[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19549-19559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06723]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2022-0134; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BG93
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Significant
Portion of Its Range Analysis for the Northern Distinct Population
Segment of the Southern Subspecies of Scarlet Macaw
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final determination; notification of additional analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as
amended, for the northern distinct population segment (DPS), of the
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (Ara macao macao). Scarlet macaws
are brilliantly colored parrots native to Mexico and Central and South
America. This action affirms the 2019 listing of the scarlet macaw
under the Act.
DATES: This determination is effective March 30, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Supporting materials for this action, including comments we
received on our November 2, 2022, Federal Register document (87 FR
66093) are available in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2022-0134 on https://www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 19550]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Chief, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-2171). Individuals in the United States
who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability
may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications
relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the
relay services offered within their country to make international calls
to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Scarlet macaws (Ara macao) have the broadest range of all the macaw
species (Ridgely 1981, p. 250). The range of the species extends from
Mexico, south through Central America, and into the Amazon of South
America to central Bolivia and Brazil. In Mexico and Central America,
the scarlet macaw's historical range and population have been reduced
and fragmented over the last several decades primarily as a result of
habitat destruction and collection of wild birds for the pet trade
(Vaughan et al. 2003, pp. 2-3; Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p.
101; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150). The majority (83 percent) of the
species' range and population lies within the Amazon Biome of South
America (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; BLI 2011b, unpaginated; BLI 2011c,
unpaginated). In South America, the scarlet macaw occurs over much of
its historical range within the Amazon and occurs in small areas
outside the Amazon, such as west of the Andes Mountains in Colombia.
The scarlet macaw is classified as two subspecies, the northern
subspecies (A. macao cyanoptera) and southern subspecies (A. macao
macao) (Schmidt 2013, pp. 52-53; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 735). The
northern subspecies of scarlet macaw ranges from Mexico, south through
Central America in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, and down the
Atlantic slope of Costa Rica, as well as on Isla Coiba in Panama. The
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw occurs along the Pacific slope of
Costa Rica and southward through mainland Panama and into the remainder
of the species' range in South America. The subspecies are separated by
the central cordilleras in Costa Rica (Schmidt 2013, pp. 52-53; Schmidt
et al. 2019, p. 744).
On February 26, 2019, we published in the Federal Register a final
rule under the Act at 84 FR 6278 (hereafter, ``the 2019 rule''). The
2019 rule revised the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (at 50 CFR 17.11(h)) to add
the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. cyanoptera) as
endangered, the northern DPS of the southern subspecies (A. m. macao)
as threatened (hereafter, ``the northern DPS''), and the southern DPS
of the southern subspecies (A. m. macao) and subspecies crosses (A. m.
cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened due to similarity of
appearance. The 2019 rule also added protective regulations to 50 CFR
17.41 pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act for the northern and southern
DPSs of the southern subspecies and for subspecies crosses. For a more
thorough discussion of the taxonomy, life history, distribution, and
the determination of listing status for scarlet macaws under the Act,
please refer to the Species Information section in the 2019 rule.
This Action
In the 2019 rule, we found the northern DPS of the southern
subspecies of scarlet macaw was not currently in danger of extinction
but likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. At that time, we followed our Final
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ''Significant Portion of Its
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ''Endangered
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (hereafter, Final Policy, 79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014), which provided that if the Services determined
that if a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the
Services would not analyze whether the species is endangered in a
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we did not conduct a
``significant portion of its range'' analysis for the scarlet macaw in
the northern DPS and determine whether it met the definition of an
endangered species as a result.
However, in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Everson), the Court vacated that
provision of the Final Policy. This decision came after the threatened
determination for scarlet macaw published in the 2019 rule. Therefore,
we have since reconsidered our ``significant portion of its range''
analysis for the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS based on the plain
language of the Act and the implications of Everson. As part of this
process, we published a notification of additional analysis in the
Federal Register on November 2, 2022 (87 FR 66093). We conducted our
``significant portion of its range'' analysis in line with what we
submitted to and was approved by the Court in Friends of Animals v.
Williams (No. 1:21-cv-02081-RC, Doc. 22).
Summary of Comments
In the November 2, 2022, Federal Register document, we requested
any interested party to submit comments that pertain to how we should
reassess the ``significant portion of its range'' for the northern DPS
in light of the plain language of the Act and the Court's order in
Everson. We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues. We
address four substantive comments by the one commenter below.
Comment (1): One commenter stated that the Service should
incorporate Schmidt et al. 2019 in the ``significant portion of its
range'' analysis. Schmidt et al. 2019 describes the genetic divergences
between subspecies of the scarlet macaw (Ara macao). The commenter
believed that this study warranted the Service's consideration in its
``significant portion of its range'' analysis.
Response: We note that this 2019 study was published after the
publication of the 2019 rule and would be information considered after
our final rule became effective. We also note that we requested public
comments only on how recent case law regarding the Service's
``significant portion of its range'' analysis based on the plain
language of the Act and the implications of Everson could affect the
2019 rule. Any public comment that is beyond the scope of our request
is not relevant. Nevertheless, in the 2019 rule, we incorporated
information in Schmidt 2013, which includes the same information as
Schmidt et al. 2019 in terms of genetic divergences between the
subspecies of scarlet macaw, Ara cyanoptera and A. macao. Schmidt et
al. 2019 published their research in the International Journal of Avian
Science, Ibis (2020), 162, 735-748. Schmidt 2013 is research submitted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Columbia
University (2013), 188pp. The information in both Schmidt et al. 2019
and Schmidt 2013 conclude the northern subspecies, A. m. cyanoptera,
ranges from Mexico to northern Costa Rica and the southern subspecies,
A. m. macao, ranges from lower Central America to South America
(Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 742). We incorporated the genetic analysis of
the two subspecies in the 2019 rule. Additionally, we incorporated the
analysis of the unique trans-Andean populations of scarlet macaws,
which are the same populations within the northern DPS that include the
populations on the
[[Page 19551]]
Pacific slope of Costa Rica, mainland Panama, and northwest Colombia.
Therefore, we included the best available information regarding the
genetic status of the two subspecies of scarlet macaw, and already
considered the genetic information in the 2019 study, when we issued
the 2019 rule.
Comment (2): One commenter stated that if the Service does conclude
that the northern DPS is endangered in a significant portion of its
range, then it must list the entire northern DPS as endangered. The
commenter stated that there is no basis to list the northern DPS found
in certain portions of its range as endangered but to list the northern
DPS found in other portions of its range as threatened. As support, the
commenter cited Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154,
1162 (D. Or. 2001) (``Listing distinctions below that of a subspecies
or a DPS of a species are not allowed under the ESA.'').
Response: We agree. In addition to Alsea Valley Alliance, our
listing determination and analysis for chimpanzees in 2015 provides
additional information and a thorough discussion of this issue (80 FR
34499; June 16, 2015). However, as discussed further below, the Service
does not conclude that the northern DPS is endangered in a significant
portion of its range.
Comment (3): One commenter stated that just because the populations
of the northern DPS may be stable in Costa Rica, does not mean that the
northern DPS is not endangered in other portions of its range or that
those other portions of its range are not significant, as an individual
population must be considered independently from the whole northern
DPS. Citing to the Service's findings in the 2019 rule, the commenter
asserts the northern DPS populations in both Panama and northwest
Columbia are endangered and that both populations are ``significant--
biologically, genetically, and in comparison to the overall range of
the northern DPS.'' Thus, the commenter concludes that we should find
that the northern DPS is endangered in a significant portion of its
range.
Response: We agree with the commenter that in addition to the
population in Costa Rica, the population in Panama and the population
in northwest Columbia are the appropriate populations to consider in
our ``significant portion of its range'' analysis for whether they are
endangered and significant. As discussed further below we have
considered whether either of these populations is significant
biologically, genetically, and in comparison to the overall range of
the northern DPS. To determine whether a portion is ``significant,'' we
considered how the portion contributes to the viability of the northern
DPS. We considered the northern DPS' population sizes, geographic
distribution, and threats to the northern DPS, including the northern
DPS' response to the threats and cumulative effects. We also considered
whether the effects of the threats on the northern DPS are greater in
any biologically meaningful portion of the northern DPS' range than in
other portions such that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction
now in that portion. We explain our rationale that the northern DPS is
not endangered in a significant portion of its range in more detail
below.
Comment (4): A commenter asserted that the Service never determined
that the northern DPS migrates between Costa Rica and either Panama or
northwest Colombia.
Response: Scarlet macaws have been shown to make small and larger
range movements to areas with greater food and/or nesting resources.
Parrots and macaws can travel tens to hundreds of kilometers (km) and
are able to exploit resources in a variety of habitats within the
larger landscape (Lee 2010, pp. 7-8, citing several authors;
Brightsmith 2006, unpaginated; Collar 1997, p. 241). Radio telemetry
studies were conducted on scarlet macaws in Guatemala, Belize, and
Peru, and preliminary results showed variation in the distances over
which scarlet macaws range but suggest home ranges of individuals cover
hundreds of square kilometers (Boyd and Brightsmith 2011, in litt.;
Boyd 2011, pers. comm.). Of nine scarlet macaws tracked over periods of
3 to 9 months, the maximum extent of an individual's range (farthest
distance between two points at which individuals were located with
radio telemetry) varied between 25 km to 165 km, with most moving
between 25 km and 50 km (Boyd and Brightsmith 2011, in litt.; Boyd
2011, pers. comm.). Additionally, scarlet macaws are moving within
Costa Rica between the [Aacute]rea de Conservaci[oacute]n
Pac[iacute]fico Central (ACOPAC) and the Southern Pacific Costa Rica
([Aacute]rea de Conservaci[oacute]n Osa (ACOSA)) populations and the
scarlet macaw is basically continuous between the two populations in
Costa Rica (see Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS, below). However, we
are not aware of information on the movements or migration within the
northern DPS of scarlet macaws between Costa Rica and Panama, Panama
and Colombia, or Costa Rica and Colombia.
Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS
The scarlet macaw inhabits various habitat types throughout its
range, including tropical humid evergreen forest, deciduous and humid
forest, intact and partially cleared lowland rainforest, mixed pine and
broad-leaved woodlands, open areas and edges with scattered stands of
tall trees, gallery forest, mangroves, and savannas, often near rivers
(Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Forshaw 1989,
p. 407; Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps, Jr. 1978, p. 99). Scarlet
macaws prefer lowland, humid habitats that are dependent on the
availability of fresh water (Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744; Schmidt 2013,
p. 175). The species generally occurs from sea level to about 500
meters (m) (1,640 feet (ft)) elevation but has been reported ranging up
to 1,500 m (4,921 ft) in Central America (Juniper and Parr 1998, p.
425; Vaughan 1983, in Vaughan et al. 2006, p. 919).
Generally, the species is geographically constrained between
central highlands and either the Pacific or Atlantic Coasts. In the
northern DPS, the range of the scarlet macaw occurs south of the
central cordilleras of Costa Rica, along the Pacific slope, and south
through Panama to northwest of the Andes Mountains in Colombia. Scarlet
macaws are confined to the tropical forests in lower Central America by
the central highlands and the Pacific Ocean. Similarly, in Colombia
scarlet macaws inhabit moist tropical ecosystems along the mid- to
lower-Magdalena River Valley, bounded by the Central and Oriental
Cordilleras of the Northern Andes (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200). The
geographical extent of these lowland habitats covers an area markedly
smaller than either upper Central America or the Amazon Basin, with
fewer major sources of fresh water (Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 745).
The total population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS is
approximately 1,000 to 2,000 birds (see table 1, below). Populations
include: (1) Two populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica--the
ACOPAC and the ACOSA populations, (2) very small populations in the
Chiriqu[iacute] province and at the southern end of the Azuero
Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park in Panama, and (3)
population(s) in northwest Colombia west of the Andes Mountains,
although we have minimal information on the population size or
distribution in Colombia west of the Andes Mountains.
The Costa Rica populations account for almost all the total known
population of the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet
macaw
[[Page 19552]]
(see table 1). The ACOPAC population is estimated to contain
approximately 450 birds (Arias et al. 2008, in McReynolds 2011, in
litt.). The estimates for the ACOSA population are between 800 to 1,200
birds (Dear et al. 2010, p. 17) but possibly up to 2,000 birds (Guzman
2008, p. 17). However, combining plausible subpopulation estimates, the
total population of scarlet macaws on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica
that includes both the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations was estimated at
approximately 1,800 birds (McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
By all indications the scarlet macaw population in ACOPAC has been
expanding from the traditional stronghold in and around Carara National
Park (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 11). Since 2013, scarlet macaws in
groups of up to 30, along with pairs during the height of the breeding
season, were regularly observed south of Carara, up and down the coast
and up to 70 km (43 mi) south of the point where the census in Carara
is usually conducted. In addition, scarlet macaws from the areas
immediately to the northwest of Carara have been reported. Scarlet
macaws occur in Palo Verde National Park, in the surrounding areas, and
in patchwork forested habitats in between. The species may frequently
pass through these areas and is not present at high densities. Group
sizes are small, and it is unclear if the birds are escaped or released
birds from a nearby lodge or natural dispersers (Brightsmith 2016, in
litt., p. 14). Regardless, because there have been scattered sightings
of scarlet macaws from Palo Verde National Park south to Carara
National Park and throughout western Guanacaste, the birds near Palo
Verde are no longer considered completely isolated (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt., p. 14). However, evidence to support successful establishment
of populations north of Carara is weak (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p.
13).
The best available information suggests that the ACOSA population
is simultaneously expanding up the coast. Birds were reported to occur
in multiple areas between the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations, in Manuel
Antonio National Park and Uvita, as well as Dominical that is the
approximate midpoint between the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations. Thus,
the scarlet macaw is basically continuous from the Osa Peninsula (ACOSA
population) to Carara National Park (ACOPAC population) (Brightsmith
2016, in litt., p. 13). Additionally, 85 percent of residents
interviewed in 2005 believed scarlet macaws were more abundant than 5
years prior in ACOSA, suggesting this population may be increasing
(Dear et al. 2010, p. 10). Sightings of scarlet macaws between the
ACOPAC and ACOSA populations may represent individuals from either of
the populations, and it is difficult to distinguish between expansion
of the ACOPAC population to the south and the expansion of the ACOSA
population to the north (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 11).
In Panama, the scarlet macaw was once described as almost extinct
on the mainland but abundant and occurring in substantial numbers on
Isla Coiba, a one-time penal colony where human settlement and most
hunting was prohibited (Ridgely 1981, p. 253). The current population
of scarlet macaws in Panama is estimated at less than 200 birds, with
most of the population occurring on Isla Coiba and less than 25 birds
estimated to occur on the mainland (Keller and Schmitt 2008, in
Brightsmith 2012, in litt. and McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
Scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba are considered the northern subspecies, A.
m. cyanoptera (Schmidt 2013, pp. 69-73; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 740),
and are not part of the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of
scarlet macaw. Therefore, the very small number of scarlet macaws
existing on mainland Panama are the only scarlet macaws in Panama that
are considered the northern DPS of the southern subspecies and part of
this analysis.
Sporadic sightings of scarlet macaws have occurred over the last
few decades in the western border region of Panama and Costa Rica, in
the area of the upper R[iacute]o Corotu (or R[iacute]o Bartolo Arriba)
near Puerto Armuelles, and near Querevalo, in the Chiriqu[iacute]
province (Burica Press 2007, unpaginated; McReynolds 2011, in litt.,
unpaginated; Brightsmith in litt. 2016, p. 17; Sullivan et al. 2009,
unpaginated). Scarlet macaws have been successfully reintroduced in
Tiskita, Costa Rica, which is in the western border region of Costa
Rica and Panama (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Therefore, it
is uncertain if the birds that occur in the western border region of
Panama are wild or the reintroduced birds dispersing south from
Tiskita, Costa Rica (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 17). However, with
the successful reintroduction of scarlet macaws at Tiskita, which has
resulted in a viable population, scarlet macaws are established at this
location (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Additionally, a
small, but unknown number of scarlet macaws occur on the southern end
of Panama in the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National
Park, Tonosi Forest Reserve, and farther to the east (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt., p. 17; Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated; Rodriguez and
Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
In northwest Colombia, scarlet macaws are believed to occur in the
Magdalena and Cauca River valleys in tropical ecosystems bounded by the
northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989,
p. 407). They have been reported as probably close to extinction in the
Magdalena Valley, Cauca Valley, and north (Donegan 2013, in litt.;
Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60). However, they may occur
in very low numbers in the more remote and inaccessible parts of the
region, but its status is not clear. Therefore, we are aware of little
information on the population or distribution of scarlet macaws within
northwest Colombia.
Table 1--Estimated Population Size of Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS
[Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao macao) Northern DPS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population range country Population name Population estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costa Rica........................... Central Pacific ~450 Plausible estimate of
Conservation Area-- total population in
[Aacute]rea de Costa Rica ~1,800.
Conservaci[oacute]n
Pac[iacute]fico
Central (ACOPAC).
-------------------------
Costa Rica........................... Osa Conservation Area-- ~800-1,200, potentially
[Aacute]rea de up to 2,000.
Conservaci[oacute]n
Osa (ACOSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19553]]
Population range country Population name Population estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panama (mainland).................... Cerro Hoya National <25
Park.
-------------------------------------------------
Colombia............................. Northwest Colombia..... unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population Size of A. m. macao; Northern DPS....1,000-2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Factors Affecting the Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS
The two primary threats to scarlet macaws are the loss of forest
habitat and collection of wild birds for the pet trade (I[ntilde]igo-
Elias in litt. 1997, in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Guedes 2004, p.
280). The primary cause of forest loss is conversion to agriculture for
crops and pasture, although other human activities such as construction
of infrastructure, selective logging, fires, oil and gas extraction,
and mining also contribute to the loss of forest cover within the range
of the species (Blaser et al. 2011, Latin America and the Caribbean,
pp. 262-402; Boucher et al. 2011, entire; Clark and Aide 2011, entire;
FAO 2011a, pp. 17-18; May et al. 2011, pp. 7-13; Pacheco 2011, entire;
Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 38-39; Belize Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 40-45; Armenteras and Morales 2009,
pp. 133-145, 176-191; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Mosandl et al. 2008, pp.
38-40; Nepstad et al. 2008, entire; Foley et al. 2007, pp. 26-27;
Fearnside 2005, pp. 681-683).
Historically, large areas of forest have been removed throughout
the species' range, particularly in Mexico and Central America, and any
large tracts of forest that remain are fragmented and are mostly
isolated because they are cut off from each other (Bray 2010, p. 93).
Deforestation continues throughout much of the scarlet macaw's range,
including in the northern DPS, and is a threat to the species because
it eliminates the species' habitat by removing trees that support the
species' essential needs for nesting, roosting, and food. Scarlet
macaws require a large range and a variety of food resources. Thus,
large-scale land conversion presents a generalized threat to scarlet
macaw nest sites, foraging areas, and migration corridors (Schmidt
2013, p. 173). Scarlet macaws are dependent on larger, older trees that
have large nesting cavities. Additionally, they primarily forage in the
forest canopy, and are relatively general in their feeding habits.
Abundance may fluctuate because they may move to areas with greater
resource availability, influencing local and seasonal abundance (Lee
2010, p. 7; Cowen 2009, pp. 5, 23, citing several sources; Tobias and
Brightsmith 2007, p. 132; Brightsmith 2006, unpaginated; Renton 2002,
p. 17). Thus, removal of older and larger trees decreases suitable
nesting sites and food resources, increases competition, and causes the
loss of current generations through an increase in infanticide and egg
destruction (Lee 2010, pp. 2, 12). The species will use partially
cleared and cultivated landscapes if they provide sufficient dietary
requirements and maintain enough large trees. However, scarlet macaws
have a better chance of surviving in large tracts of primary forest
where suitable nesting cavities are more common than in open and small
patches of non-primary forest (Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 91). Therefore, as
the size of the suitable habitat is reduced, it is less likely to
provide the essential resources for the species (Ibarra-Macias 2009, p.
6; Lees and Peres 2006, pp. 203-205).
Competition for suitable nest cavities negatively affects
reproductive success of scarlet macaws, including in the northern DPS.
Competition limits available nesting sites and thus the number of pairs
that can breed, or competition may cause nest mortality stemming from
agonistic interactions. Intraspecific competition between different
pairs of scarlet macaws, and competition with pairs of other macaw
species that are larger and more competitive, is intense in some areas
(Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 96; Nycander
1995, p. 428). Additionally, Africanized honeybees (Apis mellifera
scutellata) are also reported to be a serious competitor with scarlet
macaws for nest cavities (Garcia et al. 2008, p. 52; Vaughan et al.
2003, p. 13; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 61).
Collecting wild birds for the pet trade has been occurring for
centuries (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 9; Guedes 2004, p. 279; Snyder
et al. 2000, pp. 98-99). Removing birds from the wild is driven by
demand for the pet trade and related to rural poverty because capture
for sale in local markets can provide a significant source of
supplemental income in rural areas (Huson 2010, p. 58; Gonz[aacute]lez
2003, p. 438). Low salaries and high unemployment in the region drive
people to search for extra sources of income that may include
collecting wildlife for the pet trade (TRAFFIC NA 2009, pp. 23-24).
Collection of scarlet macaws decreases the population, inhibits
future breeding by removing reproductive age adults, causes mortality
of eggs or chicks, and causes damage to and loss of nesting sites
(Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 14). Scarlet macaws are long-lived
species with a low reproductive rate, low survival of chicks and
fledglings, late age to first reproduction, and large proportions of
the population as nonbreeding adults. Therefore, the species is
particularly vulnerable to overexploitation, especially when
individuals are removed from the wild year after year (Munn 1992, p.
57; Wright et al. 2001, p. 712). Collection and deforestation often
work in tandem because activities that clear forests increase access to
previously inaccessible areas, which in turn increases the
vulnerability of species to overexploitation by humans (Peres 2001,
entire; Putz et al. 2000, pp. 16, 23).
The scarlet macaw is a popular pet species within its range
countries, and most birds collected for the pet trade are sold as pets
and remain within range countries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150;
Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 102). Because of high mortality rates associated
with capture and transport of wildlife, the number of birds sold or
exported for the pet trade represents only a portion of those removed
from the wild. Cumulative mortality rates before parrots reach
customers have been estimated to be as high as 77 percent; for
nestlings, approximately 80 percent died before reaching a pet store
(Inigo and Ramos 1991 and Enkerlin 2000, in Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007,
p. 60). Pet collection is a threat for the scarlet macaw in the
northern DPS.
On June 6, 1981, the scarlet macaw was included in Appendix II of
the Convention on International Trade in
[[Page 19554]]
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). On August 1, 1985,
the scarlet macaw was included in Appendix I of CITES because of the
high level of trade. Species included in Appendix I are considered
threatened with extinction, and international trade is permitted only
under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial
trade. The United States and Europe historically were the main markets
for wild birds in international trade (FAO 2011b, p. 3). Trade was
particularly high in the 1980s (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94; Best
et al. 1995, p. 234). However, in the years following the enactment of
the Wild Bird Conservation Act in 1992 (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.),
there was a substantial reduction of wild-caught parrots imported to
the United States from Mesoamerica and South America as well as the
rest of the world (Pain et al. 2006, p. 327). The European Union, which
was the largest market for wild birds following enactment of the WBCA,
banned the import of wild birds in 2006 due to disease concerns (FAO
2011b, p. 21), thus eliminating another major market and further
reducing international trade of wild parrots and macaws.
The scarlet macaw is protected by domestic laws within all
countries and the countries have a system of protected areas or
national parks that aim to conserve biodiversity. Enforcement of
wildlife laws is generally lacking because the agencies responsible
often do not have the financial resources, personnel, or both to
adequately enforce their laws, particularly in remote areas (TRAFFIC NA
2009, p. 20; Valdez et al. 2006, p. 276; Mauri 2002, entire).
Historically, the scarlet macaw existed in much higher numbers.
However, the species currently occurs in relatively small and
fragmented populations throughout most of its range. Small, isolated
populations place the species at greater risk of local extirpation or
extinction due to a variety of factors, including loss of genetic
variability, demographic and environmental stochasticity, and natural
catastrophes (Lande 1995, entire; Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991, p. 37;
Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-33; Soul[eacute] and Simberloff
1986, pp. 28-32; Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Franklin 1980, entire). The
species maintains some genetic diversity throughout its range and
between the two subspecies. With the ongoing loss of habitat throughout
the range, the loss of genetic variability could diminish their
capacity to adapt to changes in the environment (Blomqvist et al. 2010,
entire; Reed and Frankham 2003, pp. 233-234; Nunney and Campbell 1993,
pp. 236-237; Soul[eacute] and Simberloff 1986, pp. 28-29; Franklin
1980, pp. 140-144). Other natural events that put small populations at
risk include variation in birth and death rates, fluctuations in gender
ratio, and environmental disturbances such as wildfire and climatic
shifts (Blomqvist et al. 2010, entire; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p.
27; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Negative impacts associated with small
population sizes of scarlet macaws may be magnified because of
interactions with habitat loss and collection. Cumulatively, the small
population sizes occurring in narrow lowland forested areas in
fragmented habitat, combined with ongoing collection and a long-lived
species' low reproduction rate, increases the species' vulnerability.
As discussed later below, some populations of the scarlet macaw in the
northern DPS are relatively small and fragmented.
The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS occurs from northwestern
Costa Rica, south through mainland Panama, and west of the Andes
Mountains in Colombia. Deforestation, collection, lack of effective
enforcement of existing laws, and small population size all
cumulatively affect scarlet macaws in the northern DPS. In the 2019
rule, we found the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet
macaw was not currently in danger of extinction but likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range. We now consider our ``significant portion of its range''
analysis for the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS based on the plain
language of the Act and the Court's order in Everson.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Following the court's holding in Everson, and having
determined that the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet
macaw is not in danger of extinction (endangered species) throughout
all of its range, we evaluate whether the scarlet macaw in the northern
DPS is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range--
that is, whether there is any portion of the northern DPS' range for
which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the northern DPS is
in danger of extinction in that portion. Depending on the case, it
might be more efficient for us to address the ``significance'' question
or the ``status'' question first for these potentially significant
portions of the range. 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 other question. In
undertaking this analysis for the northern DPS of scarlet macaw, we
choose to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the population sizes and geographic distribution of the
portions, the threats that the northern DPS faces, and the northern
DPS' response to those threats to identify portions of the range where
the northern DPS may be endangered.
In examining the status question, we note that the statutory
difference between an endangered species and a threatened species is
the timeframe in which the species (subspecies or DPS) becomes in
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, we reviewed the
best scientific and commercial data available regarding the time
horizon for the threats that are driving the scarlet macaw in the
northern DPS to warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all
of its range. We then considered whether these threats or their effects
are occurring in any portion of the northern DPS' range such that the
northern DPS is in danger of extinction now in that portion of its
range. We examined the following threats: habitat loss and
fragmentation, collection for the pet trade, small population size, and
climate change, including synergistic and cumulative effects.
We evaluated the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet
macaw to determine if it is in danger of extinction now in any portion
of its range. The range can theoretically be divided into portions in a
number of ways. For the scarlet macaws in the northern DPS, we
considered the northern DPS' population sizes, geographic distribution,
and threats to the northern DPS, including the northern DPS' response
to the threats and cumulative effects. We considered whether the
effects of the threats on the northern DPS are greater in any
biologically meaningful portion of the northern DPS' range than in
other portions such that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction
now in that portion. We focused our analysis on portions of the
northern DPS' range that may meet the definition of an endangered
species. We identified three portions of the northern DPS for these
analyses: (1) the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, (2) mainland
[[Page 19555]]
Panama, and (3) Colombia west of the Andes Mountains. Scarlet macaws
can engage in large-scale movements to exploit resources within the
larger landscape. They also undergo smaller scale movements between
nocturnal roost sites and daily foraging areas (Marineros and Vaughan
1995, pp. 448-450; Forshaw 1989, p. 407). Movements are often dictated
by the spatial and temporal abundance of resources. The northern DPS
includes populations of scarlet macaw in each country that are
separated from each other with no known connectivity between them.
Therefore, even if scarlet macaws can engage in larger scale movements
within suitable habitat, the portions are based on the known population
distributions of the northern DPS within each country and not strictly
based on the geographic border of each country.
Analysis of the Costa Rica Portion
The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS has been reduced from much of
its historical range in Costa Rica due to the primary threats of
habitat loss and collection. The northern DPS of scarlet macaw in Costa
Rica occurs in lowlands along the Pacific slope flanked by the central
highlands and the Pacific Ocean. The Costa Rica population in the
northern DPS, including both the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations, is the
largest population and accounts for most of the total population of
scarlet macaws in the northern DPS.
Costa Rica is both losing and gaining forest cover throughout the
country (Hansen et al. 2013, entire; Brightsmith 2016, in litt. p. 1).
Even though Costa Rica was the only country in Central America to
experience a positive change in forest cover over a recent 25-year
period (1990-2015; FAO 2015, p. 10), some level of deforestation still
occurs in parts of the country due to expansion of agriculture and
livestock activities and to illegal logging in private forests and
national parks and reserves (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 2;
Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 10-11, 38, 52-54; Parks in Peril
2008, unpaginated). The major driver of deforestation is the conversion
of forest to livestock and agricultural uses because land users often
generate a higher annual income with agriculture or livestock-raising
than with forests. Indigenous communities have difficulties keeping
nonindigenous farmers from encroaching onto their lands (Government of
Costa Rica 2011, p. 1). Additionally, a lack of human and financial
resources allows squatters and illegal loggers to exploit resources in
protected areas.
A comprehensive study of deforestation in Costa Rica's park system
found that deforestation inside Level-1 protected areas, which denotes
areas with absolute protections and where no land-cover change is
allowed, was negligible from 1987 to 1997, and within the park's 1-km
buffer zones the protected areas had a net forest gain for the same
period. However, a 1 percent annual deforestation rate occurred in 10-
km buffer zones of protected areas. Thus, as distance increases from
Level-1 protected areas, total deforestation and deforestation rates
also increase (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, p. 128). Corcovado
National Park, the largest protected area in ACOSA, is one of the
Level-1 protected areas in Costa Rica most affected by deforestation
within 1 km of its boundaries (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-
129). Within 10 km of the park, significant clearing occurred (Sanchez-
Azofeifa et al. 2003, p. 132). Additionally, in the ACOPAC scarlet
macaw population, deforestation occurs around the Carara National Park
with a higher rate of deforestation northwest of Carara than to the
south (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-129; Brightsmith 2016, in
litt., p. 12). Generally, National Parks on the Pacific slope are
experiencing less deforestation on surrounding lands than those on the
Atlantic slope, which is attributed to the intensification and
expansion of agricultural cash crops such as banana and pineapple
(Sanchez-Azofeifa et al., 1999, 2001, cited in Sanchez-Azofeifa et al.
2003, p. 129).
Overall, the northern DPS' habitat and population size have been
reduced from historical levels, and the primary threat of deforestation
affects the wild population of scarlet macaws in Costa Rica. Even
though some deforestation is ongoing, Costa Rica has experienced a
positive change in forest cover over a 25-year period, 1990 to 2015.
Deforestation or forest degradation in the current range of the scarlet
macaw is not occurring at a level that is causing a further decline of
the northern DPS in Costa Rica.
Historically, northern DPS scarlet macaws in Costa Rica experienced
heavy collection pressure, but there are ongoing efforts to reduce the
magnitude of collection. Hunting is important in the communities for
both subsistence and monetary gain; with low-income communities
surrounding a park, the incentives to poach are great (Huson 2010, p.
66). Intense management efforts in the mid-1990s that included anti-
poaching efforts increased recruitment into the population. However,
the anti-poaching efforts and the associated increase in population
size was not sustained over the long term (Vaughan et al. 2005, p.
127). A significant effort to control poaching in the Carara area is
ongoing because poaching continues to be a serious problem (Vaughan
2005, pers. comm., in McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated). Once
successfully fledged from the nest, scarlet macaws appear to have a
high survival rate (Myers and Vaughan 2004, cited in Vaughan et al.
2005, p. 128).
In 2005, the ACOPAC population of scarlet macaws was believed to be
self-sustaining, even with heavy poaching pressure (Vaughan et al.
2005, p. 128). We have no information that suggests a change in this
conclusion since 2005. In the ACOSA, approximately half (48 percent) of
residents interviewed believed that scarlet macaws were still being
poached, although 85 percent of the interviewees believed numbers of
scarlet macaws were increasing and 43 percent of the interviewees
mentioned less poaching occurs now than before (and none said poaching
had increased (Dear et al. 2010, p. 13)). Overall, while collection is
ongoing in the ACOSA and ACOPAC populations, the population of scarlet
macaws is increasing despite the collection pressure.
Costa Rica's Wildlife Conservation Law and its amendments prohibit
the hunting, collection, and extraction of all species, except in
certain cases for subsistence by indigenous groups, scientific
purposes, or species control (Costa Rican Embassy 2013, unpaginated;
NOVA 2013, unpaginated; Tico Times 2017, unpaginated). Additionally,
Costa Rica has protected its resources through an ambitious national
parks and biological reserves system, but those parks and reserves are
inadequately funded and insufficiently controlled (Government of Costa
Rica 2010, p. 34). Poaching by local communities is a problem of great
concern; hunting within national park boundaries is illegal, but it is
difficult to monitor and enforce hunting prohibitions with limited
funds and supervision (Huson 2010, p. 18; Government of Costa Rica
2010, p. 52). Officials in Carara National Park reported that they do
not have enough staff to effectively control poaching (Huson 2010, p.
8).
Active reintroduction programs have added hundreds of scarlet
macaws to the wild in the northern DPS in Costa Rica (Ara Project 2017,
unpaginated; Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468; Dear et al. 2010, pp. 15-
17; Forbes 2005, p. 97; Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Most
reintroduction projects also conduct environmental education at a local
level and attract additional media attention to educate
[[Page 19556]]
the public about the importance of scarlet macaws and their
conservation (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 22).
Success of the reintroductions varies. On the Nicoya Peninsula in
northwestern Costa Rica, scarlet macaws are currently released at Punta
Islita, Playa Tamboor, and Cur[uacute] National Wildlife Refuge, which
are all within 50 km of each other. It is difficult to determine how
these populations will fare over time because these populations are
isolated, but these three release sites could help repopulate the
Nicoya Peninsula (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 15). Some released
birds survived but have not produced chicks; we do not have information
concerning the status of most of the released birds at these locations
(Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468). Within the South Pacific coast
region, over 75 scarlet macaws have been released into the wild with
close to 90 percent survival rate (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018,
unpaginated). This reintroduction program has ceased because a viable
population has been established that is large enough to potentially
connect with populations in the ACOSA that are farther north along the
coast (Ara Project 2018, unpaginated; Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018,
unpaginated).
Releases of captive scarlet macaws could increase the wild
populations because many of the reintroduced captive-raised and
confiscated birds are released adjacent to existing populations or at
least within the range that scarlet macaws are known to disperse. Some
of the released birds have adapted to surviving in the wild by finding
mates, food, and nesting resources. Conversely, releases of captive
scarlet macaws could potentially pose a threat to wild populations by
exposing wild birds to diseases for which wild populations have no
resistance (Dear et al. 2010, p. 20; Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75; also see
IUCN 2013, pp. 15-17). But generally speaking, disease risks are small
because the probable frequency of occurrence is low (see Factor C
discussion in 77 FR 40237-40238; July 6, 2012).
The population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS is estimated
to range between 1,000 and 2,000 birds (see table 1, above).
Information indicates that the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations in Costa
Rica, which make up the bulk of the northern DPS of scarlet macaw, are
at least stable and likely increasing. The population appears to be
expanding into suitable habitat along the Pacific slope between the
ACOPAC and ACOSA populations. With regular sightings of scarlet macaws
between the two populations, the scarlet macaw is basically continuous
from the Osa Peninsula (ACOSA population) to Carara National Park
(ACOPAC population) (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 13). While
poaching, deforestation, small population size, and inadequate
enforcement of existing protections continue to affect the species,
because the population is increasing and expanding in its range between
the two populations, it is reasonable to conclude that the Costa Rica
portion of scarlet macaw is not currently in danger of extinction and
does not meet the definition of an ``endangered species'' under the
Act. However, we expect that the threats will continue and put the
Costa Rica portion in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Because we reached a negative answer with respect to the status of the
scarlet macaws in the northern DPS in Costa Rica meeting the definition
of an endangered species, we do not need to evaluate whether the Costa
Rica portion of the northern DPS is significant.
Analysis of the Mainland Panama Portion
The best available information on distribution and abundance
indicates that there are very few scarlet macaws on mainland Panama.
The current population on mainland Panama is estimated to be fewer than
25 birds that occur in two areas, in northwest Panama in the upper
R[iacute]o Corot[uacute] near Puerto Armuelles and Quer[eacute]valo in
the Chiriqu[iacute] province, and on the southern end of the Azuero
Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park, Tonosi Forest
Reserve, and farther to the east. In the area of the upper R[iacute]o
Corot[uacute] near Puerto Armuelles and Quer[eacute]valo in the
Chiriqu[iacute] province, there have been sporadic sightings of scarlet
macaws. However, it is uncertain if the birds in northwest Panama are a
wild population or birds dispersing south from a reintroduction program
at Tiskita, Costa Rica, that have successfully established in the area
because of the program.
Deforestation in Panama is relatively low for the Mesoamerica
region; the annual decrease during 1990-2015 was 169 km\2\ (65 mi\2\ or
0.4 percent) (FAO 2015, p. 12). Drivers of deforestation include
urbanization, cattle ranching, agro-industrial development, unregulated
shifting cultivation, open mining, poor logging practices, charcoal-
making, and fire (ITTO 2005, in Blaser et al. 2011, p. 354).
Deforestation in the country currently occurs primarily in the Darien,
Colon, Ngabe Bugle, and Bocas del Toro provinces (Blaser et al. 2011,
p. 354), which are outside the scarlet macaw's range in Panama.
However, illegal logging is widespread in humid forests throughout
Panama, even in protected areas (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 361). We are
unaware of information indicating that deforestation and forest
degradation are impacting scarlet macaws in northwest Panama. We are
also unaware of information indicating that deforestation is occurring
near the small but unknown number of scarlet macaws on the southern end
of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park and
in the forest reserves just to the east. Less than 15 percent of the
peninsula is covered by mature forest, but most of the remaining forest
can be found in Cerro Hoya National Park and the Tronosa Forest Reserve
to the east (Miller et al. 2015, p. 1).
Little information is available on collection of scarlet macaws in
Panama, although it was a factor leading to the extremely low
population size of the species from the country (McReynolds 2016, in
litt. unpaginated). Cerro Hoya National Park is located on the southern
tip of the Azuero Peninsula within Panama's most impoverished province
(Veraguas) and the Los Santos province. Collection of wildlife
(including scarlet macaws) is a threat in this area because locals use
unoccupied lands for logging and to collect wildlife for sustenance and
income. Poaching of wildlife is common in rural areas (Government of
Panama 2005, p. 36; Parker et al. 2004, p. II-6). Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that some level of poaching of scarlet macaws
likely occurs in the country, although at what level is unknown.
Because the species is vulnerable to overexploitation based on their
life-history traits, poaching individuals from such a small population
would impact the population's viability. Moreover, despite a program to
use captive scarlet macaw feathers to cut down on hunting of wild birds
for their feathers, hunting still occurs, and collecting chicks for
pets remains a concern at Cerro Hoya National Park (Rodriquez and
Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated).
The National Environment Authority is the primary government
institution for forest and biodiversity conservation and management. To
protect and regulate the use of wildlife, flora and fauna, the
Panamanian Government has created numerous laws, including Wildlife Law
24 that establishes wildlife as part of the natural heritage of Panama
and provides for protection, restoration, research, management and
development of the country's genetic resources, including rare species;
the General Law
[[Page 19557]]
on the Environment (41), which establishes the basic principles and
norms for the protection, conservation, and restoration of the
environment and promotes the sustainable use of natural resources; and
the National System of Protected Areas (Parker et al. 2004, p. III-2;
Blaser et al. 2011, p. 355). However, the National Environment
Authority has limited capacity and resources to ensure adherence to
forest-related laws and regulations (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 361).
Overall, deforestation is a threat to forests in Panama, primarily
occurring in areas outside of the scarlet macaw's range. Illegal and
small-scale subsistence logging is ongoing with little oversight and
causes forest degradation. However, we are unaware of deforestation
affecting the northern DPS on mainland Panama. Poaching was not
identified as a main threat to biodiversity in Cerro Hoya National Park
(Parker et al. 2004, Annex G, unpaginated), but poaching is common in
rural areas and collection of scarlet macaws within the park and in
rural areas is likely ongoing. The threats of habitat loss and
collection are not geographically concentrated in Panama and are not
occurring at a different rate or on an increased trajectory compared to
the other parts of the range within the northern DPS. The scarlet macaw
exists on mainland Panama in two areas with an extremely small overall
population size (less than 25 birds). The scarlet macaw's life history
traits limit the species' ability to recover, particularly when
individuals are removed from the wild year after year. The loss of
individuals in the wild coupled with any loss of habitat that removes
large trees that provide resources for nesting and food are threats to
the species' viability in Panama. Therefore, because of the very small
population size and ongoing threats, we conclude that the northern DPS
is in danger of extinction in the Panama portion.
Because we concluded that the northern DPS is in danger of
extinction in the Panama portion, we next proceed to evaluating whether
this portion of the range is significant. To determine whether a
portion is ``significant,'' we considered how the portion contributes
to the viability of the species. There are multiple ways in which a
portion of the species' range could contribute to the viability of a
species, including (but not limited to) by serving a particular role in
the life history of the species (such as the breeding grounds or food
source for the species), by including high-quality or unique-value
habitat relative to the rest of the habitat in the range, or by
representing a large percentage of the range.
The scarlet macaw occurs in two areas in Panama, although it is
uncertain if the birds that occur in the western border region of Costa
Rica and Panama are wild or the reintroduced birds dispersing south
from Tiskita, Costa Rica. The total range of where scarlet macaws occur
in Panama is unknown, but the best available information indicates the
size of the portion is very small and not a large percentage of the
northern DPS's range.
The total population of scarlet macaws on mainland Panama
represents only about 1 percent of the total population of the northern
DPS. The populations in Panama are not biologically or genetically
unique from other populations in the northern DPS. We are not currently
aware of any life-history functions that the Panama portion is
contributing meaningfully to the northern DPS' overall resiliency and
representation, within the context of a ``significant portion of its
range'' analysis. For example, there is no information that the very
small population in Panama is serving as a source population for the
northern DPS. The northern DPS contains similar ecosystems across its
range--lowland tropical habitats bounded by highlands or the Pacific
Ocean. Scarlet macaws are dependent on larger, older trees that have
large nesting cavities, forage primarily in the forest canopy, and are
relatively general in their feeding habits. The best available
information does not indicate that forests where scarlet macaws occur
in Panama are higher quality or provide high value relative to the
remaining portions of the range in the northern DPS.
Genetically, the populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica,
mainland Panama, and in Colombia west of the Andes Mountains were
determined to be a spatially discrete group within the broader lineage
of Ara macao (Schmidt 2013, p. 49; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744). The
populations we included in the northern DPS are those same populations.
Thus, there is no information that the scarlet macaws in Panama are
genetically or biologically unique from the rest of the northern DPS.
Overall, this portion by itself will have only a minimal impact on the
viability of the northern DPS, and therefore, cannot be significant and
cannot be the basis for listing the entire northern DPS as endangered.
Therefore, having found that the Panama portion is in danger of
extinction, but the portion is not significant, the Panama portion is
not a significant portion of the northern DPS' range because both
factors must be true.
Analysis of the Colombia Portion
Scarlet macaws historically occurred in northwest Colombia in the
tropical zone of the Caribbean region, and the inter-Andean valleys,
the largest of which are the Magdalena and Cauca River valleys (Salaman
et al. 2009, p. 21; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, p.
407). The species' range was reported from eastern Cartagena to the low
Magdalena Valley, southward to southeast C[oacute]rdoba, and the middle
Magdalena Valley (Hilty and Brown (1986, p. 200). However, the scarlet
macaw has been reported as probably close to extinction in the
Magdalena and Cauca River valleys, and north (Donegan 2013, in litt.;
Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60); few sightings have been
reported. Scarlet macaws may occur in very low numbers in the more
remote and inaccessible parts of the region, but their status there is
not clear. We are unaware of any other detailed information on the
numbers, distribution, or status of the scarlet macaw in northwest
Colombia.
The primary factors affecting the northern DPS in northwest
Colombia are habitat loss, and to a lesser extent trade (Donegan 2013,
in litt., unpaginated). Deforestation is ongoing in northwest Colombia
with few large tracts of forest remaining within the historical range
of the scarlet macaw (Ortega and Lagos 2011, p. 82; Salaman et al.
2009, p. 21; Colombia Gold Letter 2012, pp. 1-2). Forest loss is due
primarily to conversion of land to pasture and agriculture, but also
mining, illicit crops, and logging (Ortega and Lagos 2011, pp. 85-86).
Colombia has lost forest at a steady rate over a 25-year period, 1990-
2015 (FAO 2015, p. 10). The Magdalena and Caribbean regions had
approximately only 7 percent and 23 percent (respectively) of their
land area in original vegetation, with the remainder converted
primarily to grazing land (79 percent and 68 percent, respectively)
(Etter et al. 2006, p. 376). The Magdalena region lost 40 percent of
its forest cover between 1970 and 1990, and an additional 15 percent
between 1990 and 1996 (Restrepo & Syvitski 2006, pp. 69, 72). Within
the Caribbean region, protected areas and sanctuaries have lost up to
70 percent of forest cover since they were created in the late 1970s
and early 1980s (Miller et al. 2004, p. 454).
The threat of habitat loss is not geographically concentrated in
Colombia or occurring at a different rate or on an increased trajectory
compared to the other parts of the range within the
[[Page 19558]]
northern DPS. Collection for the pet trade occurs throughout the range
of the northern DPS, but collection is not geographically concentrated
in Colombia or occurring at a different scale from any other portion in
the northern DPS. All indications suggest that the scarlet macaw's
population in northwest Colombia is very small and has been
significantly reduced from its historical range in the larger inter-
Andean River valleys. With ongoing deforestation that removes the
species' habitat for nesting and foraging, viability of a very small
population is likely minimal, particularly because the species' life-
history traits limit the rate of recovery from loss of wild
populations. Therefore, we conclude that the northern DPS is in danger
of extinction in the Colombia portion of the species' range of the
northern DPS.
Because we conclude that the northern DPS is in danger of
extinction in the Colombia portion, we next proceed to evaluating
whether this portion of the range is significant. As explained above,
to determine whether a portion was ``significant,'' we considered how
the portion contributes to the viability of the northern DPS. The
population is reported to be near extirpation from northwest Colombia,
but a few individuals may possibly occur in more remote and
inaccessible areas of the region. The total range of where scarlet
macaws occur in Colombia is unknown, but the best available information
indicates the size of the portion is very small and not a large
percentage of the northern DPS's range. Additionally, all indications
suggest the population is very small and likely represents a minimal
proportion of the total population of the northern DPS.
The population in Colombia is not biologically or genetically
unique from other populations in the northern DPS. We are not currently
aware of any life-history functions that the Colombia portion is
contributing meaningfully to the northern DPS' overall resiliency and
representation, within the context of a ``significant portion of its
range'' analysis. For example, there is no information that the very
small but unknown population in Colombia is serving as a source
population for the northern DPS. The northern DPS contains similar
ecosystems across its range--lowland tropical habitats bounded by
highlands and/or the Pacific Ocean. Scarlet macaws are dependent on
larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities, forage primarily
in the forest canopy, and are relatively general in their feeding
habits. The best available information does not indicate that forests
where scarlet macaws occur in northwest Colombia are higher quality or
provide high value relative to the remaining portions of the range in
the northern DPS.
Genetically, the populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica,
mainland Panama, and in Colombia west of the Andes Mountains were
determined to be a spatially discrete group within the broader lineage
of Ara macao (Schmidt 2013, p. 49; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744). The
populations we included in the northern DPS are those same populations.
Thus, there is no information that the scarlet macaws in Colombia are
genetically or biologically unique from the rest of the northern DPS.
Overall, this portion by itself will have only a minimal impact on the
viability of the northern DPS, and therefore, cannot be significant and
cannot be the basis for listing the entire northern DPS as endangered.
Therefore, having found that the Colombia portion may be in danger of
extinction, but the portion is not significant, the Colombia portion of
the northern DPS' range is not a significant portion because both
factors must be true.
Analysis of the Panama and Colombia Portions Combined
Having determined that neither the Panama nor the Colombia portions
are significant portions of the northern DPS's range, we considered
whether the Panama and Columbia portions combined might be a
significant portion of the range of the scarlet macaw in the northern
DPS that is endangered. The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS may be in
danger of extinction in that combined portion because of ongoing
threats of deforestation that removes the species' habitat for nesting
and foraging, as well as collection for the pet trade. Viability of
very small populations in Panama and Colombia is likely minimal,
particularly because the species' life-history traits limit the rate of
recovery from loss of wild populations. Therefore, we conclude that the
scarlet macaw in the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in this
portion of the northern DPS. However, even taken together, this
combined portion is not significant because the populations are very
small, they do not account for a large percentage of the range, and
this portion is not biologically or genetically unique from the rest of
the northern DPS. Panama and Colombia taken together will have only a
minimal impact on the viability of the scarlet macaw in the northern
DPS, and therefore, cannot be significant and cannot be the basis for
listing the entire northern DPS as endangered. Thus, having found that
the portion is in danger of extinction, but the portion is not
significant, the portion of the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS's
range combining Panama and Colombia together is not a significant
portion because both factors must be true.
The analysis of the Panama portion, Colombia portion, and the
portion that combines Panama and Colombia together, does not conflict
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017), because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the
aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of
``significant,'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.
Conclusion
In the document announcing that we were reexamining the
``significant portion of the range'' analysis for the northern DPS of
the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw, we stated that we would
reconsider our analysis based on the plain language of the Act and the
implications of Everson (87 FR 66093; November 2, 2022). If the
analysis determined that there are no significant portions of the range
for the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw, the
``significant portion of its range'' analysis ends the process. If the
analysis determined that one or more significant portions of the range
exist but do not warrant endangered status, the ``significant portion
of its range'' analysis also ends the process. However, if the analysis
found one or more significant portions of the range and found the
northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw should be
listed as endangered instead of threatened, we would submit a proposed
rule to the Federal Register by March 28, 2024, seeking public comment
on the proposed reclassification of the northern DPS of the southern
subspecies of scarlet macaw.
In this analysis of the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of
scarlet macaw, we assessed four portions within the DPS: the Pacific
slope of Costa Rica, Mainland Panama, and Colombia west of the Andes,
and Panama and Colombia combined. We concluded that none of the
portions in the northern DPS are both in danger of extinction and
significant. The Costa Rica population is not in danger of extinction;
therefore, we did not need to address its significance. For the Panama
population and Colombia population, it is reasonable to conclude that
each of
[[Page 19559]]
these portions may be in danger of extinction; however, neither of
these portions of the range are significant. Similarly, combining the
Panama and Colombia populations, we concluded this portion may be in
danger of extinction; however, this portion of the range is not
significant. Having completed the ``significant portion of its range''
analysis for the northern DPS and determined that the northern DPS is
not in danger of extinction in any significant portion of its range, we
do not propose to revise the current status of the southern subspecies
of scarlet macaw in the northern DPS. Therefore, we affirm the listing
of the scarlet macaw as set forth in the 2019 rule.
Author
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Branch of Delisting and Foreign
Species.
Authority
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-06723 Filed 3-30-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P