protection, for ecosystem 

protection and recreation, for 

conservation of specific natural features, 

or for conservation through management 

intervention) (IUCN 1994, pp. 17-20). 

Moreover, only 11 percent have 

management plans, and fewer than 1 

percent (13,000 ha (32,125 ac)) have 

implemented those management plans 

(ITTO 2006, p. 228). 

The Esmeraldas woodstar has been 

recorded in or near two protected areas: 

(1) Machalilla National Park (Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 533) and (2) Loma Alta 

Communal Ecological Reserve. As 

described under Factor A, both of these 

protected areas are inhabited and, 

among other activities, deforestation, 

livestock grazing, and slash-and-burn 

agriculture are ongoing within these 

areas (BLI 2004, p. 2; Wege and Long 

1995, p. 174). Thus, this protected area 

status does not mitigate the threats from 

habitat destruction (Factor A). 

Esmeraldas woodstar occurs within 

the Machalilla National Park, which was 

included in the Ramsar List of Wetlands 

of International Importance in 1990 (BLI 

2007c, p. 13). The Ramsar Convention, 

signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an 

intergovernmental treaty that provides 

the framework for national action and 

international cooperation for the 

conservation and wise use of wetlands 

and their resources. There are presently 

158 Contracting Parties to the 

Convention (including Ecuador, where 

the Esmeraldas woodstar occurs), with 

1,828 wetland sites, totaling 169 million 

ha (418 million ac), designated for 

inclusion in the Ramsar List of 

Wetlands of International Importance 

(Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2008, p. 

1). Experts consider Ramsar to provide 

only nominal protection of wetlands, 

noting that such a designation may 

increase international awareness of the 

site’s ecological value (Jellison et al. 

2004, p. 19). However, habitat alteration 

(Factor A) (BLI 2007c, pp. 10-11, 13; 

Lasso 1997, p. 3) and predation by feral 

animals (Factor C) (BLI 2007c, p. 10; 

Curry 1993, p. 24; Rosero 2006, p. 5), 

key threats to the Esmeraldas woodstar, 

are ongoing within the Park and 

predation has not been considered as 

part of the most recent Ramsar site 

review (Lasso 1997, pp. 1-4). Therefore, 

this designation as a Ramsar Wetland of 

International Importance does not 

mitigate the threats from habitat 

destruction (Factor A). 

Summary of Factor D 

Ecuador has adopted numerous laws 

and regulatory mechanisms to 

administer and manage wildlife and 

their habitats. The Esmeraldas woodstar 

is protected under CITES, which we 

consider has been effective in mitigating 

the potential threat to this species from 

commercial trade (Factor B). Esmeraldas 

woodstar is listed as endangered and 

ranges within at least two protected 

areas (Machalilla National Park and 

Loma Alta Communal Ecological 

Reserve). However, on-the-ground 

enforcement of these laws and oversight 

of the local jurisdictions implementing 

and regulating activities is insufficient 

for these measures to be effective in 

conserving the Esmeraldas woodstar or 

its habitat. As discussed for Factor A, 

habitat destruction, degradation, and 

fragmentation continue throughout the 

species’ range, including lands within 

protected areas. Therefore, we find that 

the existing regulatory mechanisms, as 

implemented, are inadequate to mitigate 

the primary threats to the Esmeraldas 

woodstar from habitat destruction 

(Factor A), predation (Factor C), or its 

small population size (Factor E). 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

Two additional factors affect the 

Esmeraldas woodstar: Its minimal 

likelihood for dispersal and the species’ 

small population size. 

32346 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Likelihood to Disperse: The 

Esmeraldas woodstar is confined to 

locations within the Departments of 

Esmeraldas, Manabı ́, and Guayas, in 

lowland moist forest patches that are 

disjunct and fragmented (BLI 2007f, pp. 

1-3; del Hoyo et al. 1999, p. 678; 

Williams and Tobias 1991, p. 39). The 

distance between known occupied areas 

is between 125 and 200 km (78 and 124 

mi), with minimal habitat between 

occupied sights (Best and Kessler 1995, 

p. 141). In light of the species’ small 

overall population size and the distance 

between the remaining fragmented 

primary forested habitats, it is unlikely 

that the Esmeraldas woodstar would 

repopulate an isolated patch of suitable 

habitat following decline or extirpation 

of that patch (Hanski 1998, pp. 45-46). 

Small Population Size: The 

Esmeraldas woodstar inhabits a very 

small and severely fragmented range, 

which is decreasing rapidly in size due 

to habitat destruction and various other 

human factors (Collar et al. 1992, p. 533; 

Ridgely and Greenfield 2001a, pp. 389- 

390). Ongoing declines in the bird’s 

population are linked to persistent 

habitat destruction (BLI 2007c, p. 2). 

Before the species was rediscovered in 

1991, it was thought to be extinct after 

not being seen since 1912 (Ridgely and 

Greenfield 2001a, pp. 389-390). 

Subsequent surveys of previously 

known occupied areas have not been 

successful in locating the species on a 

consistent basis, and little is known of 

breeding habits or other activities 

during most of the year (Ridgely and 

Greenfield 2001a, pp. 389-390). Experts 

estimate that the species has undergone 

a 50-79 percent reduction in population 

size within the past 10 years and predict 

that this trend will continue (BLI 2007c, 

p. 5). The current population estimate 

for this species is between 186 to 373 

birds, with a decreasing population 

trend (BLI 2007, pp. 2, 6). 

Small population sizes render species 

vulnerable to genetic risks that can have 

individual or population-level 

consequences on the genetic level and 

can increase the species’ susceptibility 

to demographic problems, as explained 

in more detail above for the blue-billed 

curassow (Factor E, Small Population 

Size) (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 

1987, p. 238; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Once 

a population is reduced below a certain 

number of individuals, it tends to 

rapidly decline towards extinction 

(Franklin 1980, pp. 147-148; Gilpin and 

Soule ́ 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 

64-65; Soule ́ 1987, p. 181). 

In the absence of quantitative studies 

specific to this species, a general 

approximation of minimum viable 

population size is the 50/500 rule, as 

described above, as part of the Factor E 

analysis for the brown-banded antpitta 

(Shaffer 1981, pp. 132-133; Soule ́ 1980, 

pp. 160-162). The total population size 

of the Esmeraldas woodstar is estimated 

to be between 186 and 373 individuals. 

The lower estimate of 186 individuals 

meets the theoretical threshold for the 

minimum effective population size 

required to avoid risks from inbreeding 

(Ne = 50 individuals). However, the 

upper limit of the population, 373 

individuals, is below the minimum 

threshold (Ne = 500 individuals) 

required for long-term fitness of a 

population that will not lose its genetic 

diversity over time and will maintain an 

enhanced capacity to adapt to changing 

conditions. 

The Esmeraldas woodstar’s restricted 

range combined with its small 

population size (Cuervo 2002, p. 138; 

Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del 

Hoyo 1994, p. 361) makes the species 

particularly vulnerable to the threat of 

adverse natural (e.g., genetic, 

demographic, or environmental) and 

manmade (e.g., deforestation, habitat 

alteration, wildfire) events that destroy 

individuals and their habitat (Holsinger 

2000, pp. 64-65; Primack 1998, pp. 279- 

308; Young and Clarke 2000, pp. 361- 

366). Therefore, we currently consider 

the single Esmeraldas woodstar 

population to be at risk due to the lack 

of long-term viability. 

Summary of Factor E 

The Esmeraldas woodstar is currently 

limited to a few small populations 

within a limited habitat range, with a 

small estimated population size that 

leaves the species vulnerable to genetic 

and demographic risks that negatively 

impact its long-term viability. The 

species’ population size is estimated to 

have declined considerably within the 

past 10 years (50-79 percent), and this 

rate of decline is expected to continue. 

Based on this information, we have 

determined that the species is 

particularly vulnerable to the threat of 

adverse natural (e.g., genetic, 

demographic, or predation) and 

manmade (e.g., slash-and-burn 

agriculture or infrastructural 

development) events that destroy 

individuals and their habitat, and that 

these genetic and demographic risks are 

exacerbated by ongoing habitat 

destruction (Factor A) and predation 

(Factor C). 

Status Determination for the Esmeraldas 

Woodstar 

The four primary factors that threaten 

the survival of the Esmeraldas woodstar 

are: (1) habitat destruction, 

fragmentation, and degradation (Factor 

A); (2) predation (Factor C); (3) 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms 

(Factor D); and (4) limited size and 

isolation of remaining populations 

(Factor E). The Esmeraldas woodstar is 

a tiny hummingbird endemic to 

Ecuador. Esmeraldas woodstars are a 

rare, range-restricted species with 

highly localized populations in three 

disjunct locations – in the Ecuadorean 

Departments of Esmeraldas, Guayas, and 

Manabı ́. The species occurs in lowland 

semi-humid or semi-evergreen forests 

and woodlands, from sealevel to 500 m 

(1,600 ft) along the Coastal Cordillera of 

western Ecuador. Preferring primary 

evergreen forests, the species is also 

known to occupy low-altitude 

secondary-growth areas during the 

breeding season (December-March). The 

current extent of the species’ range is 

approximately 1,155 km2 (446 mi2). 

The primary threat to this species is 

habitat loss (Factor A), caused by 

widespread deforestation and 

conversion of primary forests for 

numerous human activities. The 

species’ range has been reduced by 99 

percent. The semi-humid and semievergreen forests preferred by this 

species have undergone extensive 

deforestation. Habitat-altering activities 

that have occurred include: logging; 

cattle-raising and persistent grazing 

from goats and cattle; forest clearing for 

agriculture, subsistence farming, and 

small local industries; selective harvest 

of trees for fuelwood and non-timber 

products; road development; and 

pollution from industrial activities 

(Factors A). These activities are ongoing 

and occurring throughout the species’ 

range – including within protected areas 

where the species occurs (Machalilla 

National Park, Isla de La Plata, and 

Loma Alta Communal Ecological 

Reserve). Because regulatory 

mechanisms are ineffective at reducing 

these activities (Factor D), habitat 

destruction and alteration are expected 

to continue. 

The species’ population is estimated 

to have declined between 50 to 79 

percent within the last 10 years, a 

decline which is attributed to habitat 

loss. The Esmeraldas woodstar has a 

small estimated population size 

(between 186 and 373 individuals), 

which renders the species vulnerable to 

the threat of adverse natural (e.g., 

genetic, demographic, or predation) and 

manmade (e.g., slash-and-burn 

agriculture or infrastructural 

development) events that destroy 

individuals and their habitat (Factor E). 

In addition, the direct loss of habitat 

through widespread deforestation and 

conversion for human activities has led 

to habitat fragmentation and isolation of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32347 

the remaining populations of the 

Esmeraldas woodstar. The Esmeraldas 

woodstar currently occupies three 

disjunct, isolated patches that are 

separated by large distances (between 

125 and 200 km (78 and 124 mi)), with 

minimal suitable habitat between 

occupied sites. Given the species’ small 

population size and the distance 

between the remaining fragmented 

primary forested habitats, the species is 

unlikely to repopulate an isolated patch 

of suitable habitat following decline or 

extirpation of the species within that 

patch (Factor E). This renders the 

species particularly vulnerable to local 

extirpation from ongoing habitat 

destruction (Factor A) and predation 

(Factor C). 

Esmeraldas woodstars are vulnerable 

to predation by a variety of predators, 

including domestic and feral cats, rats, 

hawks, owls, snakes, praying mantis, 

spiders, bees, wasps, frogs, and 

largemouth bass (Factor C). Habitat 

fragmentation (Factor A) contributes to 

this vulnerability, because research 

indicates that predation increases with 

increased habitat fragmentation and 

smaller patch sizes. Predation leads to 

the direct removal of eggs, juveniles, 

and adults from the population, 

exacerbating risks associated with the 

species’ small population size. 

Esmeraldas woodstars are particularly 

vulnerable to predation by wild cats 

during the breeding season on Isla de La 

Plata, where cats have been known to 

prey particularly upon bird eggs. 

Esmeraldas woodstars produce a low 

clutch size (see Habitat and Life 

History), and predation can remove 

potentially reproductive adults from the 

breeding pool. 

The Esmeraldas woodstar is classified 

as an endangered species under 

Ecuadorian law, and part of the species’ 

range is included within two protected 

areas. Despite numerous laws and 

regulatory mechanisns to administer 

and manage wildlife and their habitats, 

existing laws are inadequate (Factor D) 

to protect the species and its habitat 

from ongoing habitat loss (Factor A) and 

predation by non-native animals (Factor 

C), even within the protected areas. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information regarding the past, present, 

and potential future threats faced by the 

Esmeraldas woodstar. We consider the 

ongoing threats to the Esmeraldas 

woodstar, habitat loss (Factor A) and 

predation (Factor C), exacerbated by the 

species’ small population size and 

limited dispersal ability (Factor E), and 

compounded by inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D), to be equally 

present and of the same magnitude 

throughout the species’ entire current 

range. Based on this information, we 

conclude that the Esmeraldas woodstar 

is endangered throughout its range. 

Therefore, we are proposing to list the 

Esmeraldas woodstar as an endangered 

species. 

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 national governments, private 

agencies and 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 is being designated. However, 

given that the blue-billed curassow, the 

brown-banded antpitta, the Cauca guan, 

the gorgeted wood-quail, and the 

Esmeraldas woodstar are not native to 

the United States, no critical habitat is 

being proposed for designation with this 

rule. 

Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes 

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 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. Consequently, these 

prohibitions would be applicable to the 

blue-billed curassow, the brown-banded 

antpitta, the Cauca guan, the gorgeted 

wood-quail, and the Esmeraldas 

woodstar. These prohibitions, under 50 

CFR 17.21, 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, collect, or to attempt any 

of these) within the United States or 

upon the high seas, import or export, 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of a commercial activity or to sell 

or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce, any endangered wildlife 

species. It also is 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. 

We may issue permits 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 at 17.32 for 

threatened species. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit must 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 the 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 bluebilled curassow, the Cauca guan, the 

gorgeted wood-quail, the brown-banded 

antpitta, and the Esmeraldas woodstar 

as endangered. 

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 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

32348 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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, or the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful. 

References Cited 

The references cited in this proposed 

rule are 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 MORE 

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are Arnold Roessler of the 

Endangered Species Program 

(Sacramento, California) and Dr. Patricia 

De Angelis of the Division of Scientific 

Authority U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; 

Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless 

otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 17.11(h), by adding new 

entries for ‘‘Curassow, bluebilled,’’‘‘Guan, Cauca,’’‘‘Wood-quail, 

Gorgeted,’’‘‘Antpitta, Brown-banded,’’ 

and ‘‘Woodstar, Esmeraldas’’ in 

alphabetical order under BIRDS to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) Birds. 

* * * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where 

endangered 

or threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * *

BIRDS 

* * * * * * * 

Antpitta, brown-banded Grallaria milleri Columbia, South America Entire E NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Curassow, blue-billed Crax alberti Columbia, South America Entire E NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Guan, cauca Penelope perspicax Columbia, South America Entire E NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Wood-quail, gorgeted Odontophorus strophium Columbia, South America Entire E NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Woodstar, Esmeraldas Chaetocercus berlepschi Ecuador, South America Entire E NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 32349 

Dated: May 28, 2009 

Rowan W. Gould 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FR Doc. E9–15826 Filed 7–6– 09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S