[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62016-62034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0082; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Red-Crowned Parrot
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the red-crowned parrot (Amazona
viridigenalis) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific
and commercial information, we find that listing the red-crowned parrot
as endangered or threatened is warranted. Currently, however, listing
the red-crowned parrot is precluded by higher priority actions to amend
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon
publication of this 12-month petition finding, we will add the red-
crowned parrot to our candidate species list. We will develop a
proposed rule to list the red-crowned parrot as our priorities allow.
We will make any determination on critical habitat during development
of the proposed listing rule. During any interim period, we will
address the status of the candidate taxon through our annual Candidate
Notice of Review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 6,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R9-ES-2011-0082. 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, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered
Species Program, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA
22203. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the above street address.
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 Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing a 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 endangered or
threatened, 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
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 by
the Service's implementing regulations for the Endangered Species Act
(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 to list as endangered or threatened under the Act 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
(Cacatua alba), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria), and yellow-
crested cockatoo (Cacatua sulphurea). We initiated a status review to
determine if listing each of the 12 species is warranted, and initiated
a 60-day public comment period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to provide information on the status of these 12 species of
parrots. The comment period closed on September 14, 2009.
On October 24, 2009, and December 2, 2009, the Service received a
60-day notice of intent to sue from Friends of Animals and WildEarth
Guardians, for failure to issue 12-month findings on the petition. On
March 2, 2010, Friends of Animals and WildEarth Guardians filed suit
against the Service for failure to make timely 12-month findings within
the statutory deadline of the Act on the petition to list the 14
species (Friends of Animals, et al. v. Salazar, Case No. 10 CV 00357
D.D.C.). On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the
Court (CV-10-357, D. D.C.), in which the Service agreed to (in part)
submit to the Federal Register by September 30, 2011, a determination
whether the petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted
but precluded by other listing actions for no less than four of the
petitioned species. This Federal Register document complies with the
second deadline in that court-ordered settlement agreement. We will
announce the 12-month findings for the remaining parrot species for
which a 90-day finding was made on July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957) in
subsequent Federal Register notices.
Biological Information
Species Description
The red-crowned parrot belongs to the Amazona genus within the
parrot family Psittacidae. It is a mid-sized Amazona species, measuring
approximately 33 centimeters (cm) (13 inches (in)) in length and
weighing approximately 316 grams (g) (0.70 pounds) (Enkerlin and Hogan
1997, unpaginated). Average male and female wing length measures
approximately
[[Page 62017]]
207.5 millimeters (mm) (8.2 in) and 200.4 mm (7.9 in), respectively.
Average tail lengths for males and females measure 108.6 mm (4.3 in)
and 102.4 mm (4.0 in), respectively (Forshaw 1989, p. 603). Adults have
a bright green overall plumage distinguished by bright yellow-green
cheek areas, bright red on the crown (top of head) and lores (area
between eye and bill), and a violet-blue band extending from behind
each eye down each side of the crown and neck. The back of the head and
neck is scaled with black-tipped feathers. The flight feathers are
bluish-black overall, with the outer secondary flight feathers also
bearing a red patch. The tail feathers are tipped with yellowish green.
The bill is cream-yellow colored, the iris is yellow, and the orbital
ring and feet are pale gray. Juveniles are similar to adults except
that the bright red feathers on the head are limited to the forehead
and lores, and the violet-blue band on the sides of the crown tends to
form a broad band over and behind the eye (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997,
unpaginated; Foreshaw 1989, p. 603).
Range and Distribution
The red-crowned parrot is endemic to northeastern Mexico. In
addition, several introduced populations occur in urban area of the
United States, Puerto Rico, and Mexico. Evidence suggests populations
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley consist, at least partly, of naturally
occurring populations (Walker and Chapman 1992, pp. 38-39; Neck 1986,
entire; Brush 2005, pp. 97-99; Arvin 1982, p. 872). Thus, in our status
review we treat the Lower Rio Grande Valley populations as native
populations. In Mexico, the species' distribution is confined to the
lowland plains (Atlantic coastal plain) and the low eastern slopes of
the Sierra Madre Oriental (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 4; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 423). Historically, the species is known from central and
southern Tamaulipas, central Nuevo Leon, eastern San Luis Potosi, and
northern and central Veracruz (Collar et al. 1992, p. 423; Enkerlin and
Hogan 1997, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 603; Ridgely 1981, p. 351).
Howell and Webb (1995, p. 342) also include small portions of eastern
Queretaro, Hidalgo, and north-northeast Puebla as part of the natural
range of the species.
A study to determine the current status of populations throughout
the species' range in Mexico was conducted during 2002 and 2003. The
study found that red-crowned parrots occur at only 19.2 percent of
surveyed locations at which they were recorded historically (Macias and
Enkerlin 2003, p. 17). The species was present in Tamaulipas, eastern
San Luis Potosi, and northern Veracruz, and absent in Nuevo Leon and
central Veracruz (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 3). The authors estimate
the current range of the species in Mexico to be 32,500 square
kilometers (km\2\) (12,548 square miles (mi\2\)), representing a 77
percent decrease from the species' estimated original range of 140,000
km\2\ (54,054 mi\2\) (p. 14). Most of the species' current distribution
occurs in Tamaulipas followed, in order of importance, by Veracruz and
San Luis Potosi (p. 12), and habitat within this range is fragmented.
As a result, the species occurs in only small, isolated populations
across its range (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 3). In addition to the
results of Macias and Enkerlin's research, recent reports confirm the
species' native occurrence in northeast Queretaro (p. 12). Within the
LRGV, the red-crowned parrot occurs in Hildago and Cameron Counties,
from Hidalgo, Mission, McAllen, and Edinburg east to Brownsville, Los
Fresnos, and Harlingen (Hagne 2011, pers. comm.; Brush 2011, pers.
comm.; McKinney 2011, pers. comm.). The species also occurs in some
towns on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande (Hagne 2011, pers. comm.),
although specific locations have not been reported.
Habitat
The red-crowned parrot generally occurs in tropical lowlands and
foothills, inhabiting tropical deciduous forest, gallery forest,
evergreen floodplain forest, Tamaulipan thornscrub, and semi-open
areas. It generally occurs between sea level and 500 meters (m) (1,640
feet (ft)) elevation, with most birds found within 200-500 m (656-1,640
ft) (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 10; Enkerlin and Hogan 1997,
unpaginated). In winter, it sometimes visits dry pine and pine-oak
forests up to 1,200 m (3,937 ft) elevation to forage (Macias and
Enkerlin 2003, p. 10; Clinton-Eitniear 1986, p. 22; Clinton-Eitniear
1988, p. 28; Martin et al. 1954, p. 46). Enkerlin and Hogan (1997,
unpaginated) describe typical habitat as being diverse deciduous
tropical forest with a relatively open, 15-20 m (50-65 ft) high canopy
layer, and dominant canopy vegetation that includes Ficus cotinifolia
(strangler fig), Bumelia laetevirens (coma), Pithecellobium flexicaule
(ebony), Bursera simaruba (gumbo-limbo), Phyllostylon brasiliensis
(cer[oacute]n), Brosimum alicatrum (ojite), and Helietta parvifolia
(barreta). Gelhbach et al. (1976, pp. 54-55) described a floodplain
forest habitat as evergreen forest dominated by Pithecellobium
flexicaule with Ehretia, Bumelia, and Condolia subdominant. Altered
habitats are also used. The species is known to occur in partially
cleared and cultivated landscapes with woodlots and woodland patches
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 425), and, in reduced numbers, in agricultural
areas where a few large trees remain standing for nesting and roosting
(Ridgley 1981, p. 351). In the LRGV, red-crowned parrots occur
primarily in urban (town) areas (Hagne 2011, pers. comm.). Although
little information on urban habitat use specific to the LRGV is
available, in cities where the species is introduced it is reported to
prefer areas with large trees that provide both food and nesting sites
(Froke 1981, Hall 1988, in Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated).
Movements
Red-crowned parrots are nonmigratory (Enkerlin and Hogan,
unpaginated), but are apparently nomadic during the winter (non-
breeding) season when large flocks range widely to forage (Collar et
al. 1992, p. 426; Clinton-Eitniear 1986, pp. 22-23). Regional movements
spanning up to ``tens of kilometers'' have been reported for
Tamaulipas, Mexico (Aragon-Tapia 1986, in Enkerlin and Hogan,
unpaginated).
Diet and Foraging
The red-crowned parrot usually forages in the crowns of trees, but
will occasionally feed on low-lying bushes. Foraging appears to be
opportunistic. Its diet includes a variety of primarily seeds and
fruits, but also buds and flowers (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997,
unpaginaged; Sutton and Pettingill 1942, p. 14). In a study conducted
in northeast Mexico, red-crowned parrots were observed feeding on 9
plant species (Enkerlin 1995, p. 113). They fed most frequently on the
seeds of the most abundant trees in the study site: Pithecellobium
flexicaule (Texas ebony), Ficus cotinifolia (strangler fig), and
Bumelia laetevirens (woolly buckthorn). They also frequently fed on
Myrcianthes fragans (Guyabillo) fruit. In Mexico, they have also been
reported feeding on Pinus (pine) seeds (Martin et al. 1954, p. 46),
Ehretia anaqua (anacua) berries (Gehlbach 1976, p. 55), Melia azederach
(chinaberry) berries, and acorns (Clinton-Eitniear 1988, p. 28), and
have been reported to be pests in corn fields (Martin 1954, p. 46).
Insects have also been found in crop (a structure in the digestive
tract where food is stored) samples taken from chicks (Enkerlin and
Hogan 1997, unpaginaged). In Texas, as in Mexico, Pithecellobium
flexicaule is a common food item, as is Ehretia anaqua (Brush 2005, p.
99).
[[Page 62018]]
Red-crowned parrots in Texas have also been observed eating the seeds
and fruits, and leaves or flower buds, of a variety of other species
(Brush 2005, p. 99).
Reproduction
As with other Amazona species, red-crowned parrots nest in pre-
existing tree cavities, including those created by other birds and
those resulting from tree decay. They will also use artificial cavities
(Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated). They've been reported nesting
in a variety of tree species, including Taxodium mucronatum (Montezuma
cypress), Bumelia laetivirens, and Brosinum alicastrum (breadnut)
(Gelhbach 1987, Perez and Equiarte 1989, in Collar et al. 1992, p.
426), as well as Pithecellobium flexicaule, Ficus cotinifolia, Bumelia
laetevirens, Helietta parvifolia, Bursera simaruba, and others
(Enkerlin 1995, p. 35). In a study in Tamaulipas within a habitat
mosaic of forest, windbreaks, wooded pastures, and open pastures, the
availability of suitable cavities for nesting did not appear to be
limited, as parrots used only a small fraction of available cavities
classified as suitable for nest sites (Enkerlin 1995, pp. 43-44, 54).
Trees in which red-crowned parrot nests occurred ranged from 39-229 cm
(15-90 in) diameter at breast height, and nest cavities were located
380-1,350 cm (150-531 in) above the ground (Enkerlin 1995, p. 36).
Results of the same study show that red-crowned parrots appeared to
preferentially select nests in open and wooded pastures rather than in
heavily forested areas, but the effect of possible sample bias due to
lower detectability of nests in forests could not be ruled out
(Enkerlin 1995, pp. 43-44).
Nests of red-crowned parrots appear to be clumped because the
nearest neighbor (the nest closest to the nest in question) tends to be
a nest of the same species (Enkerlin 1995, p. 42). Fidelity to specific
nest sites is lower than in other Amazona (Enkerlin 1995, p. 75),
although individuals show attachment to a general area when selecting
nests (Enkerlin 1995, p. 66). Nests in which greater than one young
fledge have a greater likelihood of being reused (Enkerlin 1995, p.
69).
Nesting by red-crowned parrots occurs from March to August
(Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated). Second clutches are not known
to occur, although evidence (i.e., late season clutches) suggests it
may occur irregularly (Enkerlin 1995, p. 104). Clutch size ranges from
2 to 5 (average = 3.4) eggs, and eggs hatch after an average of 27
days, with young fledging an average of 53 days after hatching
(Enkerlin 1995, pp. 65, 86). Parents feed young for at least 10 weeks
after the young fledge. In northeast Mexico, progression of the young
to independence is assumed to occur within 3-4 months, as young are no
longer with adults in November (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated).
Enkerlin (1995, p. 96) shows that, on average, a pair of red-
crowned parrots within the species' native range in Mexico produced 3.4
eggs but fledged only 1.43 young, indicating that only 43 percent of
eggs resulted in fledged young. As with most other parrots, there is a
low proportion of breeding adults in red-crowned parrot populations and
reproductive success is low, indicating that populations do not have
the capacity to recover quickly from pressures to which they are
subjected (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 16).
In a study conducted by Enkerlin (1995, pp. 89-93) the main causes
of egg and chick mortality were nest abandonment due to unknown causes,
brood reduction, and predation. Most nest failure occurred during the
early nestling period, and snakes, especially indigo snakes (Drymarchon
corais), were a major source of predation. Other predators included
hawks (Buteo sp.), which were observed preying on juveniles, and coati
(Nasua nasua) and skunk (Spilogale putorius), which were documented
preying on incubating females (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated).
Abundance
Historical numbers of red-crowned parrots are believed to have
exceeded 100,000 (Enkerlin 1998, p. 8). Records up through the 1950s
indicate the species was clearly relatively common in appropriate
habitat from central Tamaulipas south to eastern San Luis Potosi and
northern Veracruz, even being described in some areas as a ``pest''
species (Collar et al. 1992, p. 424). By the 1970s, Ridgely (1981, p.
351) noted that, although locally common, the consensus among long-term
observers was that there had been a large overall decline in the
species' numbers over the previous several decades, and that much of
its range had been, or was being, modified for agricultural use.
Ridgely (1981, p. 351) also reported that, where formerly hundreds
could be seen, it was now only seen in scattered pairs or, at most,
small flocks. The Mexico population in 1994 was estimated to be 3,000-
6,500 birds (UNEP-WCMC 2002, in Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 15).
Density estimates of red-crowned parrots in Tamaulipas during the
1970s to 1990s differ by an order of magnitude and have been cited as
evidence for population declines (Birdlife International (BLI) 2011,
unpaginated). Castro (1976, in Enkerlin 1995, p. 117) estimated a
density of 25.2 birds per 100 hectares (ha) (247 acres (ac)) during the
1970s; Perez and Eguiarte (1989, in Enkerlin 1995, p. 117) 11.5 birds
per 100 ha (247 ac) during 1985; Aragon-Tapia (1986, in Enkerlin 1995,
p. 117) 4.72 birds per 100 ha (247 ac) in 1986; and Enkerlin (1995, p.
117) 5.7 birds per 100 ha (247 ac) during the period 1992-1994. These
estimates, however, were made using different methodologies (Ekerlin
1995, p. 117) and therefore may reflect differences in methods used by
different researchers rather than differences in abundance. Enkerlin
(1995, p. 124) also suggests some of the variation in density estimates
may be due to differences in the abilities of different researchers to
distinguish red-crowned from red-lored parrots (Amazona autumnalis) in
the field.
Partners in Flight (PIF), an international coalition of Federal and
State agencies and non-government groups, uses a peer-reviewed process
to assess the status of bird species (Rich et al. 2004, entire; Panjabi
et al. 2005, entire). They base these assessments on ``wild''
populations of the species, which do not include populations known to
be introduced (Panjabi 2011, pers. comm.). Their assessment of the
status of red-crowned parrot includes populations within the species'
historical range in Mexico and in the LRGV. PIF assessed the status of
the global red-crowned parrot population, as well as the portion of the
global population occurring within a defined ``Bird Conservation
Region.'' Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ``ecologically distinct
regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and
resource management issues'' (North American Bird Conservation
Initiative (NABCI) undated, unpaginated). The BCR in which red-crowned
parrots were assessed is the Tamaulipan Brushlands BCR. This BCR
comprises the plain that extends from southern Texas into northeastern
Mexico (NABCI 2000, p. 22). It includes the LRGV and northern portions
of the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila. PIF
estimates the global population of red-crowned parrots to be fewer than
5,000 individuals and the recent population trend as having decreased
greater than or equal to 50 percent over 30 years (Berlanga et al.
2010, pp. 38-39; PIF 2007, unpaginated; PIF 2005a, unpaginated). They
estimate that
[[Page 62019]]
individuals within the Tamaulipan Brushlands BCR comprise 43 percent of
the global population, and categorize the population trend as being
highly variable or having an unknown change over 30 years, which they
qualitatively define as an uncertain population trend (PIF 2005b,
unpaginated). Numbers and trend of the species within the Texas portion
of this BCR are largely unknown, and speculative (Hagne 2011, pers.
comm.; Brush 2011, pers. comm.; McKinney 2011, pers. comm.), although
an earlier PIF assessment (Rich et al. 2004, p. 70) estimated that
approximately 50 percent of the rangewide population (not including
introduced populations (Panjabi 2011, pers. comm.)) occurred in the
United States.
Conservation Status
Red-crowned parrots are listed as endangered in Mexico (GOM 2002,
p. 22), and are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; see Factor
D). The species is classified by the IUCN as endangered (BLI 2008,
unpaginated), and by the Service (2008, pp. 52, 66) as a Species of
Concern. PIF has placed the species on its Watch List for Land Birds,
and has classified it as a species of High Tri-national Concern (Rich
et al. 2004, p. 17; Berlanga et al. 2010, pp. 38-39).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species
to 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 making this finding, information pertaining to the red-crowned
parrot in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act is discussed below.
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 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.
Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Habitat or Range
Habitat destruction and modification is one of the main threats to
the red-crowned parrot (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 4). As a result of
extensive deforestation, red-crowned parrot habitat has changed
substantially since the early 1970s (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 14).
Over 80 percent of the species' lowland habitat in Tamaulipas, Mexico,
has been lost (CITES 1997, p. 2; Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 14), and
Rios (2002, in Macias & Enkerlin 2003, p. 14) estimates the species has
lost 31 percent of its rangewide habitat. The habitat that remains is
fragmented, occurring only in isolated patches in different parts of
the species' range (Macias & Enkerlin 2003, p. 3). Further, according
to PIF, extreme deterioration in the future suitability of conditions
in the species' breeding and nonbreeding ranges is expected (Berlanga
et al. 2010, pp. 38-39).
Mexico
Mexico has suffered extensive deforestation (conversion of forest
to other land uses) and forest degradation (reduction in forest biomass
through selective cutting, etc.) over the past several decades. In more
recent decades, Mexico's deforestation has been rapid (Blaser et al.
2011, pp. 343-344). For example, between 1990 and 2000, Mexico lost
forest at a net rate (which factors in natural regeneration of degraded
forest and planting of forest in areas that previously did not have
forest) of 344,000 ha (850,043 ac) per year (Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) 2010, p. 21). During 1990-2010, Mexico lost
approximately 6 million ha (approximately 15 million ac) of forest, and
had one of the largest decreases in primary forests worldwide (FAO
2010, pp. 56, 233). Although Mexico's rate of forest loss has slowed in
the past decade, it still continues. The current rate of net forest
loss in Mexico is 155,000 ha (383,013 ac) per year, with an estimated
250,000-300,000 ha (617,763-741,316 ac) per year degraded (Government
of Mexico (GOM) 2010b, in Blaser et al. 2011, p. 344; FAO 2010, p.
233). Tamaulipas, the state with which the largest number of locations
with recent records of the red-crowned parrot (Macias and Enkerlin
2003, p. 12), experienced a net loss of 0.1 to 0.3 percent of its
forest area per year between 2003 and 2007. The other states in which
the species primarily currently occurs, Veracruz and San Luis Potosi,
experienced a net loss of greater than 0.6 percent, and a net gain of
0.1 to 0.3 percent of its forest area, respectively, during this period
(Masek et al. 2011, pp. 9-10). Currently, Mexico has 64.8 million ha
(160.1 million ac) of forest (FAO 2010, p. 228) and 50 percent of these
forests are considered degraded (Masek et al. 2011, p. 9). By 2030,
forest area in Mexico is projected to decrease, with anywhere from just
under 10 percent to nearly 60 percent of mature forests lost, and
approximately 0 to 54 percent of regrowth forests lost (Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 2010, pp. 45, 75).
Deforestation and forest degradation occur in all forest types in
Mexico (GOM 2010, p. 22). Their main drivers are conversion of forest
to pasture, slash and burn agriculture, and uncontrolled logging
(overexploitation and illegal logging) (GOM 2010, pp. 22-24). Factors
that put lands at greatest risk are favorable topographic conditions,
road access, and proximity to human settlements (Munoz et al. 2003, in
GOM 2010, p. 23).
Agriculture (Livestock and Crop Production)
Within Mexico, red-crowned parrot habitat is threatened primarily
by conversion of forests to cultivated land and expansion of livestock
grazing areas without attempting to preserve patches of native trees
and vegetation (Berlanga et al. 2010, pp. 38-39; Enkerlin and Hogan
1997, unpaginated; Enkerlin 2000, in Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 18).
The lowland area in which the large majority of the red-crowned
parrot's range occurs is within the Gulf of Mexico coastal plain, one
of the most productive regions of intensive agricultural use in Mexico,
especially for cattle grazing (V[aacute]zquez & Arag[oacute]n-Tapia
1993, in Enkerlin 1998, p. 79; GOM 2010, p. 22). In contrast to
agriculture in many other parts of the country, many of the crop-
producing farms in northern Mexico are large and mechanized.
Consequently, large areas are cleared of forest and converted to
[[Page 62020]]
agricultural lands for production of cash crops such as sorghum (Rochin
1985, entire). Pastures differ in the amount of vegetation cleared,
ranging from being completely cleared to being selectively cleared of
only understory vegetation (Enkerlin 1995, p. 20). Consequently, the
density of large trees that still remain in pastures varies between
farms and between pastures within a ranch. However, few ranchers manage
the land for maintenance of tree density or regeneration, resulting in
a continuing decline of tree density within treed pastures (Enkerlin
1995, pp. 20-21; Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated).
As with most parrots, the red-crowned parrot requires trees for
nesting, feeding, and roosting. Deforestation via conversion of land to
agricultural use is a threat to red-crowned parrots because it directly
eliminates forest habitat, removing the trees that support the species'
nesting, roosting, and dietary requirements. It also results in
fragmented habitat that isolates red-crowned parrot populations (U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) 2009, p. 48; Macias and
Enkerlin 2003, pp. 3-4), potentially compromising the genetics of these
populations through inbreeding depression and genetic drift. Forest
degradation as a result of incomplete clearing, such as for grazing
land, is also a threat to red-crowned parrots because in the absence of
management for maintenance of tree density or regeneration, it
eventually leads to full deforestation (GOM 2010, p. 32). With respect
to the few ranches and farms that maintain large trees, although red-
crowned parrots are known to use partially cleared and cultivated
landscapes (Collar et al. 1992, p. 425), they are only able to do so if
the landscape maintains enough large trees to support the species'
nesting, feeding, and roosting requirements. A reduced number of trees
will reduce the availability of adequate nest sites and food resources
across the landscape, resulting in a reduction in the number of red-
crowned parrots the landscape can support and, thus, a reduction in the
red-crowned parrot population.
The indirect effects of deforestation and forest degradation due to
conversion of land to agricultural use also pose a threat to red-
crowned parrots. Clearing of land for agriculture use provides easier
access by humans to the forests and trees the species uses, and thus
increases the vulnerability of the species to illegal poaching, one of
the leading threats to the species (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997,
unpaginated) (see Factor B discussion) along with habitat destruction
and modification.
Deforestation via forest conversion to agriculture uses remains a
major driver of land transformation in Mexico (CEC 2008, p. 24).
Agricultural production is projected to double within the country by
2030, with little variation in projections under different future
scenarios (CEC 2010, pp. 34, 70). Although some of this increase in
production is expected to be due to an increase in productivity on
previously converted land, total agricultural land area in Mexico is
projected to increase by 6,300 to 41,400 ha (15,568 to 102,302 ac) by
2030 (CEC 2010, p. 75).
Logging
Only 5 percent of Mexico's forested area is designated as
production forest (FOA 2010, p. 244), although casual unsustainable
tree removal by communities in the vicinity of forests also occurs, for
example for firewood or charcoal production, or for timber for local
use, rather than for large-scale trade (GOM 2010, p. 32). Almost all
domestic timber production is currently supplied by low-management
natural forests (Comisi[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 2008, in USAID 2009,
p. 50). Commercial harvesting is mainly conducted via shelterwood
(temporary maintenance of some canopy trees, to protect understory
growing trees, until an even-aged stand is produced) or partial cutting
of up to 40 percent of standing volume (Masek et al. 2011, p. 4).
These, and other, logging practices reduce the number of large trees in
harvested areas (Putz et al. 2000, p. 40), and alter forest structure
and composition by the selective extraction of certain tree species
(CEC 2008, p. 24). A reduced number of large trees may reduce the
availability of suitable nest sites for the red-crowned parrot, and
smaller trees may not possess cavities large enough for the species to
nest in. Altering the composition of tree species, or reducing the size
or number of trees (or both), may reduce the availability of food for
the species. Thus, forests degraded by logging may result in a
reduction in the number of individuals of the species the forest can
support and therefore a further reduction in the population. Logging
can also cause widespread collateral damage in the remaining forest
(Putz et al. 2000, pp. 7-8). In addition to the direct removal of trees
that could potentially support nesting or dietary requirements of
parrots, an additional 5 to 50 percent of both soil and remaining trees
are damaged by logging in tropical forests (Putz et al. 2000, p. 8),
contributing to the total amount of forest degraded by human
activities. The additional degradation could potentially further
contribute to shortages of red-crowned parrot food resources due to the
death of damaged trees or lower tree recruitment due to damaged soils.
Indirectly, logging affects red-crowned parrot populations because
logging roads increase access of forested areas to humans. An increase
in access to forested areas also increases access to the species within
those forests. As a result, logging operations multiply the harvest of
animals from tropical forests (Putz et al. 2000, pp. 16, 23). Thus,
logging is an indirect threat to red-crowned parrots because it
increases the vulnerability of the species to illegal poaching, one of
the leading threats to the species (see Factor B discussion). Logging
also threatens the species because increased access to forests is also
often followed by full deforestation as lands are cleared for
agricultural use (Kaimowitz and Angelsen 1998, in Putz et al. 2000, p.
16) (see Agriculture (Livestock and Crop Production) above).
While logging, if conducted according to a well-designed forest
management plan, can potentially protect ecosystem services and
biodiversity, the compatibility of logging with biodiversity
conservation is complicated (Putz et al. 2000, pp. 11, 7). Logging in
tropical forests is carried out over a wide range of intensities, using
a variety of techniques which may be applied carefully or in ways that
result in extensive collateral damage (Putz et al. 2000, p. 7). In
Mexico, most (53 percent to 80 percent (Perron 2010, p. 5)) natural
forests are owned and managed by approximately 8,500 different
communities (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 345). Use and management on
community-owned property varies (Bray et al. 2005, in Masek pp. 14-15),
and although some good examples of successful community forest
management exist, most communities lack forest management plans
(Sarukhan and Merino 2007, p. 1) and the organization and funding to
implement sustainable forest management practices (Blaser et al. 2011,
p. 351; GOM 2010, p. 24). Further, illegal logging, which is conducted
without consideration for minimizing impacts on ecosystems or species,
is widespread in Mexico, accounting for approximately 8 percent of the
country's deforestation (USAID Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR) 2010, p. 12; USAID 2009, pp. 56-57).
According to future scenarios evaluated by CEC (2010, p. 36),
Mexico is projected to see a 5-10 percent decline in production of
selected wood products by 2030, reflecting a greater emphasis on
agricultural production. Although commercial wood production may
decrease, we are not aware of any
[[Page 62021]]
information indicating that illegal logging or casual unsustainable
removal of trees by communities, or the indirect effects of these
activities, will decrease.
Texas
Within the past few decades, the LRGV has experienced rapid human
population growth and subsequent rapid urbanization. In the two Texas
counties in which the red-crowned parrot occurs, the human population
increased by 36.1 percent (Hidalgo County) and 21.2 percent (Cameron
County) between 2000 and 2010 (US Census Bureau 2011, unpaginated), and
each county's population is projected to increase by about 50 percent
between 2010 and 2040 (Texas State Data Center 2008, unpaginated). In a
study investigating land cover and land use change in the region using
analysis of satellite imagery, Huang et al. (2011, unpaginated) found
that between 1993 and 2003, urbanization increased by 59.7 percent in
Hidalgo County and 58.2 percent in Cameron County. Red-crowned parrots
are known to colonize urban areas, as evidenced by their establishment
as introduced populations in several urban areas of the United States
and Mexico. Although red-crowned parrots occur in urban habitats within
the LRGV, suggesting their population in the LRGV may increase with
future increases in urbanization, it is also possible that continued
population growth could result in current urban areas becoming more
densely developed with more infrastructure and fewer trees, reducing
the availability of red-crowned parrot nest sites and food resources.
Although red-crowned parrot populations may be influenced by future
growth in the LRGV, we found no information indicating whether future
growth may positively or negatively affect the red-crowned parrot
population in the region. Further, we found no information specifically
regarding any other threats to red-crowned parrot habitat in the
region.
Conservation Measures
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)
Mexico has initiated several PES programs that provide financial
incentives to rural communities and private landowners for the design
and implementation of carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation,
agroforestry, and watershed protection projects. These programs were
designed to pay participating forest owners for the benefits of these
environmental services where commercial forestry cannot compete,
economically, with agriculture and ranching, the primary causes of
deforestation in Mexico (Munoz et al. 2008, pp. 725-726; Corbera et al.
2011, p. 54). Research on Mexico's PES programs has shown mixed results
in relation to their impact on deforestation; while early analyses
showed inconclusive results, recent work indicates a positive but not
substantive reduction in net deforestation rates (Corbera et al. 2011,
p. 17).
Reduced Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
A related, 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 agriculture,
logging, and other uses, 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). Mexico
has been very active in REDD discussions under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, is developing a national REDD
strategy, and is working on the design and implementation of regional
and local pilot projects (USAID CIFOR 2010, p. 34; Corbera et al. 2011,
p. 316). However, we do not yet know how successful Mexico's REDD
strategy or projects will be.
Forest Certification
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). As of February 2011, approximately 614,000 ha (1,517,227 ac) (9
percent) of Mexico's forest were certified, mostly outside the tropics
(Blaser et al. 2011, p. 348). Only about 32,600 ha (79,074 ac) of
tropical forest were certified, most of which was planted forest
(Blaser et al. 2011, p. 348).
Protected Areas
Conservation strategies in Mexico rely heavily on natural protected
areas, and Biosphere Reserves comprise most of the designated protected
area in the country (Figueroa and Sanchez 2008, pp. 3324, 3234). The
red-crowned parrot is protected in or near two biosphere reserves: the
Reserva de la Biosfera El Cielo, in Tamaulipas; and the Reserva de la
Biosfera Sierra Gorda, in Quer[eacute]taro (Macias and Enkerlin 2003,
p. 22). However, the best conserved portions of habitat in these two
reserves are at elevations greater than 500 m (1,640 ft), while the
red-crowned parrot occurs primarily below 500 m (1,640 ft) (see
Habitat). Further, in a study of the effectiveness of Mexico's
protected areas for preventing land use and land cover change, Figueroa
and Sanchez (2008, entire) found that Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve
was ineffective (as opposed to effective or weakly-effective). They did
not evaluate El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, but they found that, overall,
approximately 54 percent of protected areas, including 65 percent of
Biosphere Reserves, were effective.
Summary of Factor A
Forest loss and degradation due to the conversion of forest to
grazing and farm land have caused extensive red-crowned parrot habitat
loss in the past. These activities are still occurring within the range
of the species and the fact that (1) these activities are projected to
increase in Mexico, and (2) the Gulf of Mexico coastal plain, in which
a large portion of the red-crowned parrot's historical range occurs, is
one of the most productive regions of agricultural use in Mexico,
indicates these activities will continue within the species' range into
the foreseeable future. It is unlikely that the direct effects of
logging are threat to
[[Page 62022]]
the species, as red-crowned parrots are known to use degraded habitats.
However, the indirect effects of logging, including increased human
access to forests, which increases the vulnerability of the species to
poaching, and often leads to conversion of newly accessible forest to
agriculture, appear to be a threat to the species. Although commercial
logging is projected to decrease within Mexico, it is projected to
continue albeit at a lower level. Also, illegal logging is widespread
in Mexico, and we are not aware of any information indicating that the
extent of illegal logging will be reduced in the future. Further,
because many people within Mexico rely on forests for their
livelihoods, and because sustainable practices are not used, it is
likely that casual, unsustainable removal of trees by communities for
purposes such as firewood and local timber use will also continue to
degrade and ultimately deforest red-crowned parrot habitat in the
future.
Habitat conservation measures within Mexico do not appear to be
sufficient to stem future red-crowned parrot habitat losses. Programs
for the payment of ecosystem services have yet to show substantive
reductions in deforestation rates; only 9 percent of forests are
certified as employing sustainable practices, most outside the tropics.
The best habitat within the two Biosphere Reserves occupied by red-
crowned parrots is above the elevation at which the species usually
occurs. Further, at least one of these two Biosphere Reserves is
ineffective with respect to prevention of land-use change within its
boundaries.
Currently the population of red-crowned parrots is extremely small
(less than 5,000 individuals) and fragmented, and a large portion
(approximately half) of the population occurs within the species'
historical range in Mexico. Activities causing or leading to
deforestation in Mexico are likely to continue to result in red-crowned
parrot habitat loss within the country. Therefore, based on the best
available scientific and commercial data available, we find that the
present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the
red-crowned parrot's habitat is a threat to the species.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Parrots have been traded commercially in Mexico for centuries and
capture of adults and nestlings for the pet trade represents one of the
main threats to the red-crowned parrot (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p.
18). In terms of populations, capturing individuals for trade
essentially mimics mortality in that it removes individuals from the
wild population. Parrots, in general, have long lifespans and low
reproductive rates. Consequently, they are particularly sensitive to
increased mortality because their populations are slow to recover from
it (Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; Wright et al. 2001, p.
711); removal of individuals year after year can stop population growth
and cause local extirpations (Cantu et al. 2007, p. 14).
Mexico's proximity to the United States, the largest pet market in
the world, resulted in extensive legal and illegal export of several
Amazona species to the United States during the 1960s to 1990s. Between
1970 and 1982, 16,490 red-crowned parrots, mostly nestlings, were
legally exported from Mexico to the United States. A similar number is
estimated to have been illegally exported during this period, with pre-
export mortality estimated at greater than 50 percent. Combining legal
and illegal trade, and their associated mortality, the approximate
minimum level of harvest during this time was estimated to be 5,000
individuals per year (Inigo and Ramos 1991, in Enkerlin and Hogan 1997,
unpaginated; Enkerlin and Packard 1993, in Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p.
20). Population declines were first noted for the species during this
period (see Abundance).
Legal Trade
Imports of red-crowned parrots into the United States were
restricted by passage of the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA; 16
U.S.C. 4901 et seq.) in 1992, and international trade in general was
restricted by the listing of the species in Appendix II of CITES in
1981 and, in 1997, its transfer to the more restrictive Appendix I. The
WBCA banned the import into the United States of specimens of most
CITES-listed bird species, including restricting U.S. imports of red-
crowned parrots (see Factor D discussion). CITES, an international
agreement between governments, ensures that the international trade of
CITES-listed plant and animal species does not threaten those 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 re-export of specimens, parts,
and products of CITES-listed plants and animal species (see Factor D
discussion). Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and
certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Scientific and
Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES 2010, unpaginated).
In 1981, the red-crowned parrot was listed in Appendix II of CITES,
which includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but
in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization
incompatible with their survival (CITES 2010, unpaginated; CITES 2011,
unpaginated). In June of 1997, the species was proposed for transfer
from Appendix II to Appendix I based on extensive illegal trade in the
species and habitat loss. It was placed in Appendix I in September of
1997. 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 would not be 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)).
Based on CITES trade data obtained from United Nations Environment
Programme--World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade
Database, from the time the red-crowned parrot was placed in CITES
Appendix I in 1997 through 2009, 1,297 specimens of this species were
reported in international trade. These included 297 live birds, 5
bodies, 6 eggs, 7 feathers, 1 skin, and 981 generically labeled
``specimens,'' with the latter category typically referring to parts or
pieces of an animal--for example, blood samples collected for
laboratory analysis--rather than whole birds. In analyzing these
reported data, several records appear to be overcounts due to slight
differences in the manner in which the importing and exporting
countries reported their trade, and it is likely that the actual
numbers of specimens of red-crowned parrots reported to UNEP-WCMC in
international trade from the time the species was placed in CITES
Appendix I in 1997 through 2009 was 1,218, including 261 live birds, 5
bodies, 6 eggs, 7 feathers, 1 skin, and 938 ``specimens.''
Because the red-crowned parrot is listed as an Appendix-I species
under
[[Page 62023]]
CITES, commercial legal international trade is very limited. Of the
1,218 specimens that were likely in trade between 1997 (when the
species was placed in CITES Appendix I) and 2009, 1,014 were wild
specimens and an additional 53 specimens were from sources unspecified
in the data. Of these specimens, 94 percent (953) were specimens traded
for scientific purposes (937 of the generically labeled ``specimens'',
6 eggs, 7 feathers, and 3 bodies). The remaining were 113 live birds
(59 of wild origin and 54 from sources unspecified in the data) and 1
``specimen'' from a source unspecified in the data. Of these 113 live
birds, 12 were reported as imported into Mexico for re-introduction
into the wild, 11 as being for personal use, 5 as being for commercial
purposes, 31 as being previously seized specimens traded for law
enforcement purposes, 8 as being specimens born or obtained prior to
the listing of the species under CITES (pre-Convention), and 46 that
were seized or refused entry into the United States.
Although 1,218 specimens of red-crowned parrot were reported in
trade, most (953, or 78 percent) were scientific specimens traded for
scientific purposes, and the large majority of these (98 percent) were
generically labeled ``specimens,'' rather than whole birds. Of the 265
non-scientific specimens traded, 154 (58 percent) were live birds that
were captive-bred, captive-born, or pre-Convention.
Because the majority of the specimens of this species reported in
international trade are generically labeled scientific ``specimens,''
or are captive-bred, captive-born, or pre-Convention birds, we have
determined that legal international trade controlled via valid CITES
permits is not a threat to the species. However, the number of live
wild birds reported as seized or refused entry into the United States
due to lack of CITES certification or WBCA authorization suggests
reason for concern with respect to the illegal trade of the species.
Illegal Trade
Illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products is extensive in
Mexico because of their high demand and lucrative profits (Valdez et
al. 2006, p. 276). According to Valdez et al. (2006, p. 276), the
greatest percentage of this trade is sold to the United States. The
number of red-crowned parrots illegally exported from Mexico since the
species was listed in Appendix I of CITES is unknown. The Service
inspects approximately 25 percent of declared wildlife shipments at the
U.S. border. It generally does not inspect undeclared shipments except
during planned investigations, during seasonal periods when certain
illegally obtained wildlife have a higher probability of being imported
into the United States, or if they have reason to suspect that the
shipment could be contraband (Congressional Research Service 2008, p.
24). As a result, it is likely that the 46 wild red-crowned parrots
that were reported as seized or refused entry into the United States
since the species was listed in CITES Appendix I represent only a
portion of those smuggled out of Mexico. Also, as pre-export mortality
of captured red-crowned parrots is estimated to be greater than or
equal to 50 percent (Enkerlin and Packard 1993, in Macias and Enkerlin
2003, p. 20), it is also likely that smuggled birds represent only half
(or less) of the number removed from the wild for illegal export.
Further, Cantu et al. (2007, pp. 58-59) report that, although the
overall illegal export of parrots from Mexico into the United States
appears to have decreased since 2000, with only an estimated 4-14
percent of parrots now exported out of the country, illegal exports of
some species, including the red-crowned parrot, appear to be on the
rise.
With respect to domestic trade, commercial trade of red-crowned
parrots has been illegal in Mexico since 1982 (CITES 1997, pers.
comm.). Other species of parrots were legally traded in Mexico until
2008, but due to a lack of enforcement of laws and regulations
controlling this trade, the illegal parrot trade in Mexico has been
extensive (Cantu et al. 2007, entire). The office of the
Procuradur[iacute]a Federal de Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente (PROFEPA;
Federal Prosecutor for Environmental Protection) is responsible for
enforcing environmental laws, regulations, and legal standards in
Mexico, including those pertaining to the parrot trade. PROFEPA employs
a little over 500 inspectors for the entire country, and they are
responsible for enforcement of wildlife, forestry, industrial
pollution, marine environment, and other environmental laws,
regulations, and standards (Cantu et al. 2007, p. 45). Although
capacities for law enforcement have been increasing in Mexico since the
late 1990s, PROFEPA still lacks the funding and human resources to
effectively enforce wildlife and other environmental laws (USAID CIFOR
2010, p. 46; GOM 2010, p. 24; Valdez et al. 2006, p. 276).
As a result of the lack of enforcement capacity, the laws and
regulations for controlling the parrot trade in Mexico, including
illegal trade in red-crowned parrots, have not been effective (Cantu et
al. 2007, entire). For instance, prior to 2008, when Article 602 of
Mexico's General Wildlife Law (see below, and Factor D discussion) went
into effect, only parrot species authorized by the government for trade
in any given year could be legally trapped and traded that year (Cantu
et al. 2007, pp. 9, 24-25). No parrot trapping had been authorized by
wildlife officials between 2003 and late 2006, yet unsustainable
capture of wild parrots, including red-crowned parrots and other at-
risk species, continued unabated (Cantu et al. 2007, p. 7). Based on
interviews with parrot trappers and trapper unions in Mexico during
2005 and 2006, Cantu et al. (2007, pp. 35, 57) estimated that 65,000-
75,000 parrots were illegally captured each year in Mexico, mostly (86-
96 percent) for Mexico's domestic market. Red-crowned parrots were
among the species illegally captured and traded as evidenced by the
studies of Macias and Enkerlin (2003, pp. 18-19, 22) and Cantu et al.
(2007, pp. 35, 45-59). Macias and Enkerlin (2003, p. 19), during a
study conducted from 2002-2003, found that 28 percent of local people
interviewed within the historical range of the red-crowned parrot
reported that ``looting'' of red-crowned parrot chicks from nests for
the pet trade occurred in their community at a rate of 1-10 chicks per
year. The greatest proportion of reports was from Veracruz, where 48
percent of those interviewed reported that taking of chicks occurred in
their community. With respect to adult birds, 15 percent of community
members interviewed reported adult red-crowned parrots were captured
for trade in their community and that capture rates ranged from 25-50
adults per year to 50-100 adults per year. Cantu et al. (2007, p. 35)
estimate fewer than 600 red-crowned parrots are captured per year based
on interviews with trappers, trapper unions, and others, although they
indicate that their estimates for some species are very conservative
and may be underestimates.
In October 2008, Mexico passed Article 60 2 of its General Law
Wildlife Law. The article bans the capture, export, import, and re-
export of any species of the Psittacidae (parrot) family whose natural
distribution is within Mexico (see Factor D discussion). The law could
potentially reduce the number of red-crowned parrots illegally traded
domestically. It could also potentially reduce the number illegally
traded internationally by making it more difficult for smugglers to
capture the species within Mexico and transport them to the U.S.
border. Based on an
[[Page 62024]]
increased number of citizen complaints to authorities about illegal
parrot sales and a decreased number of seizures of parrots by
authorities during 2008-2010, Cantu and Sanchez (2011, entire) conclude
that illegal trade in parrots in Mexico has decreased since the law
took effect. However, this conclusion assumes that law enforcement
effort increased with the increased number of complaints filed, and it
is unknown if, or to what extent, this was the case. Although the
parrot trade in Mexico may have decreased since Article 60 2 was
implemented, without data on the relationship between filed complaints
and enforcement, we are unable to determine whether a decrease occurred
or, if it did, the extent of such a decrease. We also do not know
whether or not such a decrease would necessarily pertain to the red-
crowned parrot. Cantu et al. (2007, p. 59) report that illegal exports
of the red-crowned parrot appear to be increasing.
Also, according to USAID CIFOR (2010, p. 46), there are areas in
Mexico where government officials have limited access due to the
presence of organized groups of illegal loggers, guerrilla groups
challenging local and federal authorities, and drug traffickers (USAID
CIFOR 2010, p. 46). The latter is particularly relevant to red-crowned
parrots. Mexico's northeast states have experienced dramatic increases
in narcotics-related violence in the past 2 years (U.S. Department of
State 2011, unpaginated; Rios and Shirk 2011, p. 1). The levels of
violence have been such that the U.S. Department of State has issued
several travel warnings for the area including recommendations for U.S.
citizens to defer nonessential travel to the entire state of Tamaulipas
and parts of San Luis Potosi, and exercise caution in parts of Nuevo
Leon. Considering much of the red-crowned parrot's historical range,
and many of the locations with recent records of the species, are
within the state of Tamaulipas, and that smaller portions of the
species' historical range occur in San Luis Potosi and Nuevo Leon, it
is reasonable to conclude that levels of violence in these areas are
likely hindering wildlife law enforcement efforts, at least to some
degree.
For all of these reasons, we consider the study by Cantu and
Sanchez (2011, entire) to be inconclusive regarding the effects of
Mexico's new parrot law on the levels of trade of red-crowned parrots.
Further, we are unaware of any other evidence that may indicate the
level of trade in the species has decreased in recent years, or will
decrease in the foreseeable future, in Mexico.
We are unaware of any information indicating that trade is a threat
to red-crowned parrots within the LRGV of Texas.
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Use
We are unaware of any information indicating that recreational,
scientific, or educational use of the red-crowned parrot is a threat to
the species.
Summary of Factor B
Red-crowned parrots currently are estimated to number fewer than
5,000 individuals within their native range, and these individuals
occur in fragmented and isolated populations. Further, red-crowned
parrot populations do not have the capacity to respond quickly to
increased levels of mortality. For these reasons, increased mortality
can out-pace the species' reproductive rate, causing reductions in the
species' population. Evidence indicates that, relative to the size of
the species' current population and low reproductive rate, large
numbers (hundreds) of red-crowned parrots are removed from the wild for
the illegal pet trade and that these include potentially 100 or more
breeding birds (adults) per year. Evidence also indicates that illegal
export of the species to the United States appears to have increased in
recent years. Further, we are not aware of any reliable evidence
indicating that the level of illegal capture and trade of the red-
crowned parrot has declined since Mexico's ban on native parrot species
was implemented in 2008. Although we are unaware of information
indicating that capture of wild individuals for trade is a threat to
the red-crowned parrot in the LRGV of Texas, populations of the species
in Mexico represent half or more of the species' small global
population. Further, it is possible that the viability of the LRGV
population may rely on occasional supplementation from populations in
Mexico (see Biological Information). For these reasons, we conclude
that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is a threat to the red-crowned parrot.
Factor 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). Most of
the available research on disease in parrots addresses captive-held
birds; information on the health of parrots in the wild is scarce
(Karesh et al. 1997, p. 368). Further, few studies on diseases
affecting the red-crowned parrot, specifically, exist. In one study,
Stone et al. (2005, entire) sampled 10 red-crowned parrot nestlings
from 4 nests of free-ranging red-crowned parrots in Tamaulipas, Mexico,
as part of a study to provide baseline data for species at high risk of
exposure to disease. The population sampled was in a densely human-
populated region of Mexico, where poultry and captive parrots (both
potential disease risks) are numerous. Each bird sampled was visually
examined for external parasites; had blood samples taken and tested for
antibodies to psittacid herpesvirus-1, polyomavirus, and avian
influenza; and had fecal samples collected and examined for the eggs
and oocysts (egg cells) of internal parasites. All blood and fecal
samples tested were negative. Stone et al. (2005, pp. 246-247) indicate
that negative results of tests on the blood and fecal samples could
indicate absence of disease or parasites, but could also potentially be
a result of the methods used or the stage during the nestling cycle in
which samples were taken. External parasites found on nestlings were
adult lice (Paragoniocotes mexicanus) and adult hematophagous nest
mites (Ornithonyssus sylviarum), but the effect of these parasites on
nestling health is uncertain (Stone et al. 2005, p. 247).
A second study sampled 16 red-crowned parrots and 21 yellow-headed
parrots (Amazona oratrix) maintained in captivity from 1 to 7 years. In
that study, birds were tested for several diseases including avian
influenza, avian polyomavirus, psittacine circovirus, Newcastle disease
virus, psittacid herpesvirus-1, and psittacosis (Chlamydophilia
psittaci). All results were negative. Examination and tests for
protozoa or helminthes also showed no evidence of these in sampled
birds (Paras and Lamberski 1997, in Stone et al. 2005, pp. 245-246).
Although many diseases, such as those mentioned above, and others,
could negatively affect parrots in captivity and in the wild, the
studies conducted specifically on red-crowned parrots did not indicate
disease may be limiting the population. We are unaware of any
information indicating that any diseases are impacting the red-crowned
parrot at a level which may affect the status of the species as a whole
and to the extent that it is considered a threat to the species.
Snakes, red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), roadside hawks (B.
magnirostris), gray hawks (B. nitidus), coatis, and skunks have been
reported to prey on red-crowned parrots. Of these, only snakes,
particularly the indigo snake, appear to be a major source of
[[Page 62025]]
predation (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated). In a study of three
Amazona species in southern Tamaulipas, which included the red-crowned
parrot, Enkerlin (1995, p. 89-98) found that approximately 10 percent
of the chicks lost were lost via predation by indigo snakes. Although
red-crowned parrots are subject to predation, and indigo snakes may be
a major source of that predation, we found no evidence that predation
is occurring at a level which poses a threat to the species.
Summary of Factor C
We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that
indicates disease or predation poses a threat to red-crowned parrots,
either now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, based on our review
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find
that neither disease nor predation is a threat to the species.
Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Trade
As discussed above under Factor B, the red-crowned parrot is listed
in Appendix I of CITES. CITES is an international treaty among 175
nations, including Mexico and the United States, which entered into
force in 1975. In the United States, CITES is implemented through the
U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) 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 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 re-export of CITES-listed animal and plant species.
The import of red-crowned parrots 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 are biologically
sustainable and are 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. In addition to other approved purposes, 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 red-crowned parrot is not part of a Service-approved cooperative
breeding program and does not have an approved management plan for
wild-caught birds.
Within Mexico, the red-crowned parrot is considered an endangered
species as per Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM; Official Mexican Standard)
NOM-059-ECOL-2001. Endangered and threatened species are regulated
under the general terms of the Ley General del Equilibrio
Ecol[oacute]gico y Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente (LGEEPA; General Law
of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection), the Ley General de
Vida Silvestre (LGVS; General Wildlife Law), and also under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) to which Mexico is a Party (CEC 2003, unpaginated).
NOM-059-ECOL-2001 establishes a list of wildlife species classified as
either in danger of extinction (endangered), threatened, under special
protection, and probably extinct in the wild (GOM 2002, p. 6). All use
and development of endangered and threatened species requires a special
permit from the Secretar[iacute]a del Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales (SEMARNAT; Secretariat of the Environment and Natural
Resources). Under the General Wildlife Law, the use of at-risk species,
including the red-crowned parrot, may be authorized only when priority
is given to the collection and capture for restoration, repopulation,
and reintroduction activities (CEC 2003, unpaginated; Comisi[oacute]n
Nacional Para El Conocimiento Y Uso De La Biodiversidad 2009,
unpaginated). Further, in October 2008, Mexico passed Article 60 2 of
the General Wildlife Law. The article bans the capture, export, import,
and re-export of any species of the Psittacidae (parrot) family whose
natural distribution is within Mexico. It allows for authorizations for
removal of individuals from the wild to be issued only for conservation
purposes, or to accredited academic institutions for scientific
research (Animal Legal & Historical Center 2008, unpaginated).
As discussed above under Factor B, we consider illegal trade to be
a threat impacting the red-crowned parrot. As a result, we consider the
inadequacy of the laws and regulations discussed above to be a threat
to the red-crowned parrot. We are not aware of any information
indicating that the regulatory mechanisms controlling illegal trade, or
extent of enforcement of these mechanisms, will change in the future.
Therefore, we consider the inadequacy of these regulatory mechanisms to
be a threat to the red-crowned parrot now and in the foreseeable
future.
Habitat Destruction and Modification
The Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable (LGDFS; General
Law on Sustainable Forest Management), passed in 2003, governs forest
ecosystems in Mexico, including red-crowned parrot habitat. This law
formalizes the incorporation of the forest sector in a broader
environmental framework. Under this law, harvesting of forests requires
authorization from SEMARNAT. It also requires that authorizations to
forest owners for harvesting forests be based on a technical study and
a forest management plan (GOM 2010, p. 24). A number of additional laws
complement the 2003 law in regulating forest use. The LGEEPA regulates
activities for protecting biodiversity and reducing the impact on
forests and tropical areas of certain forest activities; the LGVS
governs the use of plants and wildlife found in the forests; Ley
General de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable (the General Law on Sustainable
Rural Development) provides guidance for activities aimed at protecting
and restoring forests within the framework of rural development
programs; and Ley Agraria (the Agrarian Law) governs farmers' ability
to use forest resources on their land (Anta 2004, in USAID 2011,
unpaginated).
Another law regulating portions of the red-crowned parrot's habitat
is the Sistema Nacional de [Aacute]reas Naturales Protegidas (SINANP;
National System of Protected Natural Areas). These Protected Natural
Areas are created by Presidential decree and the activities on them are
regulated under the LGEEPA, which requires that the Protected Natural
Areas receive special protection for conservation, restoration, and
development activities (Comisi[oacute]n Nacional de [Aacute]reas
Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) 2011, unpaginated). These natural areas
are categorized as: Biosphere Reserves, National Parks, Natural
Monuments, Areas of Natural Resource Protection, Areas of Protection of
Flora and Fauna, and Sanctuaries (CONANP 2011, unpaginated). The red-
crowned parrot is known to occur in two biosphere reserves: Reserva de
la Biosfera El Cielo, in Tamaulipas; and Reserva de la Biosfera Sierra
Gorda, in
[[Page 62026]]
Quer[eacute]taro (Macias & Enkerlin 2003, p. 22) (see Factor A
discussion).
As discussed above under Factor A, we consider the destruction and
modification of red-crowned parrot habitat to be a threat impacting the
red-crowned parrot. Therefore, we consider the laws and regulations
discussed above that address this threat to be inadequate regulatory
mechanisms for protection of red-crowned parrot habitat and,
consequently, a threat to the species. We are not aware of any
information indicating that the regulatory mechanisms controlling
habitat destruction or modification, or the extent of enforcement of
these mechanisms, will change in the future. Therefore, we consider the
inadequacy of these regulatory mechanisms to be a threat to the red-
crowned parrot now and in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor D
As discussed above under Factors A and B, we consider destruction
and modification of habitat and illegal trade to be threats to the red-
crowned parrot in Mexico. As a result, based on a review of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we consider the
inadequacy of existing mechanisms that regulate these threats to also
be a threat to the red-crowned parrot.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence
We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that
indicates other natural or manmade factors pose a threat to this
species. As a result, we find that other natural or manmade factors are
not threats to the red-crowned parrot now or in the foreseeable 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 red-
crowned parrot 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 red-crowned parrot. 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.
This status review identified threats to the red-crowned parrot
attributable to Factors A, B, and D. The primary threats to the red-
crowned parrot are habitat loss, illegal capture for the pet trade, and
the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms that address these threats.
Habitat destruction and modification (Factor A) in the form of
conversion of native forest to crop and grazing land and deforestation
due to the indirect effects of logging are likely occurring throughout
the species' range in Mexico. Illegal capture for the pet trade (Factor
B) is also likely occurring throughout the species' range in Mexico,
and is exacerbated by deforestation because deforestation increases
access to the species. Regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are inadequate
to prevent further loss of forest habitat and continued capture and
trade of the species throughout the red-crowned parrot's range.
The global population of red-crowned parrots has experienced a
large (greater than 50 percent) decline in recent decades (Berlanga et
al. 2010, pp. 38-39), primarily due to habitat destruction and
modification and capture for the pet trade within Mexico (Macias and
Enkerlin 2003, p. 3). As a result, the current global population is
estimated to be fewer than 5,000 individuals. Half or more of the
global population, most of the current range, and all of the historical
range of the red-crowned parrot occurs in Mexico. As a result, threats
that impact the species within Mexico have had and will continue to
have impacts on the rangewide status of the species. Although
population numbers and trends are uncertain outside of Mexico (i.e.,
within the LRGV of Texas), historical records indicate that the species
occurred periodically in the LRGV prior to occurring year-round in the
region (see Biological Information), indicating periodic occurrence in
the region of birds from Mexico. Therefore, it is possible that birds
from Mexico still periodically occur in the LRGV. It is also,
therefore, possible that the viability of the LRGV population is
dependent on periodic influxes of birds from Mexico.
Given (1) the large extent of the decline in the global population
of the species in recent decades due to habitat destruction and
modification and capture for the illegal pet trade, (2) that these
threats likely continue within the range of the red-crowned parrot, (3)
that existing regulatory mechanisms addressing these threats are
inadequate, and (4) we found no information indicating that these
threats will be ameliorated in the foreseeable future, we find that
these threats are likely to continue to cause declines in the red-
crowned parrot population into the future.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action to list the red-crowned
parrot as endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a
determination on the status of the red-crowned parrot as endangered or
threatened when we complete a proposed listing determination. However,
as explained in more detail below, an immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing this action is precluded by higher priority
listing actions, and progress is being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants.
We have reviewed the available information to determine if the
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of
extinction now such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act is
warranted. We have determined that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the red-crowned parrot is not warranted for this
species at this time because there are no impending actions that might
result in extinction of the species that would be addressed and
alleviated by emergency listing. However, if at any time we determine
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the red-
crowned parrot is warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy
[[Page 62027]]
and magnitude of threats, and the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by
assigning priority in descending order to monotypic genera (genus with
one species), full species, and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct
population segments (DPSes) of vertebrates). We assign the red-crowned
parrot a listing priority number (LPN) of 2, based on our determination
that the primary threats are high in magnitude and imminent. These
threats include habitat destruction and modification, capture for the
illegal pet trade, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Our rationale
for assigning the red-crowned parrot an LPN of 2 is outlined below.
Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. The
primary threats to the red-crowned parrot (habitat loss and
modification, capture for the illegal pet trade, and inadequate
regulatory mechanisms) are affecting a large portion of the species'
population throughout the historical range of the species in Mexico,
and we have no information on threats or population trends in the
species' remaining range in the LRGV. For Factors A, B, and D, we
consider the magnitude high because the current population is small, a
large portion of the population is affected, and these factors may lead
to extirpation in Mexico. Further, we have no information indicating
the LRGV populations can persist in the absence of the Mexico
populations. Because we find that threats under these three factors (A,
B, and D) are high, we find the overall threats that the red-crowned
parrot is facing to be high in magnitude.
Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that the species that face actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats
are only potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not
known to be presently facing such threats. Factors A, B, and D are
considered imminent because they are occurring now and are expected to
continue to occur in the future. These actual, identifiable threats are
covered in detail under the discussion of Factors A, B, and D of this
finding. Because we find that threats under the three factors (A, B,
and D) are imminent, we find the overall threats that the red-crowned
parrot is facing to be imminent.
The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The red-crowned parrot is a valid
taxon at the species level, and therefore receives a higher priority
than subspecies or DPSes, but a lower priority than species in a
monotypic genus. The red-crowned parrot faces high magnitude, imminent
threats, and is a valid taxon at the species level. Thus, in accordance
with our LPN guidance, we have assigned the red-crowned parrot an LPN
of 2.
We will continue to monitor the threats to the red-crowned parrot,
and the species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or
the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of
the LPN.
Work on a proposed listing determination for the red-crowned parrot
is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute
statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with
funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work includes all the actions listed
in the tables below under expeditious progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing
actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act;
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative,
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive
and may include, but is not limited to: gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents;
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical
habitat, $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations, we did use some
[[Page 62028]]
of this money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed
listing determinations so that the proposed listing determination and
proposed critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule,
thereby being more efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we
plan to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed
listing determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis.
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations,
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The
Conference Report accompanying Pub. L. 97-304 (Endangered Species Act
Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory deadlines
and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the amendments
were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay commencing the
rulemaking process for any reason other than that the existence of
pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a greater
degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a petition
[that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a
``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made at the point
when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a status review
that will determine the degree of threats facing the species, and
therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more relevant to the
use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is made when the
Service has already determined the degree of threats facing the species
and is deciding whether or not to commence a rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on April 15, 2011, Congress passed the Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-10), which provides funding
through September 30, 2011. The Service has $20,902,000 for the listing
program. Of that, $9,472,000 is being used for determinations of
critical habitat for already-listed species. Also $500,000 is
appropriated for foreign species listings under the Act. The Service
thus has $10,930,000 available to fund work in the following
categories: compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement
agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations
be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions
with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010,
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance
effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, the Service
is only able to initiate a few new listing determinations for candidate
species in FY 2011.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority,
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program.
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work on
listing actions for foreign species, which reduces funding available
for domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been
allocated for this function. Although there are no foreign species
issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many
actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus
increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific
listing action are identified in the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table
(part of our record).
For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for
the red-crowned parrot is precluded by court-ordered and court-approved
settlement agreements, and listing actions with absolute statutory
deadlines.
Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number
of species with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, we assign each
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, or distinct
population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher
the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have
the highest listing priority).
Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations,
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed
species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and
implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may
choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered
if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court-determined
deadline.
With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount
of time and
[[Page 62029]]
resources required to complete each listing action.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding,
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. So far
during FY 2011, we have completed delisting rules for three species.)
Given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we are
making expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This
progress included preparing and publishing the following
determinations:
FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010 Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 61664-61690
the Altamaha Endangered.
Spinymussel and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
10/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 62070-62095
Petition to list the petition finding,
Sacramento Splittail Not warranted.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/28/2010 Endangered Status and Proposed Listing 75 FR 66481-66552
Designation of Endangered
Critical Habitat for (uplisting).
Spikedace and Loach
Minnow.
11/2/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 67341-67343
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Bay Springs Not substantial.
Salamander as
Endangered.
11/2/2010 Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 67511-67550
Endangered Status Endangered.
for the Georgia
Pigtoe Mussel,
Interrupted
Rocksnail, and Rough
Hornsnail and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
11/2/2010 Listing the Rayed Proposed Listing 75 FR 67551-67583
Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered.
Endangered.
11/4/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 67925-67944
Petition to List petition finding,
Cirsium wrightii Warranted but
(Wright's Marsh precluded.
Thistle) as
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/14/2010 Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 77801-77817
Dunes Sagebrush Endangered.
Lizard.
12/14/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78029-78061
Petition to List the petition finding,
North American Warranted but
Wolverine as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/14/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78093-78146
Petition to List the petition finding,
Sonoran Population Warranted but
of the Desert precluded.
Tortoise as
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78513-78556
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus Warranted but
microcymbus and precluded.
Astragalus
schmolliae as
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/28/2010 Listing Seven Final Listing 75 FR 81793-81815
Brazilian Bird Endangered.
Species as
Endangered
Throughout Their
Range.
1/4/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 304-311
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Red Knot subspecies Not substantial.
Calidris canutus
roselaari as
Endangered.
1/19/2011 Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 76 FR 3392-3420
the Sheepnose and Endangered.
Spectaclecase
Mussels.
2/10/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 7634-7679
Petition to List the petition finding,
Pacific Walrus as Warranted but
Endangered or precluded.
Threatened.
2/17/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 9309-9318
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Sand Verbena Moth as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
2/22/2011 Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 9681-9692
Threatened Status Threatened.
for the New Zealand-
Australia Distinct
Population Segment
of the Southern
Rockhopper Penguin.
2/22/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 9722-9733
Petition to List petition finding,
Solanum conocarpum Warranted but
(marron bacora) as precluded.
Endangered.
2/23/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 9991-10003
Petition to List petition finding,
Thorne's Hairstreak Not warranted.
Butterfly as
Endangered.
2/23/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 10166-10203
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus Warranted but
hamiltonii, precluded & Not
Penstemon flowersii, Warranted.
Eriogonum soredium,
Lepidium ostleri,
and Trifolium
friscanum as
Endangered or
Threatened.
2/24/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10299-10310
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Wild Plains Bison or Not substantial.
Each of Four
Distinct Population
Segments as
Threatened.
[[Page 62030]]
2/24/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10310-10319
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Unsilvered Not substantial.
Fritillary Butterfly
as Threatened or
Endangered.
3/8/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 12667-12683
Petition to List the petition finding,
Mt. Charleston Blue Warranted but
Butterfly as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
3/8/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 12683-12690
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Texas Kangaroo Rat Substantial.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
3/10/2011 Initiation of Status Notice of Status 76 FR 13121-13122
Review for Longfin Review.
Smelt.
3/15/2011 Withdrawal of Proposed rule 76 FR 14210-14268
Proposed Rule to withdrawal.
List the Flat-tailed
Horned Lizard as
Threatened.
3/15/2011 Proposed Threatened Proposed Listing 76 FR 14126-14207
Status for the Threatened; Proposed
Chiricahua Leopard Designation of
Frog and Proposed Critical Habitat.
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
3/22/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 15919-15932
Petition to List the petition finding,
Berry Cave Warranted but
Salamander as precluded.
Endangered.
4/1/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 18138-18143
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Spring Pygmy Sunfish Substantial.
as Endangered.
4/5/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 18684-18701
Petition to List the petition finding,
Bearmouth Not Warranted and
Mountainsnail, Byrne Warranted but
Resort precluded.
Mountainsnail, and
Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly as
Endangered or
Threatened.
4/5/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 18701-18706
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Peary Caribou and Substantial.
Dolphin and Union
population of the
Barren-ground
Caribou as
Endangered or
Threatened.
4/12/2011 Proposed Endangered Proposed Listing 76 FR 20464-20488
Status for the Three Endangered; Proposed
Forks Springsnail Designation of
and San Bernardino Critical Habitat.
Springsnail, and
Proposed Designation
of Critical Habitat.
4/13/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 20613-20622
Petition To List Petition Finding,
Spring Mountains Substantial.
Acastus Checkerspot
Butterfly as
Endangered.
4/14/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 20911-20918
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Prairie Chub as Substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered.
4/14/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 20918-20939
Petition to List petition finding,
Hermes Copper Warranted but
Butterfly as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
4/26/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 23256-23265
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Arapahoe Snowfly as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
4/26/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 23265-23271
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Smooth-Billed Ani as Not substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered.
5/12/2011 Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule, 76 FR 27756-27799
Proposed Rule to Withdrawal.
List the Mountain
Plover as Threatened.
5/24/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 30082-30087
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Spot-tailed Earless Substantial.
Lizard as Endangered
or Threatened.
5/26/2011 Listing the Salmon- Final Listing 76 FR 30758-30780
Crested Cockatoo as Threatened.
Threatened
Throughout its Range
with Special Rule.
5/31/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 31282-31294
Petition to List petition finding,
Puerto Rican Warranted but
Harlequin Butterfly precluded.
as Endangered.
6/2/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 31903-31906
Petition to Petition Finding,
Reclassify the Substantial.
Straight-Horned
Markhor (Capra
falconeri jerdoni)
of Torghar Hills as
Threatened.
6/2/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 31920-31926
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Golden-winged Substantial.
Warbler as
Endangered or
Threatened.
6/7/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 32911-32929
Petition to List the petition finding,
Striped Newt as Warranted but
Threatened. precluded.
6/9/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 33924-33965
Petition to List petition finding,
Abronia ammophila, Not Warranted and
Agrostis rossiae, Warranted but
Astragalus precluded.
proimanthus,
Boechera (Arabis)
pusilla, and
Penstemon gibbensii
as Threatened or
Endangered.
6/21/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 36049-36053
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Utah Population of Not substantial.
the Gila Monster as
an Endangered or a
Threatened Distinct
Population Segment.
[[Page 62031]]
6/21/2011 Revised 90-Day Notice of 90-day 76 FR 36053-36068
Finding on a Petition Finding,
Petition To Not substantial.
Reclassify the Utah
Prairie Dog From
Threatened to
Endangered.
6/28/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 37706-37716
Petition to List petition finding,
Castanea pumila var. Not warranted.
ozarkensis as
Threatened or
Endangered.
6/29/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 38095-38106
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Eastern Small-Footed Substantial.
Bat and the Northern
Long-Eared Bat as
Threatened or
Endangered.
6/30/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 38504-38532
Petition to List a petition finding,
Distinct Population Not warranted.
Segment of the
Fisher in its United
States Northern
Rocky Mountain Range
as Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
7/12/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 40868-40871
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Bay Skipper as Substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered.
7/19/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 42631-42654
Petition to List petition finding,
Pinus albicaulis as Warranted but
Endangered or precluded.
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
7/19/2011 Petition To List Notice of 12-month 76 FR 42654-42658
Grand Canyon Cave petition finding,
Pseudoscorpion. Not warranted.
7/26/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 44547-44564
Petition to List the petition finding,
Giant Palouse Not warranted.
Earthworm
(Drilolerius
americanus) as
Threatened or
Endangered.
7/26/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 44566-44569
Petition to List the petition finding,
Frigid Ambersnail as Not warranted.
Endangered.
7/27/2011 Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 45054-45075
Endangered Status Endangered,
for Ipomopsis Threatened.
polyantha (Pagosa
Skyrocket) and
Threatened Status
for Penstemon
debilis (Parachute
Beardtongue) and
Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia).
7/27/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 45130-45162
Petition to List the petition finding,
Gopher Tortoise as Warranted but
Threatened in the precluded.
Eastern Portion of
its Range.
8/2/2011 Proposed Endangered Proposed Listing 76 FR 46218-46234
Status for the Endangered.
Chupadera
Springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis
chupaderae) and
Proposed Designation
of Critical Habitat.
8/2/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 46238-46251
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Straight Snowfly and Not substantial.
Idaho Snowfly as
Endangered.
8/2/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 46251-46266
Petition to List the petition finding,
Redrock Stonefly as Not warranted.
Endangered or
Threatened.
8/2/2011 Listing 23 Species on Proposed Listing 76 FR 46362-46594
Oahu as Endangered Endangered.
and Designating
Critical Habitat for
124 Species.
8/4/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 47123-47133
Petition To List Six Petition Finding,
Sand Dune Beetles as Not substantial and
Endangered or substantial.
Threatened.
8/9/2011 Endangered Status for Final Listing 76 FR 48722-48741
the Cumberland Endangered.
Darter, Rush Darter,
Yellowcheek Darter,
Chucky Madtom, and
Laurel Dace.
8/9/2011 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 48777-48788
Petition to List the petition finding,
Nueces River and Not warranted.
Plateau Shiners as
Threatened or
Endangered.
8/9/2011 Four Foreign Parrot Proposed Listing 76 FR 49202-49236
Species [crimson Endangered and
shining parrot, Threatened; Notice
white cockatoo, of 12-month petition
Philippine cockatoo, finding, Not
yellow-crested warranted.
cockatoo].
8/10/2011 Proposed Listing of Proposed Listing 76 FR 49408-49412
the Miami Blue Endangered,
Butterfly as Similarity of
Endangered, and Appearance.
Proposed Listing of
the Cassius Blue,
Ceraunus Blue, and
Nickerbean Blue
Butterflies as
Threatened Due to
Similarity of
Appearance to the
Miami Blue Butterfly.
8/10/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 49412-49417
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Saltmarsh Topminnow Substantial.
as Threatened or
Endangered Under the
Endangered Species
Act.
[[Page 62032]]
8/10/2011 Emergency Listing of Emergency Listing 76 FR 49542-49567
the Miami Blue Endangered,
Butterfly as Similarity of
Endangered, and Appearance.
Emergency Listing of
the Cassius Blue,
Ceraunus Blue, and
Nickerbean Blue
Butterflies as
Threatened Due to
Similarity of
Appearance to the
Miami Blue Butterfly.
8/11/2011 Listing Six Foreign Final Listing 76 FR 50052-50080
Birds as Endangered Endangered.
Throughout Their
Range.
8/17/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 50971-50979
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Leona's Little Blue Substantial.
Butterfly as
Endangered or
Threatened.
9/01/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 54423-54425
Petition to List All Petition Finding,
Chimpanzees (Pan Substantial.
troglodytes) as
Endangered.
9/6/2011 12-Month Finding on Notice of 12-month 76 FR 55170-55230
Five Petitions to petition finding,
List Seven Species Warranted but
of Hawaiian Yellow- precluded.
faced Bees as
Endangered.
9/8/2011 12-Month Petition Notice of 12-month 76 FR 55623-55638
Finding and Proposed petition finding,
Listing of Warranted; Proposed
Arctostaphylos Listing Endangered.
franciscana as
Endangered.
9/8/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 55638-55641
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Snowy Plover and Not substantial.
Reclassify the
Wintering Population
of Piping Plover.
9/13/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 56381-56391
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Franklin's Bumble Substantial.
Bee as Endangered.
9/13/2011 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 56608-56630
Petition to List 42 Petition Finding,
Great Basin and Substantial and Not
Mojave Desert substantial.
Springsnails as
Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and
funding, when compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of
them in the future.
Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 parrot species (military 12-month petition finding.
macaw, yellow-billed parrot,
red-crowned parrot, scarlet
macaw) \5\.
4 parrot species (blue-headed 12-month petition finding.
macaw, great green macaw,
grey-cheeked parakeet,
hyacinth macaw) \5\.
Longfin smelt................ 12-month petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's June beetle.......... Final listing determination.
5 Bird species from Colombia Final listing determination.
and Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk...... Final listing determination.
Ozark hellbender \4\......... Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\..... Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia.. Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist Final listing determination.
National Marine Fisheries
Service) \5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = Final listing determination.
2), snuffbox No LPN) \5\.
CA golden trout \4\.......... 12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross....... 12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\ 12-month petition finding.
Kokanee-Lake Sammamish 12-month petition finding.
population \1\.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 12-month petition finding.
\1\.
Northern leopard frog........ 12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander. 12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero................ 12-month petition finding/Proposed
listing.
Dusky tree vole.............. 12-month petition finding.
[[Page 62033]]
Leatherside chub (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition).
Platte River caddisfly (from 12-month petition finding.
206 species petition) \5\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, 12-month petition finding.
Sphingicampa blanchardi,
Agapema galbina) (from 475
species petition).
3 South Arizona plants 12-month petition finding.
(Erigeron piscaticus,
Astragalus hypoxylus,
Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from
475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel 12-month petition finding.
species (3 from 475 species
petition).
14 parrots (foreign species). 12-month petition finding.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\... 12-month petition finding.
Western gull-billed tern..... 12-month petition finding.
OK grass pink (Calopogon 12-month petition finding.
oklahomensis) \1\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\........ 12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald............. 12-month petition finding.
Eagle Lake trout \1\......... 90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks 90-day petition finding.
species (snails and slugs)
\1\.
Spring Mountains checkerspot 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
10 species of Great Basin 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
404 Southeast species........ 90-day petition finding.
American eel \4\............. 90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\.............. 90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\... 90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying 90-day petition finding.
squirrel \5\.
Bicknell's thrush \5\........ 90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\....... 90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants 90-day petition finding.
(Graptopetalum bartrami &
Pectis imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\.................... 90-day petition finding.
Humboldt marten.............. 90-day petition finding.
Desert massasauga............ 90-day petition finding.
Western glacier stonefly 90-day petition finding.
(Zapada glacier).
Thermophilic ostracod 90-day petition finding.
(Potamocypris hunteri).
Sierra Nevada red fox \5\.... 90-day petition finding.
Boreal toad (eastern or 90-day petition finding.
southern Rocky Mtn
population) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Maui-Nui candidate species Proposed listing.
\2\ (17 plants, 3 tree
snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2
with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN =
8).
8 Gulf Coast mussels Proposed listing.
(southern kidneyshell (LPN =
2), round ebonyshell (LPN =
2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN
= 2), southern sandshell
(LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN
= 5), Choctaw bean (LPN =
5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5),
and tapered pigtoe (LPN =
11)) \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) Proposed listing.
and white bluffs bladderpod
(LPN = 9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\. Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho Proposed listing.
mucket (LPN = 2) &
Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\. Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = Proposed listing.
2) \4\.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Proposed listing.
Beetle (LPN = 2) \5\.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = Proposed listing.
2).
4 Texas salamanders (Austin Proposed listing.
blind salamander (LPN = 2),
Salado salamander (LPN = 2),
Georgetown salamander (LPN =
8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN
= 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Proposed listing.
Spring Snail (LPN = 2),
Diamond Y springsnail (LPN =
2), Phantom springsnail (LPN
= 2), Phantom Cave snail
(LPN = 2), Diminutive
amphipod (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden Proposed listing.
gladecress (Leavenworthia
texana) (LPN = 2), Neches
River rose-mallow (Hibiscus
dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus Proposed listing.
(Echinomastus erectocentrus
var. acunensis) (LPN = 3),
Fickeisen plains cactus
(Pediocactus peeblesianus
fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3),
Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
lemmonii) (LPN = 8),
Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea
gierischii) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\ Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida Proposed listing.
semaphore cactus (Consolea
corallicola) (LPN = 2),
shellmound applecactus
(Harrisia (=Cereus)
aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN
= 2), Cape Sable
thoroughwort (Chromolaena
frustrata) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species Proposed listing.
\5\ (includes 8 candidate
species--6 plants & 2
animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1
with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =
4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie Proposed listing.
species (9 subspecies of
pocket gopher (Thomomys
mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3),
streaked horned lark (LPN =
3), Taylor's checkerspot
(LPN = 3), Mardon skipper
(LPN = 8)) \3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2),
slabside pearlymussel (LPN =
2)) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander Proposed listing.
(LPN = 2) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.
[[Page 62034]]
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
The red-crowned parrot will be added to the list of candidate
species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to
monitor the status of this species as new information becomes
available. This review will determine if a change in status is
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for the red-crowned
parrot will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to
accept additional information and comments from all concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this finding.
References Cited
A list of all references cited in this document is available at
http://www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0082, or upon
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
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 27, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25808 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P