[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20302-20316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07492]
[[Page 20302]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039; 4500030115]
RIN 1018-AY39
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
Scarlet Macaw
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), notify the
public that, based on new information, we are making changes to our
proposed rule of July 6, 2012, to list as endangered the northern
subspecies of scarlet macaw (Ara macao cyanoptera) and the northern
distinct vertebrate population segment (DPS) of the southern subspecies
(A. m. macao). We are also reopening the comment period. Comments
previously submitted will be considered and do not need to be
resubmitted. However, we invite comments on the new information
presented in this document relevant to our consideration of the changes
described below. We encourage those who may have commented previously
to submit additional comments, if appropriate, in light of this new
information.
DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published July 6, 2012
(77 FR 40222) is reopened. We will accept comments received on or
before June 6, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-
2012-0039.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: [FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039]; Division of Policy, Performance, and
Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS:ES, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone
703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (ESA or Act), based on new information and
information overlooked in the development of our July 6, 2012 (77 FR
40222), proposed rule (``2012 Proposed Rule''), we are: (1) Revising
the location of what we consider to be the boundary between the two
subspecies of A. macao; (2) providing additional information on the
species in northeast Costa Rica, southeast Nicaragua, and Panama, and
reevaluating the status of A. m. cyanoptera; (3) providing additional
information on the northern DPS of A. m. macao, reevaluating the status
of this DPS, and revising our proposed listing of this DPS from
endangered status to threatened status; (4) adding a proposal to treat
the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. macao and
A. m. cyanoptera) as threatened based on similarity of appearance to A.
m. cyanoptera and to the northern DPS of A. m. macao; and (5) adding a
proposed rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act to define the
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to scarlet macaws listed as
threatened.
Public Comments
Our intent is to use the best available scientific and commercial
data as the foundation for all endangered and threatened species
classification decisions. Further, we want any final rule resulting
from this proposal to be as effective as possible. Therefore, we invite
range countries, tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments
regarding our 2012 Proposed Rule and the changes we present in this
revised proposed rule. Comments should be as specific as possible.
Before issuing a final rule to implement this proposed action, we
will take into account all comments and any additional information we
receive. Comments previously submitted will be considered and do not
need to be resubmitted. Such communications may lead to a final rule
that differs from our proposal. For example, new information provided
may lead to a threatened status instead of an endangered status, an
endangered status instead of a threatened status, or we may determine
the entity may not warrant listing based on new information.
Additionally, new information may lead to revisions to the proposed
4(d) rule and/or our proposed similarity of appearance finding. All
comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us,
will become part of the administrative record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning our changes
to the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES.
Comments must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59
p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Headquarters Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Information Requested
We intend that any final actions resulting from this revised
proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data
available. Therefore, we request comments or information from other
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, or any other
interested parties concerning this revised proposed rule. We
particularly seek clarifying information concerning:
(1) New information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection
and trends, diet, and population abundance and trends specific to the
northern DPS of A. m. macao and the northwest Columbia population.
(2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land
uses on the distribution and abundance of this species in northwest
Colombia.
(3) Additional information pertaining to the northwest Colombia
population, including any information on whether this population
constitutes an SPR of the northern DPS of A. m. macao.
Additionally, we invite range countries, tribal and governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested
parties to
[[Page 20303]]
submit comments regarding the revisions to our 2012 Proposed Rule as
follows:
(4) Revision of the status of the northern DPS of Ara macao macao
from endangered to threatened;
(5) Addition of the proposed similarity of appearance listing of
the for the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m.
macao and A. m. cyanoptera);
(6) Our 2012 Proposed Rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act that
define the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to scarlet macaws
listed as threatened and, unless a permit for otherwise prohibited
activities is obtained under 50 CFR 17.52, to scarlet macaw subspecies
crosses and the southern DPS of A. m. macao treated as threatened under
the similarity-of-appearance provisions of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
Comment Period Extension
During the public comment period for our 2012 Proposed Rule, we
received several requests from the public for extension of the comment
period. For this reason, and because we are amending our 2012 Proposed
Rule, we are reopening the comment period on this proposed rule for 60
days.
Requests for Separate Listing of Captive Macaws
During the public comment period, several commenters requested that
the Service list the captive populations of the scarlet macaw in the
United States by either (1) listing them as a distinct population
segment (DPS), or (2) assigning them a separate listing status. In
similar situations involving the agency's response to petitions to list
all chimpanzees as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act or ESA) (78 FR 35201, June 12, 2013) and to delist U.S.
Captive Populations of the Scimitar-horned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and
Addax (78 FR 33790, June 5, 2013), we have considered the
appropriateness of assigning captive-held animals a separate legal
status from their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive
state, including through designation as a DPS. For the same reasons
stated in those previous actions, we find that it would not be
appropriate to differentiate the legal status of captive-held animals
of scarlet macaw from those in the wild. We find that the ESA does not
allow for captive-held animals to be assigned separate legal status
from their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state,
including through designation as a DPS. In analyzing threats to a
species, we focus our analyses on threats acting upon wild specimens,
generally those within the native range of the species, because the
goal of the Act is survival and recovery of endangered and threatened
species and the ecosystems on which they depend. For more information,
see our 12-month findings on a petition to delist three antelope
species (78 FR 33790; June 5, 2013) and a petition to list chimpanzees
(78 FR 35201; June 12, 2013).
Proposed Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act
During the public comment period of the 2012 Proposed Rule, several
commenters requested we propose a rule under section 4(d) of the Act
addressing interstate commerce of scarlet macaws. See Proposed 4(d)
Rule below.
Previous Federal Actions
On July 6, 2012, we published in the Federal Register a combined
12-month finding and proposed rule on a petition to list the scarlet
macaw as threatened or endangered under the Act (77 FR 40222). In that
proposed rule, we proposed listing the northern subspecies of scarlet
macaw, Ara macao cyanoptera, found in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and
Nicaragua, as endangered. We identified two DPSs of the southern
subspecies: the northern DPS of A. m. macao, found in Costa Rica,
Panama, and northern Columbia, and the southern DPS of A. m. macao,
found in southern Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guyana,
Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. We proposed listing the northern
DPS of A. m. macao as endangered, and determined that listing the
southern DPS of A. m. macao as endangered or threatened was not
warranted. The 2012 Proposed Rule had a 60-day comment period, ending
September 4, 2012. We received no requests for a public hearing on the
2012 Proposed Rule; therefore, no public hearings were held.
Substantive Changes to the Proposed Rule
Based on new information, some received from peer reviewers, we are
proposing to make five substantive changes to our 2012 Proposed Rule.
Specifically, we are: (1) Revising the location of what we consider to
be the boundary between the northern subspecies, A. m. cyanoptera, and
the northern DPS of the southern subspecies, A. m. macao; (2) providing
additional information on A. m. cyanoptera in northeast Costa Rica,
southeast Nicaragua, and Panama, and reevaluating the status of the
subspecies; (3) providing additional information on the northern DPS of
A. m. macao, reevaluating the status of this DPS, and revising our
proposed listing of this DPS from endangered status to threatened
status; (4) adding a proposal to treat the southern DPS of A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened
based on similarity of appearance to A. m. cyanoptera and to the
northern DPS of A. m. macao; and (5) adding a proposal under section
4(d) of the Act to define activities that are necessary and advisable
for the conservation of scarlet macaws listed as threatened and crosses
of the two scarlet macaw subspecies. See Figure 1, below, for a visual
representation of these revisions. In this document, we focus our
discussion on information we received that could potentially change our
status determination for one or more of the entities evaluated in our
proposed rule. For additional information on the biology and status of
scarlet macaws, see our July 6, 2012, 12-month finding and proposed
rule (77 FR 40222). In our final rule, we will address other comments
and information, such as information we received that supports or
clarifies information contained in our 2012 Proposed Rule.
[[Page 20304]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AP16.039
1. Consideration of Scarlet Macaws in the Pet Trade
In analyzing the status of the scarlet macaw, we consider to what
extent, if any, captive individuals contribute to the viability of the
species within its native range in the wild. Many scarlet macaws are
held as pets or captive bred for the pet trade. It has been suggested
that scarlet macaws captive-bred for the pet trade contribute to the
conservation of the species in the wild by reducing demand on wild
populations for pets and, therefore, the number of individuals poached
from the wild (Fischer 2004, entire). However, the effect of legal
wildlife trade on market demand and wild populations is a complex
phenomenon influenced by a variety of factors (Bulte and Damania 2005,
entire; Fischer 2004, entire) and we are not aware of any evidence
indicating that scarlet macaws captive-bred for the pet trade currently
benefit wild populations.
It has also been suggested that pet scarlet macaws and scarlet
macaws captive-bred for the pet trade provide a safety net for the
species by potentially providing a source of birds for reintroduction
to the wild. However, pet scarlet macaws are poor candidates for re-
introduction programs because those bred for the pet trade are bred
with little regard for genetics and include an unknown number of
subspecies crosses (Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75), pets socialized with
humans fail to act appropriately with wild individuals when released,
and individuals held as pets may pose a disease risk to wild
populations (Brightsmith et al 2005, p. 471). We are not aware of any
evidence indicating that release of pet or pet-trade scarlet macaws
benefit wild populations. For additional information regarding our
evaluation of reintroduction efforts, see Reintroduction Efforts (under
Additional Information on Subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and Additional
Information on the Northern DPS of A. m. macao, below).
As indicated above, we are not aware of any information indicating
that scarlet macaws held as pets or captive-bred for the pet trade
contribute to the conservation of the species in the wild. Therefore,
we do not consider them further in our assessment of species status,
except when assigning status to subspecies crosses (see 7. Adding a
proposal to treat the Southern DPS of A. m. macao and Interspecific
Crosses as Threatened Based on Similarity of Appearance).
2. Revising the Boundary Between Subspecies and Reaffirming DPSs
Revising the Boundary Between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we considered the boundary of the
subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao to be the general border
region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, based on information from
Wiedenfeld (1994, entire) and Schmidt and Amato (2008, pp. 135-138).
Brightsmith (2012, http://www.regulations.gov: Docket number FWS-R9-ES-
2012-0039 #0066) provided additional information on scarlet macaws in
northeast Costa Rica, but stated that it was unknown whether these
birds belong to the subspecies A.
[[Page 20305]]
m. cyanoptera or A. m. macao. However, Schmidt (2013, entire) provides
new range-wide genetic information on the species. Consequently, we
reexamined information on the distribution of the two scarlet macaw
subspecies.
As indicated in our proposed rule, morphological evidence presented
by Wiedenfeld (1994, entire) suggests southern Nicaragua and northern
Costa Rica represent a transition zone between scarlet macaw
subspecies. However, according to Schmidt (2013, p. 52), distribution
of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes shows a general pattern of geographic
segregation rather than co-occurrence; cyanoptera and macao lineages
segregate at the central highlands of Costa Rica and patterns within
the mitochondrial data argue against hybridization between the
subspecies. Based on an evaluation of the specimens analyzed by
Wiedenfeld, Schmidt (2013, pp. 55-56) indicates that although
Wiedenfeld observed a cline in morphological traits across scarlet
macaw populations in lower Central America, limited and potentially
biased sampling may have exaggerated the degree of phenotypic
differentiation Wiedenfeld observed.
In addition to a pattern of geographic separation on the mainland,
Schmidt (2013, pp. 69-73) found that genetic results from Isla Coiba
(off the Pacific coast of Panama) are inconsistent with the broader
phylogeographic patterns of diversity in the species. Four of five
specimens from Isla Coiba carry a mitochondrial DNA haplotype
characteristic of A. m. cyanoptera, whereas only one carries the
expected haplogroup characteristic of A. m. macao. Schmidt discusses
possible reasons for this inconsistency including the possibility that
the origin of the four specimens were mislabeled or that Isla Coiba
represents a biogeographic anomaly. According to Schmidt, one of the
aberrant cyanoptera specimens (collected by Witmore) should be
considered reliable and Schmidt's genetic results suggest the other
three aberrant cyanoptera specimens (collected by Batty) were collected
from the same location as the Witmore specimen. Based on an assessment
by Olson (2008, in Schmidt 2013, pp. 71-72) of the collection trips
made by Batty in the Veragua Archipelago, Schmidt concludes that the
specimen carrying the A. macao macao haplotype likely originated on
mainland Panama. Thus, Schmidt's results suggest that Isla Coiba
represents a biogeographic anomaly, i.e. that scarlet macaws on the
island carry a cyanoptera haplotype rather than the expected macao
haplotype.
Schmidt (2013) represents the only spatial analysis of scarlet
macaw genetic variation across the historical geographic range of the
species, and we consider Schmidt to be the best available information
on subspecies range. Based on the results of Schmidt, the mainland
Central America boundary between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao, is
the central mountain range of Costa Rica, with A. m. cyanoptera found
on the Atlantic (eastern) slope of the country and A. m. macao on the
Pacific (western) slope. In addition, scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba are
likely to be the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera. Therefore, in the absence
of new information indicating otherwise, for the purposes of this rule,
we now consider scarlet macaws in Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua,
Honduras, the eastern (Caribbean) slope of Costa Rica, and Isla Coiba,
Panama to be A. m. cyanoptera. Consequently, we consider new
information provided on scarlet macaws in northeast Costa Rica and on
Isla Coiba to pertain to the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera. Consistent
with the mainland boundary revision, we consider birds on the western
slope of Costa Rica and southward through the remainder of the species'
range to be A. m. macao.
In sum, in this revised proposed rule, we revise what we consider
to be the boundary between the two subspecies of scarlet macaw, from
the previously proposed boundary in the general border region of Costa
Rica and Nicaragua, to the revised boundary of the central highlands of
Costa Rica (See Figure 2, below, for a visual representation of the
revised proposed boundary between the two subspecies), with an
anomalous population of A. m. cyanoptera on Isla Coiba.
[[Page 20306]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07AP16.040
Reaffirming A. m. macao DPSs
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that listing the whole
southern subspecies, A. m. macao, was not warranted under the ESA. As a
result of this finding, we then considered whether any population
segment within the subspecies constituted a DPS based on our 1996 DPS
policy (see 61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996). In our proposed rule,
we determined that two population segments of A. m. macao met our
definitions of a DPS (See Northern DPS of A. m. macao: Distinct
Population Segment, and Southern DPS of A. m. macao: Distinct
Population Segment, below): A. m. macao north and west of the Andes
(scarlet macaws in Costa Rica, Panama, and northwest Colombia), and A.
m. macao south and east of the Andes (scarlet macaws in southeast
Colombia and the remainder of the species' range in South America).
During the public comment period, we received no additional information
regarding our conclusion that the Andes represented the boundary
between the two population segments or our conclusions that they were
valid DPSs based on our DPS policy. Further, the results of Schmidt
(2013, pp. 61-62) reaffirm genetic segregation of the two DPSs at the
Andes. Therefore, the boundary between the two A. m. macao DPSs, and
the range of the southern DPS, remains unchanged from that described in
our 2012 Proposed Rule (See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the
border between the northern and southern DPS of A. m. macao).
In this revised proposed rule, we reaffirm our previous DPS
determinations. Although the area considered to be the northern DPS of
A. m. macao has changed slightly due to the exclusion of northeast
Costa Rica and Isla Coiba (Panama) from the DPS, on re-examination of
our July 6, 2012 DPS analysis, we conclude that our previous analysis
remains valid despite the slight boundary change because (1) both DPSs
are discrete as a result of genetic and geographic separation at the
Andes, and (2) both DPSs are also significant, because the loss of
either would result in a significant gap in the subspecies' range as
described in the DPS analysis in our proposed rule. Therefore, both are
valid DPSs based on our DPS policy.
3. Additional Information on Subspecies A. m. cyanoptera
Eastern Costa Rica-Nicaragua Border
We received additional information from a peer reviewer and
obtained additional information from literature on scarlet macaws in
the eastern border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The eastern
border between the two countries follows the Rio San Juan (San Juan
River), which separates southeast Nicaragua and northeast Costa Rica.
Below we summarize additional information on scarlet macaws in this
region.
Distribution and Trend
Anecdotal evidence on scarlet macaws in northeast Costa Rica
obtained during several years of research on great green macaws (Ara
ambigua) indicates that scarlet macaws
[[Page 20307]]
in this region are increasing in number (Monge et al. 2012, p. 6,
citing Chassot and Monge 2004, and Penard et al. in prep; Brightsmith
2012, http://www.regulations.gov: Docket number FWS-R9-ES-012-0039
#0066). In 2004, Chassot and Monge (2004, pp. 12-13) reported several
groups of scarlet macaws in the Rio San Carlos area close to the
eastern border with Nicaragua, in what is now designated as Maquenque
National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre mixto
Maquenque). These included three groups numbering 18, 12, and 8
individuals. One of these groups was observed flying from Nicaragua
over the Rio San Juan into Costa Rica, indicating the population's
range includes forest on both sides of the border. According to Chassot
and Monge (2004, pp. 12-13), many observations of scarlet macaws had
been made during previous years of research on the great green macaw in
this region, but never of as large a number of individuals.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we reported an estimate of 48-54 scarlet
macaws in Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Costa Rica
based on McReynolds (2011 in litt.) citing Penard et al. (2008).
However, according to a peer reviewer, this estimate is incorrect. The
peer reviewer states that, as a result of the study's methodology, a
population estimate cannot be obtained from the data. The peer reviewer
indicates that, during the study in question, researchers detected 30
groups of scarlet macaws and only 12 groups of great green macaws in
733 kilometers (km) (455 miles) of transects, with as many as 16
different individual scarlet macaws seen on a single transect. The peer
reviewer suggests that, given that transect studies are poor at
detecting rare species and A. macao detections outnumbered those of A.
ambigua in the heart of the latter species' Costa Rican range, the
population of A. macao in this region may number well over 100 birds.
The peer reviewer also states that multiple groups of three or four,
likely representing adults with juveniles, were detected. Finally, the
peer reviewer indicates that the species has recently expanded its
range southward to La Selva Biological Station (approximately 35-40 km
(15-18 miles) south of the Rio San Juan). According to the peer
reviewer, the species was absent from the Station since it was
established in the 1960s (D. McClearn and others as reported to
Brightsmith, in Brightsmith 2012, http://www.regulations.gov: Docket
number FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039 #0066), but has been observed breeding on
adjacent land since the mid-2000s.
During the 2009 macaw breeding season, Monge et al. (2012, entire)
conducted an intensive search for scarlet macaw nests in northeast
Costa Rica and southeast Nicaragua as part of a larger study to
quantify and characterize nests of both scarlet macaw and great green
macaw. Monge et al. (2012, p. 9) found 6 scarlet macaw nests (5 in
Costa Rica, 1 in Nicaragua).
Threats
Information pertaining to the scarlet macaw in relation to the five
factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In
considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond
the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the
species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to
the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only
a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we
then attempt to determine if that factor rises to the level of a
threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk of
extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an
endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act.
This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, one of the main threats to
neotropical parrot species is loss of forest habitat. In northeast
Costa Rica, Landsat TM satellite images from 1987, 1998, and 2005
showed a fragmented landscape with remnants of natural ecosystems. The
annual rate of total deforestation was 0.88 percent for the 1987-1998
period and 0.73 percent for the 1998-2005 period, even considering
recovery of secondary forest (Chassot et al. 2010, p. 37); this equates
to a 15 percent decrease in total forest habitat from 1987 to 2005.
More recently, Fagan et al. (2013, unpaginated) tracked agricultural
expansion from 1986 to 2011 in the region and found a small net gain in
forest cover overall after Costa Rica enacted a ban on forest clearing
in 1996. However, scarlet macaws require substantial nesting cavities
for reproduction; these types of cavities are most often located in
older, larger trees which are found mostly in mature forested habitats.
The authors found that the rate of mature forest loss decreased from
2.2 percent pre-ban to 1.2 percent post-ban. Although the ban seems to
have successfully contributed towards reducing the loss of mature
forest, the expansion of cropland into areas outside of mature forest,
specifically into pastures and secondary forests, have decreased the
reforestation rates. Ultimately, this reduces the total amount of
forest habitat available to the species (Fagan et al. 2013,
unpaginated).
Deforestation is also ongoing in southeast Nicaragua. Southeast
Nicaragua comprises the IMBR and its buffer zone. The reserve covers
306,980 ha (758,560 acres) (Chassot & Monge 2012, p. 63) and is one of
Nicaragua's best preserved forested areas (Ravnborg et al. 2006, p. 2).
However, the reserve is threatened by the growing human population in
or around the reserve, a result of the continuous arrival of families
from other parts of the country into the region in search of cheap land
(Ravnborg 2010, pp. 12-13; Ravnborg et al. 2006, pp. 4-5). Ravnborg
(2010, p. 10) reports that between 1998 and 2005 the population
increased more than 100 percent (from 9,717 to 19,864 individuals) in
the municipality of El Castillo, which is composed entirely of IMBR
buffer zone and core area. According to Fundacion del Rio and the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2011, p. 12),
the municipality has an annual population growth rate of 3.9 percent.
The expansion of African palm plantations, pasture lands, human
settlements, and logging have contributed to an estimated 60 percent
deforestation of the buffer zones surrounding IMBP and these activities
are expanding in the reserve (Fundacion del Rio & IUCN 2011, pp. 7-8;
Ravnborg 2010, pp. 12-13; Nygren 2010, pp. 193-194; Ravnborg et al.
2006, p. 2). Thus, despite the existence of this protected area,
deforestation continues to occur and is a serious threat to
biodiversity in this region (Fundacion del Rio 2012a, pp. 2-3;
Fundacion del Rio 2012b, pp. 2-3; Fundacion del Rio & IUCN 2011, pp.
34, 37, 73-74; Chassot et al. 2006, p. 84).
Forest conservation efforts are ongoing in the Costa Rica-Nicaragua
border region, particularly within Costa Rica's 60,000-hectare
(148,263-ac) San Juan-La Selva Biological Corridor (Chassot & Monge
2012, entire). Although these efforts have resulted in lower
deforestation rates within the
[[Page 20308]]
Corridor (Chassot & Monge 2012, p. 67, citing Chassot et al. 2010a),
both primary and regrowth forest within the Corridor and within the
larger border region of northeast Costa Rica and southeast Nicaragua
continue to be threatened by timber extraction, and agricultural
expansion (Fagan et al. 2013, unpaginated; Chassot & Monge 2012, p. 63;
Chassot & Monge 2011, p. 1; Chassot et al. 2009, p. 9).
As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, another main threat to
neotropical parrot species, in general, is capture for the pet trade.
Little information exists on the level of poaching of scarlet macaws in
this region. However, poaching is recognized as a significant threat to
the species in Nicaragua (77 FR 40235, July 6, 2012). In Nicaragua,
capture of parrots for the pet trade is described as common, with
scarlet macaws one of the most preferred species (77 FR 40235, July 6,
2012), and scarlet macaws are identified as one of the species most
affected by illegal trafficking along the Rio San Juan
(Castell[oacute]n 2008, p. 27). In Costa Rica, poaching is known to
occur at both of the other two populations in the country and is
believed to be occurring at an unsustainable level in the [Aacute]rea
de Conservaci[oacute]n del Pac[iacute]fico Central (Central Pacific
Conservation Area (ACOPAC)) (77 FR 40235-40236, July 6, 2012).
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that poaching of scarlet macaws
occurs in the population on the eastern border between these two
countries, though the extent is unknown.
Isla Coiba
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined ongoing threats to the
Isla Coiba, Panama population to be deforestation, poaching, and small
population size in combination with other threats. We were not aware of
any regulatory mechanisms addressing these threats; therefore, we
concluded that the existing regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to
protect the species. Based on comments from a peer reviewer, we
obtained additional information on this population from additional
experts and literature sources. Below we summarize this information.
Distribution and Trend
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that there were an
estimated 100 scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba (Keller and Schmitt 2008).
This estimate is based upon information obtained by Keller and Schmitt
during discussions with biologists that worked on Coiba (Keller 2012,
in litt.). McReynolds estimated fewer than 200 scarlet macaws in Panama
(77 FR 40227, July 6, 2012), with most of these on Isla Coiba. Angehr
(2012, in litt.), in response to our inquiry regarding the
reasonableness of Coiba estimates, indicates that 100-200 is a
reasonable estimate for the number of scarlet macaws on Coiba. He
further states that there is no reason to believe the population is
currently declining.
Threats
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that some level of
deforestation was occurring on Isla Coiba as a result of trampling and
erosion caused by feral cattle (77 FR 40231, July 6, 2012). New
information indicates that cattle on Coiba may be inhibiting the
regrowth of former pasture to secondary forest, but are probably not
having a significant impact on the larger forest trees on which A. m.
macao depends (Angehr 2012, in litt.). Therefore, it is unlikely that
cattle are currently a threat to the forest resources on which scarlet
macaws depend on the island. As indicated in our proposed rule, cattle
on Coiba are increasing in number and causing at least some level of
deforestation and soil erosion via trampling. As a result, in the
absence of natural or anthropogenic control measures, it is possible
that, with increasing numbers, the feral cattle on Isla Coiba may move
beyond current pasture areas into established forest and become a
threat to scarlet macaw habitat at some time in the future. However, we
are unaware of any information that indicates whether or when, and to
what extent, such an outcome might occur.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that Coiba National Park
and its Special Zone of Marine Protection was inscribed on the World
Heritage List as of 2005. In the 2014 Mission Report by the World
Heritage Committee and IUCN, the Committee makes note to acknowledge
that the Country of Panama has a strategy and is making progress in the
removal of livestock from the property. The report indicates that the
country has made a commitment to have all livestock removed by the end
of 2014 (Douvere & Herrera 2014, unpaginated). However, we are not
aware of any information indicating that the removal of cattle has
occurred.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we indicated that poaching likely occurs
at some level in Panama and that, because the current population is
extremely small and isolated, even low levels of poaching would likely
have a negative effect on the species in Panama. According to Angehr
(2012) and Keller (2012), Panama's Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente
(National Environmental Authority) maintains a ranger station on the
north end of the island, but patrols elsewhere on the island are
probably limited. Keller (2012) indicates that A. macao primarily
occurs on the south end of the island and that poaching ``is a strong
possibility.'' However, Angehr (2012) indicates that, while macaws may
occasionally be illegally captured on the island, he is not aware that
such take is currently a major threat.
Reintroduction Efforts
Additional information indicates that a recent program in Mexico is
working to establish a viable population of A. m. cyanoptera for
recovery purposes in Palenque, Mexico, by releasing captive-bred
scarlet macaws into the wild (Estrada 2014, entire). Releases of
captive scarlet macaws could potentially aid in recolonization of the
macaw population's original range, to the extent that the habitat
within that range remains suitable. 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, invoking behavioral changes in wild macaws that negatively
affect their survival, or compromising the genetic integrity of wild
populations (Dear et al. 2010, p. 20; Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75; also see
IUCN 2013, pp. 15-17). In response to an increasing number of
reintroduction projects involving various species worldwide, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission published guidelines for reintroductions to
help ensure that reintroduction efforts achieve intended conservation
benefits and do not cause adverse side-effects of greater impact (IUCN/
SSC 2013, entire; IUCN/SSC 1998, entire). Additionally, White et al.
(2012, entire) make recommendations specific to parrot reintroductions.
According to Estrada (2014, p. 345), the program in Palenque, Mexico
was designed to align as closely as possible to the IUCN guidelines and
the recommendations made by White et al. So far, the program shows
promise for establishing a viable population of A. m. cyanoptera--96
scarlet macaws were released between April 2013 and June 2014 with a
91% survival rate as of May 2015. In addition, 9 nesting events and
successful use of wild foods by released birds have been observed.
However, while this program shows promise for reintroduction efforts
towards the establishment of viable populations in the future, it is
currently uncertain as to whether this captive-release program has
resulted in conservation benefits to the species at
[[Page 20309]]
present (IUCN/SSC 2013, entire; IUCN/SSC 1998, entire).
4. Reevaluation of Status of A. m. cyanoptera
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that A. m. cyanoptera is
in danger of extinction based on threats to the subspecies in Mexico,
Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and Nicaragua. We indicated that A. m.
cyanoptera occurs in only a few small, isolated populations, and that
deforestation and forest degradation, capture for the pet trade, and
small population size in combination with the cumulative effects of
other threats pose significant threats to A. m. cyanoptera throughout
the subspecies' range in these countries such that A. m. cyanoptera is
in danger of extinction. We determined that the existing regulatory
mechanisms were not adequate to remove or reduce these threats. In the
2012 Proposed Rule, we identified four primary populations in this
region, one each in southeast Mexico, northern Guatemala, and southwest
Belize (hereafter collectively referred to as the Maya Forest region),
and one in the Mosquitia region of Honduras and Nicaragua. As a result
of new information we received and obtained on scarlet macaws in the
eastern border region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and our subsequent
revision of the border between the two subspecies of scarlet macaw such
that we now consider the birds in this border region and on Isla Coiba
to be A. m. cyanoptera, we now reevaluate the status of A. m.
cyanoptera.
Threats acting on A. m. cyanoptera throughout most of the
subspecies' range (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, and Nicaragua)
are severe and immediate (77 FR 40229-40242, July 6, 2012). While
anecdotal observations suggest the population in the eastern border
region of Costa Rica and Nicaragua has increased in recent years and
the population on Isla Coiba is currently stable, both populations
appear to be isolated and the regions in which they occur represent an
extremely small fraction of the subspecies' current range. In addition,
deforestation in the region in which the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border
population occurs is ongoing. Although scarlet macaws are tolerant of
some level of habitat fragmentation or modification, provided
sufficient large trees remain for nesting and feeding requirements,
several studies indicate the species occurs in disturbed or secondary
forest at lower densities (for a summary of these studies, see 77 FR
40224, 40225, July 6, 2012). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that
the extent of increase in the population in this region will likely be
limited due to past and ongoing deforestation in the region. Further,
while the population on Isla Coiba is not currently being negatively
impacted by loss of habitat and may or may not be negatively impacted
by poaching, the population is very small and isolated (Ridgely 1981,
p. 253; McReynolds 2011, in litt.). As indicated in our 2012 Proposed
Rule, small, isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction due to a
variety of factors, including loss of genetic variability, inbreeding
depression, and demographic and environmental stochasticity (77 FR
40239-40240, July 6, 2012; Gilpin & Soule 1986, entire).
Subspecies estimates for each of the A. m. cyanoptera populations
are included in Table 1.
Table 1--Ara Macao Cyanoptera Population Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
Population range Population name estimates Literature cited
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Mexico................ Usamacinto-Southeast < 200 breeding Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 96-97;
Mexico. pairs. Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 52-53.
Guatemala....................... Northern Peten......... 150-250........... McNab 2008, p. 7; Wildlife
Conservation Society Guatemala
2005, in McReynolds 2011, in
litt.; Garcia et al. 2008, pp.
52-53.
Belize.......................... Chiquibul.............. 60-219............ McReynolds 2011, in litt.; Garcia
et al. 2008, pp. 52-53; Schmidt
and Amato 2008, p. 137.
Eastern Honduras, Northeastern Mosquitia.............. Honduras: 1,000- Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 101-102;
Nicaragua. 1,500; Nicaragua: Lezama 2010, in McReynolds 2011,
100-700. in litt.; Feria and de los
Monteros 2007, in McReynolds
2011, in litt.
Southeast Nicaragua Border and Rio San Juan (San Juan- possibly >100..... Brightsmith 2012, in litt.
Northeast Costa Rica. La Selva/San Juan-El
Castillo).
Isla Coiba, Panama.............. Coiba.................. 100-200........... Keller 2012, in litt.; Angehr
2012, in litt.; McReynolds 2011,
in litt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding for the Northern Subspecies A. m. cyanoptera
As discussed in our 2012 Proposed Rule, we conclude that the low
numbers of this subspecies throughout its range, the extreme
fragmentation of its habitat and population throughout its range, and
the substantial threats acting on this subspecies throughout its range
place this subspecies in danger of extinction. Therefore, we reaffirm
our July 6, 2012, finding (77 FR 40222) that A. m. cyanoptera is in
danger of extinction in its entirety.
5. Additional Information on the Northern DPS of A. m. macao
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined the northern DPS of A. m.
macao to be in danger of extinction (endangered). We based our
determination of the status of this DPS on the status of the birds in
Panama and Costa Rica due to the lack of information on the species in
northwest Colombia. We determined ongoing threats to what we then
considered the three remaining known populations of A. m. macao within
the DPS (those at ACOPAC, Costa Rica; Area de Conservaci[oacute]n de
Osa (Osa Conservation Area) (ACOSA), Costa Rica; and Isla Coiba,
Panama) to be poaching, and small population size in combination with
other threats (ACOPAC, ACOSA, and Isla Coiba). We determined that the
existing regulatory mechanisms were not adequate to remove or reduce
these threats. We also determined deforestation to be a threat to the
species on Isla Coiba, Panama. We received two peer reviews of our
proposal. Although one peer reviewer agreed with our determination, the
other questioned our determination to list the northern DPS of A. m.
macao as endangered, and also provided additional information on the
species.
[[Page 20310]]
We also obtained additional information on scarlet macaw status and
threats in this DPS from additional experts and literature sources. As
indicated above, based on new information, we revised the area of this
DPS such that scarlet macaws in the Isla Coiba population of Panama are
no longer considered part of this DPS. Below we summarize the
additional information on what we now consider the northern DPS of A.
m. macao, as explained in Revising the Border Between A. m. cyanoptera
and A. m. macao, above.
Central Pacific Costa Rica
The Central Pacific Costa Rica (ACOPAC) population numbers
approximately 450 birds. According to a peer reviewer, the population
at ACOPAC has been variably increasing and declining but is not in
drastic decline according to the work by Vaughan et al. (2005). As
indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule, Vaughan (2005, p. 127) describes
an increase in the previously declining ACOPAC population after
implementation of intensive anti-poaching efforts in 1995 and 1996, but
also indicates that neither these efforts nor the increasing trend of
the macaw population was sustained. Rather, counts of macaws remained
almost constant from 1996 to 2003. As indicated in our 2012 Proposed
Rule, poaching of wildlife is reported to occur in the area and scarlet
macaws are susceptible to overharvest due to their demographic traits
and naturally low rate of reproduction (77 FR 40235-40236, July 6,
2012). However, Vaughan indicates that the population was stable even
with the level of poaching during that time. As a result, we
specifically request information on the current trend of the ACOPAC
scarlet macaw population.
South Pacific Costa Rica
We received two pieces of anecdotal information on the South
Pacific Costa Rica (ACOSA) scarlet macaw population. One peer reviewer
states that land owners along the south Pacific coast have informed him
that scarlet macaws are being seen more commonly north of the Osa
Peninsula, and it seems as though the species may be spreading north
through this region. In addition, one commenter states that dozens can
be seen on a daily basis on his property at the north end of the Gulfo
Dulce, where 10 years ago, none existed.
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we stated that, ``In ACOSA, Dear et al.
(2010, p. 10) indicate that 85 percent of residents interviewed in 2005
believed scarlet macaws were more abundant than 5 years prior, which
suggests this population may be increasing.'' However, as pointed out
by a peer reviewer, we failed to consider this study in our finding.
For the purposes of reevaluating our July 6, 2012, finding on this DPS,
we provide additional information from Dear et al. (2010, entire)
below.
In 2005, Dear et al. conducted interviews with 105 residents,
representing 30 areas within ACOSA. Based on answers to a series of
questions, scarlet macaws were found to occur throughout the Osa
Peninsula, with the northern limit of the population occurring outside
the peninsula in Playa Pi[ntilde]uelas. The southern mainland limit was
Chacarita (about 15 km (roughly 9 miles) north of Golfito), in ACOSA.
Estimates of the population's size ranged from 800 to 1,200
individuals, and interviewees generally believed that the numbers were
increasing. Of 105 interviews, 89 (85%) believed that scarlet macaws
were more abundant than 5 years prior, 12 interviewees (11%) considered
the population had remained stable, and 4 (4%) thought there were fewer
scarlet macaws. Dear et al. (2010, pp. 17, 20) state that both (1) the
ACOSA population has increased and (2) that the population ``is
currently stable with the distribution thought to be increasing.''
Dear et al. (2010, p. 19) states that although it is believed that
poaching still exists in the region, results suggest incidence of chick
poaching has decreased. Approximately half (48%) of those interviewed
by Dear et al. believed that macaws were still being poached in ACOSA,
and the others stated the activity did not currently occur (52%).
Additionally, 43 percent of the interviewees mentioned that less
poaching activity is occurring now than before, and none said the
activity had increased. Based on interviews and information from park
guards, Dear et al. estimate 25-50 chicks are poached each year. Dear
et al. also state that, although results suggest incidence of chick
poaching has decreased, the activity still occurs.
Northwest Colombia
Distribution and Trend
Hilty and Brown (1986, p. 200) describe the range of scarlet macaw
in northwest Colombia as the northern lowlands from eastern Cartagena
to the low Magdalena Valley, southward to southeast C[oacute]rdoba, and
the middle Magdalena Valley southwest of Santander. The range in
northwest Colombia includes the tropical zone of the Caribbean region,
and the inter-Andean valleys, the largest of which are the Magdalena
and Cuaca River valleys (Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21).
We are not aware of any estimates of the numbers of scarlet macaws
in northwest Colombia. The species is reported as probably close to
extinction in the Magdalena Valley, Cuaca Valley, and north (Donegan
2013, in litt.; Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60). The
species is reported to occur in the more remote and inaccessible
western part of the region, but its status in this area is not clear. A
2009 scientific expedition in the Manso River Forest and Tigre River
floodplain forest within Parque Nacional Natural Paramillo (PNN
Paramillo), reported scarlet macaws as present. A 2004 study of the
perceptions and uses of wild fauna by the Embera-Katios (Katios)
indigenous communities in the San Jorge River Valley within the buffer
zone of PNN Paramillo, reported that the Katios categorized the species
as abundant (Racero et al. 2008, p. 124). However, the authors note
that these indigenous communities recognize only 25 species of birds
(Racero et al. 2008, p. 127), that the richness of the avifauna in this
area is likely greater, and that they (the authors) did not verify the
identification of scarlet macaws in the study area. As a result, given
that the study site is also within the range of the red and green macaw
(Ara chloropterus), which is similar in appearance to the scarlet macaw
(I[ntilde]igo-Elias 2010, unpaginated), some portion of the macaws
characterized as abundant by the Katios could have been red and green
macaws.
Threats
Scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia are believed to be affected
primarily by habitat loss, and to a lesser extent trade (Donegan 2013,
in litt.). Loss of forest habitat in northwest Colombia has been
extensive over the past several decades. The Magdalena and Caribbean
regions have approximately only 7 percent and 23 percent (respectively)
of their land area in original vegetation, with the remainder converted
primarily to grazing land (79% and 68%, 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, Miller et al. (2004) reports that PNN Paramillo (460,000 ha
(1,136,680 ac)), Santuario de Fauna y Flora Los Colorados (Los
Colorados Fauna and Flora Sanctuary) (1,000 ha (2,500 ac)), and Reserva
Forestal de Montes de Maria (Montes Maria Forest Reserve)
[[Page 20311]]
(7,460 ha (18,500 ac)) have lost 42, 71, and 70 percent of their
forest, respectively, since they were created in the late 1970s and
early 1980s.
Deforestation is ongoing in northwest Colombia (Colombia Gold
Report 2012, pp. 1-2; Ortega & Lagos 2011, pp. 81-82). A few large
tracts of forest remain within the range of the scarlet macaw in this
region, and all are deforestation hotspots (Ortega & Lagos 2011, p. 82;
Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21). Forest loss in the region is due primarily
to conversion of land to pasture and agriculture, but also mining,
illicit crops, and logging (Ortega & Lagos 2011, pp. 85-86). Further,
resource management in Colombia is highly decentralized, and
governmental institutions responsible for oversight appear to be
inconsistent throughout the country (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 292-293).
The International Tropical Timber Organization considers the Colombian
forestry sector to be lacking in law enforcement and on-the-ground
control of forest resources, with no specific standards for large-scale
forestry production, no forestry concession policies, and a lack of
transparency in the application of the various laws regulating wildlife
and their habitats (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 292-298). Consequently,
there is currently no effective vehicle for overall coordination of
species management for multijurisdictional species such as macaws.
Therefore, we conclude that deforestation is a significant threat to
the species in this region.
Regarding trade, parrots and macaws in the buffer zone of PNN
Paramillo are often captured by settlers for the regional illegal
markets (Racero 2008, pp. 127-128). We are unaware of any other
information indicating that capture of scarlet macaws for the pet trade
may be a threat to the species in northwest Colombia.
Reintroduction Efforts
According to Dear et al. (2010, pp. 15-17), three scarlet macaw
captive-release programs are located on the mainland coast of Southern
Pacific Costa Rica, 15 to 20 km (9 to 12 miles) across the Gulf (Golfo
Dulce) from the Osa Peninsula and its wild population of scarlet
macaws. These include Santuario Silvestre de Osa (SSO) and Zoo Ave,
which release birds in the Golfito area, and Amogos de las Aves, which
releases birds at Punta Banco (Dear et al. 2010, pp. 15, 17; Forbes
2005, p. 97). SSO receives macaws confiscated from poachers in the
area, and releases them in the area surrounding the sanctuary. The
others receive macaws from all parts of Costa Rica and normally release
only offspring of these confiscated birds, though Zoo Ave released five
confiscated macaws. Macaws from the 3 facilities began to be released
in 1997 and totaled 77 birds--9 released in Punta Banco and 68 in the
Golfito area (Dear et al. 2010, p. 16). According to Dear et al. (2010,
p. 16), of the 77 released birds, 67 are still alive.
The range of birds released at Punta Banco has grown to reach 84
square km (32 square miles) (Dear et al. 2010, p. 17, citing Forbes
2005). According to Dear et al. 2010, (p. 19), the destiny of scarlet
macaws released in the Golfito area is unknown, but wild and
reintroduced populations could be mixing. They further indicate that
reintroduction programs could be either an advantage or disadvantage
for the natural population (see Additional Information on Subspecies A.
m. cyanoptera--Reintroduction Efforts). According to the authors,
releases could potentially aid in recolonization of the macaw
population's original range, to the extent that the habitat within that
range remains suitable. However, if wild and released macaws are in
contact, diseases could be passed to the wild population that may have
no resistance to these diseases. Further, macaws accustomed to humans
could invoke behavioral changes in native scarlet macaws. For instance,
scarlet macaws allowing humans to approach closely could facilitate the
capture of adults.
We are not aware of any information indicating that these three
captive-release programs adhere to the IUCN Species Survival Commission
guidelines for re-introductions, published by IUCN to help ensure that
re-introduction efforts achieve intended conservation benefits and do
not cause adverse side-effects of greater impact (IUCN/SSC 2013,
entire; IUCN/SSC 1998, entire). Nor are we aware that these
reintroduction programs adhere to recommendations of White et al.
(2012, entire) for the reintroduction of parrots. Therefore, because we
are unaware of information indicating that these captive-release
programs are contributing to either the recovery or endangerment of the
DPS, we do not consider these programs or the birds in these programs
to be consequential in evaluating the status of this DPS.
6. Reevaluation of Status of the Northern DPS of A. m. macao
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined the northern DPS of A. m.
macao to be in danger of extinction (``endangered''). We based our
determination of status of this DPS on the status of the birds in
Panama (on Isla Coiba) and Costa Rica (in ACOPAC and ACOSA) due to the
lack of information on the species in northwest Colombia. We determined
ongoing threats to the three remaining populations in Costa Rica and
Panama to be: deforestation (Isla Coiba), poaching, and small
population size in combination with other threats. We found that the
existing regulatory mechanisms were inadequate in addressing these
threats.
Based on our revision of the border between A. m. cyanoptera and A.
m. macao, the northern DPS of A. m. macao no longer includes the
scarlet macaw population on Isla Coiba. The DPS consists of two known
viable scarlet macaw populations in Costa Rica, an unknown number of
birds in northwest Colombia, an isolated group of 10-25 birds in Palo
Verde in northwest Costa Rica (Dear et al. 2010, p. 8), and a few
groups of captive-released birds in a few locations within the Costa
Rica portion of the DPS (Dear et al. 2010, p. 8; Forbes 2005, entire;
Brightsmith et al. 2005, entire). As indicated in our 2012 Proposed
Rule, the Palo Verde group is extremely small, and we are unaware of
any information suggesting that this group represents a self-
sustaining, viable population.
As indicated in our 2012 Proposed Rule and this revised proposed
rule, A. m. macao has been extirpated from mainland Panama and much of
its former range in Costa Rica, and the species has been all but
extirpated from large areas of northwest Colombia. Its remaining
distribution is highly fragmented, consisting of two isolated
populations (ACOPAC and ACOSA) and an unknown number of birds isolated
in northwest Colombia.
The ACOPAC scarlet macaw population numbers approximately 450
birds. As indicated above and in our 2012 Proposed Rule, poaching of
wildlife is reported to occur in this area. Scarlet macaws are one of
the most susceptible species to poaching due to the species' slow rate
of reproduction. However, the population was holding steady even with
the amount of poaching occurring during that time (Vaughan 2005, p.
127). This apparent stability of the population indicates that poaching
may not currently be major threats to this population. However, we
specifically seek additional information on the status of this
population.
The most recent estimate of the ACOSA population, based on
interviews with community members, is about 800-1,200 birds. Although
the majority of residents interviewed indicated that there appeared to
be more macaws in the year 2005 than in the 5 years previous (the year
2000), these results are based on perceptions of scarlet
[[Page 20312]]
macaw abundance at two points in time over a limited time period (2000
versus 2005). Thus, although scarlet macaws appeared to be more
abundant in 2005 than in 2000, whether this conclusion reflects an
increasing population trend is unknown. For this reason, we consider
the results of Dear et al. to indicate that the ACOSA scarlet macaw
population is currently stable and that the distribution is increasing
(Dear et al. 2010, p. 20). Although poaching of scarlet macaw chicks is
known to occur in the region, the apparent stability of the population
suggests poaching is not currently having a negative impact.
The number of scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia is unknown, but
habitat loss has caused the decline of the species there, such that the
species has been all but extirpated from large areas in the region.
Much of northwest Colombia has been deforested. Large tracts of forest
remain, for instance, in the areas of Serrania de San Lucas and PNN
Paramillo. However, deforestation in the region is expected to
continue. According to Gonzales et al. (2011, p. 45), the Caribbean
region of northwest Colombia showed the highest projected rate of
change of forest cover for the year 2030 of all regions evaluated.
Because deforestation has resulted in the near extirpation of the
species from large areas of northwest Colombia and deforestation is
projected to continue within the species' range in this region, it is
reasonable to conclude that deforestation is a significant threat to
the species in northwest Colombia. Table 2 includes the most recent
estimated population densities for the northern DPS of A. m. macao.
Table 2--Ara Macao Macao (Northern DPS) Population Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
Population range Population name estimates Literature cited
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costa Rica...................... Costa Rica's Central ~450.............. Arias et al. 2008, in McReynolds
Pacific Conservation 2011, in litt.
Area (ACOPAC).
Costa Rica...................... Costa Rica's Osa 800-1,200......... Dear et al. 2005 and Guzman 2008,
Conservation Area in McReynolds 2011, in litt.
(ACOSA).
Northwest Colombia.............. Northwest Colombia..... ~unknown~......... Donegan 2013, in litt.; Ellery
2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010,
p. 60.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding for the Northern DPS of A. m. macao
The Act defines ``endangered'' as ``any species which is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range''
and ``threatened'' as ``any species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we
determined the northern DPS of A. m. macao to be in danger of
extinction (``endangered''). However, new information indicates that
the ACOPAC population is currently stable, and that the ACOSA
population--the largest of the DPS-- is currently stable or possibly
increasing. New information indicates that poaching does not currently
act as a threat on these two populations. Therefore, as the two largest
populations within the DPS are currently stable, it is reasonable to
conclude that the northern DPS of A. m. macao is not currently in
danger of extinction. The best available information indicates that the
population in northwest Colombia faces significant ongoing threats and
may be potentially extirpated from Colombia. If this population is
lost, the DPS would contain only two scarlet macaw populations.
However, although no current population estimates are available for
northwest Colombia, this region is reported to have large tracts of
forest suitable for supporting a population which may provide
sufficient resiliency and redundancy for the DPS. If, during the public
comment period, we receive additional information on the northern DPS
of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) and/or on the northwest Colombia
population indicating that listing the DPS rangewide is not warranted,
then we may consider whether the Colombia population constitutes a
significant portion of the range (SPR) of the DPS and would, at that
time, determine whether the DPS warrants a threatened or endangered
status. We encourage the public to provide us with any additional
information pertaining to this population, including any information on
whether this population constitutes an SPR of the DPS. Although the
ACOPAC and ACOSA populations are considered stable, both are small and
isolated, and their range represents only a portion of the range of the
DPS. Therefore, although the two largest populations currently appear
to be stable and may be increasing, we find that the best available
information indicates that current threats to scarlet macaws in
northwest Colombia (deforestation), and the small and isolated status
of the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations, place this DPS in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we revise our July 6,
2012, proposal of listing the northern DPS of the A. m. macao from
``endangered'' to ``threatened'' in accordance with the definitions of
each as they pertain to the Act.
7. Treating the Southern DPS of A. m. macao and Subspecies Crossings
(A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera) as Threatened Under 4(e) Similarity
of Appearance Provisions
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we determined that the scarlet macaws
(A. m. macao) south and east of the Andes (northern South America),
constituted a valid DPS of the subspecies A. m. macao pursuant to our
1996 DPS Policy (77 FR 40222, 40242, July 6, 2012) (See Revising the
Border Between Subspecies and Reaffirming DPSs: Reaffirming A. m. macao
DPSs above). Additionally, we determined that listing the southern DPS
of A. m. macao throughout its range was not warranted. During the
public comment period, we received no additional information indicating
that threats on this DPS have elevated to the point that it would
warrant an endangered or threatened listing.
However, in our 2012 Proposed Rule, we discussed a potential
listing of the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crossings
based on the similarity of appearance provisions of the Act and
requested information regarding scarlet macaw morphological differences
that may provide a mechanism for distinguishing between the listed
entities and the non-listed entities. During the public comment period,
we received additional information supporting a similarity of
appearance listing for the southern DPS of A. m. macao and scarlet
macaw subspecies crossing (crosses between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m.
macao).
[[Page 20313]]
Standard
Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the treatment of a species,
subspecies, or distinct population segment as endangered or threatened
if: ``(a) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point
in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section
that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in
attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species;
(b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat
to an endangered or threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an
unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and
further the policy of this Act.'' All applicable prohibitions and
exceptions for species treated as threatened under section 4(e) of the
Act due to similarity of appearance to a threatened or endangered
species will be set forth in a rule proposed under section 4(d) of the
Act.
Analysis
In our 2012 Proposed Rule, we requested information regarding
scarlet macaw morphological differences that may provide a mechanism
for distinguishing between the listed entities and the non-listed
entities. During the public comment period, we received information on
several factors which make differentiating between scarlet macaw
listable entities difficult. First, the scarlet macaw subspecies, Ara
macao macao and Ara macao cyanoptera, primarily differ in the
coloration of their wing coverts (a type of feather) and wing size.
However, these differences are not always apparent, especially in birds
from the middle of the species' range (which may include crosses
between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao), making it difficult or
impossible to visually differentiate between subspecies (Schmitt 2011
pers. comm.; Weidenfeld 1994, pp. 99-100). According to information
received from the Service's Forensics Laboratory, many scarlet macaw
remains submitted for examination by Office of Law Enforcement special
agents and wildlife inspectors do not consist of intact carcasses;
rather, evidence is usually in the form of partial remains, detached
feathers, and artwork incorporating their feathers. Therefore,
identification of subspecies and/or the geographic origin of these
birds arehighly improbable without genetic analysis, which would add
considerable difficulties and cost for law enforcement. Second, we are
not aware of any information indicating that distinguishing
morphological differences between the northern and southern DPS of A.
m. macao would allow for visual identification of the origin of a bird
of this subspecies. Lastly, many commenters noted that aviculturists
have bred the species without regard for taxa, resulting in crosses of
the two subspecies (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) that maintain a
combination of characteristics of either parent, being present in trade
(Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 103). As a result, the similarity of appearance
between the unlisted southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses
to the listed northern DPS of A. m. macao and A. m . cyanoptera may
result in the ability to pass off a protected specimen as the unlisted
DPS or unlisted subspecies cross and poses an additional threat to the
Northern DPS and A.m. cyanoptera. Therefore, we consider this
difficulty in discerning the unlisted DPS and unlisted subspecies
crosses from the listed Northern DPS and A.m. cyanoptera as an
additional threat to the listed entities.
Thus, this close resemblance between the listed entities and the
unlisted entities makes differentiating the scarlet macaw entities
proposed for listing (the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and the northern
DPS of the subspecies A. m. macao) from those that are not proposed for
listing (individuals of the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies
crossings (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao)) difficult for law
enforcement, making it difficult for law enforcement to enforce and
further the provisions and policies of the Act.
We determine that treating the southern DPS of A. m. macao and
subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) under the 4(e)
similarity of appearance provisions under the Act will substantially
facilitate law enforcement actions to protect and conserve scarlet
macaws. If the southern DPS of A. m. macao or subspecies crosses (A. m.
cyanoptera and A. m. macao) were not listed, importers/exporters could
inadvertently or purposefully misrepresent a specimen of A. m.
cyanoptera or the northern DPS of A. m. macao as a specimen of the
unlisted entity, creating a loophole in enforcing the Act's protections
for listed species of scarlet macaw. The listing will facilitate
Federal and state law-enforcement efforts to curtail unauthorized
import and trade in A. m. cyanoptera or the northern DPS of A. m.
macao. Extending the prohibitions of the Act to the similar entities
through this listing of those entities due to similarity of appearance
under section 4(e) of the Act and providing applicable prohibitions and
exceptions in a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act will provide
greater protection to A. m. cyanoptera and the northern DPS of A. m.
macao. Additionally, although the 4(e) provisions of the Act do not
contain criteria as to whether a species listed under the similarity of
appearance provisions should be treated as endangered or threatened, we
find that treating the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies
crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened is appropriate
because the 4(d) rule, for the reasons mentioned in our necessary and
advisable finding, provides adequate protection for these entities. For
these reasons, we are proposing to treat the southern DPS of A. m.
macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as
threatened due to the similarity of appearance to A. m. cyanoptera and
the northern DPS of A. m. macao, pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act.
Finding for the Southern DPS of A. m. macao and Subspecies Crossings
For the reasons discussed above, we propose to treat the southern
DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m.
macao) as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the endangered
A. m. cyanoptera and the threatened northern DPS of A. m. macao,
pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act.
8. Proposed 4(d) Rule
The ESA provides measures to prevent the loss of species and their
habitats. Section 4 of the Act sets forth the procedures for adding
species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,
and section 4(d) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
to extend to threatened species the prohibitions provided for
endangered species under section 9 of the Act. Our implementing
regulations for threatened wildlife, found at title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) in Sec. 17.31, incorporate the ESA section 9
prohibitions for endangered wildlife, except when a species-specific
rule under section 4(d) of the Act is promulgated. For threatened
species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service discretion to
specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those prohibitions that
are appropriate for the species, as well as include provisions that are
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.
A rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act allows us to include
provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of that
[[Page 20314]]
threatened species and which may be more or less restrictive than the
general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.
We are proposing a 4(d) rule that would apply to the southern
subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) and to crosses of the two
scarlet macaw subspecies, A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera. We are
including subspecies crosses in this rule because aviculturists have
bred the species without regard to their taxa, resulting in crosses of
the two subspecies being present in trade (Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 103). If
the proposed 4(d) rule is adopted, all prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31
will apply to A. m. macao and subspecies crosses of A. m. macao and A.
m. cyanoptera, except that import and export of certain A. m. macao and
scarlet macaw subspecies crosses into and from the United States and
certain acts in interstate commerce will be allowed without a permit
under the Act, as explained below. For activities otherwise prohibited
under the 4(d) rule involving specimens of the southern DPS of the
scarlet macaw and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses, such activities
would require authorization pursuant to the similarity-of-appearance
permit regulations at 50 CFR 17.52. If an applicant is unable to meet
the issuance criteria for a similarity-of-appearance permit and
demonstrate that the scarlet macaw in question is a subspecific cross
or originated from the Southern DPS of the A.m. macao, authorization
for an otherwise prohibited activity would need to be obtained under
the general permit provisions for threatened species found at 50 CFR
17.32. For activities otherwise prohibited under the 4(d) rule
involving specimen of the northern DPS of the scarlet macaw (A. m.
macao), such activities would require authorization pursuant to the
general permit provisions for threatened species found at 50 CFR 17.32.
Import and Export
The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to all commercial and
noncommercial international shipments of live and dead southern
subspecies of scarlet macaws and subspecific crosses of A. m. macao and
A. m. cyanoptera and their parts and products, including the import and
export of personal pets and research samples. In most instances, the
proposed rule will adopt the existing conservation regulatory
requirements of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Wild Bird Conservation
Act (WBCA) as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and
export of certain scarlet macaws. The import into the United States and
export from the United States of birds taken from the wild after the
date this species is listed under the Act; conducting an activity that
could take or incidentally take scarlet macaws; and certain activities
in foreign commerce would require a permit under the Act. Permits may
be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving
endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species and Sec. 17.32 for threatened species. With regard
to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following
purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, a permit may be
issued for the same activities, as well as zoological exhibition,
education, and special purposes consistent with the Act. Although the
general permit provisions for threatened species are found at 50 CFR
17.32, the Service issues permits for otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered or threatened species treated as threatened due to
similarity of appearance under the regulatory criteria at 50 CFR 17.52.
However, this proposed 4(d) rule would allow a person to import or
export either: (1) A specimen held in captivity prior to the date this
species is listed under the Act; or (2) a captive-bred specimen,
without a permit issued under the Act, provided the export is
authorized under CITES and the import is authorized under CITES and the
WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the wild and held in captivity prior
to the date this species is listed under the Act, the importer or
exporter will need to provide documentation to support that status,
such as a copy of the original CITES permit indicating when the bird
was removed from the wild or museum specimen reports. For captive-bred
birds, the importer would need to provide either a valid CITES export/
re-export document issued by a foreign CITES Management Authority that
indicates that the specimen was captive-bred by using a source code on
the face of the permit of either ``C,'' ``D,'' or ``F.'' For exporters
of captive-bred birds, a signed and dated statement from the breeder of
the bird, along with documentation on the source of their breeding
stock, would document the captive-bred status of U.S. birds.
The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to birds captive-bred in the
United States and abroad. The terms ``captive-bred'' and ``captivity'''
used in this proposed rule are defined in the regulations at 50 CFR
17.3 and refer to wildlife produced in a controlled environment that is
intensively manipulated by man from parents that mated or otherwise
transferred gametes in captivity. Although the proposed 4(d) rule
requires a permit under the Act to ``take'' (including harm and harass)
a scarlet macaw, ``take'' does not include generally accepted animal-
husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or provisions of veterinary
care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when such
practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury
to the wildlife when applied to captive wildlife.
We assessed the conservation needs of the scarlet macaw in light of
the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the WBCA.
The scarlet macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES, a treaty that
contributes to the conservation of the species by monitoring
international trade and ensuring that trade in Appendix-I species is
not detrimental to the survival of the species. The purpose of the WBCA
is to promote the conservation of exotic birds and to ensure that
imports of exotic birds into the United States do not harm them. The
best available data indicate that the current threat to the scarlet
macaw stems mainly from illegal trade in the domestic markets of
Central and South America (Weston and Memon 2009, pp. 77-80, citing
several sources; Shanee 2012, pp. 4-9). Thus, the general prohibitions
on import and export contained in 50 CFR 17.31, which extend only
within the jurisdiction of the United States, would not regulate such
activities. Accordingly we find that the import and export requirements
of the proposed 4(d) rule provide the necessary and advisable
conservation measures for this species.
Interstate Commerce
Under the proposed 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship A. m. macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses in
interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or
offer to sell in interstate commerce A. m. macao and scarlet macaw
subspecies crosses without a permit under the Act. At the same time,
the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.31 would apply under this
proposed rule, and any interstate commerce activities that could
incidentally take A. m. macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses or
otherwise prohibited acts in foreign commerce would require a permit
under the Act. We have no information to suggest that current
interstate commerce activities are associated with threats to
[[Page 20315]]
the scarlet macaw or would negatively affect any efforts aimed at the
recovery of wild populations of the species. Therefore, because
interstate commerce within the United States has not been found to
threaten the scarlet macaw, the species is otherwise protected in the
course of interstate commercial activities under the take provisions
and foreign commerce provisions contained in 50 CFR 17.31, and
international trade of this species is regulated under CITES, we find
this proposed rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the scarlet macaw.
Required Determinations
Clarity of Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must: (1) Be logically
organized; (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly; (3)
Use clear language rather than jargon; (4) Be divided into short
sections and sentences; and (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments
by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us page numbers and the names of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rulemaking will
not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may
not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
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 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 all references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
or by
contacting the office listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Author
The primary author of this revised proposed rule is the staff of
the Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA
22203 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
be amended on July 6, 2012, at 77 FR 40222, 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; 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding four entries for ``Macaw, scarlet''
to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order
under Birds, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------
population where Critical
Special
Historic
range endangered or Status When listed habitat
rules
Common name Scientific name
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* *
* * * * *
Birds
* *
* * * * *
Macaw, scarlet................... Ara macao cyanoptera Belize, Costa
Rica, Entire............. E ........... NA
NA
El Salvador,
Guatemala,
Honduras,
Mexico,
Nicaragua,
Panama.
Macaw, scarlet (Northern DPS).... Ara macao macao..... Bolivia,
Brazil, Colombia (northwest T ...........
NA 17.41(c)
Colombia,
Costa of the Andes),
Rica, Ecuador,
Costa Rica, Panama.
French Guiana,
Guyana,
Panama,
Peru,
Suriname,
Venezuela.
Macaw, scarlet (Southern DPS).... Ara macao macao..... Bolivia,
Brazil, Bolivia, Brazil, T(S/A) ...........
NA 17.41(c)
Colombia,
Costa Colombia
Rica, Ecuador,
(southeast of the
French Guiana,
Andes), Ecuador,
Guyana,
Panama, French Guiana,
Peru,
Suriname, Guyana, Peru,
Venezuela.
Suriname,
Venezuela.
[[Page 20316]]
Macaw, scarlet (Subspecies Ara macao macao x Costa Rica,
Entire............. T(S/A) ........... NA
17.41(c)
crosses). Ara macao Nicaragua.
cyanoptera.
* *
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3.
Amend Sec. 17.41 by revising paragraph (c) 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), and scarlet macaw (Ara macao
macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses (Ara macao macao and Ara
macao cyanoptera)).
(1) Except as noted in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section,
all prohibitions of Sec. 17.31 of this part apply to these species.
(2) Import and export. You may import or export a specimen from the
southern DPS of Ara macao macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses
without a permit issued under Sec. 17.52 of this part, and you may
import or export all other specimen without a permit issued under Sec.
17.32 of this part, only when the provisions of parts 13, 14, 15, and
23 of this chapter have been met and you meet the following
requirements:
(i) Captive-bred specimens: The source code on the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) document accompanying the specimen must be ``F'' (captive
born), ``C'' (bred in captivity), or ``D'' (bred in captivity for
commercial purposes) (see 50 CFR 23.24); or
(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), or (C) 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.
(A) For salmon-crested cockatoos: January 18, 1990 (the date this
species was transferred to CITES Appendix I).
(B) For yellow-billed parrots: April 11, 2013 (the date this
species was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).
(C) For white cockatoos: July 24, 2014 (the date this species was
listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).
(D) For scarlet macaws: [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] (the
date this species was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).
(3) Interstate commerce. Except where use after import is
restricted under Sec. 23.55 of this chapter, you may deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate commerce and in the course of a
commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell, in interstate commerce
the species listed in this paragraph (c) without a permit under the
Act.
Dated: March 24, 2016.
James W. Kurth
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07492 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P