sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dipteryx micrantha, Iriartea, Scarlet macaw, Wildlife refuge (Brazil)

Vol. 77 Friday, No. 130 July 6, 2012

Part IV

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and ; Listing the Scarlet ; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40222 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR as form letters), our preferred format is and Plants that contains substantial a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. scientific or commercial information Fish and Wildlife Service (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail that listing the may be or hand-delivery to: Public Comments warranted, we make a finding within 12 50 CFR Part 17 Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–ES–2012– months of the date of receipt of the 0039; Division of Policy and Directives petition (‘‘12-month finding’’). In this [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2012–0039; Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife finding, we determine whether the 4500030115] Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but RIN 1018–AY39 We will not accept comments by immediate proposal of a regulation Endangered and Threatened Wildlife email or fax. We will post all comments implementing the petitioned action is and Plants; Listing the Scarlet Macaw on http://www.regulations.gov. This precluded by other pending proposals to generally means that we will post any determine whether species are AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, personal information you provide us endangered or threatened, and Interior. (see the Information Requested section expeditious progress is being made to ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month below for more information). add or remove qualified species from petition finding. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Federal Lists of Endangered and Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Foreign Species, must publish these 12-month findings Wildlife Service, propose to list as Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in the Federal Register. endangered the northern of 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, In this document, we announce that scarlet macaw ( macao cyanoptera) Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– listing the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and the northern distinct vertebrate 358–2171. If you use a and the northern DPS of the subspecies population segment (DPS) of the telecommunications device for the deaf A. m. macao as endangered is southern subspecies (A. m. macao) as (TDD), call the Federal Information warranted, and we are proposing to add endangered under the Endangered Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. these entities, as endangered, to the Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal List of Endangered and We are taking this action in response to Threatened Wildlife. We also find that a petition to list this species as Executive Summary listing the southern DPS of the endangered or threatened under the Act. I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action subspecies A. m. macao under the Act This document, which also serves as the is not warranted. completion of the status review and as We were petitioned to list the scarlet Prior to issuing a final rule on this the 12-month finding on the petition, macaw, and 13 other species, proposed action, we will take into announces our finding that listing is under the Endangered Species Act of consideration all comments and any warranted for the northern subspecies 1973, as amended (Act). During our additional information we receive. Such and northern DPS of the southern status review, we found that threats do information may lead to a final rule that subspecies of scarlet macaw. If we not place the species at risk of differs from this proposal. All comments finalize this rule as proposed, it would extinction throughout all of its range, and recommendations, including names extend the Act’s protections to this but do so throughout all the range of the and addresses of commenters, will subspecies and DPS. We seek subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and all the become part of the administrative information from the public on this range of the northern DPS of A. m record. proposed rule and status review for this macao. Therefore, in this 12-month subspecies and DPS. finding, we announce that listing the Previous Federal Actions subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and the DATES: We will consider comments and Petition History northern DPS of A. m. macao is information received or postmarked on warranted, and are proposing to list On January 31, 2008, the Service or before September 4, 2012. these entities as endangered under the received a petition dated January 29, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Act. We are undertaking this action 2008, from Friends of , as by one of the following methods: pursuant to a settlement agreement and represented by the Environmental Law (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal publication of this action will fulfill our Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm eRulemaking Portal: http:// obligations under that agreement. College of Law, requesting that we list www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– 14 parrot species under the Act. The R9–ES–2012–0039, which is the docket II. Major Provision of the Regulatory petition clearly identified itself as a number for this rulemaking. On the Action petition and included the requisite search results page, under the Comment This action is authorized by the Act. information required in the Code of Period heading in the menu on the left It affects Part 17, subchapter B of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)). side of your screen, check the box next chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal On July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957), we to ‘‘Open’’ to locate this document. Regulations. If adopted as proposed, this published a 90-day finding in which we Please ensure you have found the action would extend the protections of determined that the petition presented correct document before submitting the Act to the subspecies A. m. substantial scientific and commercial your comments. If your comments will cyanoptera and the northern DPS of A. information to indicate that listing may fit in the provided comment box, please m. macao. be warranted for 12 of the 14 parrot use this feature of http:// species. In our 90-day finding on this www.regulations.gov, as it is most Background petition, we announced the initiation of compatible with our comment review Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered a status review to list as endangered or procedures. If you attach your Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) threatened under the Act, the following comments as a separate document, our (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 12 parrot species: blue-headed macaw preferred file format is Microsoft Word. any petition to revise the Federal Lists ( couloni), crimson shining If you attach multiple comments (such of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife parrot (Prosopeia splendens), great

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40223

green macaw (Ara ambiguus), grey- determinations to the Federal Register Please include sufficient information cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris by June 30, 2012. with your submission (such as full pyrrhoptera), In completing this status review, we references) to allow us to verify any ( hyacinthinus), military make a determination whether the scientific or commercial information macaw (Ara militaris), Philippine petitioned action is warranted, not you include. Submissions merely stating cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia), warranted, or warranted but precluded support for or opposition to the action red-crowned parrot (Amazona by other listing actions for one of the under consideration without providing viridigenalis), scarlet macaw (Ara remaining species that is the subject of supporting information, although noted, macao), white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), the above-mentioned settlement will not be considered in making a yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria), agreement, the scarlet macaw. This determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the and yellow-crested cockatoo (Cacatua Federal Register document complies, in Act directs that determinations as to sulphurea). We initiated this status part, with the last deadline in the court- whether any species is an endangered or review to determine if listing each of the ordered settlement agreement. threatened species must be made 12 species is warranted, and initiated a Information Requested ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 60-day information collection period to and commercial data available.’’ allow all interested parties an We intend that any final actions Public Hearing opportunity to provide information on resulting from this proposed rule will be the status of these 12 species of . based on the best scientific and At this time, we do not have a public The public comment period closed on commercial data available. Therefore, hearing scheduled for this proposed September 14, 2009. we request comments or information rule. The main purpose of most public On October 24, 2009, and December 2, from other concerned governmental hearings is to obtain public testimony or 2009, the Service received a 60-day agencies, the scientific community, or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient notice of intent to sue from Friends of any other interested parties concerning to submit comments through the Federal Animals and WildEarth Guardians, for this proposed rule. We particularly seek eRulemaking Portal, described above in failure to issue 12-month findings on clarifying information concerning: the ADDRESSES section. If you would like the petition. On March 2, 2010, Friends (1) Information on , to request a public hearing for this of Animals and WildEarth Guardians distribution, selection and proposed rule, you must submit your filed suit against the Service for failure trends, diet, and population abundance request, in writing, to the person listed to make timely 12-month findings and trends (, northwest in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION within the statutory deadline of the Act Columbia and other areas of Columbia CONTACT section by August 20, 2012. outside the ) of this on the petition to list the 14 species Species Information and Factors (Friends of Animals, et al. v. Salazar, species. (2) Information on the species Affecting the Species Case No. 10 CV 00357 D.D.C.). historical and current status in Trinidad Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) On July 21, 2010, a settlement and Tobago. and implementing regulations (50 CFR agreement was approved by the Court (3) Information on the effects of part 424) set forth procedures for adding (CV–10–357, D. DC), in which the habitat loss and changing land uses on species to, removing species from, or Service agreed to submit to the Federal the distribution and abundance of this reclassifying species on the Federal Register by July 29, 2011, September 30, species. Lists of Endangered and Threatened 2011, and November 30, 2011, (4) Information on the effects of other Wildlife and Plants. Under section determinations whether the petitioned potential threat factors, including live 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be action is warranted, not warranted, or capture and hunting, domestic and determined to be endangered or warranted but precluded by other listing international trade, predation by other threatened based on any of the actions for no less than 4 of the animals, and any diseases that are following five factors: petitioned species on each date. On known to affect this species or its (A) The present or threatened August 9, 2011, the Service published in principal food sources. destruction, modification, or the Federal Register a proposed rule (5) Information on management curtailment of its habitat or range; and 12-month status review finding for programs for parrot conservation, (B) Overutilization for commercial, the following four parrot species: including mitigation measures related to recreational, scientific, or educational crimson shining parrot, Philippine conservation programs, and any other purposes; cockatoo, white cockatoo, and yellow- private, nongovernmental, or (C) Disease or predation; crested cockatoo (76 FR 49202). On governmental conservation programs (D) The inadequacy of existing October 6, 2011, we published a 12- that benefit this species. regulatory mechanisms; or month status review finding for the red- (6) The potential effects of climate (E) Other natural or manmade factors crowned parrot (76 FR 62016). On change on this species and its habitat. affecting its continued existence. October 11, 2011, we published a In addition, for law enforcement In considering whether a species may proposed rule and 12-month status purposes, we are considering listing warrant listing under any of the five review finding for the yellow-billed scarlet macaw intraspecific crosses, and factors, we look beyond the species’ parrot (76 FR 62740), and on October individuals of the southern DPS of A. m. exposure to a potential threat or 12, 2011, we published a 12-month macao, based on similarity of aggregation of threats under any of the status review for the blue-headed appearance to entities proposed for factors, and evaluate whether the macaw and grey-cheeked parakeet (76 listing in this document. Therefore, we species responds to those potential FR 63480). also request information from the public threats in a way that causes actual On September 16, 2011, an extension on the similarity of appearance of impact to the species. The identification for completing the 12-month findings scarlet macaw intraspecific (within of threats that might impact a species with respect to the remaining four species) crosses, and individuals of the negatively may not be sufficient to petitioned species was approved by the southern DPS of A. m. macao, to the compel a finding that the species Court (CV–10–357, D. DC), in which the entities proposed for listing in this warrants listing. The information must Service agreed to submit these document. include evidence indicating that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40224 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

threats are operative and, either singly and the nominate form occurring from Costa Rica; the Pacific slope of ; or in aggregation, affect the status of the this zone southward to, and through, the the Magdalena Valley in Columbia; and species. Threats are significant if they South American range of the species. northern South America east of the drive, or contribute to, the risk of The subspecies classification Andes in Columbia, , , extinction of the species, such that the described by Wiedenfeld (1994, entire) Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, French species warrants listing as endangered is broadly used in the scientific Guiana, and and as far or threatened, as those terms are defined community and the subspecies are south as Santa Cruz and northern Mato in the Act. recognized by the Integrated Taxonomic Grosso, respectively (Wiedenfeld 1994, Information System (ITIS) as valid taxa pp. 100–101; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Biological Information (ITIS 2011, unpaginated). Further, Ridgely 1981, p. 250). Some authors preliminary results of recent genetic report the native range of the species to research on mitochondrial DNA of the include Trinidad and Tobago (BLI The scarlet macaw (Ara macao) is one species support Wiedenfeld’s 2011d, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, of several large subspecies classification (Schmidt 2011, p. 406). However, the historical record species commonly referred to as pers. comm.; Schmidt & Amato 2008, consists of only two questionable site . Scarlet macaws are among the pp. 135–137). According to Schmidt and records of the species in Trinidad and larger of the macaws, measuring 84–89 Amato (2008, p. 137), the data indicate Tobago (Forshaw 1989, p. 407; Ffrench centimeters (33–35 inches) in length two distinct clusters of haplogroups 1973, p. 76). Forshaw (1989, p. 407) and weighing 900–1490 g (2.0–3.3 (groups that carry certain genetic suggests the species may occur in that pounds) (Collar 1997, p. 421). They are markers potentially used to connect country as a very occasional vagrant or brilliantly colored and predominantly distant ancestry with a particular an escapee from captivity. scarlet red. Most of the head, body, tail, geographical region), suggesting two Although the scarlet macaw still and underside of the wings are red. distinct taxonomic units, with the occurs over much of its range in South Color on the upper side of the wing boundary between the clusters America (see Distribution and appears generally as bands of red, consistent with the southern Abundance), its range in Mesoamerica yellow, and blue, with varying amounts and northern Costa Rica zone of ( and ) has been of green occurring between the yellow intergradation described by Wiedenfeld. reduced and fragmented over the past and blue band. Lower back, rump, and According to Schmidt (2011, pers. several decades as a result of habitat tail coverts (upper tail ) are blue. comm.), the data also show genetic destruction and harvesting of the The species has large white, mostly bare differentiation between A. m. macao species for the pet trade (Vaughan et al. facial patches on either side of its bill. that occur on either side of the Andes, 2003, pp. 2–3; Collar 1997, p. 421; The upper bill is a light, whitish color, indicating two populations: One Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Snyder et al. whereas the lower bill is black. The consisting of west of the Andes in 2000, p. 150). The species has been sexes are similar, and immature birds Costa Rica, Panama, and northwest extirpated from almost all of its former are similar to adults, except that Columbia, and one consisting of birds range in Mexico, all of its former range immature birds have shorter tails (Collar east of the Andes in the species’ South in El Salvador, and much of its former 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 100; American range. range in the rest of Central America. The Forshaw 1989, pp. 404, 406). Because recent genetic research species now occurs primarily in the Taxonomy supports Wiedenfeld’s subspecies Maya Forest region of eastern Chiapas classification for scarlet macaw, and (Mexico), northern , and The scarlet macaw was first described because this classification is broadly southwest ; in the Mosquitia in 1758 by Linnaeus (Collar 1997, accepted in the scientific community region of eastern and eastern p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 99). and used in the scientific literature, we Nicaragua; in west-central Costa Rica’s Wiedenfeld (1994, entire) later consider the subspecies A. m. macao Carara and surrounding described the subspecies A. macao and A. m. cyanoptera as valid taxa. area; in southwest Costa Rica’s OSA cyanoptera, separating it from the Peninsula and surrounding area; and on Range nominate form, A. macao macao. He Coiba Island in Panama. In addition to based this separation on results of a The range of the scarlet macaw is the these populations, small groups or study in which he examined the broadest of all the macaw species remnant populations of 10 to 50 morphology of 31 museum specimens of (Ridgely 1981, p. 250). Extending from individuals also occur in a few areas in wild birds from known locations Mexico southward to central Bolivia the region (see Distribution and throughout the range of the species, and Brazil, it covers an estimated Abundance). which extends from Mexico southward 6,710,000–7,030,975 square kilometers through Central America and northern (km2) (2,590,745–2,714,675 square miles Habitat South America. He describes A. m. (mi2)) (BirdLife International (BLI) 2012, The scarlet macaw occurs in lowland cyanoptera as differing from A. m. unpaginated; Vale 2007, p. 112). The tropical forests and , often near macao in size and wing color. A. m. majority (83 percent) of the species’ rivers (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; cyanoptera is larger than A. m. macao, current range lies within the Amazon Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. with significantly longer wing lengths. Biome of South America (BLI 2011a, 101). The species inhabits primarily The yellow wing coverts that are tipped unpaginated; BLI 2011b, unpaginated; tropical humid evergreen forest, but also in blue have no green band separating BLI 2011c, unpaginated). other forest types, including riparian or the yellow and blue as in A. m. macao. Historically, the range of the scarlet gallery forest, and, in Central America, Wiedenfeld (1994, p. 100–101) describes macaw included the southern portion of tropical deciduous forest, mixed pine A. m. cyanoptera as historically the Mexico state of Tamaulipas and broadleaf woodland, and pine occurring from southern Mexico south southward through the states of savanna (Inigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated; to central Nicaragua. He describes birds Veracruz, Oaxaca, Tabasco, Chiapas, Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. from southern Nicaragua to northern and Campeche; all of Belize; the Pacific 101). In one location, it is reported to Costa Rica as representing a zone of and Atlantic slopes of Guatemala, roost and nest in mangrove forest intergradation between the two forms, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and (Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 127). The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40225

species generally occurs from sea level which scarlet macaws range, but suggest monogamous and generally mating for to about 500 meters (m) elevation, but home ranges of individuals cover life (Collar 1997, pp. 296, 311). As with has been reported ranging up to 1,500 m hundreds of km2 (100 km2 = 38.6 mi2). most parrots, the scarlet macaw lives in Central America (Juniper and Parr Of nine scarlet macaws tracked over year-round in pairs (Collar 1997, p. 296; 1998, p. 425; Vaughan 1983, in Vaughan periods of 3 to 9 months, the maximum Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 77). The species is et al. 2006, p. 919). extent of an individual’s range (farthest also often observed flying in small The scarlet macaw is considered distance between two points at which flocks of 3 or 4 that include a pair and somewhat tolerant of degraded or individuals were located with radio their young of the year, or in larger fragmented habitat (BLI 2011c, telemetry) varied from approximately 25 flocks of 20 to 30 individuals (Vaughan unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 406). If km (15.5 mi) to approximately 165 km et al. 2005, p. 120; Juniper and Parr not hunted or captured for the pet trade, (102.5 mi), with most between 25 km 1998, p. 425; Marineros and Vaughan they can survive in human-modified (15.5 mi) and 50 km (31.1 mi) (Boyd and 1995, p. 448; Forshaw 1989, pp. 406– landscapes provided sufficient large Brightsmith 2011, in litt.; Boyd 2011, 407). Up to 50 individuals may remain for nesting and feeding pers. comm.). congregate at nocturnal roost sites requirements (BLI 2011c, unpaginated; In addition to larger scale movements, (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425), Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, p. scarlet macaws also undergo smaller although one roost site with several 251). They are reported occurring in scale movements between nocturnal hundred individuals is reported in landscapes that include a combination roost sites and daily foraging areas. Costa Rica (Marineros and Vaughan of agricultural land, pastureland, timber Conspicuous morning and evening 1995, p. 455). harvesting areas, and remnant forest flights to and from regularly used roost patches (Vaughn et al. 2006, p. 920; sites have been documented in several Reproduction Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 120; Vaughan et locations within the species’ range Nest Sites al. 2003, p. 7); partially cleared forest (Marineros and Vaughan 1995, pp. 448– Scarlet macaws nest high above the where large trees have been left standing 450; Forshaw 1989, p. 407). (Forshaw 89, p. 407); pastureland with ground in pre-existing cavities. The Diet and Foraging scattered woodlots or remnant patches average height of scarlet macaw nest of (Vaughn et al. 2009, p. 396; Scarlet macaws forage primarily in cavities ranges from 16 meters (m) (52.5 Forshaw 89, p. 407); and areas of human the forest canopy. They are relatively feet (ft)) to 24 m (78.7 ft) above the settlement (towns) (Guittar et al. 2009, general in their feeding habits, with ground (Guittar et al. 2009; Anleu et al. p. 390). Several studies, however, studies reporting as many as 52 2005; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 59; Marineros indicate the species occurs in disturbed species, from at least 21 plant families, and Vaughn 1995, p. 455). Scarlet or secondary (recovering) forest habitat consumed, including nonnative and macaws are relatively flexible with at lower densities than in primary cultivated species in some areas. The respect to selection of nest cavities (undisturbed) forest (Cowen 2009, pp. majority of plants consumed by scarlet (Guittar et al. 2009, p. 391; Renton and 11–15; Karubian et al. 2005, pp. 622– macaws are tree species, but these Brightsmith 2009, pp. 3–6; Inigo-Elias 623; Lloyd 2004, pp. 269, 272). plants also include bromeliads, orchids, 1996, pp. 92–93). They nest in a variety and lichen. Seeds comprise the majority of tree species, including Ceiba Movements of their diet, but they also consume pentandra, Schizolobium parahybum, Scarlet macaws appear to be nomadic various quantities of pulp, flowers, Vatairea lundellii, Caryocar to varying degrees (Boyd and , and bark (Dear et al. 2010, pp. costaricense, Acacia glomerosa, Brightsmith 2011, in litt.; Collar 1997, p. 14–15; Lee 2010, pp. 153–160; Matuzak micrantha, deltoidea, 324). In some areas, scarlet macaw et al. 2008, p. 355; Renton 2006, p. 281; Erythrina trees, and others, and nest in movements appear to be seasonal Vaughan et al. 2006, pp. 920, 924; both live and dead trees (Guittar et al. (Karubian et al. 2005, p. 624; Renton Gilardi 1996 in Matuzak 2008, p. 361; 2009, pp. 389–399; Renton and 2002, p. 17). Because scarlet macaws Marineros and Vaughan 1995, pp. 451– Brightsmith 2009, pp. 3–4; Brightsmith feed primarily in the canopy on seeds 452; Nycander et al. 1995, p. 424). In 2005, p. 297; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 8; (see Diet and Foraging), they are linked some areas scarlet macaws regularly Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 57; Marineros and to the fruiting patterns of canopy trees. visit clay banks where they consume Vaughan 1995, p. 456; Nycander et al. Results of several studies suggest that soil or minerals, although it is unclear 1995, p. 431). The species also will nest fluctuations in abundance of these food whether this provides a nutritional or in previously used cavities (Renton and sources may result in movements of other benefit to the species (Brightsmith Brightsmith 2009, p. 4–5; Nycander et macaws to areas with greater food et al. 2010, entire; Brightsmith 2004, pp. al. 1995, p. 428), and will readily availability (Haugaasen and Peres 2007, 136–137; Brightsmith and Munoz-Najar investigate and often nest in artificial pp. 4174, 4179–4180; Moegenburg and 2004, entire). (human-made) cavities when supplied Levey 2003, entire; Renton 2002, pp. Fluctuations in the abundance and (Brightsmith 2005, p. 297; Vaughan et 17–18). Parrots species can travel tens to availability of scarlet macaw food al. 2003, p. 10; Nycander et al. 1995, pp. hundreds of kilometers (km) (10 km = sources may result in movements to 435–436). Inigo-Elias (1996, p. 57) found 6.2 miles (mi); 100 km = 62.1 mi) and areas with greater food availability, that tree species used most often in the are consequently able to exploit influencing local seasonal patterns of Usumacinta drainage area of southeast resources in a variety of within abundance (see Movements), or Mexico were used in proportion to their the larger landscape (Lee 2010, p. 7–8, resulting in a change in diet (Lee 2010, occurrence in the area studied. citing several authors; Brightsmith 2006, p. 7; Cowen 2009, pp. 5, 23, citing Due to the scarlet macaw’s large size, unpaginated; Collar 1997, p. 241). several sources; Tobias and Brightsmith the species requires large nest cavities, Recently, radio telemetry studies have 2007, p. 132; Brightsmith 2006, which are usually found in older, larger been conducted on scarlet macaws in unpaginated; Renton 2002, p. 17). trees. Tree cavities large enough for Guatemala, Belize, and Peru (Boyd and macaws to nest in are scarce, and the Brightsmith 2011, in litt.; Boyd 2011, Social Behavior availability of suitable nest sites may pers. comm.). Preliminary results show The scarlet macaw is believed to be limit scarlet macaw reproduction great variation in the distances over similar to most parrots in being (Vaughan et al. 2003, pp. 10–12; Inigo-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40226 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Elias 1996, p. 92; Nycander et al. 1995, generally occurs between October and 2010, p. 30), the scarlet macaw is now p. 428; Munn 1992, pp. 55–56). Intense June (Brightsmith 2005, pp. 297–299; reported to occur in only two small, competition for nest cavities in some Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 6; Collar 1997, isolated populations in Mexico. One areas suggests suitable cavities may be p. 421; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 87; Forshaw population occurs in the upper Rio limited in these areas. Scarlet macaws 1989, p. 408). Uxpanapa region near San Francisco La are frequently observed competing for The results of several studies indicate Paz in Oaxaca (Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 16– nest cavities with other macaws, that approximately one-third to one-half 17). Citing several sources, Inigo-Elias including other species and other scarlet of nests fail each year (Renton and (2010, unpaginated) and McReynolds macaw pairs (Renton and Brightsmith Brightsmith 2009, pp. 4–5; Garcia et al. (2011, in litt.) indicate that the upper 2009, p. 5; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 10; 2008, p. 51; Nycander et al. 1995, pp. Uxpanapa River population consists of Inigo-Elias 1996, pp.79, 96; Nycander 431–432; Munn 1992, p. 54). Successful possibly 50 scarlet macaws. According 1995, p. 428). Scarlet macaws are also nests usually fledge only one or two to Townsend Peterson et al. (2003, p. sometimes displaced from nest cavities young, with most (67 to 89 percent) 232), it is possible that the species may by Africanized honeybees (see Factor E). fledging only one (Renton and occur seasonally in this area. The Several factors may contribute to the Brightsmith 2009, p. 4; Clum 2008, pp. second population occurs in the suitability of nest cavities. For instance, 65–66; Nycander et al. 1995, p. 434; southern Mexico and Guatemala border in addition to size requirements, scarlet Munn 1992, p. 54). Nesting successes of area of eastern Chiapas, and is discussed macaws appear to select nest cavities in 0.48 to 0.89 fledglings per nest have below. trees that are isolated from surrounding been reported (Renton and Brightsmith Within the tri-national region of vegetation, possibly to protect from non- 2009, pp. 4–5; Boyd and McNab 2008, southern Mexico, northern Guatemala, volant (unable to fly) predators p. 61; Nycander et al. 1995, pp. 431, and Belize, the species occurs in three (Brightsmith 2005, p. 302; Inigo-Elias 434; Munn 1992, p. 54). Several factors small populations or subpopulations: (1) 1996, p. 93). contribute to nest mortality, including In the Usamacinto watershed in eastern starvation of chicks, predation of eggs or Breeding Chiapis, Mexico, which is located in the chicks, and competition for nest cavities Lacandon forest (part of the Maya Large macaws are long-lived species during which eggs are crushed or chicks Forest), Mexico’s largest remaining that mature slowly and have small are killed (Renton and Brightsmith expanse of tropical evergreen forest, and clutch sizes, have generally only one 2009, p. 5; Garcia et al. 2008, p. 52; clutch per year, have low survival of which includes the approximately 3,000 Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 83; Nycander et al. 2 2 nestlings and fledglings, have a late age 1995, pp. 431–434). km (1,158 mi ) Montes Azules of first reproduction, have a large Biosphere Reserve, several smaller proportion of nonbreeding adults, and Distribution and Abundance protected areas, and the municipality of have restrictive nesting requirements The range-wide population of the Maques de Commillas (United Nations (Wright et al. 2001, p. 711; Collar 1997, species is estimated to be approximately Educational, Scientific, and Cultural pp. 296, 298; Munn 1992, pp. 53–56). 20,000–50,000 (BLI 2011a, Organization (UNESCO) 2012a, Consequently, they have low rates of unpaginated). BLI (2011a, unpaginated) unpaginated; McReynolds 2011, in litt.; reproduction and are, therefore, reports the global population is Enriquez et al. 2009, p. 13; Castillo- particularly vulnerable to extinction suspected of being in decline due to Santiago et al. 2007, pp. 1215, 1217; through factors that increase their rates ongoing and Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 16–17, 23); (2) in of mortality (Owens and Bennett 2000, overexploitation of the species. the western Department of Peten in p. 12146; Bennett and Owens 1997, However, they believe the decline will northern Guatemala, primarily in the entire). result in less than a 30 percent decrease Maya Biosphere Reserve (Garcia et al. The scarlet macaw begins breeding at in the population over 10 years or three 2008, entire); and (3) in southwest 4 to 7 years of age (Clum 2008, p. 65; generations. A decline in the species is Belize, where it is known to breed only Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468), and the particularly evident in Mesoamerica, in the Chiquibul region, which includes maximum breeding age is roughly where it was formerly considered Chiquibul National Park and other estimated to be 25 years (Clum 2008, p. widespread but now occurs primarily in protected areas (Salas and Meerman 65). In general, the proportion of small, isolated populations where large 2008, p. 42). Based on field studies breeding birds in a population of parrots tracts of forest remain (Wiedenfeld conducted from 1989 to 1993, Inigo- in any given year is low (Collar 1997, p. 1994, p. 102; Forshaw 1989, p. 406). Elias (1996, pp. 96–97) estimated that 320). Research on three species of large Using 1992 estimates from Honduras, there were ‘‘probably less than 200 macaws, including scarlet macaws, at a Wiedenfeld estimated the total number breeding pairs’’ within Mexico’s location free of anthropogenic of scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica to be Usamacinto watershed. In Guatemala, disturbance suggests that only 10 to 20 approximately 5,000 birds, consisting of the population is recently estimated to percent of adult mated pairs attempt to 4,000 A. m. cyanoptera (occurring from be between 150 and 250 birds (McNab nest in any given year (Munn 1992, pp. southern Mexico to Nicaragua), and 2008, p. 7; Wildlife Conservation 47, 53–54). Scarlet macaws lay from 1 1,000 A. m. macao (occurring in Costa Society Guatemala 2005, in McReynolds to 4 eggs (Garcia et al. 2008, p. 101; Rica and Panama). More recently, 2011, in litt.). Estimates from Belize are Collar 1997, p. 421; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. McNab (2009, unpaginated) suggests the reported to vary from 60 to 219 80; Nycander et al. 1995, p. 430). Eggs current population of A. m. cyanoptera individuals (McReynolds 2011, in litt.), are incubated for approximately 22–34 is fewer than 1,000 birds. but based on field observations in 2009, days, and chicks fledge at 65 to 100 days McReynolds (2011, in litt.) places the of age (Vigo et al. 2011, p. 147; Garcia Maya Forest (Mexico, Guatemala, and current Belize population at et al. 2008, p. 101; Vaughan et al. 2003, Belize) approximately 200 individuals. Garcia p. 6; Collar 1997, p. 421; Inigo Elias Described as previously abundant in et al. (2008, pp. 52–53) estimate the total 1996, pp. 81–82). Parental care is Mexico (Comisio´n Nacional Para el population in the tri-national Maya reported to last at least 77 days (Myers Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad region, based on habitat modeling and and Vaughan 2004, p. 415). The (CONABIO) 2011, p. 2) and numbering current threats, to be 399 individuals— breeding season varies with location but in the many thousands (Patten et al. 137 in Mexico, 159 in Guatemala, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40227

103 in Belize. Evidence suggests the (8,423 mi2)) in adjacent Nicaragua slope of northwest Costa Rica), Barra del populations in Mexico, Guatemala, and (UNESCO 2012b, unpaginated; UNESCO Colorado (Atlantic slope of northeast Belize are not completely isolated from 2012c, unpaginated; Vallely et al. 2010, Costa Rica), and Estrella Valley (Atlantic one another. In a recent radio telemetry p. 52). McReynolds (2011, in litt.) slope of southeast Costa Rica), and that study, a fledgling radio-tagged in estimates the population of the Rus Rus the species has been released in several Guatemala flew 130 km (80.8 mi) to area of the Honduran Mosquitia alone to areas on the Pacific coast. Further, Mexico in one day (McReynolds 2011, be 1,000 to 1,500 birds, based on the Penard et al. (2008, in McReynolds in litt.). In addition, recent studies number of chicks reported as poached 2011, in litt.) report a population of 48 provide evidence of gene flow between by Portillo Reyes et al. (2004, in to 54 birds in Maquenque National nest sites in Guatemala and Belize, and McReynolds 2011, in litt.) and assuming Wildlife Refuge, on the Atlantic slope high levels of genetic diversity in the tri- a 20 percent reproductive success rate. border with Nicaragua, and according to national region (Schmidt and Amato Based on literature sources from the Chassot (2011, pers. comm.), this 2008, p. 137). 1990s, Anderson et al. (2004, p. 465) population appears to be increasing. Clum (2008, entire) presents report the scarlet macaw as ‘‘common’’ Based on plausible regional estimates, preliminary results of a population within the Honduran Mosquitia. More McReynolds (2011, in litt.) estimates the viability analysis (PVA) of scarlet recent information, however, indicates current population for the country to be macaws in the tri-national region. The that loss of habitat and demand for the about 1,800 birds. results showed that the variable most pet trade has put the species in danger Citing Chassot et al. (2006), significantly and consistently impacting of extinction in this region (Portillo McReynolds (2011, in litt.) indicates population growth is the percentage of Reyes 2005, in Portillo Reyes et al. 2010, that in a 2006 review of all parrot successfully breeding females (Clum p. 6). 2008, p. 80). In other words, events that Wiedenfeld (1995, in Snyder et al. populations in Costa Rica, participants lower female breeding success, such as 2000, p. 150) estimated the Nicaragua believed the scarlet macaw was most poaching and nest predation, are the population of scarlet macaw to be 1,500 accurately described by the most important factors limiting recovery to 2,500 birds. However, the species was International Union for the of the species in this region. Estimated, not detected during either of two Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category ‘‘best guess’’ values were used for national surveys of parrots conducted in of ‘‘Minor Risk-Almost Threatened.’’ several variables in the baseline 1999 and 2004 (Lezama et al. 2004, in Vaughan et al. (2005, entire) show that scenario, which indicated a probability McReynolds 2011, in litt.). The species in 1995, the scarlet macaw population of extinction within 100 years of 12.4 is currently thought to number up to in the ACOPAC region was declining, percent (± 1.5 percent SE (standard 700 in Nicaragua, with groups of 30 to due primarily to poaching of nestlings error)). However, although useful in 40 scarlet macaws frequently reported for the pet trade, and that the identifying limiting factors where in the Rio Coco area, which forms the population increased following management should be focused, the border with Honduras (Lezama 2010, in intensive conservation efforts in 1996 absolute values of PVA scenario McReynolds 2011, in litt.). Feria and de and 1997. In ACOSA, Dear et al. (2010, outcomes (e.g., probability of extinction los Monteros (2007, in McReynolds p. 10) indicate that 85 percent of within 100 years) are generally not 2011, in litt.), however, consider the residents interviewed in 2005 believed reliable because uncertainty in the number in eastern Nicaragua to be fewer scarlet macaws were more abundant estimates of variables can introduce than 100 birds. than 5 years prior, which suggests this substantial uncertainty in predictions population may be increasing. Costa Rica and dramatically change outcome Panama values (McGowan et al. 2011, entire; Vaughan et al. (1991, abstract) Clum 2008, p. 80; Beissinger and describe scarlet macaws as having Ridgely (1981, p. 253) describes the Westphal 1998, entire). previously occurred in tropical wet and species as almost extinct on the dry forests throughout most of Costa Honduras and Nicaragua mainland of Panama, but ‘‘abundant’’ Rica, while Ridgely (1981, p. 252) and occurring in ‘‘substantial numbers’’ Except for a remnant population of describes the species as having always on Coiba Island, which, at the time, was approximately 12 or 13 pairs on the occurred primarily on the Pacific slope a penal colony where settlement and Peninsula of Cosigu¨ ina on the Pacific of the country. Dear et al. (2010, p. 8) most hunting was prohibited. slope of Nicaragua (Lezama 2011, pers. describe the species as currently McReynolds (2011, in litt.) provides a comm.), the distribution of the species occurring in only two viable review of the more recent available in these countries is now primarily populations: In central Costa Rica’s information on distribution and limited to eastern Honduras and eastern Central Pacific Conservation Area abundance in the country as follows: Nicaragua. Wiedenfeld (1994, pp. 101– (ACOPAC) in the region of Carara 102) estimated the total population of National Park (approximately 450 birds) Panama has very few Scarlet Macaws. The Honduras to be 1,000 to 1,500 birds, (Arias et al. 2008, in McReynolds 2011, last sightings of Scarlet Macaws in the border located in the provinces of Olancho, in litt.), and in southwest Costa Rica’s region of Panama and Costa Rica, the area of Gracias a Dios, and Colon in the Osa Conservation Area (ACOSA) in the the upper Rio Corotu (or Rio Bartolo Arriba) ´ Mosquitia, a region of extensive forest region of Corcovado National Park and near Puerto Armuelles in the Chiriquı province, occurred in 1998 (Burica Press, straddling the eastern Honduras- the Osa Peninsula (estimates ranging 2007). There is a small, but unknown Nicaragua border. Currently, the species from between 800 and 1,200 to 2,000 number, in Cerro Hoya National Park in the occurs in eastern Olancho, western birds) (Dear et al. 2005 and Guzman southwest corner of the Azuero Peninsula of Gracias a Dios, and southeastern Colon 2008, in McReynolds 2011, in litt.). Veraguas (Rodriguez & Hinojosa, 2010). The (Portillo Reyes 2005, p. 71). The region These two populations appear to be current population of Scarlet Macaws in includes several thousand square genetically isolated (Nader et al. 1999, Panama is very likely less than 200. Isla kilometers in protected areas, including entire). Dear et al. (2010, p. 8) report Coiba remains the last large stronghold, with the Pla´tano Biosphere Reserve (5,000 that small groups of 10 to 25 individuals a rumored estimate of 100 individuals (Keller km2 (1,931 mi2)) in Honduras, and the are also found in other parts of the & Schmitt, 2008), or ‘‘large populations’’ Bosawa´s Biosphere Reserve (21,815 km2 country, including Palo Verde (Pacific (Barranco, 2009).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40228 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

South America classified as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ in Peru, de Parques Nacionales y Medio Within northern South America, the likely due to concerns about Ambiente 2007, p. 125). The species is scarlet macaw currently occurs overexploitation for the pet trade also on Guatemala’s Listado de Especies primarily in the Amazon Biome of (Brightsmith 2009, in litt.). However, a de Fauna Silvestre Amenazadas de eastern Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, 2009 species review classified the Extincio´ n (Lista Roja de Fauna) (list of Suriname, French Guyana, Brazil, species in Peru at the lower threat species threatened with extinction (red northeast Ecuador, eastern Peru, and category of ‘‘Near-Threatened’’ based on list of fauna)) (Government of northern Bolivia (collectively referred to (1) evidence suggesting the pet trade Guatemala 2001, p. 15), Honduras’s in this document as the Amazon) (BLI threat is lower than previously believed, Listado Oficial de Especies de Animales 2011a, unpaginated; Inigo-Elias 2010, and (2) the proximity of scarlet macaws Silvestres de Preocupacio´ n Especial en in Peru to the existence of ‘‘large unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. Honduras (Official List of Species of 425; Collar 1997, p. 421; Forshaw 1989, populations’’ in adjacent Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, and Columbia Wild Animals of Special Concern in pp. 406–407). The Amazon comprises (Brightsmith 2009, in litt.). Honduras) (Secretaria de Recursos not only most of the South America The remaining information on the Naturales y Ambiente. 2008, p. 62), and range of the species but also species’ populations in South America Nicaragua’s list of species for which the approximately 83 percent of its world is qualitative. Citing several published season of use (e.g., for harvest or range (BLI 2011c, unpaginated). The works from the 1970s and 1980s, capture) is indefinitely closed scarlet macaw is also reported to occur Forshaw (1989, p. 407) described the (Nicaragua Ministerio del Ambiente y in relatively small areas outside the scarlet macaw as locally extirpated from Los Recursos Naturales 2010, entire). In Amazon, including in parts of several areas of northeastern Ecuador and South America, the species is listed as northern Venezuelan states (Hilty 2003, northeastern Bolivia. In the lowland vulnerable in Peru (Government of Peru p. 327) and west of the Andes in Ecuadorian Amazon, scarlet macaws are 2004, p. 276855), but a more recent northwest Columbia (Hilty and Brown reported to have suffered a rapid decline evaluation of the species categorizes it 1986, p. 200). in recent decades and are considered a at the lower threat level of ‘‘near Using Panjabi’s (2008, in BLI 2011a, ‘‘Near-Threatened’’ species in Ecuador unpaginated) estimate of fewer than threatened’’ (Brightsmith 2009, in litt.). (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, in The species is also categorized as ‘‘near 50,000 for the range wide population, Karubian et al. 2005, p. 618). The and Wiedenfeld’s (1994, p. 102) threatened’’ in Ecuador (Ridgely and species is believed to be common in the Greenfield 2001, in Karubian et al. 2005, estimate of 5,000 for Mesoamerica, the Orinoco and Amazon Basins in p. 618) and as ‘‘near threatened’’ on South American population of the Columbia, patchily distributed and Venezuela’s red list (Rodriguez and scarlet macaw can be very roughly becoming rare in Venezuela, and estimated to be fewer than 45,000 birds. occurring in large numbers throughout Rojas-Suarez 2008, p. 50). We are The species is generally considered the Amazon in Brazil (Inigo-Elias 2010, unaware of the scarlet macaw having common over much of its South unpaginated, citing several sources). official in any other American range, especially in the of the species’ range countries. Amazon Basin (Hilty 2003, p. 327; Conservation Status Conservation Measures Angehr et al. 2001, p. 161; Juniper and The scarlet macaw is listed in Parr 1998, p. 425; Collar 1997, p. 421; Appendix I of the Convention on Some of the current range of the Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Hilty and Brown International Trade in Endangered scarlet macaw is located within 1986, p. 200; Ridgely 1981, p. 251). Species of Wild Fauna and Flora officially designated protected areas (see Juniper and Parr (1998, p. 425) describe (CITES) (United Nations Environment Distribution and Abundance). Other the species as evidently declining Programme—World Conservation conservation measures employed in throughout its range due to habitat loss, Monitoring Center (UNEP–WCMC) some areas of the species’ range include trade, and hunting. Others report it as 2012, unpaginated). The species is having declined around major currently classified as ‘‘Least Concern’’ increasing the presence of agency or population centers and settlement areas by the IUCN. In 2011, BLI proposed organization personnel in nest areas to (Ridgely 1981, p. 251; Forshaw 1989, p. reclassifying the scarlet macaw from deter nest poaching, introduction of 407). IUCN ‘‘Least Concern’’ to ‘‘Threatened,’’ captive-reared birds into the wild, re- We are aware of little recent based on the area of Amazon habitat introduction of wild-caught birds into information on local (country, region) projected to be lost to deforestation by the wild, placement of artificial nest populations within South America. 2050 (BLI 2011b, unpaginated; BLI boxes within nesting areas, and public Lloyd (2004, p. 270) provides the only 2011e, unpaginated). However, based on outreach and community organization local population estimate we are aware review and recommendations from efforts (Wildlife Conservation Society of, which includes the Tambopata regional experts, a current revision of (WCS) 2010, pp. 2–3; WCS 2009, pp. 2– Province of Peru. Using density the proposal recommends the species 3; Garcia et al. 2008, p. 54; WCS 2008, estimates calculated from field counts in remain classified as ‘‘Least Concern’’ entire; Brightsmith et al. 2005, entire; different forest types, and area of forest due to its level of tolerance of degraded Dear et al. 2005, abstract; Vaughan et al. cover presented in Kratter (1995, in and fragmented habitat (BLI 2011c, 2005, entire; Vaughan et al. 2003, entire; Lloyd 2004, p. 269), Lloyd calculated unpaginated). Brightsmith 2000a, entire; Brightsmith the Tambopata population to number The scarlet macaw is considered in 2000b, entire; Vaughan et al. 1999, from 4,734–24,332 individuals. The danger of extinction in Mexico entire; Nycander et al. 1995, entire). To species was previously described as (Government of Mexico 2010a, p. 64), the extent that we have information uncommon, locally extirpated in areas, Belize (Biodiversity and Environmental indicating the effects of these measures and declining in eastern Peru (Inigo- Resource Data System of Belize 2012, on the scarlet macaw’s status, they are Elias 2010, unpaginated, citing several unpaginated; Meerman 2005, p. 30), considered and discussed within our sources; Brightsmith 2009, in litt.; Costa Rica (Costa Rica Sistema Nacional evaluation of threats below. Forshaw 1989, p. 407, citing several de Areas de Conservacion 2012, sources). In 2004, the scarlet macaw was unpaginated), and Panama (Fundacio´n

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40229

Evaluation of Threats macaw because it directly eliminates the increases the vulnerability of species to species’ tropical forest habitat, removing overexploitation (Peres 2001, entire; Introduction the trees that support the species’ Putz et al. 2000, pp. 16, 23) (see Factor This status review focuses on the nesting, roosting, and dietary B) and also threatens the species scarlet macaw populations in Mexico’s requirements. It may also result in because increased access to forests is southeastern state of Chiapas; Central fragmented habitat that reduces and also often followed by full deforestation America; and the Amazon Biome in isolates populations; as fragments are as lands are cleared for agricultural use South America. Although the species is reduced, they are less likely to provide (Kaimowitz and Angelsen 1998, in Putz also reported to occur in small numbers resources for species that require large et al. 2000, p. 16). in Oaxaca, Mexico, and areas of areas, and small areas of forest may only Below we provide a summary of Venezuela and Columbia that lie outside support small populations of a species information on deforestation and forest the Amazon, there is little information (Ibarra-Macias 2009, entire, citing degradation within the range of the on the species in these areas and these several sources; Lees and Peres 2006, scarlet macaw. areas constitute a relatively small entire; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006, Mesoamerica fraction of the species’ worldwide range. in Ibarra-Macias et al. 2011, p. 703). As discussed above, the Amazon Fragmented habitat could potentially Destruction of forest habitat is one of constitutes 83 percent of the species’ compromise the genetics of these the main causes of the decline of the world range (BLI 2011c, unpaginated), populations through inbreeding scarlet macaw in Mesoamerica and most information from South depression and genetic drift (see Factor (CONABIO 2011, p. 5; Lezama 2011, America is from the Amazon. However, E). pers. comm.; McGinley et al. 2009, p. we request information from the public Forest degradation poses a threat to 11; Garcia et al. 2008, p. 50; Hansen and on the status of, and threats to, scarlet the species because it may reduce the Florez 2008, pp. 48–50; Snyder et al. macaws that occur in South America number of trees in an area. Although 2000, p. 150; Collar 1997, p. 421; outside the Amazon, and in Oaxaca, scarlet macaws are known to use Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, pp. Mexico. partially cleared and cultivated 251–253). Although much of the species’ habitat within South America Factor A: Present or Threatened landscapes (see Habitat), they are only able to do so if the landscape maintains remains intact, the habitat of the species Destruction, Modification, or in Mesoamerica has changed Curtailment of Habitat or Range enough adequate large trees to support the species’ nesting and dietary substantially over the past several One of the main threats to neotropical requirements. A reduced number of decades as a result of deforestation. parrot species, in general, is loss of trees may reduce the availability of Mesoamerica has had among the highest forest habitat (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 98). adequate nest sites and food resources deforestation rates in the world, and all Deforestation (conversion of forest to across the landscape, resulting in a countries in the region lost much (up to other land uses such as agriculture) and reduction in the number of scarlet 50 percent) of their forest during recent forest degradation (reduction in forest macaws the landscape can support and, decades (Bray 2010, pp. 92–95; biomass, such as through selective thus, a reduction in the species’ Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Carr et al. cutting of trees or fire) occur across population. Scarlet macaws are 2006, pp. 10–11; Dejong et al. 2000, pp. much of the range of the scarlet macaw. especially dependent on larger, older 506; Rzedowski 1978, in Masera et al. The primary cause is conversion of trees because these trees provide the 1997, p. 273). The remaining forest is forest to agriculture (crop and pasture), large nesting cavities required by the fragmented and includes few large tracts although other land uses, including species. One of the causes of forest of forest habitat (Bray 2010, pp. 92–93; construction of roads and other degradation within the species’ range, Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Wiedenfeld infrastructure, logging, fires, oil and gas selective logging, generally targets older, 1994, p. 101). Although deforestation extraction, and mining also contribute larger trees, thus posing a threat to rates have declined in Mesoamerica significantly and to varying degrees in parrot populations by creating a during the past two decades, they are different areas of the species range shortage of suitable nesting sites, still very high (FAO 2010a, pp. 232–233; (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 263, 290, 299, increasing competition, and causing the Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487) and include 310, 334, 344, 354, 363–364, 375, 394; loss of current generations through an the loss of significant amounts of Boucher et al. 2011, entire; Clark and increase in infanticide and egg primary forest (FAO 2010a, pp. 55, 259). Aide 2011, entire; Food and Agriculture destruction (Lee 2010, pp. 2, 12). Further, deforestation is occurring Organization (FAO) 2011a, p. 17; May et Deforestation and forest degradation rapidly in many areas within the range al. 2011, pp. 7–13; Muller and Patry also pose a threat to scarlet macaws of the scarlet macaw in this region, 2011, p. 81; Nasi et al. 2011, pp. 203– through indirect effects. In the absence including in Chiapas, Mexico, western 204; Pacheco 2011, entire; DeFries et al. of management for maintenance of tree Pete´n in Guatemala; eastern Olancho in 2010, abstract; FAO 2010a, p. 15; density or regeneration, forest Honduras; and eastern Nicaragua Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 38– degradation may eventually lead to full (Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487). 39; Jarvis et al. 2010, entire; Belize deforestation or degradation to low- Ministry of Natural Resources and stature brush ecosystems (Boucher et al. Mexico Environment 2010, pp. 41–45; 2011, p. 6; May et al. 2011, pp. 11, 13– During 1990–2010, Mexico lost Armenteras and Morales 2009, pp. 134– 16; Nasi et al. 2011, p. 201; Gibbs et al. approximately 6 million hectares (ha) 176; Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 50–51; Grau 2010, p. 2; Government of Mexico (approximately 15 million acres (ac)) of and Aide 2008, unpaginated; Harvey et 2010b, p. 32; Nepstad et al. 2008, pp. forest, and had one of the largest al. 2008, p. 8; Kaimowitz 2008, pp. 487– 1739–1740; Foley et al. 2007, pp. 26–27; decreases in primary forests worldwide 491; Mosandl et al. 2008, pp. 38–39; Killeen 2007, pp. 25–27; Fearnside (FAO 2010a, pp. 56, 233). Although Nepstad et al. 2008, entire; Foley et al. 2005, pp. 682–683). Also, clearing or Mexico’s rate of forest loss has slowed 2007, pp. 26–27; Barreto et al. 2006, degradation of forests often provides in the past decade, it continues at a rate entire; Fearnside 2005, pp. 681–683; easier access by humans to previously of 1,550 km2 (598 mi2) per year, with an Carr et al. 2003, entire). Deforestation inaccessible areas inhabited by the estimated 2,500–3,000 km2 (965–1,158 poses a potential threat to the scarlet species. Easier access by humans mi2) per year degraded (FAO 2010a, p.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

233; Government of Mexico 2010c, in conducted using unsustainable methods Natural Resources and Environment Blaser et al. 2011, p. 344). Most of (Enriquez et al. 2009, p. 56). 2010, pp. 44–45; Salas and Meerman Mexico’s remaining scarlet macaws Degradation through illegal logging may 2008, pp. 22, 42). occur in the Lacandon Forest of the affect nesting trees and food resources, The main causes of deforestation and southeastern state of Chiapas (see and may result in future deforestation if forest degradation within the range of Distribution and Abundance). The main not effectively addressed. While we are the scarlet macaw in these countries drivers of deforestation and forest unaware of information on projected include clearing for agriculture and degradation in this region are future rates of deforestation specifically cattle pasture, illegal colonization in conversion of forest to pasture and in the Lacandon Forest region, Diaz- protected areas, illegal logging, agriculture, and uncontrolled logging Gallegos et al. (2010, p. 194) project a purposefully set fires, and, in some 2 (overexploitation and illegal logging) loss of approximately 20,000 km (7,722 areas, activities related to drug 2 (Government of Mexico 2010b, pp. 22– mi ) between 2000 and 2015 in the trafficking. Some or all of these 24; Jimenez-Ferrer et al. 2008, p. 195– southeastern States (which include activities are ongoing in areas occupied 196; Castillo-Santiago et al. 2007, p. Chiapas), assuming the same rate of loss by the species, including in the Maya 1217; Oglethorpe et al. 2007, p. 85). In as occurred during the period 1987– Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala, Rio southeastern Mexico, the area of land 2000. Further, by 2030, forest area in Platano Biosphere in Honduras, devoted to cattle farming has increased Mexico as a whole is projected to Bosawas Biosphere Reserve in dramatically due to the increase of decrease, with anywhere from about 10 Nicaragua, and the Chiquibul region in regional meat prices and a decrease in percent to nearly 60 percent of mature Belize, resulting in the loss of the economy of staple crop cultivation forests lost, and approximately 0 to 54 significant amounts of forest area in (Jimenez-Ferrer et al. 2008, pp. 195– percent of regrowth forests lost locations in which the few remaining 196). The state of Chiapas encourages (Commission for Environmental scarlet macaw populations in these cattle farming through subsidies Cooperation 2010, pp. 45, 75). countries occur (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. Although Mexico implements several (Enriquez et al. 2009, p. 58), and 310, 334; Friends for Conservation and forest conservation measures and has clearing of forest for pasture in the state Development 2011, pp. 1, 4; Muller and made significant progress in conserving is ongoing (Enriquez et al. 2009, p. 48– Patry, 2011, pp. 80–81; Radachowsky et forest within its boundaries (Blaser et al. 49). Chiapas has the second highest rate al. in press, pp. 5–7; UNEP–WCMC 2011, pp. 344–346; Center for of deforestation of Mexico’s 31 states, 2011a, unpaginated; UNESCO 2011a, International Forestry Research (CIFOR) with recent forest losses averaging unpaginated; UNESCO 2011b, 2 2 2010, pp. 34–39; Masek et al. 2011, p. approximately 600 km (232 m ) per 17; FAO 2010a, p. 233; Perron-Welch unpaginated; Belize Ministry of Natural year (Masek et al. 2011, p. 10). Cattle 2010, entire; Enriquez et al. 2009, pp. 4, Resources and the Environment 2010, farming is the most profitable activity 36–41; Munoz-Pina et al. 2008, entire; pp. 44–46; Bray 2010, pp. 100–106; within the Lacandon Forest and is Karousakis 2007, pp. 24–25, 29), we Tolisano and Lopez-Selva 2010, pp. 3– extensive in the region (Jimenez-Ferrer consider deforestation and forest 4; Anderson and Devenish 2009, pp. et al. 2008, pp. 195–196). Deforestation degradation to be an immediate threat to 256–257; Government of Honduras risk outside protected areas in the the species in Mexico because (1) 2009, unpaginated; McGinley et al. Lacandon Forest is primarily clearing of forest for pasture is ongoing 2009, pp. 13, 33–36; McNab 2009, categorized as high to very high. Inside in Chiapas, (2) the Lacandon Forest unpaginated; Muccio 2009, p. 14; protected areas, the risk of deforestation outside of protected areas is at high to Davalos and Bejarano 2008, p. 223; is categorized as low to very low very high risk of deforestation, (3) illegal Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 50–54; Grau and (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y logging is ongoing in the largest reserve Aide 2008, unpaginated; Hansen and Recursos Naturales 2011, unpaginated). in the Lacandon Forest and attempts to Florez 2008, p. 21; Kaimowitz 2008, pp. Monte Azules Biosphere Reserve is the address the problem of illegal logging in 487, 490; Reynolds 2008, p. 6; Wade largest protected area in the Lacandon Mexico have had limited success, and 2007, entire; Parkswatch 2005, Forest, and studies indicate that it has (4) deforestation is projected to continue unpaginated; Conservation International been relatively successful at conserving in Mexico as a whole and in the 2004, pp. 13–14; Parkswatch 2003, p. 1; the resources within its boundaries southeastern states. Richards et al. 2003, entire; WCS (Castillo-Santiago et al. 2007, pp. 1223– undated, pp. 10–11). Deforestation and 1224; Figueroa and Sanchez-Cordero Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and forest degradation are exacerbated in 2008, p. 3231). However, according to Nicaragua this region by the combination of weak Enriquez et al. (2009, pp. 28, 57), the With the exception of Belize, the governance (e.g., limited resources and reserve is one of 32 priority forest countries of northern Central American capacity for law enforcement, lack of regions defined by Mexico’s Federal have the highest rates of deforestation in reasonable enforcement strategies, Environmental Protection Agency in Latin America. Guatemala, Honduras, poorly designed and complex which more than 60 percent of illegal and Nicaragua lost 560 km2 (216 mi2) legislation, corruption, and weak logging in the country occurs. Although (or 1.47 percent), 1,200 km2 (463 mi2) commitment in judicial systems), illegal logging has received more (or 2.16 percent), and 700 km2(270 mi2) increasing human populations placing attention from Mexico’s policy makers (or 2.11 percent) per year, respectively, demands on forest resources, and the recently, efforts to address the problem between 2005 and 2010 (FAO 2010a, p. increasing presence of drug trafficking have had limited success due to 232). Belize, has a much lower and other illegal activities, which create insufficient human and financial deforestation rate (100–150 km2 (39–58 an environment of insecurity and resources to enforce laws effectively, mi2) (0.3–0.68 percent) per year undermine conservation efforts and poorly designed control efforts (Cherrington et al. 2010, p. 22; FAO (Boucher et al. 2011, p. 11; Larson and (Blaser et al. 2010, p. 346; Enriquez et 2010a, p. 232)), but deforestation and Petkova 2011, p. 100; Pellegrini 2009, al. 2009, p. 57; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 491). forest degradation is increasing in the pp. 15–19; UNESCO 2011a, Ongoing illegal logging within the Chiquibal region, the only region in unpaginated; WCS 2011, p. 4; Balzotti reserve is likely degrading the reserve’s which scarlet macaws are known to nest 2010, pp. 4, 15, citing several sources; forests, as illegal logging is usually in the country (Belize Ministry of Belize Ministry of Natural Resources

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40231

and Environment 2010, pp. 5, 41–42, 45; threat of being deforested or degraded, the larger of Costa Rica’s two Meerman and Cayetano 2010, pp. 32– and the protection of the other 75 populations of scarlet macaws occurs 33; Science for Environment Policy percent appears tenuous, we consider (Driscoll et al. 2011, p. 9; Walsh 2011, 2010, entire; Tolisano and Lopez-Selva deforestation and forest degradation to unpaginated). So far, the remoteness of 2010, pp. 2, 38, 42–43, 47–49; Union of be occurring a level that poses a the ACOSA has deterred large-scale Concerned Scientists 2010, significant and immediate threat to development in the region. If the airport unpaginated; WCS 2010, p. 4; McGinley scarlet macaws in all four countries in is built, it may lead to development of et al. 2009, pp. 34–37; WCS 2009, pp. this region. the region in the form of large-scale 5–6; Davalos and Bejarano 2008, p. 223; Costa Rica and Panama resorts, vacation homes, new roads, and Hansen and Florez 2008, pp. 21–26; other infrastructure, placing the habitat Salas and Meerman 2008, pp. 43–45; Costa Rica experienced some of the of the ACOSA population of scarlet Bray et al. 2008, unpaginated; highest rates of deforestation in the macaws at high risk of accelerated Kaimowitz 2008, pp. 488, 490; world during past decades (Bray 2010, deforestation (Driscoll 2011, p. 9; Oglethorpe et al. 2007, p. 87; p. 107; Government of Costa Rica 2010, Natural Resources Defense Council Conservation International 2004, pp. 3, p. 68). As a result of deforestation, the 2011, unpaginated). However, based on 12–13; Richards 2003, entire). Although country’s forest cover declined from 67 the available information, whether or forest conservation efforts in percent in 1940, to 17–20 percent in when the airport will be built, and the Guatemala’s Maya Biosphere are 1983 (Bray 2010, p. 107), and in 1993, nature of subsequent development in currently preventing further habitat loss only 20 percent of original scarlet the region, is speculative at this time. in the range of about 75 percent of macaw habitat remained, all within Therefore, it is not appropriate to make Guatemala’s scarlet macaw population protected areas (Marineros and Vaughan a determination of the scarlet macaw’s (Boyd and McNab 2008, pp. v–vi), this 1995, pp. 445–446). However, during status in the country, for the purposes area is currently unstable (Human the 1990s, Costa Rica implemented of listing under the Act, based on this Rights Watch 2012, pp. 1–2; United several forest conservation strategies, potential development project. including new laws protecting forests Nations High Commissioner for Human Deforestation in Panama is relatively Rights in Guatemala 2012, pp. 6, 14; and mechanisms of payment for ecosystem services (Bray 2010, pp. 107– low for the Mesoamerica region (120 U.S. Department of State 2012, km2 (46 mi2), or 0.36 percent, per year) unpaginated; Dudley 2011, pp. 12–13, 109; Kaimowitz 2008, pp. 488–491; Pagiola 2008, entire; Sanchez-Azofeifa (FAO 2010a, p. 232). Deforestation in 15; Southern Pulse 2011, unpaginated; et al. 2003, entire). Subsequently, forest the country currently occurs primarily Radachowsky et al. in press, p. 5; cover has been increasing in the country in the Darien, Colon, Ngabe Bugle, and Dudley 2010, p. 14; Farah 2010, (a process referred to as afforestation). Bocas del Toro provinces (Blaser et al. unpaginated; Schmidt 2010, Costa Rica is the only country in Central 2011, p. 354), which are outside the unpaginated; Muccio 2009, p. 14; America to experience a positive change range in which scarlet macaws in Parkswatch 2005; Parkswatch 2003). in forest cover. Between 2000 and 2010, Panama are currently reported to occur. Several high-profile violent crimes in Costa Rica had afforestation rates of As mentioned above (see Distribution the area during 2010–2011 resulted in between 0.90 and 0.95 percent per year and Abundance), most of Panama’s violent confrontations between (FAO 2010a, p. 232), and total forest scarlet macaw population occurs on authorities and organized criminals and cover in 2005 was estimated to be 53 Coiba Island. Coiba Island, which is a declaration of a state of siege in the percent (Government of Costa Rica approximately 494 km2 (191 mi2), was area by Guatemala’s president and 2010, p. 68), more than double the used by the government of Panama as a cabinet (WCS 2011, p. 4). The increased country’s forest cover in the 1980s. penal colony until 2004, which limited violence and fear of retaliation by Some level of deforestation still occurs previous human access and criminals has hindered enforcement and in some areas of the country due to development on the island (Government prosecution of law in the area, and, illegal logging in private forests, illegal of Panama 2005, p. 23; Steinitz et al. along with turnover in political activities in national parks and reserves, 2005, p. 26). Consequently, forests on administrations and key political and and expansion of agriculture and the island remain largely intact. Coiba agency personnel, pose significant risk livestock activities (Government of National Park was established, by law, to forest conservation efforts in the Costa Rica 2011, p. 2; Government of in 2004, and is currently a World Maya Biosphere Reserve (WCS 2011, pp. Costa Rica 2010, pp. 10–11, 38, 52–54; Heritage Site (Suman et al. 2010, p. 7; 4–5; WCS 2010, pp. 4–5). Parks in Peril 2008, unpaginated). Government of Panama 2005, p. 11). Although forest conservation Corcovado National Park, the largest Available information indicates that measures exist in the other countries in protected area in ACOSA, has been some level of deforestation or forest this region (Belize Ministry of Natural identified as one of the protected areas degradation on the island is occurring as Resources and Environment 2010, pp. in Costa Rica most affected by the result of vegetation trampling and 54–58; Bray 2010, pp. 99, 102–103, 106; deforestation close to its boundaries soil erosion by a herd of approximately Hansen and Florez 2008, pp. 9–12, 17– (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128– 2,500 to 3,500 feral cattle (Smithsonian 20; Kaimowitz 2008, pp. 488–491; 129). However, the scarlet macaw Tropical Research Institute 2011, McGinley et al. 2009, pp. 27–33), we are population in this region appears to be unpaginated; Suman et al. 2010, p. 25). unaware of any information indicating increasing (see Distribution and Although the removal of cattle from these conservation measures are Abundance), and we are unaware of any Coiba National Park is considered a significantly reducing deforestation and information indicating that priority issue (Suman et al. 2010, p. 25), forest degradation within the current deforestation or forest degradation in the cattle removal effort has had few range of the species. For this reason, and the current range of the scarlet macaw results to date (UNESCO 2011c, p. 61). because (1) the much reduced and in Costa Rica is occurring at a level that The herd is reported to be growing and limited forest habitat in these countries is causing or likely to cause a decline in increasingly impacting the island’s is still being cleared in these countries, the species. The government of Costa vegetation (Smithsonian Tropical and (2) the habitat of up to 25 percent Rica has proposed building an Research Institute 2011, unpaginated), of Guatemala’s population is still at high international airport in ACOSA, where although the extent of this impact is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

unknown. Because Coiba National Park that is likely to have a negative impact et al. 2011, p. 275). Deforestation in the has been classified as a World Heritage on the species in Costa Rica, either now Amazon occurs primarily along the Site, UNESCO evaluates threats to the or in the foreseeable future. south and east edge of the Amazon park using a standard method it Basin in the Brazilian states of South America developed for this purpose. They Rondonia, Para, , and , categorize threats to Coiba National Park As indicated above, we focus here on an area referred to as the ‘‘arc of as increasing since 2008 (UNESCO the Amazon region and request deforestation’’ (Hansen et al. 2008, p. 2012d, unpaginated). The United information from the public on the 9440; Malhi et al. 2008, p. 169; Soares- Nations (UNESCO 2011c, pp. 59–63; status of the species in areas of Filho et al. 2006, pp. 521–522; Asner et UNEP–WCMC 2011b, unpaginated) Columbia and Venezuela (see al. 2005, entire), and in the northern reports several potential threats to the Information Requested) that lie outside state of Roraima (Instituto Nacional de park, including insufficient capacity to the Amazon Biome. Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) 2005, in control expected pressures from fishing, The Amazon is the world’s greatest Asner et al. 2005, p. 480). The tourism, and possible illegal expanse of tropical forest, originally remaining 20 percent of deforestation in 2 colonization and logging; delayed covering 6.2 million km (2.4 million the Amazon occurs in the remaining 2 implementation of management plans; mi ) (Hansen et al. 2010, p. 2; Foley et seven countries and one territory that and impacts of a newly constructed al. 2007, p. 25; Killeen 2007, p. 11; comprise the region. Recent average naval station on Coiba Island. Although Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. 522; Myers deforestation rates for these countries we are unaware of information on the and Myers 1992, in Bird et al. 2011, p. and territory, which in some cases probability or extent of impacts to 1). Although it has the world’s highest includes forest loss in areas outside the scarlet macaw habitat from these absolute rate of deforestation (FAO Amazon and outside the range of the threats, the World Heritage Centre and 2010a, pp. 232–233; Hansen et al. 2008, scarlet macaw, vary from nearly 0 entire; Neptstad et al. 2008, p. 1350; IUCN concluded that the main (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana) to Laurance et al. 2002, p. 738), vast tracts conservation concerns regarding this approximately 3,080 km2 (1,189 mi2) of remote, intact forest still remain site remain poorly addressed. (Bolivia) per year (FAO 2010a, p. 233). (Government of Guyana 2010, p. 6; Evidence suggests that within Hansen et al. 2010, p. 2; Jarvis et al. Deforestation in the Amazon is southern Central America, deforestation 2010, p. 185; Vergara and Scholz 2010, ongoing and expected to continue into and forest degradation are a current p. 3; Love et al. 2007, p. 63; Barreto et the future. Soares-Filho et al. (2006, p. threat to scarlet macaws in Panama, but al. 2006, pp. 45–53; Soares-Filho et al. 522) estimate loss of Amazon closed not in Costa Rica. Although we are 2006, pp. 521–522). As of 2003, forest canopy forest via modeling of different aware of little information on the cover of the region was an estimated 5.3 potential future scenarios. The most magnitude and extent of deforestation million km2 (2.0 million mi2) (Soares- pessimistic ‘‘business as usual’’ scenario and forest degradation on Panama’s Filho et al. 2006, p. 522). To date, investigated by Soares-Filho et al. Coiba Island, we consider deforestation approximately 18 percent of the region’s assumes that recent deforestation trends and forest degradation to be a significant forest has been cleared with average will continue, highways scheduled for threat to the scarlet maaws in Panama annual losses of approximately 18,000 paving will be paved, compliance with because (1) feral cattle are known to be km2 (6,950 mi2) per year (Instituto environmental legislation will remain currently impacting the forest on Coiba Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais 2011, low, new protected areas will not be Island; (2) conservation concerns, in Bird et al. 2011, p. 1). A roughly created, and up to 40 percent of the including the elimination of feral cattle, equal amount is estimated to be forests inside and 85 percent of the remain poorly addressed on the island; degraded by selective logging (Foley et forests outside of protected areas will be (3) most of the scarlet macaws in the al. 2007, p. 27; Asner et al. 2005, entire). deforested (Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. country occur on this island; (4) the Deforestation and forest degradation in 520). Results indicate that Amazon number of scarlet macaws in the entire the Amazon are largely the result of the closed canopy forest will be reduced country (fewer than 200) is extremely expansion of agriculture, cattle under this scenario from its current 5.3 small and thus more vulnerable to ranching, and logging. Other factors also million km2 (2.0 million mi2) to an extinction (see Factor E); (5) the range contribute, especially the construction estimated 3.2 million km2 (1.2 million of the species in this country is highly of roads that provide access to mi2) (53 percent of its original area), and restricted, primarily to Coiba Island previously remote areas and allow that future deforestation will continue which is only approximately 494 km2 further expansion of agriculture, to be concentrated primarily in the (191 mi2); and (6) scarlet macaws have ranching, mining, and other activities eastern and southern Brazilian Amazon. large home ranges (see Movements) and that result in more forest clearing and Large blocks of remote forest outside thus require large areas to survive. In degradation (Davidson et al. 2012, p. Brazil and in most of the northwest Costa Rica, the species numbers 323; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011, pp. Brazilian Amazon are projected to between approximately 800 and 2,000 3468–3469; May et al. 2011, pp. 6, 9–11; remain largely intact until 2050 (Soares- in ACOSA, and approximately 450 in Barona et al. 2010, entire; Foley 2007, Filho et al. 2006, p. 522). Soares-Filho ACOPAC. We are not aware of any pp. 26–27; Barreto et al. 2006, pp. 25– et al. consider their results to be information indicating that habitat loss 26; Morton et al. 2006, entire; Soares- conservative because they did not or destruction is affecting the Filho et al. 2006, p. 520; Asner et al. consider forest degradation due to population in ACOPAC. Despite the 2005, entire; Fearnside 2005, pp. 681– logging and fire, the potential effects of occurrence of activities causing some 683; Laurance et al. 2004, entire). Eighty global warming, or the loss of . level of deforestation in ACOSA, the percent (Malhi et al. 2008, p. 169) of the However, others suggest projected losses best available information suggests deforestation in the Amazon occurs in under Soares-Filho et al.’s ‘‘business as scarlet macaws in ACOSA may be Brazil, the country in which the usual’’ conditions may be too high increasing in numbers (see Distribution majority of the Amazon lies (Blaser et al. because rates of deforestation in the and Abundance). For these reasons, we 2011, p. 274). During 2005–2009, Brazil Amazon have declined during recent do not consider deforestation or forest lost approximately 10,700 km2 (4,131 years (Bird et al. 2011, p. 6), and Soares- degradation to be occurring at a level mi2) of Amazon forest per year (Blaser Filho et al. modeled future scenarios

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40233

using 1997–2002 deforestation rates that throughout the range of A. m. of intact Amazon forest are projected to don’t take into account recent trends cyanoptera, and we are unaware of remain in this region even under (Soares-Filho et al. 2006b, pp. 4–6)). information indicating these activities pessimistic deforestation conditions, we While deforestation in the Brazilian have been abated. As such, because do not consider habitat destruction and Amazon during 1996–2005 averaged scarlet macaws require large areas of modification to be a threat to the species approximately 19,500 km2 (7,529 mi2) habitat to meet their biological throughout its entire range now or in the per year, it averaged only about 7,000– requirements, the subspecies’ range is foreseeable future. In conclusion, 10,000 km2 (2,702–3,861 mi2) per year limited and fragmented, and although the scarlet macaw is during 2005–2009 due to several factors, deforestation is rapid and ongoing in threatened by habitat destruction or likely including extensive conservation these countries and occurs within the modification in some regions of its efforts by the Brazilian government range of the few remaining scarlet range, we do not consider habitat (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 275; May 2011, pp. macaw populations in the region, we destruction and modification to be a 16–18; Nepstad et al. 2009, p. 1350). conclude that habitat destruction or threat, either now or in the foreseeable Nepstad et al. (2008, entire) combined modification occurs at a level that is future, to the species throughout its Soares-Filho et al.’s pessimistic scenario having a negative impact on the range. However, we consider habitat with the future effects of drought and subspecies A. m. cyanoptera throughout destruction and modification to be an logging. They project 31 percent of the its range. In Costa Rica, previous levels immediate threat to the subspecies A. m. Amazon’s closed canopy forest would of deforestation eliminated much of the cyanoptera throughout its range be deforested and 24 percent would be forest in Costa Rica, including (Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, degraded by 2030. Nepstad et al.’s approximately 80 percent of scarlet and Nicaragua), and to the subspecies A. (2008, p. 1741) results also show large macaw habitat. However, current m. macao in Panama. tracts of Amazon forest remaining practices in Costa Rica have resulted in Factor B: Overutilization for outside Brazil and in northwest Brazil. a reversal in this trend; forest cover in Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Using the results of Soares-Filho et the country has increased substantially Educational Purposes al.’s most pessimistic and optimistic over the past 10 to 15 years and scenarios, BirdLife International (BLI) continues to increase. Although some Parrots and macaws have been used (2011c, unpaginated) projects the scarlet level of deforestation is occurring in the for centuries in the neotropics, as pets, macaw will lose 21.4 to 35 percent of its ACOSA, scarlet macaw numbers appear as a source of ornamental feathers, and Amazon habitat within three to be increasing in this region, for food (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. generations (38 years). Although this suggesting that habitat loss or 9; Guedes 2004, p. 279; Snyder et al. constitutes a loss of up to more than a modification is not posing a significant 2000, pp. 98–99). The threat of third of the species’ habitat in the threat to the species in this country. In overutilization of most species is region, evidence suggests that scarlet Panama, where one extremely small primarily attributed to capture for the macaws occur and are generally population of the species occurs, and in pet trade (Wright et al. 2001, p. 711; common throughout the Amazon (see a severely restricted range, mainly on Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150). Parrots have Distribution and Abundance) and that Coiba Island, the threat to habitat posed been traded for centuries in the large areas of intact forest will remain in by feral cattle and other factors likely neotropics (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, the region into the future, even under pose a significant immediate threat to p. 9; Guedes 2004, p. 279; Snyder et al. pessimistic conditions. Further, due to the scarlet macaws in this country. 2000, pp. 98–99) and in the past several the species level of tolerance of Despite threats to scarlet macaws in decades, capture for the pet trade and fragmented or degraded habitats, Mesoamerica, in the Amazon, where the habitat loss have become the main projected losses of forest habitat are vast majority of the species’ current threats to many parrot species (Guedes expected to result in less than a 25 range occurs, most of the species’ forest 2004, p. 279; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711). percent decline in the scarlet macaw habitat remains intact and remote from As with other parrots, the scarlet population (BLI 2011c, unpaginated). human impacts. Although extensive macaw is a long-lived species with a Therefore, we do not consider deforestation and forest degradation low reproductive rate (Lee 2010, p. 3; deforestation or forest degradation to be occur in the Amazon, primarily on its Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; Wright et al. a threat to the species in the Amazon south and east margins, even under 2001, p. 711). As a result, the species is now or in the foreseeable future. pessimistic circumstances, slow to recover from harvesting approximately half (53 percent, or over pressures, and these pressures can have Summary of Factor A 2 million km2 (0.8 million mi2)) of the a particularly devastating effect on the Deforestation and forest degradation Amazon forest, including large blocks of species (Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, are a threat to the scarlet macaw in some remote intact forest habitat, are p. 1121; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711; areas of its current range. Deforestation projected to remain until at least 2050. Munn et al. 1989, p. 410); removal of is a significant threat throughout the Although a decline in forest cover under individuals year after year can stop range of the subspecies A. m. this scenario is likely to cause a decline population growth and cause local cyanoptera (Mexico south to Nicaragua), in scarlet macaw numbers, the level of extirpations (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, where most of the species’ historical the decline is unlikely to place the p. 14). Both poaching of chicks from habitat has been eliminated, the species in danger of extinction in the nests and trapping adults are used for remaining habitat is fragmented, and foreseeable future because large areas of capturing scarlet macaws (Arevalo 2011, habitat occurs mainly in the few large the species’ habitat will remain. unpaginated; Dear et al. 2010, p. 19; isolated tracts of forest remaining in the Although the scarlet macaw is Bjork 2008, p. 15; Garcia et al. 2008, p. region. Deforestation rates in the region threatened by deforestation in most of 51; Hanks 2005, pp. 88–89; Herrera are the highest in Latin America, and Mesoamerica, this area comprises less 2004, p. 6; Portillo Reyes et al. 2004, in are often associated with illegal than 17 percent of the species’ range. McReynolds 2011, in litt.; Gonzalez activities that, due to weak governance Because the species is considered 2003, pp. 441–443; Vaughan et al. 2003, in the region, are difficult to control. common throughout the Amazon, which pp. 5, 8; Duplaix 2001, p. 7; Marineros Evidence indicates that deforestation comprises most (about 83 percent) of the and Vaughan 1995, p. 460). Where and forest degradation is ongoing species’ current range, and large tracts nestlings are targeted, there is a lag in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

population decline due to the long listing of the species in Appendix II of reservation, then that trade is subject to lifespan of adults (Wright 2001, p. 717). CITES in 1981, and, in 1985, it was the CITES permit requirements. Thus, declines may not be apparent for transferred to the more restrictive Based on CITES trade data obtained decades. Where adults are targeted, the Appendix I. CITES, an international from the United Nations Environment population is depleted more rapidly agreement between governments, Programme–World Conservation because reproductive individuals are ensures that the international trade of Monitoring Center CITES Trade removed from the population (Collar et CITES-listed plant and species Database, from the time the scarlet al. 1992, p. 6). The number of does not threaten those species’ survival macaw was transferred to CITES individuals actually sold or exported for in the wild. There are currently 175 Appendix I in 1985 through 2010, the pet trade only represents a portion CITES Parties (member countries or 14,210 specimens of scarlet macaw were of those removed from the population signatories to the Convention). Under reported in international trade. Of these, due to mortality associated with capture this treaty, CITES Parties regulate the 5,981 were live birds, 6,171 were and transport, which is estimated to be import, export, and re-export of feathers, and the remainder were such as high as 77 percent (Cantu-Guzman et specimens, parts, and products of items as eggs, dead bodies, derivatives, al. 2007, p. 60). Certain capture methods CITES-listed plant and animal species and scientific specimens. In analyzing may also contribute to population (see Factor D discussion). Trade must be these data, it appears that a number of declines by destroying the already authorized through a system of permits records in the database may be over- limited number of trees that have and certificates that are provided by the counts due to slight differences in the suitable nest cavities (Munn 1992, pp. designated CITES Scientific and manner in which the importing and 55–56), thus limiting the number of Management Authorities of each CITES exporting countries reported their trade. pairs that can breed in an area. Party (CITES 2010, unpaginated). In It is likely that the actual number of The scarlet macaw is a popular pet 1981, the scarlet macaw was listed in scarlet macaw specimens in species within its range countries Appendix II of CITES, which includes international trade during this period (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Wiedenfeld species not necessarily threatened with was 13,075, of which 5,175 were live 1994, p. 102), and capture for sale in extinction, but in which trade must be birds, and 5,850 were feathers. Because local markets can provide a significant controlled in order to avoid utilization the scarlet macaw is listed in Appendix source of supplemental income in rural incompatible with their survival I of CITES, legal commercial areas (Huson 2010, p. 58; Gonzalez (UNEP–WCMC 2012, unpaginated; international trade, especially trade in 2003, p. 438). Once a species becomes CITES 2010, unpaginated). In 1985, the specimens obtained from the wild, is rare in the wild, demand often species was transferred from Appendix limited. Of the 13,075 specimens that increases, creating a greater demand for II to Appendix I. An Appendix-I listing were likely in trade between 1985 and the species and increasing harvesting includes species threatened with 2010, the majority (7,890, or 60 percent) pressure (Herrera and Hennessey 2009, extinction whose trade is permitted only were either captive-born or captive- p. 234; Wright et al.. 2001, p. 717). under exceptional circumstances, which bred, pre-convention specimens, from Species priced above $500 U.S. dollars generally precludes commercial trade. unknown sources, or were confiscated (USD) are more likely to be imported The import of an Appendix-I species or seized due to lack of certification or into a country illegally, and higher requires the issuance of both an import authorization to import. The remaining prices often drive poaching rates and export permit. Import permits for 5,185 (40 percent) were wild specimens (including 2,454 feathers, 1,716 live (Wright et al.2001, p. 718). The scarlet Appendix-I species are issued only if macaw is a larger and more expensive birds, 940 scientific specimens, 3 findings are made that the import would species; prices in the United States may bodies, 1 derivative, and 71 be for purposes that are not detrimental reach over $2,000 USD (Cantu-Guzman unspecified). Of these wild specimens, to the survival of the species in the wild et al. 2007, p. 73). only 834 (16 percent) were traded for and would not be for primarily commercial purposes. All 834 were live Legal International Trade commercial purposes (CITES Article birds, of which 831 (99.6 percent) were III(3)). Export permits for Appendix-I The United States and Europe were exported from Suriname (the other three species are issued only if findings are historically the main markets for wild were exported from Honduras). The made that the specimen was legally birds in international trade (FAO 2011b, remaining 4,351 wild specimens were p. 3). Trade in parrots was particularly acquired and trade is not detrimental to traded for educational, captive high in the 1980’s due to a huge demand the survival of the species in the wild, propagation, scientific, personal, or from developed countries (Rosales et al.. and if the issuing authority is satisfied similar purposes. Regardless of purpose, 2007, pp. 85, 94; Best et al.. 1995, p. that an import permit has been granted most (1,629, or 95 percent) of the total 234). In the years following the for the specimen (CITES Article III(2)). of 1,716 live, wild-sourced scarlet enactment of the U.S. Wild Bird On the same date that the scarlet macaws that were in trade during 1985 Conservation Act in 1992 (WBCA; 16 macaw was placed in Appendix I, to 2010 were exported from Suriname. U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), studies found lower Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Suriname is the only scarlet macaw poaching levels than in prior years, Suriname entered a reservation stating range country that filed a reservation on suggesting that import bans in that they would not be bound by the the transfer of the species from CITES developed countries reduced poaching provisions of CITES relating to Appendix II to the more restrictive levels in exporting countries (Wright et international trade in scarlet macaws Appendix I. Suriname is one of only al. 2001, pp. 715, 718). The European (Austria withdrew its reservation in two countries in South America that Union, which was the largest market for 1989) (UNEP–WCMC 2012, still legally export significant quantities wild birds following enactment of the unpaginated). A reservation means that of wildlife (Duplaix 2001, p. ii). Wildlife WBCA, banned the import of wild birds these countries are treated as non-CITES exports generate significant income and in 2006 (FAO 2011b, p. 21), thus parties with respect to the species jobs in Suriname, and the country has eliminating another market for wild concerned. However, if a country with set an annual voluntary export quota of birds in international trade. a reservation on a particular species from 100 to 133 scarlet macaws for the International trade of the scarlet wishes to trade in that species with a past several years (UNEP–WCMC 2012, macaw was initially restricted by the country that has not taken the same unpaginated). Suriname’s wildlife

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40235

export quotas are reported to be Guatemala, and Belize, where the three appears to have decreased since 2005, ‘‘realistic’’ in that they are based on the subpopulations total approximately 400 and, according to Lafeber Conservation belief that larger parrots cannot sustain scarlet macaws. Although information & Wildlife (2011, unpaginated), the large harvests (Duplaix 2001, pp. 10, 65, on the extent of poaching in Mexico is scarlet macaw is experiencing severe 68). Further, actual exports of CITES unavailable, according to Boyd and reproductive limits due to poaching. In listed species are often lower than McNab (2008, p. xiii), reproductive a 2010–2011 survey of 20 parrot nests, Suriname’s allowed quotas (FAO 2010b, success is almost certainly lower in 16 of which were scarlet macaw nests, p. 42; Duplaix 2001, p. 10). Mexico than in Guatemala, where many 17 showed evidence of past or recent Because most specimens of scarlet nests are protected. Cantu-Guzman et al. poaching (Lafeber Conservation & macaw reported in trade were from non- (2007, p. 35) indicate that up to 50 Wildlife 2011, unpaginated). In 2003, an wild sources, were seized, or were scarlet macaws are captured annually in estimated 200 to 300 chicks were feathers rather than whole birds, and Mexico, although some of these may be poached in the Rus Rus area alone because most wild-sourced, live birds from Central American countries. (Portillo Reyes et al. 2004, in were exported from Suriname, which is Further, detained traffickers report that McReynolds 2011, in litt.). Although reported to set realistic quotas, we have parrot populations in Chiapas (the quantitative information on the impacts determined that legal international trade primary state in which the species of poaching on scarlet macaws is not controlled via valid CITES permits is occurs in Mexico) have decreased so available for these countries, the not a threat to the species. much that trapping is now conducted in available evidence suggests poaching is Despite regulation of international natural protected areas in Chiapas occurring at significant levels. scarlet macaw trade through CITES, (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 14). In Costa Rica there is still some level of illegal Guatemala, much of the scarlet macaw international trade in wild scarlet population is currently protected Scarlet macaws in Costa Rica have macaws (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; through conservation efforts. However, experienced heavy poaching pressure in Duplaix 2001, p. 8), although most up to 25 percent is not protected, and the recent past. In field studies harvested birds probably remain within it is likely that most unprotected nests conducted in the 1990s, 56 to 64 percent the species’ range countries (Snyder et in the country are poached (Garcia et al. of evaluated nest sites in the Carara al. 2000, p. 150). 2008, p. 51; Boyd and McNab 2008, pp. National Park region showed signs of being poached (Vaughan et al. 2003, pp. Illegal Trade in Mesoamerica v–vi). In Belize, Arevalo (2011, unpaginated) reports that 50 percent, 6, 8; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; The scarlet macaw is particularly 47.4 percent, and 89 percent of Marineros and Vaughan 1995, p. 460). threatened by capture for the pet trade monitored nests were poached in 2008, Vaughan et al. (2005, pp. 127) suggest in Mesoamerica, where the species’ 2010, and 2011, respectively. Modeling intense anti-poaching efforts in this populations are isolated and small. The research indicates that poaching is one region during 1995–1996 may have scarlet macaw is protected by domestic of the most important factors resulted in increased recruitment into laws within all countries in influencing scarlet macaw population the population. The authors also suggest Mesoamerica (Nicaragua Ministerio del growth in the Maya Forest and that the scarlet macaw population was self- Ambiente y Los Recursos Naturales relatively low levels of poaching could sustaining from 1996–2003, despite 2010, pp. 3708–3709; Traffic North result in population declines (Clum heavy poaching pressure. However, America (Traffic NA) 2009, pp. 40, 44– 2008, pp. 76, 78–80). poaching pressure appears to be 46; Animal Legal and Historical Center increasing in this region. Officials in 2008, unpaginated; Keller and Schmitt Honduras and Nicaragua Carara National Park indicate that 2008, abstract; Pereira 2007, p. 34; Little quantitative information on poaching of wildlife is becoming more Parker et al. 2004, Annex H, poaching of scarlet macaws in prominent and is believed to be unpaginated; CITES 2001, p. 7; Nicaragua and Honduras is available, occurring at unsustainable levels Government of Belize 2000, entire; although poaching of the species is (Huson 2010, p. 19). Park officials Renton 2000, p. 255). However, the recognized as a problem in these believe lack of funding and capacity agencies responsible for enforcing countries (Traffic NA 2009, p. 5). prevents them from effectively wildlife laws in these countries Capture of parrots for the pet trade is controlling poaching in the park. From generally do not have the resources or described as common in Nicaragua 2004 to 2009, there were only 26 funding to adequately enforce these (Herrera 2004, p. 1), and up to four seizures of poached animals, totaling 31 laws (Traffic NA 2009, p. 20; Valdez et times as many parrots are captured than animals. Although most (39 percent) of al. 2006, p. 276; Mauri 2002, entire). make it to market due to mortalities these were paca (Cuniculus paca), The general public perception in the during capture and transport poached animals also included scarlet region is that the probability of being (Engebretson 2006, in Weston and macaw chicks (Huson 2010, p. 19), and punished for breaking wildlife-related Mamon 2009, p. 79). Evidence indicates scarlet macaws were among the top four laws is low, and that, even if caught, that parrot populations in Nicaragua species identified by park officials as sanctions dictated by law are usually have declined by as much as 60 percent most at risk of poaching or local not applied. Further, low salaries and since the mid-1990s, although loss of extinction or both (Huson 2010, p. 20). high unemployment in the region drives habitat has also likely contributed to Based on surveys of local residents, people to search for additional sources this decline (Nicaragua Ministerio del Huson (2010, entire) estimated the of income (Traffic NA 2009, pp. 23–24). Ambiente y Los Recursos Naturales number of individuals poached of six As a result, scarlet macaws are still (MARENA) 2008, p. 51). Scarlet macaws species (three birds and three captured throughout the region and are one of the three most preferred mammals). While a relatively small traded illegally (see the following species in Nicaragua’s parrot trade and portion of the estimated number of subsections). are among the main CITES species individuals hunted or extracted from harvested for illegal trade in the country the park were scarlet macaws, Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize (McGinley et al. 2009, p. 16; Lezama approximately 19 scarlet macaw chicks Poaching occurs at significant levels 2008, abstract; MARENA 2008, p. 25). In were estimated to be removed from the in the Maya Forest region of Mexico, Honduras, the scarlet macaw population park per month, although the author

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

indicated that, due to limitations of the Panama 2005, p. 36). According to authors (2009, p. 233) recorded only 50 study, this estimate is likely exaggerated Parker et al. (2004, p. II–6), trade in rare scarlet macaws during a 4-year period in (Huson 2010, p. 59). and endangered species is a constant the same market. In Guyana, Hanks Human population densities and threat in the country, due to the high (2005, p. 27, 84) reports that trappers on accessibility in ACOSA are lower than prices paid for these animals and their the Courantyne River system in Guyana in ACOPAC, and estimates of the scarlet parts. Although poaching is not sell about 200 scarlet macaws every macaw population in ACOSA range identified as a main threat to trapping season, despite the country’s from 800–1,200 to 2,000 individuals. biodiversity within Coiba and Cerro zero quota for the species. However, During 2005, Dear et al. (2010, entire) Hoya National Parks (Parker et al. 2004, Hanks also indicates the species is fairly interviewed 105 non-randomly selected Annex G, unpaginated), capture for the common in Guyana. Hanks (2005, p. 8) residents (with knowledge of wildlife or illegal pet trade is identified as being a also reports anecdotal information that long-term residency) at 35 sites in threat to the species in this country indicates captured scarlet macaws are ACOSA about scarlet macaws in their (Keller and Schmitt 2008, abstract). For smuggled between Guyana and area. Interview responses suggest the these reasons, it is reasonable to Suriname. level of poaching has decreased in the conclude that some level of poaching of Scarlet macaws are generally region. However, poaching still occurs scarlet macaws likely occurs in the considered common and widespread and still threatens the population (Dear country, although at what level is within the Amazon. Although there is et al. 2010, p. 19). Interview responses unknown. However, because the current evidence that some level of illegal trade suggest that 25–50 scarlet macaw chicks population of scarlet macaws in Panama of scarlet macaws occurs within the are poached annually (Dear et al. 2010, is extremely small (fewer than 200 Amazon, and that harvesting of the p. 19). Additionally, Guittar et al. (2009, individuals) and isolated, and the species was heavy at one time in pp. 390, 392) report that of 57 potential species’ demographic traits and low rate northeast Peru, evidence suggests the nest cavities found in ACOSA in 2006, of reproduction render them susceptible current level of trade is low. Although 11 (19 percent) were reported by local to overharvesting, even low levels of the study by Gonzalez (2003, entire) residents as recently poached, although poaching would likely have a negative suggests a high level of harvest of the the authors suggest the actual number of effect on the population in Panama. species in northeast Peru, a more recent nests poached is likely greater. Thus, we consider poaching to be a and national scale study suggests a low Although 85 percent of ACOSA significant threat to the species in level of scarlet macaw trade in the residents interviewed by Dear et al. Panama. country. Based on what little (2010, p. 10) believed scarlet macaws information exists on non-CITES were more abundant in 2005 than in Illegal Trade in South America regulated trade in South America, it 2000, and scarlet macaws were not There is evidence of a market for appears that this trade does not occur at determined to be at risk of extinction national and international parrot trade a level that would put the species in during a 2006 review of parrot within the range of the scarlet macaw in danger of extinction in this region now populations in Costa Rica (see South America, much of which involves or in the foreseeable future. Distribution and Abundance), illegally traded birds (Gastan˜ aga et al. interviews of residents by Guittar et al. 2011, entire; Lee 2010, p. 12; Herrera Hunting (2009, p. 390) suggest a significant and Hennessey 2007, pp. 296–297). Scarlet macaws are known to be proportion (19 percent) of nests in However, there is little evidence that hunted in some areas of their range for ACOSA are poached. Further, recent scarlet macaws are a significant part of meat or feathers (Maldonado 2010, p. information suggests poaching of that trade. Gonzalez (2003, entire) 60; Salas and Meerman 2008, p. 42; wildlife is on the rise and has reached reported results of a parrot-harvesting Heemskerk and Delvoye 2007, p. 300; unsustainable levels in ACOPAC. study in northeast Peru during 1996– Thiollay 2005, entire; Burger and Because (1) scarlet macaws are 1999, which suggested that the illegal Gothfeld 2003, p. 23; CITES 2001, p. 7; susceptible to overharvest due to their harvest of scarlet macaws was not Duplaix 2001, pp. 7, 64; Ridgely and demographic traits and naturally low sustainable and posed a long-term threat Gwynne 1989, p. 173; Munn 1992, pp. rate of reproduction, (2) the populations to the species. However, according to 56–57; Saffirio and Skaglion, 1982, p. in Costa Rica are additionally at risk Brightsmith (2009, in litt.), recent 321). However, information on the because they are relatively small and are studies indicate that scarlet macaws are effects of hunting on scarlet macaw isolated, (3) poaching at one of the only not particularly common in Peru’s populations is limited. Maldonado two viable populations in the country is national pet trade. Only 38 scarlet (2010, entire) reported that parrot on the rise and park officials believe macaws were seen during over 500 species comprised only 40 (1.9 percent) they do not have the resources to visits to Peru markets during 2007–2009 of a total of 2,101 game species control it, and (4) a significant (Brightsmith 2009, in litt.). A study harvested by subsistence hunters during proportion of nests in the other of the conducted in wildlife markets in eight a 4-year period over approximately 400 two viable populations are reported to of Peru’s capital cities detected only km2 (154 mi2) of the Columbian be poached, it is reasonable to conclude four scarlet macaws during quarterly Amazon. Only one scarlet macaw was that poaching is having a significant surveys conducted over a 1-year period reported harvested during the study, impact on the species in Costa Rica. during 2007 to 2008 (Gastanaga et al. although harvested animals also Thus, we consider poaching to be a 2011, entire). In Bolivia, a study included 31 unidentified macaws in the significant threat to the species in Costa conducted in Santa Cruz, a city that Ara. Thiollay (2005, p. 1129) Rica. receives much of the trade from reported that encounter rates and mean Bolivia’s lowland savannas and flock size of Ara macaws in French Panama rainforest, recorded 7,279 individual Guiana were significantly higher in non- Little information is available on parrots at a market during a 1-year hunted than regularly hunted sites. capture of scarlet macaws for trade in period, 306 of which were macaws Hunted sites were easily accessible and Panama. Coiba and Cerro Hoya National (Herrera and Hennessy 2007, p. 297). disturbed to some degree, whereas non- Parks are located within Panama’s most However, only 4 of these were scarlet hunted sites were pristine, undisturbed impoverished province (Government of macaws. A later report by the same forest. Although the study indicates that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40237

current levels of macaw hunting in Recreational, Scientific, or Educational percent of the species’ global range. French Guiana may be unsustainable in Purposes Therefore, although we consider regularly hunted areas, the portion of We are not aware of any information overutilization to be occurring at forest regularly hunted in this country is indicating that overutilization for significant levels throughout likely extremely low. Ninety-five recreational, scientific, or educational Mesoamerica, we conclude that percent of French Guiana forest is purposes is a threat to the species overutilization due to commercial, undisturbed primary forest (FAO 2010a, anywhere in the species’ current range. recreational, scientific, or educational p. 14, 54). Further, French Guiana has purposes is not occurring at a level that a very low human population density Summary of Factor B poses a significant threat to the species (Van Andel et al. 2003, p. 66; Hanks Overutilization of scarlet macaws, throughout its range now or in the 2005, p. 16; United Nations Department primarily as a result of poaching for the foreseeable future. of Economic and Social Affairs 2010, pet trade, is a threat to the scarlet Factor C. Disease or Predation entire), has the highest proportion (98 macaw in some areas of its current Disease percent) of its area in forest than any range. Capture for the pet trade is a other country or territory in the world significant and immediate threat to the Infectious diseases can pose many (FAO 2010a, p. 14), and much of its species throughout the range of the direct threats to individual birds as well forest is not easily accessible (Comptes subspecies A. m. cyanoptera (Mexico, as entire flocks (Abramson et al. 1995, e´conomiques rapides pour l’Outre-mer Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and p. 287), and parrots are susceptible to a (CEROM) 2008, pp. 4, 7–8). Thus, much Nicaragua), where the species occurs variety of lethal, infectious diseases, of French Guiana’s forest is unlikely to mainly in small, isolated populations. including, among others, Pacheco’s be as regularly hunted as the hunted Evidence suggests poaching occurs at disease (psittacine herpesvirus), proventricular dilatation disease, sites reported by Thiollay. A study significant levels in the Maya Forest and disease, and Newcastle’s conducted in southeast Peru indicates region, where modeling indicates that even moderate levels of poaching could disease (Kistler et al. 2008, p. 1; Rahaus that the number of large macaws is cause a decline in already small et al. 2008, p. 53; Tomaszewski et al. significantly lower in areas subject to populations. Although quantitative data 2006, p. 536; Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. moderate to intense hunting, and that from Honduras and Nicaragua are 465; Abramson et al. 1995, pp. 288, 293, even moderate levels of hunting lacking, evidence suggests poaching 296; Gaskin 1989, entire; Panigrahy and appeared to be sufficient to extirpate occurs at significant levels in this region Grumbles 1984, p. 811). However, most large macaws from large regions of the as well. Within the range of the of the available research on disease in Amazon (Munn 1992, pp. 56–57). subspecies A. m. macao in Costa Rica, parrots addresses captive-held birds, However, the levels at which the scarlet evidence indicates poaching of wildlife while information on the health of macaw is hunted across the Amazon are in one of the two viable populations in parrots in the wild is scarce (Karesh et unknown. Thus, it is difficult to the country has increased to al. 1997, p. 368). Burton and determine whether hunting poses a unsustainable levels, and increased Brightsmith (2010, entire) tested parrots, threat to the species in this region. We access to, and thus likely poaching of, including wild and hand-reared scarlet are unaware of any information on the second population will likely macaws, at a site in Peru for the current levels of hunting in increase in the foreseeable future as the presence of Salmonella and found no Mesoamerica. Illegal xate´ (palms of the result of an expanding transportation evidence of the disease in these birds, genus Chamaedorea) collectors are network in the region. Although although over 30 percent of domestic known to kill scarlet macaws for food in information is limited in Panama, it is fowl at the site tested positive. Karesh the Chiquibul Forest of Belize (Salas reasonable to conclude that some level et al. (1997, entire) tested scarlet and Meerman 2008, p. 42), but the of poaching occurs because trade in rare macaws, and other macaws, for several extent of this activity is unknown. In and endangered species is a constant diseases at a different site in Peru and Guatemala’s Maya Biosphere Reserve threat in the country due to the high detected the presence of two diseases, forest concessions, Radachowsky et al. prices paid for these animals and their Salmonella spp. and psittacine (in press, p. 7) found that densities of parts, and poaching has been identified herpesvirus, in some birds. However, large terrestrial birds were three times specifically as a threat to scarlet macaws Karesh et al. did not identify which lower in areas of high human access in this country. Further, because the species or strain of Salmonella was than in areas with difficult access. population is isolated and extremely infecting the macaws they tested, and Although this may suggest hunting has small, it is also reasonable to conclude the effects of infection by salmonella are an impact on scarlet macaw that any level of poaching on this highly dependent on several factors, populations, in the case of parrot population poses a significant threat to including the virulence of the strain and species like the scarlet macaw, these the species. We are not aware of any the susceptibility of the host species declines may also be the result of information indicating that poaching (Friend 1999, p. 103). Further, the poaching for the pet trade. levels in any of these countries will effects of psittacine herpesvirus can decrease at any time in the foreseeable vary, and the prevalence or clinical Although hunting may pose a threat future. significance of the disease in free- to scarlet macaws in some areas, we are Despite the threat of overutilization of ranging species is unknown (Karesh et not aware of any information indicating scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica, the al. 1997, pp. 374–376). Nycander et al. that hunting occurs at a level that places available information suggests that (1995, p. 433) detected three types of the species in danger of extinction overutilization is not a threat in the ectoparasites (botflys, mites, and lice) throughout all or any part of its range. Amazon of South America, where the on macaw (Ara sp.) nestlings at a site in We are also not aware of any vast majority of the species’ current Peru. Three out of 63 nestlings appeared information indicating that hunting may range and worldwide population occurs. to have died from infestations of these place the species in danger of extinction Scarlet macaws are generally considered organisms. Nycander et al. also report within the foreseeable future throughout common in the Amazon, and the the presence of intestinal parasites all or any portion of its range. Amazon comprises approximately 83 (Ascaris galli and Heterakis sp.) and a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40238 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

blood parasite (Plasmodium elongatum), et al. (1995, pp. 431–433) report that Resources and Development 2010, pp. but affected nestlings appeared healthy predators took substantial numbers of 54, 57–58; Blaser et al. 2010, pp. 263– or showed no signs of clinical macaw (Ara sp.) eggs and young at a site 267, 277–281, 291–293, 300–302, 311– symptoms. Although these and other in southeast Peru, but they provide no 312, 320–323, 334–337, 345–346, 365– diseases could negatively affect scarlet indication that predation posed a 367, 376–377, 394–396; CIFOR 2010, p. macaws, we are not aware of any significant threat to any of the three 45; FAO 2010a, pp. 150–158, 302–303; information indicating that disease macaw species (including scarlet Government of Belize 2010, pp. 27–34; poses a significant threat to the species macaws) studied. Twenty percent of Sparovek 2010, pp. 6046–6047; Tolisano as a whole, although it may pose a scarlet macaw eggs were predated, and and Lopez-Selva 2010, pp. 24–28; Bauch greater threat to small, isolated 30 percent of chicks died from et al. 2009, entire; McGinley et al. 2009, populations in parts of the species’ predation or parasite infection. Also in pp. 18–30; Patriota 2009, pp. 612–615; range (see Factor E). southeast Peru, Brightsmith (2010, Trevin and Nasi 2009, entire; Byers and Israel 2008, pp. 29–34; Torres-Lezama et Predation unpaginated) reports only 1 percent to 8 percent of scarlet macaw nests fail as al. 2008, entire; Hopkins 2007, pp. 398– Few predators (e.g., hawk eagles) are a result of predation, and also provides 405; Playfair 2007, entire; Portilla and large enough to capture adult macaws, no indication that this level of predation Eguren 2007, pp. 19–32; World Bank and predators that are large enough poses a threat to the species. 2007, pp. 10–28, 71–76; Clark 2006, pp. occur at naturally low densities 19–29; Grenand et al. 2006, pp. 49, 54– (Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 469). Summary of Factor C 56; Baal 2005, unpaginated; Parker et al. Consequently, it is likely that predation Although scarlet macaws are subject 2004, pp. III–1–III–8, Annex H, Annex of adults is uncommon, and that most to disease and predation, and predation I; Government of Belize 2003, entire; predation occurs on eggs, nestlings, and appears to be a threat to individuals in Bevilacqua et al. 2002, pp. 6–9; Mauri newly fledged birds. These earlier life Guatemala, we found no evidence that 2002, entire; Vreugdenhil et al. 2002, stages are reported to be predated disease or predation is occurring at a pp. 6–10). mainly by raptors (birds of prey), level that places the species in danger As discussed above under Factor A, reptiles, and small to medium-sized of extinction at this time or is likely to we do not find habitat destruction or mammals. Predators and potential place the species in danger of extinction modification to be occurring at a level predators include falcons (Micrastur in the foreseeable future. that poses a significant threat to the semitorquatus, Micrastur ruficollis, species throughout all of its range. Thus, Falco rufigularis), (Ramphastos Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing it is reasonable to conclude that the swainsonii, R. cuvieri, Pteroglossus Regulatory Mechanisms regulating mechanisms addressing this castanotis), black iguanas (Ctenosaura Habitat Destruction and Modification threat are adequate at protecting the similis), tayras (Eira barbara, a large species at a global level. Therefore, we weasel), monkeys (Ateles paniscus, Scarlet macaws occur in and require conclude that inadequacy of existing Saimiri sciureus, Cebus capucinus), forest habitat for their survival. National regulatory mechanisms for addressing opossums ( marsupialis), rats forest policy and the legal framework habitat destruction or modification is (unknown sp.), and cockroaches related to forests constitute the basis for not a threat to the scarlet macaw (unknown sp.) (Renton and Brightsmith sustainable forest management (FAO throughout all of its range. However, we 2009, p. 5; Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 51– 2010a, pp. 150). With the exception of determined that habitat destruction or 52; Anleu et al. 2005, p. 45; Vaughan et Belize, all scarlet macaw range countries modification in the form of al. 2003, p. 10; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 83; have a national or subnational policy deforestation and forest degradation Nycander et al. 1995, p. 433). framework on forests and their occurs at a level that is likely to Few studies on the level and effects management. Of those countries with a negatively impact the species of predation on scarlet macaw policy framework, all but throughout all of the range of the populations have been reported. In have specific laws in subspecies A. m. cyanoptera, and in the Guatemala, where the population is very support of these policies, but laws range of the subspecies A. m. macao in small, cameras placed in five nests supporting national forest policy in Panama. Because deforestation and recorded predation of three chicks by Colombia are incorporated within other forest degradation are ongoing and pose collared forest falcons (Micrastur laws. All range countries except Belize immediate significant threats to scarlet semitorquatus) (Garcia et al. 2008b, in and Venezuela also have National Forest macaws in these regions, it is reasonable Garcia et al. 2008a, pp. 51–52; WCS programs that provide the framework to to conclude that the regulatory 2008, p. 3). Scarlet macaws usually develop and implement their forest mechanisms addressing this threat in hatch one or two chicks (Garcia et al. policies, although the status of Panama’s these regions are inadequate. Therefore, 2008a, p. 61; Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 80– program is unknown (for information on we conclude that the inadequacy of 81; Nycander 1995, p. 431), thus 30–60 regulatory mechanisms pertaining to existing regulatory mechanisms for percent of the observed chicks were forest management in scarlet macaw addressing habitat destruction or predated. Species with long generation range countries see: Claros et al. 2011, modification are a significant immediate times and low reproductive rates, such entire; Espinosa et al. 2011, pp. 21–26; threat to the subspecies A. m. as the scarlet macaw, take longer to FAO 2011c, p. 78; Government of cyanoptera throughout all of its range, recover from population declines, Colombia 2011, pp. 89–91, 203–211; and the subspecies A.m. macao in especially when populations are small. Guignier 2011, pp. 12–22; Larson and Panama. They are, therefore, more vulnerable to Petkova 2011, entire; May et al. 2011, extinction via increases in mortality pp. 16–55; Meerman et al. 2011, entire; Trade rates (Owens and Bennett 2000, p. Stern and Kernan 2011, pp. 52–54, 88– A variety of laws, regulations, and 12146; Owens and Bennett 1997, 90; United Nations Collaborative decrees form the policy framework that abstract). Garcia et al. (2008, p. 50) Programme on Reducing Emissions from governs wildlife conservation and use in identify predation as one of the four Deforestation and Forest Degradation in scarlet macaw range countries, main threats to the species in Developing Countries (UN–REDD) 2011, including national implementing Guatemala. In southeast Peru, Nycander unpaginated; Belize Ministry of Natural legislation for a variety of multilateral

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40239

agreements such as CITES (Traffic NA Summary of Factor D 140–144). Stochastic events that put 2009, pp. 11–13) (for information on As discussed under Factors A, B, C, small populations at risk of extinction regulatory mechanisms pertaining to and E, we do not find the potential include, but are not limited to, variation wildlife use in scarlet macaw range threats discussed under Factors A, B, C in birth and death rates, fluctuations in countries see: Ecolex 2012, unpaginated; and E to occur at a level that places the gender ratio, inbreeding depression, and Clayton 2011, unpaginated; de la Torre species in danger of extinction random environmental disturbances et al. 2011, entire; Embassy of the throughout its range now or in the such as fire, wind, and climatic shifts Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the foreseeable future. Thus, it is reasonable (e.g., Blomqvist et al. 2010, entire; United States 2011, unpaginated; to conclude that the regulating Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 27; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). The negative impacts Gastanaga et al. 2011, p. 77; Rincon mechanisms addressing these potential associated with small population size Rubiano 2011, pp. 112–113; Traffic NA threats are adequate at protecting the and vulnerability to random 2009, pp. 40–47; Animal Legal and species at a global level. Therefore, we conclude that inadequacy of existing demographic fluctuations or natural Historical Center 2008, unpaginated; catastrophes are further magnified by Byers and Israel 2008, pp. 29–34; Cantu- regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to the scarlet macaw throughout all of its synergistic interactions with other Guzman et al. 2007, pp. 24–33; Ecolex threats, such as those discussed above 2007a, unpaginated; Ecolex 2007b, range. However, we found potential threats discussed under Factors A and B (Factors A, B, and C). unpaginated; Herrera and Hennessey to be a threat to the species throughout Small, declining populations can be 2007, pp. 295–296; Portilla and Eguren all of the range of the subspecies A. m. especially vulnerable to environmental 2007, pp. 19–32; United Nations cyanoptera, and in the range of the disturbances such as habitat loss Environment Programme 2006, pp. 3–5; subspecies A. m. macao in Costa Rica (O’Grady et al. 2004, pp. 513–514). In Hanks 2005, pp. 71–76; Government of (Factor B) and Panama (Factors A and order for a population to sustain itself, Ecuador 2004, entire; Parker et al. 2004, B). Because these threats are ongoing there must be enough reproducing pp. III–1–III–2; Van Andel et al. 2003, and pose immediate threats to scarlet individuals (and habitat to sustain pp. 25, 49, 66–67, 80–85, 102–105, 122; macaws in these regions, it is reasonable them) to ensure its survival. CITES 2001, pp. 7–8; Duplaix 2001, pp. to conclude that the regulatory Conservation biology defines this as the 3–10, 47–51, 61–63; Government of mechanisms addressing these threats in ‘‘minimum viable population’’ (MVP) Belize 2000, entire; Global Legal these regions are inadequate. Therefore, requirement (Grumbine 1990, pp. 127– Information Network 1999, we conclude that the inadequacy of 128). Some studies (Traill et al. 2010, entire; Traill et al. 2007, entire; Brook et unpaginated; FAO 1996, unpaginated). existing regulatory mechanisms pose an al. 2006, entire; Reed et al. 2003, entire) As discussed above under Factor B, we immediate threat to the continued suggest that approximately 1,000 to do not find overutilization for existence of the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera throughout all of its range, 7,000 adults are required to ensure long- commercial, recreational, scientific, or term survival of a species, although educational purposes to be a threat to and the subspecies A. m. macao in Costa Rica and Panama. others argue that the general the species throughout all of its range. applicability of such estimates is not Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade scientifically supported, and that they the regulating mechanisms addressing Factors Affecting the Species’ are likely to be poor estimates of any this threat are adequate at protecting the Continued Existence specific population (Beissinger et al. species at a global level. Therefore, we Small Population Size and Cumulative 2011, entire; Flather et al. 2011a, entire; conclude that inadequacy of existing Effects of Threats Flather et al. 2011b, entire; Garnett and regulatory mechanisms for addressing Zander 2011, entire). Although common the threat of capture for the pet trade is Small, isolated populations place and widespread in the Amazon, the not a threat to the scarlet macaw species at greater risk of local scarlet macaw occurs in relatively small throughout all of its range. However, we extirpation or extinction due to a variety populations in Mesoamerica (ranging determined that overutilization in the of factors, including loss of genetic from a few pairs up to fewer than 2,000 form of capture for the pet trade occurs variability, inbreeding depression, individuals, with the total population at a level that is likely to negatively demographic stochasticity, size that is likely no greater than 4,000). impact the species throughout all of the environmental stochasticity, and natural Historically, the scarlet macaw in catastrophes (Lande 1995, entire; range of the subspecies A. m. Mesoamerica existed in much higher Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991, p. 37; cyanoptera, and in the range of the numbers in more continuous, connected Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 25–33; Soule subspecies A. m. macao in Costa Rica habitat. Its suitable habitat is becoming and Simberloff 1986, pp. 28–32; Shaffer and Panama. Because capture for the pet increasingly limited, and its suitable 1981, p. 131; Franklin 1980, entire). The habitat is not likely to expand in the trade is ongoing and poses an isolation of populations and consequent immediate significant threat to scarlet future. loss of genetic interchange may lead to The combined effects of habitat macaws in these regions, it is reasonable genetic deterioration, for example, that fragmentation and other factors on a to conclude that the regulatory has negative impacts on the population species can have profound effects and mechanisms addressing this threat in at different timescales. In the short term, can potentially reduce a species’ these regions are inadequate. Therefore, populations may suffer the deleterious respective effective population (the we conclude that the inadequacy of consequences of inbreeding; over the proportion of the actual population that existing regulatory mechanisms for long term, the loss of genetic variability contributes to future generations) by addressing overutilization for diminishes the capacity of the species to orders of magnitude (Gilpin and Soule´ commercial, recreational, scientific, or evolve by adapting to changes in the 1986, p. 31). For example, an increase educational purposes is a significant environment (e.g., Blomqvist et al. 2010, in habitat fragmentation can separate immediate threat to the subspecies A. m. entire; Reed and Frankham 2003, pp. populations to the point where cyanoptera throughout all of its range, 233–234; Nunney and Campbell 1993, individuals can no longer disperse and and the subspecies A. m. macao in pp. 236–237; Soule and Simberloff breed among habitat patches, causing a Costa Rica and Panama. 1986, pp. 28–29; Franklin 1980, pp. shift in the demographic characteristics

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

of a population and a reduction in for nest cavities with other macaws Climate Change genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soule´ 1986, occurs at a level that poses a threat to Our analyses under the Endangered p. 31). This is especially applicable for the species. The scarlet macaw is Species Act include consideration of on- scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica, where reported to be common in the Amazon, going and projected changes in climate. the species was once wide-ranging and which encompasses the Peruvian Described in general terms, ‘‘climate’’ has lost a significant amount of its portion of the species’ range. Further, refers to the mean and variability of historical range due to habitat loss and although a decline in the worldwide different types of weather conditions degradation. Furthermore, as a species’ population of scarlet macaws is over a long period of time, which may or population’s status continues to suspected (BLI 2011a, unpaginated), this be reported as decades, centuries, or decline, often as a result of suspected decline is not believed to be thousands of years. The term ‘‘climate deterministic forces such as habitat loss rapid (i.e., greater than 30 percent over change’’ thus refers to a change in the or overutilization, it will become 10 years or 3 generations). Further, we mean or variability of one or more increasingly vulnerable to other are not aware of any information measures of climate (e.g., temperature, impacts. If this trend continues, its indicating the species is declining in the precipitation) that persists for an ultimate extinction due to one or more Amazon (as opposed to in extended period, typically decades or stochastic (random or unpredictable) Mesoamerica), except in localized areas longer, whether the change is due to events becomes more likely. The scarlet around human population centers (see natural variability, human activity, or macaw’s current occupied and suitable Distribution and Abundance). both (Intergovernmental Panel on range in Mesoamerica is highly reduced Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 78). and fragmented. The small size of the Feral Africanized honey bees (Apis Various types of changes in climate can species’ populations in this region, and mellifera scutellata) are also reported to have direct or indirect effects on its reproductive and life-history traits, compete with scarlet macaws for nest species, and these may be positive or combined with its highly restricted and sites (Garcia et al. 2008, p. 52; Vaughan negative depending on the species and severely fragmented range, increases the et al. 2003, p. 13; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. other relevant considerations, such as vulnerability of the scarlet macaw in 61). Inigo-Elias (1996, p. 61) reported the effects of interactions with non- this region to other threats. them to be ‘‘a serious problem’’ during climate conditions (e.g., habitat The global scarlet macaw population his study of scarlet macaws in Mexico, fragmentation). We use our expert totals approximately 20,000 to 50,000 and Garcia et al. (2008, p. 52) consider judgment to weigh information, individuals. The majority of these birds them the most serious competitor for including uncertainty, in our occur in the Amazon, where the species scarlet macaw nest cavities in is generally common and widely consideration of various aspects of Guatemala. Africanized honey bees are climate change that are relevant to the distributed. Further, genetic studies an exotic species originally introduced indicate there is a high degree of genetic scarlet macaw. in Brazil in 1956 (Whitfield et al. 2006, Several studies project various variability throughout the species’ p. 644). They subsequently spread range. Consequently, the risks changes in climate in Mesoamerica and throughout South and Central America, the Amazon by the mid- to late century associated with small population size displacing naturalized European honey do not pose a threat to the species as a or sooner (Karmalkar et al. 2011, entire; bees, and arriving in Mexico, Kitoh et al. 2011, entire; Giorgi and Bi whole. However, most populations in Guatemala, and Belize around 1986 Mesoamerica are believed to range from 2009, entire; Anderson et al. 2008, (Whitfield et al. 2006, pp. 643–644; entire; Cook and Vizy 2008, entire; Li et fewer than 200 to about 700 individuals, Clarke et al. 2002 and Rogel et al. 1991, with only two possibly numbering al. 2008, entire; Christensen et al. 2007, in Berry et al. 2010, p. 486; Fierro et al. pp. 892–896). Although there are between 1,000 and 2,000. Therefore it is 1987, unpaginated). Africanized reasonable to conclude that the uncertainties in these models, and honeybees occur at higher densities and variation in projections, the general populations in Mesoamerica are are more aggressive than naturalized threatened by the synergistic trajectory under most scenarios is one of European honey bees (Rogel 1991 and interactions of small population size increased warming in Mesoamerica and Clarke et al. 2002, in Berry et al. 2010, and other threats such as those the Amazon, and increased drying in p. 486). They attack and drive away discussed in Factors A, B, and C above. Mesoamerica and some areas of the intruders in the vicinity of their Amazon. Several studies (Imbach et al. Competition for Nest Cavities colonies, preventing the use of cavities 2011, abstract; Marengo et al. 2011, Competition for suitable nest cavities in these areas by scarlet macaws. entire; Asner et al. 2010, entire; Vergara has the potential to limit reproductive Africanized honeybees also take over and Scholz 2010, entire; Malhi et al. success by limiting the number of pairs occupied scarlet macaw nest cavities, 2009, entire; Malhi et al. 2008, entire; that can breed, or by causing nest killing the chicks or causing them to Nepstad et al. 2008, entire) project mortality as a result of agonistic starve by driving off the nesting adults, changes in habitat in areas of the competitive interactions. Competition resulting in failure of the macaw nest species’ range, either from climate among different pairs of scarlet macaws, (Garcia et al. 2008, p. 52; Inigo-Elias change or from climate change in and between scarlet macaw pairs and 1996, p. 61). Inigo-Elias (1996, p. 61) combination with deforestation. pairs of other macaw species, is reports that Africanized honey bees However, high levels of uncertainty reported to be intense in some areas caused the failure of 3 of 41 nests during remain in projecting habitat changes (Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5; one breeding season. We are unaware of within the species’ range (see review by Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 96; Nycander 1995, any other data or information on the Davidson et al. 2012, entire), and there p. 428). At a remote study site in effects of honeybees on scarlet macaw is no consensus on the type or extent of southeast Peru, competition for nest nesting. Although competition for nest habitat changes that will occur. In sites with other macaws was found to be sites with honeybees appears to be a addition, the scarlet macaw has a high the primary source of nest failure threat to the species in the Maya Forest, level of genetic diversity, and is tolerant (Brightsmith 2010, unpaginated). we are unaware of any information of a relatively broad range of ecological Nevertheless, we are unaware of any indicating honeybees are a threat to the conditions. The species occurs in a information indicating that competition species throughout its range. variety of habitat types including wet

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40241

forest, dry forest, and savanna; has a and the species requires a large range compel a finding that the species broad and flexible diet; can nest in a and variety of food sources. These warrants listing. The information must variety of forest habitats provided they threats occur at a scale sufficient to include evidence indicating that the contain suitable nest cavities; and is affect the status of the species in threats are operative and, either singly known to inhabit patchworks of forest Mesoamerica both now and in the or in aggregation, affect the status of the and human-modified landscapes and future. In addition, the species’ current species. Threats are significant if they feed on introduced species (see range in Mesoamerica is highly drive, or contribute to, the risk of Biological Information). Thus, the restricted and severely fragmented. The extinction of the species, such that the scarlet macaw is likely to be able to species’ small population size, and its species warrants listing as endangered adapt to some level of change in its reproductive and life-history traits, or threatened, as those terms are defined environment provided forest remains. combined with its highly restricted and in the Act. Further, we are unaware of any severely fragmented range, increase the The scarlet macaw has the broadest information indicating that the effects of species’ vulnerability to adverse natural range of any macaw. Over 80 percent of climate change are now causing, or will events and human activities that the species’ range occurs in the in the future cause, declines in the eliminate habitat, reduce nesting Amazon, and the scarlet macaw is scarlet macaw population. success of breeding pairs, and remove considered widespread and relatively common in this region. Habitat Summary of Factor E individuals from these populations. The susceptibility to extirpation of limited- destruction and modification as a result Although small population size range species can occur for a variety of of deforestation and forest degradation combined with the cumulative effect of reasons, such as when a species’ occurs in the Amazon, but the majority other threats, and competition for nest remaining population is so small or its of the area affected occurs in south and cavities, is a threat to the scarlet macaw distribution so fragmented that it may east Brazil, and projected forest loss in in some areas of its range, we conclude no longer be demographically or the Amazon still leaves large areas of that small population size, competition genetically viable (Harris and Pimm intact forest outside Brazil and in for nest cavities, and climate change are 2004, pp. 1612–1613). Although northwest Brazil by 2050. Poaching for not impacting the scarlet macaw at a populations in this region have a high the pet trade and hunting occur, but we level that poses a threat to the species level of genetic diversity, they remain have no information indicating that the throughout its range. Further, we are not vulnerable to stochastic demographic magnitude of this threat places the aware of any information indicating that and environmental events. Therefore, species in danger of extinction any other factors not already discussed we find that the small sizes and isolated throughout its range now or in the under Factors A, B, C, and D pose a ranges of populations of the species in foreseeable future. In Peru, where threat to the species throughout all of its Mesoamerica, in combination with other poaching for the pet trade was initially range. believed to be a threat, it has been found In Mesoamerica, the scarlet macaw’s threats identified above, are threats to the continued existence of the scarlet in trade only in small numbers. current range is highly restricted and Additionally, we are aware of no fragmented, populations are small and macaw throughout Mesoamerica, including the entire range of the information indicating that disease, isolated, and threats continue to impact predation, inadequacy of existing the species. Impacts of multiple threats subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and the range of A. m. macao in Costa Rica, regulatory mechanisms, other factors, or typically operate synergistically, the cumulative impact of factors place Panama, and northwest Columbia, now particularly when populations of a the species in danger of extinction in and in the future. species are decreasing. Initial effects of the Amazon now or within the one threat factor can later exacerbate the Finding foreseeable future. According to BLI effects of other threat factors (Gilpin and (2011a, unpaginated), the scarlet macaw Scarlet Macaw (A. macao) Finding Soule´ 1986, pp. 25–26). Further is suspected of being in decline globally, fragmentation of populations can As required by the Act, we conducted and, as discussed in Distribution and decrease the fitness and reproductive a review of the status of the species and Abundance, evidence indicates that potential of the species, which will considered the five factors in assessing scarlet macaw numbers and distribution exacerbate other threats. Lack of a whether the scarlet macaw is have been much reduced over the past sufficient number of individuals in a endangered or threatened throughout all few decades in Mesoamerica. However, local area or a decline in their or a significant portion of its range. We we found no evidence that the species individual or collective fitness may examined the best scientific and is declining in the Amazon except cause a decline in the population size, commercial information available around human population centers, and despite the presence of suitable habitat regarding the past, present, and future much of the species’ range in the patches. Within the preceding review of threats faced by the scarlet macaw. We Amazon is remote from human the five factors, we have identified reviewed the petition, information populations. For these reasons, and multiple threats that may have available in our files, and other because large areas of intact forest are interrelated impacts on this species in available published and unpublished projected to remain in the Amazon for Mesoamerica. For example, information. the next few decades, it is reasonable to deforestation provides access to In considering whether a species may conclude that if the suspected previously inaccessible areas, thereby warrant listing under any of the five population decline of scarlet macaws is opening up new areas of the species’ factors, we look beyond the species’ occurring throughout its range, it is range to the threat of illegal poaching. exposure to a potential threat or unlikely to be occurring at a rate that Thus, the species’ productivity in aggregation of threats under any of the puts the species in danger of extinction Mesoamerica may be reduced because of factors, and evaluate whether the now or in the foreseeable future. any of these threats, either singularly or species responds to those potential Because the best available information in combination. The most significant threats in a way that causes an actual indicates that the scarlet macaw in the threats in this region are habitat loss and impact to the species. The identification majority of its range is not in danger of poaching, particularly as populations in of threats that might impact a species extinction (endangered), or likely to this region are small and fragmented, negatively may not be sufficient to become so in the foreseeable future

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(threatened), we conclude that listing inadequate, and (4) we found no 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS the species under the Act is not information indicating that these threats policy, three factors are considered in a warranted at this time. are being ameliorated, we find that these decision concerning the establishment Having determined that listing the threats are immediate and significant and classification of a possible DPS. species throughout its range is not and place the subspecies A. m. These are applied similarly to warranted, we next consider whether cyanoptera in danger of extinction at endangered and threatened species. The listing either subspecies, Ara macao this time. Therefore, on the basis of the first two factors—discreteness of the cyanoptera or Ara macao macao, is best scientific and commercial population segment in relation to the warranted. information available, we find that A. m. remainder of the taxon and the Northern Subspecies (A. m. cyanoptera) cyanoptera meets the definition of an significance of the population segment Finding ‘‘endangered’’ species under the Act, to the taxon to which it belongs—bear and we are proposing to list this upon whether the population segment is The northern subspecies of scarlet subspecies as endangered throughout its a valid DPS. If a population meets both macaw, A. m. cyanoptera, inhabits the range. tests, it is a DPS, and then the third species’ current range in Mexico, We have reviewed the available factor is applied—the population Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and information to determine if the existing segment’s conservation status in relation Nicaragua. This status review identified and foreseeable threats render the to the Act’s standards for listing, threats to A. m. cyanoptera attributable species at risk of extinction now such delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the to Factors A, B, D, and E. The primary that issuing an emergency regulation population segment endangered or threats to this subspecies are habitat temporarily listing the species in threatened?). loss, illegal capture for the pet trade, the accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms Act is warranted. We have determined Discreteness Analysis that address these threats, and small that issuing an emergency regulation Under the DPS policy, a population population size combined with the temporarily listing A. m. cyanoptera is segment of a vertebrate taxon may be cumulative effects of threats. Habitat not warranted for this subspecies at this considered discrete if it satisfies either destruction and modification (Factor A) time because there are no impending of the following conditions: (1) It is in the form of deforestation and forest actions that might result in extinction of markedly separated from other degradation are occurring throughout the species that would be addressed and populations of the same taxon as a the subspecies’ range. Illegal capture for alleviated by emergency listing. consequence of physical, physiological, the pet trade (Factor B) is also likely However, if at any time we determine ecological, or behavioral factors occurring throughout the subspecies’ that issuing an emergency regulation (quantitative measures of genetic or range, and is exacerbated by temporarily listing A. m. cyanoptera is morphological discontinuity may deforestation because deforestation warranted, we will initiate this action at provide evidence of this separation); or increases access to the subspecies. that time. (2) it is delimited by international Regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are boundaries within which differences in inadequate to prevent further loss of Southern Subspecies (A. m. macao) control of exploitation, management of forest habitat and continued capture and Finding habitat, conservation status, or trade of the species throughout the The southern subspecies of scarlet regulatory mechanisms exist that are subspecies’ range. macaw, A. m. macao, inhabits the significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) Although little quantitative data on species’ range from Costa Rica of the Act. historical populations are available, the southward into South America. As with Genetic studies of scarlet macaws range of this subspecies has been greatly the species as a whole, the vast majority from throughout the species’ range show reduced and fragmented over the past of the range of A. m. macao (greater than that A. m. macao north and west of the several decades. It is, therefore, clear 80 percent) occurs in the Amazon. Andes mountains (those in Costa Rica, that the global population of A. m. Therefore, for the reasons discussed Panama, and northwest Columbia) are cyanoptera has experienced a large under our finding for the species, A. genetically different from those south decline, primarily due to loss of habitat macao, located above, we find that and east of the Andes (northern South and capture for the pet trade. As a listing this subspecies throughout its America), indicating birds in these two result, the current global population is range is not warranted. areas represent separate populations estimated to be 4,000 or fewer Having determined that listing the (Schmidt 2011, pers. comm.). The individuals (see Distribution and whole subspecies of A. m. macao is not Andes reach over 5,700 m (18,701 ft) in Abundance). warranted, we now consider whether elevation in Columbia, with few passes Section 3 of the Act defines an there are any distinct population below 1,600 m (5,249 ft) (Parsons 1982, ‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species segments (DPSes) of the subspecies that pp. 254–256), and the highest elevation which is in danger of extinction warrant listing under the Act. at which scarlet macaws have been throughout all or a significant portion of recorded is approximately 1,500 m Distinct Population Segments its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as (4,921 ft). Thus, the Andes represent a ‘‘any species which is likely to become Section 3(16) of the Act defines major physical barrier separating these an endangered species within the ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any distinct two populations. Therefore, we foreseeable future throughout all or a population segment of any species of conclude that A. m. macao north and significant portion of its range.’’ Given vertebrate fish or wildlife which west of the Andes are markedly (1) the large extent of the decline in the interbreeds when mature.’’ To interpret separated from A. m. macao south and subspecies’ range and numbers in recent and implement the DPS provisions of east of the Andes and represent two decades due to habitat destruction and the Act and Congressional guidance, the discrete populations. modification and capture for the illegal Service and National Marine Fisheries pet trade, (2) that these threats are Service published a policy regarding the Significance Analysis ongoing within the range of the recognition of distinct vertebrate If a population segment is considered subspecies, (3) that existing regulatory population segments in the Federal discrete under one or more of the mechanisms addressing these threats are Register (DPS Policy) on February 7, conditions described in our DPS policy,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40243

its biological and ecological significance differences between the two populations are inadequate to prevent further loss of is to be considered in light of of A. m. macao, indicates that a loss of forest habitat and continued capture and Congressional guidance that the the population north and west of the trade of the species throughout this authority to list DPSes be used Andes would represent a significant loss region. ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the to the genetic diversity of the Although quantitative data on conservation of genetic diversity. In subspecies. Loss of this population historical populations are not available, carrying out this examination, we would also result in elimination of the as discussed above, the range of A. m. consider available scientific evidence of subspecies from Central America and macao north and west of the Andes has the population segment’s importance to subsequent loss of the connection, and been greatly reduced and fragmented the taxon to which it belongs. This subsequently the transition zone, over the past several decades. The consideration may include, but is not between populations of the two species has been almost completely limited to: (1) Its persistence in an subspecies of scarlet macaw. Thus, we eliminated from Panama, and has been ecological setting unusual or unique for conclude that loss of the population of eliminated from 80 percent of its range the taxon; (2) evidence that its loss A. m. macao north and west of the in Costa Rica, primarily due to loss of would result in a significant gap in the Andes would result in a significant gap habitat and capture for the pet trade. range of the taxon; (3) evidence that it in the subspecies’ range. Section 3 of the Act defines an is the only surviving natural occurrence We conclude that loss of either ‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species of a taxon that may be more abundant population of A. m. macao (the which is in danger of extinction elsewhere as an introduced population population north and west of the Andes throughout all or a significant portion of outside its historic range; or (4) or the population south and east of the its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as evidence that the DPS differs markedly Andes) would create a significant gap in ‘‘any species which is likely to become from other populations of the species in the range of the subspecies. Therefore, an endangered species within the its genetic characteristics. A population because we find these two population foreseeable future throughout all or a segment needs to satisfy only one of segments to be discrete and because significant portion of its range.’’ Given these criteria to be considered they meet the significance criterion, (1) the large extent of the decline of the significant. Furthermore, the list of with respect to evidence that loss of subspecies within the northern DPS of criteria is not exhaustive; other criteria either population segment would result A. m. macao in recent decades due to may be used, as appropriate. Below, we in a significant gap in the range of the habitat destruction and modification consider the biological and ecological taxon, both qualify as DPSes under the and capture for the illegal pet trade, (2) significance of the A. m. macao Act. For the remainder of this that these threats are ongoing within the populations on either side of the Andes. document, we refer to the DPS north range of this DPS, (3) that existing Evidence indicates that loss of either and west of the Andes as the northern regulatory mechanisms addressing these population of A. m. macao would result DPS of A. m. macao, and the DPS south threats are inadequate, and (4) we found in a significant gap in the range of the and east of the Andes as the southern no information indicating that these subspecies. The subspecies’ range south DPS of A. m. macao. threats are being ameliorated, we find and east of the Andes comprises well Finding for the Northern DPS of A. m. that these threats are immediate and over 90 percent of its entire range macao significant and place the northern DPS (considering that the Amazon comprises of A. m. macao in danger of extinction an estimated 83 percent of the entire We are unaware of any information on at this time. Therefore, on the basis of range of the species), all of its range in the numbers, if any, or status of A. m. the best scientific and commercial the Amazon, and the vast majority of its macao in northwest Columbia. information available, we find that the range on the South American continent Therefore, we limit our discussion here northern DPS of A. m. macao meets the (all but northwest Columbia). Therefore, to populations in Costa Rica and definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ its loss would result in a significant gap Panama, and request information from under the Act, and we are proposing to in the range of the subspecies. the public on the status of the list the northern DPS of A. m. macao as Although considerably smaller, the subspecies in northwest Columbia (see endangered throughout its range. area of the subspecies’ range north and Information Requested). west of the Andes inhabits a unique This status review identified threats Finding for the Southern DPS of A. m. geographical position in the range of the to the scarlet macaw attributable to macao subspecies. It is located partly on the Factors A, B, D, and E, in Costa Rica and This DPS of A. m. macao inhabits the Central American isthmus, a biological Panama. The primary threats to the vast majority of the subspecies range in transition zone between the north and northern DPS of A. m. macao are habitat South America. As with the species south American continents and a loss, illegal capture for the pet trade, the range, and subspecies range, the vast biodiversity ‘‘hotspot’’ (Muller and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms majority of the range of this DPS occurs Patry 2011, p. 80; Myers et al. 2000, that address these threats, and small in the Amazon. Therefore, for the entire). This population occurs in the population size combined with the reasons discussed under our finding for only area of the subspecies range cumulative effects of threats. Habitat the species A. macao located above, we located on the Central American destruction and modification (Factor A) find that listing this DPS throughout its isthmus, and the only area where the in the form of deforestation and forest range is not warranted. subspecies occurs on the Pacific slope of degradation are likely occurring in the Having determined that listing the Central or South America. It is also the range of two of the three populations in southern DPS of A. m. macao is not only area of the subspecies range with this region (the populations in southern warranted, we next look at whether the a connection to the range of A. m. Pacific Costa Rica and Panama). Illegal southern DPS may be endangered or cyanoptera. The population of A. m. capture for the pet trade (Factor B) is threatened with extinction in a macao north and west of the Andes also likely occurring in the range of all significant portion of its range. includes, in northern Costa Rica (the three populations in this region, and is transition zone also extends into exacerbated by deforestation because Significant Portion of the Range southern Nicaragua) (Wiedenfeld 1994, deforestation increases access to these Having determined that the southern pp. 100–101), and, together with genetic birds. Regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) DPS of A. m. macao is not endangered

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

or threatened throughout its range, we in its entirety and the Act’s protections ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for must next consider whether there are applied consistently to all members of the purposes of this finding, and as any significant portions of the DPS that species (subject to modification of explained further below, a portion of the where A. m. macao is in danger of protections through special rules under range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its extinction or is likely to become sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). contribution to the viability of the endangered in the foreseeable future. Consistent with that interpretation, species is so important that without that The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ and for the purposes of this finding, we portion, the species would be in danger as any species which is ‘‘in danger of interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion of extinction. extinction throughout all or a significant of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of We evaluate biological significance portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened based on the principles of conservation species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely species’’ to provide an independent biology using the concepts of to become an endangered species within basis for listing; thus there are two redundancy, resiliency, and the foreseeable future throughout all or situations (or factual bases) under which representation. Resiliency describes the a significant portion of its range.’’ The a species would qualify for listing: a characteristics of a species and its definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant species may be endangered or habitat that allow it to recover from to this discussion. Section 3(16) of the threatened throughout all of its range; or periodic disturbance. Redundancy Act defines ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The a species may be endangered or (having multiple populations term ‘species’ includes any subspecies threatened in only a significant portion distributed across the landscape) may be of fish or wildlife or plants, and any of its range. If a species is in danger of needed to provide a margin of safety for distinct population segment [DPS] of extinction throughout an SPR, it, the the species to withstand catastrophic any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ events. Representation (the range of which interbreeds when mature.’’ The The same analysis applies to variation found in a species) ensures phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ ‘‘threatened species.’’ Based on this that the species’ adaptive capabilities (SPR) is not defined by the statute, nor interpretation and supported by existing are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, addressed in our regulations. For case law, the consequence of finding and representation are not independent example, neither the statute nor its that a species is endangered or of each other, and some characteristic of implementing regulations describes the threatened in only a significant portion a species or area may contribute to all consequences of a determination that a of its range is that the entire species will three. For example, distribution across a species is either endangered or likely to be listed as endangered or threatened, wide variety of habitat types is an become so throughout a significant respectively, and the Act’s protections indicator of representation, but it may portion of its range, but not throughout will be applied across the species’ entire also indicate a broad geographic all of its range, or explains what range. distribution contributing to redundancy qualifies a portion of a range as We conclude, for the purposes of this (decreasing the chance that any one ‘‘significant.’’ finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase event affects the entire species), and the Two recent district court decisions as providing an independent basis for likelihood that some habitat types are have addressed whether the SPR listing is the best interpretation of the less susceptible to certain threats, language allows the Service to list or Act because it is consistent with the contributing to resiliency (the ability of protect less than all members of a purposes and the plain meaning of the the species to recover from disturbance). defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife key definitions of the Act; it does not None of these concepts is intended to be v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. conflict with established past agency mutually exclusive, and a portion of a Mont. 2010), concerning the Service’s practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 species’ range may be determined to be delisting of the Northern Rocky Solicitor’s Opinion), as no consistent, ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April long-term agency practice has been under any one or more of these 2, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians v. established; and it is consistent with the concepts. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 judicial opinions that have most closely For the purposes of this finding, we (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the examined this issue. Having concluded determine if a portion’s biological Service’s 2008 finding on a petition to that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of contribution is so important that the list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (73 FR its range’’ provides an independent portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by 6660, February 5, 2008). The Service basis for listing and protecting the entire asking whether without that portion, the had asserted in both of these species, we next turn to the meaning of representation, redundancy, or determinations that it had authority, in ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold resiliency of the species would be so effect, to protect only some members of for when such an independent basis for impaired that the species would have an a ‘‘species,’’ as defined by the Act (i.e., listing exists. increased vulnerability to threats to the species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Although there are potentially many point that the overall species would be Act. Both courts ruled that the ways to determine whether a portion of in danger of extinction (i.e., would be determinations were arbitrary and a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we ‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would capricious on the grounds that this conclude, for the purposes of this not consider the portion of the range at approach violated the plain and finding, that the significance of the issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is unambiguous language of the Act. The portion of the range should be sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and courts concluded that reading the SPR determined based on its biological representation elsewhere in the species’ language to allow protecting only a contribution to the conservation of the range that the species would not be in portion of a species’ range is species. For this reason, we describe the danger of extinction throughout its inconsistent with the Act’s definition of threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of range if the population in that portion ‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that an increase in the risk of extinction for of the range in question became once a determination is made that a the species. We conclude that a extirpated (extinct locally). species (i.e., species, subspecies, or biologically based definition of We recognize that this definition of DPS) meets the definition of ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the ‘‘significant’’ (a portion of the range of ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened purposes of the Act, is consistent with a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its species,’’ it must be placed on the list judicial interpretations, and best contribution to the viability of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40245

species is so important that without that and that we would not need to rely on two areas, the area referred to as the arc portion, the species would be in danger the SPR language for such a listing.) of deforestation in the southern and of extinction) establishes a threshold Rather, under this interpretation we ask eastern Amazon (in the Brazilian states that is relatively high. On the one hand, whether the species would be of Para, Mato Grosso, Rondonia, and given that the consequences of finding endangered everywhere without that Acre) and the Brazilian state of Roraima, a species to be endangered or threatened portion, i.e., if that portion were have concentrated threats (see in an SPR would be listing the species completely extirpated. In other words, discussion under Factor A), as 90 throughout its entire range, it is the portion of the range need not be so percent of deforestation in the Amazon important to use a threshold for important that even the species being in occurs in these areas (INPE 2005, in ‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not danger of extinction in that portion Asner et al. 2005, p. 480). We next be meaningful or appropriate to would be sufficient to cause the species consider the contribution of these two establish a very low threshold whereby in the remainder of the range to be portions to determine if these areas are a portion of the range can be considered endangered; rather, the complete significant, as described above. ‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of As discussed under Factor A, above, increase in extinction risk would result the species in that portion would be the Amazon covers approximately 6.7 from its loss. Because nearly any portion required to cause the species in the million km2 (2.6 million mi2) in 9 of a species’ range can be said to remainder of the range to be countries and 1 territory of France. Even contribute some increment to a species’ endangered. with the loss of either or both portions viability, use of such a low threshold The range of a species can discussed above, large tracts of the DPS would require us to impose restrictions theoretically be divided into portions in would remain, including large tracts of and expend conservation resources an infinite number of ways. However, remote forest in northwest Brazil, disproportionately to conservation there is no purpose to analyzing Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana, benefit: listing would be range-wide, portions of the range that have no eastern Peru, and southeast Columbia. even if only a portion of the range of reasonable potential to be significant or Thus, even without either or both minor conservation importance to the to analyzing portions of the range in portions of the range identified above, species is imperiled. On the other hand, which there is no reasonable potential large areas of the range of the southern it would be inappropriate to establish a for the species to be endangered or DPS of A. m. macao would remain. As threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too threatened. To identify only those discussed above, A. m. macao in the high. This would be the case if the portions that warrant further Amazon are reported to be common, standard were, for example, that a consideration, we determine whether widely distributed, genetically similar, portion of the range can be considered there is substantial information and have high genetic variability. Thus, ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that indicating that: (1) The portions may be it is reasonable to conclude that A. m. portion result in the entire species’ ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be macao in the remaining forest outside being currently endangered or in danger of extinction there or likely to the identified portions would be threatened. Such a high bar would not become so within the foreseeable future. common, widely distributed, and have give the SPR phrase independent Depending on the biology of the species, high genetic variability. Further, meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in its range, and the threats it faces, it although little information exists on Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 might be more efficient for us to address movements of scarlet macaws in the the significance question first or the F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). Amazon, scarlet macaws are not status question first. Thus, if we migratory, and although they are The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in determine that a portion of the range is nomadic to some degree, we know of no this finding carefully balances these not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to information suggesting that the two concerns. By setting a relatively high determine whether the species is portions discussed above are required threshold, we minimize the degree to endangered or threatened there; if we for the survival of the portion of the which restrictions will be imposed or determine that the species is not southern DPS of A. m. macao that resources expended that do not endangered or threatened in a portion of occurs outside the two portions contribute substantially to species its range, we do not need to determine discussed above. Therefore, because (1) conservation. However, we have not set if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In the remaining portion includes large the threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in practice, a key part of the determination areas of intact forest in several areas of a significant portion of its range’’ loses that a species is in danger of extinction the Amazon, (2) scarlet macaws in these independent meaning. Specifically, we in a significant portion of its range is remaining areas have high genetic have not set the threshold as high as it whether the threats are geographically diversity and are likely common and was under the interpretation presented concentrated in some way. If the threats widely distributed, and (3) scarlet by the Service in the Defenders to the species are essentially uniform macaws are not migratory and thus the litigation. Under that interpretation, the throughout its range, no portion is likely survival of scarlet macaws outside the portion of the range would have to be to warrant further consideration. two identified portions are unlikely to so important that current imperilment Moreover, if any concentration of depend on the existence of the two there would mean that the species threats to the species occurs only in identified portions, we conclude that would be currently imperiled portions of the species’ range that remaining portion of the southern DPS everywhere. Under the definition of clearly would not meet the biologically of A. m. macao is likely to offer ‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, the based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and portion of the range need not rise to portions will not warrant further representation to the DPS such that the such an exceptionally high level of consideration. DPS would not be in danger of biological significance. (We recognize extinction if the two portions identified that if the species is imperiled in a SPR Analysis for the Southern DPS of A. above were completely lost. portion that rises to that level of m. macao In summary, despite having some biological significance, then we should After reviewing the potential threats locations of elevated risk to potential conclude that the species is in fact throughout the range of the southern threats, we conclude that the portions of imperiled throughout all of its range, DPS of A. m. macao, we determine that the southern DPS of A. m. macao’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 40246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules

range where these threats occur are not harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, Required Determinations significant portions of its range. Even if wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt Clarity of Rule scarlet macaws in these locations were any of these) within the United States or extirpated at some time in the future, upon the high seas; import or export; We are required by Executive Orders the DPS would persist at locations not deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 12866 and 12988 and by the affected by these threats. The existing, in interstate or foreign commerce in the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, remaining population would be course of commercial activity; or sell or 1998, to write all rules in plain distributed across a large region of the offer for sale in interstate or foreign language. This means that each rule we Amazon in Suriname, Guyana, French commerce any endangered wildlife publish must: Guayana, northwest Brazil, southeast species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, (a) Be logically organized; (b) Use the active voice to address Colombia, eastern Ecuador, and eastern deliver, carry, transport, or ship any Peru, and would provide adequate readers directly; such wildlife that has been taken in (c) Use clear language rather than redundancy, resiliency, and violation of the Act. Certain exceptions representation to the DPS. Therefore, jargon; apply to agents of the Service and State (d) Be divided into short sections and the two identified portions (whether conservation agencies. sentences; and considered separately or combined) are (e) Use lists and tables wherever not a ‘‘significant’’ portion of the Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities possible. species’ range because their If you feel that we have not met these contribution to the viability of the involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain requirements, send us comments by one species is not so important that the of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES species would be in danger of extinction circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for section. To better help us revise the without those portions. rule, your comments should be as We find that the southern DPS of A. endangered species and 17.32 for specific as possible. For example, you m. macao is not in danger of extinction threatened species. With regard to should tell us the names of the sections now, nor is it likely to become endangered wildlife, a permit may be or paragraphs that are unclearly written, endangered within the foreseeable issued for the following purposes: for which sections or sentences are too future throughout all or a significant scientific purposes, to enhance the long, the sections where you feel lists or portion of its range. Therefore, listing propagation or survival of the species, tables would be useful, etc. the southern DPS of A. m. macao as and for incidental take in connection endangered or threatened under the Act with otherwise lawful activities. For National Environmental Policy Act (42 is not warranted at this time. We find threatened species, a permit may be U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) that the southern DPS of A. m. macao issued for the same activities, as well as We have determined that we do not is not in danger of extinction now, nor zoological exhibition, education, and need to prepare an environmental is it likely to become endangered within special purposes consistent with the assessment, as defined under the the foreseeable future throughout all or Act. authority of the National Environmental a significant portion of its range. Peer Review Policy Act of 1969, in connection with Therefore, listing the southern DPS of A. regulations adopted under section 4(a) m. macao as endangered or threatened In accordance with our policy, of the Act. We published a notice under the Act is not warranted at this ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative outlining our reasons for this time. However, for law enforcement Policy for Peer Review in Endangered determination in the Federal Register purposes, we are considering listing this Species Act Activities,’’ that was on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). DPS, and intraspecific crosses of scarlet published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR macaws, based on similarity of 34270), we will seek the expert opinion References Cited appearance to entities proposed for of at least three appropriate A list of all references cited in this listing in this document, and request independent specialists regarding this document is available at http:// information from the public pertaining proposed rule. The purpose of such www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– to this subject (see Information review is to ensure listing decisions are R9–ES–2012–0039, or upon request Requested). based on scientifically sound data, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Available Conservation Measures assumptions, and analysis. We will send Endangered Species Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER Conservation measures provided to copies of this proposed rule to the peer INFORMATION CONTACT section). species listed as endangered or reviewers immediately following threatened under the Act include publication in the Federal Register. We Authors recognition, requirements for Federal will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment The primary authors of this notice are protection, and prohibitions against staff members of the Branch of Foreign certain practices. Recognition through period, on the specific assumptions and the data that are the basis for our Species, Endangered Species Program, listing results in public awareness, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. encourages and results in conservation conclusions regarding this proposal to actions by Federal and State list as endangered the northern scarlet List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 macaw subspecies (Ara macao governments, private agencies and Endangered and threatened species, cyanoptera) and the northern DPS of the interest groups, and individuals. Exports, Imports, Reporting and southern scarlet macaw subspecies (Ara The Act and its implementing recordkeeping requirements, macao macao), under the Act. regulations set forth a series of general Transportation. prohibitions and exceptions that apply We will consider all comments and to all endangered and threatened information we receive during the Proposed Regulation Promulgation wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR comment period on this proposed rule Accordingly, we propose to amend 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal during preparation of a final part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title for any person subject to the jurisdiction rulemaking. Accordingly, our final 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, of the United States to ‘‘take’’ (includes decision may differ from this proposal. as set forth below:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 40247

PART 17—[AMENDED] 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding new § 17.11 Endangered and threatened entries for ‘‘Macaw, scarlet’’ in wildlife. 1. The authority citation for part 17 alphabetical order under BIRDS to the * * * * * continues to read as follows: List of Endangered and Threatened (h) * * * Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. Wildlife, to read as follows: 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where endangered or Status When Critical Special Common name Scientific name threatened listed habitat rules

******* BIRDS

******* Macaw, scarlet ..... Ara macao Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Entire ...... E ...... NA NA cyanoptera. El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua. Macaw, scarlet ..... Ara macao macao Costa Rica, Panama, Co- Costa Rica, Panama, and E ...... NA NA lombia, Ecuador, Peru, the portion of Colombia Suriname, Guyana, north and west of the French Guiana, Brazil, Andes. Bolivia.

*******

* * * * * Dated: June 26, 2012. Gregory Siekaniec, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2012–16445 Filed 7–5–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:25 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06JYP3.SGM 06JYP3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3