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

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 brown-banded 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

401 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.

) 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

inding (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-but-precluded finding, and is, therefore, subject to a new finding within 1 year and subsequently thereafter until we publish a proposal to list or a finding that the petitioned action is not warranted. The Service publishes an annual notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but precluded.

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

vious 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 higher-priority listing actions. On May 10, 1985, we published the first annual

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 brown-banded 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 higher-priority listing actions

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 higher-priority 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

ce 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-but-precluded 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

tinued 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 wood-quail, 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 “ Paujíl de pico azul” or “ Pavón 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 (UNEP-WCMC) 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)

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 blue-billed 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).

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)

so 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 (Ochoa-Quintero 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 long-lived species (Todd et al . 2008, p.7). Throp (1964, p. 132) recorded a blue-billed 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 Sinú valley (Department of Córdoba), through the Río 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 (km 2 ) (41,197 square miles (mi 2 )) (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). There were no confirmed observations of blue-billed curassows between 1978 and 1997 (Brooks and Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p

tioquia, 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 (km 2 ) (41,197 square miles (mi 2 )) (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-km 2 (807-mi 2 ) area (BLI 2007d, p. 2) of fragmented, disjunct, and isolated tropical moist and humid lowlands and premontane forested foothills in the Río 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 Antioquía in 1999 and 2001 noted that the patch sizes varied from 3 km 2 (1.2 mi 2 ) to 10 km 2 (3.9 mi 2 ) in size (Ochoa-Quintero et al . 2005, p. 46).

In 1993, sightings were reported in the northern Departments of Córdoba (at La Terretera, near Alto Sinú) and Bolívar (in the Serranía de San Jacinto (San Jacinto Mountains)) (Williams, in litt., as cited in BLI 2007d, p. 2)

n the Department of Antioquía in 1999 and 2001 noted that the patch sizes varied from 3 km 2 (1.2 mi 2 ) to 10 km 2 (3.9 mi 2 ) in size (Ochoa-Quintero et al . 2005, p. 46).

In 1993, sightings were reported in the northern Departments of Córdoba (at La Terretera, near Alto Sinú) and Bolívar (in the Serranía 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 Antioquía (on the slopes of the Serranía de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Reserve area), the Departments of Santander and Boyacá (on the slopes of the Serranía 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; Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42). Experts consider the most important refuges for this species to be: (1) Serranía de San Lucas (Antioquía); (2) Paramillo National Park (Antioquía and Córdoba Departments); (3) Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Reserve (Antioquía and Córdoba Departments); and, (4) Serranía de las Quinchas Bird Reserve (Santander and Boyacá 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 Serranía de las Quinchas and Serranía de San Lucas populations to be the stronghold of the species. However, surveys in 2003 led researchers to believe that Serranía de las Quinchas serves as the species' stronghold (BLI 2007d, pp. 2, 5-6)

bility 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 Serranía de las Quinchas and Serranía de San Lucas populations to be the stronghold of the species. However, surveys in 2003 led researchers to believe that Serranía de las Quinchas serves as the species' stronghold (BLI 2007d, pp. 2, 5-6). In 2003, the population at Serranía de las Quinchas (Boyacá 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 blue-billed 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; Urueña et al

w 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; Urueña et al . 2006, pp. 41-2).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Blue-Billed 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 Antioquiá noted that the patch sizes in which the species were observed or heard varied from 3 km 2 (1.2 mi 2 ) to 10 km 2 (3.9 mi 2 ) in size (Ochoa-Quintero et al . 2005, p. 46). Since the 1990s, the species has been observed in the Departments of Córdoba (at La Terretera, near Alto Sinú, 1993) and Bolívar (in the Serranía 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); Antioquía (on the slopes of the Serranía de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Reserve area, 1999 and 2001) (Ochoa-Quintero et al . 2005, p. 43-44); Santander and Boyacá (on the slopes of the Serranía de las Quinchas); and Cauca (in northeastern and lower Cauca Valley) (BLI 2007d, p. 2; Cuervo 2002, pp

); La Guajira (in the Valle de San Salvador Valley, 2003) (Strewe and Navarro 2003, p. 32); Antioquía (on the slopes of the Serranía de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Reserve area, 1999 and 2001) (Ochoa-Quintero et al . 2005, p. 43-44); Santander and Boyacá (on the slopes of the Serranía 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; Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42).

Deforestation rates and patterns : Primary forest habitats throughout Colombia have undergone extensive deforestation. Viña 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 km 2 (320 mi 2 ) 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-times-larger annual rate of loss than that in Ecuador, due to more intense pressures from human colonization and illegal crop cultivation (Viña 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 Río Magdalena Valley, which coincides with the species' historic range as well as its disjunct and restricted current range. The Río 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

cides with the species' historic range as well as its disjunct and restricted current range. The Río 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 Río Magdalena Valley; this infrastructural improvement contributed to a growth in several industries, including coffee (throughout the Río 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, Caquetá, Guainia, Guaviare, Putumayo, and Vaupés), deforestation between 1980 and 1990 totaled 52,320 km 2 (20,201 mi 2 ) (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 km 2 (3,058 mi 2 ) 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 (Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; Cárdenas and Rodríguez Becerra 2004, pp. 125-130; Etter et al . 2006, p. 1; Hunter 1996, p. 158-159; Viña et al

forests in their historic range of the Río Magdalena and Río 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 km 2 (41,197 mi 2 ) (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 km 2 (5135 m2) (Cuervo 2002, p. 141). The current range of the blue-billed curassow is estimated to be 2,090 km 2 (807 mi 2 ) (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: Antioquía (on the slopes of the Serranía de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Reserve area); Santander and Boyacá Departments (on the slopes of the Serranía de las Quinchas); and in the southeastern Department of Cauca (in northeastern and lower Cauca Valley), where timber extraction and mining continue (Urueña 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 (Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cárdenas and Rodríguez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp. 9-12; Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42); habitat alteration, human population displacement, and hunting as a result of armed conflict (Álvarez 2001, p. 305; Álvarez 2003, pp. 51-52); habitat 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 )) (Álvarez 2001, pp. 1086-1087; Álvarez 2007, pp. 133-135; Cárdenas and Rodríguez Becerra 2004, p. 355; Oldham and Massey 2002, pp

as a result of armed conflict (Álvarez 2001, p. 305; Álvarez 2003, pp. 51-52); habitat 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 )) (Álvarez 2001, pp. 1086-1087; Álvarez 2007, pp. 133-135; Cárdenas and Rodríguez 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 (Álvarez 2005, p. 2041; Cárdenas and Rodríguez 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 (Álvarez 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

llegal 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 km 2 (309 mi 2 ) 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 km 2 (502 mi 2 ) annually, peaking in 2004, when 1,360 km 2 (525 mi 2 ) 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 km 2 (822 mi 2 ) of land, which included sraying of 1,720 km 2 (664 mi 2 ) 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 (Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cárdenas and Rodríguez 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 (Álvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; Álvarez 2005, p

troy illegal crops (Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cárdenas and Rodríguez 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 (Álvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; Álvarez 2007, pp. 133-143; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cárdenas and Rodríguez 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 (Álvarez 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 blue-billed 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 Álvarez-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 Álvarez-Lopez 1996, p. 5; Kattan et al . 1994, p. 141)

tat preferences (also traits of the blue-billed curassow) (Kattan and Álvarez-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 Álvarez-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 Álvarez-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 blue-billed 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-Vélez 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)

38). A study conducted in northwestern Colombia suggests that habitat destruction and fragmentation may increase a species' vulnerability to predation (Arango-Vélez 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 Antioquía Department) (Cuervo 2002, p. 140) and the Colorados Sanctuary (Bolívar Department), which protects part of the Serranía de San Jacinto (BLI 2007d, pp. 2-3; Urueña 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) Serranía de San Lucas, (2) Paramillo National Park, (3) Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Reserve, and (4) El Paujíl Bird Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, p. 139-140; Urueña 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

rranged geographically, from north to south): (1) Serranía de San Lucas, (2) Paramillo National Park, (3) Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Reserve, and (4) El Paujíl Bird Reserve (BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cuervo 2002, p. 139-140; Urueña 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

(1) Serranía de San Lucas (Antioquía) 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 (Antioquiá 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 Serranía 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 Serranía de San Lucas and adjacent lowlands (Álvarez 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.

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 Serranía de San Lucas and adjacent lowlands (Álvarez 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 (Antioquía and Córdoba Departments), created in 1977, encompasses an area 4600 km 2 (1776 mi 2 ) 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 (Emberá), 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 Urrá 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 1.1km 2 to 4.6 km 2 (UNODC and GOC 2005, p. 45). The Urrá Dam was constructed on the Sinú River between 1993 and 1998; the Sinú 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).

ver 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-Nechí Regional Reserve (Antioquía and Córdoba Departments), created in 1999, is located within a large tract (450 km 2 (174 mi 2 )) 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 (Fundación 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 Paujíl Bird Reserve (Santander and Boyacá Departments) is a private reserve established in Serranía de las Quinchas (WorldTwitch Colombia 2004, p.3). In the early 1990s, the Serranía de las Quinchas (Boyacá 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 km 2 (193 mi 2 ) of forest remaining. Within a decade, the forest had dwindled to 120 km 2 (46 mi 2 ) (WorldTwitch Colombia 2004, p. 3). In 2002, the largest known subpopulation of blue-billed curassow was located in the Serranía de las Quinchas and became regarded as the stronghold of the species (BLI 2007d, p. 2). El Paujíl Bird Reserve was created in 2004 specifically to protect the blue-billed curassow and its habitat (BLI 2007b, p. 2)

n a decade, the forest had dwindled to 120 km 2 (46 mi 2 ) (WorldTwitch Colombia 2004, p. 3). In 2002, the largest known subpopulation of blue-billed curassow was located in the Serranía de las Quinchas and became regarded as the stronghold of the species (BLI 2007d, p. 2). El Paujíl Bird Reserve was created in 2004 specifically to protect the blue-billed curassow and its habitat (BLI 2007b, p. 2). Comprising 10 km 2 (3.9 mi 2 ) 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; Urueña 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

ffecting 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 Paujíl 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 km 2 (41,197 mi 2 ), has been reduced to 2,090 km 2 (807 mi 2 ). 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

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 Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Brooks and Strahl 2000, p

blue-billed curassow's range. Therefore, we find that the present destruction, modification, and curtailment of habitat

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 Gonzalez-Garcia 2001, p. 183; Brooks and Strahl 2000, p. 10; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 9; Throp 1964, p. 127; Urueña 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 Antioquío (where the blue-billed curassow is known on the slopes of the Serranía de San Lucas and Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Reserve area) reported killing as many as 20 blue-billed 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 Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42). However, both eggs and chicks continue to be collected in some areas (such as Serranía de las Quinchas, where El Paujíl Reserve is located) to be sold at local markets (Cuervo 2002, p. 139; Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42), despite measures to protect the species from collection (Factor D)

ecause the communities have access to domestic meat (Melo and Ochoa 2004, as cited in Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42). However, both eggs and chicks continue to be collected in some areas (such as Serranía de las Quinchas, where El Paujíl Reserve is located) to be sold at local markets (Cuervo 2002, p. 139; Urueña 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)

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 km 2 (0.4 mi 2 ); 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 blue-billed curassow in Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (UNEP-WCMC 2008c)

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 blue-billed 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 re-export 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 (UNEP-WCMC 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)

oo 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 captive-breeding 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

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-Vélez and Kattan (1997, pp. 137-143) studied nest predation rates on Andean birds within fragmented forest habitats of northwestern Colombia

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-Vélez 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-Vélez 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 ground-dwelling birds such as blue-billed curassows particularly susceptible (Arango-Vélez 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 km 2 (0.39 mi 2 ) and that ground-nesting 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-Vélez and Kattan 1997, p. 141)

ound that a larger proportion of ground-nests and elevated nests were predated in patches smaller than 1 km 2 (0.39 mi 2 ) and that ground-nesting 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-Vélez 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

lonize 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 species-specific 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

nal 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 saínos, 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

Additional efforts to protect the species from subsistence hunting are inadequate. Within El Paujíl Reserve, for instance, there are penalties for shooting or trapping the species (BLI 2007d, p. 3)

ely, 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

Additional efforts to protect the species from subsistence hunting are inadequate. Within El Paujíl 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 Serranía de las Quinchas region, where the Reserve is located, for domestic use and for sale at local markets (Cuervo 2002, p. 139; Urueña 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 CITES-listed 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

es work together to ensure that international trade in animal and plant species is not detrimental to the survival of wild populations, by regulating the import, export, re-export, and introduction from the sea of CITES-listed animal and plant species (USFWS 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 Autónomas Regionales) (Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121)

uction, 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 Autónomas 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 blue-billed 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 Blue-billed Curassow” (Quevedo et al . 2005, as cited in Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42). In 2004, this project evaluated and prioritized threats in Serranía de las Quinchas region (Machado 2004, as cited in Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42), assessed population density and structure (Arias 2005, as cited in Urueña et al . 2006, p

the conservation of the blue-billed curassow through the project, “Saving the Blue-billed Curassow” (Quevedo et al . 2005, as cited in Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42). In 2004, this project evaluated and prioritized threats in Serranía de las Quinchas region (Machado 2004, as cited in Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42), assessed population density and structure (Arias 2005, as cited in Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42), studied habitat use and behavioral aspects in Paujíl de Pico Bird Reserve (Urueña 2005, as cited in Urueña et al . 2006, p. 42), and promoted an environmental education campaign and the creation of El Paujíl Bird Reserve (Urueña and Quevedo 2005, as cited in Urueña 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)

mmunities 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 (Antioquía and Córdoba Departments) and (2) The Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Natural Reserve (Antioquía and Córdoba 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 (Antioquía and Córdoba 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 Siní River, part of the species' historic range (BLI

(2) The Bajo Cauca-Nechí Regional Natural Reserve (Antioquía and Córdoba 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 (Fundación 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 Paujíl Bird Preserve, which was established specifically to protect the blue-billed curassow and its habitat (BLI 2007d, p

designated to preserve and research flora and fauna, allows logging (Fundación 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 Paujíl 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 Serranía 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 blue-billed 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

ted 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 blue-billed 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 blue-billed 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)

t, the species' small population size and captive-breeding programs.

Likelihood to Disperse : The blue-billed 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 blue-billed 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 Serranía de las Quinchas, Boyacá 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

illed 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 Serranía de las Quinchas, Boyacá 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 Gonzalez-Garcia 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 meta-population composed of extinction-prone 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 blue-billed 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

ring that not all blue-billed 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,

Captive-Breeding Program : A captive-breeding program is being developed within the species' range (see Current Range and Distribution, above)by Fundación Ecolombia, based at the Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre in Los Farallones (Antioquía 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 blue-billed 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

each 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. Range-country 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

oids crossing the disturbed areas that separate the remaining suitable habitat for this species. Range-country 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 km 2 (41,197 mi 2 ), has been reduced to 2,090 km 2 (807 mi 2 ). Experts estimate that 88 percent of this habitat loss has occurred within the last three generations, or 30 years

ral 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 km 2 (41,197 mi 2 ), has been reduced to 2,090 km 2 (807 mi 2 ). 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)

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

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

e 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

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 Paujíl 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

within the species' range and, aside from El Paujíl 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; Fjeldsä and Krabbe 1990, p. 414; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 422). The species is locally known as “Tororoi” (Beltrán 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 (Quindío Department) (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 327)

nd 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 (Quindío Department) (Beltrán 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 Beltrán 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 Beltrán 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 km 2 (0.02 mi 2 ) (Kattan and Beltrán 2002, p. 234). This ground-dwelling species lives either singly or in pairs (Beltrán 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

d a distance of 0.041 km 2 (0.02 mi 2 ) (Kattan and Beltrán 2002, p. 234). This ground-dwelling species lives either singly or in pairs (Beltrán 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 brown-banded antpitta's reproductive ecology, except that its peak reproductive period is between March and May (Beltrán 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 Quindío), 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)

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 Quindío), 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 (Beltrán 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 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 Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369). Although the brown-banded antpitta was rediscovered in 1994 (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp

), 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 Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369). Although the brown-banded antpitta was rediscovered in 1994 (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369), researchers continue to consider the species to be locally extinct (extirpated) from its type locality of Laguneta (Quindío Department) (Beltrán 2002 in litt., as cited in Beltrán and Kattan, p. 327) due to extensive deforestation (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 327).

Current Range and Distribution

The current range of the brown-banded antpitta is described as humid understory and forest floors of mid-montane 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 Beltrán 1999, p. 272). The current range is estimated to be 300 km 2 (116 mi 2 ) (BLI 2007f, p. 1). The species is known today from only three areas in the upper Río Magdalena valley. The first area is the humid forests in the Central Andes of Colombia's Ucumarí Regional Park (Risaralda Department), where it was first sighted in 1994 (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 369-370) and recently observed in 2000 (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 326). The site is approximately 44 km 2 (17 mi 2 ) in the Otún River watershed (Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 273). The second areas is the south-east slope of Volcán Tolima in the Río Toche Valley on private land (the house of La Carbonera) (Tolima Department), where it was first observed in 1998 and recently observed in 2000 (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 325). This location is 0.05 km 2 (0.02 mi 2 ) in size at elevations ranging from 2,750 to 2,900 m (9,022 to 9,514 ft) (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 326)

273). The second areas is the south-east slope of Volcán Tolima in the Río Toche Valley on private land (the house of La Carbonera) (Tolima Department), where it was first observed in 1998 and recently observed in 2000 (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 325). This location is 0.05 km 2 (0.02 mi 2 ) in size at elevations ranging from 2,750 to 2,900 m (9,022 to 9,514 ft) (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 326). The third area is the Río Blanco river basin (Caldas Department), where it was most recently observed in 2000 (Beltrán 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 Beltrán 2002, p. 238). Experts consider the most important refuges for this species to be: (1) the Ucumarí Regional Park (Risaralda Department), (2) the Río Toche Valley (Tolima), (3) the Río Blanco river basin (Caldas Department), and (4) the Reserve of Cañon and Quindío 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 Ucumarí 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-km 2 - (0.07-0.62-mi 2 ) area within the Ucumarí Regional Park during 1995-2000, Kattan and Beltrán (2002, p. 232-3) captured and banded 36 brown-banded antpittas. Based on these surveys, the subpopulation within the 0.63 km 2 (0.24 mi 2 ) Park was estimated to include up to 106 individuals, averaging to approximately 1.3 individuals per 0.01 km 2 (0.004 mi 2 ) (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 276)

n the Ucumarí Regional Park during 1995-2000, Kattan and Beltrán (2002, p. 232-3) captured and banded 36 brown-banded antpittas. Based on these surveys, the subpopulation within the 0.63 km 2 (0.24 mi 2 ) Park was estimated to include up to 106 individuals, averaging to approximately 1.3 individuals per 0.01 km 2 (0.004 mi 2 ) (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 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 Río Toche Valley determined that the brown-banded antpitta is uncommon and local (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 326). One individual was observed in 1999 (Cuervo in litt., as cited in Beltrán (2002 p. 326). There is no information on the estimated population size of brown-banded antpitta within the Río 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 Río 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 (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 326). There is no information on the estimated population size of brown-banded antpitta within the Río 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 Cañon del Quindío. Although the species was observed there in 1911 and 1942 (Beltrán 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 (Beltrán 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

gh the species was observed there in 1911 and 1942 (Beltrán 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 (Beltrán 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 brown-banded 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 Beltrán 1999, p. 272). The current range is estimated to be 300 km 2 (116 mi 2 ) (BLI 2007f, p. 1), and the species is known today in only three locations: (1) Urcumaí Regional Park (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp

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 Beltrán 1999, p. 272). The current range is estimated to be 300 km 2 (116 mi 2 ) (BLI 2007f, p. 1), and the species is known today in only three locations: (1) Urcumaí Regional Park (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 369-370) (Risaralda Department), (2) the south-east slope of Volcán Tolima in the Río Toche Valley (Tolima Department), and (3) the Río 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 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; Viña 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 Río Magdalena valley, part of the brown-banded 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)

tural development, have resulted in extensive deforestation and environmental degradation of primary forests in the Río Magdalena valley, part of the brown-banded 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 Álvarez-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 (Quindío Department), where the natural vegetation has been reduced to 10 percent of its former area (Beltrán 2002 in litt., as cited in Beltrán and Kattan, p. 327). Deforestation continues in mid-montane 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 (Álvarez 2005, p

xpose 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 (Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; Cárdenas and Rodríguez Becerra 2004, pp. 125-130; Etter et al . 2006, p. 1; Hunter 1996, 158-159; Viña 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 km 2 of land was under cocaine cultivation (0.54 km 2 (0.21 mi 2 )). By 2004, cultivation had risen 563 percent, covering a 36 km 2 - (14 mi 2 -) 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 (Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cárdenas and Rodríguez 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 (Álvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; Álvarez 2007, pp. 133-143; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cárdenas and Rodríguez Becerra 2004, p

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 (Álvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093; Álvarez 2005, p. 2042; Álvarez 2007, pp. 133-143; BLI 2007d, p. 3; Cárdenas and Rodríguez 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 (Álvarez 2002, pp. 1088-1093).

Refugia : The most important refugia for the brown-banded antpitta include: (1) Ucumarí Regional Park, (2) the Río Toche Valley, (3) the Río Blanco catchment, and (4) Reserva Departamental del Cañon del Quindío. These refugia are discussed below.

(1) Ucumarí Regional Park (Risaralda Department) covers an area of approximately 44 km 2 (17 mi 2 ) in the Otún River watershed, with elevations ranging from 1,700 to 2,600m (5,577 to 8,530 ft) (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, pp. 325-326; Kattan and Beltrán 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 Beltrán 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 Beltrán 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 Beltrán 1997, p. 369). The Park also contains a small area of private pasturelands (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, p. 369), and agricultural expansion, selective logging, and firewood collection are ongoing in the region (BLI 2008a, p. 1).

s been allowed to naturally regenerate, and plantations of alder ( Alnus acuminata ) and ash ( Fraxinus chinensis ) are overgrown with natural vegetation (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, p. 369). The Park also contains a small area of private pasturelands (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, p. 369), and agricultural expansion, selective logging, and firewood collection are ongoing in the region (BLI 2008a, p. 1).

(2) In Río Toche Valley (Tolima Department), on the south-east slope of Volcán Tolima, the brown-banded antpitta is considered uncommon and local (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 326; BLI 2004c, p. 2; Kattan and Beltrán 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 Beltrán (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) Río 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) (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 325; BLI 2004c, p. 2; Kattan and Beltrán 2002, p. 238). The area is considered to be of sufficient size to support the species (Kattan and Beltrán 2002, p. 238). However, the species has only been observed at this location once, in the year 2000 (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 328).

km (124 mi) long on the Central Cordilla, between 2,300 and 3,100 m (7,546 and 10,171 ft) (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 325; BLI 2004c, p. 2; Kattan and Beltrán 2002, p. 238). The area is considered to be of sufficient size to support the species (Kattan and Beltrán 2002, p. 238). However, the species has only been observed at this location once, in the year 2000 (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 328).

(4) Reserva Departamental del Cañon del Quindío (Quindío Department): The Department of Conservation and Management of Alto Quindío owns and manages this 56-km 2 (22-mi 2 ) reserve, which ranges in elevation from 2,600 to 4,000 m (ft) (8,530 to 13,123 ft) (Corporación Autónoma Regional del Quindío 2008). The type locality for the brown-banded antpitta (Laguneta) is located in the Department of Quindío (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 325). Beltrán and Kattan (2002, pp. 238, 327) believe that this Reserve comprises habitat suitable for the brown-banded et al . 1992, p. 698) and is considered to be locally extinct there (Beltrán 2002 in litt., as cited in Beltrán 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

eans) (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 km 2 (310 mi 2 ); BirdLife International estimated that the species currently occupies an area 300 km 2 (116 mi 2 ) in size (BLI 2007f, p. 1).

Deforestation has greatly affected the current population size and distributional range of the brown-banded antpitta (Collar et al . 1992, p. 698; Kattan and Beltrán 1997, p. 367). The species was thought to be extinct or on the verge of extinction (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, pp. 326-327; Collar et al . 1992, p. 689; Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369), until its rediscovery in 1994 (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369). The brown-banded antpitta is now confirmed within three localities, including the Ucumarí Regional Park, the Río Toche Valley, and the Río Blanco basin. These habitats are characterized as heterogeneous and fragmented (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 327; Kattan and Beltrán 2002, p. 237). The species is considered extirpated from its type locality (Beltrán 2002 in litt., as cited in Beltrán and Kattan, p. 327), despite the existence of suitable habitat (Beltrán 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

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 km 2 . 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

ts original vegetative cover by 1994. Currently, the species' range is estimated to be 300 km 2 . 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 brown-banded antpitta. Therefore, we do not consider overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes to be a threat to the brown-banded 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 (Beltrán 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)

tan 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 (Beltrán 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-Vélez 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 brown-banded 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 brown-banded antpitta does not have sophisticated anti-predator response mechanisms, making this species particularly vulnerable to an increased

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Regulatory mechanisms may provide species-specific or habitat-specific protections

indicate that vulnerability to predation increases with increased habitat fragmentation and smaller patch sizes. The brown-banded antpitta does not have sophisticated anti-predator response mechanisms, making this species particularly vulnerable to an increased

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 brown-banded 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)

ry 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 Corporaciónes. 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 brown-banded 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 (Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121-122). Of the four areas identified as refugia for the brown-banded antpitta, two are considered protected areas under Colombian law: (1) the Ucumarí Regional Park and (2) Reserva del Cañon del Quindío.

veral 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 (Matallana-T. 2005, p. 121-122). Of the four areas identified as refugia for the brown-banded antpitta, two are considered protected areas under Colombian law: (1) the Ucumarí Regional Park and (2) Reserva del Cañon del Quindío.

(1) The Ucumarí Regional Park (Risaralda Department) is managed by the Corporación Autónoma 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 Cañon del Quindío (Quindío Department) is managed by the Corporación Autónoma Regional del Quindío (2008, p. 1). According to the management plan for the Department of Quindío <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 brown-banded antpitta within this Reserve

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 brown-banded antpitta within this Reserve. Moreover, as discussed under Factor A, although this Reserve contains suitable habitat for the brown-banded antpitta (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 328), there are no known populations of the brown-banded antpitta within this Reserve (Beltrán 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, 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 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

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 brown-banded 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 (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 327) has a high territorial fidelity and, although dispersal capabilities are not well-known (Cuervo 2002, p. 327) except those in the banding study by Kattan and Beltrán (2002, p. 234), the farthest known distance traveled by any one individual bird was 0.041 km 2 (0.02 mi 2 ). This suggests that the brown-banded antpitta is unable to repopulate an isolated patch of suitable habitat following decline or local extirpation of that patch (Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p.

Small Population Size : There have been few quantitative studies of brown-banded antpitta populations. A total of 48 individuals have been directly observed at two locations (Ucumarí Regional Park and Río Toche) (Cuervo in litt., as cited in Beltrán 2002 p. 326; Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 276; Kattan and Beltrán 2002, pp. 232-233), 30 have been inferred at one location (Río Blanco) (Beltrán 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 (Ucumarí Regional Park) (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p

; Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 276; Kattan and Beltrán 2002, pp. 232-233), 30 have been inferred at one location (Río Blanco) (Beltrán 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 (Ucumarí Regional Park) (Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 276; Kattan and Beltrán 2002, pp. 232-233). From work at Ucumarí Regional Park, Kattan and Beltrán (1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 276) predicted a population density of approximately 1.3 individuals per .01 km 2 (0.004 mi 2 ).

The IUCN has estimated the brown-banded antpitta's total population size to be more than 250 and fewer than 999 adult individuals in a 300-km 2 (116-mi 2 ) 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 km 2 ) (116 mi 2 ) (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 Beltrán's (1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 276) predicted population density of 1.3 individuals per .01 km 2 (116 mi 2 ), it should be noted that extrapolating population sizes based on the availability of suitable habitat may result in an overestimate for the brown-banded 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

andomly 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 well-studied 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 Cañon del Quindío Reserve, the species has not been observed there since 1942 and is considered extirpated from this locality (Beltrán 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 (Beltrán 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 Beltrán and Kattan (2002, p. 328), who noted that, out of a potential habitat of 855 km 2 (330 mi 2 ), 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 km 2 . Thus, ground-truthing is essential to accurate population-size estimations

ot connote the presence of the species. This conclusion is supported by Beltrán and Kattan (2002, p. 328), who noted that, out of a potential habitat of 855 km 2 (330 mi 2 ), 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 km 2 . 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; Soulé 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; Soulé 1980, pp. 160-162). This rule states that an effective population size (N e ) of 50 individuals is the minimum size required to avoid imminent risks from inbreeding. N e 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 N e 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

ll 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 (N e = 50), and 756 is above the upper threshold for long-term fitness (N e = 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 best-studied subpopulation is located within the Ucumarí 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 Beltrán 1997, pp. 367-369; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 276; Kattan and Beltrán 2002, pp. 232-233). Forty-seven is just below the minimum effective population size required to avoid risks from inbreeding (N e = 50 individuals). Moreover, the upper estimate of 106 individuals (not all of which will be reproducing) is approximately one-fifth of the upper threshold (N e = 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

dividuals (not all of which will be reproducing) is approximately one-fifth of the upper threshold (N e = 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

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 (Beltrán and Kattan 2002, p. 326; BLI 2004c, p. 2; Cuervo and Salaman 1999, p. 7; del Hoyo 1994, p. 361; Kattan and Beltrán 1997, pp. 369-370; Kattan and Beltrán 1999, p. 273; Kattan and Beltrán 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

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 Quindío, 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 brown-banded 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 Brown-Banded 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 brown-banded 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 km 2 (116 mi 2 )

forestation and conversion of primary forests to human settlement and agricultural uses has led to the fragmentation of habitat throughout the range of the brown-banded 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 km 2 (116 mi 2 ).

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 brown-banded 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

timated 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-the-ground 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

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 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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.