Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government

• Home
• Departments
• Agencies
• Dates

Top Searches

Popular Sites

Common CFR Searches

Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 2)

DOCID: fr05ja10-26 FR Doc E9-31102

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

United States Institute of Peace

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

Docket ID: [Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2009-0059]

RIN ID: [RIN 1018-AV77]

NOTICE: Part IV

DOCID: fr05ja10-26

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY:

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered Throughout Their Range

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 8, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by February 19, 2010.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the following six South American bird species (collectively referred to as ``species'' for purposes of this proposed rule) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.): ashbreasted tittyrant (Anairetes alpinus), Junin grebe (Podiceps taczanowskii), Junin rail (Laterallus tuerosi), Peruvian plantcutter (Phytotoma raimondii), royal cinclodes (Cinclodes aricomae), and whitebrowed titspinetail (Leptasthenura xenothorax) all native to Peru. The ashbreasted tittyrant and royal cinclodes are also native to Bolivia. 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.

SUMMARY:

Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the taxonomy, range, distribution, and population size of these species, including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(3) Additional 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 such 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 email or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section.

If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire commentincluding any personal identifying informationwill 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 at 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 7033582171.

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to make a finding (known as a ``90day finding'') on whether a petition to add a species to, remove a species from, or reclassify a species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants has presented substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we make the finding within 90 days following receipt of the petition and publish our finding 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 (``12month finding'') on whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. 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 review (ANOR) of findings on resubmitted petitions for all foreign species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but precluded.

Previous Federal Actions

On May 6, 1991, we received a petition (the 1991 petition) from the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) to add 53 foreign bird species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, including the six Peruvian bird species that are the subject of this proposed rule. In response to the 1991 petition, we published a substantial 90day finding on December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65207), for all 53 species and initiated a status review. On March 28, 1994 (59 FR 14496), we published a 12month finding on the 1991 petition, along with a proposed rule to list 30 African birds under the Act (which included 15 species from the 1991 petition). In that
[[Page 607]]
document, we announced our finding that listing the remaining 38 species from the 1991 petition, including the six Peruvian bird species that are the subject of this proposed rule, was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We made a subsequent warrantedbut precluded finding for all outstanding foreign species from the 1991 petition, including the six Peruvian bird species that are the subject of this proposed rule, as published in our ANOR on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354).

Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983; 48 FR 43098), our 2007 ANOR identified the listing priority numbers (LPNs) (ranging from 1 to 12) for all outstanding foreign species. The six Peruvian bird species that are the subject of 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 actions. A listing priority of 2 indicates that the subject species face imminent threats of high magnitude. With the exception of the listing priority ranking of 1, which addresses monotypic genera that face imminent threats of high magnitude, categories 2 and 3 represent the Service's highest priorities.

On July 29, 2008 (73 FR 44062), we published in the Federal Register a notice announcing our annual petition findings for foreign species. In that notice, we announced listing to be warranted for 30 foreign bird species, including the six Peruvian bird species which are the subject of this proposed rule, and stated that we would ``promptly publish proposals to list these 30 taxa.'' In selecting these six species from the list of warrantedbutprecluded species, we took into consideration the magnitude and immediacy of the threats to the species, consistent with the Service's listing priority guidelines.

On September 8, 2008, the Service received a 60day notice of intent to sue from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Peter Galvin over violations of section 4 of the Act for the Service's failure to promptly publish listing proposals for the 30 ``warranted'' species identified in our 2008 ANOR. Under a settlement agreement approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 15, 2009, (CBD, et al. v. Salazar, 09cv02578CRB), the Service must submit to the Federal Register proposed listing rules for the ashbreasted tittyrant, Junin grebe, Junin rail, Peruvian plantcutter, royal cinclodes, and whitebrowed titspinetail by December 29, 2009.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.

Below is a speciesbyspecies analysis of the five factors. The species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning with the ash breasted tittyrant, followed by the Junin grebe, Junin rail, Peruvian plantcutter, royal cinclodes, and the whitebrowed titspinetail. I. Ashbreasted tittyrant (Anairetes alpinus)

Species Description

The ashbreasted tittyrant, locally known as ``torito pechicenizo,'' is a small New World tyrant flycatcher in the Tyrannidae family that is native to highaltitude woodlands of the Bolivian and Peruvian Andes (BirdLife International (BLI) 2000, p. 392; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; del Hoyo et al. 2004, pp. 170, 281; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, pp. 468469; InfoNatura 2007, p. 1; Supreme Decree No. 0342004AG 2004, p. 276854). The sexes are similar, with adults approximately 5 inches (in) (13 centimeters (cm)) in length, with dark gray, inconspicuously blackstreaked upperparts (BLI 2009o, p. 1; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281). Two subspecies (see Taxonomy) are distinguished by their underbelly color, which is yellowishwhite in the nominate subspecies and white in the other (BLI 2009o, p. 1) (see Taxonomy). Juvenile plumage is duller in appearance, but otherwise similar to the adult coloration (del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281). Taxonomy

When the species was first taxonomically described by Carriker (1933, pp. 2729), it was placed in its own genus, Yanacea; this decision was soon questioned by Zimmer (1940, p. 10). It was not until the 1960s that Yanacea was merged into Anairetes (a genus longknown as Spizitornis) by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, p. 376). Some contemporary researchers have suggested retaining the species within Yanacea (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 468). Smith (1971, pp. 269, 275) and Roy et al. (1999, p. 74) confirmed that the ashbreasted tit tyrant is a valid species based on its phylogenetic placement and degree of genetic divergence from other species of Anairetes, and recent texts continue to place it in Anairetes (e.g., del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281). Therefore, we accept the species as Anairetes alpinus, which also follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2009, p. 1). Two subspecies are recognized, including, A. alpinus alpinus (the nominate subspecies) and A. alpinus bolivianus. These subspecies occur in two disjunct (widely separated) areas (see Current Range) (BLI 2000, p. 392; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281; ITIS 2009, p. 1) and are distinguished by the color of their underbellies (see Taxonomy) (BLI 2009o, p. 1).

Habitat and Life History

The ashbreasted tittyrant is restricted to semihumid Polylepis or Polylepis Gynoxys woodlands, where the species is found at elevations between 12,139 and 15,092 feet (ft) (3,700 and 4,600 meters (m)) above sea level (BLI 2000, p. 392; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, pp. 468469; InfoNatura 2007, p. 1). The genus Polylepis (no English common name; locally referred to as ``queu[ntilde]a'') (Aucca and Ramsay 2005, p. 1), in the Rosaceae family, comprises approximately 20 species of evergreen bushes and trees (De la Via 2004, p. 10; Kessler 1998, p. 1; Kessler and SchmidtLebuhn 2006, pp. 12), 19 of which occur in Peru (Chutas et al. 2008, p. 3). In Bolivia, the ashbreasted tittyrant is associated only with P. pepei forests, but the bird is found among a greater variety of Polylepis species in Peru (Chutas et al. 2008, p. 16; I. Gomez, National Museum of National HistoryOrnithology SectionBolivian Fauna Collection, La Paz, Bolivia, email to Division of Scientific Authority, in litt. December 4, 2007, p. 1). On average, Polylepis species are 1033 ft (310 m) tall, but may grow to a height of 118 ft (36 m) (Purcell et al. 2004, p. 455).

Polylepis woodlands occur as dense forests, as opencanopied stands with more arid understories, or as shrubland with scattered trees (De la Via 2004, pp. 1011; Fjeldsa and Kessler 1996, as cited in Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 113; Lloyd and
[[Page 608]]
Marsden in press, as cited in Lloyd 2008, p. 532). Ashbreasted tit tyrants prefer dense Polylepis forests (Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 114; Smith 1971, p. 269), which often include a mixture of Gynoxys trees (no common name), in the Asteraceae family (De la Via 2004, pp. 10; International Plant Names Index (IPNI) 2009, p. 1). Dense Polylepis woodlands are characterized by moss or vineladen vegetation, with a shaded understory and a rich diversity of insects, making good feeding grounds for insectivorous birds (De la Via 2004, p. 10), such as the ashbreasted tittyrant (BLI 2009o, p. 1; Lloyd 2008, p. 535).

There is little information about the ecology and breeding behavior of the ashbreasted tittyrant. The species' territory ranges from 2.5 5 acres (ac) (12 hectares (ha)) (BLI 2009o, p. 1). The breeding season appears to occur during late dry season (Collar et al. 1992, p. 754) November and December (BLI 2009o, p. 1). Juveniles have been observed in March and July (Collar et al. 1992, p. 754; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281). Although speciesspecific information is not available, tit tyrant nests are generally finely woven, open cups, built in a bush (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 468). The species may share in rearing responsibilities, as pairs of ashbreasted tittyrants have been observed feeding young (BLI 2009o, p. 1; Collar et al. 1992, p. 754).

The ashbreasted tittyrant forages alone, in family groups, and sometimes in mixedspecies flocks. The bird takes short flights, either hovering or perching to consume invertebrates near the tops and outer edges of Polylepis shrubs and trees (BLI 2009o, p. 1; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281; Engblom et al. 2002, p. 58; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 468; Lloyd 2008, p. 535). In winter, when invertebrate populations diminish, tittyrants may also forage on seeds (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 468).

Historical Range and Distribution

The ashbreasted tittyrant may once have been welldistributed throughout previously dense and contiguous Polylepis highAndes woodlands of Peru and Bolivia. Researchers believe that these woodlands were historically contiguous with lowerelevation cloudforests and widespread above 9,843 ft (3,000 m) (Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; Fjeldsa 2002a, pp. 111112, 115; Herzog et al. 2002, p. 94; Kessler 2002, pp. 97101). Today, Polylepis woodlands are found only at elevations of 11,483 to 16,404 ft (3,500 to 5,000 m) (Fjeldsa 1992, p. 10). Researchers consider the reduction in Polylepis forest habitat to be the result of historical human activities, including burning and grazing, which have prevented regeneration of the woodlands and resulted in the fragmented habitat distribution seen today (Fjeldsa and Kessler 1996, Kessler 1995a, Kessler 1995b, and L[aelig]gaard 1992, as cited in Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 112; Herzog et al. 2002, p. 94; Kessler 2002, pp. 97101; Kessler and Herzog 1998, pp. 5051). Modeling studies by Fjeldsa (2002a, p. 116) indicate that this habitat reduction was accompanied by a loss in species richness. It is estimated that only 2 3 and 10 percent of the original forest cover still remain in Peru and Bolivia, respectively (Fjeldsa and Kessler 1996, as cited in Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 113). Of this amount, only 1 percent of the remaining Polylepis woodlands are found in humid areas, where denser stands occur (Fjeldsa and Kessler 1996, as cited in Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 113) and which are preferred by the ashbreasted tittyrant (BLI 2009o, p. 1; Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 114; Lloyd 2008, p. 535; Smith 1971, p. 269) (see Factor A). Current Range and Distribution

The current range of the ashbreasted tittyrant is estimated to be 4,595 square miles (mi\2\) (11,900 square kilometers (km\2\)) (BLI 2009o, p. 1). However, BirdLife International (2000, pp. 22, 27) defines a species' ``Range'' as the ``Extent of Occurrence,'' which is ``the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or projected sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of vagrancy.'' Given that the species is known to occur in two disjunct locations, this range estimate, therefore, includes a large area of habitat where the species is not known to occur.

The species is restricted to patches of highelevation semihumid Polylepis or Polylepis Gynoxys woodlands of Peru and Bolivia, where ashbreasted tittyrant is found only at 12,13915,092 ft (3,7004,600 m) (BLI 2000, p. 392; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; del Hoyo et al. 2004, pp. 170, 281; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, pp. 468469; InfoNatura 2007, p. 1). The ashbreasted tittyrant is known only in two disjunct areas: one location in westcentral Peru and another ranging from southern Peru into northern Bolivia (BLI 2000, p. 392; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281; ITIS 2009, p. 1).

In westcentral Peru, the northern subspecies (A. alpinus alpinus) occurs in the Cordilleras Central and Occidental (in the Peruvian Administrative Regions of Ancash, Huanuco, La Libertad, and Lima) (BLI 2007, p. 1; BLI 2009g, p. 1; BLI 2009i, p. 1; BLI 2009l, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281). Until 1992, the taxon in this locality was highly localized and known only in Ancash Region (Collar et al. 1992, p. 753). The species was subsequently reported in Huanuco Region, in 2003 (BLI 2007, p. 5; BLI 2009i, p. 1); La Libertad Region, in 2004 (del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281); and Lima Region and again in Huanuco Region, in 2007 (BLI 2007, pp. 1, 5). Also in 2007, the ashbreasted tittyrant was also observed in a new locality in Ancash Region, Corredor Conchucos (Chutas 2007, pp. 4, 8), where a Polylepis reforestation project is under way to connect two protected areas where ashbreasted tittyrants were already known to occur, Parque Nacional Huascaran and Zona Reservada de la Cordillera Huayhuash (Antamina Mine 2006, p. 5; MacLennan 2009, p. 1) (see Factor A).

The second location spans the PeruvianBolivian borderin the Peruvian Administrative Regions of Apurimac, Cusco, Puno, and Arequipa (from north to south) and in the Bolivian Department of La Paz. Here, the southern subspecies (A. alpinus bolivianus) occurs in Cordillera Oriental (Apurimac and Cusco), Cordilleras Vilcanota and Vilcabamba (Cusco), and Cordillera de Carabaya (Puno)in Peruand ranges into Bolivia, where it is found in the Cordillera Real and the Cordillera Apolobamba (La Paz) (BLI 2000, p. 392; BLI 2009a, p. 1; BLI 2009b, p. 1; BLI 2009c, p. 1; BLI 2009d, p. 1; BLI 2009e, p. 1; BLI 2009f, p. 1; BLI 2009k, p. 1; BLI 2009m, p. 1; BLI 2009n, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 5; Chutas 2007, p. 8; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, pp. 468469; InfoNatura 2007, p. 1). The ashbreasted tittyrant was only recently (in 2008) reported in Arequipa Region, Peru (BLI 2009j, p. 1).

The ashbreasted tittyrant is highly localized (Collar et al. 1992, p. 753) and has been described as ``very rare and local, with usually only 12 pairs per occupied woodland'' (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, p. 469). It exists at such low densities in some places that it goes undetected (Collar et al. 1992, p. 753). The species appears to be unable to persist in forest remnants smaller than 2.5 ac (1 ha) (BLI 2009o, p. 1).

Population Estimates

Population information is presented first on the range country level and then in terms of a global population estimate. The range country estimates begin with Peru, where the majority of the population resides.

Local population estimate, Peru: Chutas (2007, p. 8) surveyed five [[Page 609]]
disjunct Polylepis forest patches in Peru and estimated that 461 ash breasted tittyrants were located there. This included 30 birds in Corredor Conchucos (Ancash Region); 181 birds and 33 birds in Cordilleras Vilcanota and Vilcabamba, respectively (Cusco Region); 22 birds in Cordillera de Carabaya (Puno Region); and 195 birds in a study site called ``Cordillera del Apurimac'' (Apurimac Region) (Chutas 2007, pp. 4, 8), referring to an area within the Runtacocha highlands. Other research in the Runtacocha highlands has indicated that the ash breasted tittyrant is ``relatively common'' there (BLI 2007, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1), with an estimated 100 pairs of birds found in approximately 40 forest patches (Fjeldsa in litt. 1990, as cited in Collar et al. 1992, p. 753). ``Small numbers'' of birds are reported in La Libertad Region (del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281). There are no population estimates within Arequipa, Huanuco, or Lima Regions, where the ashbreasted tittyrant is also reported to occur (BLI 2009g, p. 1; BLI 2009i, p. 1; BLI 2009j, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1).

Local population estimate, Bolivia: Although BirdLife International reports an estimated population size of 150300 ashbreasted tit tyrants in Bolivia (Gomez in litt., 2003 and 2007, as cited in BLI 2009o, p. 1), recent surveys indicate that the estimate is smaller. Over a sixyear period, Gomez (in litt. 2007, p. 1) conducted intensive searches throughout 80 percent of the suitable habitat in Bolivia in the Cordillera Real and the Cordillera Apolobamba (La Paz Department), using song playback and point census, to detect the presence of the ashbreasted tittyrant. From this work, researchers inferred or observed the presence of 210 individuals in each of four forest patches and estimated that approximately 180 ashbreasted tittyrants occur in Bolivia.

Global population estimate: BirdLife International, a global organization that consults with and assimilates information from species experts, categorizes the ashbreasted tittyrant as having a population size between 250 and 999 individuals, with an estimated actual population size to be in the mid to upperhundreds (BLI 2000, p. 392; BLI 2007, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1). Combining the estimated number of ashbreasted tittyrants in Peru and Bolivia, the total population consists of at least 641 individuals (Chutas 2007, pp. 4, 8; Gomez in litt. 2007, p. 1), consistent with the BirdLife International category of 250999 individuals.

However, the total population size, which includes immature individuals, is not an accurate reflection of the species' effective population size (the number of breeding individuals that contribute to the next generation) (Shaffer 1981, pp. 132133; Soule 1980, pp. 160 162). Because the ashbreasted tittyrant exists as two subspecies (BLI 2000, p. 392; BLI 2009a, p. 1; BLI 2009b, p. 1; BLI 2009c, p. 1; BLI 2009d, p. 1; BLI 2009e, p. 1; BLI 2009f, p. 1; BLI 2009k, p. 1; BLI 2009m, p. 1; BLI 2009n, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 5; Chutas 2007, p. 8; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, pp. 468469; InfoNatura 2007, p. 1; ITIS 2009, p. 1), it is reasonable to conclude that there is little or no gene flow between the two subspecies and that the species does not breed as a single population. Therefore, even if all 641 individuals were mature, they would not breed as a single population, such that the species' effective population size is less than 641.

There are also constraints to determining the effective population size on a subspecies level. According to International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria, it is estimated that there are no more than 250 mature individuals in any single subpopulation of the ashbreasted tittyrant (IUCN 2001, pp. 812). However, the parameters of a subpopulation are not provided in existing research. For instance, while ashbreasted tittyrants occupy territories of 2.55 ac (12 ha) (BLI 2009o, p. 1), there is no information as to the taxon's ability or tendency to travel between territories or forest patches. Research on Bolivian localities indicates that gene flow occurs between some subpopulations, but not all (Gomez 2005, p. 86). In Bolivia, where only 1 subspecies occurs, the birds are distributed in 2 metapopulations, with at least 5 subpopulations in one location and 14 subpopulations in the other (Gomez 2005, p. 86). Peruvian population estimates are incomplete, with no estimates for the ashbreasted tittyrants occurring in Arequipa, Huanuco, La Libertad or Lima (BLI 2009g, p. 1; BLI 2009i, p. 1; BLI 2009j, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281). Therefore, we can conclude that gene flow occurs at the subspecies level, but there is not sufficient information to determine the extent to which subpopulations interbreed.

The species has experienced a population decline of between 10 and 19 percent in the past 10 years, and this rate of decline is predicted to continue (BLI 2009o, pp. 1, 4). The population is considered to be declining in close association with continued habitat loss and degradation (see Factors A and E) (BLI 2007, pp. 1, 4; BLI 2009o, p. 5).

Conservation Status

The ashbreasted tittyrant is considered ``endangered'' by the Peruvian Government under Supreme Decree No. 0342004AG (2004, p. 276855). The IUCN considers the ashbreasted tittyrant to be ``Endangered'' because it has a very small population that is undergoing continued decline in the number of mature individuals and is confined to a habitat that is severely fragmented and is also undergoing a continuing decline in extent, area, and quality (BLI 2008, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 4; IUCN 2001, pp. 812). The ashbreasted tit tyrant occurs within the following Peruvian protected areas: Parque Nacional Huascaran, in Ancash, and Santuario Historico Machu Picchu, in Cusco, and Zona Reservada de la Cordillera Huayhuash, spanning Ancash, Huanuco, and Lima (BLI 2009i, p. 1; BLI 2009l, p. 1; BLI 2009n, p. 1; Chutas et al. 2008, p. 16). In La Paz Department, Bolivia, the species is found in Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo Integrado Madidi, Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata, and the colocated protected areas of Reserva Nacional de Fauna de Apolobamba, area Natural de Manejo Integrado de Apolobamba, and Reserva de la Biosfera de Apolobamba (Auza and Hennessey 2005, p. 81; BLI 2009a, p. 1; BLI 2009b, p. 1; BLI 2009c, p. 1; BLI 2009e, p. 1; BLI 2009i, p. 1; Chutas et al. 2008, p. 16).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Ashbreasted Tittyrant
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

The ashbreasted tittyrant is dependent upon highelevation semihumid Polylepis or Polylepis Gynoxys woodlands (BLI 2000, p. 392; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; del Hoyo et al. 2004, pp. 281; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, pp. 468469; InfoNatura 2007, p. 1). Researchers believe that this habitat was historically contiguous with lowerelevation cloudforests and widespread above 9,843 ft (3,000 m) (Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; Fjeldsa 2002a, pp. 111, 115), but Polylepis woodlands occur today only between 11,48316,404 ft (3,5005,000 m) (Fjeldsa 1992, p. 10). As described above (see Habitat and Life History), the species prefers dense woodlands (Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 114; Smith 1971, p. 269), where the best foraging habitat occurs (De la Via 2004, p. 10), and ashbreasted tittyrant occurs at altitudes of 12,13915,092 ft (3,7004,600 m) (BLI 2000, p. 392; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; del Hoyo et al. 2004, pp.
[[Page 610]]
170, 281; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990, pp. 468469; InfoNatura 2007, p. 1).

HighAndean Polylepis woodlands are considered by experts to be the most threatened habitat in Peru and Bolivia (Purcell et al. 2004, p. 457), throughout the Andean region (BLI 2009a, p. 2), and one of the most threatened woodland ecosystems in the world (Renison et al. 2005, as cited in Lloyd 2009, p. 10). The IUCN has listed several Polylepis species as ``Vulnerable,'' including two species that occur within the ashbreasted tittyrant's range, Polylepis incana and P. pepei (WCMC 1998a, p. 1; WCMC 1998b, p. 1). Peruvian and Bolivian Polylepis woodlands today are highly fragmented. In the late 1990s, Fjeldsa and Kessler (1996, as cited in Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 113) conducted comprehensive ground surveys and analyzed maps and satellite images of the area. They estimated that the current range of Polylepis woodlands had been reduced from historical levels by 9798% in Peru and 90 percent in Bolivia. Contemporary Polylepis woodlands are dispersed and sparse, covering an estimated area of 386 mi\2\ (1,000 km\2\) and 1,931 mi\2\ (5,000 km\2\) in Peru and Bolivia, respectively (Fjeldsa and Kessler 1996, as cited in Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 113). Of the remaining Polylepis woodlands, only 1 percent are found in humid areas, where denser Polylepis forests tend to occur (Fjeldsa and Kessler 1996, as cited in Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 113). Dense habitat is preferred by the ash breasted tittyrant (BLI 2009o, p. 1; Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 114; Lloyd 2008, p. 535; Smith 1971, p. 269).

Habitat loss, conversion, and degradation throughout the ash breasted tittyrant's range have been and continue to occur as a result of ongoing human activity, including (1) Clearcutting and burning; (2) extractive activities; (3) human encroachment; and (4) unpredictable climate fluctuations that exacerbate the effects of habitat fragmentation. Clearcutting and burning are among the most destructive activities, and are a leading cause for Polylepis habitat loss (WCMC 1998a, p. 1; WCMC 1998b, p. 1). Forested areas are cleared for agriculture and to create pastureland for cattle, sheep, and camels (BLI 2009a, p. 2; BLI 2009c, pp. 12; BLI 2009d, pp. 12; BLI 2009e, pp. 1, 5; BLI 2009h, p. 1; BLI 2009m, p. 1; BLI 2009n, p. 4). Grazing lands situated amongst remaining forest patches are regularly burned in order to maintain the grassland vegetation (locally known as, ``chaqueo''). Regular burning prevents regeneration of native forests and is considered the key factor limiting the distribution of Polylepis forests (BLI 2009f, p. 1; BLI 2009n, p. 4; Fjeldsa 2002b, p. 8; WCMC 1998a, p. 1; WCMC 1998b, p. 1). In some areas, the burns escape control, causing further habitat destruction (BLI 2009a, p. 2; BLI 2009e, pp. 1, 5). Burning and clearcutting occur throughout the ash breasted tittyrant's range, including in Ancash (BLI 2009h, p. 1), Apurimac (BLI 2009m, p. 1), and Cusco (BLI 2009n, p. 4), in Peru; and La Paz, Bolivia (BLI 2009a, p. 2; BLI 2009c, pp. 12; BLI 2009d, pp. 1 2; BLI 2009e, pp. 1, 5). These activities are also ongoing within protected areas, including Parque Nacional Huascaran, Santuario Historico Machu Picchu, and Zona Reservada de la Cordillera Huayhuash (Barrio 2005, p. 564; BLI 2009l, p. 4; BLI 2009n, p. 2) (see Factor D).

As a result of the intensity of burning and grazing, Polylepis species are restricted to areas where fires cannot spread, and where cattle and sheep do not normally roamin stream ravines and on boulders, rock ledges, and sandy ridges (Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 112; Fjeldsa 2002b, p. 8). Grazing and trampling by domesticated animals further limit forest regeneration (Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 120) and contribute to the degradation of remaining forest patches. Sheep and cattle have solid, sharp hooves that churn up the earth, damaging vegetation and triggering erosion (Engblom et al. 2002, p. 56; Purcell et al. 2004, p. 458). The loss of nutrientrich soils leads to habitat degradation, which reduces the ability of the habitat to support dense stands of Polylepis woodlands (Fjeldsa 2002b, p. 8; Jameson and Ramsay 2007, p. 42; Purcell et al. 2004, p. 458).

Ashbreasted tittyrant habitat is also subject to conversion, degradation, or destruction caused by extractive activities, such as firewood collection, timber harvest, and mining. Cutting wood for fuel has a consistent and ongoing impact throughout the species' range (BLI 2009a, p. 2; BLI 2009b, pp. 12; BLI 2009c, pp. 12; BLI 2009d, pp. 1 2; BLI 2009f, p. 1; BLI 2009l, p. 1; WCMC 1998a, p. 1). The high altitude zones where Polylepis occurs have long been inhabited by subsistence farmers, who rely on Polylepis wood for firewood and charcoal production (Aucca and Ramsay 2005, p. 287). Many locals manage woodlands for firewood extraction (Engblom et al. 2002, p. 56), and communitybased Polylepis conservation programs fostered by the Peruvian nongovernmental organization Asociacion Ecosistemas Andinos (ECOAN) have been under way in Peru and Bolivia since 2004, encompassing Cordilleras Vilcanota and Vilcabamba (Cusco Region), highlands of the Apurimac Region (Aucca and Ramsey 2005, p. 287; ECOAN no date (n.d.), p. 1; Lloyd 2009, p. 10), and in the Ancash Region (MacLennan 2009, p. 2). Known as the ``Vilcanota Project'' or ECOAN Projects (Aucca and Ramsey 2005, p. 287; ECOAN n.d., p. 1), local communities enter into and enforce management agreements aimed at the primary causes for Polylepis deforestation: burning, grazing, and wood cutting. These projects foster local, sustainable use of resources (Aucca and Ramsay 2005, p. 287; ECOAN n.d., p. 1; Engblom et al. 2002, p. 56), such as the use of more fuelefficient woodburning stoves that require half the amount of wood fuel (MacLennan 2009, p. 2) (see the Factor A analyses for royal cinclodes and whitebrowed titspinetail for additional examples).

Polylepis wood is also harvested for local commercial use, including within protected areas (BLI 2009a, p. 2; WCMC 1998a, p. 1) (Factor D). At one site, near Abra Malaga (Cusco Region), wood is harvested for sale to local hotels in the towns of Urubamba and Ollantaytambo to support tourism activity (Engblom 2000, p. 1). Engblom (2000, p. 1) documented felling for firewood at this site in Cusco over a 2day period that significantly reduced the size and quality of the forest patch. Purcell et al. (2004, p. 458) noted a positive correlation between habitat destruction and increased demand for (and the concomitant rise in the price of) fuel. Polylepis is also harvested for construction, fencing, and toolmaking (Aucca and Ramsey 2005, p. 287; BLI 2009a, p. 2). Commercialscale activities, such as clearcutting, logging, tourism, and infrastructure development, are ongoing throughout this species' range, and alter otherwise sustainable resource use practices (Aucca and Ramsay 2005, p. 287; Engblom 2000, p. 2; Engblom et al. 2002, p. 56; MacLennan 2009, p. 2; Purcell and Brelsford 2004, pp. 156157; Purcell et al. 2004, pp. 458459; WCMC 1998a, p. 1). Commercialscale resource use is exacerbated by ongoing human encroachment, discussed below.

Mining in Polylepis habitat occurs in the Peruvian Regions of Ancash and Huanaco and in the Bolivian Department of La Paz (BLI 2009b, p. 1; BLI 2009d, p. 1; BLI 2009g, p. 1). Ancash (Peru) is home to the largest zinc and copper mine ``in the world,'' with a monthly average production rate of 231,485 pounds (105,000 metric tons) of minerals per day and a 186mile (mi) (300 kilometer (km)) pipeline that stretches from the mine to the port of Punta Lobitos along the coast (Antamina Mine 2006, pp. 4, 9; www.antamina.com/02_operacion/ [[Page 611]]
En_puerto.html). Mining occurs in ashbreast tittyrant habitat in La Paz, Bolivia, where there are active gold, tin, silver, and tungsten mines, in addition to gravel excavation for cement production (USGS Minerals Yearbook 2005, pp. 47). Antamina Mine has undertaken habitat conservation programs within the areas affected by mineral extraction, similar to the ECOAN Polylepis conservation programs, investing millions of dollars in programs ranging from education and tourism, to organic agriculture and sustainable development. However, tourism has had negative effects in other areas where the ashbreasted tittyrant occurs, including Ancash, Huanuco, and Lima, Peru, and La Paz, Bolivia (Barrio 2005, p. 564; BLI 2009e, p. 5) (see below). The Antamina Mining Company conservation program also supports the planned reforestation of 123,552 ac (50,000 ha) of Polylepis forest that will connect two protected areas, Parque Nacional Huascaran and Zona Reservada de la Cordillera Huayhuash (Antamina Mine 2006, p. 5). To date, the project has succeeded in restoring 371 ac (150 ha) of forest, with a 95 percent survival rate (MacLennan 2009, p. 1). Known as Corredor Conchucos, at least 30 ashbreasted tittyrants have recently been observed there (Chutas 2007, p. 8).

Human encroachment and concomitant increasing human population pressures exacerbate the destructive effects of ongoing human activities throughout the ashbreasted tittyrant's habitat. Mining and hydroelectric projects open new areas to exploitation and attract people seeking employment (Purcell et al. 2004, p. 458). Increased urbanization and mining have led to increased infrastructure development. Road building and mining projects further facilitate human access to remaining Polylepis forest fragments, throughout the ash breasted tittyrant's range (Purcell et al. 2004, pp. 458459; Purcell and Brelsford, 2004, pp. 156157), including protected areas. In the Bolivian Department of La Paz, one of the most transited highways in the country is located a short distance from the Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata (BLI 2009b, p. 2) (see Factor D). Road building, mining, and other largescale resource exploitations are considered to have major impacts on the habitat, as compared to exploitation by local communities (Purcell and Brelsford 2004, p. 157).

Ecotourism within protected areas where the ashbreasted tittyrant occurs (such as in the Zona Reservada de la Cordillera Huayhuash in Peru, and in the Apolobamba protected areas in Bolivia) is considered a growing problem (Barrio 2005, p. 564; BLI 2009e, p. 5) (see Factor D). In the Department of La Paz, Bolivia, which encompasses Bolivia's largest urban area, most of the Polylepis forest had been eliminated prior to the late 1990s (Purcell and Brelsford 2004, p. 157). Recently, an accelerated rate of Polylepis forest destruction has been attributed to clearcutting for road building and industrialization projects, such as mining and construction of hydroelectric power stations (Purcell and Brelsford 2004, pp. 156157). Between 1991 and 2003, approximately 494 ac (200 ha) of Polylepis habitat was destroyed. Thus, nearly twothirds of the forest cover that existed in the 1990s no longer existed in 2003 (Purcell and Brelsford 2004, p. 155). With this research, it was estimated that only 1,285 ac (520 ha) of Polylepis forest remain in the Bolivian Department of La Paz, representing approximately a 40 percent rate of habitat loss in just over one decade. The researchers inferred that thisrate of destruction could result in extirpation of the remaining Polylepis forest in La Paz within the next 30 years (Purcell and Brelsford 2004, pp. 157).

Larger concentrations of people put greater demand on the natural resources in the area. Increasing demand for firewood upsets informal and otherwise sustainable communitybased forest management traditions (Purcell and Brelsford, 2004, p. 157). Increasing human populations in the highAndes of Bolivia and Peru have also resulted in a scarcity of arable land. This has led many farmers to burn down additional patches of Polylepis forests to plant crops, even on steep hillsides not suitable for cultivation (BLI 2009b, p. 2; BLI 2009h, p. 1; Hensen 2002, p. 199). These ongoing farming practices result in the rapid loss of Polylepis forests from Bolivia to Peru.

Habitat destruction is often caused by a combination of human activities that promote habitat degradation. In the Cordillera de Vilcanota (Cusco, Peru), where an estimated 181 birds are found (Chutas 2007, pp. 4, 8), the rate of habitat loss was studied by comparing forest cover between 1956 and 2005. This study revealed a rate of habitat loss averaging only 1 percent. However, remaining patches of Polylepis woodland were small, with a mean patch size of 7.4 ac (3 ha); four forest patches had disappeared completely; and no new patches were located within the study area (Jameson and Ramsay 2007, p. 42). Lloyd (2008, p. 532) studied bird foraging habits at three Polylepis woodland sites in the Cordillera Vilcanota during 20032005. The sites were described as highly fragmented, consisting of many small remnant patches (less than 2.5 ac (1 ha)) and scattered trees, separated from larger woodland tracts (greater than 25 ac (10 ha)) by distances of 98 4,921 ft (301,500 m) (Lloyd and Marsden in press, as cited in Lloyd 2008, p. 532). Given that the species territory ranges from 2.55 ac (12 ha) and that the ashbreasted tittyrant appears to be unable to persist in forest remnants smaller than 2.5 ac (1 ha) (BLI 2009o, p. 1), these patch sizes have met or are approaching the lower threshold of the species' ecological requirements. Moreover, 10 percent of the remaining forest patches showed a decline in forest density over this timeperiod.

Thus, habitat degradation also has serious impacts in Polylepis woodlands (Jameson and Ramsay 2007, p. 42), especially given the species' preference for dense woodlands (Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 114; Smith 1971, p. 269). The fact that no new Polylepis forest patches had become established between 1956 and 2005 underscores the longterm ramifications of ongoing burning, clearing, grazing, and other habitat altering human activities that are pervasive throughout the ash breasted tittyrant's range (BLI 2009f, p. 1; BLI 2009n, p. 4; Fjeldsa 2002b, p. 8; WCMC 1998a, p. 1; WCMC 1998b, p. 1). These activities are considered to be key factors both in preventing regeneration of Polylepis woodlands (Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 112, 120; Fjeldsa 2002b, p. 8) and in the historical decline of Polylepis dependent bird species, including the ashbreasted tittyrant (Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 116). Researchers consider the species' population to be declining in close association with the continued habitat loss and degradation (BLI 2007, pp. 1, 4; BLI 2008, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1). Therefore, further habitat loss will continue to impact the species' already small population size (see Factor E).

Peru is subject to unpredictable climate fluctuations that exacerbate the effects of habitat fragmentation, such as those that are related to the El Ni[ntilde]o Southern Oscillation (ENSO). According to the U.S. Dept. of CommerceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the term ENSO refers to a range of variability associated with the southern trade winds in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean. El Ni[ntilde]o events are characterized by unusual warming of the ocean, while La Ni[ntilde]a events bring cooler ocean temperatures (Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) Project no date (n.d.), p. 1). Generally speaking, extreme ENSO events alter weather patterns, so that
[[Page 612]]
precipitation increases in normally dry areas, and decreases in normally wet areas. During an El Ni[ntilde]o event, rainfall dramatically increases, whereas a La Ni[ntilde]a event brings near drought conditions (Holmgren et al. 2001, p. 89).

If we consider that wildlife habitat is not only defined by substrates (vegetation, soil, water), but also atmospheric conditions, then changes in air temperature and moisture can effectively change a species' habitat. Climate change is characterized by variations in the earth's temperature and precipitation, causing changes in atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial conditions (Parmesan and Mathews 2005, p. 334). Global climate change and other periodic climatic patterns (e.g., El Ni[ntilde]o and La Ni[ntilde]a) can cause or exacerbate such negative impacts on a broad range of terrestrial ecosystems and Neotropical bird populations (England 2000, p. 86; Holmgren et al. 2001, p. 89; Plumart 2007, pp. 12; Timmermann 1999, p. 694).

Unpredictable climate fluctuations negatively impact populations undergoing habitat fragmentation. In the face of an unpredictable climate, the risk of population decline due to habitat fragmentation is heightened. Mora et al. (2007, p. 1027) found that the combined effects of habitat fragmentation and climate change (in this case, warming) had a synergistic effect, rather than additive. In other words, the interactive effects of both climate fluctuation and habitat fragmentation led to a greater population decline than if either climate change or habitat fragmentation were acting alone on populations. Jetz et al. (2007, p. 1211) investigated the effects of climate change on 8,750 land bird species, including the ashbreasted tittyrant, that are exposed to ongoing manmade land cover changes (i.e., habitat loss). They determined that a narrow endemic, such as the ashbreasted tittyrant, is likely to suffer greater impacts from climate change, especially where projected range contractions are driven by manmade land conversion activities (Jetz et al. 2007, p. 1213). This is due to the species' already small population size, specialized habitat requirements, and heightened risk of extinction from stochastic demographic processes (see also Factor E). According to this study, by 2050, up to 18 percent of the ashbreasted tittyrant's current remaining range is likely to be unsuitable for this species due to climate change; and, by 2100, it is predicted that about 18 to 42 percent of the species' range is likely to be lost as a direct result of global climate change (Jetz et al. 2007, Supplementary Table 2, p. 73).

In 1999, Timmermann (1999, p. 694) predicted that climate change events would increase the periodicity and severity of droughts and excessive rainfalls, such as those caused by El Ni[ntilde]o and La Ni[ntilde]a events. Evidence suggests that this is the case in Peru (Richter 2005, p. 2425). Over the past decade, there have been four El Ni[ntilde]o events (19971998, 20022003, 20042005, and 20062007) and three La Ni[ntilde]a events (19982000, 20002001, and 20072008) (National Weather Service (NWS) 2009, p. 2). In Peru, the Andean highlands, and Polylepis species in particular, are strongly influenced by ENSO events (Christie et al. 2008, p. 1). Christie et al. (2008, p. 1) found that tree growth in P. tarapacana is highly influenced by ENSO events because ENSO cycles on the Peruvian Coast are strongest during the growing season (DecemberFebruary). ENSOrelated droughts can increase tree mortality and dramatically alter age structure within tree populations, especially where woodlands have undergone disturbance, such as fire and grazing (Villalba and Veblen 1997, pp. 121123; Villalba and Veblen 1998, pp. 2624, 2637).

With years of extremely high rainfall followed by years of extremely dry weather (Block and Richter 2007, p. 1), fire hazard is increased from the biomass accumulated during the wet period that dries and adds to the fuel load in the dry season (Block and Richter 2007, p. 1; Power et al. 2007, p. 898). Evidence suggests that the fire cycle in Peru has shortened, particularly in coastal Peru and west of the Andes (Power et al. 2007, pp. 897898). Changes in the fireregime can have broad ecological consequences (Block and Richter 2007, p. 1; Power et al. 2007, p. 898). In the case of the ashbreasted tittyrant, burning is considered to be a key factor preventing Polylepis regeneration (Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 112, 120; Fjeldsa 2002b, p. 8). Research in Ecuadorian Polylepis Gynoxys mixed woodlands indicated a strong reduction in P. incana adult and seedling survival following a single fire. This indicates that the species does not recover well from even a single fire event (Cierjacks et al. 2007, p. 176). An accelerated fire cycle would exacerbate this situation.

Activities that destroy and alter habitat are ongoing within protected areas. This is further discussed under Factor D.

Summary of Factor A

The ashbreasted tittyrant is dependent on Polylepis habitat, with a preference for dense woodlands. Polylepis habitat throughout the ash breasted tittyrant's range has been and continues to be altered and destroyed as a result of human activities, including clearcutting and burning for agriculture, grazing lands, tourism, and industrialization; extractive activities, including firewood, timber, and mineral extraction; and human encroachment and concomitant increased pressure on natural resources. Researchers estimate that 1 percent of the dense woodlands preferred by the species remains, and that all remaining habitat is fragmented and degraded. The ashbreasted tittyrant currently occupies an area of approximately 4,595 mi\2\ (11,900 km\2\) and appears to be unable to persist in forest remnants smaller than 2.5 ac (1 ha). Forest fragments in some portions of the ashbreasted tit tyrant's range are approaching the lower threshold of the species' ecological requirements. The historical decline of habitat suitable for this species is attributed to the same human activities that are causing habitat loss today. Ongoing and accelerated habitat destruction of the remaining Polylepis forest fragments in Peru and Bolivia continues to reduce the quantity, quality, distribution, and regeneration of remaining patches. Human activities that degrade, alter, and destroy habitat are ongoing throughout the species' range, including within protected areas (see also Factor D). Current research indicates that climate fluctuations exacerbate the risks to species that are already undergoing range reduction due to habitat alteration. Climate models predict that this species' habitat will continue to decline. Experts consider the species' population decline to be commensurate with the declining habitat (Factor E). Therefore, we find that destruction and modification of habitat are threats to the continued existence of the ashbreasted tittyrant throughout its range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

We are not aware of any information currently available that indicates that overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has occurred or is occurring at this time. As a result, we are not considering overutilization to be a threat to the continued existence of the ash breasted tittyrant.

C. Disease or Predation

We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that indicate disease or predation poses a threat to this species. As a result, we are not considering disease or predation to be a [[Page 613]]
threat to the continued existence of the ashbreasted tittyrant. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

This analysis of regulatory mechanisms is discussed on a country bycountry basis, beginning with Peru.

Peru: The ashbreasted tittyrant is considered ``endangered'' by the Peruvian Government under Supreme Decree No. 0342004AG (2004, p. 276855). This Decree prohibits hunting, take, transport, and trade of protected species, except as permitted by regulation. As hunting, take, transport, and trade are not currently threats to the ashbreasted tit tyrant (Factor B), this regulation does not mitigate any current threats to this species.

The Peruvian national protected area system includes several categories of habitat protection. Habitat may be designated as any of the following: (1) Parque Nacional (National Park, an area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation ); (2) Santuario (Sanctuary, for the preservation of sites of notable natural or historical importance); (3) Reserva Nacional (National Reserve, for sustainable extraction of certain biological resources); (4) Bosque de Proteccion (Protection Forest, to safeguard soils and forests, especially for watershed conservation); (5) Zona Reservada (Reserved Zone, for temporary protection while further study is under way to determine their importance); (6) Bosque Nacional (National Forest, to be managed for utilization); (7) Reserva Comunal (Communal Reserve, for local area use and management, with national oversight); and (8) Cotos de Caza (Hunting Reserve, for local use and management, with national oversight) (BLI 2008, p. 1; Rodriguez and Young 2000, p. 330). National reserves, national forests, communal reserves, and hunting reserves are managed for the sustainable use of resources (IUCN 1994, p. 2). The designations of National Parks, Sanctuaries, and Protection Forests, are established by supreme decree that supersedes all other legal claim to the land and, thus, these areas tend to provide more habitat protection. All other protected areas are established by supreme resolution, which is viewed as a less powerful form of protection (Rodriguez and Young 2000, p. 330).

Protected areas have been established through regulation in at least three sites occupied by the ashbreasted tittyrant in Peru: Parque Nacional Huascaran (Ancash), and Santuario Historico Machu Picchu (Cusco); and Zona Reservada de la Cordillera Huayhuash (spanning Ancash, Huanuco, and Lima) (Barrio 2005, p. 563; BLI 2009i, p. 1; BLI 2009l, p. 1; BLI 2009n, p. 1). Habitat destruction and alteration, including burning, cutting, and grazing are ongoing within Parque Nacional Huascaran and Santuario Historico Machu Picchu (BLI 2009l, p. 4; BLI 2009n, p. 2; Engblom et al. 2002, p. 58), where resources are supposed to be managed for conservation (Rodriguez and Young 2000, p. 330). Reserved zones are intended to be protected pending further study (Rodriguez and Young 2000, p. 330). However, burning for habitat conversion and maintenance of pastures for grazing and increasing ecotourism are ongoing within Zona Reservada de la Cordillera Huayhuash (Barrio 2005, p. 564). Therefore, the occurrence of the ashbreasted tittyrant within protected areas in Peru does not protect the species, nor does it mitigate the threats to the species from ongoing habitat loss (Factor A) and concomitant population decline (Factor E).

Recent studies by the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA) have concluded that there are approximately 5,000 laws and regulations directly or indirectly related to environmental protection and natural resource conservation in Peru. However, many of these are not effective because of limited implementation and/or enforcement capability (Muller 2001, pp. 12).

Bolivia: The 1975 Law on Wildlife, National Parks, Hunting and Fishing (Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 134) has the fundamental objective of protecting the country's natural resources. This law governs the protection, management, utilization, transportation, and selling of wildlife and their products; the protection of endangered species; habitat conservation of fauna and flora; and the declaration of national parks, biological reserves, refuges, and wildlife sanctuaries, tending to the preservation, promotion, and rational use of these resources (Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 134; eLAW 2003, p. 2). Although this law designates national protection for all wildlife, there is no information as to the actual protections this confers to ashbreasted tittyrants. Law No. 12,301 (1975, pp. 134) also placed into public trust all national parks, reserves, refuges, and wildlife sanctuaries. However, there is no specific information as to the governmental protections afforded within the protected areas to either the ashbreasted tittyrant or its habitat. Given the ongoing habitat destruction throughout the species' range in Bolivia, this law does not protect the species, nor does it mitigate the threats to the species from ongoing habitat loss (Factor A) and concomitant population decline (Factor E).

Bolivia passed an overarching environmental law in 1992 (Law No. 1,333 1992), with the intent of protecting and conserving the environment and natural resources. However, there is no specific legislation to implement these laws (eLAW 2003, p. 1). Therefore, we cannot determine that this law protects the species or mitigates the threats to the species from ongoing habitat loss (Factor A) and concomitant population decline (Factor E).

In Bolivia, habitat is protected either on the national or departmental level through the following designations: (1) Parque (Park, for strict and permanent protection of representative of ecosystems and provincial habitats, as well as plant and animal resources, along with the geographical, scenic and natural landscapes that contain them); (2) Santuario (Sanctuary, for the strict and permanent protection of sites that house endemic plants and animals that are threatened or in danger of extinction); (3) Monumento Natural (Natural Monument, to preserve areas such as those with distinctive natural landscapes or geologic formations, and to conserve the biological diversity contained therein); (4) Reserva de Vida Silvestre (Wildlife Reserve, for protection, management, sustainable use and monitoring of wildlife); (5) Area Natural de Manejo Integrado (Natural Area of Integrated Management, where conservation of biological diversity is balanced with sustainable development of the local population; and (6) Reserva Natural de Inmovilizacion (``Immobilized'' Natural Reserve, a temporary (5year) designation for an area that requires further research before any official designations can be made and during which time no natural resource concessions can be made within the area) (Supreme Decree No. 24,781 1997, p. 3). Within parks, sanctuaries and natural monuments, extraction or consumption of all resources are prohibited, except for ``scientific research, eco tourism, environmental education, and activities of subsistence of original towns, properly described and authorized.'' National protected areas are under the management of the national government, while departmental protected areas are managed at the department level (eLAW 2003, p. 3; Supreme Decree No. 24,781 1997, p. 3).

The ashbreasted tittyrant occurs within several protected areas in the Department of La Paz, Bolivia: Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo
[[Page 614]]
Integrado Madidi, Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata, and the colocated protected areas of Reserva Nacional de Fauna de Apolobamba, area Natural de Manejo Integrado de Apolobamba, and Reserva de la Biosfera de Apolobamba (Auza and Hennessey 2005, p. 81; BLI 2009a, p. 1; BLI 2009b, p. 1; BLI 2009c, p. 1; BLI 2009e, p. 1). Although national parks are intended to be strictly protected, the two parks in which the species occurs (Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo Integrado Madidi and Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata) are also designated as areas of integrated management, which are managed for the biological conservation balanced with the sustainable development of the local population (Supreme Decree No. 24,781 1997, p. 3). Grazing and firewood extraction are ongoing within Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo Integrado Cotapata (BLI 2009b, p. 2; BLI 2009c, p. 2). Commercial logging has occurred within Parque Nacional y area Natural de Manejo Integrado Madidi (BLI 2009a, p. 2; WCMC 1998a, p. 1). Uncontrolled clearing, extensive agriculture, grazing, and ``irresponsible'' tourism are ongoing within the Apolobamba protected areas (Auza and Hennessey 2005, p. 81; BLI 2009e, p. 5). Habitat degradation and destruction from grazing, forest fires, and timber extraction are ongoing in other protected areas, such as Tunari National Park (Department of Cochabamba, Bolivia), where suitable habitat exists for this species (De la Vie 2004, p. 7). Therefore, the occurrence of the ashbreasted tittyrant within protected areas in Bolivia does not protect the species, nor does it mitigate the threats to the species from ongoing habitat loss (Factor A) and concomitant population decline (Factor E). Summary of Factor D

Peru and Bolivia have enacted various laws and regulatory mechanisms to protect and manage wildlife and their habitats. The ash breasted tittyrant is ``endangered'' under Peruvian law and occurs within several protected areas in Peru and Bolivia. As discussed under Factor A, the ashbreasted tittyrant prefers dense woodlands, which have been reduced by an estimated 99 percent in Peru and Bolivia, and the remaining habitat is fragmented and degraded. Habitat throughout the species' range has been and continues to be altered as a result of human activities, including clearcutting and burning for agriculture, grazing lands, and industrialization; extractive activities, including, firewood, timber, and mineral extraction; and human encroachment and concomitant increased pressure on natural resources. Despite the species' ``endangered'' status in Peru and Bolivian laws intended to protect all wildlife and natural resources, these activities are ongoing within protected areas, indicating that the laws governing wildlife and habitat protection in both countries are either inadequate or inadequately enforced to protect the species or to mitigate ongoing habitat loss (Factor A) and population declines (Factor E). Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to mitigate the current threats to the continued existence of the ash breasted tittyrant throughout its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species

An additional factor that affects the continued existence of the ashbreasted tittyrant is the species' small population size. As discussed above (see Population Estimates), the global population estimate is not an accurate reflection of the species' effective population size because gene flow does not occur between the subspecies. At the same time, there is insufficient information on the subspecies or subpopulation level (in terms of numbers of individuals and breeding structure) to estimate the effective population size at the subspecies level. However, with an estimated global population size in the mid to upperhundreds (BLI 2000, p. 392; BLI 2007, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1), and the most recent estimate of 641 individuals (Chutas 2007, pp. 4, 8; Gomez in litt. 2007, p. 1), the ashbreasted tittyrant is considered to have a ``very small population'' size (BLI 2000, p. 392; BLI 2008, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1).

Small population size renders a species vulnerable to any of several risks, including inbreeding depression, loss of genetic variation, and accumulation of new mutations. Inbreeding can have individual or populationlevel consequences either by increasing the phenotypic expression (the outward appearance or observable structure, function, or behavior of a living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles (harmful gene sequences) or by reducing the overall fitness of individuals in the population (Charlesworth and Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Small, isolated wildlife populations are also more susceptible to environmental fluctuations and demographic shifts (Pimm et al. 1988, pp. 757, 773775; Shaffer 1981, p. 131), such as reduced reproductive success of individuals and chance
disequilibrium of sex ratios. Species tend to have a higher risk of extinction if they occupy a small geographic range and occur at low density (Purvis et al. 2000, p. 1949).

The ashbreasted tittyrant population declined at a rate between 10 and 19 percent in the past 10 years, and this decline is expected to continue in close association with continued habitat loss and degradation (see Factor A) (BLI 2009o, p. 1). Extinction risk is heightened in small, declining populations by an increased vulnerability to the loss of genetic variation due to inbreeding depression and genetic drift (changes in relative frequency of gene sequences). This, in turn, compromises a species' ability to adapt genetically to changing environments (Frankham 1996, p. 1507) and reduces fitness, thus increasing extinction risk (Reed and Frankham 2003, pp. 233234). Once a population is reduced below a certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly decline towards extinction (Franklin 1980, pp. 147148; Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 25; Holsinger 2000, pp. 6465; Soule 1987, p. 181).

Complications arising from the species' small population size are exacerbated by the species' fragmented distribution. The ashbreasted tittyrant is currently confined to restricted and severely fragmented forest patches in the high Andes of Peru and Bolivia (BLI 2000, p. 392; BLI 2007, pp. 1; BLI 2008, p. 1; BLI 2009o, p. 1; Collar et al. 1992, p. 753; Fjeldsa and Kessler 1996, as cited in Fjeldsa 2002a, p. 113; del Hoyo et al. 2004, p. 281; InfoNatura 2007, p. 1) , where it is estimated that only 1 percent of the dense woodla

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 3582105; facsimile 7033581735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 8008778339.