[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63480-63508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25807]
[[Page 63479]]
Vol. 76
Wednesday,
No. 197
October 12, 2011
Part V
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List Two South American Parrot Species; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63480]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-ES-2011-0071; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List Two South American Parrot Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: 12-month finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a status
review (12-month finding) on a petition to list the blue-headed macaw
(Primolius couloni) and grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera)
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and
commercial information, we find that listing the blue-headed macaw or
grey-cheeked parakeet is not warranted at this time. However, we ask
the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available
concerning the threats to these species or their habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 12,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R9-ES-2011-0071. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, 4401 North
Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the
species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the
date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we determine whether
the petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)
warranted, but immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine
whether species are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress
is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of
the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on
the date of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be
made within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the
Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
Petition History
On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January
29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental
Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting we
list 14 parrot species under the Act. The petition clearly identified
itself as a petition and included the requisite information required in
the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)). On July 14, 2009
(74 FR 33957), we published a 90-day finding in which we determined
that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial
information to indicate that listing may be warranted for 12 of the 14
parrot species.
In our 90-day finding on this petition, we announced the initiation
of a status review under the Act to list as threatened or endangered
the following 12 parrot species:
Blue-headed macaw (Primolius couloni)
Crimson shining parrot (Prosopeia splendens)
Great green macaw (Ara ambiguus)
Grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera)
Hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus)
Military macaw (Ara militaris)
Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia)
Red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis)
Scarlet macaw (Ara macao)
White cockatoo (C. alba)
Yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria)
Yellow-crested cockatoo (C. sulphurea)
We initiated this status review to determine if listing each of the
12 species is warranted, and opened a 60-day period to allow all
interested parties an opportunity to provide comments and information
on the status of these 12 species. The public comment period closed on
September 14, 2009.
On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court
(CV-10-357, D. D.C.) in which the Service agreed to submit to the
Federal Register by July 29, 2011; September 30, 2011; and November 30,
2011, respectively, determinations on whether the petitioned action is
warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing
actions for no fewer than four of the petitioned species. On August 9,
2011, the Service published in the Federal Register a 12-month status
review and proposed rule for the following four parrot species: Crimson
shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and yellow-crested
cockatoo (76 FR 49202).
Current Action
In this status review, we make a determination whether the
petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but
precluded by other listing actions for the blue-headed macaw and grey-
cheeked parakeet. This Federal Register document complies, in part,
with the second deadline in the court-approved settlement agreement
mentioned above.
Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that
causes actual
[[Page 63481]]
impact to the species. The identification of threats that might impact
a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the
species warrants listing. The information must include evidence
indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly or in
aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are significant
if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of the species,
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened, as
those terms are defined in the Act.
Below is a species-by-species description and analysis of the five
factors. The species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning
with the blue-headed macaw, followed by the grey-cheeked parakeet.
I. Blue-Headed Macaw (Primolius couloni)
Species Description
The blue-headed macaw is a small species of macaw belonging to the
family Psittacidae, the parrot family. It measures approximately 41
centimeters (cm) (16 inches (in)) in length. Average male and female
wing length measures approximately 226 millimeters (mm) (8.9 in) and
220 mm (8.6 in), respectively. Average tail lengths for males and
females measure 223 mm (8.7 in) and 204 mm (8.0 in), respectively
(Forshaw 1973, p. 386). There is little sexual dimorphism between males
and females (Lee 2010, p. 5). Adults are characterized by green general
plumage with slightly more yellowish underparts. The entire head,
except for the grey bare facial area, is blue. Primaries and primary-
coverts (wing feathers) are blue and secondaries and outermost upper
wing-coverts are blue edged with green. The upperside of the tail is
blue, whereas the undersides of flight and tail feathers are a dusky
yellow. The bill is grey-black, which becomes horn-colored on the
culmen (the upper ridge of the bill) and at the tip of the upper
mandible. The iris is yellow, and legs are flesh-pink. Immature blue-
headed macaws have not been described (Forshaw 1973, p. 386).
The blue-headed macaw occurs mainly in eastern Peru, in the
departments of Loreto, Hu[aacute]nuco, Pasco, Ucayali, Cusco, Madre de
Dios, Ayacucho, Puno, and Jun[iacute]n; but it also occurs just inside
the border of extreme western Brazil, in the States of Acre and
Rond[ocirc]nia, and just inside the border of northern Bolivia, in the
departments Pando, Beni, and La Paz (BirdLife International (BLI)
2011a, unpaginated; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007b, pp. 1-6). It has been
recorded from 61 localities, with no significant association with
forest type, riverine habitats, degree of disturbance, or altitude.
Records of the blue-headed macaw occur in both foothill regions and
lowlands ranging in elevation from 200 meters (m) (656 feet (ft)) to
1,500 m (4,921 ft), and in a wide range of habitats, including terra
firme forests (forests not inundated by flood waters), mature
floodplain forests, successional river edge forests, and Mauritia palm
swamps. One study found that this species was slightly more common in
degraded areas than in pristine forests (Brightsmith 2009, personal
communication (pers. comm.); Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 126, 129-
130).
The estimated total global range for this species is 609,494 square
kilometers (km\2\) (235,326 square miles (mi\2\)) and spans large areas
of remote and unexplored terrain. The extent of occurrence (the global
range, excluding disjunctions and major areas of inappropriate habitat)
has been calculated as 460,000 km\2\ (177,606 mi\2\), an area larger
than previously thought (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.; Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, pp. 126, 129, 133). However, the extent of occurrence
may be underestimated, as data is lacking from Brazil, the global range
is more than 90 percent forested, and data suggest anthropogenic
pressures have not eliminated this species from any large areas (Tobias
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 129). Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) notes
that the blue-headed macaw is not absent from any portion of its
historical range.
In 1990, Lambert et al. (2003, as cited in Tobias and Brightsmith
2007, p. 127) estimated the global population of blue-headed macaws to
be 10,000 individuals. In 2003, Gilardi estimated the global population
to be well under 1,000 mature individuals; BLI revised the global
estimate to 1,000-2,499 mature individuals in 2005 (Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, p. 127). It is unclear why population estimates have
varied, but may be due to few published sources, anecdotal accounts,
poor data quality (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 127), or differences
in methodology. The most recent data suggest that this species occurs
at a conservative density of one mature individual per 10-50 km\2\
(3.0-19.3 mi\2\); using the calculated 460,000 km\2\ extent of
occurrence, Tobias and Brightsmith (2007, p. 126) estimate the
population to be 9,200-46,000 mature individuals and 11,500-57,500
individuals if immature birds are included (Tobias and Brightsmith
2007, p. 133). Most of the 61 localities where this species has been
recorded are easily accessible by road or river, potentially causing a
bias towards areas affected by trapping and underestimating abundance.
Furthermore, much of the global range has yet to be surveyed (Tobias
and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133).
BLI (2011a, unpaginated), based on Tobias and Brightsmith (2007,
pp. 126-138), reports that the population is declining at a slow-to-
moderate and ongoing pace. However, Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.)
notes that this conclusion is not based on real evidence from wild
populations. In fact, Tobias and Brightsmith (2007, p. 134) and
Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) note that based on sightings data,
there is no evidence of a decline in range or numbers of blue-headed
macaws in the wild and that the possibility that the blue-headed macaw
is increasing with the spread of degraded forests along rivers cannot
be discounted (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133). Hennessey
(2011, per. comm.) also notes that populations in Peru and Bolivia have
remained healthy. There is no place within its range where this species
has been searched intensively and does not occur (Brightsmith 2009,
pers. comm.). At the Tambopata Research Center, blue-headed macaws have
been steadily increasing since the year 2000 (Brightsmith 2009, pers.
comm.). Sightings of the blue-headed macaw in Peru have also increased
in the past 10 years (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.). Additionally, the
lowlands of southeastern Peru, the core of the species' range, are the
home of a wide variety of international research stations; parrot
populations are monitored annually, so if the blue-headed macaw begins
to decline, the research community would note this and begin specific
protection and recovery actions (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.).
The diet of the blue-headed macaw has not been observed; however,
parrots generally feed on seeds, ripe and unripe fruit, and flowers,
but may also utilize other plant parts, such as nectar, leaves, and
bark (Lee 2010, p. 6; Brightsmith 2006, p. 2; Cowen no date (n.d.), pp.
5, 17). Cowen (n.d., p. 16) found that a psittacine community, which
included the blue-headed macaw, mainly fed on three tree species:
Ochroma pyramidale (balsa), Euterpe precatoria (a species of palm), and
Cecropia peltata (trumpet tree). This species may undergo some form of
nomadism to track food across the landscape (Tobias and Brightsmith
2007, p. 132). Parrots may travel a few kilometers to hundreds of
kilometers in search of food resources (Lee 2010, p. 8). Because
parrots feed primarily on fruits and flowers, they are linked to the
[[Page 63482]]
fruiting and flowering patterns of trees; fluctuations in abundance and
availability of these food sources may change diets, result in
movements to areas with greater food availability, and influence local
seasonal patterns of bird abundance (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Lee 2010,
p. 7; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 132; Brightsmith 2006, p. 2;
Renton 2002, p. 17; Cowen n.d., pp. 5, 23). In some locations within
its range, the blue-headed macaw is not considered uncommon and is
recorded throughout the year, but appears scarce in others or varies
seasonally in response to food availability (BLI 2011a, unpaginated).
Geophagy, the intentional consumption of soil, is known for parrots
(Brightsmith 2004a, p. 534). In South America, parrots, including the
blue-headed macaw, gather at riverbanks to consume soil; these sites
are referred to as ``clay licks'' (Brightsmith 2004c, pp. 134, 137;
Brightsmith 2004b, p. 5; Brightsmith 2004a, p. 535). Clay lick usage by
blue-headed macaws is regular at several sites, and occurs year-round
at Tambopata, Peru (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 131). There have
been many theories proposed to explain why birds consume soil,
including mineral supplementation, mechanical aid to digestion, pH
buffering, treatment for endoparasites, and adsorption of dietary
toxins (Brightsmith 2004c, p. 143; Brightsmith 2004b, p. 1; Brightsmith
2004a, p. 534-535). The reasons for soil selection may vary, with sites
depending on the needs of the birds and the characteristics of the
soils present (Brightsmith 2004a, p. 542). Research in Peru has shown
that parrots consume soil to obtain sodium (mineral supplementation)
and assist in the adsorption of dietary toxins (Brightsmith 2004c, p.
134; Brightsmith 2004b, pp. 3-4; Brightsmith 2004a, pp. 541-542).
Furthermore, research conducted at the Tambopata Research Center in
Peru found that local clay lick use by parrots varied seasonally, with
low use occurring at a time when parrots appear to leave the area due
to low fruit availability and peaks occurring during the breeding
season (Brightsmith 2004b, p. 3). Peak clay lick use coincided with the
breeding season when adults feed clay to young chicks during the period
of maximum growth and least resistance to natural toxins found in their
diet (Brightsmith 2004b, p. 4).
The blue-headed macaw is reported to occur in pairs or groups of
three. However, groups of 4 or more are routinely reported throughout
the range, groups of 10 or more have been reported from 13 localities,
and 2 groups were reported to have 53 and 60 individuals, respectively
(Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 131-132). Few courtship displays have
been described for parrots, but are assumed to be simple and include
actions such as bowing, wing-drooping, wing-flicking, tail-wagging, and
foot raising (Austin 1961, p. 33). Most parrot species are monogamous
and remain paired for long periods of time, even for life. The age at
which parrots reach sexual maturity varies but, in general, is between
3 and 4 years in larger species and 1 to 2 years in smaller species
(Austin 1961, p. 32). In captivity, the age in which the species is
able to breed ranges from 2.5 to 5 years (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007,
p. 132). The nesting season of the blue-headed macaw is not known, but
for other species of parrots and macaws found at the same site, the
nesting season runs from June to November and November to March,
respectively (Brightsmith 2006, pp. 7, 9). Although nesting has not
been recorded for the blue-headed macaw, most parrots use natural tree
cavities or cavities within cliffs (Lee 2010, p. 4). This species is
reported to have low reproductive output in the wild (CITES 2002, p.
1), but this may be based on little data (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007,
p. 32). In captivity, the clutch size for blue-headed macaws is
reported to be 2-4 eggs (Vit 1997, as reported in Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, p. 132). Female parrots generally incubate the eggs
and rely on the male for food, although in some species the males
contribute to incubation (Lee 2010, p. 5; Austin 1961, p. 33). Parrot
chicks are born blind and naked or with sparse down, which is white in
most species. The young of small parrots develop slowly and remain in
the nest for 3-4 weeks (Austin 1961, p. 33). Adult longevity in the
wild is unknown for the blue-headed macaw, but a congeneric (a species
belonging to the same taxonomic genus as another species), the blue-
winged macaw (Primolius maracana), is reported to live at least 31
years in captivity (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 132).
Conservation Status
The blue-headed macaw is currently classified as ``vulnerable'' by
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and listed in
Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Species included in CITES
Appendix I are the most endangered CITES-listed species. They are
considered threatened with extinction, and international trade is
permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally
precludes commercial trade.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Blue-Headed Parrot
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range
One of the main threats to neotropical parrot species, in general,
is deforestation (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 98). The Amazon region has the
world's highest absolute rate of deforestation (Laurance et al. 2002,
p. 738) and is currently threatened by increasing legal and illegal
logging, road projects, conversion of forests to agriculture, cattle
ranching, oil and gas extraction, and mining (Lee 2010, p. 2; MacLeod
2009, p. 6; Cowen 2007, p. 9; Magrin et al. 2007, p. 590; Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134; Hume et al. 2006, p. 10; Asner et al. 2005,
p. 480; Alverson et al. 2001, p. 113; Laurance et al. 2001, p. 309;
Snyder et al. 2000, p. 98; Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505). However, in
western Amazonia, especially in Peru and Bolivia where this species
occurs, the proportion of forest cover is still high and large tracts
of intact forests continue to exist even though some forests have been
cleared around some major towns (Finer et al. 2008, pp. 1, 6; Tobias
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134; Kometter et al. 2004, p. 6). Information
on the extent of deforestation within the States or departments where
the blue-headed macaw occurs is limited; most information is at the
national level and may not necessarily apply to this species,
especially in Bolivia and Brazil where it occurs just inside the
borders of these countries.
Logging
Tropical forests, especially the Amazon, have experienced
increasing rates of deforestation for the past few decades, largely for
the conversion of land to food crops or pastures, and selective
harvesting of timber has increased in rate and extent (Granoff 2008, p.
553; Asner et al. 2005, p. 480; Laurance 1999, p. 112; Laurence 1998,
p. 411).
Selective logging targets older, larger trees that parrot species
depend on for nesting and food (Cowen 2007, p. 9; Hume et al. 2006, p.
11). The loss of these keystone trees may pose a threat to parrot
populations by creating a shortage of suitable nesting sites,
increasing competition, and causing the loss of current generations
through an increase in infanticide and egg destruction (Lee 2010, pp.
2, 12). If not managed correctly, selective logging may also cause
widespread collateral
[[Page 63483]]
damage to remaining trees, subcanopy vegetation, and soils (Asner et
al. 2005, p. 480). An additional 10 to 40 percent of the living biomass
of a forest may be damaged by a poorly managed logging harvest process
(Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505) and can double the total amount of forest
degraded by human activities (Asner et al. 2005, p. 481). The loss of
trees may influence the availability and abundance of food sources for
the blue-headed macaw and may result in changes in diet or movement to
areas with greater food availability. Although individual blue-headed
macaws, nests, or eggs may be affected by logging activities, we have
no information to indicate impacts are occurring at a level affecting
the status of the species.
Typically, logging involves a low rate of extraction (less than 3
cubic meters (m\3\) per ha (106 cubic feet (ft\3\) per ac) and, if
implemented correctly, only removes as many trees as the forest can
regenerate (Colitt 2010, unpaginated; Rodr[iacute]guez and Cubas 2010,
p. 78). Because the valuable timber removed is often very old, long
intervals are needed for timber stands to recover from harvest
(Laurance 1999, p. 114), and if provisions are made for the
regeneration of these commercial trees, the effects of logging on tree
diversity and species composition may be short-lived (Fredericksen
2003, p. 10). In fact, if well managed, selective logging can mimic
natural disturbances, and if hunting pressure is low, most wildlife
species can persist in logged forests or recolonize harvested areas
from nearby unlogged patches (Laurance 1999, p. 114). Studies have
indicated a relatively minor impact on some wildlife species from
logging, and among those that may actually benefit are frugivorous
birds, such as the blue-headed macaw, due to the positive impact on
fruit abundance (Fredericksen 2003, p. 11). Additionally, frugivores
usually tolerate fragmentation better and are capable of using
deforested areas (Sekercioglu 2007, p. 285). Many parrots are not
habitat specialists and thrive in mosaics of different successional
habitats (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Many species of lowland forest
habitat seem to do relatively well in modified human environments, as
long as a mosaic of habitats in different successional stages is
maintained and poaching and trapping are controlled (Snyder et al.
2000, p. 99). Although the blue-headed macaw could potentially benefit
from some logging activities, we found no information to what extent,
if any, this species benefits from these activities. However, species
experts have stated that the possibility of the species increasing with
the spread of degraded forests along rivers cannot be discounted
(Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133) and Hennessey (2011, pers.
comm.) has stated that the blue-headed macaw populations in Peru and
Bolivia have remained healthy.
Peru
With approximately 68 million forested hectares (ha) (168 million
acres (ac)) covering 53 percent of its land area, Peru has the second
most extensive forests in Latin America, after Brazil (FAO 2011, p.
118; Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610). In the early 2000s, Peruvian
Amazonia experienced a series of forestry reforms, including the
implementation of forest concessions (forest leases), which led to a
rush for newly allocated timber resources (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p.
609; Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 2). More than 7 million ha (17.2 million
acres; approximately 10 percent of the country's forest) are now
designated as forest concessions in the regions of Ucayali, Loreto,
Madre de Dios, San Martin, and Huanco; another 18 million ha (44.5
million ac; nearly a quarter of Peruvian forests) are still potentially
available for concession designation in the near future
(Rodr[iacute]guez and Cubas 2010, p. 79; Salo and Toivonen 2009, pp.
609-610).
The aim of the forestry reform was to target issues such as control
and enforcement of forestry activities, as well as illegal forestry
activities (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610). Part of the new forestry
reform included a new forestry law (See Factor D) which classified
Peru's forests into 6 categories, including permanent production
forests. This category includes those forests in which forest
concession contracts can be assigned. A concession contract gives the
holder the right to exploit the resources within a given area, but also
gives the holder responsibility to manage the resources (Salo and
Toivonen 2009, p. 611). Studies have shown that forest concessions in
Peru have provided forests with protection from deforestation (Salo and
Toivonen 2009, p. 620; Oliveira et al. 2007, pp. 2-3). Although we do
not know the exact location of the recently designated 7 million ha
(17.2 million acres) of forest concessions, they do not appear to have
impacted the blue-headed macaw, given that the range has remained 90
percent forested and there is no evidence in a decline in the range or
population of this species. We do not know where the 18 million ha
(44.5 million ac) of potential forest concessions are located in
regards to locations of blue-headed macaw; however, if located within
the range of this species, data suggest that these concessions could
provide forests with protection against deforestation.
To date, the forests of Peru, including large areas within the
range of the blue-headed macaw, have mainly been subjected to selective
logging (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007,
p. 134; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10), which has contributed to only 2.5
percent of Peru's overall deforestation (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p.
610). Nonetheless, there are reports of illegal logging in Peru,
including one study that found evidence of illegal logging within the
Muruanahua Reserve and Alto Pur[uacute]s National Park in Peru, which
is a known location for the blue-headed macaw (Upper Amazon Conservancy
2010, unpaginated; World Wildlife Fund in Indian Country Today 2007,
unpaginated). However, there is no evidence that selective logging
removes habitat for this species (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134).
Furthermore, it is possible that the blue-headed macaw could benefit
from logging given that frugivores tend to benefit from logging due to
the increase in fruit availability, and lowland habitat species, such
as the blue-headed macaw, do well in modified human environments if
successional forests are left intact and poaching is controlled. In
addition, species experts have stated that the possibility that the
species is increasing with the spread of degraded forests along rivers
cannot be discounted (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133).
Because the range of the blue-headed macaw has remained 90 percent
forested and there is no evidence of a decline in either the range or
population, we have no indication that selective logging or illegal
logging has impacted the blue-headed macaw. Large areas within the
range of the blue-headed macaw are slated for selective logging (Tobias
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134); however, because there is no evidence
that selective logging removes habitat, and in fact the species may
benefit from selective logging, we have no reason to believe that
future selective logging activities in Peru will be a threat to this
species.
In summary, we find that deforestation via current forest
concessions and selective logging have not impacted the status of the
blue-headed macaw based on the fact that the range has remained 90
percent forested and there is no evidence of a decline in the range or
population of this species. Although we do not know the locations of
the forest concessions that may be designated in the future, if they
are located within the range of the blue-headed macaw, they may provide
[[Page 63484]]
protection to blue-headed macaw habitat from deforestation.
Furthermore, we found no information indicating that the known areas of
the blue-headed macaw's range that are slated for selective logging
will impact the status of the species; in fact, it is possible that the
species could benefit. Additionally, there are several conservation
programs being implemented in Peru to address deforestation (see
Conservation Programs below). Therefore, we have reason to believe that
future deforestation will not impact the status of this species in
Peru.
Bolivia
Approximately 57.2 million ha (141.3 million ac) (53 percent) of
Bolivia's total area is forested (FAO 2011, p. 118); of this forested
area, 38.9 million ha (96.1 million ac) are within the Bolivian Amazon
and constitute 5 percent of the total Amazon forest (Locklin and Haack
2003, p. 774). Large tracts of primary forest remain in Bolivia, but it
is likely that some of these will be subjected to logging (Fredericksen
2003, p. 13) as forest products contribute to Bolivia's national
exports (Byers and Israel 2008, p. vi). As of 2006, 89 timber companies
held the rights to 5.8 million ha (14.3 million ac) of logging
concessions (Pacheco 2006, p. 208). The forests of Bolivia have mainly
been subjected to selective logging (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610;
Fredericksen 2003, p. 10), which has been done at very low levels and
with low human pressure, allowing them to remain largely intact
(Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). There are management issues that still need
to be addressed, including sufficient regeneration time for commercial
species (Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). However, given that Bolivia
constitutes only a small part of this species' range, and the fact that
we found no information indicating that logging has impacted the blue-
headed macaw range or population in any of its range countries, we have
no reason to believe that logging is a threat to the species in
Bolivia. Furthermore, we have no information indicating any future
logging activities will impact the blue-headed macaw.
Brazil
Brazil contains 519.5 million ha (1.2 billion ac) of forested area,
62 percent of the total land area (FAO 2011, p. 118). Logging
concessions total only 150,000 ha (370,658 ac) (Colitt 2010,
unpaginated). However, by the end of 2010, Brazil was to have auctioned
off an additional 1 million ha (2.5 million ac) of forest concessions
to private companies in an effort to reduce the demand for illegal
logging. Concessions help establish control over public areas usually
occupied illegally (Colitt 2010, unpaginated).
Logging is occurring in blue-headed macaw habitat in extreme
western Brazil, but this species is a generalist and can exist within
degraded habitats. Rond[ocirc]nia and Acre are among Brazil's major
timber-production states (Asner et al. 2005, p. 480); however, this
species occurs just inside the border of western Brazil and we found no
information suggesting that the range or population of the blue-headed
macaw have been impacted by logging in Brazil and no information
indicating logging may affect this species in the future.
Large areas within the range of the blue-headed macaw have
experienced, or are slated for, selective logging (Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134), and designation of forest concessions could
potentially cause changes in land-use practices, perhaps affecting
plant and wildlife species composition and diversity of an assigned
area (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10).
However, BLI (2011a, unpaginated) reports that ``much of the forest
within the species' range is still intact, and although the Bolivian
forest is threatened by expansion of the logging industry, this species
may benefit from the consequent patchwork clearance.''
Ninety percent of the range of the blue-headed macaw remains
forested, and there is no evidence of a decline in either the range or
the population. Logging could affect individual blue-headed macaws
though the loss of food or nesting resources; however, considering the
extent of intact forests within the range of this macaw and no evidence
of a decline in the population (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134),
as well as the possibility that the blue-headed macaw is increasing
with the spread of degraded forests along rivers (Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133), we have no evidence to suggest that
logging is affecting the blue-headed macaw to a degree that it is
affecting the status of the species. Additionally, we have no
information to suggest that logging may become a threat to the status
of the blue-headed macaw in the future.
Roads and Infrastructure
Oliveira et al. (2007, p. 2) estimated that 75 percent of the total
Peruvian Amazon forest damage was within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the nearest
road. In Bolivia, studies have detected small-scale roadside
deforestation extending over 30 km (18.6 mi) from major roads
(Steininger et al. 2001, p. 132). Studies on the effects of roads on
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon have shown a 30 percent forest
loss within 10 km (6.2 mi) of roads and highways, with highways causing
an additional 20 percent forest loss within 11-25 km (6.8-15.5 mi), and
15 percent loss within 26-50 km (16-31 mi) (Zambrano et al. 2010, p.
158). Despite the deforestation occurring along roads and highways, the
range of the blue-headed macaw is 90 percent forested, and we found no
information indicating that the species has been impacted by roads or
any subsequent deforestation. In fact, species experts (Hennessey 2011,
pers. comm. and Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) indicate that this
species is doing well, despite some localized impacts from
infrastructure and roads.
The Initiative of the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of
South America (IIRSA) is a plan endorsed by the South American
presidents, which includes around 350 infrastructure projects, such as
highways, bridges, railways, ports, airports, and transmission
corridors, to accomplish regional economic integration and facilitate
trade (Babbitt 2009, pp. 28-29). At the center of this plan is the
nearly complete Transoceanic Highway, a 1,000-km (621.3-mi) highway
that connects the Brazilian State of Acre to the Peruvian coast,
passing through Puerto Maldonado (Garcia-Navarro 2009, unpaginated;
Babbitt 2009, p. 28; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) and near
several other locations in which the blue-headed macaw has been
recorded, bisecting its range (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134).
The blue-headed macaw occurs within the immediate outskirts of Puerto
Maldonado, one of the areas with significant disturbance, suggesting
that this species is not greatly affected by anthropogenic pressures
(Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 129).
Future urban expansion in Puerto Maldonado resulting from the
highway may put pressure on the protected area of Tambopata (Delgado
2008, p. 27), where the blue-headed macaw has been recorded. Although
the Transoceanic Highway is not located within Bolivia, the connection
between Cobija, Bolivia, and Brasil[eacute]ia, Brazil, allows Cobija, a
recorded location for the blue-headed macaw, to benefit from the road
project and potentially grow in the future (Delgado 2008, p. 31).
Additionally, IIRSA plans to build another highway that would branch of
from the Transoceanic Highway in Rio Branco, the capital of Acre. If
completed, this highway will run through the forests of Serra do
Divisor National Park, a known
[[Page 63485]]
location for the blue-headed macaw (Babbitt 2009, p. 31). In spite of
this information, we found no indication that the range, habitat, or
population of the blue-headed macaw has been impacted by the
Transoceanic Highway. Given that the species has not been adversely
affected by road construction or other infrastructure, we have no
information suggesting that the status of this species may be impacted
in the future by the Transoceanic Highway.
Although there has been road development within Peru, Bolivia, and
Brazil, and individual blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected
by road development through the loss of food and nesting resources, we
have no information indicating that the status of the species has been
adversely impacted by this development in the past. The range remains
90 percent forested and there is no evidence that the range or
population has declined. Furthermore, Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.)
notes that although road construction and related deforestation may
affect part of the blue-headed macaw's range, habitat analyses to date
show no evidence that deforestation will adversely affect the species
in the future.
Agriculture and Ranching
Logging and modern roads facilitate infiltration into pristine
forests by migrant settlers who use slash-and-burn methods for
agriculture and cattle pastures (Laurance 1998, p. 411). Slash-and-burn
agriculture involves the clearing of land and burning of debris
(Locklin and Haack 2003, p. 775; Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505). Often,
plots are abandoned after only two or three cycles, and then more
forests are cleared to establish new plots (Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al.
2007, p. 406; Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). Production may be limited
to subsistence farming if roads are in poor condition or if the cost of
transportation is high. However, if roads are in good condition and
provide access to international and national markets, production may
expand to cash crops (Zambrano et al. 2010, p. 158; Locklin and Haack
2003, p. 780).
Agriculture is considered the main cause of deforestation in the
lowlands of Bolivia (Pacheco 2006, p. 215). With pressures for
agriculture expansion, large areas are being cleared for both soybean
farms and cattle ranches (Pacheco 2006, pp. 213, 216; Duery and Vlosky
2005, p. 10; TNC 2001, unpaginated: Laurance 1998, p. 411). The San
Buenaventura-Puerto Heath road runs through the Madidi National Park, a
known location of the blue-headed macaw. The greatest human-caused
impact along this road was the conversion of forest via slash-and-burn
agriculture, although rates of deforestation were relatively low
(Locklin and Haak 2003, pp. 775, 778). Forest clearance patterns of
indigenous communities practicing shifting cultivation have been
observed, particularly along rivers, throughout Beni, Pando, and La Paz
(Steininger et al. 2001, p. 131). Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al. (2007, p.
406) found that the Tsimane', a native Amazonian society within Beni,
practice slash-and-burn agriculture and abandon their plots after one
or two cultivation cycles to establish new plots. This society is also
moving from subsistence farming towards cash crops, which requires
additional forest clearing and contributes to further deforestation
(Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al. 2007, p. 407). We have no information
indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been or will be impacted by
agriculture in Bolivia, and given that Bolivia is such a small portion
of the species' range, we have no reason to believe agricultural
expansion is affecting or will affect this species at the population
level.
Current expansion of deforestation in Bolivia Amazonia is also
associated with cattle ranching (Pacheco 2006, p. 216). Its
contribution to deforestation is expected to increase in the future due
to topographical limitations of mechanized agriculture. In Beni, the
impacts of cattle ranching may be a greater concern, as 65 percent of
all the cattle herds in Bolivia are located here (Pacheco 2006, pp.
215-216). However, the species' range in Bolivia is limited to just
inside the border and we have no information indicating that the blue-
headed macaw has been impacted, or could be impacted, by cattle
ranching in that area of its range.
In Brazilian Amazonia, cattle production is the dominate land use
in deforested areas and is the main factor driving deforestation
(Pacheco 2006, p. 223; Laurance 1999, p. 113; Fearnside 1996, p. 21).
Large-scale ranchers (those that own over 100 ha (247 ac)) are thought
to be responsible for 70-75 percent of all the deforestation in this
region (Laurance 1999, p. 113). Furthermore, illegal slash-and-burn
practices have already destroyed 20 percent of the Brazilian Amazon
(Colitt 2010, unpaginated). The States of Rond[ocirc]nia and Acre,
where the blue-headed macaw occurs, are currently experiencing
conversions of forest for agriculture and cattle ranching (Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). However, given this species' limited range
just inside the border of Brazil and its ability to thrive in altered
habitat, coupled with no information indicating that cattle ranching
has impacted, or will impact, the blue-headed macaw within its limited
range in Brazil, we do not believe that cattle production is currently,
or will be a threat to this species, now or in the future.
Although the migration of settlers, and the subsequent farming, has
been named by some as a contributing factor to deforestation in Peru
(Painter 2008, unpaginated; Hume et al. 2006, p. 3), we found little
information on the extent of deforestation due to agriculture. In
Man[uacute] National Park, 63,500 ha (156,911 ac) of 1.7 million ha
(4.2 million ac) were deforested up to the year 2005 for agricultural
activities (Cabieses 2009, p. 26). However, since 2006, the Integrated
Programme to Strengthen the Local Capacity of Small Farmers of the
Man[uacute] Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone of Peru has worked with
families within the park to foster activities compatible with organic
farming and incorporate natural resource management into agricultural
activities. By 2008, 530 families helped reforest 151 ha (373 ac) with
mostly native species (Cabieses 2008, pp. 26-27). In the area
surrounding Cordillera Azul National Park (a recorded location for the
blue-headed macaw), the rate of deforestation due to the coffee and tea
plantations and cereal grain farms (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557) has
increased. The core zone of the Park is largely free of human
inhabitants, with the exception of one rancher with 220 ha (543.6 ac)
of pasture and some reports of indigenous people in the southeastern
part of the Park. In 2008, the Peruvian government granted a 20-year
contract to the Peruvian NGO Centro de Conservaci[oacute]n,
Investigaci[oacute]n y Manejo de Areas Naturales Cordillera Azue (CIMA)
that allows CIMA to manage the park under the supervision of the State
and according to clearly defined guidelines. (Ostoic n.d., p. 1). In
addition, we found no information indicating agriculture in any of the
range states has impacted, or will impact, the blue-headed macaw, thus
we do not believe it will impact the species in Peru, especially given
the limited and localized nature of agriculture activities.
Agriculture and cattle ranching activities are currently taking
place within the range of the blue-headed macaw, especially within
Bolivia and Brazil. However, given that these two countries make up a
minimal part of the species range, it is unlikely to have any effect on
the species. Although it is possible that individual blue-headed macaws
could be affected by these activities through the loss of food or
nesting resources, we have no information indicating the species has
been adversely impacted by either
[[Page 63486]]
activity; in fact, the blue-headed macaw seems to benefit from some
fragmented habitat. There is no evidence of a decline in the range or
population of the blue-headed macaw and 90 percent of the species'
range remains forested. Both agriculture and cattle ranching are
expected to expand in the future; however, we have no information on
the extent of this expansion and no information indicating either
activity will be a threat to the species in the future.
Oil and Gas
The western Amazon contains large reserves of oil and gas, many
that are yet untapped (Finer et al. 2008, p. 1). Global demand for
energy and record oil prices have launched unprecedented levels of oil
and gas exploration and extraction in western Amazonia, with some of
the most intense activity occurring in Peru (Kolowski and Alonso 2010,
p. 917; Babbitt 2009, p. 31; Finer et al. 2008, p. 1).
National governments have delineated specific areas, or blocks,
that are zoned for hydrocarbon (e.g., natural gas and petroleum)
activities; these blocks may be leased to state and multinational
energy companies for exploration and production (Finer et al. 2008, p.
1). In western Amazonia, there are approximately 180 oil and gas blocks
covering about 688,000 km\2\ (265,638 mi\2\), which are operated by at
least 35 multinational companies (Finer et al. 2008, p. 2). These oil
and gas blocks may bring new access routes throughout the area,
contributing to deforestation, as it did in eastern Amazonia and the
southern Brazilian Amazon (Finer et al. 2008, p. 6).
In 2003, Peru reduced royalties to encourage investment and sparked
an exploration boom. As of 2008, 72 percent of the Peruvian Amazon was
zoned for oil and gas by the government into 64 separate blocks; 48 of
these blocks are currently active, the others may be subjected to
active exploration in the near future (Kolowski and Alonso 2010, p.
917; Finer et al. 2008, pp. 2, 5). The only areas fully protected from
oil and gas activities are national parks and national and historic
sanctuaries, which cover approximately 12 percent of the Peruvian
Amazon. However, 20 blocks overlap with 11 less strictly protected
areas, such as communal reserves and reserved zones (Finer et al. 2008,
p. 2). Although oil and gas exploration and production are occurring in
Peru, we have no information indicating that the blue-headed macaw has
been impacted, or will be impacted, by oil and gas activities in Peru.
In Bolivia and Brazil, areas open to oil and gas explorations are
increasing rapidly (Finer et al. 2008, p. 2). In Bolivia, two leased
blocks, covering 15,000 km\2\ (5,791 mi\2\), include large parts of
Madidi National Park, a recorded location for the blue-headed macaw, as
well as other parks where the blue-headed macaw has not been recorded;
exploration in this region is imminent. The primary task of a newly
created oil company, comprised of the State oil companies of Bolivia
and Venezuela, is to explore for oil in newly created blocks
surrounding Madidi National Park. Many other blocks in Bolivia overlap
with protected areas (Finer et al. 2008, p. 5). We have no information
indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been adversely impacted by
oil and gas exploration in Bolivia; species experts have indicated that
there is no evidence of a decline in the range or population of the
blue-headed macaw (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) . Furthermore,
we do not have information to indicate that the species will be
impacted by future oil and gas exploration in Bolivia.
In Brazil, a 400-km (248.5-mi) gas pipeline was completed in 2009,
running from Urucus gas field (State of Rond[ocirc]nia) to Manaus
(State of Amazonas). Another 500-km (310.6-mi) pipeline has been
proposed to carry gas to Porto Velho in Rond[ocirc]nia. Additionally,
Brazil's National Petroleum Agency has announced plans to look for oil
and gas in the State of Acre, on the border with Peru and Bolivia
(Finer et al. 2008, p. 5), an area that contains known locations for
the blue-headed macaw. Oil and gas exploration and production do not
necessarily impact parrots. Drilling operations often have a smaller
footprint than other extractive activities, and this is further reduced
once the well is installed. Further, we found no information that
existing oil and gas operations have impacted any parrot populations in
any of the range countries. Because there is no evidence of a decline
in the range or population of the blue-headed macaw in Brazil, we have
no information indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been impacted
by oil and gas exploration in Brazil. Furthermore, we do not have
information to indicate that the species will be impacted by future oil
and gas exploration in Bolivia.
Pending oil and gas projects are the primary threats to Peru's
Camisea region and Bolivia's Madidi region (Finer et al. 2008, p. 6).
Although individual blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected by
oil and gas explorations through the loss of food or nesting resources,
there is no evidence of a decline in the range or population of the
blue-headed macaw, and we have no information indicating that the
species has been adversely impacted by oil and gas exploration.
Furthermore, we have no information to indicate that the species will
be impacted by future oil and gas exploration.
Mining
Over the last decade, the price of gold has increased 360 percent,
with an annual rate of increase of approximately 18 percent;
subsequently, the number of non-industrial gold mining operations in
developing countries has risen (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 1). Many of
these operations are illegal, as they are set up by residents without
permits or formal title to the land, and without an environmental
impact analysis or miner education (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 1).
In Peru, the expansion of gold mining has been encouraged by the
Transoceanic Highway, which has drawn impoverished Peruvians into the
lowlands in search of a livelihood and hoping to strike it rich
(Garcia-Navarro 2009, unpaginated). Madre de Dios is currently
undergoing a new gold rush due to the high price of gold, increased oil
and gas activities, and the completion of infrastructure projects
(Hajek et al. 2011, in press). This region is Peru's third largest
producer of gold and accounts for 70 percent of Peru's artisanal
(small-scale or subsistence miner) gold production (Swenson et al.
2011, p. 2). Concurrent with increasing annual gold prices, mining
deforestation has been increasing since 2003. From 2003 to 2006, annual
mining deforestation was approximately 292 ha (721.5 ac) per year. From
2006 to 2009 this rate increased to 1,915 ha (4,732 ac) per year, a
six-fold increase (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 4). Furthermore, Swenson et
al. (2011, pp. 4-5) found that mining deforestation in this area is
outpacing deforestation due to settlements, although this scenario
might be different for areas with more secondary roads, which tend to
correlate with higher rates of deforestation. One study found that
forest recovery following small-scale gold mining was extremely slow
and qualitatively inferior to regeneration following other human-caused
disturbances (Mol and Ouboter 2003, p. 202). However, these operations
are typically small and require very little land-clearing. Given the
relatively small amount of land conversion for gold mining, we found no
information indicating that deforestation via mining has impacted the
blue-headed macaw, nor did we find any information
[[Page 63487]]
indicating this species will be impacted by mining in the future.
In addition to deforestation, impacts to the environment from gold
mining stem from acid mine drainage and air and water pollution from
contaminants, such as mercury. During gold processing, mercury is
released into sediments, waterways and the atmosphere. As parrots are
known to use riverside clay licks, they may be at risk of mercury
entering their systems when they ingest soil particles. Many developing
countries have reached agreements with large gold mining companies that
do not use mercury, but regulating small-scale, artisanal mines
continues to be a struggle (Swenson et al. 2011, pp. 1, 5).
Furthermore, gold miners might actively erode riverbanks, which may
include essential clay licks used by parrots (Lee 2010, p. 12).
However, we have no information indicating that mining has affected the
blue-headed macaw.
Permits for mining require an environmental impact report. Madre de
Dios has the highest number of unapproved mining permits in Peru;
moreover, there is little effective enforcement of unapproved permits
or illegal miners, and therefore, little incentive to apply for a
permit (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 2). Miners are able to use waterways
for transportation and are capable of invading far reaches of
communities and protected areas. Lack of funding, staff, and staff
training makes patrolling these remote areas difficult (Swenson et al.
2011, p. 5). Two of the three mining sites studied by Swenson et al.
(2011, p. 4) are located less than 7 km (4.3 mi) from the Amarakaeri
Communal Reserve and less than 70 km (43.5 mi) from Manu National Park.
In a study of 54 national parks in Latin America, mining was considered
a threat in approximately 20 (37 percent) of the parks, of which 11 (55
percent) were located in Peru (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 4). Peru's newly
created Ministry of Environment is working to control illegal mining,
and a recent effort was made through a moratorium on new mining
concessions (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 5).
In addition to the major mining growth centers, there are many
small expanding areas of mining scattered across Madre de Dios, which
are harder to detect (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 5). Rising annual gold
prices and an increasing number of miners setting up illegal mines may
fragment once large areas of pristine forests. Although individual
blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected by mining through the
loss of food or nesting resources, we have no information that the
species has been adversely impacted by mining. In fact, this species
tends to benefit from patchwork clearance of forests (BLI 2011a,
unpaginated). Furthermore, we do not have any information indicating
the species may be impacted by future mining operations.
Conservation Programs
A new mechanism is emerging that may raise funds to protect forests
from deforestation, as well as mitigate climate change. This mechanism
is known as ``reduced emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation'' (REDD). As forests are destroyed for logging, mining, or
oil and gas, the carbon stored in the trees is released as carbon
dioxide, which adds to the concentration of greenhouse gases; 20
percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are thought to be from
deforestation (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557). Lawmakers and businesspeople
around the world are beginning to consider investing in REDD programs
as a way to mitigate climate change. Under this type of program,
developing countries would be paid to protect their forests and reduce
emissions associated with deforestation. Funds would come from
foundations, governments, or financial agencies such as World Bank;
industries in developed countries would receive credits for saving
trees in developing countries (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557). If REDD
projects are able to generate revenue comparable to those of activities
such as logging and agriculture, and revenues are distributed equally
among stakeholders, this would give standing forests value and an
incentive for forest conservation (Hajek et al. 2011, in press). REDD
projects are emerging in many regions (Hajek et al. 2011, in press);
however, we do not yet know the occurrence of these projects within the
range of the blue-headed macaw and how successful these projects will
be.
Another program being implemented is certification of forests. The
basis for certification is for consumers to be assured by a neutral
third party that forest companies are employing sound practices that
will ensure sustainable forest management. By being certified, a
company can differentiate their products and potentially acquire a
larger share of the market (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 12). To be
certified, companies must follow standards set by the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC). Certification companies not only certify
forests, but also forest products that come from well managed forests
and may also provide a means to track logs and remove illegally logged
trees from the market (Duery and Vlosky 2005, pp. 13-14; Kometter et
al. 2004, p. 9). To date, more than 670,000 ha (1.6 million ac) of
Peru's forest have achieved FSC certification (Rodriguez and Cubas
2010, p. 78). Bolivia has the largest area of FSC-certified tropical
forests in the world; by the mid-2000s, Bolivia announced that 2.2
million ha (5.4 million ac) of humid tropical forests were certified
(Killeen et al. 2007, p. 600; Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 14). In 2004,
Brazil announced that 1.2 million ha (2.9 million ac) of native Amazon
forests and 1.0 million ha (2.4 million ac) of plantations were
certified (WWF 2004, unpaginated). The FSC promotes ``the equitable
incorporation of social and environmental considerations when decisions
are taken to manage forests. Under FSC certification, civil and
indigenous rights are respected, areas of high social and environmental
conservation value are maintained or enhanced, natural forests are not
converted, highly hazardous pesticides and genetically modified trees
are prohibited, and harvesting must meet national laws and
international treaties.'' Furthermore, forests that are ``FSC certified
forest products'' are verified from the forest of origin through the
supply chain. The FSC label ensures that the forest products used are
from responsibly harvested and verified sources (FSC n.d.,
unpaginated).
In 2008, Peru announced its intention to reach zero deforestation
within just 10 years. The Peruvian government stated that more than 80
percent of the country's primary forests could be saved or protected
with about $20 million U.S. dollars (USD) a year from the international
community. However, there are major obstacles to achieving this goal.
Additionally, Peru launched in 2010 its National Program for the
Conservation of Forests and Mitigation of Climate Changes. This program
aims to preserve 54 million hectares (133 million acres) of the 72
million hectares (178 million acres) of tropical forest in the Peruvian
Amazon, although it is expected that the entire area consisting of 72
million hectares will be included (La Cruz 2010, unpaginated).
Similarly, Brazil announced a plan to cut deforestation rates by 70
percent over the next 10 years with the help of international funding.
Brazil's plan calls on foreign countries to find $20 billion USD by
2021 (Painter 2008, unpaginated). All three countries have committed to
protecting their forest resources in the future and have moved towards
their goals to reach zero deforestation by certifying nearly 4 million
ha (10 million ac) of forests.
[[Page 63488]]
There are many obstacles to overcome to reach these goals, including
annual funding. If these programs are implemented and goals reached,
deforestation in the Amazon will be significantly reduced.
Summary of Factor A
It is clear that the forests of the Amazon are being deforested for
various economic activities, and deforestation rates have been
increasing for several decades. How a species responds to this type and
level of habitat disturbance depends on the preferences of the
individual species, and the distance of undisturbed rainforest near
disturbed areas. Many parrots are not habitat specialists and thrive in
mosaics of different successional habitats. Many species of lowland
forest habitat seem to do relatively well in modified human
environments, as long as a mosaic of habitats in different successional
stages is maintained and poaching and trapping are controlled (Snyder
et al. 2000, p. 99).
Although we do not know the exact extent of current deforestation
within the specific areas occupied by the blue-headed macaw, especially
within Bolivia and Brazil where the species occurs just inside the
countries' borders, there is no evidence that deforestation has
impacted the blue-headed macaw. Ninety percent of this species' range
is still forested. There is no evidence of a decline in the range or
population and populations within Peru and Bolivia have remained
healthy. At a minimum, the population numbers 11,500 individuals
(including immature individuals), and this may be an underestimate as
the entire global range has not been surveyed. Furthermore, blue-headed
macaws at the Tambopata Research Center have been increasing since
2000, and sightings of the blue-headed macaw in Peru have increased
over the last 10 years. Additionally, it has been found in a wide range
of habitats, and is slightly more common in degraded habitats than
pristine forests. The blue-headed macaw still occurs on the outskirts
of Puerto Maldonado, Peru, one of the areas with significant
disturbance, suggesting that this species is not greatly affected by
anthropogenic pressures. Species experts have even suggested that the
blue-headed macaw may increase with the spread of degraded forests
along rivers.
Although there is evidence that forest habitat within the species
range is subject to selective logging, the patchwork clearance as a
consequence of logging may benefit the species. Furthermore, we found
no information that selective logging has adversely impacted the
species. Additionally, road construction and related deforestation that
are likely to affect the region in which the blue-headed macaw occurs
is not likely to adversely affect the species. It is possible that
individual blue-headed macaws may be affected by economic activities
involving deforestation, such as logging, road development, agriculture
and cattle ranching, oil and gas exploration, and mining, through the
loss of food or nesting resources; however, we have no evidence to
suggest that deforestation is affecting the blue-headed macaw to a
degree that it is affecting the status of the species. Based on the
best scientific and commercial information available, we find that
deforestation from various economic activities, as discussed above, is
not adversely impacting the blue-headed macaw and has not affected the
range or status of the species. Additionally, we do not anticipate
significant modification to the blue-headed macaw's habitat or
curtailment of its range due to deforestation in the foreseeable
future. A vast amount of the species' range has remained forested
through current rates of deforestation. Significant amounts of the
forests within Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil have been FSC-certified,
indicating they are subject to sustainable harvesting, which may
improve its habitat. Furthermore, all three countries have noted their
commitment to protecting their forests, ensuring that harvest is done
sustainably, and each has a goal of reaching zero deforestation within
ten years. Some of the operations within the range of the blue-headed
macaw that contribute to deforestation have smaller footprints than
other extractive activities and require little land clearing (e.g., oil
and gas operations and mining). Although increased deforestation is
anticipated in Bolivia and Brazil, these areas represent only a small
portion of the species' range. Therefore, based on the best scientific
and commercial information available, we find that future deforestation
from various economic activities, as discussed above, is not a threat
to the status of the blue-headed macaw at this time.
We found no information suggesting that habitat loss is a current
threat to this species or may become a threat to this species in the
future such that it may contribute to the risk of extinction of this
species. Therefore, based on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is not a
threat to the blue-headed macaw in any portion of its range now or in
the foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Parrots, in general, are long-lived with low reproductive rates,
traits that make them particularly sensitive to increased mortality
(Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711).
Hunting of parrots is widespread, and locals are known to hunt macaws
at clay licks, which provide easy wait and shoot opportunities, for
food and ornamental feathers (Tobias or Brightsmith 2007, p. 134).
Logging operations are known to contribute to increased hunting in
areas opened by the logging roads and subsequent settlements (Lee 2010,
p. 3; Hume et al. 2006, p. 11; Fredericksen 2003, p. 11). However,
there are no direct reports of hunters targeting the blue-headed macaw.
Furthermore, hunters generally target larger species of macaw for food;
since the blue-headed macaw is a small species, it is unlikely that it
is targeted as a food source. Additionally, the feathers of this
species have not been observed in local handicrafts, and therefore, it
is likely not targeted for this purpose either (Tobias or Brightsmith
2007, p. 134).
Trapping parrots for the bird trade has occurred since pre-European
times, as Amerindians valued macaws, parrots, and feather ornaments as
ritualistic and trade objects (Snyder et al. 2000, pp. 98-99). Today,
owning a wild parrot as a pet remains socially acceptable in most
neotropical countries, even if it is illegal (Snyder et al. 2000, p.
99). Despite laws to protect wild parrots, the black market continues
to supply a large part of the pet parrot trade in national and
international markets. Illegal trade is thought to contribute to the
threatened status of 66 parrot species worldwide, including 27 species
in South America (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, p. 1).
In 1981, the blue-headed macaw was listed in Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). CITES is an international agreement between
governments to ensure that the international trade of CITES-listed
plant and animal species does not threaten species' survival in the
wild. There are currently 175 CITES Parties (member countries or
signatories to the Convention). Under this treaty, CITES Parties
regulate the import, export, and reexport of specimens, parts, and
products of CITES-listed plants and animal species (also see Factor D).
Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and
[[Page 63489]]
certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Scientific and
Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES 2010a, unpaginated).
In 2002, a CITES document proposed an uplisting of blue-headed
macaw from Appendix II to Appendix I based on increasing numbers of
blue-headed macaws in legal and illegal trade and the effects of trade
on a species with low reproductive output (CITES 2002, pp. 1, 4-5).
Sources cited in the document stated that the blue-headed macaw was
offered in Brazilian markets by the hundreds, possibly originating from
Peru, and was well known in Bolivian markets. Sources also stated that
traders showed interest in buying more blue-headed macaws and for
higher prices (CITES 2002, p. 4). Prices for blue-headed macaws were
found to be very high, ranging from $300 to 12,500 USD. Prices are set
according to demand and may be influenced by the species' rarity.
Wright et al. (2001 in CITES 2002, p. 3) found that prices above $500
USD were significantly related to high poaching rates. In view of the
significant interest in blue-headed macaws by aviculturist and
commercial breeders, increased numbers of birds kept illegally, and the
assumed high demand based on prices, capture pressure was believed to
likely increase and have detrimental impacts to the species' survival
due to the species rarity, low reproductive rate, and limited
distribution (CITES 2002, pp. 5-6).
In January 2003, the blue-headed macaw was uplisted to Appendix I
of CITES. An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with
extinction whose trade is permitted only under exceptional
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The import
of an Appendix-I species requires the issuance of both an import and
export permit. Import permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if
findings are made that the import would be for purposes that are not
detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild and that the
specimen will not be used for primarily commercial purposes (CITES
Article III(3)). Export permits for Appendix-I species are issued only
if findings are made that the specimen was legally acquired and trade
is not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild, and if
the issuing authority is satisfied that an import permit has been
granted for the specimen (CITES Article III(2)). On the same day the
blue-headed macaw was uplisted to Appendix I, the Philippines entered a
reservation stating that it would not be bound by the provisions of
CITES relating to trade of blue-headed macaws (CITES 2011,
unpaginated). A reservation means that the Philippines is treated as a
non-CITES party with respect to the species concerned. Countries with
CITES reservations may only trade with other countries that have the
same reservation on the same species at the next level lower, in this
case Appendix II. If both countries do not have a reservation on that
species, then the animal remains on Appendix I.
Based on data obtained from United Nations Environment Programme-
World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database,
from the time the blue-headed macaw was uplisted to CITES Appendix I in
January 2003 through 2009, 338 specimens of this species were reported
in international trade. Of this total, 276 were live birds, 61
scientific specimens, and 1 body. In analyzing these reported data,
several records appear to be over counts due to slight differences in
the manner in which the importing and exporting countries reported
their trade, and it is likely that the actual number of specimens of
blue-headed macaws reported in international trade to UNEP-WCMC from
2003 through 2009 was 312, including 252 live birds, 59 scientific
specimens, and 1 body. Of these specimens, 58 (19 percent) were
reportedly exported into Mexico, Belgium, and South Africa from Peru
(UNEP-WCMC 2011, unpaginated). With the information given in the UNEP-
WCMC database, from 2003 through 2009 only 26 wild specimens of blue-
headed macaws were reported in trade, and these were non-living
specimens traded for scientific purposes; the other 286 specimens
reported in trade (252 live birds, 33 scientific specimens, and 1 body)
were captive-bred or captive-born specimens.
Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties to CITES
adopted a process, termed the National Legislation Project, to evaluate
whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to successfully
implement the Treaty (CITES 2010b, pp. 1-5). In reviewing a country's
national legislation, the CITES Secretariat evaluates factors such as
whether a Party's domestic laws designate the responsible Scientific
and Management Authorities, prohibit trade contrary to the requirements
of the Convention, have penalty provisions in place for illegal trade,
and provide for seizure of specimens that are illegally traded or
possessed. The Governments of Peru and Brazil were determined to be in
Category 1, which means they meet all the requirements to implement
CITES. Bolivia was determined to be in Category 2, meaning legislation
does not meet the requirements to implement CITES; however, Bolivia has
submitted a CITES Legislation Plan and draft legislation to the
Secretariat for comments (www.cites.org, SC59 Document 11, Annex p. 1).
Generally this means that Bolivia has not completed all the
requirements to effectively implement CITES. However, since the blue-
headed macaw is listed as an Appendix-I species under CITES, commercial
legal international trade is very limited. Because the majority of the
specimens of this species reported in international trade (81 percent)
are captive-bred or captive-born and the few wild specimens reported in
trade were scientific specimens traded for scientific purposes, we
believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is
not a threat to the species. In addition, Bolivia's category 2 status
under the National Legislation Project does not appear to be impacting
the blue-headed macaw.
There is evidence of a large market for national and international
parrot trade, much of which involves illegally traded birds in Peru,
Bolivia, and Brazil (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, p. 5; Lee 2010, p.
12; Herrera and Hennessey 2007, pp. 296-297; Tobias and Brightsmith
2007, p. 134; CITES 2002, p. 4). One study found illegal trade of CITES
Appendix-I and Appendix-II listed species, although the blue-headed
macaw was not recorded (Herrera and Hennessey 2007, p. 298). In Peru,
there are reports of trappers working unprotected clay licks the blue-
headed macaw is known to use; however, it is not known whether the
species was targeted or if it was actually caught (Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). It was thought that foreign traders
purchased blue-headed macaws in and around towns in Peru, Bolivia, and
Brazil with an unverified report of ``hundreds'' passing through some
Brazilian markets (CITES 2002 in Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134),
but this report is from before the species was listed in CITES Appendix
I in 2003. Three recent studies on domestic parrot trade found little
to no evidence of blue-headed macaws being traded, and certainly not by
the hundreds; one study found one report of two birds being present in
a single market (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, pp. 5-6; Brightsmith
2009, pers. comm.; Herrera and Hennessey 2007, pp. 298-299). It appears
that although there may be some evidence of blue-headed macaws in the
illegal pet bird trade, these numbers are likely low, as there is no
solid supporting data that this species occurs in local markets in
large quantities (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.), and furthermore, the
report of
[[Page 63490]]
``hundreds'' of blue-headed macaws in Brazilian markets referred to
above occurred prior to the listing of the species in CITES Appendix I.
What little illegal international trade may be occurring does not
appear to have a significant impact on the blue-headed macaw, given a
population ranging from 11,500 to 57,500 (Brightsmith 2009, pers.
comm.).
Summary of Factor B
We found no evidence indicating that the blue-headed macaw is
hunted as a food source or for ornamental feathers. Although trapping
for the pet bird trade may have occurred in large numbers, we have no
evidence that this is currently occurring. Since the CITES Appendix-I
listing, legal commercial international trade has been very limited.
Furthermore, recent studies of the parrot trade in Peru, Bolivia, and
Brazil found no evidence of this species in markets, suggesting that
illegal trade may only be occurring in small numbers, if at all, or is
very well hidden. In addition, we are not aware of any information
currently available that indicates the use of this species for any
recreational or educational purpose. According to the WCMC Trade
Database, from 2003 through 2009, 26 specimens were traded for
scientific purposes. Given the estimated population size of 11,500-
57,500 individuals, we find that trade for scientific purposes is
insignificant. Based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to the blue-headed
macaw in any portion of its range now or in the foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
Infectious diseases can pose many direct threats to individual
birds, as well as entire flocks (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 287).
Research on diseases affecting the blue-headed macaw specifically,
either in captivity or in the wild, is lacking. Most of the available
research on diseases in macaws and parrots address captive-held birds;
information on the health of macaws in the wild is scarce (Karesh et
al. 1997, p. 368). It is not clear how prevalent diseases which are
common in birds held in captivity affect this species in the wild. Some
of the common diseases in macaws are discussed below.
Proventricular Dilatation Disease
One serious disease that has been reported to infect psittacines is
Proventricular dilatation disease (PDD), which is also known as avian
bornavirus (ABV) or macaw wasting disease. It is a fatal disease that
poses a serious threat to domesticated and wild parrots worldwide,
particularly those with very small populations (Kistler et al. 2008, p.
1; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 288). This contagious disease causes damage
to the nerves of the upper digestive tract, so that food digestion and
absorption are negatively affected. The disease has a 100-percent
mortality rate in affected birds, although the exact manner of
transmission between birds is unclear. In 2008, researchers discovered
a genetically diverse set of novel ABVs that are thought to be the
cause (Kistler et al. 2008, p. 1). The researchers developed diagnostic
tests, methods of treating or preventing bornavirus infection, and
methods for screening for the anti-bornaviral compounds (Kistler et al.
2008, pp. 1-15).
Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease
Psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD) has been documented in
over 35 psittacine species, but all psittacines should be regarded as
potentially susceptible (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 296). This viral
disease, which originated in Australia, affects both wild and captive
birds, causing chronic infections resulting in either feather loss or
deformities of beak and feathers (Cameron 2007, p. 82). PBFD causes
immunodeficiency and affects organs such as feathers, the liver, and
brain. Suppression of the immune system can result in secondary
infections due to other viruses, bacteria, or fungi. The disease can
occur without obvious signs (de Kloet and de Kloet 2004, p. 2,394).
Birds usually become infected in the nest by ingesting or inhaling
viral particles. Infected birds develop immunity, die within a couple
of weeks, or become chronically infected. No vaccine exists to immunize
populations (Cameron 2007, p. 82).
Newcastle's Disease
Newcastle's disease (ND) is a contagious and fatal viral disease
that affects all species of birds, both domestic and wild (South Dakota
Animal Industry Board (SD AIB) 2010, p. 2). Introduction of this
disease to wild populations may come from infected birds in aviaries,
although this is a low likelihood; exposure is more likely to come from
infected domestic chickens or people carrying the disease on clothing
and footwear (Styles et al. 2008, p. 93). ND affects the respiratory,
nervous, and digestive systems. Symptoms include sneezing, gasping for
air, nasal discharge, coughing, diarrhea, depression, tremors, dropping
wings, paralysis, partial to complete drop in egg production, thin
shelled eggs, swelling of tissue around the eyes and in the neck, and
sudden death (SD AIB 2010, p. 2; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 300). Once in
a population, this disease can cause severe mortality (Styles et al.
2008, p. 93). This disease is classified as a Foreign Animal Disease in
the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service requires that all imported birds be tested
and quarantined for disease before entering the country. Birds
illegally smuggled into the United States are not quarantined and,
therefore, may introduce this disease to captive birds (SD AIB 2010, p.
4). There is no treatment for this disease (Abramson et al. 1995, p.
300).
Psittacosis
Psittacosis, also known as Parrot Fever, is an infection caused by
the bacteria Chlamydophilia psittaci. An estimated 1 percent of all
birds in the wild are infected and act as carriers. Those that live in
a stable environment appear to have little complications from the
disease; however, stress, due to the loss of food source or habitat,
will invoke the disease (Jones 2007, unpaginated). In pet birds,
psittacosis can cause ruffled feathers, depression, diarrhea,
respiratory problems, loss of appetite, weight loss, and even death.
This disease can be transferred to humans and cause mild flu-like
infections or serious pneumonia. Psittacosis can be treated with
antibiotics (Michigan Department of Agriculture 2002, pp. 1-2).
Although there are many diseases that could negatively affect
macaws in captivity and in the wild, we are unaware of any information
indicating that any of those diseases are impacting the blue-headed
macaw at a level that may affect the status of the species as a whole
and to the extent that it is considered a threat to the species
(Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.; World Parrot Trust 2009, pers. comm.).
Predation
Although the blue-headed macaw has not been recorded as the prey of
other predators, there are various bird and mammal species found in the
lowland forests of the Amazon that could potentially prey on macaws
(CITES 202, p. 3). While feeding at clay licks, parrots are
particularly vulnerable to raptors, especially those that can catch
them in flight; eagles may be a potential predator, as other macaws
have been observed leaving clay licks when an eagle approaches (Burger
and Gochfeld 2003, pp. 33; CITES 2002, p. 3). Additionally, jaguars
(Panthera onca)
[[Page 63491]]
could also prey on macaws, given the chance (Burger and Gochfeld 2003,
pp. 33). In one study that found evidence of nest predation in tree
cavities in Peru, the author suggested birds, such as toucans, arboreal
mammals, such as monkeys, and possibly snakes are significant nest
predators (Brightsmith 2005, p. 79). Although blue-headed macaws may be
subject to predation, there is no evidence that this is occurring at a
level that poses a threat to the species (Brightsmith 2009, pers.
comm.; World Parrot Trust 2009, pers. comm.).
Summary of Factor C
We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that
indicates disease or predation poses a threat to this species. As a
result, we find that disease and predation are not threats to the blue-
headed macaw in any portion of its range now or in the future.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Peru
The blue-headed macaw is considered ``vulnerable'' by the Peruvian
Government under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG (2004, p. 276855). This
Decree prohibits hunting, take, transport, and trade of protected
species, except as permitted by regulation. We found that hunting and
trade are not threats to the blue-headed macaw at this time (Factor B),
possibly because this species may not be hunted due to its smaller
size. In addition, this species has not been recently found in the
domestic trade markets within its range, therefore, this regulation
appears to be contributing to adequate protection against hunting and
trade.
In 2000, Peru created a new Forest and Wildlife Law (Ley Forestal y
de Fauna Silvestre No 27308) to govern the forestland and improve
control of wildlife trade (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, p. 2; Granoff
2008, p. 533). This law provides a regime for effective regulation of
efficient and productive commercial forestry. Most notably, the law
requires management plans for all forestry-related harvesting
activities, including long-term plans and annual operating plans, which
are submitted to Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), the
Peruvian government organization in charge of the protection of flora
and fauna of the country (Granoff 2008, p. 552; WWF 2006b,
unpaginated). However, implementation is limited by the scarce
resources of INRENA (Indian Country Today, 2007, unpaginated).
The Forest and Wildlife Law also regulates the commercialization of
wild species, provides minimum requirements for their harvest,
collection, and transportation, and establishes a maximum collection
quota for each species from their natural environment (Gasta[ntilde]aga
et al. 2010, p. 2). INRENA annually sets a quota for certain species,
which is published in the government newspaper. In 2007 and 2008, there
were seven parrot species listed for legal wildlife trade; however,
trade in the blue-headed macaw was not permitted (Gasta[ntilde]aga et
al. 2010, p. 2). As trade is not currently a threat to this species
(Factor B), this regulation may contribute to adequate regulation of
trade in this species.
Recent studies by the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA)
have concluded that there are approximately 5,000 laws and regulations
directly or indirectly related to environmental protection and natural
resource conservation in Peru. However, many of these are hindered by
lack of resources and enforcement capabilities (Muller 2001, pp. 1-2).
The forests of the Amazon, including forests in Peru, are being
deforested for various economic activities, and deforestation rates
have been increasing for several decades. In spite of this, we found
that habitat loss as a result of deforestation has not been a threat to
this species; therefore, it appears that although existing forest
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate, the inadequacy of these
mechanisms in Peru is not affecting the blue-headed macaw.
Bolivia
The 1975 Law on Wildlife, National Parks, Hunting and Fishing
(Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1-34) has the fundamental objective of
protecting the country's natural resources. This law governs the
protection, management, utilization, transportation, and selling of
wildlife and their products; the protection of endangered species;
habitat conservation of fauna and flora; and the declaration of
national parks, biological reserves, refuges, and wildlife sanctuaries,
tending to the preservation, promotion, and rational use of these
resources (Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1-34; Environmental Law
Alliance 2003, p. 2). Although this law designates national protection
for all wildlife, there is no information as to the actual protections
this confers to the blue-headed macaw. Law No. 12,301 (1975, pp. 1-34)
also placed into public trust all national parks, reserves, refuges,
and wildlife sanctuaries. However, there is no specific information as
to the governmental protections afforded within the protected areas to
either the blue-headed macaw or its habitat. Additionally, this
regulation is very weak as it is 36 years old and the institutional
framework has changed completely (Environmental Law Alliance 2003, p.
2). We found that hunting and trade are not threats to the blue-headed
macaw at this time (Factor B); therefore, this regulation may
contribute to adequate protection against unsustainable trade of the
species.
Bolivia passed an overarching environmental law in 1992 (Law No.
1,333 1992), with the intent of protecting and conserving the
environment and natural resources and promoting sustainable development
(Environmental Law Alliance 2003, p. 1). Article 111 of this law states
that all persons involved in unauthorized trade, capture, and
transportation of wild animals are subject to a 2-year prison sentence
and a fine equivalent to 100 percent of the value of the animal
(Herrera and Hennessey 2007, pp. 295-296). However, there is no
specific legislation to implement this law (Environmental Law Alliance
2003, p. 1). Nevertheless, we found that trade is not a threat to the
blue-headed macaw at this time (Factor B); therefore, existing
regulations may contribute to adequate protection against unsustainable
trade.
Before 1996, timber companies were not required to write or use
management plans and based their harvesting on selective extraction;
this resulted in poor forest management, resource degradation, and a
steep reduction in timber values (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). In
1996, Bolivia implemented a new Forestry Law (Ley Forestal No. 1700) to
regulate the protection and sustainable use of forests and balance the
interests of society and the economic and ecological health of the
country (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). This law requires approved
management plans and compliance with best management practices,
including a 5-year forest management plan that incorporates forestry
inventory data, timber stocking maps, and annual operation plans (Duery
and Vlosky 2005, p. 10; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). A typical forestry
management plan subdivides the forest into parcels; one is used each
year in a rotational system, typically providing for a 19-year
regeneration period (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). Additionally, the
Deforestation and Slash-and-Burn Plan that is part of this Forestry Law
requires a payment to the forestry office for
[[Page 63492]]
slash-and-burn activities (Locklin and Haak 2003, p. 780).
In Bolivia, selective logging has been done at very low levels and
with low human pressure, allowing them to remain largely intact
(Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). Given that the species occurs just inside
the border of Bolivia, and we found that habitat loss as a result of
deforestation is not a threat to this species, it appears that the
existing forest regulatory mechanisms in Bolivia may provide adequate
protection for the blue-headed macaw.
Brazil
In 1998, Brazil passed the Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 9605/
98). Section I of this law details crimes against wild fauna, which
include: the killing, harassment, hunting, capturing, or use of any
fauna species without authorization (Clayton 2011, p. 4; UNEP, n.d.,
unpaginated). Additionally, except for the State of Rio Grande do Sul,
commercial, sport, and recreational hunting are prohibited in Brazil.
Penalties include a jail sentence of 6 months to 1 year, and/or a fine;
the penalty is increased by half if the crime is committed under
certain circumstances, including against rare species or those
considered endangered, or within a protected area. However, it is not
considered a crime to kill an animal when it is to satisfy hunger; to
protect agriculture, orchards, and herds if authorized; or if the
animal has been characterized as dangerous. This law also protects
against other crimes involving the fauna species of Brazil. With
respect to bird species, this law prohibits inhibiting reproduction
without authorization; modifying or destroying nests or shelters;
selling, offering, exporting, purchasing, keeping, utilizing, or
transporting eggs, as well as products derived from fauna species
without authorization; and introducing species into the country without
license. Although this law provides protection to the fauna species of
Brazil, it is more permissive than the prior law, the Fauna Protection
Act (Law No. 5.197/1967), which provided more severe punishments
(Clayton 2011, p. 4). We found that hunting and trade are not threats
to the blue-headed macaw at this time (Factor B); therefore, this
regulation may contribute to adequate protection against trade.
Section II of the Environmental Crimes Law details the crimes
against flora, which include the destruction and damaging of forest
reserves; cutting trees in forest reserves, causing fire in forests;
extracting minerals from public forests or reserves without
authorization; receipt of wood or vegetable products for commercial or
industrial purposes without requesting a copy of the supplier's
license; polluting the environment at levels which may cause damages to
the health of human beings, or death of animals or significant
destruction of plants; and research or extraction of mineral resources
without authorization. Penalties vary according to the crime and may be
increased under certain circumstances; for example, the penalty may be
increased by one sixth to one third if the crime results in a decrease
of natural waters, soil erosion, or modification of climatic regime
(Clayton 2011, p. 5; UNEP, n.d., unpaginated).
The Public Forests Management Law (Law No. 11284, 2006) was passed
to protect and preserve forests that belong to the Federal, State, or
local governments, with environmental, economic, and social benefits.
This law is expected to help end illegal land occupation by delineating
public forests (WWF 2006a, unpaginated); three management models are
provided: creating conservation units (e.g., national forests),
allocating forest areas for community use free of charge (e.g., forest
settlements), and signing forest concession contracts (Patriota 2009,
p. 615). The Brazilian government will open some forest areas under 40-
year contracts to allow logging under a sustainable development plan.
Logging is banned in nature reserves and indigenous lands (WWF 2006a,
unpaginated).
In Brazil, there have been improvements in environmental
legislation and public awareness; however, enforcement capabilities are
lacking (Laurance et al. 2001, p. 309). The forests of the Amazon,
including Brazil, are being deforested for various economic activities,
and deforestation rates have been increasing for several decades.
However, this species occurs just inside the border of Brazil and we
found that habitat loss as a result of deforestation is not a threat to
this species; therefore it appears that the inadequacy of existing
forest regulatory mechanisms in Brazil is not affecting the blue-headed
macaw.
Protected Areas
The Peruvian national protected area system includes several
categories of habitat protection. Habitat may be designated as any of
the following: (1) Parque Nacional (National Park, an area managed
mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation); (2) Santuario
(Sanctuary, for the preservation of sites of notable natural or
historical importance); (3) Reserva Nacional (National Reserve, for
sustainable extraction of certain biological resources); (4) Bosque de
Protecci[oacute]n (Protection Forest, to safeguard soils and forests,
especially for watershed conservation); (5) Zona Reservada (Reserved
Zone, for temporary protection while further study is under way to
determine their importance); (6) Bosque Nacional (National Forest, to
be managed for utilization); (7) Reserva Comunal (Communal Reserve, for
local area use and management, with national oversight); and (8) Cotos
de Caza (Hunting Reserve, for local use and management, with national
oversight) (Rodr[iacute]guez and Young 2000, p. 330). National
reserves, national forests, communal reserves, and hunting reserves are
managed for the sustainable use of resources (IUCN 1994, p. 2). The
designations of National Parks, Sanctuaries, and Protection Forests,
are established by supreme decree that supersedes all other legal claim
to the land and, thus, these areas tend to provide more habitat
protection. All other protected areas are established by supreme
resolution, which is viewed as a less powerful form of protection
(Rodr[iacute]guez and Young 2000, p. 330).
Peru has 8 national parks and 41 additional protected areas
(Chatterjee 2009, p. 558). The blue-headed macaw has been recorded in
at least 6 of these areas: Cordillera Azul National Park (Loreto,
Huanco, and Ucayali); Manu National Park (Madre de Dios and Cuzco);
Alto Pur[uacute]s Communal Reserve and National Park (Madre de Dios);
Los Amigos Conservation Concession (Madre de Dios); Tambopata National
Reserve (Madre de Dios); and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park (Madre de
Dios) (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134).
In Bolivia, habitat is protected either on the national or
departmental level through the following designations: (1) Parque
(Park, for strict and permanent protection of representative of
ecosystems and provincial habitats, as well as plant and animal
resources, along with the geographical, scenic and natural landscapes
that contain them); (2) Santuario (Sanctuary, for the strict and
permanent protection of sites that house endemic plants and animals
that are threatened or in danger of extinction); (3) Monumento Natural
(Natural Monument, to preserve areas such as those with distinctive
natural landscapes or geologic formations, and to conserve the
biological diversity contained therein); (4) Reserva de Vida Silvestre
(Wildlife Reserve, for protection, management, sustainable use and
monitoring of wildlife); (5) Area Natural de Manejo Integrado (Natural
Area of Integrated Management, where
[[Page 63493]]
conservation of biological diversity is balanced with sustainable
development of the local population; and (6) Reserva Natural de
Inmovilizaci[oacute]n (``Immobilized'' Natural Reserve, a temporary (5-
year) designation for an area that requires further research before any
official designations can be made and during which time no natural
resource concessions can be made within the area) (Supreme Decree No.
24,781 1997, p. 3). Within parks, sanctuaries and natural monuments,
extraction or consumption of all resources are prohibited, except for
``scientific research, eco-tourism, environmental education, and
activities of subsistence of original towns, properly described and
authorized.'' National protected areas are under the management of the
national government, while departmental protected areas are managed at
the department level (eLAW 2003, p. 3; Supreme Decree No. 24,781 1997,
p. 3).
There are 22 protected areas in Bolivia covering 24 percent of its
territory (Byers and Israel 2008, p. vi; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). The
blue-headed macaw has been recorded in at least two of these areas:
Madidi National Park (La Paz) and Reserva Nacional Amazonica Manuripi-
Heath (Pando) (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134).
There are various regulatory mechanisms (Law No. 11.516, Act No.
7.735, Decree No. 78, Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) in Brazil that direct
Federal and State agencies to promote the protection of lands and that
govern the formal establishment and management of protected areas to
promote conservation of the country's natural resources (ECOLEX 2007,
pp. 5-7). These mechanisms generally aim to protect endangered wildlife
and plant species, genetic resources, overall biodiversity, and native
ecosystems on Federal, State, and privately owned lands (e.g., Law No.
9.985, Law No. 11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 1.922). Brazil's
formally established protection areas were developed in 2000 and are
categorized based on their overall management objectives. These include
national parks, biological reserves, ecological reserves, ecological
stations, environmental protection areas, and national forests (Rylands
and Brandon 2005, pp. 612-618). These areas allow varying uses and
provide varying levels of protection for specific resources (Costa
2007, pp. 5-19). For example, Biological Reserves are restricted to a
greater extent than the National Parks. Official uses of reserves
include scientific study, environmental monitoring, and scientific
education (Costa 2007, p. 9).
There are 84 decreed protected areas within Rond[ocirc]nia, Brazil
alone, covering 45 percent of the territory (Ribeiro et al. 2005, p.
1). The blue-headed macaw has been recorded in one protected area, the
Serra do Divisor National Park, in Acre (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007,
p. 134).
In summary, the blue-headed macaw occurs in at least 10 major
protected areas, covering a combined 110,216 km\2\ (42,554 mi\2\), or
18.7 percent of its global range, although this does include large
areas of unsuitable habitat within three of the protected areas (Tobias
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). In Peru, the Alto Pur[uacute]s Communal
Reserve and National Park is surrounded by other important protected
areas, including Manu National Park and the Tambopata Reserve and
Bahuaja Sonene National Park; combined with Brazil's and Bolivia's
important natural protected areas close to the border with Peru, these
areas constitute an important protected corridor in South America
(ParksWatch 2003, p. 17).
Studies have shown that protected areas have been successful in
providing protection from poaching, logging, and other forest damage,
especially when compared to unprotected areas (Lee 2010, p. 3; Killeen
et al. 2007, p. 603; Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1234; Asner 2005, p. 480;
Ribeiro et al. 2005, p. 2; Gilardi and Munn 1998, p. 641). There is
evidence of some habitat destruction within protected areas, including
resource extraction, and information to suggest habitat destruction
within protected areas is a potential future threat, especially when in
close proximity to roads and subsequent settlements and agriculture and
pasture conversion (Upper Amazon Conservancy 2010, unpaginated;
Chatterjee 2009, p. 557; Cabieses 2009, p. 26; Killeen et al. 2007, p.
603; Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1233; Ribeiro et al. 2005, pp. 1-2;
ParksWatch 2005a, unpaginated; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10; CITES 2002, p.
7).
A number of conservation organizations have developed programs to
support the protected areas of Peru. The Wildlife Conservation Society
is executing a wide range of projects aimed at strengthening the
management of Madidi National Park. This program is based on three main
actions: (1) Park management, (2) natural resources management, and (3)
scientific research (ParksWatch 2005a, p. 35). CARE-Bolivia has also
implemented projects to raise local awareness on the importance of
watershed protection and sustainable agricultural practices.
Additionally, CARE-Bolivia and the Wildlife Conservation Society
collaborated on the park's management plan, organized specific training
courses for park rangers, and donated basic management equipment
(ParksWatch 2005a, p. 38). Also, since the Tambopata Reserve and
Bahuaja Sonene National Park was created, a series of conservation and
research projects have been developed, including, among others,
Rainforest Expeditions' Macaw Ecological Research Project (ParksWatch
2002, p. 7). The projects carried out by these organizations will help
conserve the habitat of the park and will ultimately benefit the blue-
headed macaw.
We found no evidence that habitat destruction within protected
areas is a threat to this species now or in the foreseeable future;
therefore, it appears that the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for protected areas in Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil are not
adversely affecting the blue-headed macaw.
International Wildlife Trade
The European Union (EU) Wildlife Trade Regulation (Council
Regulation No. 338/97) went into effect in 1997. The purpose of this
regulation is to protect wild animals and plants currently or likely to
become threatened by international trade by regulating trade in these
species (UNEP-WCMC n.d., unpaginated). The blue-headed macaw is listed
under Appendix A (Council Regulation No. 709/2010 amending No. 338/97).
Appendix A includes species listed under CITES Appendix I or species
that may be in demand for utilization in the EU or for international
trade, and which is either threatened with extinction or so rare that
any level of trade would imperil the survival of the species (Article
3(1)(a), (b)). Additionally, there has been an EU import suspension for
the blue-headed macaw from Bolivia since 1986 and from Brazil since
1988 (Article 4.6(b) (CITES 2002, p. 3; UNEP-WCMC n.d., unpaginated).
As discussed under Factor B, we do not consider international trade to
be a threat impacting this species. Therefore, protection under this
Regulation is an adequate regulatory mechanism.
The blue-headed macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES. CITES is an
international treaty among 175 nations, including Peru, Bolivia,
Brazil, and the United States, entered into force in 1975. In the
United States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated
the Department's responsibility for CITES to the Director of the
Service and established the CITES Scientific and Management Authorities
to implement the treaty. Under this
[[Page 63494]]
treaty, member countries work together to ensure that international
trade in animal and plant species is not detrimental to the survival of
wild populations by regulating the import, export, and reexport of
CITES-listed animal and plant species. As discussed under Factor B, we
do not consider international trade to be a threat impacting this
species. Therefore, protection under this Treaty is an adequate
regulatory mechanism.
The import of blue-headed macaws into the United States is also
regulated by the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) (16 U.S.C. 4901 et
seq.), which was enacted on October 23, 1992. The purpose of the WBCA
is to promote the conservation of exotic birds by ensuring that all
imports to the United States of exotic birds is biologically
sustainable and is not detrimental to the species. The WBCA generally
restricts the importation of most CITES-listed live or dead exotic
birds except for certain limited purposes, such as zoological display
or cooperative breeding programs. Import of dead specimens is allowed
for scientific specimens and museum specimens. The Service may approve
cooperative breeding programs and subsequently issue import permits
under such programs. Wild-caught birds may be imported into the United
States if they are subject to Service-approved management plans for
sustainable use. At this time, the blue-headed macaw is not part of a
Service-approved cooperative breeding program and does not have an
approved management plan for wild-caught birds.
International trade was significantly reduced during the 1990s as a
result of tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, stricter measures
under EU legislation, and adoption of the WBCA, along with adoption of
national legislation (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). As discussed under
Factor B, we found that commercial legal international trade has been
very limited and illegal trade currently occurs in small numbers, or is
very well hidden. Taking into consideration the restrictions under the
EU Wildlife Trade Regulation, CITES, and WBCA, and the lack of evidence
for this species occurring in substantial numbers in the illegal pet
bird trade, we believe that these regulation are adequately protecting
the species from international trade.
Summary of Factor D
We found no evidence that hunting or trade poses threats to the
blue-headed macaw; therefore, existing regulatory mechanisms addressing
these activities may be providing adequate protection for this species.
As discussed under Factor A, some deforestation, oil and gas
exploration and extraction, mining, and infrastructure plans may occur
in forests in Peru, and perhaps within the limited range of this
species in Bolivia and Brazil. However, we found that habitat loss as a
result of any of those activities is not a threat to this species in
any portion of its range now or in the foreseeable future; therefore,
it appears that the existing forest regulatory mechanisms throughout
the range of this species is not adversely affecting the blue-headed
macaw.
E. Other Natural or Man-Made Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that
indicate other natural or man-made factors pose a threat to this
species. As a result, we find that other natural or man-made factors
are not threats to the blue-headed macaw in any portion of its range
now or in the future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the blue-
headed macaw is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the blue-headed macaw. We reviewed the
petition, information available in our files, and other available
published and unpublished information.
In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that
causes an actual impact to the species. The identification of threats
that might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel
a finding that the species warrants listing. The information must
include evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either
singly or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.
We evaluated the potential threats to the blue-headed macaw,
including habitat loss, national and international trade, disease and
predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or
manmade factors such as climate change. We found no evidence that this
species is being hunted. Legal international trade of this species has
been very limited and most of the birds involved were captive-bred. We
also found that illegal trade, disease, and predation were not threats
to this species. We had no information on other natural or man-made
factors on which to evaluate the effects on the blue-headed macaw.
As discussed under Factor A, logging, illegal logging, agriculture,
ranching, slash-and-burn activities, oil and gas exploration and
extraction, and illegal mining are occurring in Peru, and potentially
in the area just inside the borders of Bolivia and Brazil, and
deforestation rates have continued to increase in those countries. The
best available scientific and commercial information indicates that
although these activities could affect individuals of this species, it
does not appear that these activities are affecting the species at the
population level. We did not find information that the extent of future
deforestation or the potential impacts to this species will occur at a
level that will elicit a species-level response and contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species. All of the range countries of the
blue-headed macaw have laws and regulations to protect the species, or
wildlife in general, and habitat. Existing regulatory mechanisms have
not impacted the species such that it rises to a level that it would be
considered a threat to the continued existence of the species.
Based on the lack of threats of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude acting on this species, we find that the blue-headed macaw is
not in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all
of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the blue-headed macaw as
a threatened or endangered species is not warranted throughout all of
its range.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the blue-headed macaw or its habitat to our
Branch of Foreign Species (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us monitor this species and
encourage its conservation.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the blue-headed macaw is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are
any significant
[[Page 63495]]
portions of the range where the blue-headed macaw is in danger of
extinction or is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
The Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
a threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.'' The term ``significant portion of its range'' is not
defined by the statute. For the purposes of this finding, a portion of
a species' range is ``significant'' if it is part of the current range
of the species and it provides a crucial contribution to the
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. For the
contribution to be crucial it must be at a level such that, without
that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future.
In determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and
threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of
this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in
some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only
to portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of
that portion clearly would not reasonably be expected to increase the
vulnerability to extinction of the entire species to the point that the
species would then be in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future), such portions will not warrant
further consideration.
If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then
determine their status (i.e., whether in fact the species is endangered
or threatened in a significant portion of its range). Depending on the
biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it might
be more efficient for us to address either the ``significant'' question
first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.''
Applying the process described above for determining whether a
species is threatened in a significant portion of its range, we
considered status first to determine if any threats or potential
threats acting individually or collectively threaten or endanger the
species in a portion of its range. We have analyzed the potential
threats to the blue-headed macaw throughout its range and found that
they occur at such a low level that there is no effect to the species.
Conclusion of 12-Month Finding
We do not find that the blue-headed macaw is in danger of
extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, listing the species as endangered or threatened under
the Act is not warranted at this time. We request that you submit any
new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the grey-
cheeked parakeet to our Endangered Species Program, Branch of Foreign
Species (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. New information
will help us monitor this species and encourage its conservation. If an
emergency situation develops for the grey-cheeked parakeet or any other
species, we will act to provide immediate protection.
II. Grey-Cheeked Parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera)
A. Species Description
The grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhopterus synonym
Psittacus pyrrhopterus) belongs to the family Psittacidae, and is one
of 8 recognized species within its genus, with 17 recognized subspecies
(Ribas et al. 2009, p. 1713; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 490; Collar
1997; Forshaw 1989).
This species is characteristically recognized by its distinctive
grey-cheeks. It is also known as a pocket parrot. Adults primarily have
green plumage with pale yellow on their under parts. The forehead is
grey with a blue-green crown. The side of its head and chin is pale
grey and it has a slight brown tinge on lesser and median wing-coverts.
Its primary covert feathers are dark blue; under wing coverts and
axillaries are orange. Its interior feathers are narrowly edged with
yellow, and the legs are pale pink (Forshaw 1989).
The grey-cheeked parakeet is endemic to southwestern Ecuador and
northwestern Peru (Nores 2004, p. 1; Best et al. 1993). It occurs
primarily in forests in a narrow dry band of habitat known as the
Tumbesian (also known as Tumbesan) Region (Best et al. 1996 p. 69; Best
and Kessler 1995, p. 8, 155; Parker et al. 1995, p. 202). This region
has distinct ecological characteristics (Nores 2004, p. 149) based on
drier climate and local terrain. The grey-cheeked parakeet prefers dry,
deciduous forests dominated by Ceiba trichistandra (Kapok or Ceibo
tree) (Williams and Tobias 1994 in Best et al. 1995, p. 237; IUCN
2008g). Smaller numbers have been seen in semihumid forest as well as
fragmented forests, arid scrubland, and semi-open agricultural land
where remnant stands of larger trees that are suitable for nesting are
present (Forshaw 1989, p. 531). This area is unique because it is at
the equator; its climate is influenced by the Humboldt current, and its
natural boundary is defined by the Pacific Coast and the Andes
mountains (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 3). To the north and south of this
climate zone are the Choc[oacute] wet forest and the Peruvian coastal
desert. Three to nine months of the year are arid (Best and Kessler
1995, p. 27). In El Ni[ntilde]o years, which occur at 3-16-year
intervals, rainfall may be 200 times as high as a very dry year (World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007). The significant biodiversity in this region
has been recognized for many years (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 3).
Conservation International, WWF, and BLI all consider this region to be
globally important due to the high level of endemic species that exist
here.
Although this species' potential range is estimated to be 9,300
km\2\ (3,591 mi\2\) (BLI 2011b, p. 1), it does not occur throughout its
potential extent of occurrence. Within this area, its actual area of
occurrence is confined to suitable habitat, which contains areas for
nesting, breeding, and feeding. It occurs in the lowlands, generally
from sea level to 300 meters (984 ft), but has been observed as high as
1,550 m (5,085 ft) in the southern part of its range (Best et al. 1992
in Best et al. 1995, p. 241). In 1964, Brosset (1964, pp. 112-134)
reported it as being very common in southwestern Ecuador; he described
large flocks that were seen in the vicinity of banana plantations.
In Ecuador, this species has been documented west of the Andes in
the
[[Page 63496]]
Chone River district (Forshaw 1989, p. 531). In the early 2000s, it was
observed in the areas of Achiotes, El Faique, Mangaurquillo, Manabi,
Progreso, Guayas, Los Rios, and El Oro, and in the Sozoranga area of
Loja (Bonaccorso et al. 2006, p. 63; Freile et al. 2004, pp. 18-19;
Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, p. 67). In addition to its native habitat,
this species has also been observed in urbanized areas (Ridgely and
Greenfield 2001, p. 67). It is found in El Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon, which
was declared a Ramsar site in 1996, and which is one of the 32
identified wetlands in Ecuador's coastal region (Alava et al. 2007, p.
224). It has also been observed in three protected areas in
southwestern Ecuador: the Cerro Blanco Protected Forest (Sheets 2005,
personal observation; Pople et al. 1996, p. 3), Manglares Churute
Ecological Reserve (MCER), and Arenillas Military Reserve (Best et al.
1995, p. 241), which shares a small portion of its border with Peru.
MCER, within Guayas Province, was created in 1979 and consists of
35,000 ha (86,487 acres (ac)) 40 km (25 mi) south of Guayaquil (Pobles
et al. 1996, p. 3). MCER consists of mangrove stands, a salt-flat area,
and a forested section. Cerro Blanco Reserve, within Guayas Province,
is 2,000 ha (4,942 ac). In 1995, it was described as a small area of
semi-evergreen forest on a ridge. It is managed by Fundaci[oacute]n
Natura and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque. The Arenillas Military Reserve
is 17,083 ha (42,213 ac) in area and has limited access. It is managed
by military personnel and requires prior authorization from the
Ministry of Defense to enter (http://www.ambiente.gov.ec, accessed June
14, 2011).
In northwest Peru, this species is reported to be locally common in
lowland dry deciduous forest (Walker 2001, p. 6; Parker et al. 1995, p.
212; Parker et al., 1982). In 1995, this species was described as being
scarce at Campo Verde and Cotrina, Peru (Parker et al. 1995, p. 212).
This species has been observed in the Tumbes Reserved Zone (TRZ),
specifically at El Caucho and Quebrada Faical, with daily counts of
between 50 and 120 individuals (Best et al. 1995, pp. 241, 242; Parker
et al. 1995, p. 212). TRZ is a part of the Northeast Biosphere Reserve
(NBR) which covers 231,402 ha (571,807 ac), and includes the Cerros de
Amotape National Park and El Angulo Hunting Preserve (Walker 2001, p.
1). In the late 1980s and historically, this species was documented as
common in the NBR, Tumbes Department (Best et al. 1995, p. 242;
Wiedenfeld et al. 1985, p. 313). The TRZ was formerly designated as the
Tumbes National Forest (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 6), and was established in
1957 to protect against overharvest of forest products (ParksWatch
2005b, p. 12). It is somewhat more protected than it was in the past
due to changes at the border that have resulted from the Peace
Agreement between Peru and Ecuador, and the subsequent decrease in the
pressures on the TRZ for natural resources due to fewer human
inhabitants in the area (Walker 2001, p. 2).
The most recent population estimate is prior to 1995, when it was
estimated that there were 15,000 mature individuals of this species
remaining in the wild, principally in Ecuador (BLI 2011b, p. 1; Best et
al. 1995, p. 242). At that time, the population was estimated to have
experienced approximately a 70 percent population decline over 10 years
(BLI 2011b, p. 1). This is significant for two reasons: this estimate
was made only shortly after the enactment of regulatory mechanisms such
as the implementation of trade bans, and the estimate was also done
only a few years after trade restrictions were put in place through the
WBCA. The population information prior to 1995 does not likely
represent the current status because regulatory measures, particularly
the implementation of CITES and WBCA, are currently in place which have
mitigated international trade, the major threat to this species.
Additionally, in 1991, the European Union banned the import of this
species (Best et al. 1995, p. 234). International trade data indicates
that trade has dramatically decreased.
There are several recent reports that describe this species as
common; large flocks have recently been observed in many areas within
its range (WorldLand Trust 2011, p. 2; Woods 2010, p. 34; Van den
Schoor 2007, p. 12; Elwonger et al. 2004, pp. 3, 20). A local report
(2007) documented this species in Guayas in the Reserva Ecologica
Manglares-Churute (http://www.xeno-canto.org, Accessed September 28,
2011). It is consistently seen in flocks on birding trips (Denton 2009;
Coopmans et al., 2006; Coopmans 2005) in Southern Ecuador. In Cerro
Blanco Protected Forest (BPCB), which is 14 km (8.7 mi) west of
Guayaquil, Ecuador, this species was described as abundant in 1996,
with flocks of up to 40 observed (Pople et al. 1996, p. 2). This area
is owned by La Cemento Nacional, Ecuador's national cement company, but
the reserve has been managed by the NGO Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque
since 1993 (Pople 1996, p. 1). In 1996, this species was also observed
in another area 25 km (15.5 mi) northwest of BPCB consisting of 600 ha
(1,483 ac) known as Hacienda Gonzalez, also owned by La Cemento
Nacional, that was established as a forest reserve. This species was
described as not as abundant in this reserve as in BPCB (Pople 1996, p.
2). However, as of 2000, it was reported to be still locally common in
suitable habitat remnants within its range (Juniper and Parr 1998 in
BLI 2011b, p. 1).
Additionally, various bird surveys are conducted periodically in
Peru and Ecuador to determine presence and absence in areas, and to
conduct counts of birds observed (Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12; Elwonger
et al. 2004, p. 20; Walker 2001, p. 5). In 2001, a birding trip to the
TRZ encountered groups of between 5 and 30 of this species and
described the occurrence of this species as being common (Walker 2001,
p. 5). This species was also described as being fairly common during a
birding trip in the Quebrada Faical area of the TRZ in November and
December 2004 (Elwonger et al. 2004, pp. 3, 20). In 2006, over 60 birds
were observed in the wild (Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12). Although there
is no current estimate of this species' population size, there are
several recent reports describing this species as common; large flocks
have recently been observed in many areas within its range (WorldLand
Trust 2011, p. 2; Woods 2010, p. 34; Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12;
Elwonger et al. 2004, pp. 3, 20; Denton 2009; Coopmans et al., 2006;
Coopmans 2005). It is commonly found in at least four reserves in
Ecuador, and one in Peru. In 2003 and 2007, it was documented in Loja,
Ecuador, where it had been described as scarce during 1990-1991 surveys
(Spencer, pers. comm.; Williams and Tobias 1994 in Best et al 1995, p.
242). An additional consideration in their population is their larger
clutch size. Because they generally lay between 4-6 eggs (http://www.greycheekparakeet.com/Genus_brotogeris.html, accessed August 22,
2011), they have a higher reproductive potential than those species
that have a clutch size of 1-2 eggs.
Unlike other species within the Brotogeris genus, the grey-cheeked
Parakeet does not generally congregate in large flocks. Flocks of 4 to
10 birds normally are observed (Freile et al. 2004), and they will
sometimes flock with other species (Best et al. 1995, p. 243).
Brotogeris species primarily nest higher in the canopy (Brightsmith
2000, p. 529). They lay between 4 and 6 eggs, with 5 eggs usually
observed (Arndt 1986 in Best et al. 1986, p. 243). Their average life
span is thought to be
[[Page 63497]]
approximately 15 years (Brouwer et al. 2000, pp. 299-316).
Because parrots feed primarily on fruits and flowers, they are
linked to the fruiting and flowering patterns of trees. It is thought
to be a seasonal migrant, based on food availability (Parker et al.
1995, p. 212). This species is a food generalist, consuming petals,
seeds, flowers, and fruits, particularly bananas (Juniper and Parr
1998, p. 490). Fluctuations in abundance and availability of food
sources may change this species' diet, resulting in movements to areas
with greater food availability, and influencing local seasonal patterns
of bird abundance (Lee 2010, p. 7; Brightsmith 2006, p. 2; Renton 2002,
p. 17; Cowen undated, pp. 5, 23).
This species exhibits preference for a variety of nesting
substrates, but primarily nests in tree cavities (Juniper and Parr
1998, p. 490; Forshaw 1989, p. 532; Berg in litt. in Best et al. 1985,
p. 243). It prefers larger trees with larger potential cavity size for
its nests. The grey-cheeked parakeet is known to form nests in arboreal
termite nests (termateria) (Brightsmith 2000, p. 530). Termites do not
seem to be disturbed by avian nesting behavior (Brightsmith 2000, p.
531; Harris 1985 in Best et al. 1985, p. 243). The species has also
been observed laying eggs on decaying wood and moist moss in hollow
tree limbs and trunks (Harris 1985 in Best et al. 1985, p. 243). It
shows preference for particular tree species, such as: Erythrina (coral
erythrina), Bombax (cotton tree), Chorisa or Ceiba (silk-floss),
Cavanillesia platanifolia (macondo, cuipo, or hamel[iacute]), Ficus
(fig), and Cecropia (trumpet tree) (Parker et al. 1995, p. 212; Best et
al. 1985, p. 243).
Conservation Status
This species is listed as endangered by the IUCN. This
categorization was primarily based on rapid rates of population decline
caused by past trapping for the pet trade (IUCN 2011, p. 1). IUCN's
website states that ``this species qualifies as endangered because it
[was] affected by very rapid rates of population decline caused by
trapping for the cagebird trade, plus habitat loss. Future population
declines are projected to be slower, but still a serious cause for
concern.'' However, this is primarily based on information compiled by
Birdlife International, which relies heaviliy on information from
before 1995. Note that IUCN rankings do not confer any actual
protection or management. This species has been listed in Appendix II
of CITES since 1981; it is listed on Appendix I of the Convention on
Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention); and it is protected by the
WBCA. It is listed as vulnerable in Peru (Peru Lista oficial del
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales 2011, p. 2; Supreme Decree No.
034-2004-AG 2004, p. 276855), and it is also considered vulnerable by
the Ecuador Government (Decree No. 3,516 of 2003; Unified Text of the
Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of Environment (EcoLex 2003b, pp.
1-2 and 34). Additionally, in 1991, the European Union (EU) banned the
import of B. pyrrhopterus from Peru (Best et al. 1995, p. 234). The EU
ban and the implementation of the WBCA effectively halted the
international trade in this species, which was the largest driver of
its population decline (BLI 2011, p. 1 ; Best et al. 1995, pp. 234-
235).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Grey-Cheeked Parakeet
Potential factors that were suggested to affect the species or its
habitat or range are evaluated in this section, including: (1) Trapping
for the pet trade; (2) habitat destruction, primarily through logging,
conversion to agricultural areas, and gravel extraction; (3) disease or
predation; and (4) El Ni[ntilde]o events. Information pertaining to the
grey-cheeked parakeet in relation to the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In making these
findings, information pertaining to each species in relation to the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, we
must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to
evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that
causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and
during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant a
threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to
the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the
Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that the potential threat has the capacity (i.e., it should be
of sufficient magnitude and extent) to affect the species' status such
that it meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Habitat loss was indicated to be a factor affecting this species
(BLI 2011, p. 1). Although habitat loss can be one of the most
significant threats to wildlife, particularly in developing countries,
the best available information does not indicate that habitat loss is
negatively affecting this species as discussed below. This species
exists primarily in southwest Ecuador and northwest Peru
(Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 1; BLI 2011, p. 1; Alava et al. 2007;
p. 1; Bonaccorso et al. 2007, p. 61). In Peru, at the border of Peru
and Ecuador, this species exists primarily in a protected area, the
Tumbes Reserved Zone (TRZ). Forms of deforestation occur in and around
the TRZ and include timber extraction, gravel extraction, encroachment,
honey harvest, and roads (ParksWatch 2005b, pp. 8-9, 12). In addition,
the park boundaries have not been clearly described or effectively
protected, and people have established crops in the park. Land titles
and ownership have also been disputed (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 10).
The activities described above have occurred in the Tumbesian
Region since Peru and Ecuador were colonized; and the region has
undergone many changes. In 1957, a total of 75,102 ha (185,581 ac) were
designated as a national forest (now known as the TRZ) in order to
provide some protections to the resources in this area. Significant
changes occurred particularly in the 1980s when both Peru and Ecuador
experienced economic problems. The transfer of the presidency in 1985
was Peru's first transfer of power from one democratically elected
leader to another in 40 years. During the early 1980s, Peru experienced
inflation, economic hardship, and terrorism (U.S. State Department
2011, p. 3), all of which had significant implications with respect to
habitat degradation and deforestation. Overall, however, the TRZ has
for the most part remained unaltered (ParksWatch 2005, p. 3).
Species respond differently to habitat fragmentation (Blanchet et
al. 2010, p. 8). Deforestation is generally a process of conversion of
forests into a matrix consisting of patches of remaining forest at
various stages of degradation and remaining timber, agricultural lands,
urban areas, and pastures for grazing (Turner 1996, p. 200). Various
studies have been conducted in order to try to quantify effects of
habitat loss and fragmentation (Lees and Perez 2006, p. 206; Fahrig
2003, p. 487; Debinski and Holt 2000, p. 342; Brooks et al. 1999a,
[[Page 63498]]
p. 211; Fahrig 1997, p. 603; Turner 1996, p. 200). However, if
selective logging is well managed, this practice can mimic natural
disturbances, and many species can persist in logged forests or they
can recolonize harvested areas from nearby unlogged patches (Putz et
al. 2008, p. 1427; Pe[ntilde]a-Carlos et al. 2008, p. 1458; Laurance
1999, p. 114). Some studies have found that the impact on certain
wildlife species from logging is minimal (Fredericksen and Putz 2003,
p. 1445). Some generalist species, such as the grey-cheeked parakeet,
can successfully adapt to changes in habitat particularly if they have
varied diets. Although this species is endemic to Peru and Ecuador, it
has shown it can persist in altered habitats and is common within
several reserves throughout its range. Not only does this species
exhibit success in using altered habitats, its population appears to be
increasing in some parts of its range (WorldLand Trust (WLT) 2011, p.
2). WLT reports that it is increasing locally in a new reserve,
Buenaventura, which is in the foothills of the Andes in El Oro
province, southwestern Ecuador (2011, pp. 1-2).
Peru
Although a permanent logging ban was enacted in the TRZ in 1974, it
was reported that wood was being illegally harvested from the TRZ,
processed at a hardwood floor factory in Zarumilla Department, and
being exported to Ecuador (ParksWatch 2005b, pp. 12, 14). ParksWatch
(2005, p. 15) reported that people come from the cities of Tumbes,
Cerro Blanco, and Zarumilla to harvest wood such as trumpet trees
(Tabebuia sp.), which is a species used for parquet floors. Frequently
these illegal harvesters cross the border from Ecuador (ParksWatch
2005b, p. 4). Most of these trucks come through El Tutumo, allegedly
because the Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA,
translated as the National Institute of Natural Resources) control
posts were often not staffed, and the illegal timber harvesters took
advantage of their absence (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 14). These problems
were intensified by lack of security and coordination (ParksWatch 2005,
p. 3). Despite these problems this species is described in its range as
being common. Current birding trips to the TRZ encounter this species
frequently (Elwonger 2004, p. 6), and there is no indication that
logging affects this species such that it is a threat to the species
overall.
Gravel extraction
ParksWatch reported that, as of 2003, construction materials such
as sand, rocks, and gravel were regularly extracted from La Angostura
Creek which is part of the buffer zone of TRZ (ParksWatch 2005b, p.
16). The heavy machinery associated with the gravel pits also has
secondary impacts (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 16). These impacts include
compaction of soil by the trucks, which can cause hydrologic changes,
damage to wildlife and plants, erosion, and increased recovery time for
vegetation communities. However, there is no indication that this
activity affects this species.
Roads
Illegal activities can increase with the construction of roads,
leading to increased access by humans (Fimbel et al. 2001 in Lee 2010,
p. 3). Roads are planned by all levels of government and may encourage
legal and illegal activities such as agriculture, cattle ranching,
poaching, or logging (Nature and Culture International (NCI 2011, p.
1)). However, roads in the TRZ were destroyed during the El Ni[ntilde]o
event of 1997-1998, and as of 2001, there were no plans to rebuild them
(Walker 2001, p. 2). This lack of road access minimizes human entry
into the species' habitat. In addition, the human population density in
this area is low--there are two communities consisting of approximately
330 people (ParksWatch 2005, p. 9), and there is no evidence to suggest
that roads used for gravel extraction are negatively affecting the
species.
Honey Harvest
Within the TRZ, detrimental practices of honey harvesting occur
(ParksWatch 2005b, p. 18), which can further degrade habitat. Bees
generally have positive ecosystem effects--they pollinate native
species and they contribute to the biodiversity of ecosystems such as
the TRZ (Kearns et al. 1998, pp. 83, 90; Pearson and Dressler 1985, p.
38). However, due to the demand for honey, non-native bee colonies
(which are aggressive--Apis melifera for example) are being established
(ParksWatch 2005b, p. 18). Non-native bees often outcompete native bees
(Kearns et al. 1998, p. 93), which have a vital role in ecosystems.
Some bees within the Centris genus (which are likely native to this
region) use decaying wood as habitat (Kearns et al. 1998, p. 90).
Decaying wood is also used by the grey-cheeked parakeet as nesting
substrate. The use of decayed wood by bees may discourage the grey-
cheeked parakeet from using it as nesting substrate. Additionally, in
order to obtain honey, some harvesters may chop down grey-cheeked
parakeet nesting trees, which contributes to habitat degradation. The
practice of honey harvesting may affect individual birds; however,
there is no evidence that this practice occurs to an extent that it is
a threat to the species or is likely to occur in the future.
Ecuador
There is less information available with respect to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the grey-
cheeked parakeet's habitat or range in Ecuador. We know that this
species is observed regularly in southwest Ecuador (Woods 2010, p. 34;
Bonaccorso et al. 2007, p. 64, Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12). It has been
documented in the areas of Achiotes, El Faique, and Progreso and Jorupe
reserve, Macar[aacute], Loja province, Buenaventura Reserve, El Oro
Province, and Cerro Blanco Reserva, Guayas. There are several accounts
of this species being documented between the early 2000s and 2011
(Bonaccorso 2007, p. 64; http://www.xeno-canto.org,
www.avesecuador.com, http://ibc.lynxeds.com/species/grey-cheeked-parakeet-brotogeris-pyrrhopterus, all accessed August 22, 2011). Flocks
of up to 12 birds have been observed recently; one group of 60 was
observed in 2006 (Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12). A recent report
indicated that in El Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon, Ecuador, cattle ranching,
deforestation, agriculture development (rice crops and farms) may be
affecting the species' habitat (Alava et al. 2007, p. 224). However,
this species is a habitat generalist that seems to persist in altered
habitat, and it is frequently observed on birding trips in Ecuador
(Greenfield 2011, p. 1; Woods 2010, p. 34; Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12).
Additionally, there is no recent information on forest cover (Food
and Agriculture Organization 2011, accessed June 17, 2011). Various
estimates indicate that around 50 percent of Ecuador's land area is
covered with forests (about 12 million ha (29.6 million ac)) (Sierra et
al. 1999, p. 135; STCP Engenharia de Projetos Ltda. (STCP) 2006,
unpaginated). However, in Ecuador's Tumbesian Region, 5,600 km\2\
(2,162 mi\2\) are designated as protected forests. Of these, 25 percent
of this area retains the original composition of species (Bonaccorso et
al. 2007, p. 64). Bonaccorso et al. (2007, p. 64) also concluded that
all of the areas where the grey-cheeked parakeet was observed had
relatively extensive forest based on satellite imagery. Although
southwestern Ecuador is densely populated, habitat has been reserved
for wildlife (such as Jorupe Reserve, Buenaventura Reserve, and Cerro
Blanco Reserve), and this species
[[Page 63499]]
appears to remain common in these protected areas.
The Ecuadorian government recognizes 31 different legal categories
of protected lands (e.g., national parks, biological reserves, geo-
botanical reserves, bird reserves, wildlife reserves, etc.) (see Factor
D). As of 2006, the amount of protected land (both forested and non-
forested) in Ecuador totals approximately 4.67 million ha (11.5 million
ac) (ITTO 2006, p. 228). As of 2006, 38 percent of these lands had
appropriate conservation measures in place to be considered protected
areas according to international standards (i.e., areas that are
managed for scientific study or wilderness protection, for ecosystem
protection and recreation, for conservation of specific natural
features, or for conservation through management intervention). At that
time, 11 percent had management plans (ITTO 2006, p. 228).
Additionally, since 2006, other factors have occurred that are
improving the quality of the habitat in this species' range. Ecotourism
is occurring in areas where this species occurs, which is bringing
awareness and funding for conservation projects. The success of
ecotourism and land protection has been demonstrated in the past,
particularly in Ecuador (Wunder 1999, p. 18). Ecotourism is
characterized by small groups working in remote locations that have not
yet been largely affected by commercialization (Lindsay 2003, p. 2)
Ecotourism is an opportunity to preserve ecosystems and biological
diversity by generating income to support conservation and research
efforts. Ecotourism fees provide a mechanism for long-term protection
of the land and its resources. In addition, NGOs are involved in
working with Ecuador's protected areas. Fundaci[oacute]n Jocotoco is a
key player in Ecuadorian conservation and ecotourism; it was
established to protect areas that are important for the conservation of
endangered birds and their habitats. Some NGOs such as Fundaci[oacute]n
Jocotoco are buying additional land that will be protected in southern
Ecuador (www.worldlandtrust.org/projects/ecuador-reserves, accessed
September 14, 2011).
Although within this species' existing range some habitat has
decreased in the past, since that time both the Ecuador and Peruvian
have formally protected this species' habitat (Bonaccorso et al. 2006,
p. 61). Some habitat loss, conversion to other uses, and degradation
within some parts of the grey-cheeked parakeet's range occurs, but we
do not have information as to the extent of degradation (ParksWatch
2005b, pp. 9, 12). Studies have found that conditions inside the parks
compared with the surrounding areas were in significantly better
condition than their surrounding areas (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). In
40 percent of parks, land that had formerly been under cultivation and
that was incorporated into park boundaries had recovered. This
subsequently led to an actual increase in vegetative cover. The study
found that 83 percent of parks were successful at mitigating
encroachment (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). This was confirmed in a more
recent study that found that forests in conservation units were four
times better at protecting against deforestation than unprotected areas
(Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1235). In further support, ParksWatch (2005,
p. 3) reports that the forests of TRZ have remained unaltered for
centuries and have become a wildlife refuge. Additionally, both Ecuador
and Peru are implementing policies and actions to combat deforestation
and habitat degradation (refer to Factor D) and this will continue into
the future.
Since the Peace Accord between Peru and Ecuador was signed in 1998,
the habitat has experienced dramatic changes in the TRZ (Walker 2001,
p. 2). The Peace Accord between Peru and Ecuador was to resolve border
differences that had sparked violent confrontations. Prior to 1988,
military troops were based at El Caucho near Quebrada Faical, Peru.
Apparently, hunting supplemented the diet of the troops, and since the
Peace Accord, many game species have returned and have become more
prevalent according to local communities (Walker 2001, p. 2). These
species likely play a significant role in the grey-cheeked parakeet's
ecosystem; they may serve to distribute seeds, contribute to the
quality of leaf fodder, or other roles that are not as evident (Estes
et al. 2011, p. 301). As of 2001, the former military posts are only
manned by two Peruvian border police, and although the guards continue
to supplement their diets with hunting, the pressure is less severe on
typical game species (Walker 2001, p. 2). In 2001, the quality of
habitat on the Peruvian side of this border was characterized as
excellent and improving. On the Ecuadorian side, habitat was described
as more inhabited by humans and having limited suitable habitat--cattle
and towns had replaced forested areas (Walker 2001, p. 2). Despite the
increase in human inhabitants in this area, this species exhibit
success in using altered habitat and it exists in protected areas where
ecotourism and environmental education is prevalent. The grey-cheeked
parakeet is commonly seen in reserves and protected areas, and in some
cases there are anecdotal reports that it is actually increasing in
population (WLT 2011, p. 2).
Conservation Programs
The biodiversity of the southern Ecuadorian area is recognized by
the government; and the link between ecotourism and conservation has
strengthened in the past decade. In 1999, a case study about ecotourism
focusing on Ecuador was published that highlighted the link between
income from ecotourism and forest conservation (Wunder 1999, p. 1).
Since 2001, many efforts have been initiated to protect, conserve, and
improve habitat in this species' range. These activities are achieved
through ecotourism, environmental education, and other projects. Land
is being purchased to designate formally as reserves (http://www.wanconservancy.org, accessed September 14, 2011). Additionally, the
United States pledged $40 million for the Peru-Ecuador border
integration project (U.S. State Department 2011b, p. 7) and another $4
million to support Peruvian and Ecuadorian de-mining efforts along
their common border (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35762.htm,
accessed June 10, 2011). The presence of fewer military troops is
alleviating pressure on the TRZ. All of these activities are likely to
reduce any impacts to species and habitat along the border.
Many collaborative and innovative conservation projects to conserve
land have occurred recently. Several NGOs such as Birdlife
International, WorldLand Trust, Nature and Culture International, and
local organizations such as Fundaci[oacute]n EcoCiencia, Loro Parque
Fundacion, ProNaturaleza, and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque, are working
to protect areas in Tumbesian Ecuador. Fundaci[oacute]n EcoCiencia's
mission is to conserve biological diversity through scientific
research, recovery of traditional knowledge, and environmental
education. The Foundation was created in 1989 and has six program
areas: Biodiversity Research and Monitoring; Environmental and
Conservation Training Capacity; Natural Resources Management,
Environmental Policies; and Information and Environmental Economy. This
NGO has contributed towards research of the grey-cheeked parakeet. The
Loro Parque Fundaci[oacute]n (LPF) is headquartered in Loro Parque,
Tenerife, Spain, and works to conserve threatened parrot species and
their habitats, through education, applied research, responsible
breeding
[[Page 63500]]
programs, and community-based conservation activities that use these
species as ambassadors for nature. LPF has also contributed funding
towards projects that involved the grey-cheeked parakeet. ProNaturaleza
(Peruvian Foundation for the Nature Conservancy) was created in 1984.
It is dedicated to the conservation and preservation of Peru's
environment, particularly sustainable use of the natural resources.
ProNaturaleza has been involved in the protection of the TRZ by
promoting local involvement, establishment of agreements between
national and international organizations, restoration of mangrove
ecosystems, regulation of extractive activities, and environmental
education since 1988 (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 7). In addition to habitat
protections in place for this species, it also benefits through
conservation efforts by these NGOs.
The World Land Trust and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque are working in
the Cerro Blanco Reserve area with local communities, focusing on
Puerto Hondo, where young local people, with guidance and training from
Foundation staff, lead tourists on guided canoe trips through a rich
mangrove estuary (http://www.wlt.org, accessed June 15, 2011). Between
2006 and 2010 some 235 hectares (581 ac) of degraded lands have been
reforested with over 250,000 saplings of 30 native species. In 2004 an
environment education centre was constructed for use by the local
community, and a children's ecology club runs weekly activities. A
community park warden program is building local awareness for this
unique reserve and its wildlife. WLT and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque
are seeking to expand the Cerro Blanco Reserve through additional land
purchase. This includes both unprotected and critically threatened
forest habitat near the existing reserve, as well as land that has been
deforested but can be replanted.
International and local NGOs are also actively involved in working
towards forest protection. Several reserves have been established.
Fundaci[oacute]n Jocotoco, an Ecuadorian organization established to
protect land for the conservation of Ecuador's endangered birds such as
the grey-cheeked parakeet, buys lands and manages them as private
ecological reserves. Ecotourism activities, particularly focusing on
birding expeditions, in the Tumbesian region are abundant. Many of the
ecotourism companies advertise the grey-cheeked parakeet as an
ecotourism draw (Woods 2010, p. 34; Van den Schoor 2007, p. 13;
Elwonger et al. 2004, pp. 3, 20). All of these efforts are likely to
have a significant positive effect on grey-cheeked parakeet habitat,
particularly in the absence of the international pet trade, which was
the greatest threat to the species prior to the 1990s. New reserves are
being created within this species range (WLT 2011, p. 1), and its
population has increased in at least one reserve, Buenaventura (WLT
2011, p. 2). Ecotourism generates income in local communities,
environmental education programs conducted by NGOs increase awareness.
These and other NGOs have been involved in some form of protection
of this species' habitat for many years and are likely to be involved
in the future. Although these partnerships and conservation activities
are discretionary and not regulatory mechanisms; they are having
positive effects on this species and its habitat by providing data
through scientific research, environmental education, and community-
based conservation programs; and they partner with both the governments
of Peru and Ecuador in carrying out their activities.
The governments of Ecuador and Peru are also investing in
reforestation efforts. Despite no laws existing in Peru that require
reforestation activities, Peru is implementing reforestation projects,
in part through carbon credits. Peru recently implemented its National
Reforestation Plan. One aspect of this plan is to convert degraded
lands back to natural habitat by planting native species. Although
there is some indication that there may be insufficient funds for full
implementation (Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA)
2010, p. 7), this type of reforestation is a priority activity in the
plan, especially in rural areas (National Reforestation Plan 2005, p.
2). In 2008, Ecuador also implemented a national forest conservation
plan, called Programa Socio Bosque, in order to conserve over 5 million
ha (12.4 million ac) of forest (Conservation International 2008, p. 1).
Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
In connection with the National Reforestation Project, Ecuador and
Peru are working towards reducing emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation by using a concept of reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation (termed REDD) to protect forested
areas (CarbonTree.org, http://www.climate-standards.org; http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD, accessed May 16, 2011). REDD creates incentives
through carbon credits which promote reforestation.
The Government of Ecuador implemented the REDD program through the
Ministry of Environment to stem the current rate of deforestation in
Ecuador (1.46 percent per year), thereby reducing deforestation (http://www.un-redd.org, accessed June 17, 2011). In 2008, the Socio Bosque
Program (PSB) was launched, providing economic incentives to land
owners such as indigenous communities, who voluntarily protect their
forests. Goals of Socio Bosque include decreasing deforestation and the
resulting production of greenhouse gases, and preserving native forests
and native ecosystems in part by providing needed financial resources
to people in rural areas. Though the program is still in its early
stages, its inception implies a commitment by the Ecuadorian government
to protect its natural resources, initiate reforestation programs, and
protect habitat for species such as the grey-cheeked parakeet.
Additionally, in March 2011, the 8,795 ha (21,730 ac) Angostura-
Faical Regional Conservation Area, in the Tumbes Department, was
protected by presidential decree as a carbon offset project. This was
in cooperation with the Regional Government of Tumbes and two
nongovernmental organizations: The Carbon Tree Conservation Fund, and
Nature and Culture International (NCI). The park, which is
approximately 20 km (12 mi) north of the TRZ, had been primarily
threatened by an advancing agricultural frontier and degradation by
selective illegal logging. Approximately 65 percent of Ecuador's native
forests are owned by indigenous communities (Palacios 2005 in
H[uuml]benthal et al. 2010, p. 4). Because one aspect is to create
sustainable livelihoods (alternatives to unsustainable use of forested
areas) for indigenous communities and is within this species' range,
this project is likely to have a positive impact on this species'
habitat.
Summary of Factor A
The grey-cheeked parakeet, although native to a relatively small
area, has been documented in a wide range of habitat types such as
disturbed humid forest, evergreen forest, deciduous Ceiba trichistandra
forest and scrub, arid scrubland, and semi-open agricultural land (Best
et al 1995, p. 243). Land use changes have the potential to cause
forest fragmentation and studies have shown that over time that some
resident bird diversity declines within forest fragments (Turner 1996,
p. 202). However, other studies have indicated that some species,
particularly smaller species such as the grey-cheeked parakeet, are
able to adapt to habitat changes (Ibarra-Macias et al. 2011, p.
[[Page 63501]]
703; Moore et al. 2008, p. 961). Timber extraction, gravel extraction,
encroachment, honey harvest, roads, or other forms of deforestation
occur in some areas of grey-cheeked parakeet range; however, there is
no indication that it is impacting this species at the population
level. The range countries are working to combat deforestation. Recent
commitments by both countries to stem deforestation under the REDD
program indicate a continued commitment to protect forest habitat,
including that utilized by the grey-cheeked parakeet. Both governments'
economies are fairly strong, which has a positive correlation with
wildlife conservation (Davies et al. 2006, p. 2130). The protected
areas in which this species occurs both in Peru and Ecuador offer
safeguards from development to populations of grey-cheeked parakeet in
addition to the species persisting in altered habitat.
This species is commonly seen throughout its range, in groups of
12-60 birds (Woods 2010, p. 12; Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12). Although
some of its habitat may be affected by deforestation, this species
appears not to be adversely affected and it can persist in altered
habitats (Best et al 1995, p. 243), including urban environments. This
species occurs in several protected areas. Of these, Cerro Blanco
Protection Forest, Ecuador, and Tumbes Reserved Zone, Peru, are
particularly important, with recent daily counts of over 50 individuals
having been observed. This species is observed regularly on birding
trips; and it appears to be common within its range in Ecuador's
protected reserves. The governments of Ecuador and Peru are both
working on reforestation initiatives and this is likely to continue
into the future. NGOs are purchasing and preserving lands. Local
ecotourism companies promote conservation of the species and its
habitat. They advertise this charismatic species to draw people to
these areas. Additionally, since the pressure of poaching for the
international pet trade has been alleviated due to restrictions put in
place in the 1980s and 1990s, grey-cheeked parakeets are commonly
observed in the wild and populations appear to be increasing (WLT 2011,
pp. 1-2). Though individual grey-cheeked parakeets may be affected by
some of these activities, there is no evidence to indicate that the
grey-cheeked parakeet is negatively impacted at the population level.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is not a threat to the
grey-cheeked parakeet in any portion of its range now or in the future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Pet Trade
The grey-cheeked parakeet has always been a popular pet in part
because of its ability to mimic human voices (Feigelstock 2009, p. 3).
In Peru and Ecuador, it is common to have a parrot as a pet (Bergman
2009, p. 2; Williams and Tobias 1994 in Best et al. 1995, p. 244).
Illegal bird trade (the uncontrolled selling of bird species) is common
in markets and street vendors in both countries (Bergman 2009, pp. 1-5;
Alava et al. 2007, p. 230; Gonzalez 2003, p. 438; Best et al. 1995, pp.
233-250). Unlike in the United States and the European Union, the
origin of many pet birds in Latin America is from the wild, and the
practice of poaching for the domestic pet trade, while it is less
common, continues in Peru and Ecuador (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010,
pp. 79-80; Weston and Memon 2009, pp. 77, 79, 82; Gonzalez 2003, p.
438). Several studies have investigated the harvesting, local trade,
and conservation of parrots in northeastern Peru and Ecuador. Despite
the local trade in this species, discussed below, the primary factor
contributing to its decline was the massive international trade in this
species, which has been effectively halted through regulatory
mechanisms.
In the early 1970s, Ecuador and Peru banned the export of wildlife.
In the late 1970s, Peru lifted the moratorium (Fuller et al. 1987 in
Best et al. 1995, p. 234). By 1983, Ecuador had restricted exports of
wildlife and Peru had implemented quotas for wildlife exports (Fuller
et al. 1987, p. 289). However, even in 1987, this species was found in
markets in Lima, Peru, and sold for $10-$12 USD each (Plowden 1987 in
Best et al. 1995, p. 244). Between 1984 and 1988 (prior to the
enactment of the WBCA in 1992), approximately 42,000 live grey-cheeked
parakeets were reported to have been imported into the United States
(UNEP-WCMC, accessed May 3, 2011; Mulliken and Thomsen 1990 in Parker
et al. 1995, p. 213). In 1989, the trade decreased, but rose again in
1990-1991 (Mulliken in litt. 1995 in Best et al. 1995, p. 245). Best et
al. (1995, p. 246) indicated that trade data may have been exaggerated
by misdeclaring other parrot species as this species. In 1993, Peru
again implemented a moratorium on exports of this species, after a
recommendation by the CITES Animal Committee (Best et al. 1995, p.
246).
Prior to this species being protected by various regulatory
mechanisms (refer to Factor D) in the early 1990s, this species had
been heavily traded (Collar and Juniper 1998, p. 14; Best et al. 1995,
pp. 245). Trade in parrots was extremely common in the 1980s due to
huge demand from developed countries (Rosales et al. 2007; Best et al.,
1995, pp. 234-235). The UNEP-WCMC Trade Database reported 96,018 live
grey-cheeked parakeets were imported by reporting countries between
1981 and 1990 (accessed September 14, 2011). This is an average of
10,668 birds per year. Exports of over 5,000 live grey-cheeked
parakeets per shipment occurred in the 1980s. Between 1981 and 1985 it
was the fifth most common Neotropical psittacine species imported into
the U.S.A (Best et al. 1995, p. 244). Between 1983 and 1988, it
constituted 34 percent of Peru's parrot trade (p. 244). In 1984, Peru
exported in excess of 20,000 grey-cheeked parakeets; and the U.S.A. was
the principal consumer (Best et al. 1995, p. 245). Since 2000, only 12
live grey-cheeked parakeets were reported to have been in international
trade (UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade database, accessed May 12, 2011), and only
one of those was from Peru or Ecuador. International trade in this
species, which was the primary factor impacting the population decline
of this species, is now negligible.
Although poaching still occurs, public sentiment is changing due to
educational awareness programs in Peru and Ecuador (Fundaci[oacute]n
Jocotoco 2011). In the late 1990s, income from the sale of young
parrots in Peru could yield between $10 and $30 USD per day, while
other sources of income such as agriculture and day labor would only
yield $5 per day (Kvist et al. 2001 in Lee 2010, p. 3; Gonzalez 2003,
pp. 437-446). In 1998, in the United States, this species sold for
between $175 and $400 (Marsh 1998, p. 2). Prior to the implementation
of many regulatory protections that were initiated in the 1990s, an
entire brood of parrot chicks would often be taken from nests and sold
locally (Best et al. 1995, p. 244). Poaching was occurring in the late
1990s even in areas designated as protected. A study by
Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. examined nest poaching and illegal trade of
parrots, including the reasons for poaching, methods, seasons, and
locations where the sale and actual poaching of parrots occurred. This
study found that this species is still being poached in the wild
(Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, pp. 79-80), even in protected areas and
despite national protections in
[[Page 63502]]
place. Although during the study in 2007 and 2008, 385 specimens of
grey-cheeked parakeet were found in 5 markets for sale in Peru, the
study also found that where protections and enforcement have been
implemented, such as in Cusco, there were no parrots for sale in
markets. This study was over a 12-month period between 2007 and 2008.
In the 20 markets in eight cities visited, the grey-cheeked parakeet
was found in five of those eight cities; but significantly, not in
Lima. The study indicated that wildlife markets are well known, and
they believed that they had identified all the wildlife markets in
seven out of the eight cities (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al., p. 78). The
survey was conducted over four quarterly periods in these 20 markets in
eight cities. This species is commonly found distributed throughout its
historic range within an area of 9,300 km\2\ (3,591 mi\2\). Compared
with an average of 10,668 birds per year, 385 specimens of grey-cheeked
parakeet found in 5 markets for sale in Peru is minimal.
Poaching has been found to be significantly lower at protected
sites (Pain et al. 2006, p. 322; Wright et al. 2002, p. 719). For
example, Gonzalez (2003, pp. 437-446) found evidence of poaching,
particularly during nesting seasons, in the Pacaya-Samiria National
Reserve, a protected area in the Loreto Department, Peru, during his
1996-1999 study. However, he also found that poaching decreased during
the 1998 harvest season (Gonzalez 2003, p. 444), which he attributed to
increased numbers of birds confiscated by regional authorities, which
subsequently discouraged poaching (also see Factor D). An additional
factor is that this species may be less accessible than other parrot
species, due to its preference for forested habitat that consists of
complex canopy layers.
In the U.S., this species is no longer common (Feigelstock 2009, p.
3; Low 2003, p. 2) possibly due to its relatively short lifespan, the
difficulty of breeding this species in captivity, and susceptibility of
this species in captivity to a wide range of diseases (see Factor C).
The best available information indicates that poaching is becoming less
frequent due to involvement by NGOs, minimal international demand for
the species, and improved enforcement by authorities (Gasta[ntilde]aga
et al. 2011, p. 82; UNEP-WCMC Trade Database). Recently, this species
has been the focus of many conservation, public awareness and
ecotourism projects. This species attracts birders, and it is
advertised on many ecotourism internet sites for Tumbesian Ecuador and
Peru. Conservation programs, particularly with a focus on endemic bird
species, involve local communities, and many NGOs conduct local
educational awareness of the species' value in the wild
(Fundaci[oacute]n Jocotoco 2011).
Summary of Factor B
Although overutilization for the pet trade was a threat to this
species in the past, we have no information indicating that the grey-
cheeked parakeet is currently being overutilized and we have no reason
to believe the levels of trade that occurred in the past will become a
threat to the species in the future. The protections in place are
becoming more effective, and international trade is now negligible.
This species exists in several protected habitats, and there is no
evidence the species is decreasing in population (Woods 2010, p. 34,
Elwonger et al. 2004, p. 3; Van den Schoor, 2007). In some cases it
appears to be increasing (WLT 2011, p. 2). It is observed regularly in
three of Ecuador's protected reserves (Jorupe, Buenaventura, and Cerro
Blanco Reserve), in El Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon, and in Peru's TRZ. We
acknowledge that poaching continues to occur, but the primary impact to
the species that contributed to its several population decline, the
international pet trade, essentially no longer exists. The primary
impact to the species, removal of the wild for the international pet
trade, has been reduced to the point where it is no longer a threat.
Since 2000, only one live grey-cheeked parakeet was reported to have
been exported from either Peru or Ecuador by CITES-reporting countries.
Poaching may occur in a limited number of areas, but to the best of our
knowledge, it is not occurring in all locations where this species
occurs. Additionally, environmental awareness campaigns by local NGOs
are decreasing the levels of poaching. Based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a
threat to the grey-cheeked parakeet now or in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
This species is susceptible to many diseases (Pesaro et al. 2005
pp. 321, 325; USGS 1999, pp. 93-99; Butcher et al. 1990, p. 1025;
Panigrahy et al. 1983, p. 1166). However, most of the available
research addresses captive-held birds which may have a higher incidence
of disease than wild birds due to their exposure to sick birds,
unsanitary conditions, improper husbandry methods, etc. It is not clear
how prevalent disease factors into wild populations of this species. A
discussion of diseases that are known to affect this species follows.
Avian polyomavirus (APV) is one of the most significant viral
pathogens of cage birds (Pesaro et al. 2005, p. 321). This species is
susceptible to APV infection, which appears in birds up to
approximately 14 weeks of age, after which infection is asymptomatic.
The mortality peak in some Psittacine species occurs between 4 and 8
weeks of age (Pesaro et al. 2005 pp. 321, 325). Most birds infected
with APV are mildly affected (Gonzalez et al. n. d., p. 2). The extent
to which this disease and others addressed below occur in wild
populations is unclear, but these diseases have been found to occur in
the wild (USGS 1999, p. 94). USGS indicates that disease is more likely
to exist where there are major bird concentrations. APV is likely to
affect this species more frequently if this species is exposed to
humans through an increase of activities such as ecotourism (Factor E)
or logging (Factor A), or other disease vectors such as cattle.
Avian tuberculosis (also known as avian mycobacteriosis
(Mycobacterium avium) is known to occur in both wild and captive-held
Brotogeris species (USGS 1999, p. 96; Butcher et al. 1990, p. 1025;
Rosskopf et al. 1986, p. 219; Panigrahy et al. 1983, p. 1166). There
are 20 types of M. avium. Mycobacteriosis is seen fairly frequently
among parakeets and other parrots in captivity (USGS 1999, Chapter 8,
p. 96), and can cause die-offs in captive flocks. In captivity,
parakeets such as the grey-cheeked parakeet are likely to be exposed to
mycobacterium; however, cases of tuberculosis have become less frequent
(Butcher et al. 1990, p. 1023). Birds are more susceptible if their
diet is inadequate, and if they are subjected to stressful conditions
such as crowded or unsanitary conditions in cages or cold temperatures
(USGS 1999, p. 95); fecal exposure is the main route of transmission.
This disease causes chronic wasting characterized by weight loss,
diarrhea, difficulty breathing, and tumors of the skin and eyes
(Butcher et al. 1990, p. 1023; USGS 1999, Chapter 8, pp. 93-97). Tumors
may also affect the spleen, liver, lungs, air sacs, skin, and bone
marrow. It is spread through inhalation, direct contact with infected
birds, and ingestion of contaminated food or water. Parrots can obtain
also tuberculosis from pigs (USGS 1999, p. 1); however, it is unclear
if humans can transmit M. avium to parakeets (USGS 1999, p. 93). M.
avium has been found to persist outside of a host for over 40 months
(USGS 1999, p. 97). It persists
[[Page 63503]]
longest in poultry litter, and can also occur in wastewater, sewage
effluent, and fertilizers (USGS 1999, p. 97). It is unclear the extent
to which tuberculosis affects this species in the wild; however USGS
reported in 1999 (p. 96) that tuberculosis has rarely been found to be
the cause of a major die-off.
Although captive birds may be more susceptible to diseases in
captivity, in most areas where this species occurs, the habitat is
relatively undisturbed and exposure to disease is likely minimal.
Variation in spatial distribution affects patterns of disease. In
captivity, this species may be in close quarters, under stress, and
potentially exposed to diseases that it does not encounter in its
natural, wild environment. Research has indicated that populations that
exist in separate, smaller, more isolated patches slows the dispersal
rate and increases the probability of local extinction of pathogens
(Carlsson-Graner and Thrall 2002, p. 97). This species prefers forested
habitat with complex canopy layers, in areas that are fairly distant
from human establishments. The species exists in fairly small groups
with large home ranges. Without clear evidence that these diseases
negatively affect this species in the wild, we do not consider diseases
discussed above to occur at a level such that we consider them to be a
threat to the species.
Ectoparasites
We examined whether ectoparasitism by lice and mites is a threat to
this species. Many mites have evolved symbiotic relationship with avian
species (Atyeo 1989, p. 101). Not all bird-mite relationships are
parasitic; some might be benign or beneficial (Proctor and Owens 2000,
pp. 358, 362). Many mites are nonparasitic scavengers and use nests or
bird feathers as habitat. Despite the presence of mites found in nests
of this species, there is no evidence that mites cause mortality or
disease, or that they have a negative effect on this species (Atyeo
1989, p. 101). We conducted a search of available information, and
there is no other information indicating that lice and mites negatively
affect the species.
Predation
In 2005, a study of nest competition, which examined preference of
substrate material, age of nesting cavity, and depredation of several
bird species, indicated that eggs are heavily predated in Peru
(Brightsmith 2005, entire). Although this study concluded that nests
are heavily predated in Peru, the study did not include B. pyrrhoptera.
Predators included birds, marsupials, termites, monkeys, and rodents
(Brightsmith 2005, p. 78). This researcher found that of 47 nests,
including 23 nests in termitarium (termite mounds), 12 primary cavity
nests, and 13 secondary cavity nests, between 4 and 17 percent of the
nests in termitarium were preyed upon, and 77 percent of the secondary
nests were preyed upon (Brightsmith 2005, p. 78). Secondary nests are
previously used tree cavities, and primary nests are newly excavated
tree cavities. The study found that newly excavated nests had lower
rates of predation.
Over time, bird species such as the grey-cheeked parakeet develop
mechanisms in order to counter the effects of predation. All of the
predators in the study described above are native to Peru and Ecuador;
so a natural predator-prey balance has likely developed over time. This
species lays between 4 and 6 eggs, usually 5 eggs. This behavior may be
a mechanism that has developed in order to combat pressures such as
predation. While predation may be a source of mortality, there is no
evidence that it is a limiting factor for population growth for this
species. Another response mechanism to predation is building nests in
new sites; the research above found that these nests were less affected
by predation. Although predation occurs on this species, predation is a
normal ecological interaction in the wild. The best available
information does not indicate that predation is a threat to the
species.
Ants
There is only one report of ant predation on Brotogeris species.
Research in Peru found that termateria inhabited by two other species
of Brotogeris (B. sanctithomae and B. cyanoptera) were coinhabited by
Dolichoderus ants (Brightsmith 2000, p. 536). In another study, ants
(species unknown) had drilled a hole in an egg and had consumed the
contents (Brightsmith 2005, p. 76). The 2005 study did not include
predation by ants or termites in its results, but ants and termites
also were found to depredate nests (Brightsmith 2005, p. 77). At this
time, it is unclear why the study did not include predation by ants and
termites. It may be that predation by ants and termites was minimal
compared with the mutualistic benefit of sharing termateria between
ants, termites, and avian species. Observations suggest that ants
consume the feces of bird species, thereby keeping the nests clean
(Brightsmith 2000, p. 537). Although it is unclear which species of ant
had depredated this nest, overall, it appears that there is a
mutualistic relationship between some species of ants and Brotogeris
parakeets (Brightsmith 2005, p. 77; Brightsmith 2000, p. 536). Although
ants have the potential of being a localized threat, the best available
information does not indicate that this factor affects the species such
that it is a threat to the species throughout all or a significant part
of its range.
Summary of Factor C
We have no evidence of adverse impacts to wild-populations of grey-
cheeked parakeet from disease or predation. Disease and predation are
normal occurrences within wild populations. With respect to the grey-
cheeked parakeet, there is no indication that these are occurring to an
extent that they are threats. We conclude, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, that neither disease nor
predation is a threat to the grey-cheeked parakeet in any portion of
its range now or in the future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Each range country manages this species differently. Within each
country, not only is there a wide variability in the amount of
information available about the species, but also about the level of
management and monitoring of the species. Existing regulatory
mechanisms that could have an effect on potential threats to the grey-
cheeked parakeet include (1) local land use laws, processes, and
ordinances; (2) Federal laws and regulations; and (3) international
treaties. Because most of the available information addresses the grey-
cheeked parakeet in protected reserves, the discussion below focuses on
national laws.
Ecuador
Laws
Ecuador has numerous laws and regulations pertaining to
conservation of its species, forests, and forestry management (also
refer to Factor B). These include its Forestry Act (comprised of Law
No. 74 of 1981-Forest Act and conservation of natural areas and
wildlife (Faolex 1981, pp. 1-54)--and Law No. 17 of 2004--Consolidation
of the Forest Act and conservation of natural areas and wildlife
(Faolex 2004, pp. 1-29)); the Ecuadorian Strategy for Forest
Sustainable Development of 2000 (Estrategia para el Desarrollo Forestal
Sostenible); and Decree 346, which recognizes that natural forests are
highly vulnerable (ITTO 2006, p. 225). The Ecuadorian government
recognizes different legal categories of protected
[[Page 63504]]
lands. As of 2006, the amount of protected land (both forested and non-
forested) in Ecuador was approximately 4.67 million ha (11.5 million
ac) (ITTO 2006, p. 228). Ecuador's National System of Protected Areas
(Sistema Nacional de [Aacute]reas Protegidas or SNAP) is a network of
lands held by various entities including national, privately owned, and
community-owned lands (H[uuml]benthal et al. 2010, p. 5).
Additionally, the grey-cheeked parakeet is protected under
Ecuadorian law by Decree No. 3,516 of 2003 as vulnerable (Unified Text
of the Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of Environment (EcoLex
2003b, pp. 1-2, 34) (also see discussion under Factor B). This decree
summarizes the laws governing environmental policy in Ecuador and
mandates that the country's biodiversity is protected and used
primarily in a sustainable manner. Appendix 1 of this Decree lists the
Ecuadorian fauna and flora that are categorized as critically
endangered (En peligro critico), endangered (En peligro), or vulnerable
(Vulnerable) (EcoLex 2003a, p. 16). The grey-cheeked parakeet's status
confers protections to the species under Resolution No. 105 of 2000 and
Agreement No. 143 of 2003 (Standards for the control of hunting seasons
and licenses for hunting of wildlife). Resolution No. 105 and Agreement
No. 143 regulate and prohibit commercial and sport hunting of all wild
bird species, except those specifically identified by the Ministry of
the Environment or otherwise permitted (EcoLex 2003a, p. 1; EcoLex
2000, p. 1). Under this law, the Ministry of the Environment does not
permit commercial or sport hunting of the grey-cheeked parakeet (EcoLex
2003b, p. 17). Although Ecuador allows hunting, and removal of this
species from the wild by indigenous people is legal for subsistence
purposes (Bergman 2009; pp. 1-5), there is no evidence that this
practice occurs at an unsustainable level.
Protected Areas
There are at least 30 protected areas throughout the country. These
protected areas include national parks, biological reserves (one is a
marine reserve), ecological reserves, wildlife production reserves,
wildlife sanctuaries, national recreational areas, and a bi-national
park, El C[oacute]ndor, through the Peace Agreement signed with Peru
(www.ambiente.gov.ec; www.parks.it, accessed June 10, 2011). A study in
2001 found that tropical parks have been surprisingly effective at
protecting ecosystems and species within boundaries designated as parks
or other protected status despite underfunding and pressures for
resources (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 126). The study found that protected
areas are especially effective in preventing land clearing. It also
found that in 40 percent of parks, land that had formerly been under
cultivation and that was incorporated into park boundaries had
recovered. This subsequently led to an increase in vegetative cover.
The study found that 83 percent of parks were successful at mitigating
encroachment (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). The study concluded that the
conditions inside the parks compared with the surrounding areas were in
significantly better condition than their surrounding areas (Bruner et
al. 2001, p. 125). A later study supported this finding; it found that
forests in conservation units were four times better at protecting
against deforestation than unprotected areas (Oliveira et al. 2007, p.
1235).
Government Incentives
In the past few years, many advances have been made in protections
for this species; such as incentives initiated by the government for
communities to conserve this species. In 2006, some researchers
indicated that despite official protections in place, there were few
actual effective local protections in Ecuador (Bonaccorso et al. 2006,
p. 61). NGOs had also expressed concern that Ecuador was not
effectively managing its wildlife and resources. In 2006, the
International Tropical Timber Organization considered ecosystem
management and conservation in Ecuador, including effective
implementation of mechanisms that would protect grey-cheeked parakeet
habitat, to be lacking (ITTO 2006, p. 229). In 2007, another
organization indicated that the Forestry and Wildlife Service, Office
of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment, was not adequately
implementing conservation measures for the Manglares Churute Ecological
Reserve (MCER), where this species was recently observed. The NGO
indicated that the management plan in MCER had not been fully applied
(Alava et al. 2007, p. 231). However, since that time, the government
of Ecuador has adopted a national forest plan. In 2008, Ecuador
implemented this forest conservation plan, called Programa Socio Bosque
(``Forest Partners'') in order to conserve over 5 million ha (12.4
million ac) of forest (Conservation International 2008, p. 1). This
program, which is administered through the Minister of the Environment,
offers incentives to landowners and indigenous communities willing to
conserve their forests. Goals are to reduce carbon emissions by 13.5
million tons per year and to reduce poverty by providing additional
income to more than two million people in Ecuador. This program has the
support and involvement of many NGOs, both local and international. In
the range of this species, many areas are receiving more protection
now, and this species is being used as an ecotourism magnet.
Additionally, many NGOS are involved in land conservation and species
protection in Ecuador (refer to discussion under factor A), and we
expect these activities to continue into the future.
Although the governmental institutions responsible for natural
resource oversight in Ecuador may be under-resourced and there is a
lack of law enforcement on the ground, the country is making progress
in its conservation. Ecuador's Ministry of Environment's Socio Bosque
subsidy program has encouraged many large forest owners to participate
in this program. Many NGOs are actively involved in conservation
programs in Ecuador, particularly in southern Ecuador, where this
species resides. Ten percent of all of Ecuador falls under some form of
environmental protection or special status. As of 2006, 500,000
hectares (1,235,527 ac) are covered by management plans, and management
plans have been prepared for two other reserves 13,000 ha (32,125 ac)
in size (ITTO 2006, p. 228). The grey-cheeked parakeet exists in
several protected areas such as El Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon, which was
declared a Ramsar site in 1996, and is one of the 32 identified
wetlands in Ecuador's coastal region (Alava et al. 2007, p. 224).
NGOs
As discussed under factor A, many collaborative and innovative
conservation projects to conserve land have occurred recently. Several
NGOs such as Birdlife International, WorldLand Trust, Nature and
Culture International, and local organizations such as Fundaci[oacute]n
EcoCiencia, Loro Parque Fundaci[oacute]n, ProNaturaleza, and
Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque, are working to protect areas in Tumbesian
Ecuador. The World Land Trust and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque are
working in the Cerro Blanco Reserve area with local communities,
focusing on Puerto Hondo, where young local people, with guidance and
training from Foundation staff, lead tourists on guided canoe trips
through a rich mangrove estuary (http://www.wlt.org, accessed June 15,
2011). Between 2006 and 2010 some 235 hectares (581 ac) of degraded
lands have been reforested with over 250,000
[[Page 63505]]
saplings of 30 native species. In 2004 an environment education centre
was constructed for use by the local community, and a children's
ecology club runs weekly activities. A community park warden program is
building local awareness for this unique reserve and its wildlife. WLT
and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque are seeking to expand the Cerro Blanco
Reserve through additional land purchase. This includes both
unprotected and critically threatened forest habitat near the existing
reserve, as well as land that has been deforested but can be replanted.
In addition to habitat protections in place for this species, it also
benefits through conservation efforts by these NGOs.
Trade
Ecuador continues to strengthen its regulatory mechanisms. The
decline in population numbers of this species primarily occurred in the
1980s due to significant trade that occurred of this species (UNEP-WCMC
CITES trade database, accessed September 14, 2011). Between 1984 and
1988 (prior to the enactment of the WBCA in 1992), approximately 42,000
live grey-cheeked parakeets were reported to have been imported into
the United States (UNEP-WCMC, accessed May 3, 2011). The WBCA
effectively halted imports of wild-origin birds into the United States.
Since 2000, only 12 live grey-cheeked parakeets were reported to have
been in international trade (UNEP-WCMC, accessed May 12, 2011); and
only one of those was reported to be from either Peru or Ecuador.
Because of adequate regulatory mechanisms such as CITES and the WBCA,
both at the domestic and international level, we believe that the
primary threat to this species, poaching for the international pet
trade, has been alleviated. In addition, Ecuador continues to design
and implement new regulatory and conservation strategies to address
issues such as poaching for the pet trade that affect this species.
Based on the negligible amount of international trade (also refer to
discussion in Factor B), we do not find that the international trade in
this species is a threat to the species. Therefore, the best available
information indicates that regulatory mechanisms are adequate in
Ecuador to protect this species and its habitat.
Peru
Laws
This species is listed as vulnerable in Peru under Supreme Decree
No. 034-2004-AG (2004, p. 276,855). This decree prohibits hunting,
take, transport, and trade of protected species, except as permitted by
regulation. Poaching for the domestic pet trade does occur; however,
poaching does not appear to occur at a level such that it impacts the
species. Other laws that Peru has enacted to protect parrot species
such as the grey-cheeked parakeet have generally been effective
(Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 77), particularly since enactment of
Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre No 27308. This law regulates the
commercialization of wild species, and the minimum requirements for
their harvest and their collection and transportation; and it
establishes a maximum collection quota for each species from their
natural environment (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 77). INRENA
annually sets a quota for certain species, trade in the grey-cheeked
parakeet is not permitted (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 77).
Protected Areas
The Peruvian National Protected Area System includes several
categories of habitat protection. Habitat may be designated as any of
the following: (1) Parque Nacional (National Park, an area managed
mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation); (2) Santuario
(Sanctuary, for the preservation of sites of notable natural or
historical importance); (3) Reserva Nacional (National Reserve, for
sustainable extraction of certain biological resources); (4) Bosque de
Protecci[oacute]n (Protection Forest, to safeguard soils and forests,
especially for watershed conservation); (5) Zona Reservada (Reserved
Zone, for temporary protection while further study is under way to
determine their importance); (6) Bosque Nacional (National Forest, to
be managed for utilization); (7) Reserva Comunal (Communal Reserve, for
local area use and management, with national oversight); and (8) Cotos
de Caza (Hunting Reserve, for local use and management, with national
oversight) (Rodr[iacute]guez and Young 2000, p. 330). National
reserves, national forests, communal reserves, and hunting reserves are
managed for the sustainable use of resources (IUCN 1994, p. 2). The
designations of National Parks, Sanctuaries, and Protection Forests are
established by supreme decree that supersedes all other legal claim to
the land and, thus, these areas tend to provide more habitat protection
than unprotected areas.
Progress has been made in establishing protected areas and
implementing protections where this species occurs: the TRZ, the Cerros
de Amotape National Park and El Angolo Game Preserve form the Noroeste
Biosphere Reserve. During the process of establishing these protected
areas, they were initially described as core zone, protected zone, and
transition zone. The TRZ essentially encompassed El Caucho and Campo
Verde, the buffer zone was essentially El Angolo Game Preserve, and the
transition zone was the adjoining areas. The TRZ has had protected
status since 1957, but it has always experienced pressures from timber
harvest (ParksWatch 2005, p. 5). In 1970, a 10-year logging moratorium
was implemented. In Tumbes, sawmills were closed, but some illegal
timber harvest still occurred in the 1970s, despite government efforts
(ParksWatch 2005, p. 5). There had been reports of some local
Ecuadorians who crossed the border into the protected zone to hunt, cut
wood, and sometimes establish lots for agriculture (Walker 2001, p. 2).
However, the involvement of an NGO, ProNaturaleza, in 1988 increased
the effectiveness of protections in this area. Their activities have
included promoting local involvement, establishment of agreements
between national and international organizations, restoration of
mangrove ecosystems, regulation of extractive activities, and
environmental education (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 7). The implementation of
these additional protection measures are likely to also improve the
habitat for the grey-cheeked parakeet.
Domestic Trade
Most of the parrots in the illegal trade come from the wild, where
they have been harvested by small local communities and traded to other
people who transport them to wildlife markets in major cities (Rosales
et al. 2007 in Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 77; Gonzales 2003, p.
438). Despite the illegal sale of this species in some Peruvian
markets, efforts to curtail poaching and sale seem to be improving
(note that Gonzales's study was conducted between 1996 and 1999). In
2007 and 2008, 385 grey-cheeked parakeets were found in five of the
eight markets surveyed. The survey was conducted over four quarterly
periods in these 20 markets in eight cities. However, in cities such as
Cusco and Puerto Madonado, where INRENA and the ecological police have
increased enforcement of wildlife protection laws, there were no grey-
cheeked parakeets or other parrots found for sale (Gasta[ntilde]aga et
al. 2011, p. 82). The illegal parrot trade has decreased in these
areas; indicating that when enforcement is in place, protections are
effective.
International Wildlife Trade
Removal of this species from the wild for the pet trade had the
greatest impact
[[Page 63506]]
on this species. In 1981, the grey-cheeked parakeet was listed in
Appendix II of CITES, and in 1992, this species was protected by the
WBCA. The WBCA effectively shut down imports of this species into the
United States; one of the largest importers of this species. CITES
requires CITES Parties to have in place adequate legislation for its
implementation. Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties
to CITES adopted a process, termed the National Legislation Project, to
evaluate whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to
successfully implement the Treaty (CITES 2010b, pp. 1-5). In reviewing
a country's national legislation, the CITES Secretariat evaluates
factors such as whether a Party's domestic laws designate the
responsible Scientific and Management Authorities, prohibit trade
contrary to the requirements of the Convention, have penalty provisions
in place for illegal trade, and provide for seizure of specimens that
are illegally traded or possessed. The Government of Peru was
determined to be in Category 1, which means they meet all the
requirements to implement CITES. Ecuador was determined to be in
Category 2, with a draft plan, but not enacted (http://www.cites.org,
SC59 Document 11, Annex p. 1). The international legal trade in this
species has substantially decreased and is now negligible. As discussed
under factor B, between 2000 and 2009, only 12 live specimens were
reported in international trade (UNEP-WCMC); and only one was from a
range country (Peru). With respect to international trade, the
implementation of the WBCA and CITES, and the Governments of Peru and
Ecuador have effectively controlled international trade of this
species. Based on the best available information, the Governments of
Ecuador and Peru are adequately enforcing their respective legal
frameworks. Based on the decrease in reported trade, we believe that
international trade has been adequately curtailed by regulatory
mechanisms.
Summary of Factor D
We considered the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to
protect the grey-cheeked parakeet. Peru and Ecuador have enacted
numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms to protect and manage wildlife
and their habitats. Studies by the Peruvian Society for Environmental
Law (SPDA) concluded that there are approximately 5,000 laws and
regulations directly or indirectly related to environmental protection
and natural resource conservation in Peru. In 2001, Muller (2001, pp.
1-2) indicated that many of these are not effective due to limited
implementation and/or enforcement capability. However, one of the most
significant threats to the species prior to the 1990s was the
international pet trade, but this trade has been negligible since 2000.
Both Ecuador and Peru's economies are improving, and both countries are
implementing many projects and mechanisms that are having a positive
impact on this species and its habitat.
The grey-cheeked parakeet is listed as ``vulnerable'' under both
Ecuadorian and Peruvian law. It occurs within at least four protected
areas in Peru and Ecuador. This species is commonly observed in both
Ecuador and Peru in protected areas; and flocks of this species are
frequently observed. Some habitat degradation continues, including
within protected areas (see factor A). However, we find that the
existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to mitigate these
activities throughout the grey-cheeked parakeet's range. The most
significant threat, poaching for the international pet bird trade, has
declined significantly, and the population has had time to recover.
There is no indication that the population is currently declining; it
appears to be thriving in protected areas based on numerous recent
birding expeditions. The international pet trade that contributed to
the species' past decline, is now negligible.
Other factors that influenced our decision are that these
governments are both implementing reforestation efforts (see factor A)
and forest conservation programs. Lands are being purchased and are
converted to reserves. Ecotourism such as birding trips in these
reserves, which in part provides funding, appears to be prevalent in
the Tumbesian region. Although some limited poaching may continue to
occur, there is no evidence to suggest that they are having significant
population level effects. This species exists in several protected
habitats and is commonly observed throughout its range. There is no
evidence that its population is still declining (WLT 2011, p. 2; Woods
2010, p. 34, Elwonger et al. 2004, p. 3; Van den Schoor, 2007). It is
observed regularly in three of Ecuador's protected reserves (Jorupe,
Buenaventura, and Cerro Blanco Reserve), it was observed in El
Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon (Alava et al. 2007) and in Campo Verde in 2006;
and in Peru's TRZ. The grey-cheeked parakeet is also protected under
CITES and the WBCA, which we find have been effective in mitigating the
impact to this species from international trade. Because there have
been so few individual live grey-cheeked parakeets in trade since 2000,
we believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits
is not a threat to the species. Based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that inadequate mechanisms are not
a threat to the grey-cheeked parakeet in any portion of its range now
or in the future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
El Ni[ntilde]o Events
The arid terrestrial ecosystem of northwest Peru, where the grey-
cheeked parakeet occurs, is influenced by El Ni[ntilde]o events
(Rodriguez et al. 2005, p. 1), which has the potential to have profound
and long-lasting effects (Mooers et al. 2007, p. 2; Holmgren et al.
2006a, p. 87). An El Ni[ntilde]o weather phenomenon in 1982-1983,
caused widespread flooding in some parts of the country and severe
droughts in others (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35762.htm,
accessed May 5, 2011). El Ni[ntilde]o-southern oscillation (ENSO)
cycles increase the risk of fire because these events are often
followed by years of extremely dry weather (Block and Richter 2007, p.
1). Accumulated biomass dries and adds to the fuel load in the dry
season (Power et al. 2007, p. 898; Block and Richter 2007, p. 1).
Evidence suggests that the fire cycle in Peru has shortened,
particularly in coastal Peru and west of the Andes (Power et al. 2007,
pp. 897-898), which could have broad ecological consequences (Block and
Richter 2007, p. 1; Power et al. 2007, p. 898), and ENSO cycles have
increased in periodicity and severity (Richter 2005, pp. 24-25).
However, research suggests that ENSO events can also have positive
rather than negative effects. The amount of rainfall during an El
Ni[ntilde]o year can be more than 25 times greater than during normal
years in northern Peru (Holmgren et al. 2006a, p. 90; Rodriguez et al.
2005, p. 2). El Ni[ntilde]o events are important triggers for
regeneration of plants in semiarid ecosystems, particularly in the dry
forest of northwest Peru (Holmgren et al. 2006a, p. 88; Lopez et al.
2006, p. 903; Rodr[iacute]guez et al. 2005, pp. 2-3). During El
Ni[ntilde]o events, plant communities and barren lands are transformed
into lush vegetation, as seeds germinate and grow more quickly in
response to increased rainfall (Holmgren et al. 2006a, p. 88; Holmgren
et al. 2006b, pp. 2-8; Rodr[iacute]guez et al. 2005, pp. 1-6). This
species is a food generalist and exists in a climate zone that is
fairly stable (it is in a narrow latitudinal band). Thus, we
[[Page 63507]]
find that the grey-cheeked parakeet is likely to be less affected by
ecosystem changes due to El Ni[ntilde]o events than other species.
Tourism
Tourism can have both positive and negative aspects. One form of
tourism, ecotourism, has the potential to have a positive effect by
providing economic incentives for communities to protect their natural
areas. This in turn makes them less reliant on the resources within a
protected area, and encourages sustainable practices. In many cases,
local communities may contribute to the habitat degradation or remove
the species from the wild. Ecotourism projects, by creating alternative
sources of income, can be a way to create awareness of a species'
plight, and also can attract conservation funding to an area. Community
conservation projects have demonstrated that if local communities
understand the benefit of conserving the resource and are provided
alternative sources of income, they have incentive to protect the
resource rather than overutilize the resource (Lee 2010, p. 13). There
is increasing awareness to minimize environmental impacts of visitors.
Ecotourism is being conducted in a manner that is not disturbing to the
species. As of 2005, TRZ was attracting 500 tourists annually, and the
tourists generally only visited particular areas (ParksWatch 2005b, p.
11). Based on the positive effects of low-impact ecotourism, and also
the potential positive effects of ecotourism, we do not find that
tourism has a significant impact on the species.
Summary of Factor E
We evaluated other natural or manmade factors that might affect the
continued existence of the grey-cheeked parakeet. Neither El
Ni[ntilde]o events nor tourism were found to be threats to the species.
The grey-cheeked parakeet exists in protected areas in both Ecuador and
Peru that provide suitable habitat. Lowland bird species such as the
grey-cheeked parakeet are adapted to El Ni[ntilde]o events, and this
climate zone is fairly stable in its weather patterns. Tourism occurs
at low levels, and the tourism is likely very minimal in protected
areas where this species exists. Based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, we find that other natural or manmade
factors are not a threat to the grey-cheeked parakeet in any portion of
its range now or in the future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the grey-cheeked parakeet is threatened or endangered
throughout all of its range. Section 3 of the Act defines an
``endangered species'' as ``any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' and a
``threatened species'' as ``any species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.''
We examined the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the
grey-cheeked parakeet. We reviewed the petition, information available
in our files, and other available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with experts. We believe the species does
not warrant listing for the following reasons. There are no indications
that the population of this species is currently declining. Both IUCN
and BLI's population trend justification are from population studies
conducted prior to 1995; and the categorization was primarily based on
rapid rates of population decline caused by past trapping for the
international pet trade. The EU ban and the implementation of the WBCA
effectively halted the international trade in this species.
International trade, which was the primary reason for its decline prior
to the 1990s, is now negligible. Further, both Peru and Ecuador, the
range countries for this species, categorize this species as
vulnerable.
Additionally there has been significant NGO involvement in the
protection of endemic bird areas in the range of grey-cheeked parakeet.
The World Land Trust (WLT) indicated that in a recently purchased area
near the Buenaventura Reserve, the grey-cheeked parakeet has increased
locally, but did not give specific population estimates (WLT 2011, pp.
1-2). Habitat loss is often a threat to wildlife; however, in this
case, both Peru and Ecuador are implementing reforestation programs,
and this species exists in several protected areas, as well as areas
outside of protected areas. The species appears to adapt to altered
habitat (Best et al. 1995, p. 233). Several birding surveys have
focused on the Tumbesian biome, which extends 130,000 km (80,778 mi)
into southern Ecuador and northern Peru. Surveys in the early 2000s to
determine biodiversity in the Loja Province observed this species
fairly regularly in forested areas. The Tumbesian area still has
primary and secondary forested areas that are protected--in Ecuador,
this species exists in MCER, Jorupe Reserve, Buenaventura Reserve, and
Cerro Blanco Reserve, and in Peru, the species exists in Tumbes
Reserved Zone (TRZ), specifically at El Caucho and Quebrada Faical.
Habitat loss and degradation (Factor A) and poaching (Factor B)
still occur in Peru and Ecuador. We acknowledge that these activities
affect individuals, but there is no evidence that they are having
significant impacts such that they are threats to the species. We find
that these activities are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the grey-cheeked parakeet is in danger of
extinction (endangered) or likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened), throughout its range. The distribution
of its population in many reserves in Ecuador and Peru helps contribute
to the viability of the species overall; and its distribution is
providing a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic
events, strengthening the redundancy of the species. This species
exists in protected habitat in both countries, and legal international
trade, formerly the most significant threat to this species, has been
very limited since international trade has been regulated. Illegal
domestic trade (Factor B), while occurring in some areas, is not having
a significant impact such that it is a threat. Disease and predation
(Factor C) are not impacting this species such that they are threats.
Additionally, the involvement of NGOs in protecting more of this
species' habitat is likely to positively impact the species. Based on
the lack of threats to the grey-cheeked parakeet throughout its range,
as described above, we determine that the grey-cheeked parakeet is not
in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future. Therefore, we find that listing the grey-cheeked parakeet as a
threatened or endangered species is not warranted.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the grey-cheeked parakeet or its habitat to
our Branch of Foreign Species (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us monitor this species and
encourage its conservation.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the grey-cheeked parakeet is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are
any significant portions of the range where the grey-cheeked parakeet
is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
[[Page 63508]]
The Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
a threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.'' The term ``significant portion of its range'' is not
defined by the statute. For the purposes of this finding, a portion of
a species' range is ``significant'' if it is part of the current range
of the species and it provides a crucial contribution to the
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. For the
contribution to be crucial it must be at a level such that, without
that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future.
In determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and
threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of
this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in
some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only
to portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of
that portion clearly would not reasonably be expected to increase the
vulnerability to extinction of the entire species to the point that the
species would then be in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future), such portions will not warrant
further consideration.
If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then
determine their status (i.e., whether in fact the species is endangered
or threatened in a significant portion of its range). Depending on the
biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it might
be more efficient for us to address either the ``significant'' question
first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.''
Applying the process described above for determining whether a
species is threatened in a significant portion of its range, we
considered status first to determine if any threats or potential
threats acting individually or collectively threaten or endanger the
species in a portion of its range. We find that the potential threats
evaluated are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to
indicate that the grey-cheeked parakeet is in danger of extinction
(endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find
that listing the grey-cheeked parakeet as a threatened or endangered
species is not warranted throughout all of its range.
Conclusion of 12-Month Finding
We do not find that the grey-cheeked parakeet is in danger of
extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, listing the species as endangered or threatened under
the Act is not warranted at this time. We request that you submit any
new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the grey-
cheeked parakeet to our Endangered Species Program, Branch of Foreign
Species (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. New information
will help us monitor this species and encourage its conservation. If an
emergency situation develops for the grey-cheeked parakeet or any other
species, we will act to provide immediate protection.
References Cited
A list of all references cited in this document is available at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0071, or upon
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Branch
of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 29, 2011.
Cynthia T. Martinez,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25807 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P