[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22653-22663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07571]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019; 4500090024]
RIN 1018-BC78
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the
Golden Conure From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), reclassify
the golden conure (Gauruba guarouba) under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act), from endangered to threatened on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). Our determination is
based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and
commercial information, which indicates that the golden conure no
longer meets the definition of an endangered species, but is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. We are also establishing a
rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act for the golden conure to
provide for its further conservation. Additionally, this final rule
updates the List to reflect the latest scientifically accepted taxonomy
and nomenclature for the species as Guaruba guarouba, golden conure.
DATES: This rule is effective May 26, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this rule, are available for
public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
HQ-ES-2015-0019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Morgan, Chief, Branch of Delisting
and Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803;
telephone, 703-358-2444. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
On September 5, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR
45073) our 12-month finding on a petition to remove the golden conure
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., ``delist''
the species) or to reclassify the golden conure from an endangered to a
threatened species (i.e., ``downlist'' the species) determining that
reclassification was warranted. Accordingly, we published a proposed
rule to downlist the golden conure under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and proposed a rule pursuant to section 4(d) to further the
conservation of the golden conure. Please refer to that document for
information on Federal actions occurring before September 5, 2018, for
the golden conure.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
During the comment period on our September 5, 2018, proposed rule
(83 FR 45073), we received updated information regarding the golden
conure reintroduction program occurring in the Bel[eacute]m region of
Par[aacute] at Utinga State Park. We have incorporated this information
under Conservation Measures and Regulatory Mechanisms in this rule and
have updated the species status assessment (SSA) report.
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and
overall viability of the golden conure is presented in the species
status assessment (SSA) report for the golden conure (Service 2018;
available at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 on http://www.regulations.gov). The SSA report documents the results of the
comprehensive biological study for the golden conure and provides an
account of the species' overall viability through forecasting of the
species' condition in the future (Service 2018, entire). In the SSA
report, we summarize the relevant biological data and a description of
past, present, and likely future stressors, and we conduct an analysis
of the viability of the species. The SSA report provides the scientific
basis that informs our statutory decision regarding whether this
species should be listed as an
[[Page 22654]]
endangered or a threatened species under the Act. This decision
involves the application of standards within the Act, its implementing
regulations, and Service policies (see Determination, below). The SSA
report contains the risk analysis on which this determination is based,
and the following discussion is a summary of the results and
conclusions from the SSA report. We solicited peer review of the draft
SSA report from five qualified experts. We received responses from four
of the reviewers, and we modified the SSA report as appropriate. In
addition to our SSA report, the summary of the biological background of
the species can also be found in our September 5, 2018, proposed rule
(83 FR 45073).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act directs us to
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of one or more of the following factors affecting its
continued existence: (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.
We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of
the golden conure, and prepared a report of the assessment, which
provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability. In the
discussion below, we summarize the conclusions of that SSA, which can
be accessed at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 on http://www.regulations.gov. Please refer to the SSA report and the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section in the proposed rule (83 FR
45073, September 5, 2018, pp. 45077-45080) for a more detailed
discussion of the factors affecting the golden conure.
Habitat Loss--Deforestation
Large-scale deforestation in the Amazon has occurred since the
1970s and 1980s concurrent with the growth of Brazil's economy (GFA
2017, unpaginated). The Brazilian Amazon is approximately the size of
Western Europe, and as of 2016, an area the size of France has been
lost to deforestation (Fearnside 2017a, pp. 1, 3). Approximately 30 to
35 percent of the golden conure's range has already been lost to
deforestation, primarily in the eastern states of Par[aacute] and
Maranh[atilde]o (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-
Haft 2009, p. 8), and another 23 to 30 percent of the golden conure's
habitat is predicted to be lost within 22 years or three generations
(Bird et al. 2011, appendix S1). The golden conure's range partially
overlaps what is known as the ``arc of deforestation,'' an area in the
southeastern Amazon where rates of deforestation and forest
fragmentation have been the highest (Prioste et al. 2012, p. 701;
Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8).
After a long period of deforestation in the Amazon, rates of
deforestation dropped dramatically to levels not recorded in recent
decades (Alves et al. 2017, p. 76). However, despite declines in the
deforestation rate, the total area deforested in Brazil's Amazon has
risen steadily since deforestation rates were first measured in 1988
(IPAM 2017, p. 7 using PRODES 2017 data). More recently, deforestation
rates are increasing again (Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; IPAM 2017, p. 15;
Biderman and Nogueron 2016, unpaginated), as global demand for
agricultural commodities continues to rise (Brando et al. 2016,
abstract), and the ``arc of deforestation'' is likely to continue to be
a hotspot (Alves et al. 2017, p. 76).
Forest habitat degradation and fragmentation typically begin with
road construction and subsequent human settlement. Nearly 95 percent of
all deforestation occurred within 5.5 kilometers (km) (3.4 miles (mi))
of roads or 1 km (0.6 mi) of rivers (Barber et al. 2014, pp. 203,
205, 208). Roads are rapidly expanding in the region and
contribute to further habitat degradation and fragmentation (Barber et
al. 2014, p. 203).
Logging in the Amazon was once restricted to areas bordering major
rivers, but the construction of highways and strategic access roads and
the depletion of hardwood stocks in the south of Brazil made logging an
important, growing industry (Ver[iacute]ssimo et al. 1992, p. 170).
Logging operations typically occur on private lands (GFA 2018a and b,
unpaginated). After logging, the land may be clear-cut and burned, in
preparation for crops (Reynolds 2003, p. 10). Although the Brazilian
forest code requires private landowners in the Amazon to maintain 80
percent of their land as forest, the code has been poorly enforced (GFA
2018b, unpaginated), and full compliance has not been achieved (Azevedo
et al. 2017, entire; see Conservation Measures and Regulatory
Mechanisms, below). Logging on public lands is allowed via concessions
where logging companies are granted logging rights for a fee (GFA
2018a, unpaginated). However, the concession system is not currently
working as intended, and illegal logging in public protected areas
remains a serious threat, particularly logging of mahogany (Swietenia
macrophylla) (BLI 2016, p. 5), a CITES (Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) Appendix II
species (CITES 2018b). Although selective logging and requirements for
minimum tree sizes are intended to minimize effects to the forest,
logging of larger trees is likely to have a greater effect on the
golden conure because the species uses larger, older trees for its
nesting and roosting (Yamashita 2003, p. 38).
Expanding crop production and ranching are also major drivers of
deforestation in the Amazon basin. Soy beans are primarily used for
cattle feed, and in the 1990s and early 2000s, high demand for beef
created a ``soy-cattle pasture deforestation dynamic,'' where soy
production replaced existing cattle pasture, and forced new
deforestation into the Amazon for cattle ranching (GFA 2018c,
unpaginated). In the 2 years preceding the moratorium (instituted in
2006), approximately 30 percent of soy expansion occurred through
deforestation rather than by replacement of pasture or other previously
cleared lands; by 2014, just 1 percent of soy expansion was responsible
for deforestation in Brazil's Amazon (Gibbs et al. 2015, p. 377). The
soy moratorium was renewed indefinitely in 2016, or until it is no
longer needed (Pati[ntilde]o 2016, unpaginated).
Cattle ranching is the largest cause of deforestation in every
Amazon country and is responsible for about 80 percent of current
deforestation rates (GFA 2018d, unpaginated). Brazil is the largest
beef exporter in the world, supplying about one quarter of the world
market (GFA 2018d, unpaginated). In 2015 and 2016, new markets for
Brazilian beef were opened
[[Page 22655]]
up via agreements with Russia, the United States, and China (Fearnside
2017b, p. 14). The Chinese market, in particular, has significant
potential demand for both beef and leather, with China being the
world's largest manufacturer of shoes (Fearnside 2017b, p. 16).
Conversion of native forest for the cultivation of palm plantations
for the production of palm oil is likely to further reduce the amount
of habitat available to the golden conure. The Brazilian government
plans to increase biofuel production in the next decade, driven
primarily by demands for fuel (ethanol and biodiesel) (Villela et al.
2014, p. 273). A recent study of regional avian biodiversity in palm
oil plantations concluded that they are as detrimental to avian
biodiversity as other forms of agriculture such as cattle pasture (Lees
et al. 2015, entire). Therefore, any native forest converted to palm
plantations will result in habitat loss for the golden conure, and any
degraded land that is planted for palm oil will not regenerate or be
restored to suitable habitat for the species.
Increased fire risk from human settlement and the activities noted
above further contribute to deforestation (Barber et al. 2014, p. 203)
(see Projected Effects from Climate Change, below). Fire for land
management is now common in rural Amazonia (Malhi et al. 2008, p. 171),
but wildfires in tropical forests of the Amazon were rare over the past
millennia, and trees are not adapted for fire (Fearnside 2009, p.
1005). Amazonian trees have thin bark and fire heats the cambium under
the bark at the base of the trunk, causing the tree to die and further
contributing to deforestation (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005).
Hydroelectric dams are also a major contributor to deforestation in
the Amazon. Brazil is the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity
in the world (after China), and hydropower supplies about 75 percent of
Brazil's electricity (GFA 2018e, unpaginated; Fearnside 2017c,
unpaginated). The Brazilian government recently announced an end to the
construction of large dams in the Amazon (Branford 2018, unpaginated),
but smaller dams within the golden conure's range are still under
construction or planned (GFA 2018e, unpaginated; Fearnside 2017c,
unpaginated; Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10763).
Mining for minerals also contributes to deforestation of the
Amazon; it grew from 1.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in
2000, to 4.1 percent in 2011, and is projected to increase by a factor
of 3 to 5 by 2030 (Brasil Minist[eacute]rio de Minas e Energia 2010, as
cited by Ferreira et al. 2014, p. 706). Mining leases, exploration
permits, and concessions collectively encompass 1.65 million square
kilometers (km\2\) (0.64 million square miles (mi\2\)) of land, with
about 60 percent located in the Amazon forest (Departamento Nacional de
Produ[ccedil][atilde]o Mineral 2012, as cited in Sonter et al. 2017, p.
1).
Deforestation Rates and Gross Domestic Product
Annual deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon have always
varied, but have generally been correlated with national economic
growth as measured by GDP (Petherick 2013, p. 7; Hochstetler and Viola
2012, p. 759). However, beginning in 2005, measures of deforestation
and GDP have separated or ``decoupled'' (Lapola et al. 2014, p. 27;
Petherick 2013, p. 7). The Amazon experienced dramatic reductions in
annual average rates of deforestation from almost 21,000 km\2\ (8,108
mi\2\) between 2000 and 2004--to about 7,000 km\2\ (2,703 mi\2\) in
2009 and 2010 (Prodes 2017, unpaginated; Petherick 2013, p. 8;
Hochstetler and Viola 2012, p. 759) and 6,418 km\2\ (2,478 mi\2\) in
2011 (Prodes 2017, unpaginated). During this same period, Brazil's GDP
rose steadily, indicating strong, sustained growth from an export
commodity boom (Petherick 2013 p.7; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, pp.
759-760).
Decoupling has been attributed to a number of factors with no clear
consensus on which factor has been the most effective (Moutinho 2015,
p. 2). Contributing factors include government strategies and policies
for forest conservation (Assun[ccedil][atilde]o et al. 2012, p. 697)
such as: (1) The expansion of protected areas, which reduced the supply
of unclaimed forest land (Nepstad et al. 2014, p. 1118); (2) an effort
that began in 2007 to blacklist the worst deforesters; and (3) efforts
to monitor and control municipalities with high levels of illegal
deforestation through sanctions and restricted access to credit
(Moutinho 2015, p. 3; Assun[ccedil][atilde]o et al. 2012, p. 698).
Reductions in deforestation have also been attributed to market and
social forces, such as decreases in the price of agricultural
commodities (including soy and beef) in 2005 (Fearnside 2017b, p. 1;
Assun[ccedil][atilde]o et al. 2012, entire) and the 2006 soy moratorium
(Gibbs et al. 2015, pp. 377-378).
Brazil is one of the countries that currently has comparatively low
productivity levels and is projected to grow faster as it catches up
with more developed countries (Guardian 2012, unpaginated). Forecasts
vary for Brazil's GDP purchasing power parity (GDP PPP), with one
forecast predicting that GDP PPP will rise steadily through 2050 (PWC
Global 2016, unpaginated), while a more recent forecast predicts that
GDP PPP will stagnate and then drop after about 2050 (Knoema 2018,
unpaginated).
Illegal Collection and Trade
The golden conure is highly prized as an aviary bird and has been
extensively trapped for both the domestic and international pet trade
in the past (BLI 2016, p. 5; Alves et al. 2013, p. 60; Laranjeiras
2011a, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 38; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 132;
Collar 1992, p. 304; Oren and Novaes 1986, pp. 329, 334-335). However,
there is little evidence that this practice is continuing in
international trade (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and
Belmonte in press, unpaginated).
In contrast, the illegal domestic market for the species is still
occurring at some level (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated).
Historically, keeping birds was an important part of local indigenous
tradition and culture (Carvalho 1951 and Cascudo 1973, as cited by
Alves et al. 2013, p. 54). Young birds were taken from the wild to
raise as pets and for feathers, but now are also sold to bird traders
(Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 335). Much of the area occupied by the golden
conure is poor, and selling the birds for the domestic pet trade
provides an extra source of income (Yamashita 2003, p. 39).
There are mixed reports regarding the degree to which illegal
capture of golden conures from the wild (``poaching'') occurs. The
Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources
(IBAMA) has licensed and regulated bird breeding in an effort to reduce
poaching (Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). As a result, several sources
believe poaching is no longer a major concern for the species because
trade is thought to mostly be from the substantial captive population
(Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5).
However, some level of illegal capture and trade of the species is
still believed to occur (Lima in litt. 2018). Captive rearing may not
be a practical alternative to illegal trade, particularly in low-income
areas, because the price of commercially bred birds is approximately 10
times higher than wild-caught individuals (Renctas 2001, as cited in
Alves et al. 2013, p. 61; Machado 2002, as cited in Alves et al. 2010,
p. 155).
Additionally, oversight of domestic wildlife-breeding facilities in
Brazil is limited (Alves et al. 2010, entire), and
[[Page 22656]]
many wild bird species declared to be captive-bred are actually born in
the wild and traded under fraudulent documentation (Alves et al. 2013,
p. 61). Most wildlife centers responsible for managing, licensing, and
inspecting all categories of breeders, traders, and zoos (Kuhnen and
Kanaan 2014, p. 125) lack resources and funding (Padrone 2004, as cited
in Kuhnen and Kanaan 2014, p. 125). Also, there are not enough
inspections at market places and commercial breeding facilities to
fight illegal domestic trade (Alves et al. 2010, pp. 154-155).
The United States is a major importer of pet birds, yet relatively
little trade in the golden conure has been observed. We reviewed all
records of legal and intercepted illegal trade in the CITES annual
trade records submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1981
to 2016. Overall, the U.S. trade in the golden conure has been
relatively low compared with other pet birds, likely because the golden
conure was included in CITES Appendix I in 1975 and we listed the
species under the Act in 1976.
Projected Effects From Climate Change
Changes in Brazil's climate and associated changes to the landscape
are likely to result in additional habitat loss for the golden conure.
Across Brazil, temperatures are projected to increase and precipitation
to decrease (Barros and Albernaz 2014, p. 811; Carabine and Lemma 2014,
p. 11). The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
predicted that by 2100, South America will experience temperature
increases ranging from 1.7 to 6.7 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (3.06 to
12.06 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) under Representative Concentration
Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5, respectively (Carabine and Lemma 2014,
p. 10; Magrin et al. 2014, p. 1502). Projected changes in precipitation
in South America vary by region, with rainfall reductions in the Amazon
estimated with medium confidence (about a 5 out of 10 chance) (IPCC
2018, unpaginated; Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 11; Magrin et al. 2014,
p. 1502).
Downscaled models, based in part on the 2007 IPCC data, predict
more severe changes than the average expected global variation, with
the greatest warming and drying occurring over the Amazon rainforest,
particularly after 2040 (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 39, 48;
F[eacute]res et al. 2009, p. 2). Estimates of temperature changes in
the Amazon by the end of the 21st century are 2.2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F)
under a low greenhouse gas emission scenario and 4.5 [deg]C (8 [deg]F)
under a high-emission scenario (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). The
downscaled model for the Amazon used a previously provided set of
scenarios known as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) to
project the low-emissions using scenario (SRES B1) and high-emissions
scenario (SRES A2) (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). More recently, a newer
set of scenarios (i.e., RCPs) were prepared that include a wider range
of future conditions and emissions. However, to compare the SRES and
RCP scenarios, SRES B1 is roughly comparable to RCP 4.5 and SRES A2 is
similar to RCP 8.5 (U.S. National Climate Change Assessment 2014, p.
821). These similarities between specific RCP and SRES scenarios make
it possible to compare the results from different modeling efforts over
time (U.S. National Climate Change Assessment 2014, p. 821).
The risks to the golden conure from deforestation will likely be
intensified by synergistic effects associated with climate change
(Staal et al. 2015, p. 2) because a number of large-scale drivers of
environmental change (i.e., land-use change from deforestation and
climate changes due to global warming) are operating simultaneously and
interacting nonlinearly in the Amazon (Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759).
Increased temperatures and frequency or severity of droughts put the
Amazon region at a higher risk of forest loss and more frequent
wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. 596; Marengo et al. 2011, p. 48). The
Amazon's rainforest may have two ``tipping points'': (1) A temperature
increase of 4.0 [deg]C (7.2 [deg]F); or (2) deforestation exceeding 40
percent (Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759), that once exceeded could cause
large-scale shifts in the vegetation to a savanna (i.e.,
``savannization'') mostly in the southern and eastern Amazon (Nobre et
al. 2016, p. 10759) within the golden conure's range.
Similarly, a study that considered only the effects from global
warming (i.e., absent deforestation) predicted that by the end of this
century, some areas of rainforest will be replaced by deciduous forest
and grassland using scenario RCP 4.5 and by all grassland using
scenario RCP 8.5 (Lyra et al. 2016, entire). Although the projected
outcomes of models are not definitive, any terra firme (unflooded)
forest habitat that shifts from rainforest to other habitat types
(e.g., savanna) would result in loss of habitat for the golden conure.
Other Potential Stressors
Other potential stressors to the golden conure include hunting and
persecution (Factor B), and predation or disease (Factor C). The
species is likely still hunted at low levels as a food source and for
feathers, and birds that raid crops may be shot by farmers (Oren and
Novaes 1986, p. 335). However, we have no information about the rate
that these activities may be occurring or the extent to which they may
be affecting populations. Similarly, we have no information regarding
diseases that may affect golden conures in the wild.
Golden conures, including eggs and nestlings, are prey to a variety
of native predators, including toucans (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 334;
Forshaw 2017, p. 228); raptors (Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in
Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte in press,
unpaginated); monkeys; snakes; and the tayra (Eira barbara), an
omnivorous weasel (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 334). However, we have no
information regarding the rates of predation on the golden conure from
these predators and how that may be affecting the golden conure.
Conservation Measures and Regulatory Mechanisms
The conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms for the golden
conure are described in the proposed rule (83 FR 45073; September 5,
2018) and are summarized below. The golden conure is considered
``vulnerable'' at the national level in Brazil (MMA 2014, p. 122).
Golden conures and their nests, shelters, and breeding grounds are
protected by Brazilian environmental laws (Clayton 2011, p. 4;
Environmental Crimes law of Brazil (1999) as cited in MSU 2018,
unpaginated; Official List of Brazilian Endangered Animal Species Order
No. 1.522/1989 as cited in ECOLEX 2018; CFRB 2010, p. 150; Law No.
5.197/1967 as cited in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated). Various
regulatory mechanisms (Law No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, and Decree No.
78, as cited in ECOLEX 2018, unpaginated) and Law 6.938/
1981(LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated) direct Brazil's federal and state
agencies to promote the protection of lands and govern the formal
establishment and management of protected areas to promote conservation
of the country's natural resources. Additionally, several Brazilian
laws are designed to protect forest reserves and to prohibit fire and
other actions, such as logging, without authorization (Clayton 2011, p.
5; Law No. 9.605/1998 as cited in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated).
Protected Areas
Protected areas have traditionally formed the backbone of forest
conservation in the Amazon Basin, and
[[Page 22657]]
they still remain a vital conservation strategy (GFA 2018f,
unpaginated). Brazil has the largest protected area network in the
world. The National Protected Areas System (Federal Act 9.985/2000, as
cited in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated) was established in 2000, and
covers nearly 2.2 million km\2\ (0.8 million mi\2\) or 12.4 percent of
the global total (WDPA 2012, as cited by Ferreira et al. 2014, p. 706).
This extensive network of protected areas is intended to (1) preserve
priority biodiversity conservation areas, (2) establish biodiversity
corridors, and (3) protect portions of the 23 Amazonian ecoregions
identified by the World Wildlife Fund (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp.
612, 615; Silva 2005, entire). Brazil's Protected Areas may be
categorized as ``strictly protected'' or ``sustainable use'' based on
their overall management objectives. Strictly protected areas include
national parks, biological reserves, ecological stations, natural
monuments, and wildlife refuges protected for educational and
recreational purposes and scientific research. Protected areas of
sustainable use (national forests, environmental protection areas,
areas of relevant ecological interest, extractive reserves, fauna
reserves, sustainable development reserves, and private natural
heritage reserves) allow for different types and levels of human use
with conservation of biodiversity as a secondary objective.
By 2006, 1.8 million km\2\ (0.7 million mi\2\), or approximately 45
percent of Brazil's Amazonian tropical forest, was under some level of
protection as federal- or state-managed land, or designated as
indigenous reserve (managed by indigenous communities) (Barber et al.
2014, p. 204). Of this, 19.2 percent was strictly protected areas, and
30.6 percent was comprised of federal and state sustainable use areas,
with indigenous reserves making up the remainder (Barber et al. 2014,
p. 204).
Indigenous lands are legally recognized areas where indigenous
peoples have perpetual rights of access, use, withdrawal, management,
and exclusion over the land and associated resources (GFW 2018,
unpaginated). Indigenous communities sustainably use their forest land,
practice shifting cultivation, trade non-timber forest products, and
may allow selective logging (GFA 2018g, unpaginated; Schwartzman and
Zimmerman 2005, p. 721). Large-scale deforestation is prohibited
(Barber et al. 2014, p. 204).
Protected areas have been emphasized as a key component for the
golden conure's survival (e.g., in the Tapajos River region and the
Gurupi Biological Preserve) (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 8;
Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated). The species' predicted
range overlaps with numerous protected areas such as national parks and
national forests, which have various levels of protection (Service
2018, pp. 68-70; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8). Additionally,
the species occurs in nine areas recently designated as ``Important
Bird Areas'' (IBAs) in Brazil (BLI 2018a-h, unpaginated; Lima et al.
2014, p. 318; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Devenish et al. 2009, pp.
104-106). IBAs are places of international significance for the
conservation of birds and other biodiversity (BLI 2018i, unpaginated).
Levels of protection at IBAs vary from fully protected within Protected
Areas to no protections and are outside the National Protected Area
System (BLI 2018i, unpaginated).
Habitat modeling studies have estimated approximately 10,875 golden
conures within 174,000 km\2\ (67,182 mi\2\) of suitable habitat across
a range of approximately 340,000 km\2\ (131,275 mi\2\) (Laranjeiras
2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 3). To date, the
golden conure has been found in numerous protected areas or IBAs that
have a total area of approximately 154,673 km\2\ (51,719 mi\2\)
(Service 2018, pp. 68-70). However, not all of the area represented
contains suitable habitat for the species, and several of the IBAs (39
percent) presently have no protection (61,864 km\2\ (23,866 mi\2\)). An
additional 26 percent of IBAs presently have just partial protection
(40,582 km\2\ (15,669 mi\2\)) (Service 2018, pp. 68-70). Despite
significant efforts to designate and establish protected areas, funding
and resources are limited, and adequate enforcement of these areas is
challenging.
Forest Code
Brazil's forest code was created in 1965, and was subsequently
changed in the 1990s via a series of presidential decrees (Soares-Filho
et al. 2014, p. 363). As of 2001, the forest code required landowners
in the Amazon to conserve native vegetation on their rural properties
by setting aside what is called a ``legal reserve'' of 80 percent of
their property (i.e., with 20 percent available to be harvested)
(Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). The forest code severely restricted
deforestation on private properties but proved challenging to enforce,
and full compliance has not been achieved (GFA 2018b, unpaginated;
Azevedo et al. 2017, entire; Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).
In late 2012, a new forest code was approved that reduces
restoration requirements by providing amnesty for previous illegal
deforestation by smaller property holders (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p.
363). Under the older forest code, legal reserves that were illegally
deforested were required to be restored at the landowner's expense. The
new forest code forgives the legal reserve debt of small properties (up
to 440 hectares (1,087 acres)) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).
Although the 2012 forest code reduced the restoration requirements, it
also introduced measures that strengthen conservation including
addressing (1) fire management, (2) forest carbon emissions and
storage, and (3) payments for ecosystem services that increase the
economic activities compatible with conservation of natural resources
(Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 364; GFA 2018h, unpaginated).
Additionally, the new forest code created an ``environmental reserve
quota,'' where quota surplus on one property may be used to offset a
legal reserve debt on another property within the same biome; this
could create a market for forested lands, adding monetary value to
native vegetation and potentially abating up to 56 percent of legal
reserve debt (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).
Legal Captive Rearing and Trade
IBAMA has licensed and regulated breeding of native bird species,
including golden conure, in an effort to reduce poaching (Alves et al.
2013, p. 61). The captive population of golden conures in Brazil is
believed to be about 600 birds (Prioste et al. 2013, p. 146).
Additional captive populations of golden conures exist as CITES-
registered captive-breeding operations in the United Kingdom and the
Philippines. Although we have no further information on these programs,
captive rearing in Brazil is believed to have reduced the incidence of
poaching of young golden conures from the wild (Silveira in litt. 2012,
Lees in litt. 2013, as cited in BLI 2016, p. 5).
Reintroduction
We know of only one attempt to reintroduce the golden conure to an
area where it had been extirpated. The species was extirpated from the
Bel[eacute]m region of Par[aacute] in 1848 (Moura et al. 2014, p. 5).
In 2017, reintroductions of golden conure were attempted in this area
(at Utinga State Park in Bel[eacute]m) (globo.com 2018, unpaginated;
Silveira in litt. 2018; Organization of Professional Aviculturists in
litt. 2018). Of the 24 birds involved in the release program, three
died prior to release, and
[[Page 22658]]
one died after release due to predation by a boa (Boa constrictor).
There have been no reports of released conures being taken as pets,
although it is a possibility in the future. Currently, seven of the
released birds are living in close proximity to the release station,
while another 13 birds have flown away from the release point. These 13
birds are not currently under observation, but reports have indicated
that they are living within the green areas of the city of
Bel[eacute]m. One pair of golden conures has also successfully produced
one offspring in an artificial nest box provided near the release
station. This chick was successfully reared without human intervention
and is living as a wild parrot along with its parents that have been
seen feeding on native fruits. This is the first documented wild born
golden conure in the Bel[eacute]m area in over 50 years. Even though
this project is in the initial stages, its prospects are promising
(Silveira in litt. 2018; Organization of Professional Aviculturists in
litt. 2018).
Additional Conservation and Regulatory Mechanisms
``Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation''
(REDD) is a ``payment for ecological services'' initiative developed by
the United Nations that creates a financial value for the carbon stored
in forests (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). The program offers incentives to
developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest
in low-carbon paths to sustainable development (GFA 2018h,
unpaginated). REDD plus (REDD+) goes one step further by including
objectives for (1) biodiversity conservation, (2) sustainable
management of forests, and (3) improvements to forest governance and
local livelihoods (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). Brazil is one of the most
advanced countries in the world in REDD+ planning and maintains an
``Amazon Fund,'' which receives compensation for reductions in
deforestation. To date, the Norwegian government is the major donor;
lesser donors include the government of Germany and the Brazilian oil
company Petrobras (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). The successful funding and
implementation of REDD+ is expected to reduce rates of deforestation in
Brazil's Amazon rainforest and would likely benefit the golden conure
and its habitat. However, the initiative is in its early stages and is
being hampered by numerous issues, particularly unresolved land-tenure
problems (May et al. 2018, p. 44).
The golden conure is protected under CITES, an international
agreement between member governments to ensure that the international
trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species is sustainable and does
not threaten species' survival. Under this treaty, CITES Parties
(member countries or signatories) regulate the import, export, and re-
export of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant and
animal species. Brazil is a Party to CITES. Trade in CITES-listed
plants and animals must be authorized through a licensing system of
permits and certificates that are provided by the designated CITES
Management Authority of each CITES Party. CITES includes three
Appendices that list species meeting specific criteria. Depending on
the Appendix in which they are listed, species are subject to various
permitting requirements.
The golden conure is included in CITES Appendix I and receives the
highest degree of protection. Species listed in this Appendix are those
that are threatened with extinction and which are, or may be, affected
by trade. Commercial trade in Appendix I wildlife species is strictly
prohibited, except in limited circumstances provided by the treaty.
However, commercial international trade may be allowed in certain
circumstances where animals have been produced by CITES-registered
captive-breeding operations. Trade in specimens from registered
operations may be treated as if they were listed in CITES Appendix II,
although they remain Appendix I listed specimens. Each shipment
requires the issuance of both CITES export and import documents. There
are two CITES-registered captive-breeding operations for the golden
conure: one in the United Kingdom and the other in the Philippines. The
United States may also allow noncommercial trade in this species on a
case-by-case basis for approved purposes such as scientific,
zoological, and educational activities.
Two other laws in the United States apart from the Act provide
protection from the illegal import of wild-caught birds into the United
States: the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.)
and the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.). The WBCA was
enacted in 1992, to ensure that exotic bird species are not harmed by
international trade and to encourage wild bird conservation programs in
countries of origin. Under the WBCA and our implementing regulations
(50 CFR 15.11), it is unlawful to import into the United States any
exotic bird species listed under CITES that is not included in the
approved list of species, except under certain circumstances. We may
issue permits to allow import of listed birds for scientific research,
zoological breeding or display, cooperative breeding, or personal pet
purposes when the applicant meets certain criteria (50 CFR 15.22-
15.25).
The Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900, and was the first
Federal law protecting wildlife. Today, it provides civil and criminal
penalties for the illegal trade of animals and plants. Under the Lacey
Act, in part, it is unlawful to (1) import, export, transport, sell,
receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, possessed,
transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of
the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or (2)
import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in
interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed,
transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State
or in violation of any foreign law. Therefore, because the take of
wild-caught golden conures would be in violation of Brazil's wildlife
law, the subsequent import of the species would be in violation of the
Lacey Act. Similarly, under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase specimens of
these species traded contrary to CITES.
Summary of Comments and Responses
SSA Report
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five
appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report that informed our
proposed rule, and we received responses from four of the five peer
reviewers. We also invited any additional comments from the peer
reviewers on the proposed rule during its public comment period. The
purpose of peer review is to ensure that our reclassification
determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. All substantive information from the peer review was fully
considered and incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.
The peer reviewers' comments and suggestions are available at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/peer_review_process.html.
Proposed Rule
The public comment period for our September 5, 2018, proposed rule
(83
[[Page 22659]]
FR 45073) lasted for 60 days, ending November 5, 2018. During that
comment period, we received 31 comments on our proposed rule to
downlist the golden conure. The majority of the comments support
downlisting the golden conure from endangered to threatened with a 4(d)
rule to allow import/export and interstate commerce of certain golden
conures. Additionally, commenters provided updated information
regarding the golden conure reintroduction program occurring in the
Bel[eacute]m region of Par[aacute] at Utinga State Park. We have
incorporated this information under Conservation Measures and
Regulatory Mechanisms, above, and have updated the SSA report. Other
comments are discussed below by topic.
Comment (1): Many commenters state that the 4(d) rule will help
improve the breeding pool because allowing interstate commerce of
golden conures will develop more diverse genes and blood lines. Thus,
the continued breeding of the species in the United States can provide
a safety reservoir of individuals for reintroduction if needed.
Our Response: While we agree with the commenters that interstate
commerce of golden conures could allow the development of more diverse
genes and blood lines, we do not believe that captive-bred golden
conures in the United States as pets are good candidates for
reintroduction into the wild. Golden conures bred as pets would likely
be socialized with humans and in turn fail to act appropriately with
wild individuals when released. In addition, golden conures held as
pets may pose a disease risk to wild populations.
Comment (2): A few commenters disagreed with the proposed
downlisting because they claim that we underestimate the effect of
deforestation and increased human population growth within the range of
the golden conure. Therefore, they state that the golden conure should
not be downlisted to threatened because the species remains in danger
of extinction due to deforestation.
Our Response: Our analysis of the stressors to the golden conure as
discussed in the SSA report (Service 2018, pp. 25-35) and summarized
here and in the proposed rule includes the contribution of an
increasing human population and how it impacts the species through
habitat degradation and fragmentation. While we agree the golden conure
faces significant risk from loss and degradation of its habitat from
deforestation in the foreseeable future, because the golden conure is
more widespread than previously thought and near-term threats to the
species have been reduced, we do not find the species is presently in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Thus, it does not meet the definition of an ``endangered
species'' under the Act.
Drivers of habitat degradation and deforestation include roads;
human settlement; logging; and agricultural expansion for soy
cultivation, cattle ranching, and palm oil production (an emerging
threat). Additionally, infrastructure projects such as hydroelectric
dams and mining operations are growing sources of deforestation that
also contribute to loss of forest habitat in the range of the conure.
Based on the best available scientific studies and information
assessing land-use trends (including deforestation, lack of enforcement
of laws, predicted landscape changes under climate-change scenarios,
and predictions about the impact of those threats), we conclude that
the golden conure is likely to be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future throughout its range and meets the definition of a
``threatened species'' under the Act.
Comment (3): One commenter stated that downlisting the golden
conure to threatened will provide the species with less protection than
if it was listed as endangered.
Our Response: We must make our determination on whether the species
is endangered or threatened based solely on the best available
scientific and commercial data available. If a species is determined to
be an endangered species, the Act extends certain prohibitions to the
species pursuant to section 9. If the species is listed as threatened,
we may develop a rule pursuant to 4(d) to provide for its conservation.
The golden conure is more widespread than previously thought, and
threats to the species have been reduced to the point that it is no
longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Our analysis also assessed the biological status of the
golden conure in light of the broad protections provided to the species
under CITES and the WBCA. We determined that the golden conure meets
the definition of a ``threatened species'' under the Act. A threatened
species is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant
portion of its range within the foreseeable future. Section 4(d) of the
Act states that the ``Secretary shall issue such regulations as he
deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation'' of
species listed as threatened. Therefore, we include the golden conure
in the 4(d) rule for birds at 50 CFR 17.41(c) to address the golden
conure's specific threats and conservation needs, which will promote
conservation of the golden conure. We find that this 4(d) rule contains
all the prohibitions and authorizations necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the species.
We acknowledge that we do not have authority to directly regulate
activities in a foreign country that may cause the golden conure to be
an endangered species or a threatened species. However, conservation
measures or benefits provided to foreign species listed as endangered
or threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for
Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and may
encourage and result in conservation actions by foreign governments,
Federal and State governments, private agencies and interest groups,
and individuals.
Comment (4): Some commenters stated that Bird Life International
(BLI) has downlisted the species from ``endangered'' to ``vulnerable''
because the estimated population is 10,000 to 19,999 individuals. The
commenters state that BLI is a recognized authority, and their
recommendations should be taken as ``best scientific evidence.''
Our Response: We determined that the best available information
indicates the current wild population of the golden conure is about
10,875 individuals (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311). Birdlife
International's population estimate is 6,600-13,400 individuals (BLI
2019, unpaginated). We note that this estimate is within the range of
the range of individuals cited by BLI.
The decision to list a species under the Act is based on whether
the species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species as defined under section 3 of the Act, considering
the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and is made solely
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. BLI
uses different standards and criteria to assign its status
designations; therefore, a determination of status under the Act is not
interchangeable with a BLI designation. Using the best scientific and
commercial data available, as summarized in this rule, we find that the
golden conure meets the definition of a ``threatened species'' under
the Act.
Determination of Golden Conure Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets
[[Page 22660]]
the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species.'' The
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is ``in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,''
and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is ``likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' because of any of the following 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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the golden conure and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
reviewed the status of the golden conure and assessed the five factors
to evaluate whether the species is endangered or threatened throughout
all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by the golden conure. We reviewed information presented in the
August 21, 2014, petition we received from the American Federation of
Aviculture, Inc.; information available in our files; information
gathered through our 90-day finding in response to the petition;
information gathered in the SSA report; information from public
comments on our September 5, 2018, proposed rule (83 FR 45073); and
other available published and unpublished information.
When we listed the golden conure as endangered (41 FR 24062; June
14, 1976), the species was perceived to be declining in numbers due to
either Factor A, Factor B, or Factor D, or a combination of all three
factors. At present, while we consider deforestation and habitat
degradation to be a significant risk to the golden conure in the
future, the best scientific and commercial information available on the
range and abundance of the species indicates that the species is more
widespread and abundant than previously believed and that the threat
from overutilization for the pet trade (Factor B) has diminished
(Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5; Snyder
et al. 2000, p. 99).
Approximately 10,875 golden conures occur within 174,000 km\2\
(67,182 mi\2\) of suitable habitat across a range of approximately
340,000 km\2\ (131,275 mi\2\) (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras
and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 3). Tighter enforcement of CITES, stricter
European Union legislation, adoption of the WBCA in the United States,
and adoption of national legislation in other countries have all helped
to significantly curtail illegal international trade (Snyder et al.
2000, p. 99). Government-authorized captive breeding programs in Brazil
are thought to have curtailed the illegal domestic trade (Silveira in
litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude the golden conure
is not currently in danger of extinction throughout its range.
We next considered whether the golden conure is likely to become in
danger of extinction throughout its range within the foreseeable
future. Our proposed rule described ``foreseeable future'' as the
extent to which we can reasonably rely on predictions about the future
in making determinations about the future conservation status of the
species. The Service since codified its understanding of foreseeable
future in 50 CFR 424.11(d) (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019).
In those regulations, we explain the term ``foreseeable future''
extends only so far into the future as the Service can reasonably
determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to
those threats are likely. The Service will describe the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and
taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history
characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental
variability. The Service need not identify the foreseeable future in
terms of a specific period of time. These regulations did not
significantly modify the Service's interpretation; rather they codified
a framework that sets forth how the Service will determine what
constitutes the foreseeable future based on our long-standing practice.
Accordingly, though these regulations do not apply to the final rule
for the golden conure since it was proposed prior to their effective
date, they do not change the Service's assessment of foreseeable future
for the golden conure as contained in our proposed rule.
The golden conure has already lost 30 to 35 percent of its
historical range (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-
Haft 2009, p. 8). We expect both the species' global population and its
habitat to decline an additional 23 to 30 percent in 22 years (Service
2018, pp. 42-46; Bird et al. 2011, appendix S1).
Additionally, habitat loss and degradation is likely to be
intensified by synergistic effects associated with the consequences of
climate change (Service 2018, pp. 42-46; Staal et al. 2015, p. 2).
There is a strong likelihood of warming by at least 1.5 to 2.0 [deg]C
(2.7 to 3.6 [deg]F) in Latin America by the end of the century
(Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 8), and downscaled estimates for the
Amazon over the same time period (i.e., by the end of the century)
indicate temperature increases of 2.2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) under a low
greenhouse gas emission scenario, SRES B1 that equates to RCP 4.5, and
4.5 [deg]C (8 [deg]F) under a high-emission scenario, SRES A2 that
equates to RCP 8.5 (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). Increased temperatures
of these amounts put the Amazon region at a high risk of forest loss
and more frequent wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. 596). Downscaled
models, based in part, on the earlier (2007) IPCC data, predict severe
changes (increased warming and drying) over the Amazon rainforest,
particularly after 2040 (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 39, 48;
F[eacute]res et al. 2009, p. 2). Additionally, extreme weather events,
such as droughts, will increase in frequency, with drought becoming a
9-in-10-year event, by 2060 (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 28), further
contributing to deforestation due to more risk from fires (Marengo et
al. 2011, p. 16).
Based on the best available data, we assessed foreseeable future to
be 22 to 42 years (or approximately three to six generations of the
golden conure). We based the lower end of this range (22 years) on the
peer-reviewed work by Bird et al. 2011, relating to deforestation and
declines in the population. We based the upper end of this range (42
years) on peer-reviewed studies predicting effects from climate change
(such as drought) on deforestation after about 2040 to 2060 (Marengo et
al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 28, 39, 48; F[eacute]res et al. 2009, p. 2).
We conclude that it is reasonable to rely on the predictions made in
these peer-reviewed studies to determine both the future threats and
the species' response to these threats in making determinations about
the foreseeable future of the golden conure.
Although the golden conure is now known to be more widespread and
abundant than previously thought, the species occurs only within the
southern basin of Brazil's Amazon. Much of this area is in the ``arc of
deforestation'' and is threatened by loss and degradation of its
rainforest habitat from deforestation. Effects from deforestation are
[[Page 22661]]
exacerbated by the projected effects from climate change. Additionally,
even though government-authorized captive breeding programs in Brazil
are thought to have curtailed the illegal domestic trade, some unknown
level of illegal collection and trade is ongoing, particularly within
Brazil (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated).
Existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts do not
currently adequately ameliorate threats to the golden conure (Factor
D). Although the species is no longer in danger of extinction now, the
factors identified above continue to affect the golden conure such that
it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. Based on the best available
scientific studies and information assessing land-use trends, adequacy
of enforcement of laws, predicted landscape changes under climate-
change scenarios, and predictions about how those threats may impact
the golden conure, we conclude that the species is likely to be in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude
the golden conure is not currently in danger of extinction, but is
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Having determined that the golden conure is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of its range. The range of a species can
theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways,
so we first screen the potential portions of the species' range to
determine if there are any portions that warrant further consideration.
To do the ``screening'' analysis, we ask whether there are portions of
the species' range for which there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portion may be significant; and (2) the
species may be, in that portion, in danger of extinction. For a
particular portion, if we cannot answer both questions in the
affirmative, then that portion does not warrant further consideration
and the species does not warrant listing as endangered because of its
status in that portion of its range. We emphasize that answering these
questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is
in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range--
rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of
the issue is required.
If we answer these questions in the affirmative, we then conduct a
more thorough analysis to determine whether the portion does indeed
meet both of the ``significant portion of its range'' prongs: (1) The
portion is significant and (2) the species is, in that portion, in
danger of extinction. Confirmation that a portion does indeed meet one
of these prongs does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species is an endangered species.
Rather, we must then undertake a more detailed analysis of the other
prong to make that determination. Only if the portion does indeed meet
both prongs would the species warrant listing as endangered because of
its status in a significant portion of its range
At both stages in this process--the stage of screening potential
portions to identify any portions that warrant further consideration
and the stage of undertaking the more detailed analysis of any portions
that do warrant further consideration--it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. Our selection of which question to address first for a
particular portion depends on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces. Regardless of which question we address
first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question
that we address, we do not need to evaluate the second question for
that portion of the species' range.
For golden conure, we chose to evaluate the status question (i.e.,
identifying portions where the golden conure may be in danger of
extinction) first. To conduct this screening, we considered whether the
threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species'
range at a biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following
threats: Habitat loss; illegal collection and trade; climate change;
and other stressors of hunting, persecution, and predation; and
including cumulative effects. We found no concentration of threats in
any portion of the golden conures' range at a biologically meaningful
scale. For the golden conure, we found both: The species is not in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range, and there is no
geographical concentration of threats so the threats to the species are
essentially uniform throughout its range. The ``arc of deforestation''
is a hotspot of deforestation in the Amazon and the golden conure's
range partially overlaps this area. However, deforestation caused by
fires, ranching, and agriculture occurs in many parts of the Amazon and
in the conure's range outside of the ``arc of deforestation.''
If both (1) a species is not in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range and (2) the threats to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, then the species could not be in danger of
extinction in any biologically meaningful portion of its range.
Therefore, we conclude, based on this screening analysis, that no
portions warrant further consideration through a more detailed
analysis, and the species is not in danger of extinction in any
significant portion of its range. Our approach to analyzing significant
portions of the species' range in this determination is consistent with
the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior,
No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018); Center
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017); and Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289
(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020).
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the golden conure meets the definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we are listing the golden conure as a
threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act.
4(d) Rule
When a species is listed as endangered, certain actions are
prohibited under section 9 of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR
17.21. These include, among others, prohibitions on take within the
United States, within the territorial seas of the United States, or
upon the high seas; import; export; and shipment in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity. Exceptions to
the prohibitions for endangered species may be granted in accordance
with section 10 of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.22.
The Act does not specify particular prohibitions and exceptions to
those prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d)
of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior, as well as the Secretary of
Commerce depending on the species, was given the discretion to issue
such regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to
prohibit by regulation with respect to any threatened species any act
[[Page 22662]]
prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. For the golden conure, the
Service is exercising our discretion to issue a rule under section 4(d)
of the Act by extending the regulations at 50 CFR 17.41(c) that provide
for the conservation of certain species in the parrot family to the
golden conure. These provisions generally extend the prohibitions
included in 50 CFR 17.21, except 50 CFR 17.21(c)(5) and as provided in
subpart A of part 17, or in a permit. Further, the import and export of
certain golden conures into and from the United States and certain acts
in interstate commerce will be allowed without a permit under the Act,
as explained below.
Import and Export
The 4(d) rule imposes a prohibition on imports and exports, but
creates exceptions for certain golden conures. Shipments of captive
specimens (i.e., not taken from the wild) may include live and dead
golden conures and parts and products, including the import and export
of personal pets and research samples. The 4(d) rule adopts the
existing conservation regulatory requirements of CITES and the WBCA as
the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and export of
these golden conure specimens.
This 4(d) rule allows a person to import or export, into and from
the United States, captive specimens, without a permit issued under the
Act, provided that the export is authorized under CITES and the import
is authorized under CITES and the WBCA. The import would require a
CITES document issued by the foreign Management Authority indicating a
source code of ``C'', ``D'', or ``F.'' Exporters of captive birds would
need to provide a signed and dated statement from the breeder of the
bird, along with documentation that identifies the source of their
breeding stock in order to obtain a CITES export permit from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Management Authority. Exporters
of captive-bred birds must provide a signed and dated statement from
the breeder of the bird confirming its captive-bred status, and
documentation on the source of the breeder's breeding stock. The source
codes of C, D, and F for CITES permits and certificates are as follows:
Source Code C: Animals bred in captivity in accordance
with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives
thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 of
the Convention.
Source Code D: Appendix I animals bred in captivity for
commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's
Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and
Appendix I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as
well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of
Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention.
Source Code F: Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent
generations) that do not fulfill the definition of ``bred in
captivity'' in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and
derivatives thereof.
The 4(d) rule does not allow any U.S. import or export of golden
conures that are taken from the wild; such birds would continue to need
a permit under the Act, with the following exception: A person may
import or export a wild golden conure specimen if the specimen was held
in captivity prior to the date the species was listed in CITES Appendix
I (i.e., prior to the date that CITES entered into force on July 1,
1975, with ``golden parakeet'' (i.e., the golden conure) listed in
Appendix I) and provided that the specimen meets all the requirements
of CITES and WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the wild and held in
captivity prior to that date (July 1, 1975), the exporter will need to
provide documentation as part of the application for a U.S. CITES
preconvention certificate. Examples of documentation may include: (1) A
copy of the original CITES permit indicating when the bird was removed
from the wild, (2) veterinary records, or (3) museum specimen reports.
Additionally, consistent with the 4(d) rule for other species in the
parrot family at 50 CFR 17.41(c), the prohibitions on take will apply
and the 4(d) rule will require a permit under the Act for any activity
that could take a golden conure. Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.3
establish that take, when applied to captive wildlife, does not include
generally accepted animal husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or
provisions of veterinary care for confining, tranquilizing, or
anesthetizing, when such practices are not likely to result in injury
to the wildlife.
We assessed the conservation needs of the golden conure in light of
the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the WBCA.
As noted above in Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, some level
of poaching for illegal trade of golden conures is occurring within
Brazil (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated), but there is
little evidence that this practice occurs at the international level
(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte in press,
unpaginated). The best available commercial data indicate that tighter
enforcement of CITES, stricter European Union legislation, adoption of
the WBCA in the United States, and adoption of national legislation in
other countries have all helped to significantly curtail illegal
international trade (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Therefore, illegal
international trade is not likely to be occurring at levels that
negatively affect the golden conure population. Additionally, legal
international trade of the species is not currently occurring at levels
that affect the golden conure population. Therefore, we find that the
import and export requirements of the 4(d) rule provide the necessary
and advisable conservation measures that are needed for this species.
This 4(d) rule will streamline the permitting process for these types
of activities by deferring to existing laws that are protective of
golden conures in the course of import and export.
Interstate Commerce
Under the 4(d) rule, except where use after import is restricted
under 50 CFR 23.55, a person may deliver, receive, carry, transport, or
ship a golden conure in interstate commerce in the course of a
commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in interstate commerce a
golden conure without a permit under the Act. At the same time, the
prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.21 apply under this 4(d) rule, and
any interstate commerce activities that could incidentally take golden
conure or otherwise constitute prohibited acts in foreign commerce
require a permit under 50 CFR 17.32.
Between 1981 and 2016, persons within the United States imported 54
golden conures and exported 26; all were reported as live captive-bred
birds except two exported birds that originated from an unknown source
and one imported bird seized upon import (UNEP-WCMC 2018, unpaginated;
Service 2018, p. 33). These imports and exports were made for
commercial, captive-breeding, zoological, and personal purposes (UNEP-
WCMC 2018, unpaginated; Service 2018, p. 33). We have no information to
indicate that interstate commerce activities in the United States are
associated with threats to the golden conure or would negatively affect
any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species.
Therefore, because (1) acts in interstate commerce within the United
States have not been found to threaten the golden conure, (2) the
species is otherwise protected in the course of
[[Page 22663]]
interstate and foreign commercial activities under the take provisions
as extended through 50 CFR 17.41(c), and (3) international trade of
this species appears to be effectively regulated under CITES, we find
the 4(d) rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the golden conure.
Technical Correction
50 CFR 17.11(c) and 17.12(b) direct us to use the most recently
accepted scientific name of any wildlife or plant species,
respectively, that we have determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. The golden conure currently appears on the List as the
``golden parakeet'' (Aratinga guarouba). Both ``golden conure'' and
``golden parakeet'' are common names associated with Guaruba guarouba.
However, we find that the best available scientific information
available supports the designation of the golden conure to its own
genus (Guaruba). Therefore, we are updating the List to reflect this
change in the scientific name for golden conure.
The basis for this taxonomic change is supported by published
studies in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Urant[oacute]wka and
Mackiewicz 2017, entire; Tavares et al. 2004, pp. 230, 236-237, 239;
Sick 1990, p. 112). Accordingly, we are correcting the scientific name
of the species under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) by
changing the name as currently listed (i.e., golden parakeet (Aratinga
guarouba)) to the corrected species name (i.e., golden conure or golden
parakeet (Guaruba guarouba)).
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations
adopted under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2015-0019 or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife under BIRDS, by:
0
a. Adding an entry for ``Conure, golden (=golden parakeet)'' in
alphabetical order; and
0
b. Removing the entry for ``Parakeet, golden''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Conure, golden, (=golden Guaruba guarouba.. Wherever found.... T 41 FR 24062, 6/14/1976;
parakeet). 85 FR [Insert Federal
Register page where
the document begins],
4/23/2020; 50 CFR
17.41(c).\4d\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.41 by revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and
(c)(2)(ii) introductory text and adding paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(F) to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.41 Special rules--birds.
* * * * *
(c) The following species in the parrot family: Salmon-crested
cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona
collaria), white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus
hyacinthinus), scarlet macaw (Ara macao macao and scarlet macaw
subspecies crosses (Ara macao macao and Ara macao cyanoptera)), and
golden conure (Guaruba guarouba).
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Specimens held in captivity prior to certain dates: You must
provide documentation to demonstrate that the specimen was held in
captivity prior to the applicable date specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of this section. Such
documentation may include copies of receipts, accession or veterinary
records, CITES documents, or wildlife declaration forms, which must be
dated prior to the specified dates.
* * * * *
(F) For golden conures: July 1, 1975 (the date CITES entered into
force with the ``golden parakeet'' (i.e., the golden conure) listed in
Appendix I of the Convention).
* * * * *
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-07571 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P