[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49202-49236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19532]



[[Page 49201]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 153

August 9, 2011

Part III





Department Of The Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Four Foreign Parrot 
Species; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 49202]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0099; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]
RIN 1018-AX50


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Four Foreign 
Parrot Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list as endangered the Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia) and 
the yellow-crested cockatoo (C. sulphurea), and to list as threatened 
the white cockatoo (C. alba), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (ESA). We are taking this action in response to a petition 
to list the following four parrot species: Crimson shining parrot 
(Prosopeia splendens), Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia), 
white cockatoo (C. alba), and yellow-crested cockatoo (C. sulphurea) as 
endangered or threatened under the ESA. This document, which also 
serves as the completion of the status review and as the 12-month 
finding on the petition, announces our finding that listing is not 
warranted for the crimson shining parrot. We also propose a special 
rule for the white cockatoo in conjunction with our proposed listing as 
threatened for this species. We seek information from the public on the 
proposed listing, proposed special rule, and status review for these 
species.

DATES: We will consider comments and information received or postmarked 
on or before October 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R9-
ES-2010-0099.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2010-0099, Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. 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 Information 
Requested 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, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; 
telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we 
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition 
(``12-month finding''). In this finding, we determine whether the 
petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) 
warranted, but immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the 
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine 
whether species are endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress 
is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of 
the ESA requires that we treat a petition for which the requested 
action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on 
the date of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be 
made within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the 
Federal Register.
    If the listing of a species is found to be warranted but precluded 
by higher-priority listing actions, then the petition to list that 
species is treated as if it is a petition that is resubmitted on the 
date of the finding and is, therefore, subject to a new 12-month 
finding within one year. The Service publishes an annual notice of 
resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign species 
for which listings were previously found to be warranted but precluded.
    In this document, we announce that listing Philippine cockatoo and 
yellow-crested cockatoo as endangered is warranted, and we are issuing 
a proposed rule to add those species as endangered under the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We find that 
listing the crimson shining parrot as endangered or threatened is not 
warranted. We further find that listing white cockatoo as threatened is 
warranted, and we are issuing a proposed rule to add that species as 
threatened under the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants.
    Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take 
into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and 
addresses of commenters, will become part of the administrative record.

Previous Federal Actions

Petition History

    On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January 
29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental 
Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting we 
list 14 parrot species under the ESA. The petition clearly identified 
itself as a petition and included the requisite information required in 
the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)). On July 14, 2009 
(74 FR 33957), we published a 90-day finding in which we determined 
that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial 
information to indicate that listing may be warranted for 12 of the 14 
parrot species. In our 90-day finding on this petition, we announced 
the initiation of a status review to list as endangered or threatened 
under the ESA the following 12 parrot species: Blue-headed macaw 
(Primolius couloni), crimson shining parrot (Prosopeia splendens), 
great green macaw (Ara ambiguus), grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris 
pyrrhoptera), hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), military 
macaw (Ara militaris), Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia), 
red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis), scarlet macaw (Ara macao), 
white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria), 
and yellow-crested cockatoo (Cacatua sulphurea). We initiated the 
status review to determine if listing each of the 12 species is 
warranted, and initiated a 60-day public comment period to allow all 
interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status 
of these 12 species of parrots. The public comment period closed on 
September 14, 2009.
    On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court 
(CV-10-357, D. D.C.), in which the Service agreed to (in part) submit 
to the Federal Register by July 29, 2011, a determination whether the 
petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but 
precluded by other listing actions for no less than four of the

[[Page 49203]]

petitioned species. This Federal Register document complies with the 
first deadline in that court-ordered settlement agreement. We will 
announce the 12-month findings for the remaining parrot species for 
which a 90-day finding was made on July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957) in 
subsequent Federal Register notices.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final actions resulting from this 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 proposed rule. We particularly seek 
clarifying information concerning:
    (1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and 
trends (especially breeding and foraging habitats), diet, and 
population abundance and trends (especially current recruitment data) 
of these species.
    (2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land 
uses on the distribution and abundance of these species (particularly 
the conversion of habitat to biofuel production on Halmahera Island and 
any data on Bacan Island related to the white cockatoo).
    (3) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors, 
including live capture and hunting, domestic and international trade, 
predation by other animals, and any diseases that are known to affect 
these species or their principal food sources.
    (4) Information on management programs for parrot conservation, 
including mitigation measures related to conservation programs, and any 
other private, nongovernmental, or governmental conservation programs 
that benefit these species.
    (5) The potential effects of climate change on these species and 
their habitats.
    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 ESA 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.''

Public Hearing

    At this time, we do not have a public hearing scheduled for this 
proposed rule. The main purpose of most public hearings is to obtain 
public testimony or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient to submit 
comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, described above in the 
ADDRESSES section. If you would like to request a public hearing for 
this proposed rule, you must submit your request, in writing, to the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by 
September 23, 2011.

Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened based on any one or a combination of the following five 
factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we look 
beyond the actual or perceived exposure of the species to the factor to 
determine how the species responds to the factor and whether the factor 
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 how significant 
a factor it is. If the factor is significant, it may drive or 
contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that it is 
considered to be a threat. In some cases, there is little information 
available regarding the status of the species, in part due to their 
remoteness.
    This finding addresses the following four species of parrots: 
crimson shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and 
yellow-crested cockatoo. For each of these parrots, we evaluate the 
five factors under ESA Section 4(a)(1) on the species. In some cases, 
we found under a factor that a threat was contributing to the 
extinction risk for multiple species, while some factors constituted a 
threat for some of the species but not others. In some cases, the 
factors affecting species are the same or very similar and in other 
cases the factors are unique. In each evaluation, we clearly identify 
what species is being addressed, and if the threat applies to more than 
one species.

Species Information

A. Crimson Shining Parrot (Prosopeia splendens)

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The crimson shining parrot (Prosopeia splendens, Peale, 1848) is 
endemic to Fiji, where it is found in forests, on agricultural lands, 
and around human habitation (International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN) 2008). Its most closely related species are P. personata 
(G. R. Gray, 1848), masked shining parrot, which occurs on Viti Levu; 
and P. tabuensis (Gmelin, 1788), maroon (red) shining parrot, which 
occurs on Vanua Levu and Taveuni. P. splendens and these two other 
species are recognized by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System 
(ITIS) (ITIS 2011, http://www.itis.gov) as valid species. Absent peer-
reviewed information to the contrary and based on the best available 
information, we consider P. splendens to be a valid species.
    The crimson shining parrot's head, neck, and underparts are a 
bright red. It is a medium-sized parrot, with a length of 45 
centimeters (cm) (18 inches (in)). It has been observed in flocks of up 
to 40 birds in the past, but more recently in flocks of up to 12 birds. 
During the day, this species is generally quiet and becomes vocal 
towards dusk, at which time it becomes more active. A blue collar 
extends across the back of its neck; its back and rump are bright 
green. Its flight feathers and tail are green, strongly covered with 
blue. Its bill and feet are black, and its irises are orange. Males and 
females are similar morphologically; however, the bill of males is 
larger, and the head of males is more square-shaped than females. It 
differs from the maroon shining parrot in its size and coloration; 
crimson shining parrots are generally smaller than maroon shining 
parrots. Rump feathers on the crimson shining parrot do not have the 
red edges that can be seen on the maroon shining parrot. The main 
visible features that distinguish the crimson shining parrot from the 
masked shining parrot and the maroon shining parrot are the scarlet 
rather than maroon underparts and the blue collar at the back of the 
neck.

[[Page 49204]]

Distribution, Habitat, Biology

    There is little to no information available regarding this species. 
The crimson shining parrot, also known as the Kadavu musk parrot, is 
endemic to the islands of Kadavu and Ono in Fiji. These two islands are 
separated by a narrow channel, often navigated by kayaks and other 
small boats. This species has also been reported on the island of Viti 
Levu in the Upper Navua Conservation Area (Tokaduadu 2008, pp. 5, 7), 
where they are thought to be escaped pet birds. There are no known 
records of this species successfully breeding other than on the islands 
of Kadavu and Ono (http://www.NatureFiji.org, accessed January 4, 
2011). The island of Kadavu is remarkable in that it has the highest 
number of endemic birds per land area in the world. It hosts two areas 
designated by Birdlife International (BLI) as Important Bird Areas 
(IBAs), including Mount Nabukelevu which is located on the southwestern 
end of Kadavu Island. Mt. Nabukelevu, has the largest area of montane 
forest on the island. These IBAs are a way to identify conservation 
priorities (BLI 2008j, pp. 1-2) and are considered to be globally 
important areas for the conservation of bird populations. A site is 
recognized as an IBA based on the occurrence of key bird species that 
are vulnerable to global extinction or whose populations are otherwise 
irreplaceable. These key sites for conservation are small enough to be 
conserved in their entirety and large enough to support self-sustaining 
populations of the key bird species. Mount Nabukelevu's montane forest 
is critical for five globally threatened bird species, including the 
crimson shining parrot (BLI 2011d, p. 1; BLI 2010c, p. 1).
    Very little is known about the ecology of this species in the wild 
(NatureFiji 2011, pp. 1-2). Although in captivity this species has been 
known to exhibit aggression in males, it is a social species in the 
wild (Lin and Lee 2006, p. 188). It has been observed in flocks of up 
to approximately 40 birds (Tabaranza 1992 as cited in BLI 2001, p. 
1679) but more recently it has been observed in flocks of up to 12 
individuals. Flocking is thought to serve several purposes including 
mate selection, and learning food sources and eating techniques 
(Cameron 2007, pp. 115, 144)
    In 2004, the population estimate was 6,000 mature birds, with a 
declining population (Jackson and Jit 2004 in BLI 2010a, p. 1). 
However, the species' population estimate was inferred from population 
surveys conducted on another species, the Masked Shining-Parrot 
(Prosopeia personata) (BLI 2010a, pp. 1-2). Surveys found that the 
crimson shining parrot occurred at similar population densities as that 
of the masked shining parrot. In two BirdLife International surveys, 86 
crimson shining parrots were recorded in 38 standardized observer-
hours, similar to the mean of 1.9 masked shining parrots per hour 
recorded at 18 sites across Viti Levu (BLI 2010a, pp. 1-2). Masked 
shining parrots were estimated to occur at approximately 29 birds per 
km\2\ in lowland native forest. The 2004 crimson shining parrot 
population was estimated using the density of masked shining parrots 
and the estimated 225 km\2\ (87 mi\2\) area of dense and medium-dense 
forest on Kadavu (Jackson and Jit 2004 in BLI 2010a, p. 1). However, we 
do not have detailed information about how the surveys on Kadavu were 
conducted; they may have occurred at a time when the species is not 
active or visible. There is no evidence that the survey protocol used 
is appropriate to infer the population density of this species. Nor is 
there evidence suggesting the two species have the same ecological 
characteristics, levels of disturbance, and habitat requirements. For 
example, Viti Levu has a more dense human population than that on the 
islands of Kadavu and Ono, and human population density often directly 
influences species population density. Additionally, we do not know the 
historical population of the crimson shining parrot; this species may 
never have had a large population, as it is only known to be endemic to 
Kadavu and Ono Islands, so we do not know if this species has 
experienced a decrease in population size or if its population has been 
fairly consistent. Furthermore, species that are endemic to islands 
tend to have smaller population sizes due to a smaller carrying 
capacity of the island. This species is described as being ``widespread 
and common'' on Kadavu and population information on the East Kadavu 
IBA also lists this species as common (BLI 2011a, p. 1; BLI 2011f, 
unpaginated). Additionally, notes from a 2006 birding trip report 
indicate that the crimson shining parrot would be ``hard to miss'' on 
Kadavu (Skevington and Mathieson 2006, unpaginated). Although the best 
scientific information available indicates the population of crimson 
shining parrots number 6,000 individuals, there is no historical 
population data to indicate this species has declined or is currently 
declining. Given the reports from BirdLife International (BLI 2011a, p. 
1; BLI 2011f, unpaginated) and the lack of support for a declining 
population, we consider the crimson shining parrot to be common on 
Kadavu.
    Its range is estimated to be 460 km\2\ (178 mi\2\). However, BLI 
(2000, pp. 22, 27) defines a species' ``range'' as the ``extent of 
occurrence,'' which is ``the area contained within the shortest 
continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the 
known, inferred, or projected sites of present occurrence of a species, 
excluding cases of vagrancy.''
    Kadavu is the fourth largest of Fiji's islands, at 410 km\2\ (158 
mi\2\). Kadavu has a human population of 8,700 people and is a 
mountainous, rugged island with high peaks and precipitous cliffs (Fiji 
Guide 2011). There are few roads and is therefore mainly accessible by 
boat. The Kadavu Island group is 83 km (45 nautical miles) south of 
Viti-Levu, Fiji's main island. Kadavu is rugged and mountainous with 
few roads. The Kadavu Island group also includes nearby Ono Island, off 
the eastern tip of Kadavu, as well as a number of smaller islands. Ono 
is 30 km\2\ (12 mi\2\) in size (Planetary Coral Reef Foundation (PCRF) 
2010). This island group has 12,000 Fijians living in 72 traditional 
village communities (PCRF 2010), and there is one airstrip. The primary 
means of income is subsistence agriculture and fishing.

Conservation Status for the Crimson Shining Parrot

    Fiji is actively involved in forest protection efforts; a new 
Forest Policy was adopted in 2007 (Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and 
Forestry 2009, p. 1). Crimson shining parrot is also protected by 
Fiji's Endangered and Protected Species (EPS) Act of 2002. 
Additionally, Fiji's first national nongovernmental organization (NGO), 
Nature Fiji, was established recently, and its goal is conservation of 
its wildlife. Nature Fiji is working closely with BLI to develop a 
conservation program to protect endangered wildlife in Fiji such as the 
crimson shining parrot.
    In 1981, the crimson shining parrot was listed in Appendix II of 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES). At that time, almost all Psittaciformes 
species (i.e., parrots) were included in Appendix II. CITES is an 
international agreement where member countries work together to ensure 
that international trade in CITES-listed animals and plants is not 
detrimental to the survival of wild populations. This is achieved by 
regulating import, export, and re-export of CITES-listed animal and 
plant species and their parts and products through the use of a 
permitting system (http://

[[Page 49205]]

www.cites.org). CITES entered into force in 1975, and is an 
international treaty among 175 nations, including Fiji and the United 
States. In the United States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.).
    Appendix II includes species that are not necessarily threatened 
with extinction, but may become so unless trade is subject to strict 
regulation to avoid utilization incompatible with the species' 
survival. International trade in specimens (dead or live) of Appendix 
II species is authorized through permits or certificates. International 
trade in specimens of Appendix II species is authorized when: (1) The 
CITES Scientific Authority of the country of export has determined that 
the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in 
the wild; and (2) the CITES Management Authority of the country of 
export has determined that the specimens to be exported were legally 
acquired (UNEP-WCMC 2008a, p. 1).
    In 1988, the crimson shining parrot was described by the IUCN as 
lower risk/least concern, and the status changed to vulnerable in 2000 
(IUCN 2008; BLI 2010a), which is its current IUCN classification. The 
authority for compilation of information and determining the 
appropriate risk extinction category for bird species on the IUCN Red 
List is Birdlife International, and is cited frequently throughout this 
document. However, IUCN rankings do not confer any actual protection or 
management.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Crimson Shining Parrot

    This section contains an assessment in which we evaluate the 
effects of any of the five factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 
on the species. Listing actions may be warranted based on whether any 
of the five factors under section 4(a)(1), singly or in combination, 
places the species in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable 
future. Each evaluation is specific to this species identified unless 
we specify that the evaluation is for more than one species.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    There is little to no evidence of destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of this species' habitat, in fact, there is recent evidence 
of reforestation efforts and conservation of the species' habitat 
taking place (BLI 2011a, p. 1; Fiji Daily Post 2007, 2009, 
unpaginated). It was suggested that this species is roughly estimated 
to be declining at the rate of forest loss, which had been estimated to 
be 0.5 to 0.8 percent per year across Fiji (Claasen 1991 in BLI 2011a, 
p. 1), and that forest loss may be higher on Kadavu due to fires in 
recent years (BLI 2011a, p. 1). However, there is no information on the 
extent of past or current forest loss. Not only does the United Nations 
describe deforestation in Fiji as modest when compared with the rest of 
Melanesia (UN 2011, p. 1), but also local communities on Kadavu are 
implementing reforestation efforts and conservation of this species' 
habitat as described above (Fiji Daily News 2007, unpaginated). 
Although the eastern part of the island is experiencing pressures from 
agricultural encroachment, there is no evidence that agricultural 
encroachment or forest loss due to fires currently threatens the 
crimson shining parrot (NatureFiji 2011, pp. 1-2).
    Forests on Kadavu were heavily logged in the late 1960s and early 
1970s, and habitat loss and degradation of habitat for agricultural 
purposes continues. However, approximately 75 percent of the island 
remains forested; East Kadavu IBA is reported to have the largest area 
of old-growth forest in Kadavu, including extensive areas of lowland 
rainforest. Furthermore, the crimson shining parrot is reported to use 
degraded habitats extensively (BLI 2011a, p. 1; BLI 2011f, 
unpaginated). Most river estuaries and bays still hold large areas of 
mangroves, which are used by the crimson shining parrot for feeding 
(and possibly breeding), and pressure on mangrove forest here is not 
currently significant (BLI 2011a, p. 1).
    BLI and Nature Fiji are working with landowners on Kadavu to 
conserve these forested natural areas and to increase awareness of the 
value of maintaining these areas in a little-disturbed state (BLI 
2011e, p. 1). NGOs are working with the landowners in the Mount 
Nabukelevu area to create awareness about the value of their forests 
and the benefits of establishing ``Permanent Forest Estates'' (PFEs) 
(described below) on their lands. These NGOs are also working to help 
build the capacity of indigenous communities to continue forest 
conservation on their own (BLI 2011e, p. 3). BLI, through the Darwin 
Initiative, has worked with the Kadavu's Department of Forestry and 
local communities on Kadavu to protect this species' habitat. The 
Darwin Initiative, implemented by the United Kingdom, assists countries 
that are rich in biodiversity but poor in financial resources to meet 
their objectives under one or more of the three major biodiversity 
conventions. BLI conducted a workshop on Kadavu to teach sustainable 
agricultural practices and ways to reduce soil erosion which 
subsequently supports community livelihoods. Later, the villages of 
Lomati, Nabukelevuira, Qalira, and Daviqele committed to protect 1,500 
hectares (3,707 ac) of their forest that had been designated as an 
Important Bird Area (IBA) on Mount Nabukelevu in Kadavu (Fiji Daily 
News 2007).
    On Kadavu, particularly in the area of Mount Nabukelevu, many 
forest-owning mataqalis (clan or landowning units) are under pressure 
to convert their forests into agricultural land (BLI 2011e, p. 1). In 
2010, 10 mataqalis signed an agreement with an NGO to protect the 
forests of Mount Nabukelevu for the next 20 years (BLI 2011f; 
NatureFiji 2011). The community-declared protected area now includes 10 
mataqali (clan) lands plus a native reserve. Additionally, the 
Government of Fiji recognizes that maintaining forests is critically 
important for Fiji's people and biodiversity and has taken steps to 
preserve its country's resources. In 2007, Fiji introduced the Fiji 
Forest Policy, which promotes sustainable forest management. One of the 
foundations of the new Forest Policy is the concept of ``Permanent 
Forest Estates'' (PFEs). The policy promotes sustainable management of 
healthy forests by providing sustainable development incentives for 
landowners. In addition, the government of Fiji initiated a campaign to 
plant one million trees in 2010 to halt or slow ecological degradation 
associated with the depletion of the world's forests. Fiji launched its 
One Million Trees Campaign in support of the 2010 International Year of 
Biodiversity, and in 2011 as the International Year of Forests. Fiji 
indicated that they had surpassed their goal, and participants had 
succeeded in planting over one million trees (Fiji Ministry of 
Information 2011).
    Although forest loss may be occurring within the range of the 
crimson shining parrot, we have no information on the extent of forest 
loss or evidence to suggest that this loss has impacted or is currently 
affecting this species. The crimson shining parrot is found in forests, 
agriculture lands, around human habitation, and is known to use 
degraded habitats extensively. Furthermore, there is no information 
indicating this species is declining. Additionally, we have no 
information to suggest that habitat loss may become a threat to this 
species in the future such that it may contribute to the risk of 
extinction of this species. Fiji has implemented proactive policies and

[[Page 49206]]

protections with respect to its forests. Local conservation activities 
are occurring on Kadavu; indigenous communities are interested in 
preserving this species and its habitat. Therefore, we do not find that 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range is a threat to the crimson shining parrot now or 
in the foreseeable future.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Conservation projects on Kadavu are believed to have reduced the 
numbers of parrots trapped for trading, but this species is still 
thought to be captured in small numbers for domestic and international 
trade (BLI 2010a, p. 1). As indicated above, this species has been 
listed in Appendix II of CITES since 1981. The United Nations 
Environment Programme--World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) 
manages a CITES Trade Database on behalf of the CITES Secretariat. We 
queried the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database for gross data on export and 
import of this species since 2000, and found no record of trade in this 
species (UNEP-WCMC 2011, accessed January 4, 2011.)
    Each Party to CITES is responsible for compiling and submitting 
annual reports to the CITES Secretariat regarding their country's trade 
in species listed in the CITES Appendices. The data from submitted 
annual reports is compiled into the database, and it provides a 
mechanism by which CITES trade can be assessed. Due to the time needed 
to compile the data, the most recent year for which comprehensive trade 
statistics are available is normally 2 years prior to the current year. 
UNEP-WCMC acknowledges that the data are not always accurate (UNEP-WCMC 
2011, p. 5). They indicate that it is not uncommon for the quantity of 
specimens traded to be considerably less than the amount specified on 
the permits and that the quantity specified on the permits is 
frequently the quantity that is reported in annual reports. They 
further clarify that trade transactions that may have been authorized 
by the issuance of permits but never have taken place, as well as 
inaccurately reported volumes of trade, will exist in the UNEP-WCMC 
CITES database. UNEP-WCMC also acknowledges that gross and net outputs 
from the CITES database are often overestimates of the quantities 
traded because in cases where different quantities are reported by the 
importing and exporting countries, the CITES database program selects 
the larger quantity. Errors do occur in the database, and the numbers 
may not be entirely accurate, but they do provide an approximate 
representation of international trade that is occurring through CITES. 
However, we consider the UNEP-WCMC CITES trade data to be the best 
available information pertaining to international trade in CITES-listed 
species.
    Although it has been reported that birds are taken as gifts and 
there is some illegal trade overseas, it is thought to occur in small 
numbers (BLI 2010a, p. 1). Conservation projects described under Factor 
A have reduced the numbers of birds trapped for the pet bird trade (BLI 
2011a, p. 1). BLI reports that four communities have set up village 
protected areas on Kadavu, and they conduct regular bird surveys under 
their own initiative. Additionally, it is protected by law against 
trading and transfers out of Kadavua and Ono (NatureFiji 2011, p. 2). 
There appears to be substantial protection, awareness, and local 
conservation of this species occurring. Because there is no evidence of 
poaching (i.e., hunting by people to gain at least a temporary living 
from the activity) or illegal trade of this species occurring at levels 
such that it may contribute to the risk of extinction of the crimson 
shining parrot, or information indicating poaching or trade may 
increase in the future and rise to the level of a threat, we believe 
that overutilization for commercial, recreation, scientific, or 
educational purposes is not a threat to the species.
    We are unaware of any other information currently available that 
addresses overutilization for commercial, recreation, scientific, or 
education purposes that may be affecting the crimson shining parrot. We 
found no evidence of overutilization due to historic or cultural use of 
this species by local populations. Based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a 
threat to the crimson shining parrot now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    Predation by introduced mammals such as feral cats (Felis catus) 
and rats (Rattus spp.) were identified as possible factors affecting 
this species. There was little to no information found regarding the 
occurrence of predation or disease in Fiji, particularly with respect 
to the crimson shining parrot. As is the case on many remote islands, 
Fiji has no native terrestrial mammals. Introduced mammals such as 
rats, mongoose (Herpestes javanicus), cats and dogs prey heavily on 
Fiji's native wildlife (Morley 2004 in Olson et al. 2009, p. 1). 
However, the mongoose is not present on Kadavu Island and the only 
current predator definitely known to occur on Kadavu is cats. Cats on 
Kadavu are known to threaten ground-nesting birds, particularly on the 
coasts, but they are not known to threaten the crimson shining parrot. 
There are no known predators on Ono Island to our knowledge. Studies 
have found that predation rates by introduced predators are lowest in 
natural forests more than 4.5 km (2 mi) from forest edges or roads 
(Olson et al. 2006). Kadavu's terrain consists of volcanic, 
mountainous, dense rainforest; sandy beaches; rocky coastline; and 
mangrove swamps. The island has a significant portion of relatively 
undisturbed forested areas. The islands' forested areas may act as 
refugia from predation by alien predators, such as the feral cat, for 
native species such as the crimson shining parrot.
    Researchers suggest that maintaining minimally-disturbed forests is 
one of the most cost-effective strategies for protecting species (Olson 
et al. 2009, p. 1). Because this species resides in dense forests far 
from edges and roads, this species is not likely to be significantly 
affected by nonnative predators. The crimson shining parrot likely has 
natural predators, but we were unable to find information that any 
natural predators are having an impact on this species. Although 
predation occurs in Fiji, particularly by nonnative species, the best 
available information does not indicate that predation is a threat to 
the crimson shining parrot on Kadavu or Ono now, or may become a threat 
in the future.
    We are not aware of any occurrence of disease that may be affecting 
the crimson shining parrot. In conclusion, we find that neither disease 
nor predation is a threat to the crimson shining parrot in any portion 
of its range now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Various regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect the crimson 
shining parrot. This species is listed on Fiji's Endangered and 
Protected Species (EPS) Act of 2002 which is the legislation that 
implements CITES. As discussed under Factor B, the government of Fiji 
is adequately controlling international trade. According to a review 
conducted for CITES with respect to national legislation to determine 
each country's ability to implement CITES effectively, Fiji meets the 
requirements for

[[Page 49207]]

implementing CITES (CITES 2011a; http://www.cites.org, SC59 Document 
11, Annex p. 1). In addition to the absence of legal trade, there is no 
indication that this species is traded illegally at levels such that it 
may contribute to the risk of extinction of the crimson shining parrot. 
Based on the lack of trade, and as discussed under Factor B, we do not 
consider international trade to be a threat to the crimson shining 
parrot. Therefore, protection under CITES is an adequate regulatory 
mechanism.
Wild Bird Conservation Act
    The import into the United States of all of these species: the 
crimson shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and 
yellow-crested cockatoo, is regulated by the Wild Bird Conservation Act 
(WBCA) (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), which was enacted on October 23, 1992. 
The WBCA is implemented under 50 CFR part 15 and has limited or 
prohibited imports of exotic bird species into the United States since 
1992. The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of exotic 
birds by ensuring that all trade involving the United States is 
sustainable and is not detrimental to the species. The WBCA is a 
stricter conservation measure than CITES, and import of these parrot 
species into the United States requires issuance of a WBCA import 
permit. WBCA permits may be issued to allow import of listed birds for 
various purposes, such as scientific research, zoological breeding or 
display, or personal pets, when certain criteria are met. The Service 
may approve cooperative breeding programs and subsequently issue import 
permits under such programs. Under the cooperative breeding program, 
wild-caught birds may be imported into the United States if they are a 
part of Service-approved management plans for sustainable use. At this 
time, none of the four parrot species discussed in this document is 
part of a Service-approved cooperative breeding program, and there are 
no approved management plans for wild-caught birds of these species.
    Under the provisions of WBCA, any individual importing their pet 
bird to the United States for the first time must reside outside of the 
United States for at least 12 continuous months. In addition, in order 
to control diseases, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service requires veterinary health certificates 
and health inspections for pet birds, and implements quarantine 
procedures for birds imported into the United States. A report 
published in 2006 showed that imports of parrot species to the United 
States declined from the mid-1980s to 1991 (Pain et al. 2006, pp. 322-
324). Parrot imports to the United States were already declining before 
the enactment of the WBCA, but the WBCA largely curtailed the import of 
wild parrots; we find it is an adequate regulatory mechanism for all 
four of these parrot species.
    As discussed under Factor B, local protections are in place on the 
islands where this species exists. The governmental institutions 
responsible for oversight of the conservation of this species have a 
good legal framework to manage wildlife and their habitats. Not only 
are local NGOs involved in conservation activities for this species, 
but there also appears to be adequate capacity at various levels to 
protect this species and its habitat. The forestry regulations appear 
to be effective; there are no reports of illegal logging on the islands 
of Kadavu and Ono. Most of Fiji's forests are managed or owned by local 
communities, which have incentive to protect the native habitat. 
Ownership of native lands is not transferable through land sales, but 
user rights can be transferred via land leases (Leslie and Tuinivanua 
2010, p. 10). These landowning groups are deeply attached to their 
lands and Fiji's forestry policy supports the local ownership of its 
lands. Within this species' habitat, the forested areas are being 
adequately managed and protected by these mataqalis.
    Environmental education, conservation initiatives, and restoration 
efforts are occurring on Kadavu. Another NGO working on Kadavu to 
protect this species is the Matava Foundation (http://foundation.matava.com/2011-projects) which is a local NGO associated 
with a resort on the island. In addition to the conservation efforts in 
place, the remoteness of these islands likely serves as an additional 
protection for this species. The crimson shining parrot occurs on two 
islands, and both islands are extremely remote and fairly undeveloped. 
These factors all likely serve as additional protections for this 
species.
    In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms appear to be 
adequate. There are no current records of this species in international 
trade, and the government of Fiji is actively conducting environmental 
stewardship projects. There is nothing to suggest that this factor is a 
threat to the species. Local conservation activities involving 
indigenous communities are occurring on Kadavu and this species and its 
habitat appear to be well protected. Fiji has enacted various laws and 
regulatory mechanisms to protect and manage wildlife and their 
habitats. As described above in our review, we found that the 
government of Fiji and NGOs are implementing many projects and 
mechanisms that will likely have a positive impact on this species and 
its habitat. Reforestation and conservation efforts are occurring. The 
best scientific and commercial information available indicates that the 
crimson shining parrot is not in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future due to inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species

    In this section, we examined whether invasive species are threats 
to the crimson shining parrot. The eastern part of Kadavu supports 
several bird species that are endemic to Kadavu. BLI indicated that 
logging and roads (see Factor A) may be facilitating the movement of 
invasive species. Logging enables alien invasive species such as rats 
and cats, and in some cases, Indian or common mynahs (Acridotheres 
tristis), jungle mynahs (Acridotheres fuscus), and Spathodea 
campanulata (African tulip trees), to invade the forests along logging 
roads and clearings. The island of Kadavu may be experiencing invasive 
species, but there is no evidence that invasive species are occurring 
to an extent that they are threats to the crimson shining parrot. Nor 
is there evidence that invasive species are a threat on Ono Island, 
where the crimson shining parrot is also known to occur. BLI is 
creating community-based conservation groups at Fiji's key conservation 
sites such as Kadavu Island, and is working with communities to address 
issues such as effectively dealing with invasive species (BLI 2011g, p. 
3). We found no other natural or manmade factors that might affect the 
continued existence of the crimson shining parrot now or in the future. 
Based on the best available information, we find that there are no 
other natural or manmade threats to the continued existence of the 
crimson shining parrot throughout its range now or in the foreseeable 
future.
Significant Portion of the Range
    Having determined that the crimson shining parrot is not in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are 
any significant portions of the range where the crimson shining parrot 
is in danger of extinction

[[Page 49208]]

or is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
    The Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
a threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered species 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range.'' The term ``significant portion of its range'' is not 
defined by the statute. For the purposes of this finding, a portion of 
a species' range is ``significant'' if it is part of the current range 
of the species, and it provides a crucial contribution to the 
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. For the 
contribution to be crucial it must be at a level such that, without 
that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
    In determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a 
significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the 
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of 
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and 
threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that warrant 
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial 
information indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and 
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of 
this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in 
some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform 
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further 
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only 
to portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the 
biologically based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of 
that portion clearly would not reasonably be expected to increase the 
vulnerability to extinction of the entire species to the point that the 
species would then be in danger of extinction), such portions will not 
warrant further consideration.
    If we identify portions that warrant further consideration, we then 
determine their status (i.e., whether in fact the species is endangered 
or threatened in a significant portion of its range). Depending on the 
biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it might 
be more efficient for us to address either the ``significant'' question 
first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a 
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.''
    Applying the process described above for determining whether a 
species is threatened in a significant portion of its range, we 
considered status first to determine if any threats or potential 
threats acting individually or collectively threaten or endanger the 
species in a portion of its range. We have analyzed the potential 
threats and determined they are essentially uniform throughout the 
species' range.

Finding for the Crimson Shining Parrot

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action 
is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded 
(see Background, above).
    As required by the ESA, we considered the five factors separately 
and in combination in assessing whether the crimson shining parrot is 
endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the 
crimson shining parrot. We reviewed the petition, information available 
in our files, and available published and unpublished information 
regarding this species and its habitat.
    We do not have long-term population trend data for the crimson 
shining parrot. This species has always been an island endemic and may 
have always had a small population; island endemics tend to have 
smaller population sizes. Without historical population information, we 
do not know if this species has experienced a decrease in population 
size or if its population has been fairly consistent. Furthermore, this 
species is reported as common and widespread. During our review of the 
status of the species, we evaluated the potential threats to the 
crimson shining parrot including: habitat loss and habitat degradation, 
take for the pet trade, disease and predation, the inadequacy of 
regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors such as 
invasive species. We found no information that habitat loss is a threat 
to the crimson shining parrot. We conclude that the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range is not a threat to the crimson shining parrot. We found no 
information that poaching for the pet trade is a threat to the species. 
This species is not in international trade according to the UNEP-WCMC 
trade database. Additionally, education and public awareness campaigns 
are occurring in Kadavu. Fiji is actively involved in forest protection 
efforts; a new Forest Policy was adopted in 2007 (Fiji Ministry of 
Fisheries and Forestry 2009, p. 1). We found no evidence that disease 
or predation affects the wild crimson shining parrot population. In 
addition, this species is protected by laws against trading and 
transfers out of Kadavu and Ono. We also concluded that there are no 
other natural or manmade factors that are threats to the species 
(Factor E).
    The best available information indicates that there is little 
disturbance on the islands where the crimson shining parrot naturally 
occurs. Habitat loss is often a threat to wildlife, however, in this 
case, there is no evidence that habitat loss is affecting the crimson 
shining parrot. On the contrary, this species is said to occupy altered 
habitat extensively. Conservation efforts for this species have been 
underway within the past few years to ensure long-term conservation of 
habitat where this species exists; local groups on Kadavu are 
implementing reforestation and conservation programs. Based on the lack 
of threats acting on this species throughout its range as described 
above, and the lack of information indicating the species population is 
in decline, we determine that this species is not in danger of 
extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Therefore, we find that listing the crimson shining parrot as a 
threatened or endangered species is not warranted.

Species Information

B. Philippine Cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia)

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The species was first taxonomically described by M[uuml]ller in 
1776 (BLI 2011b). We accept the species as C. haematuropygia, which 
follows the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2011).
    Cockatoos are only found in Australasia--a few archipelagos in 
Southeast Asia (Philippines, Indonesia,

[[Page 49209]]

East Timor, Tanimbar, Bismarck, and Solomon), New Guinea, and 
Australia--suggesting that the modern species arose after the breakup 
of Gondwanaland, the southern supercontinent that existed 200 to 500 
million years ago. The 19th century naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace 
was among the first to note the break in Australasian and Asian fauna. 
Wallace's line runs between the islands of Bali and Lombok, Borneo and 
Sulawesi, and south of the Philippines. Cockatoos are present on Lombok 
and Sulawesi, but not on Bali and Borneo. The line represents the 
western edge of a zone of overlap between Australasian and Asian fauna 
(known as Wallacea), with the eastern edge defined by the Australian 
continental shelf (Lydekker's Line) (White and Bruce 1986, p. 32; 
Cameron 2007, pp. 1-3). These oceanic islands of Wallacea have high 
levels of endemism, meaning the species that occur there are unique to 
those islands.
    The Philippine cockatoo, or red-vented cockatoo, is locally known 
as the ``katala'' and ``kalangay,'' and has a helmet crest and a red 
undertail (Rowley 1997). Cockatoos are a distinct group of parrots 
(order Psittaciformes), distinguished by the presence of an erectile 
crest (Collar 1989, p. 5; Cameron 2007, p. 1) and the lack of dyck 
texture in their feathers. Dyck texturing is a microscopic texturing 
that produces blue and green coloration and is present in the plumage 
of other parrots (Brown and Toft 1999, p. 141).

Biology, Distribution, and Habitat

    This species is endemic to the Philippines, an archipelago of 
approximately 7,000 islands. The total area of the Philippines is 
30,000,000 ha (74,131,614 ac) (Kummer 1991, p. 44). The Philippine 
cockatoo requires lowland primary or secondary forests with suitable 
nesting tree cavities and food sources, within or adjacent to riparian 
or coastal areas with mangroves (IUCN 2008i). The species is reported 
to use regenerating forest and even heavily degraded forest, as long as 
emergent nest trees survive. However, its nest sites are restricted to 
lowlands (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).
    The Philippine cockatoo is a food generalist; its diet varies based 
on the seasons. It consumes seeds, legumes, fruit, flowers, buds, and 
nectar. It will also eat agricultural crops such as corn and rice, and 
has been observed feeding on Moringa oleifera (commonly known as 
malunggay or horseradish tree). Interestingly, the government of the 
Philippines introduced a bill in 2010, in the Fifteenth Congress of the 
Republic of the Philippines, First Regular Session, to encourage 
planting Moringa oleifera due to economic benefits (Senate Bill 1349 
2010, pp. 1-7). The Philippine cockatoo has also been observed feeding 
on the fruits of Sonneratia, a mangrove species (Tabaranza 1992; 
Lambert 1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1683).
    This species nests in tree cavities, and produces two to three eggs 
per season (Cameron 2007, p. 140). Breeding generally occurs March 
through June (BLI 2001, p. 1684), and both sexes participate in nest 
building (Widmann et al. 2001, p. 135). The period between incubation 
and fledging is generally about 95 days (Cameron 2007, p. 140). The 
species prefers nests high in the tree canopy, generally around 30 m 
(98 ft) (BLI 2001, p. 1683), but nest heights between 12 and 35 m (39 
to 114 ft) have also been observed (Widmann et al. 2001, p. 135). The 
diameter of the cavity openings observed has been between 10 and 25 cm 
(4 and 10 in) (Widmann et al. 2001, p. 135). Some artificial nest boxes 
have been installed to increase nesting habitat; the species exhibits a 
preference for horizontal rather than vertical nest boxes (Low 2001, p. 
3). Some of the tree species they use for roosting include 
Dipterocarpus grandiflorus (common names: apitong, tempudau, tunden, 
lagan bras aput) and Intsia bijuga (common names: Borneo-teak, Moluccan 
ironwood, and merbau asam), as well as coconut trees (Lambert 1994b in 
BLI 2001, p. 1686). They also use Garuga floribunda (no common name 
[ncn]) and Sonneratia alba (ncn) (Cameron 2007, p. 35).

Population Estimates

    Based on recent reports, it is likely that between 450 and 1,245 
individuals remain in the wild. Surveys indicated that until around the 
1980s, the Philippine cockatoo was fairly common within the Philippine 
archipelago (Collar et al. 1998; Boussekey 2000, p. 138, BLI 2010, p. 
1). Historically, it was known to exist on 52 islands in the 
Philippines; now, it is believed to exist on eight islands (BLI 2011a, 
p. 1).
    The species' current range is significantly reduced from its 
historic range. In the past, the species was reported to have been 
commonly found throughout the Philippines except for northern and 
central Luzon (Delacour and Mayr 1946; DuPont 1971 in Boussekey 2000, 
p. 138; Collar et al. 1999 in Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 23). It was 
common throughout the Philippines as recently as the 1950s. Between 
1980 and 2000, there was a 60 to 90 percent population decline 
throughout its range (Boussekey 2000, p. 138). In the early 1990s, the 
population was estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,000 (Tabaranza 1992 
and Lambert 1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1681).
    Snyder et al. (2000) reported the following population surveys. A 
1991 survey estimated between 800 and 3,000 birds exist on Palawan 
(Pandanas, Bugsok, and Bancalan Islands were thought to support 100 to 
300 individuals and Dumaran 150 to 250 individuals), and possibly a few 
hundred were thought to exist in the Tawi-Tawi region (Lambert 1993b, 
1994b). A single pair was found on Siquijor in 1991 (Evans et al. 
1993). A few were found at Mount Isarog, Luzon in 1988 (Goodman and 
Gonzales 1990), and a few pairs were found in Mindoro at Malpalon 
(Dutson et al. 1992). On Masbate, birds were observed in 1993 (Curio 
1994), and the species has been recorded a few times in singles or 
small numbers in Rajah Sikatuna National Park, Bohol since 1989 (Brooks 
et al. 1995b). In 1994, two pairs (Dutson in litt. 1997) were seen on 
Tawi-Tawi, and the species was considered widespread there in 1995-
1996, although apparently more often seen in captivity than in the wild 
(two singles were observed in Batu-Batu and a single and a pair in 
Buan) (Allen in litt. 1997). Three birds were observed on Simunul, 
Tawi-Tawi in 1996 (Allen in litt. 1997; Dutson et al. 1996). The 
species is considered extinct on Cebu (Brooks et al. 1995a) and Negros 
(Brooks et al. 1992). Recent population counts and estimates are below; 
however, this information is not a complete representation of the 
population, but is the best available information. Some islands may not 
hold viable populations and may be functionally extinct.
    Between 2004 and 2010, the population estimate decreased from 1,000 
to 4,000 individuals to 450 to 1,245 individual birds in the wild 
(Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 23; BLI 2010b; Widmann and Widmann 2010, 
pers. comm.). This species currently is found in the Culasian Managed 
Resource Protected Area (CMRPA), Palawan, Dumaran Island (negligible 
population), Pandanan and Bugsok Islands, Polillo Island Group, Rasa 
Island, Tawi-Tawi, and possibly on Samar Island. An estimated 
additional 400 individuals may survive in the Sulu archipelago; 
however, only sparse information is available for this area (Widmann et 
al. 2007; Widmann et al. 2009a; Widmann et al. 2010a). Subpopulations 
away from Palawan and the Sulus are thought to be very small, and do 
not likely have viable populations (Widmann 2010, pers. comm.) The 
extent these populations are interbreeding is unclear at this time.

[[Page 49210]]

Detailed discussion of each of these areas follows.

 Table 1--Population Counts and Estimates of Philippine Cockatoo Between
               2007 and 2010 on Islands in the Philippines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Number of individuals based on recent
   observation, population count, or                 Location
                estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.....................................  Bugsok Island (40 to 80
                                          estimated).
20.....................................  Burdeos, Polillo Islands.
3......................................  CMRPA, Palawan Island.
23.....................................  Dumaran, Lagan.
80.....................................  Pandanan Island.
2......................................  Patnanungan, Polillo Islands.
280....................................  Rasa Island.
4......................................  Samar.
200....................................  Tawi-Tawi (100 to 400
                                          estimated).
672....................................  TOTAL*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: This is not a full population survey; it documents birds
  actually counted, observed, or estimated (Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Culasian Managed Resource Protected Area

    This area is in the south of Palawan Island and is 1,954 hectares 
(ha) (4,828 acres (ac)). The total land area of Palawan is 
approximately 1.5 million ha (3.7 million ac), including the 1,767 
islands and islets surrounding the main island. This species exists 
both within the actual designated protected area (CMRPA) and in the 
areas surrounding the protected area on Palawan Island. Philippine 
cockatoos are thought to travel between Palawan Island and nearby Rasa 
Island. This species has been known to fly from the mainland to 
offshore islands as far as 8 km (5 mi) away from the mainland to roost 
and breed. No roosting sites are known in the CMRPA and surrounding 
areas (Widmann et al. 2010a, p. 23); however, there have been recent 
sightings there: four were observed in September 2009, and three were 
observed in December 2009 (Widmann et al. 2010a, p. 37). At least two 
Philippine cockatoos persist inside the protected area, but they have 
not bred in the last 4 years.
    CMRPA has been described as exhibiting the ``empty forest 
syndrome.'' Although its forest is largely intact, little wildlife 
remains due to hunting pressure and poaching. In the small population 
that was protected only recently here, there are no indications that 
the species' status is improving. Only one breeding pair exists outside 
of the reserve. Cockatoo poaching occurred in this area within the past 
3 years, and breeding in the 2009-2010 season failed. Because all nests 
have been systematically poached over many years, extinction of this 
population is likely to occur suddenly due to lack of recruitment 
(Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Dumaran Island

    On Dumaran Island, which is off the northeastern coast of Palawan, 
three areas are managed by the Katala Foundation's Philippine Cockatoo 
Conservation Programme (PCCP). Two of those are protected areas: the 
Omoi Cockatoo Reserve and the Manambaling Cockatoo Reserve (Widmann et 
al. 2009b, p. 7). The third area is Lagan, which is also monitored and 
managed by the PCCP. On Dumaran Island, the protected suitable forest 
patches are each very small: 1.5 and 0.6 km\2\ (0.6 and 0.2 mi\2\), 
respectively (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 24). On this island in 2008, 
although 10 eggs were counted, only two birds fledged (Widmann et al. 
2009b, p. 6). Recovery is slow; they started with fewer than 20 birds 
before protection started (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Pandanan and Bugsok Islands

    Pandanan and Bugsok (119 km[sup2]) (46 mi\2\) are small islands 
south of Palawan, within the Balabac Island Region. It is likely that 
Pandanan holds possibly the second-most important population of 
Philippine cockatoos, containing at least 80 individuals (Widmann and 
Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). Approximately 40 birds were observed in a 
coconut plantation in 2009 on Malinsuno Island, a 10-hectare (24-acre) 
nearby island that is part of the Pandanan Barangay (equivalent to 
county or province) (Widmann et al. 2010c, p. 5; Widmann and Widmann 
2010, pers. comm.). On Bugsok Island, Balabac, also in the Pandanan 
Barangay, approximately 40 cockatoos were also recently observed 
roosting (Widmann et al. 2010c, p. 5). A large part of Pandanan Island 
itself is not easily accessible, and because it is privately managed, 
it is protected for the most part. PCCP is working on building a 
relationship with organizations to monitor and formally protect this 
island, and wardens are being hired as of 2010 (Widmann et al. 2010, 
pp. 26, 56).

Polillo Islands Group

    This group of islands is approximately 110 km (68 mi) east of 
Manila, in Quezon Province in the northern Philippines. Patnanungan 
Island is part of the Polillo Island Group and is not yet very 
developed. Polillo Island itself is 1,000 km\2\ (386 mi\2\). As of 
2009, within the Polillo group of islands, Patnanungan Island was known 
to contain a population of the Philippine cockatoo (Widmann et al. 
2010, p. 15). However, no roosting sites have been identified on this 
island (Widmann et al. 2010, p. 23). Patnanungan Island is mainly 
covered with secondary vegetation and coconut plantations (Widmann et 
al. 2010, p. 22). Seven nest trees are being monitored in this area 
(Widmann et al. 2009b, p. 7). To the best of our knowledge, there is 
not a viable population on Polillo Island, although the species has 
been observed there. In 2009, in Burdeos, six Philippine cockatoos were 
spotted in Duyan-Duyan Forest in the Anibawan Barangay, where it is 
regularly heard (Widmann et al. 2009a, p. 41; Widmann et al. 2010, p. 
38). In part, because there were fewer than 20 birds prior to their 
protection, recovery is slow (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Rasa Island

    Rasa Island is a protected 8 km\2\ (3 mi\2\) island off the east 
coast of Narra, Palawan. This island was declared a wildlife sanctuary 
in 2006 (Widmann et al. 2010, p. 15). As of 2007, 1.75 km\2\ (0.6 
mi\2\) of the island was coastal and mangrove forest. In 2008, 32 nest 
trees were found to be occupied, 21 pairs had successful fledglings, 
and the population was estimated to be 205 individuals (Widmann et al. 
2008, p. 14; Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 27; Widmann et al. 2009b, p. 
5-6). Breeding success was 63 percent; 49 fledglings were banded 
(Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 24). Population recruitment in years that 
experienced sufficient precipitation in Rasa has been good. As of 2009, 
Rasa Island had 64 nest trees, and its cockatoo population was 
approximately 280 individuals, making it the area with the highest 
natural density of Philippine cockatoos (Widmann 2010b). PCCP estimates 
that Rasa Island contains about 20 percent of the total Philippine 
cockatoo population (Widmann et al. 2010c, p. 19). The success of 
cockatoos on this island is likely due to the lack of potable water, 
which makes it unattractive to human settlement (BLI 2001, p. 1687). 
The Philippine cockatoo population on this island has grown due to 
intense management; in 1997, there were only about 50 birds on Rasa 
Island (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 24).

Other Islands

    Little current data exists regarding the status of the Philippine 
cockatoo on

[[Page 49211]]

other islands, such as Samar and Tawi-Tawi, in part because these areas 
are extremely remote. The Katala Foundation Inc. (KFI) surveyed Samar 
in 2002, at which time only two individual Philippine cockatoos were 
verified. Sightings were reported recently in Busuanga Island (Coron) 
and on Bellatan Island in the Tawi-Tawi region. KFI recently received a 
report from a member of the Wild Bird Club, Philippines, that 
approximately 30 to 40 individuals were sighted on Bellatan Island 
(Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). Sightings of this species on 
Dinagat, Surigao del Norte, and Samal Islands, Davao, have been 
reported, but they remain unverified (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. 
comm.).
    An older survey indicated that possibly 100 to 200 Philippine 
cockatoos existed in the Tawi-Tawi region; however, those data are from 
over 20 years ago, and, therefore, no longer likely to be an accurate 
population estimate (Lambert 1993, Dutson 1997, and Allen 1997 in 
Snyder 2000, p. 84; BLI 2010b, p. 1). Tawi-Tawi is in the southwestern 
part of the Philippines in the Sulu Archipelago. Tawi-Tawi consists of 
107 islands and islets and is approximately 1,197 km\2\ (462 mi\2\) in 
area. The island of Tawi-Tawi itself is 484 km\2\ (187 mi\2\) (Dutson 
et al. 1996, p. 32) and is part of the Autonomous Region in Muslim 
Mindanao (ARMM). This area has experienced problems with logging, 
military activity, and insurgency but is now encouraging ecotourism 
(Philippines Department of Natural Resources (DENR) 2005; IUCN 2010b; 
Manila Bulletin 2010), which may have positive effects on the 
Philippine cockatoo.
    Samar is the third largest island in the Philippines archipelago. 
It experienced threats from logging and mining in the past, but in 
1989, an unexpected natural disaster resulted in initiation of 
conservation actions (Samar Island Natural Park 2010, p. 1). Due to the 
intense landslides that occurred as a result of logging activities, a 
logging moratorium was put into place that year. Samar Island Natural 
Park was subsequently established on the island, which may have 
positive results for the Philippine cockatoo. Samar has been reported 
to contain one of the Philippines' largest unfragmented tracts of 
lowland rainforest. There have been several reports of Philippine 
cockatoo sightings on Samar, but there is no current estimate of how 
many exist there other than the reported sightings (Widmann et al. 
2006, p. 13; BLI 2010 p. 1; Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.).

Conservation Status for the Philippine Cockatoo

    Protections exist through various national, local, and 
international mechanisms. This species was transferred from Appendix II 
to Appendix I of CITES in 1992 (refer to the discussions under Factors 
B and D for the crimson shining parrot above for more information about 
CITES). Inclusion in Appendix I means that international commercial 
trade is generally prohibited (http://www.cites.org). From 1981 to 
1992, the Philippine cockatoo was listed in Appendix II of CITES. The 
species is protected under the Philippines Republic Act 9147, otherwise 
known as the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 
or the ``Wildlife Act of 2001.'' It is classified as ``Critically 
Endangered'' by the government of the Philippines under this Act (DENR 
2010b, p. 2). It is on the Philippines list of protected species (DENR 
2010b, p. 2), under the Republic Act No. 9147. The Republic No. 
provides for the conservation and protection of wildlife resources and 
their habitats. It prohibits certain activities such as capture and 
trade of live wildlife, including the Philippine cockatoo. It is also 
protected in the U.S. by the WBCA (refer to discussion under the 
Crimson Shining Parrot, factor D).
    The Philippine cockatoo is also listed as Critically Endangered in 
the 2010 IUCN Red List. Critically endangered is IUCN's most severe 
category of extinction assessment, which equates to an extremely high 
risk of extinction in the wild. IUCN criteria include rate of decline, 
population size, area of geographic distribution, and degree of 
population and distribution fragmentation; however, IUCN rankings do 
not confer any actual protection or management.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Philippine Cockatoo

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    Widespread deforestation and destruction of native mangroves have 
affected the habitat of the Philippine cockatoo. The loss of this 
species' habitat through deforestation largely occurred prior to the 
1980s (Kummer 1991, p. 46; Galang 2004, p. 13). Forest cover decreased 
in Palawan from 10,703 km\2\ (4,132 mi\2\) in 1950, to 6,605 km\2\ 
(2,550 mi\2\) in 1987 (Kummer 1991, p. 57). In the 1990s, commercial 
logging on Palawan, the primary location of the Philippine cockatoo, 
was suspended by presidential decree; however, nearly all of the 
island's forests were already leased to logging operations (Lambert 
1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1686; Galang 2004, p. 14). Many of Palawan's 
mangroves, which covered 46,000 ha (13,668 ac) in 1988, were also 
cleared for fishpond construction (Quinnell and Balmford 1988 in BLI 
2001, p. 1686). As a result of the pressures for resources, much of the 
forest is now either secondary forest or has been converted to 
plantations or agriculture (Heaney et al. 1998, 88 pp.; Galang 2004, 
pp. 13-14). In most areas within the range of the Philippine cockatoo, 
there is a severe shortage of timber and firewood; consequently, 
illegal logging is widespread. In addition to mangrove logging, slash-
and-burn farming (referred to as ``kaingin'' in the Philippines) is a 
problem in many areas, particularly in the Polillo Island Group.
    Soil erosion is a secondary impact that further degrades suitable 
habitat (Kummer 1991, p. 41), as demonstrated on Samar Island. In 
addition to habitat degradation and destruction through road 
construction, digging, removal of trees, and mining are causing 
secondary habitat degradation through severe erosion. During the rainy 
season, water creates deep clefts along the roads that are created for 
mining operations, causing road collapse. No mitigation measures have 
been put into place to reduce erosion (IUCNb 2010, pp. 1-2). Virtually 
all chainsaw operations in Patnanungan and Burdeos are not registered 
with the appropriate authority (Widmann et al. 2010).
    Cockatoos are highly impacted by selective logging of primary 
forests because they are large birds and subsequently require large 
nests. Selective logging, which targets mature trees, has a negative 
impact on tree-cavity nesters such as the Philippine cockatoo. Research 
has found that the abundance of cockatoos is positively related to the 
density of its favored nest tree and strangling figs (Ficus spp.) 
(Kinnaird et al. 2003, p. 227). These are trees that would be impacted 
by logging, especially since reduced-impact logging techniques are 
seldom applied. Once the primary forest is logged, the secondary forest 
is generally converted to other uses or logged again rather than being 
allowed to return to primary forest. Therefore, although cockatoos may 
continue to inhabit secondary forests, the population is usually at a 
substantially lower number due to a decrease in suitable nesting sites.
    It is well documented that habitat loss is one of the most 
significant effects

[[Page 49212]]

humans have on wild species (Fahrig 1997, p. 603; Vitousek et al. 
1997). In some cases, corridors are established to promote connectivity 
between populations of species to reduce the effects of habitat 
fragmentation, and this has been shown to be effective (Haddad et al. 
2003, pp. 609-615; Cameron 2007, pp. 110-112). In the case of the 
Philippine cockatoo, a ``virtual'' corridor is being created by 
artificially transplanting captive-reared cockatoos into suitable, 
relatively protected habitat; however, it is unclear how much this 
species naturally moves from one island habitat to another. This 
species in the past has been known to fly from the mainland to nearby 
islands at distances of 8 km (5 mi). Researchers point out that at the 
metapopulation scale, habitat fragmentation causes habitat patches to 
be reduced in size and to be isolated from one another, and gene flow 
between patches is decreased (Blanchet et al. 2010, p. 291). Because 
this species' population reduction and fragmentation has occurred so 
recently and rapidly, it is unlikely that there are significant genetic 
differences between the existing populations. However, habitat loss and 
fragmentation are affecting this species.
    The Palawan Islands Region is essentially the last area where 
Philippine cockatoos have a viable population. Although Palawan has 
been seen as a center for environmental preservation (McNally 2002, p. 
9), it still faces many threats, in part due to a burgeoning human 
population (IUCN 2010b, p. 1; Laurance et al. 2010, p. 377). The human 
population of the Philippines in 2009 was estimated at 91,983,000 
(United Nations (UN) 2009, p. 41) and is experiencing a growth rate of 
1.7 percent annually (UN 2009, p. 51). Palawan, in particular, has 
experienced rapid human population growth (McNally 2002, pp. 8-9). As 
of 2002, ``Palawan remains a highly attractive place of destination for 
migrants from other areas within the Philippines'' (McNally 2002, p. 
11). While the burgeoning human population on Palawan may not directly 
affect the Philippine cockatoo, it does indirectly affect the species 
by contributing to the habitat losses and pressures described within 
this section.
    Despite the protection measures that are in place to prohibit 
mining and other activities that degrade habitat, mining operations and 
oil palm plantations are being developed on Palawan Island (IUCN 2010c, 
pp. 1-3; Novellino 2010, pp. 2-48). The Philippine cockatoo has not 
been recorded in areas in southern Palawan where mining and oil palm 
plantations exist (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). Although 
mining does not occur directly within Philippine cockatoo habitat, it 
indirectly adds to habitat loss and degradation on the island 
(Novellino et al. 2010, pp. 1-48). These threats to the ecosystem still 
exist despite legislative protections in Palawan (refer to Factor D).
    Rasa Island contains a large percentage of the Philippine cockatoo 
population, although small in actual numbers. In addition to the formal 
protection measures in place on Rasa Island, this population is 
actively monitored and protected by PCCP staff (Widmann et al. 2010a, 
b, c). While this population is reasonably protected, in part due to 
island's undesirable characteristics for human settlement such as the 
lack of potable water, any deforestation and habitat loss here are 
significant factors affecting the species. This is because so little of 
the species' habitat remains and because they are experiencing other 
pressures as well, such as poaching, described under Factor B, below.
    On Dumaran Island, the pending implementation of a Jatropha 
plantation is occurring within the few remaining forest patches left 
(Widmann et al. 2010a, pp. 6, 32, 46). Jatropha curcas trees produce a 
fruit with an inedible oil that contains a high energy content and is 
being explored as an alternative fuel (Mendoza et al. 2007, p. 1). A 
hectare of Jatropha has been claimed to produce 1,892 liters (500 
gallons) of fuel. Many industries such as the air transportation 
industry are considering this as a biofuel source, and it is also being 
touted as a mechanism for carbon credits. However, because this species 
occurs in areas that are managed and protected by the PCCP, the Omoi 
Cockatoo Reserve and the Manambaling Cockatoo Reserve (Widmann et al. 
2009b, p. 7), we do not find that pending implementation of a Jatropha 
plantation is a threat to the species on Dumaran Island.
    PCCP currently manages three areas on Dumaran Island, including a 
newly acquired buffer area in Omoi (Widmann et al. 2010, p. 32). 
Dumaran Island also experiences widespread slash-and-burn agriculture, 
which has begun to affect more forested areas on steeper slopes here 
(Widmann 2008a, p. 19). Larger forested parts of the island are now 
replaced with grass and shrubland, and dense stands of bamboo, as a 
consequence of this practice. Due to lack of water, irrigation systems, 
and level areas, lowland rice cultivation is very restricted. However, 
permanent forms of cultivation are coconut and cashew plantations. 
Forest and grass fires are common, particularly during the dry season. 
Fire is not only used to clear areas for cultivation, but also to 
further growth of fresh grass for pastures.
    In the other areas where this species exists, the current extent of 
the present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
the species' habitat is unclear; however, it is likely that the 
pressures on the species are similar, if not worse (BLI 2010b; Widmann 
et al. 2010, p. 15). Human encroachment and concomitant increasing 
human population pressures exacerbate the destructive effects of 
ongoing human activities throughout the Philippine cockatoo's habitat. 
Increased urbanization and mining lead to increased infrastructure 
development. Road building and mining projects further facilitate human 
access to remaining forest fragments, throughout the species' range, 
including protected areas. Mining projects, such as those proposed or 
occurring on Palawan, open new areas to exploitation and attract people 
seeking employment; these pressures from human development will likely 
spill over into nearby Philippine cockatoo habitat.
Summary of Factor A
    We have identified a number of threats to the habitat of the 
Philippine cockatoo that have operated in the past, are impacting the 
species now, and will continue to impact the species. Habitat loss and 
degradation from past events, such as selective and commercial logging, 
conversion to plantations or agriculture, and mining, have decreased 
this species' suitable habitat; and these activities are still 
occurring. Illegal logging (discussed under Factor D) is widespread in 
the Philippines (Kummer 1991, pp. 70-75; Galang 2004, pp. 12, 17, 22; 
Laurence 2007, p. 1544), which adds to any pressures of legal 
deforestation. Based on the best available scientific and commercial 
data available, we find that the present and threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the species' habitats, particularly in 
the Palawan area, is a threat to the Philippine cockatoo throughout all 
of its range.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Illegal Pet Trade
    The Philippine cockatoo, like all cockatoos, is a desirable pet 
(Cameron 2007, p. vii). In the Philippines, cockatoos are reported to 
be popular pets due to their ability to mimic human voices (Catigob-
Sinha 1993 in

[[Page 49213]]

Boussekey 2000, p. 138). On Palawan, Pandanan, and Samar Islands, 
trapping is a particularly serious threat (Widmann et al. 2010a, pp. 
21-22; Widmann et al. 2010c, p. 16) and is still considered to be one 
of the most significant threats to the species. Awareness campaigns 
have been initiated since the late 1990s to increase understanding of 
why these birds should not be removed from the wild for pets, and these 
campaigns are somewhat effective (Widmann et al. 2010). Due to the high 
value of these birds (valued at $160 U.S. dollars (USD) in Manila in 
1997, and $300 USD in 2006 (BLI 2010, p. 1)), chicks are taken from 
virtually every accessible nest on these islands (Widmann et al. 2010a, 
pp. 21-22). A researcher observed that in the 1980s, up to 10 
Philippine cockatoos were trapped per day (Tabaranza 1992 in BLI 2001, 
p. 1685).
    In recent years, several programs to combat the poaching problem, 
such as public awareness programs and the rehabilitation and release of 
confiscated parrots were established by the PCCP to support the 
conservation of the Philippine cockatoo. PCCP started these awareness 
programs to educate adults and children in villages near areas where 
the birds are concentrated. The programs use the Philippine cockatoo as 
a flagship species for conservation, especially with children, because 
the image of the endemic Philippine cockatoo is unique (Widmann et al. 
2010, pp. 21-22). PCCP focuses in areas where this species is found in 
the wild, such as the CMRPA, to educate the local communities in an 
attempt to reduce poaching. In 2005, on Palawan Island, PCCP began an 
initiative specifically targeted towards anti-poaching in the CMRPA. 
Former poachers were identified and converted into wildlife wardens. 
This ``conversion'' practice is common in developing countries that 
have human populations that rely heavily on forests and wildlife for 
their survival (Cribb 2006, p. 3). These converted poachers-now-wardens 
safeguard the nesting trees, and patrol and monitor inside CMRPA in the 
southwest region of Palawan (Widmann et al. 2010).
    Because illegal trade is difficult to monitor and quantify, it is 
unclear to what extent poaching for the pet trade is affecting this 
species. Considering that in the early 1990s, the population was 
estimated to be only between 1,000 and 4,000 birds (Tabaranza 1992 and 
Lambert 1994b in BLI 2001, p. 1681), relatively high numbers were 
legally traded internationally in the 1980s (e.g., 422 reported in 
1983; BLI 2010, p. 1). This species is still is being poached in the 
wild (Widmann et al. 2010).
    Although we are unsure of the magnitude of the pet trade and its 
effect on the survival of this species, several reports describe how 
poaching is still a problem for parrot species, particularly in poorer 
countries (Dickson 2005, p. 548; http://www.philippinecockatoo.org, 
accessed February 14, 2011). In areas with extreme poverty, poaching 
can be a lucrative and relatively risk-free source of income (Dickson 
2005; Cribb 2007; Widmann et al. 2010c, p. 22). In many cases, poachers 
have limited income prospects (Widmann et al. 2010a, p. 37). A common 
conservation practice is to provide poachers with alternative sources 
of income. After the benefits of species and habitat conservation are 
explained to them, they are generally receptive to resource 
conservation and ultimately gain a sense of stewardship of the 
resources. This technique has been effective in the past, but it is 
resource-intensive and has only a localized effect.
    PCCP also broadcasts local radio programs raising conservation 
awareness. For example, in August 2010, they broadcast an interview 
regarding wildlife trade and a recent confiscation in Palawan (Widmann 
et al. 2010c, p. 73). Conservation-focused radio programs have occurred 
here since 1996 (Boussekey 2000, p. 140). However, even with these 
education and conservation measures in place, poaching still occurs in 
the Philippines (Widmann et al. 2010c). Based on the available 
information, and the relatively small number of Philippine cockatoos 
remaining in the wild, we find that poaching for the pet trade in the 
Philippines is a threat to the Philippine cockatoo throughout all of 
its range.
International Trade and CITES
    The Philippine cockatoo was transferred to CITES' Appendix I in 
June 1992 because populations were declining rapidly due to 
uncontrolled trapping for the pet bird trade. Refer to the Factor B 
discussion above under the crimson shining parrot for additional 
information about CITES. An Appendix-I listing includes species 
threatened with extinction whose trade is permitted only under 
exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. 
The import of an Appendix-I species requires the issuance of both an 
import and export permit. Import permits are issued only if findings 
are made that the import would be for purposes that are not detrimental 
to the survival of the species in the wild and that the specimen will 
not be used for primarily commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)). 
Export permits are issued only if findings are made that the specimen 
was legally acquired and trade is not detrimental to the survival of 
the species. (CITES Appendix III(2)). These two findings made prior to 
issuance of a CITES permit are designed to ensure that international 
trade in a CITES-listed species is not detrimental to that species.
    An exception to permitting requirements for international trade of 
Appendix I species exists specimens originating from a CITES-registered 
captive-breeding operation. Under the exception in the CITES Treaty and 
Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), specimens of Appendix-I species 
originating from CITES-registered captive-breeding operations can be 
traded for commercial purposes, and shipments only need to be 
accompanied by an export permit issued by the exporting country. An 
import permit is not required because these specimens are treated as 
CITES' Appendix-II species. There is one CITES-registered captive-
breeding operation in the Philippines that is authorized to export 
captive bred specimens of this species (http://www.cites.org/common/reg/e_cb.html, accessed December 12, 2010). Countries operating CITES-
registered operations must ensure that the operation ``will make a 
continuing meaningful contribution according to the conservation needs 
of the species'' (CITES 2007b, pp. 1-2). Countries that are parties to 
CITES are advised to restrict their imports of Appendix-I captive-bred 
specimens to those coming only from CITES-registered operations. 
Additional information on CITES-registered operations can be found on 
the CITES Web site at http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/registers.shtml.
    We queried the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database for data on exports 
and imports of this species from 2000 to 2009, and there were very few 
exports from the Philippines reported as ``wild'' origin. Between 2000 
and 2009, CITES Party countries reported to UNEP-WCMC that a total of 
91 live Philippine cockatoos were imported (http://www.unep-wcmc-apps.org/citestrade) into their countries, at an average of 10 birds 
per year. The majority of these (78) originated from the Philippines; 
77 of these live shipments were reported to be of captive-origin, and 
only one was indicated to be of wild origin. Additionally, in 2009, the 
UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database indicated that only two live birds were 
exported from the Philippines. As the Philippine cockatoo is listed as 
an Appendix-I

[[Page 49214]]

species under CITES, legal commercial international trade is very 
limited. Based on the low numbers of live, wild Philippine cockatoos in 
international trade since 2000, and because the trade was in parts and 
products from wild specimens, rather than live birds, we believe that 
international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is not a threat 
to the species.
Summary of Factor B
    In summary, cockatoos are popular pets, and poaching for the pet 
trade still occurs, particularly on Pandanan Island (Widmann et al. 
2010c, p. 13). Although we do not find that international trade 
controlled via valid CITES permits is a threat to the species, we do 
find that poaching for the pet trade in the Philippines continues to be 
a threat to the Philippine cockatoo.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    In the information provided and the literature reviewed, there were 
suggestions that diseases, particularly a fungal disease, in the wild 
may be a threat to this species. It was suggested that Viscertropic 
Velogenic Newcastle Disease, Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease 
(PBFD), or the psittacid herpes virus (PsHV-1 or PsHV-2) were indicated 
as possible threats and may have been introduced into the wild 
population, possibly by the release of captive birds (Lambert 1994 in 
BLI 2001, p. 1686; BLI 2010b, p. 1). Cockatoo species are widely 
distributed throughout Australasia, and some avian species have 
developed resistance to some diseases (Commonwealth of Australia 2006, 
p. 1). These diseases affect each cockatoo species differently.
Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease
    Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease (PBFD) is a viral disease that 
originated in Australia and affects both wild and captive birds, 
causing chronic infections resulting in either feather loss or 
deformities of beak and feathers (Cameron 2007, p. 82). PBFD causes 
immunodeficiency and affects organs such as the feathers, liver, and 
brain. Suppression of the immune system can result in secondary 
infections due to other viruses, bacteria, or fungi. The disease can 
occur without obvious signs (de Kloet and de Kloet 2004, p. 2394). 
Birds usually become infected in the nest by ingesting or inhaling 
viral particles. Infected birds develop immunity, die within a couple 
of weeks, or become chronically infected. No vaccine exists to immunize 
populations (Cameron 2007, p. 82). While some cockatoo species are 
susceptible to this virus, there is no indication that PBFD adversely 
affects the Philippine cockatoo at the population level in the wild.
Proventricular Dilatation Disease
    Another serious disease that has been reported to infect some 
cockatoos is Proventricular Dilatation Disease (PDD). PDD is a fatal 
disease that may pose a serious threat to domesticated and wild parrots 
worldwide, particularly those with very small populations (Waugh 1996, 
p. 112; Kistler et al. 2008, p. 1). This contagious disease causes 
damage to the nerves of the upper digestive tract, so that food 
digestion and absorption are negatively affected. The disease has a 100 
percent mortality rate in affected birds, although the exact manner of 
transmission between birds is unclear. Although this is a particularly 
virulent virus that affects cockatoos in general, we are unaware of any 
reports that this disease occurs in Philippine cockatoos in the wild.
Avian Influenza
    Wild birds, especially waterfowl and shorebirds, are natural 
reservoirs of avian influenza (also known as ``bird flu''). Most 
strains of the avian influenza virus have low pathogenicity and cause 
few clinical signs in infected birds. Pathogenicity is the ability of a 
pathogen to produce an infectious disease in an organism. However, 
strains can mutate into highly pathogenic forms, which is what happened 
in 1997, when the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (called H5N1) 
first appeared in Hong Kong (USDA et al. 2006, pp. 1-2). H5N1 is mainly 
propagated by commercial poultry living in close quarters with humans. 
The effect on migratory birds is less clear (Metz 2006a, p. 24). 
Scientists increasingly believe that at least some migratory waterfowl 
carry H5N1, sometimes over long distances, and introduce the virus to 
poultry flocks (World Health Organization 2006, p. 2). H5N1 has 
infected and caused death in domestic poultry, people, and some wild 
birds in Asia, Europe, and Africa. About half of humans infected die 
from the disease (Service 2006, p. 1). A parrot held in quarantine in 
the United Kingdom was incorrectly diagnosed with H5N1 is 2005. The 
original identification of H5N1 was made from a pool of tissues derived 
from a Pionus parrot (from Surinam) and another avian species called a 
mesia (Leiothrix spp.) from Taiwan. The Department for Environment, 
Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom (DEFRA) stated that it was not 
possible to say whether the virus isolated came from the parrot tissue 
or the mesia tissue or both (DEFRA 2005, p. 34). However, they 
concluded that the source was more likely the sample from the mesia 
(DEFRA 2005, p. 34). Later, it was determined that the samples had been 
mixed, and the parrot did not have the disease (Gauthier-Clerk et al. 
2007, p. 208). Although in the Philippines, 339 smuggled parrots were 
euthanized following confiscation even though none were confirmed to 
have the virus (Metz 2006a, pp. 24-25), we are unaware of any reports 
that this disease occurs in Philippine cockatoos in the wild.
Aspergillosis
    Aspergillosis is an infection or allergic response to the 
Aspergillus fungus. A literature review found that cases of 
Aspergillosis were being reported in captive-held, wild-origin 
Philippine cockatoos in the Philippines at the U.S. Air Force Base, 
Clark Field, Angeles City (Burr 1981, p. 21). In all known cases 
according to the report, stress, such as enclosure in a small bird 
cage, was indicated to be a factor prior to death. Observations 
indicated that free-flying birds in aviaries showed no signs of stress, 
and there were no deaths recorded in these birds. Natural incidence of 
Aspergillosis in the wild occurs in the Philippine cockatoo; however, 
it appears to be more prevalent in captive birds. During one survey, 
Aspergillus spores were found below nest holes in Palawan (Tabaranza 
1992; Lambert 1994 in BLI 2001, p. 1686). The Philippine cockatoo is 
likely a latent carrier of Aspergillus (Burr 1981, p. 23); however, 
based on a review of the best available information, there is no recent 
information indicating that this disease negatively affects this 
species at the population level in the wild (Widmann et al. 2010c, p. 
45).
Lice and Mites
    Ectoparasitism by lice and mites was documented as the possible 
cause of death in some chick mortalities on Rasa Island (Widmann et al. 
2001, p. 146; Widmann et al. 2010a, pp. 6, 38). Mites, a form of 
arachnid, were found in some monitored nests where chicks had died. 
Although nests are being routinely monitored on Rasa Island, mites are 
not commonly found in these nests. Mites have evolved in a symbiotic 
relationship with avian species. Not all bird-mite relationships are 
parasitic; some might be benign or beneficial (Proctor and Owens 2000, 
pp. 358, 362). Many mites are nonparasitic scavengers and use the nest 
or bird feathers as habitat. Despite the presence of mites found in 
nests where chick mortalities were observed, there is no evidence that 
mites

[[Page 49215]]

significantly contribute to chick mortalities. We conducted a search of 
available information, and there is no other information indicating 
that lice and mites significantly affect the species, although mites 
may occur more frequently during dryer seasons (Widmann et al. 2010a, 
p. 38; Widmann et al. 2010c, pp. 39, 45). It was suggested that 
unusually high temperature, rather than mites, may have contributed to 
the lack of nest success in 2001 (Widmann et al. 2010c, p. 45); 
however, the actual reasons for nest failures (mortalities) are 
unclear.
Summary of Factor C
    When conducting a status review, we evaluate the magnitude of each 
factor that may be affecting a species, and, in this case, we did not 
find evidence that any disease or predator rises to the level of a 
threat that is affecting this species in the wild. After conducting a 
literature search (Johnson et al. 1986, pp. 813-815; Latimer et al. 
1992, pp. 165-168; de Kloet 2004, pp. 2393-2412; Tomaszewski et al. 
2006, pp. 536-544), we found no indication that disease or predation is 
a threat to the Philippine cockatoo in the wild. Although individual 
Philippine cockatoos may be subject to occasional infections or 
predation, there is no evidence that either of these is occurring at a 
level that may affect the status of the species as a whole to the 
extent that it is considered a threat to the species. Therefore, we 
find that the Philippine cockatoo is not threatened due to disease or 
predation.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Several regulatory mechanisms are in place at the national and 
local levels that serve to conserve this species and the habitat on 
which it depends; however, the mechanisms are ineffective at adequately 
protecting the Philippine cockatoo. We find that CITES effectively 
protects the species from unsustainable legal international trade. 
Factors hampering the regulatory mechanisms in place include remoteness 
of protected areas, poverty that causes locals to unsustainably use 
this species' habitat or to poach, and the lack of resources to 
adequately enforce laws and regulations (Galang 2004, p. 17; Laurance 
2007, p. 1544; Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) 2007, 
p. 1-3). These are discussed below.
Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms
    In the late 1980s and early 1990s, efforts were already underway to 
protect the Philippine cockatoo (Boussekey 2000, p. 140; Galang 2004, 
p. 17). In 1987, the Government of the Philippines established the 
Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) through the DENR, under 
Executive Order 192. Its responsibilities are in part to manage and 
protect the country's protected areas. In 1992, the National Integrated 
Protected Areas System Act (NIPAS Act of 1992) was adopted in order to 
protect and maintain the Philippines' biological diversity. In 1994, 
the PAWB signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) regarding the 
conservation of this species (Boussekey 2000, p. 138, Philippines DENR 
2009, pp. 1-2). This MOA has been implemented by a nongovernmental 
organization, the Katala Foundation, since 2006 through the PCCP. Under 
this MOA, an intensive species conservation program has been underway 
to conserve this species and its habitat. The PCCP accomplishes its 
mission through intense local management of the species. Some aspects 
of the conservation program are to educate local communities about the 
benefits of conserving endemic wildlife, protect and restore nesting 
sites and habitat, conduct research, and reintroduce the species into 
the wild (Widmann et al. 2010, p. 22).
    As a protected species (DENR 2010b, p. 2), under the Republic Act 
No. 9147, certain activities such as capture and trade of live wildlife 
are prohibited. Republic Act No. 9147 provides for fines and penalties 
for prohibited acts. However, within the Philippines, the laws are 
generally ignored and only poorly enforced (Galang 2004, pp. 12-17; 
Laurance 2007, p. 1544; Rose 2008, p. 232).
    Additional protections exist under the Philippines' Executive Order 
No. 247, which protects the rights of local people with respect to the 
use of natural resources (http://www.elaw.gov, accessed January 4, 
2011). This Executive Order mandates that prospecting of biological and 
genetic resources shall be allowed within the ancestral lands and 
domains of indigenous cultural communities only with the prior informed 
consent of such communities. Involving local tribal communities adds an 
additional conservation measure. For example, the Batak tribe 
(Boussekey 2000, p. 144) in northern Palawan has shown interest in 
participating in wildlife conservation. The protection of endemic 
natural resources has been demonstrated to benefit native tribes and 
local communities near sites that have unique features (Widmann et al. 
2010b, p. 36). Locals may be recruited as wardens, or these areas can 
be developed for ecotourism. However, in this case, it is likely that 
only around 300 to 400 members of the Batak tribe survive today, so the 
effectiveness in the long term is unclear (Cultural Survival 2010 and 
Survival International 2010, both accessed November 18, 2010). These 
regulatory mechanisms could have a positive effect on the species, but 
currently it is unclear whether Executive Order No. 247 is benign or 
actually constructive.
    As discussed under Factor B, the Philippine cockatoo is monitored 
and managed in some, but not all, areas where it exists. Some areas are 
designated as protected specifically for the Philippine cockatoo and 
wardens are employed (Widmann et al. 2010a, pp. 18-22; and refer to 
Conservation Status for the Philippine Cockatoo section above). An 
increase in the population is occurring in some areas where it is 
protected, such as on Rasa Island, but in other areas where protections 
are not robust, the population is declining (Widmann et al. 2010a, p. 
32). Although there are five areas designated as being ``protected,'' 
under Philippine law, the levels of protection vary. In 2006, Rasa 
Island, the area containing the densest population of the Philippine 
cockatoo, was declared a wildlife sanctuary by President Arroyo 
(Widmann 2006, p. 1). The protected area consists of 1,983 ha (4,900 
ac). While this area is fairly well protected and monitored, effective 
reserve management here is hampered by a shortage of staff, technical 
expertise, and financial support (Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). In 
addition, the remoteness of protected areas makes enforcement of 
activities such as poaching and illegal logging difficult. Overall, the 
management of protected areas is insufficient. For example, in 2010, 
despite management of the species, 15 hatchlings died and 17 eggs did 
not hatch on Rasa Island during an extreme weather event (refer to 
Factor E discussion) (Widmann et al. 2010a, p. 38). Even in areas such 
as Narra that are monitored by wardens, poaching occurs (Widmann et al. 
2010a, p. 6). The protections in place for this species are ultimately 
ineffective at reducing the threats to this species. This species 
resides in other areas that are not protected; and habitat destruction 
(see Factor A discussion above) and poaching for the pet trade (see 
Factor B discussion above) still occur even in protected zones.
    The Philippine cockatoo is carefully monitored and managed in some, 
but not all, areas where it exists. The species exists in five 
protected areas: (1) Rasa Island Wildlife Sanctuary (Narra, Palawan), 
(2) Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park

[[Page 49216]]

(Palawan), (3) Omoi and Manambaling Cockatoo Reserves in Dumaran 
(Dumaran, Palawan), (4) Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (CMRPA) 
in Rizal, Palawan, and (5) Samar Island Natural Park. Each protected 
area in Palawan has its own unique protections in place and legislation 
to protect the species and its habitat (Widmann and Widmann 2010, pers. 
comm.).
    Although there are five areas designated as being ``protected,'' 
the levels of protection vary. An increase in the population is 
occurring in some areas, but in other areas where protections are not 
as robust, the population is declining, in part due to poaching. The 
PCCP, the Philippine government, and individuals concerned with the 
conservation of this species have actively worked to protect the 
Philippine cockatoo since 1998. The PCCP is a nonprofit organization 
dedicated to the conservation of wild Philippine cockatoos. Its goals 
are to teach the principles and value of conservation, work to 
rehabilitate Philippine cockatoos back into the wild, and conduct 
scientific research. As of 2000, the local communities that live within 
the range of this species have been aware that it is illegal to capture 
or trade this species (Boussekey 2000, p. 143).
    At most sites where a viable population appears to exist, PCCP is 
actively managing this species to try to increase the populations. For 
example, artificial nest boxes for the Philippine cockatoo were 
installed on Rasa Island and the mainland (Palawan) (Widmann and 
Widmann 2008, p. 27). Recovery of the Philippine cockatoo on Rasa 
Island has been fairly effective, where nest-guarding by local people 
has virtually stopped poaching (Boussekey, pers. comm. in Cahill et al. 
2006, p. 166). Breeding success on Rasa Island has been high (averaging 
2.6 hatchlings per nest in 2002, for example). On this island, a 
population of approximately 20 birds increased four-fold between 1998 
and 2003 (Boussekey, pers. comm. in Cahill et al. 2006, p. 166; Widmann 
et al. 2010). In Patnanungan, Polillo Islands, the first artificial 
nest box for the Philippine cockatoo was installed in November 2009 
(Widmann et al. 2010, p. 13), and reforestation efforts are occurring. 
These activities are somewhat effective but slow because the protection 
efforts are not able to completely combat the negative factors such as 
poaching and selective logging that affect this species in many cases.
    Recent efforts are being focused on Pandanan Island (south of 
Palawan Island), which has excellent habitat for this species, and has 
recently been targeted by PCCP for protection of the Philippine 
cockatoo. A grant under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wildlife 
Without Borders, Critically Endangered Species Conservation Fund, for 
the Pandanan project was approved in September 2009 (Widmann et al. 
2010, p. 5). This island has the potential for the species to make a 
good recovery because there is excellent forest cover due in part to 
the protections provided by the Jewelmer Corporation. This company 
holds a marine mining concession in the area of Pandanan. Due to this 
concession, no human inhabitants are legally allowed on Pandanan 
Island. In January 2010, PCCP obtained formal permission from the 
Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) to conduct 
conservation efforts on the island (Widmann et al. 2010b, p. 5). 
Poaching still needs to be abated, but PCCP has been working to 
establish a local warden program (Widmann et al. 2010a, p. 50) on the 
island to address this issue. Security has recently improved in the 
area where a viable cockatoo population has been confirmed, but the 
species is still threatened by poaching (Widmann et al. 2010a, p. 15). 
The PCCP indicates that it is likely that with the warden program in 
place, they can eliminate or reduce poaching.
    As resources allow, other protections and conservation actions are 
in place for this species. On Dumaran, Rizal, and Patnanungan Islands, 
Philippine cockatoo activity is observed through wardens monitoring, 
and patrols occur at protected areas and roost sites. Monitoring of the 
population trend on Rasa and Dumaran Islands is done through counting 
individuals at traditional roost sites. Due to both a lack of funding 
and logistics, not all Philippine cockatoo sites are actively monitored 
and managed. This is primarily because it is more efficient to focus 
resources in the Palawan Islands Region where the Philippine cockatoo 
has a viable population.
    In summary, while laws to protect this species are in place, 
enforcement often is severely lacking or difficult, given the many 
islands that make up the Philippines and considering that illegal 
activities in many cases remain socially acceptable at the local level. 
Illegal logging is considered a leading cause of forest degradation in 
the Philippines (Galang 2004, pp. 12-17; Laurance 2007, p. 1544; Rose 
2008, p. 232). Laws and regulations are frequently ignored, which 
further reduces the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms (Galang 
2004, pp. 12-17), and this species continues to suffer a decline in 
population numbers. Therefore, we find that, although the Philippines 
has a good legal framework to manage wildlife and their habitats, 
actual implementation of its laws and regulatory mechanisms is 
inadequate to reduce the threats to the Philippine cockatoo.
CITES
    The evaluation of the effectiveness of CITES as a regulatory 
mechanism is cross-referenced under Factor B, as CITES regulates 
international trade of wildlife. The Treaty requires CITES Parties to 
have in place adequate legislation for its implementation. Through 
Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties to CITES adopted a 
process, termed the National Legislation Project, to evaluate whether 
Parties have adequate domestic legislation to successfully implement 
the Treaty. In reviewing a country's national legislation, the CITES 
Secretariat evaluates factors such as whether a Party's domestic laws 
designate the responsible Scientific and Management Authorities, 
prohibit trade contrary to the requirements of the Convention, have 
penalty provisions in place for illegal trade, and provide for seizure 
of specimens that are illegally traded or possessed. The Philippines 
has enacted domestic legislation to implement CITES. That legislation 
is currently being reviewed by the Secretariat to determine if it meets 
all the necessary criteria (CITES 2011a).
    With respect to international trade, we found CITES to be an 
adequate existing regulatory mechanism for this species (see our 
analysis under Factor B for legal trade). See our analysis for the 
crimson shining parrot for additional discussion on how we made this 
determination. As discussed under Factor B, very few Philippine 
cockatoos have been legally exported from the Philippines since 2000. 
One operation in the Philippines is registered to export captive-bred 
specimens of this species for commercial purposes and appears to be 
adequately monitored and regulated. Based on the information available, 
CITES and the Government of the Philippines have effectively controlled 
legal international trade of this species.
Summary of Factor D
    In summary, we find that the Government of the Philippines appears 
to have controlled legal international trade through CITES (see 
discussion under Factor B above). With respect to trade, the existing 
domestic regulatory mechanisms within the Philippines, as implemented, 
are inadequate to reduce or remove the current threats to the 
Philippine cockatoo in the wild based

[[Page 49217]]

on reports of poaching. As discussed under Factor B above, uncontrolled 
illegal domestic trade continues to adversely impact the Philippine 
cockatoo. Measures in place via the MOA and the PCCP provide some 
protection to the Philippine cockatoo. Through the MOA, this species is 
carefully monitored and managed in key areas where the species has a 
good chance of recovery, particularly in the Rasa Island Wildlife 
Sanctuary (Narra, Palawan). Despite efforts, management of protected 
areas encompassing this species' habitat is hindered due to the 
remoteness of protected areas, staff shortages, lack of technical 
expertise, and lack of funding; this is acknowledged by the local NGO 
(Widmann et al. 2010a).
    Even with government controls, poaching of cockatoos is relatively 
common in areas that are not protected. In addition, laws and 
regulations are frequently ignored, in part due to the difficulty in 
monitoring and enforcement throughout the multitude of islands in the 
Philippines. As discussed under Factors A and B above, we found that 
poaching, logging, and conversion of forests to agriculture and 
plantations are threats to the Philippine cockatoo. Despite regulatory 
mechanisms in place, illegal logging continues to be a leading cause of 
forest degradation in the Philippines (Laurance 2007, pp. 1544-1555; 
Rose 2008, p. 231). There is no information available to suggest these 
threats will change in the foreseeable future; therefore, we find that 
the existing regulatory mechanisms, as implemented, are inadequate to 
reduce or remove the current threats to the Philippine cockatoo.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species

    Various other factors have been cited as being potential threats to 
this species. In addition to poaching, trapping, and deforestation 
(Boussekey 2000, p. 138) (refer to the discussions under Factors A and 
B, above), hunting (to protect crops), harassment by bees, and nest 
flooding have been observed to affect this species (Widmann et al. 
2001, pp. 139-140; Widmann et al. 2007a, pp. 76-77, 79). Because this 
species has been viewed as an agricultural pest, it was often killed if 
it was thought to be consuming crops (Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 23). 
However, there is no indication that this practice still occurs. Nest 
flooding during a thunderstorm was observed to affect clutch survival 
during the 2000-2001 breeding season on Rasa Island (Widmann et al. 
2001, pp. 139-140). Although nest flooding may occur occasionally, the 
PCCP indicates that it is not a common occurrence, and we do not 
consider this to be a threat to the species.
    Bees have been observed to attack cockatoos. In 2005, on 
Patnanungan Island, bees were documented attacking Philippine cockatoos 
(Widmann et al. 2007a, pp. 76-77, 79). These cockatoos were unable to 
nest due to the close proximity of a beehive. The extent of competition 
with bees for nesting sites is not clear. Philippine cockatoos have 
been monitored for many years, and this is the only known report of 
nest site competition with bees. Therefore, it does not appear to be a 
significant factor affecting this species.
    Other factors affecting the species include food shortages due to 
drought and the lack of suitable nesting cavities (Widmann and Widmann 
2008, p. 25). The lack of suitable nesting sites in general is 
addressed under Factor A. In 2005, this species suffered from 
starvation on Rasa Island due to a food shortage during an El 
Ni[ntilde]o drought year. However, several fledglings were rescued. Of 
these, 10 developed normally and were subsequently released (Widmann 
and Widmann 2008, p. 25). Additional factors affecting the species 
include the lack of suitable nesting cavities (in large, decayed trees) 
and possibly the lack of adequate food sources (Widmann et al. 2010a, 
p. 6). Because this species has specific nutrition and habitat 
requirements, it was suggested that Rasa Island may be at carrying 
capacity due to limited habitat and food availability (Widmann and 
Widmann 2008, p. 25). Because Rasa Island is very small, with only 1.75 
km\2\ (0.6 mi\2\) of the island being coastal and mangrove forest, its 
suitable habitat is limited. As of 2009, Rasa Island had 64 nest trees, 
and as of 2010, there were 280 individual Philippine cockatoos on this 
island. There was a second starvation event in 2010 (Widmann et al. 
2010a, p. 6). At this time, we are unable to determine if limited food 
availability on this island and starvation due to drought are threats; 
however, the Rasa Island population is carefully monitored by the PCCP, 
and they intervene and manage the species if needed. Although in some 
years limited food availability may be a concern, we do not find that 
this factor rises to the level of a threat to the species. Further, the 
lack of suitable nesting cavities is being monitored and addressed by 
the PCCP. At this time, there is no evidence that bees or nest flooding 
are threats to the species.
Small and Declining Population
    The Philippine cockatoo has a contracted geographic range and a 
small, rapidly declining population, primarily due to poaching. There 
are between 450 and 1,245 individuals left remaining in the wild, 
distributed on eight islands (BLI 2011, p. 1). In many cases, the 
Philippine cockatoo is now geographically isolated from other 
populations. Additionally, because it is an island species that 
generally mates for life and is long-lived, it is extremely vulnerable 
to localized extinctions. Species with small populations are 
significantly influenced by individual birth and death rates (Gilpin 
and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27), immigration and emigration rates, and 
changes in population sex ratios. Natural variation in survival and 
reproductive success of individuals and chance disequilibrium of sex 
ratios may act in concert to negatively affect reproduction (Gilpin and 
Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27).
    Prior to the 1980s, the Philippine cockatoo was common throughout 
the Philippines (Boussekey 2000, p. 138; Cameron 2007, p. 34). Its 
existing populations are extremely localized due to habitat loss and 
its preference for lowland primary and secondary forest, which is also 
preferred human habitat. PCCP suggests that a rapid population 
reduction may occur in the future based on low recruitment in recent 
years, especially for unprotected populations (Widmann 2011a, pers. 
comm.). In the Rizal (South Palawan) area, which was protected only 
recently, there are no indications of recovery. Only one breeding pair 
exists outside of this cockatoo reserve, and this area was poached 
within the past 2 years. Breeding here did not occur in the 2009-2010 
season. Since all nests have been systematically poached in this area 
over many years, extinction of this population might occur suddenly due 
to lack of reproduction success. This is partly a consequence of mating 
characteristics of this species: It is long-lived and generally mates 
for life. At least two birds persist inside the protected area, but 
they have not bred in the past 4 years (Widmann 2011a, pers. comm.).
    Small, isolated populations of wildlife species such as the 
Philippine cockatoo that have gone through a reduction in population 
numbers can be susceptible to demographic and genetic problems (Shaffer 
1981, pp. 130-134). Factors that could affect their susceptibility 
include: Natural variation in survival and reproductive success of 
individuals; changes in gene frequencies due to genetic drift; 
diminished genetic

[[Page 49218]]

diversity and associated effects due to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding 
depression); dispersal of just a few individuals; a few clutch 
failures; a skewed sex ratio in recruited offspring over just 1 or a 
few years; and chance mortality of just a few reproductive-age 
individuals. These small, rapidly declining populations are also 
susceptible to natural levels of environmental variability and related 
``catastrophic'' events (e.g., severe storms, extreme cold spells, 
wildfire), which we refer to as environmental stochasticity (Dunham et 
al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412).
    Threats to species typically operate synergistically. Initial 
effects of one threat factor can later exacerbate the effects of other 
threat factors (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-26). Any further 
fragmentation of populations may likely result in the further removal 
or dispersal of individuals. The lack of a sufficient number of 
individuals in a local area or a decline in their individual or 
collective fitness may also cause a decline in the population size, 
despite the presence of suitable habitat patches.
    The combined effects of habitat loss and fragmentation (Factor A) 
and threats associated with small, declining, and isolated populations 
(Factor E) on a species' population are referred to as patch dynamics. 
Patch dynamics can have profound effects on fragmented populations and 
can potentially reduce a species' effective population by orders of 
magnitude (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). For example, an 
increase in habitat fragmentation can separate populations to the point 
where individuals can no longer disperse and breed among habitat 
patches, causing a shift in the demographic characteristics of a 
population and a reduction in genetic fitness (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986, p. 31). Furthermore, as a species' status continues to decline, 
often as a result of deterministic forces such as habitat loss or 
overutilization, it becomes increasingly vulnerable to a broad array of 
other forces. Despite the mitigation and conservation measures in 
place, if this trend continues, its ultimate extinction due to one or 
more stochastic events becomes more likely. Given the species' 
dispersed nature, the fact that it is a long-lived species that 
generally mates for life, and that the largest population is 
approximately 280 individuals, we find that this factor threatens the 
continued existence of this species. Based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available, we conclude that based on its small, 
rapidly declining population, the Philippine cockatoo is at risk of 
extinction, particularly when combined with the other threats.
Summary of Factor E
    Several other factors were identified as affecting the success of 
this species such as harassment by bees, nest flooding, and starvation. 
These factors are a normal occurrence in the ecology of this species, 
and we do not find that these factors significantly affect this species 
such that they rise to the level of a threat. However, we find that its 
small, rapidly declining population, when combined with the other 
threats of habitat loss and poaching, is a threat to the species 
throughout its range.

Finding for the Philippine Cockatoo

    We considered the five factors in assessing whether the Philippine 
cockatoo is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We 
examined the best scientific and commercial information available 
regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Philippine 
cockatoo. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, 
and other available published and unpublished information, and we 
consulted with recognized Philippine cockatoo experts and local and 
international NGOs.
    The primary factors affecting the Philippine cockatoo include 
habitat loss and habitat degradation and poaching for the pet trade. 
Habitat loss associated with logging, an expanding human population and 
associated development, conversion of lowland forests to agriculture 
are the some of the greatest threats to the continued survival of this 
species (BLI 2001, p. 1685; Galang 2004, pp. 5-22; Posa et al. 2008, 
pp. 231-236; Widmann and Widmann 2008, p. 23; Widmann et al. 2010, p. 
14). Habitat loss due to the above activities continues to occur; this 
species' population is declining range wide as a result.
    Based on the best available information, poaching is still 
occurring, despite education and public awareness campaigns and 
protections in place at the national level (Widmann et al. 2010c., p. 
13). Awareness campaigns have been conducted on Mindanao, Palawan, and 
Polillo Islands (Widmann 2010, pers. comm.). On Dumaran Island, the 
Katala Pride Campaign has focused on raising awareness among students 
and farmers. Trilingual conservation posters have been distributed 
throughout the Philippines, and in 1992, a captive-breeding program was 
initiated. This species is being intensely managed in some areas, but 
the management and protection of the species is hampered by the lack of 
resources, its remote island habitat, and by the nature of this 
species' life-history characteristics (such as the tendency to mate for 
life and they do not reproduce until a late age). Efforts to improve 
the habitat of this species (e.g., reforestation, building of nest 
boxes) are continuing and may improve its habitat and population 
numbers. In Polillo, Dumaran, and Rasa, the species may slowly increase 
in population numbers, but in other areas, the species' population 
continues to decline. The best population estimates of this species 
were compiled in the early 1990s, at which time the population was 
estimated to be between 1,000 and 4,000 individuals (Snyder et al. 
2000). Experts believe the population is now between 450 and 1,245 
individuals, and most populations are fairly well monitored (Widmann et 
al. 2010); however, poaching for the domestic pet trade continues to be 
a threat to the species. It is unlikely that this species' rapidly 
declining and small population can withstand this level of poaching. 
Therefore, we find overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) is a threat to the 
Philippine cockatoo.
    We found no evidence that diseases significantly affect the wild 
Philippine cockatoo population. Other avian species, particularly 
cockatoo species, are susceptible to avian diseases, but there was no 
evidence that disease occurs in the wild to an extent that it is a 
threat to this species. Predation was not found to affect Philippine 
cockatoo populations. Based on the best available information, we 
conclude that disease and predation (Factor C) are not threats to the 
species.
    The Philippine cockatoo is classified as a protected species by the 
Philippine government. The current range of the Philippine cockatoo is 
much smaller than its historical range (BLI 2010b). However, as a 
result of conservation efforts by the various entities working to 
ensure long-term conservation of the Philippine cockatoo, its range may 
slowly increase, but current efforts are indicating mixed levels of 
success. Despite conservation efforts of various entities, we have 
determined that existing regulatory mechanisms continue to be 
inadequate because habitat loss and poaching are still occurring 
(Factor D). In summary, we conclude that inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms are a threat to the Philippine cockatoo.
    This species has a small and rapidly declining population. This 
species no longer exists in many of the areas where it occurred 
historically. This species is in competition with humans for habitat;

[[Page 49219]]

development and related infrastructure take the place of its habitat. 
Within its current range, where there are few viable populations 
remaining, the PCCP is managing the species to the best of its ability; 
however, the PCCP acknowledges that this species still faces a rapid 
population reduction in the future based on low recruitment in recent 
years, especially for unprotected populations. When combined with other 
threats, and when considering its fragmented population, we conclude 
that its small, rapidly declining population is a threat to the species 
(Factor E). Due to this species' extremely small, declining, and 
fragmented population and due to the existing threats (Factors A, B, D, 
and E), it is currently in danger of extinction.
    Despite the conservation measures in place, this species faces 
severe threats, and the population trend for this species continues to 
decline. Based on our review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the 
Philippine cockatoo is in danger of extinction (endangered) throughout 
all of its range. We do not find that the effects of current threats 
acting on the species are likely to be sufficiently ameliorated in the 
foreseeable future. These threats are consistent throughout its range. 
Therefore, we find that listing the Philippine cockatoo as endangered 
is warranted throughout its range, and we propose to list the 
Philippine cockatoo as endangered under the ESA.

Species Information

C. White cockatoo (Cacatua alba)

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The white cockatoo is also known as the umbrella cockatoo. ITIS, 
CITES, and BirdLife International recognize the species as Cacatua alba 
(BLI 2010). Therefore, we accept the species as C. alba. The white 
cockatoo is completely white except for the underside of its wings and 
tail, which are pale yellow. It has a long, backward-curving white 
crest on its head. Its bill is grey-black, and it has a white bare eye-
ring. The bird has either yellowish-white or slightly grey-blue legs.

Population Estimates

    Population estimates for the white cockatoo vary, in part due to 
the remoteness of the islands where this species exists. Population 
estimates prior to 2000 indicated that the Lalobata protected area on 
Halmahera Island contained between 28,500 and 42,900 white cockatoos 
(MacKinnon et al. 1995; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 67), although they did 
not survey lowland forest, which they thought may contain more white 
cockatoos. The white cockatoo was described as being common in the 
early 1990s. Survey work carried out in 1991 and 1992 suggested a 
population estimate of between 49,765 and 212,430 birds (Lambert 1993a; 
Snyder et al. 2000, p. 671; BLI 2010c, p. 1). BLI reported that the 
total population is between 43,000 and 183,000 mature individuals; 
however, this population estimate is based on 1993 data (Lambert 1993 
in BLI 2010). Burung Indonesia estimated that based on surveys 
conducted in 2008 and 2009, there are between 8,629 and 48,393 white 
cockatoos remaining in the wild (Burung Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.) on 
Halmahera Island.

Distribution, Habitat, Biology

    While the exact life span is unknown, reports of the white 
cockatoo's lifespan vary between 20 and 50 years in captivity (Lambert 
1993, p. 147; Jordan 2010, pers. comm.). Wild-caught birds have been 
reported not to breed until they are 6 years old. The highest 
productive period for the white cockatoo is between 6 and 20 years 
(Jordan 2010, pers. comm.). However, some pairs have been recorded to 
breed well into their thirties, and a few exceptions have been reported 
with pairs or individuals that have reproduced into their forties or 
fifties (Lambert 1993, p. 147). Clutch-size of white cockatoos in 
captivity is reported to be 2 to 3 eggs per season, and incubation 
takes 25 to 28 days; nestlings reside in the nest approximately 90 days 
before fledging (Cameron 2007, p. 140). Both parents share 
responsibility for raising chicks, and the species is thought to be 
monogamous for life.
    The white cockatoo is endemic to a few islands in North Maluku, 
Indonesia, and it inhabits primary, logged, and secondary forests 
possibly up to 900 m (2,953 ft) (IUCN 2008h). It is not thought to 
inhabit forests on ultra basic rock (BLI 2001, p. 1674). This species 
is believed to occur in three protected areas: Gunung Sibela Strict 
Nature Reserve on Bacan Island (although this site is threatened by 
agricultural encroachment and gold prospecting), and Aketajawe Nature 
Reserve and the Lalobata Protected Forest (ALNP), both on Halmahera 
Island (BLI 2010). Historically, its range has been the islands of 
Halmahera, Bacan, Ternate, Tidore, Kasiruta and Mandiole in North 
Maluku (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 67; BLI 2010c). ALNP consists of 
approximately 167,300 hectares (413,407 acres) of primary and secondary 
forest. This total area represents 7.5 percent of Halmahera Island 
(Burung International 2010, pers. comm). Now the white cockatoo is 
thought to only inhabit Halmahera and Bacan Islands (Wildlife 
Conservation Society (WCS) 2010, pers. comm.). The Bacan Island group, 
also known as Palau Batjan, is about 16 km (10 mi) southwest of 
Halmahera Island. Little is known about the status of the species other 
than on Halmahera Island. Due to the lack of information, this status 
review only addresses its status on Halmahera Island unless otherwise 
specified.
    The Maluku Islands are also known as the Moluccas or the Spice 
Islands, and they are between Sulawesi and New Guinea, below the 
Philippines. The white cockatoo, like most cockatoos, is a resident 
(nonmigratory) species, but cockatoos are strong fliers, and they will 
likely travel to nearby islands in search of habitat or food, if it is 
not readily available. The highest densities of this species occur in 
primary (old-growth) forest (BLI 2009; Burung International 2011), but 
the species seems to tolerate some habitat modification. White 
cockatoos inhabit mangroves, plantations (including coconut), and 
agricultural land (BLI 2010c). This species requires large trees for 
nesting and roosting, is often observed feeding in large flocks, and 
eats seeds, fruit, and insects. Their preferred nesting holes were 
observed to be situated at points where large branches had broken off 
the main trunk (Lambert 1993, p. 146).
    Halmahera (also known as Jilolo or Gilolo Island) is the largest 
island in the North Maluku province, and is 17,780 km\2\ (6,865 mi\2\) 
in size. Its annual precipitation is 2,000 to 3,000 mm (79 to 118 in). 
Halmahera, a four-pronged island, is considered to be a biodiversity 
hotspot (Myers et al. 2000 in Setiadi et al. 2010, p. 560). North 
Maluku province consists of eight provincial districts: North 
Halmahera, West Halmahera, East Halmahera, Central Halmahera, South 
Halmahera, Ternate Municipality, Tidore City and Islands, and Sula 
Islands. In North Halmahera, the number of districts on the island has 
recently increased to 22, and the number of villages has increased from 
174 to 260. The human population in Maluku Province in 2010 was 
estimated to be 1,531,402 (Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Maluku 2010). 
Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park, established in 2004, was the first 
national park established in North Maluku (Keputusan Menteri Kehutanan 
No. SK.397/MenHut-II/2004), and is described as being one of the most 
pristine and unvisited areas in all of Indonesia.
    Bacan, a smaller island to the southwest of Halmahera, is also

[[Page 49220]]

inhabited by the white cockatoo, although very little is known about 
the status of the species here. This remote, sparsely populated island 
is not well known. It is 1,900 km[sup2] (733 mi\2\) in area and still 
contains relatively undisturbed forests. A recent human population 
estimate is between 13,000 and 59,000 individuals, and the majority 
resides on the west side of the island, in the capital (Labuha) and 
nearby villages. The current number of white cockatoos on the island is 
unknown. Reports from locals indicated that the species had declined on 
Bacan due to trapping between the 1970s and 1980s (Lambert 1993, p. 
146). Surveys conducted here in 1985 found only 76 white cockatoos. In 
1991, the population on Bacan and its satellite islands was estimated 
to be 7,220 to 29,300 white cockatoos (Lambert 1993a, b), but this may 
be an overestimate of the population size based on the survey methods 
used (Gilardi 2011, pers. comm.).
    Accuracy of survey methodologies varies (Thomas 1996, pp. 49-58; 
Pollack 2006, p. 882; Thomas et al. 2009, pp. 5-14), and there are 
limits to how much confidence we can place in various population 
surveys (Royle and Nichols 2003). One researcher pointed out that 
differing methodologies can result in differences in at least an order 
of magnitude. In situations where species are rare or have small 
populations, the number of observations made per survey may be very 
small and the number of sites limited, and, therefore, estimates and 
projections may not be accurate (Marsden 1999, pp. 377-390; Pollack 
2006, p. 891). In some areas, suitable habitat may have been recently 
disturbed due to habitat modification and infrastructure development. 
As a result, species' breeding, nesting, and forage habitat have 
subsequently been destroyed, and the birds are dispersing. It may 
appear as though the population is larger than it actually is due to 
sightings in new locations or the perception that the species is more 
common because it has been displaced from its original habitat.
    In the case of white cockatoos, the population estimate may not be 
accurate based on the survey methodology used and the inferences made. 
A recent survey indicated that the population density estimation for 
this species in the Aketajawe block was between 1.6 and 8.9 individuals 
per km\2\ (Burung 2011, pp. 1-5). From this survey, a projection was 
made to the surrounding area of 5,462 km\2\ (2,109 mi\2\) of the 
remaining natural forest area in the vicinity of the national park. 
Based on this projection, Burung estimated the population in the 
western Halmahera natural forests was 8,630 to 48,393 individuals. This 
estimate may be optimistic based, in part, on the studies described 
above (Marsden 1999, pp. 377-390; Royle and Nichols 2003, p. 777; 
Pollock 2006, p. 882). In addition, because the survey extrapolated the 
population density for the surrounding area outside of the Aketajawe 
block (which contains less suitable habitat for the species and is more 
accessible to poachers) from the estimated density within the Aketajawe 
Nature Reserve (which contains the preferred habitat for the species 
and is less accessible to poachers), the density levels outside of the 
Aketajawe Nature Reserve may be an overestimate. Assuming that there 
were anywhere between 8,629 and 48,393 individuals on Halmahera in 2009 
and there was an estimated 49,765 to 212,430 individuals in 1992, this 
trend in population estimates indicates a decrease in the population. 
This decrease is extremely likely based on the negative effects of 
habitat loss and poaching that are commonly known to occur on this 
island.
    Recent local anecdotal accounts of this species' population also 
vary. One recent observation was that the population of white cockatoos 
was thought to be ``very sparse'' (WCS 2010, pers. comm.) and rapidly 
declining (BLI 2010c, p. 1). Populations were conversely described as 
still being relatively widespread across Halmahera Island, and birds 
were occasionally observed in flocks (WCS 2010, pers. comm.). In 
November 2010, this species was observed daily, with flocks up to 23 
birds observed during a recent 5-day trip to Halmahera (WCS 2010, pers. 
comm.). However, local people consider them to have declined from 
former population levels.
    We have no recent estimate of the population on Bacan Island. 
Although the last estimate, in 1993, was between 7,220 to 29,300 
individuals on Bacan Island, a 1985 survey only found 76 cockatoos. We 
are unsure of the population trend. Further, in 1993, there were 
reported to be over 100 people who regularly trapped parrots on Bacan, 
and this practice was a major source of income (Lambert 1993, p. 155). 
Poaching is a common practice in Indonesia, and it likely still occurs 
with regularity on Bacan Island.

Conservation Status for the White Cockatoo

    The white cockatoo has been listed in Appendix II of CITES since 
1981. It is listed on the 2010 IUCN Red list as vulnerable. It is also 
protected in the U.S. by the WBCA (refer to discussion under the 
Crimson Shining Parrot, factor D). The purpose of the WBCA is to 
promote the conservation of exotic birds and to ensure that 
international trade involving the United States does not harm exotic 
birds. Although there is a national ban against harvest for the white 
cockatoo, the quota is not effective at eliminating poaching in the 
wild. Cockatoos are still poached and smuggled into local markets 
illegally (ProFauna Indonesia 2008, pp. 1-9; ProFauna 2010). The white 
cockatoo is not listed as a protected species by the Indonesian 
Republic Forestry Ministry (WCS 2010, pers. comm.).
    Information available suggests that a few local protections are in 
fairly preliminary stages but occurring. Existence of the Aketajawe-
Lolobata National Park on Halmahera may serve to reduce hunting 
pressure and habitat loss if game wardens are monitoring the park. Also 
on Halmahera, some of the foreign-owned mining operations are 
considering their environmental impact (see Factor A discussion on 
mining). Very few private or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 
operate in the area, in part due to the lack of funding available. 
Burung Indonesia (http://www.burung.org) does some work in this area, 
mostly in relation to the national park, and there is another local 
NGO, Konservasi Alam Maluku Utara (KAMU), that is working to try to 
protect this species (Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 2010, pers. 
comm.). There may be carbon-funded forest protection projects starting 
in the area that also may convey protection measures, but none is 
operating yet.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting the White Cockatoo

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

    It is commonly accepted that deforestation and habitat loss is a 
significant problem in Indonesia (Galang 2004, p. 14; Laurance 2007, p. 
1544; BLI 2010k, p. 1). Indonesia consists of 17,508 islands and 33 
provinces. It is a rapidly developing country, with a population of 230 
million (United Nations 2009, p. 11). It is the world's fourth most 
populous country (United Nations 2009, p. 11). Countries with the 
highest human population growth rates tend to have the highest rates of 
deforestation as well (Laurance 2007, p. 1545). As available land 
becomes more scarce, companies and humans move towards more remote 
areas in search of resources (BLI 2008, p. 100). Human settlements and 
plantations are typically located in

[[Page 49221]]

lowland coastal areas, which is the white cockatoo's preferred habitat 
(Smiet 1985, pp. 181, 183). The habitat required by the white cockatoo 
has been impacted by activities such as conversion of its habitat to 
uses such as development of towns, mining, and logging (particularly 
illegal logging, which generally fails to use sustainable logging 
practices) (Lambert 1993, p. 146). Pressure on the islands' resources 
is increasing (http://www.indonesia-tourism.com/north-maluku/halmahera_history.html), in part from the increase in human population 
on the island, a demand for more resources such as biofuel and 
agriculture, and to a lesser extent, an increase in ecotourism. 
Historically, 75 percent of the population on Halmahera has depended on 
farming or fishing for their livelihood, but this is changing as 
investors and human development move to the island.
    Part of the Indonesian government's long-term planning strategy is 
to develop more efficient agriculture to help alleviate poverty. For 
example, the government of Indonesia has sold land to a company called 
the Sustainable Pacific Corporation (SPC), which purchased 300,000 ha 
(750,000 ac) of land to be used for organic agriculture and livestock 
breeding, agricultural packing houses, warehouses, tourism, and a sea 
port (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2412420/halmahera_a_world_sustainable_development.html?cat=3 and http://worldteakplantation.itrademarket.com/profile/sustainable-pacific-corp.htm, accessed February 23, 2011). An essential part of this 
process is infrastructure development, primarily the improvement of 
roads, which can lead to further illegal logging and land clearance, 
and also facilitates bird trapping (poaching). This initiative will 
likely convert land that is currently suitable white cockatoo habitat 
into land for other uses that are no longer suitable for this species, 
such as Jatropha curcas plantations, which are discussed below.
Logging
    Illegal logging is considered to be a leading cause of forest 
degradation in Indonesia (Rhee et al. 2004, chap. 6, p. 7). Between 
2000 and 2005, Indonesia's forest cover declined by more than 90,000 
km\2\ (34,740 mi\2\). Unsustainable logging practices that destroy the 
forest canopy also reduce habitat available to the white cockatoo 
(Lusli 2008, p. 22). Logging creates a network of roads, which can lead 
to secondary problems (BLI 2008k, p. 6), such as providing access for 
poachers. The Center for International Forestry Research estimated that 
between 55 and 75 percent of logging in Indonesia is illegal (http://www.cifor.cgiar.org, accessed December 10, 2010). Jepson and Ladle 
(2005, pp. 442-448) concluded that illegal logging was becoming semi-
legal and the de facto arrangement for governing Indonesia's forests. 
Illegal logging is pervasive, and the Indonesian government has been 
unable to enforce protected forest boundaries (Barr 2001, p. 40; 
Laurance 2007, pp. 1544-1547). Illegal logging activities include: 
Overharvesting beyond legal and sustainable quotas, harvesting trees 
from steep slopes and riparian habitat, illegal timber harvest and land 
encroachment in conservation areas and protected forests, and 
falsification of documents. Overexploitation of the forests and illegal 
logging are driven by the wood-processing industry, which is reported 
to consume at least six times the officially allowed harvest (Rhee et 
al. 2004, p. xvii, chap. 6, p. 8). Illegal logging in national parks is 
reported with regularity, and the people involved have in the past been 
armed and described as being ruthless (Whitten et al. 2001, p. 2).
    Selective logging is the primary legal method used for the 
extraction of timber in Indonesia (BLI 2008k, p. 6). In selective 
logging, the most valuable trees from a forest are commercially 
extracted (Johns 1988, p. 31), and the forest is left to regenerate 
naturally or with some management until being subsequently logged 
again. Johns (1988, p. 31), studying a West Malaysian dipterocarp 
forest, found that mechanized selective logging in tropical rain 
forests, which usually removes a small percentage of timber trees, 
caused severe incidental damage. The extraction of 3 percent of trees 
destroyed 51 percent of the forest. He concluded that this type of 
logging reduced the availability of food sources for frugivores (fruit-
eaters). Loggers occasionally find parrots, including Cacatua alba, in 
commercially valuable trees that they fell, such as Anisoptera (locally 
known as mersawa) in the Dipterocarpaceae family. The white cockatoo 
has been observed in commercially valuable trees such as Anisoptera and 
Canarium species (kenari or kiharpan) (Lambert 1993, p. 146). The most 
recent BLI assessment stated that much of the habitat for the species 
was still intact, and even where degraded, the species used degraded 
areas. This was confirmed by WCS, which indicated that the islands of 
Halmahera and Bacan still have extensive forest cover; however, as 
selective logging targets mature trees, it can have a disproportionate 
impact on hole-nesters, such as cockatoos, because fewer nest sites 
remain (BLI 2008k, p. 6).
    Although almost 80 percent of its original forest is still intact, 
the Halmahera Rain Forests ecoregion (including Bacan Island) still 
faces habitat deforestation threats. As the forests are lost on other 
Indonesian islands, there is an increasing potential for forestry 
operations to move to Halmahera and other islands with large, desirable 
trees. Despite Presidential Instruction No. 4/2005 to eradicate illegal 
logging in forest areas and distribution of illegally cut timber 
throughout Indonesia (FAOLEX 2009, p. 1), illegal logging continues 
(refer to Factor D discussion). Contributing factors include poor 
forest management practices, rapid decentralization of government, 
abuse of local political powers, complicity of the military and police 
in some areas of the country, inconsistent law enforcement, and 
dwindling power of the central government (USAID 2004, pp. 3, 9; 
Laurence 2007, p. 1544).
    Although illegal logging still occurs, the Indonesian government is 
actively working to conserve its resources. The year 2011 was declared 
the International Year of Forests. Many countries, including Indonesia, 
are working towards reducing emissions from deforestation and forest 
degradation (termed REDD) (Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of 
Indonesia 2008, 185 pp.). Despite these efforts, illegal logging still 
occurs within this species' range.
Mining
    Mining and its associated impacts is a fairly new factor affecting 
this species. Several companies have mining rights in the Maluku area, 
particularly on Halmahera (WCS 2010, pers. comm.). PT Antam, the 
largest mining company in Indonesia, currently operates three nickel 
mines on the northeast prong of Halmahera (PT Antam 2009). Another 
mining company, PT Nusa Halmahera Mineral (NHM), is a joint venture 
company between Newcrest Mining of Australia and PT Antam Tbk, an 
Indonesian-owned company. They have an exploration license for Bacan 
and nearby islands to look for gold and other minerals. A third mining 
company has a license to mine nickel near Ake Tajawi on Halmahera (WWF 
2010a).
    Two gold mines have been in operation on Halmahera (Newcrest Mining 
2010, p. 1). The Gosowong mine was an open-pit, cyanide-leach mine that 
operated from 1999 to 2002, and is now closed. The Toguraci mine began

[[Page 49222]]

operation in 2004. Toguraci is located 2 km (1.2 mi) southwest of the 
original Gosowong pit mine. This mining operation is operated by a 
joint venture company, Pt Nusa Halmahera Minerals (PTNHM) and PT Aneka 
Tambang. Development of this mine began in July 2003, after approval of 
a feasibility study and environmental impact statement by the 
Indonesian Minister of Mines. Actual mining of ore and the first gold 
production began in February 2004. This mine has been the subject of 
conflict between local residents and the mining company. Between 
October and December 2003, several illegal miners occupied the Toguraci 
mine site. Additionally, the mine is located in a forested area that, 
according to local residents, is protected under Indonesian law, and, 
therefore, mining operations should not be allowed. The current 
operating status of the Toguraci mine is unclear; however, local NGOs 
indicate that mining on Halmahera does affect the white cockatoo 
(Vetter 2009, pp. 2, 14, 15; WCS 2010, pers. comm.). Mining activities 
can affect the white cockatoo's habitat either directly or indirectly, 
through pressures such as illegal poaching or human encroachment and 
habitat disturbance.
    Yet another mining company, PT Weda Bay Nickel, proposed a nickel 
and cobalt mining project in 2009 on the island and has submitted an 
environmental monitoring plan (PT Weda Bay Nickel 2009, 204 pp.; 
Cardiff 2010, pp. 1-14). The footprint of the mining operation appears 
to be within the boundaries of Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park (Vetter 
2009, p. 19; Cardiff 2010, p. 1), which could have significant 
detrimental effects on Halmahera's wildlife, including the white 
cockatoo. A review of the proposed mining project indicated that it 
would likely destroy between 4,000 and 11,000 hectares (9,884 and 
27,182 acres) of tropical forest, and between 2,000 and 6,000 ha (4,942 
and 14,826 ac) of protected forested area (Cardiff 2010, pp. 6, 9, 12). 
The review indicated that mining activities are extremely destructive 
to this habitat. Based on deforestation projections, the population of 
the white cockatoo is projected to decline more than 65 percent over 
three generations due to deforestation (Vetter 2009, pp. 25, 26, 51). 
It is unclear whether this mining operation will be approved, or if 
there will be mitigation measures required; however, it is clear that 
the extractable resources on Halmahera are desirable, and mining will 
very likely have a significant negative impact on this species and its 
habitat.
Biofuel Production
    Indonesia is investing in the planting of Jatropha curcas trees and 
palm oil (Elaeis guineesis) (Department for Environment, Food and Rural 
Affairs, United Kingdom 2008, pp. xvii, 47, 64, 65). Rapid expansion of 
biofuel plantations has led to intense international concern about 
wide-scale environmental impacts. On Halmahera, at least 500 hectares 
(3,750 acres) have been allotted for cultivating the Jatropha tree 
(Consulate General of the Republic of Indonesia 2006, pp. 5-6). Many 
industries, such as the air transportation industry, are considering 
the use of fuel from Jatropha as a biofuel source, and it is also being 
encouraged as a mechanism for carbon credits (http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org, http://www.jatrophaworld.org, http://www.jatropha-alliance.org). This oil has been reported to produce 
energy similar to diesel fuel. Although this species may yield 4 times 
as much fuel per hectare as soybeans, and possibly 10 times that of 
corn, it requires 5 times more water to produce than corn. It is also 
reported to be desirable to developing countries because its carbon 
emissions footprint is thought to be relatively small when burned.
    Conversion of land to monocultures destroys white cockatoo habitat. 
Monocultures are generally not suitable habitat for wildlife. White 
cockatoos require large trees, which provide large enough nesting 
cavity sites, and Jatropha curcas trees require many years to reach a 
size that would be suitable for nesting. This will likely also have a 
negative impact on this species' suitable habitat due to road building, 
infrastructure development, other construction (Vetter 2009, pp. 1-10). 
Additionally, because there is currently no effective enforcement body 
to monitor sustainable land development (also refer to Factor D 
discussion) on Halmahera, these activities threaten white cockatoo 
habitat. Therefore, we find that conversion of forests to monocultures 
for biofuel, particularly Jatropha, is a threat to the white cockatoo.
Summary of Factor A
    Deforestation affects endemic bird species restricted to single 
islands more severely than it affects other species (Brooks et al. 
1997, p. 392). Monocultures such as exotic tree plantations, 
agriculture, conversion to human habitat, resource extraction, 
agriculture, and logging are forms of deforestation and habitat loss 
affecting endemic island species such as the white cockatoo in 
Indonesia (Laurance 2007, p. 1544). Lowland areas that offer vital 
habitat for Indonesia's cockatoos have been the most severely impacted 
(Cameron 2007, p. 177; Vetter 2009, p. 4). As islands become more 
inhabited and deforested, humans move to other islands that contain 
available resources (Laurance 2007, p. 1544).
    Cockatoos are highly impacted by selective logging of primary 
forests. Selective logging, which targets mature trees, has a negative 
impact on cavity-nesters such as the white cockatoo. Research found 
that the abundance of cockatoos is positively related to the density of 
its favored nesting trees (large trees that would be impacted by 
logging), especially since reduced-impact logging techniques are rarely 
applied. Once the primary forest is logged, experience on other nearby 
Indonesian islands shows that the secondary forest is generally 
converted to other uses or logged again rather than being allowed to 
return to primary forest. Although cockatoos may continue to inhabit 
secondary forests, the population will be at a substantially lower 
number. Additionally, species are often found in secondary forest or 
recently altered forest habitat; however, this habitat tends to be 
marginal, and the effects on the species' population may not be 
evident. The trend of high loss of primary forests and degradation of 
secondary forests is a concern, in part because little is known about 
the reproductive ecology of white cockatoos in the wild, including 
breeding success in mature forests versus secondary forests, and 
whether this species of cockatoo will survive in degraded forests in 
the long term.
    In summary, habitat modification and deforestation activities, such 
as conversion of primary or secondary forests to exotic tree 
plantations for biofuel production, agriculture, and human habitat, 
combined with selective logging and resource extraction (mining), are 
likely to destroy much of the white cockatoo's habitat (the lowland 
rain forests of Halmahera) in the near future. While this species may 
be tolerant of secondary-growth forests or other disturbed sites, these 
areas do not represent optimal conditions for the species. Based on 
these factors, we find that the present and threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat is a threat to the 
continued existence of the white cockatoo throughout all of its range.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The primary threat to white cockatoos is poaching from the wild to 
meet the

[[Page 49223]]

demand for the pet trade (Jepson and Ladle 2005, p. 442; Defenders 
2007, p. 7; ProFauna 2008; BLI 2010c). It is well established that 
illegal collection for the pet trade is a major problem for wild birds 
in Indonesia and is the primary threat to this species (BLI 2003, pp. 
1-2; ProFauna 2008, pp. 1-9; ProFauna Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). 
Bird-keeping is a popular pastime in Indonesia, with deep cultural 
roots (Jepson and Ladle 2005, p. 442). Parrots have been traded for 
hundreds of years by people living in the Moluccas. One report 
indicated that 17 percent of the global population was captured for 
trade in 1991 alone (Lambert 1993, p. 160). As of 1999, there appeared 
to be no enforcement of the zero export quota; cockatoos were widely 
available in local markets.
    In 2002, an investigation found 500 white cockatoos were caught to 
supply the pet trade (ProFauna Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). In 
addition, parrots are an important part of the Indonesian culture, 
which creates significant demand for parrots domestically (BLI 2008k, 
p. 10). In a survey on bird-keeping among households in five major 
Indonesian cities, Jepson and Ladle (2005, pp. 442-448) found that as 
many as 2.5 million birds are kept in the five cities. Of these, 60,230 
wild-caught, native parrots were kept by 51,000 households, and 50,590 
wild-caught, native parrots were acquired each year (changed hands, not 
an indication of birds taken from the wild each year). The study 
recommended a conservation intervention based on the level of bird-
keeping among urban Indonesians. As of 2006, an average of 100 white 
cockatoos were found for sale in bird markets in Java annually 
(ProFauna Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). The sale of live parrots can be 
a significant source of income. Parrots can sell for 75,000 to 500,000 
Indonesian Ruphiahs (IDR or Rp) each, which equates to between $7.50 
and $50 U.S. dollars. A young cockatoo can sell for $20 to $25 USD 
(ProFauna 2008, p. 3; Sasaoka 2009, pers. comm., pp. 1-2; ProFauna 
Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). In 1993, cockatoos were described as 
generally rare in the Java and Bali markets; only two white cockatoos, 
or 1.2 percent of parrots for sale, were seen in these markets visited 
(Lambert 1993, p. 158). However, of 381 parrots of 19 species observed 
at markets in Indonesia, white cockatoo was represented by 11 pets (9.7 
percent) and 44 individuals (11.5 percent) in the market sample.
    Between 1993 and 2002, although Indonesia had reported the export 
of 712 wild-caught birds, import records from other CITES countries 
recorded 1,646 (Cahill et al. 2006, p. 162; UNEP-WCMC 2010). 
Discrepancies in the UNEP-WCMC Trade Database are common. For example, 
the Service found a report in 2009 of one shipment of white cockatoo to 
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from South Africa that was reported as 
965 by the UAE; however, there was no corresponding export entry from 
South Africa (UNEP-WCMC 2010). The largest shipment from South Africa 
in 2009 to the UAE was 614, so we believe it to be a reporting error.
    Even with government controls, the commercial hunting of cockatoos 
(i.e., hunting by people to gain at least a temporary living from the 
activity) is relatively common. There is still a demand for this 
species as pets, and wild-origin birds are less expensive to obtain 
than captive-bred birds (Reynolds 2010, pers. comm.; Horsfield 2010, 
pers. comm.). Field research conducted in 2003 through 2005 in a small 
village (320 people, 60 households) located in the Manusela Valley, 
Seram, led to the conclusion that collecting wild parrots, including 
cockatoos, is a way for villagers to supplement their income during 
times of hardship (Sasaoka 2009, pers. comm., p. 1; Sasaoka 2008, p. 
158). In 2003, 21 cockatoos were trapped in the research site by 3 
households; in 2004, 25 cockatoos by 5 households; and in 2005, 26 
cockatoos by 10 households. These researchers found that villagers 
sometimes kept the cockatoos for several months while waiting for the 
best price, but normally did not keep them as pets.
    Exploitation for commercial purposes prior to 1992 is widely 
accepted as the primary cause of drastic, rangewide population decline 
of many parrot species. The commercial market for pet cockatoos is 
highly lucrative (Cant[uacute]-Guzm[aacute]n et al. 2007, 121 pp.). 
Prior to 1992, when the U.S. Wild Bird Conservation Act was enacted, 
critical scientific studies to address issues of detriment to 
populations, appropriate management of species, and sustainable levels 
of trade had not been undertaken for most CITES Appendix-II bird 
species in trade. Even in 1992, there was serious concern that the 
international commercial trade in wild-caught birds was contributing to 
the decline in the wild of some species of birds listed in CITES 
Appendix II.
    Poaching poses a serious threat to the species. The scope of the 
illegal trade in white cockatoos is unknown. ProFauna's investigation 
in 2008 found that this species is regularly poached from the wild and 
shipped to the Philippines. (After reaching the Philippines, it is 
unclear what occurs to the birds.) Based on ProFauna's investigation, 
it appears that many of the birds being poached from the wild may be, 
``laundered with wild cockatoos possibly being described as being of 
captive-origin.'' In general, it is difficult, if not impossible, to 
determine the source of cockatoos (BLI 2003, p. 1).
    ProFauna found that around 9,800 individual parrots, including 
white cockatoos, are poached every year (ProFauna 2008, p. 3). An 
investigation completed in 2008 found that the white cockatoo is 
poached from Maluku and smuggled into the Philippines (ProFauna 2008; 
ProFauna Indonesia 2010, pers. comm.). Parrot poaching took place most 
frequently in the central part of Halmahera, as well as Bacan, Obi, and 
Mandioli (2008, p. 7). The investigation indicated that approximately 
10 percent of the 4,000 parrots smuggled annually were white cockatoos. 
In their investigation, they found bird poachers in Togawa, for 
example, were able to catch 15 individuals of white cockatoo in a week 
(ProFauna 2008, p. 3).
    During the illegal trade process, many birds die prior to being 
exported (Lambert 1993, p. 157; Cameron 2007, p. 163; Cant[uacute]-
Guzm[aacute]n et al. 2007, p. 60). Methods used for poaching lead to 
significant mortality. In some cases, white cockatoos in the past have 
been caught with gum or glue, which would stick to their feathers 
(Lambert 1993, p. 155; ProFauna 2008, p. 2). Some trappers reported 
mortality rates between 77 and 80 percent before parrots reach 
customers, and nestlings experience a higher mortality rate 
(Cant[uacute]-Guzm[aacute]n et al. 2007, p. 60). ProFauna Indonesia 
estimated that parrot smuggling in North Maluku, Indonesia, results in 
approximately 40 percent mortality (5 percent during glue trapping, 10 
percent during transportation, and 25 percent during holding to sell in 
bird markets (due to malnutrition, disease, and stress) (2008, p. 5)). 
The estimates do not always include deaths of birds before export, 
smuggled birds, and birds domestically traded. Others estimate that as 
few as one-fourth of those poached survive the process of removal from 
their native, wild habitat to captivity.
    Undocumented illegal trade (international and domestic) is 
difficult to quantify (Thomsen et al. 1992, p. 3; Pain et al. 2006, p. 
322), and a listing in Appendix I of CITES does not completely stop 
illegal trade (Pain et al. 2006, p. 328). Seizures reported to the 
CITES Secretariat since 1990, however, are small--1 live bird seized in 
Austria in 1997; 25 live birds seized in the

[[Page 49224]]

United Arab Emirates in 1998; and 4 live birds seized in Indonesia in 
1999 (Sellar 2009, pers. comm., p. 2). Since 2000, the United States 
refused import clearance for three birds reported as Cacatua species. 
One bird was described as C. alba in 2010; the other two birds were 
unknown Cacatua species. All three birds were re-exported.
    Illegal trade of parrot species occurs quite frequently; in fact, 
an investigative report recently conducted of the illegal parrot trade 
in Mexico demonstrates this (Cant[uacute]-Guzm[aacute]n et al. 2007, 
121 pp.). The investigation found that documents are frequently forged 
to smuggle desirable and increasingly rare parrot species (p. 38). The 
organization that seizes parrots in Mexico, the Federal Attorney for 
the Protection of the Environment (PROFEPA), indicated that their most 
serious problem is combating the illegal bird trade (p. 45). Although 
this investigation was done in Mexico, it reflects a problem that 
occurs within many countries with endemic parrots.
    Locally, a high level of parrot poaching in north Halmahera is due 
in part to the lack of supervision by Natural Resources Conservation 
(KSDA) officers in the Forestry Department (ProFauna 2008, p. 3). There 
is no regular enforcement or patrol by the KSDA officers. An NGO 
working with this species indicated that they had recently received 
several white cockatoos from Indonesian authorities who had confiscated 
them from poachers (Metz 2010, pers. comm.). Most of the Indonesian 
parrots come from Halmahera Island and are shipped to the Philippines. 
According to a recent investigation, 40 percent of parrots were 
smuggled to the Philippines from the port in Pelita Village, Galela 
District in northern Halmahera (ProFauna 2008, p. 5). The birds are 
apparently smuggled to Balut Island or to General Santos in the 
Philippines. The journey to smuggle parrots from Halmahera, Indonesia, 
to General Santos, the Philippines, takes over 9 hours, not including 
the time it takes to transport birds from the forest, to villages, and 
then to the port. The transactions are done offshore or in the sea, 
where the Philippine dealers collect the parrots from Indonesian ships. 
Upon arrival at General Santos, the birds are sent to Cartimar market 
in Manila, the capital of the Philippines (ProFauna 2008, p. 4). Since 
there is little disincentive for locals, it is a low-risk and lucrative 
source of income. Despite the existence of legislation, this illegal 
trade of protected parrots continues. Law No. 5, 1990, governing the 
conservation of biological resources and their ecosystems, was enacted 
to protect natural resources and the ecosystems (Yeager 2008, pp. 3-4); 
however, poaching and illegal trade continue to occur (also see 
discussion under Factor D).
    The presence of recent and upcoming mining projects in Halmahera is 
also likely to increase demand locally for birds (see to Factor A 
discussion above). Temporary workers are known to buy these birds as 
gifts. It is apparently a problem even among police and military 
personnel posted to the area (WCS 2010, pers. comm.). ProFauna has 
encouraged the Navy of Indonesian Armed Force (TNI) and the Indonesian 
Marine Police to improve the patrol of marine boundaries between 
Indonesia and the Philippines in order to decrease this illegal trade. 
NGOs are encouraging both Indonesian and the Philippines governments to 
implement and enforce their wildlife laws and encouraging Indonesia to 
list Cacatua alba as a protected species (ProFauna 2008, pp. 8-9); 
however, poaching continues.
    Stopping illegal trade is further complicated by the vast size of 
Indonesia's coastline, and government officials have limited resources 
and knowledge to deal with the illegal pet trade (Metz 2007c, p. 2; 
Laurence 2007, p. 1544). To combat illegal wildlife trade, Southeast 
Asian countries, including Indonesia, formed the Association of South 
East Asian Nations-Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) in 2005 to 
protect the region's biodiversity (http://www.asean.org, accessed March 
3, 2011). ASEAN-WEN uses a cooperative approach to law enforcement 
(Cameron 2007, p. 164). It focuses on the gathering and sharing of 
intelligence, capacity building, and better cooperation in anti-
smuggling and Customs controls across Southeast Asia (Lin 2005, p. 
192). For example in 2008, Indonesian police officers and forestry and 
Customs officers participated in an intensive Wildlife Crime 
Investigation Course presented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 
help the government tackle poaching and smuggling (Wildlife Alliance 
2008, p. 2). Despite these efforts, illegal trade of white cockatoo 
still occurs within Indonesia.
Summary of Factor B
    In summary, overutilization of the white cockatoo for the pet trade 
is a significant threat to the species, and this species is undergoing 
a rapid population decline. Poaching and illegal trade is difficult to 
control, in part because Indonesia has a vast coastline, and because 
income derived from poaching can be a significant source of income. 
Birds are clearly being poached and shipped to the Philippines, and 
there is strong demand for this species within Indonesia. Additionally, 
having a parrot as a household pet is a common part of Indonesian 
culture. Government officials have limited resources to deal with the 
illegal pet trade. Indonesia is a founding member of ASEAN-WEN and has 
made an effort to train its police, forestry, and Customs officers in 
methods to tackle poaching and smuggling. However, the wildlife 
protection laws are not vigorously enforced at local levels for this 
species.
    Despite ProFauna Indonesia and the Indonesian Institute of Sciences 
having requested that the Forestry Department of Indonesia list white 
cockatoo as a protected species, and the Sultan of Ternate Palace 
having forbidden the poaching of this species (ProFauna Indonesia 2010, 
pers. comm.), poaching and illegal cross-border trade still occur. The 
ProFauna investigation in 2008 found that enforcement in both Indonesia 
and the Philippines is lacking. In part because this species does not 
begin to reproduce until approximately 6 years of age, and because this 
species is thought to be monogamous and usually mates for life, this 
level of poaching for the pet trade is a considerable threat to the 
species in its ability to maintain its population. Based on the best 
available information, we find that overutilization is a threat to the 
continued existence of this species.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    There is no evidence that either disease or predation is a threat 
to the white cockatoo in the wild. We are unaware of any reports of 
diseases negatively affecting white cockatoos in the wild. Since 
disease and predation associated with this species in the wild are not 
well documented, we extrapolate from what is known about cockatoos in 
general (see analysis under Factor C for the Philippine cockatoo). 
Although some serious diseases such as beak and feather disease and PDD 
occur in cockatoos in the wild, we found no information that these 
diseases occur in cockatoos in the wild in Indonesia. Cases of avian 
influenza (H5N1) do occur in Indonesia, but parrots, particularly 
cockatoos, are not considered to be natural reservoirs of this disease 
(IPP 2006). With respect to predation, the white cockatoo has natural 
predators, but we were unable to find information that these natural 
predators are having a negative impact on the productivity of this 
species. Therefore, we find that the white cockatoo is not threatened 
due to disease or predation.

[[Page 49225]]

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms
    Indonesia has laws and regulations in place to conserve 
biodiversity, manage forests, regulate trade, provide species 
protection, and develop and manage protected areas. However, these laws 
and regulations are frequently ignored (BLI 2008k, p. 7; Laurance 2007, 
p. 1544), and the country is unable to monitor its vast area, which 
consists of 17,508 islands. The Indonesian economic crisis that led to 
the downfall of the Suharto regime resulted in the government 
instituting a decentralization that gave local governments greater 
autonomy (Vetter 2009, p. 15). However, this decentralization resulted 
in confusion of roles and responsibilities, and implementation of 
decentralization has been slow and uncertain. Conflicting 
interpretation of policies and priorities and the lack of capacity or 
experience of local governments have occurred (Rhee et al. 2004, chap. 
2, p. 20).
    According to ProFauna, the high level of parrot poaching in north 
Halmahera is in part due to the lack of monitoring by Natural Resources 
Conservation (KSDA) officers in the Forestry Department (ProFauna 2008, 
p. 3). There is no regular enforcement or patrol by the KSDA officers 
(ProFauna 2008, p. 3). The North Maluku government and ProFauna 
Indonesia have proposed to the Forestry Ministry that the species be 
classified as a protected species (BLI 2010c; ProFauna 2010, pers. 
comm.).
    In general, the export of wild-caught parrots is subject to harvest 
and export quotas in Indonesia. However, because the white cockatoo is 
not on the Indonesian Government's list of protected species (Law No. 5 
1990, pp. 1-44; Rhee et al. 2004, chap. 5, p. 2, App. VIII; ProFauna 
2010a, pers. comm.), Indonesia has no legal export quota for wild-
caught specimens of this species (IPP 2010). In 1988, the Indonesian 
government began issuing quotas on trapping for the white cockatoo; 
however, these trapping quotas were poorly enforced. In 1999, no quota 
was issued, and all capture was reported to be illegal since 1999 (BLI 
2010c). However, an NGO reported that there was a catch quota of the 
white cockatoo for 2007. It was issued by the General Director of 
Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (PHKA), which translates to the 
Forest Protection and Nature Conservation under the Indonesian Ministry 
of Forestry, and the catch quota was for 10 pairs that were to be used 
only for breeding (ProFauna 2008, p. 3). However, that quota was 
exceeded (ProFauna 2010, pers. comm.). Recent information indicates 
that there is no longer a catch quota (ProFauna 2010, pers. comm.), but 
that restriction may apply to commercial purposes, rather than 
breeding. According to WCS (2010, pers. comm.), this species is trapped 
and sold, and this can include trapping on a ``commercial'' scale by 
professionals, or farmers trapping occasional birds and then selling 
them to wholesalers. In 2007, at least 200 white cockatoos were caught 
from the wild in North Halmahera, which far exceeded the quota of 10 
pairs (ProFauna 2008, p. 3; http://www.thegabrielfoundation.org/indonesianparrots.html).
    Additionally, in 2010, the Sultan of Ternate Palace issued a fatwa 
(order) forbidding the poaching of cockatoos in the wild. However, as 
stated before, enforcement often is severely lacking (Shepherd et al. 
2004, p. 4) or difficult, and illegal activities remain socially 
acceptable at the local level. Illegal trade has been reported to the 
Natural Resource Conservation Agency, which is responsible for 
enforcing the law, but to date enforcement efforts remain ineffective 
(ProFauna Indonesia 2004, p. 8). To further complicate enforcement 
efforts, some bird dealers claim that members of the Department of 
Forest Protection and Nature Conservation are involved in the illegal 
trade of this species (Shepherd et al. 2004, p. 4).
    Existing regulatory mechanisms within Indonesia, as implemented, 
are inadequate to reduce or remove the current threats to the white 
cockatoo. Even with government controls, poaching of cockatoos is 
relatively common (WCS 2010, pers. comm.). As discussed under Factor B, 
we found that poaching is the primary threat to the white cockatoo. 
There is some evidence that the actions of Indonesian government 
agencies and the military are changing; however, if penalties are not 
enforced for illegal trade, trapping from the wild will continue 
(ProFauna Indonesia 2004, pp. 9-11). In conclusion, we find that the 
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to reduce or remove the 
current threats to the white cockatoo. There is no information 
available to suggest that these regulatory mechanisms will improve in 
the foreseeable future.
CITES
    Indonesia has been a member of CITES since December 28, 1978. It 
has designated Management, Scientific, and Enforcement authorities to 
implement the Treaty (CITES 2008b, p. 1) and has played an active role 
in CITES meetings. Because this species is not listed in Appendix I, 
which would mean that commercial trade would be prohibited except under 
certain circumstances, legal international trade is still occurring for 
this species.
    Since 2000, there has generally been a downward trend in exports of 
the white cockatoo (UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database, accessed January 4, 
2011). According to the CITES UNEP-WCMC Trade Database, there were 653 
live exports of the white cockatoo in 2000, 269 in 2008, and 1,104 in 
2009 (2009 may have been an anomaly). Between 2000 and 2009, 8,505 
specimens of live white cockatoos were reported to have been exported. 
The bulk of these exports was exported from South Africa and was 
reported as captive-origin. Between 2000 and 2009, of the live 
shipments, there were 28 white cockatoos reported as wild origin. None 
of these live specimens reported as wild origin was exported directly 
from Indonesia. Of the live shipments, 8,435 specimens were described 
as captive origin, 19 were described as ``unknown'' origin, and 20 were 
described as pre-Convention, seized, or confiscated. Of the countries 
that reported the most exports of live white cockatoos, 273 specimens 
were exported from Indonesia, 4,444 specimens were exported from South 
Africa, and 384 specimens were exported from the Philippines. Note that 
countries that are not Parties to CITES do not submit annual report 
trade data to UNEP-WCMC (also refer to the CITES discussion for the 
crimson shining parrot). However, Parties, in their annual reports, do 
include data on their trade with non-parties, and these data are 
recorded in the UNEP-WCMC Trade Database. Also, while the Database does 
not include CITES annual report trade data from CITES Parties that did 
not submit annual reports, it does include CITES trade data from 
Parties that submitted their annual reports and engaged in CITES trade 
with those non-submitting Parties.
    The purpose of CITES is to ensure that international trade in 
animal and plant species is not detrimental to the survival of wild 
populations by regulating the import, export, and re-export of CITES-
listed animal and plant species. The best available data indicate that 
the current threat to this species of cockatoo stems from illegal trade 
in the domestic markets of Indonesia and international surrounding 
countries. As discussed under Factor B above, uncontrolled illegal 
poaching for the pet trade continues to adversely impact white 
cockatoos. Despite illegal trade,

[[Page 49226]]

CITES is adequately regulating legal international trade.
Summary of Factor D
    In summary, we find that the existing regulatory mechanisms within 
Indonesia, as implemented, are inadequate to reduce or remove the 
current threats to white cockatoos. Local protections in place provide 
some protection to white cockatoos. While Indonesia has a good legal 
framework to manage wildlife and their habitats, implementation of its 
laws and regulatory mechanisms has been inadequate to reduce the 
threats to white cockatoos. The national parks on Halmahera may provide 
some protection to white cockatoos; however, management of protected 
areas is hampered by staff shortages and lack of expertise and money. 
As discussed under Factors A and B above, we found that habitat 
destruction and poaching are threats to white cockatoos. Deforestation 
and illegal activities are still rampant in Indonesia (Laurance 2007, 
pp. 1-7). The national and local regulations and management of this 
species' habitat are ineffective at reducing the threats of habitat 
destruction (see Factor A) and poaching for the pet trade (see Factor 
B). The white cockatoo is listed in Appendix II of CITES (see 
discussion under Conservation Status for the White Cockatoo above), and 
CITES appears to be an adequate regulatory mechanism to address legal 
international trade.
    Even with government restrictions, poaching of cockatoos (i.e., 
hunting by people to gain at least a temporary living from the 
activity) is still relatively common in Indonesia. Nestlings are more 
desirable as pets, yet their mortality rate when taken from the wild is 
greater than that of adults (ProFauna 2008). Laws and regulations are 
frequently ignored, and this adds to the inability to enforce them due 
to the remoteness of the areas where this species is located. There is 
no information available to suggest regulatory mechanisms within 
Indonesia will be adequate to protect this species in the foreseeable 
future; therefore, we find that the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 
is a threat to the white cockatoo throughout its range.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species

Ecotourism
    The Halmahera region is an emerging diving destination (WWF 2010a, 
p. 2). An Internet search found several Web sites offered diving trips 
that are in the Halmahera region, and there was even a video available 
online (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEmEB-Zj_L4), entitled ``Diving 
travel: The North Halmahera Experience.'' Although the Halmahera region 
is remote and few diving operations exist, there is the potential for 
the diving industry to expand and exert more of an effect on the 
islands in this area. However, at this time, the best available 
information does not indicate that diving-related activities on or near 
Halmahera negatively affect the white cockatoo. We are not aware of any 
tourist activities occurring on Bacan Island. We found no other natural 
or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the white 
cockatoo. Therefore, we find there are no threats to this species under 
this factor.

Finding for the White Cockatoo

    As required by the ESA, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the white cockatoo is endangered or threatened throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range. We analyzed the potential 
threats to the white cockatoo including: Habitat loss and degradation, 
poaching for the pet trade, disease and predation, the inadequacy of 
regulatory controls, and other natural or manmade factors, such as the 
conversion of habitat to monocultures for biofuel, and ecotourism 
activities such as diving. We found that habitat loss, particularly due 
to selective logging, and conversion of forests to agriculture, mining, 
or biofuels, is a threat to the white cockatoo; the population is 
declining rangewide (see Factor A discussion). Halmahera is becoming 
increasingly more desirable to developers and investors as natural 
resources become more scarce.
    We found that poaching for the pet trade is the most significant 
threat to the species, despite local public awareness campaigns. It is 
estimated that there are between 8,629 and 48,393 individuals of this 
species remaining in the wild on Halmahera; the number of white 
cockatoos remaining on Bacan Island is unknown, though poaching of wild 
birds on this island is believed to be occurring. Pet birds are an 
important part of not only Indonesian culture, but also Asian culture, 
with large numbers of wild-caught parrots traded domestically and 
internationally (Baula et al. 2003, pp. 1-12; BLI 2004, pp. 1-2, 
ProFauna 2008, pp. 3-4). Trappers reportedly remain quite active. Wild-
caught birds are openly sold in Asian markets, particularly in the 
nearby Philippines (ProFauna 2008, pp. 3-4; BLI 2003, pp. 1-2). An 
investigation conducted by NGOs in Indonesia in 2002 and 2003 found 
evidence of wild birds in local markets, and sellers reported that they 
were destined to go to countries such as Europe (BLI 2004, pp. 1-2). 
Ending illegal trade is hampered by Indonesia's large coastline and 
officials with limited resources and knowledge.
    Unsustainable poaching is particularly detrimental to the white 
cockatoo because of its estimated small and rapidly declining 
population. Excessive removal of individuals from the wild for illegal 
trade is particularly harmful to species such as the white cockatoo, 
which are monogamous, long-lived species that do not begin breeding 
until they are 6 years of age. Additionally, because this species has a 
high monetary value (Basile personal communication 2010, pp. 6-7) and 
there is little risk in poaching, poaching is financially lucrative. 
The Act describes a ``threatened species'' as ``any species which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The best 
available information indicates that poaching and trade are not at a 
level to consider the species to be in danger of extinction at this 
time. However, based on the analysis of the five factors discussed 
above, we determine that the white cockatoo is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes (Factor B), specifically poaching for the pet 
trade, is a threat to the white cockatoo throughout its range.
    We found no evidence that disease or predation significantly affect 
the wild white cockatoo population throughout its range.
    The white cockatoo is not currently classified as a protected 
species by the Indonesian government. Although Indonesia has a good 
legal framework to manage wildlife and their habitats, implementation 
of its laws and regulatory mechanisms has been inadequate to address 
the threats to the white cockatoo, in part due to the remoteness of the 
white cockatoo's habitat. Logging laws and policies are frequently 
ignored and rarely enforced, and illegal logging is rampant, even 
occurring in national parks and nature reserves. Current concession 
policies and logging practices hamper sustainable forestry. Threats to 
the species have not decreased; local NGOs indicate the population 
trend is declining.

[[Page 49227]]

    Although diving activities are increasing near islands containing 
white cockatoo habitat, there is no evidence that ecotourism is a 
threat to this species now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we 
conclude that there are no other natural or manmade factors that are 
threats to the species throughout its range (Factor E).
    Under the ESA, an ``endangered species'' is defined as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The ESA defines a ``threatened 
species'' as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' Based on our review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information pertaining to the above five 
factors, we find that the white cockatoo meets the definition of a 
``threatened species'' under the ESA, and we are proposing to list the 
white cockatoo as a threatened species throughout its range. Although 
the species is not currently in danger of extinction and, thus, does 
not qualify as an ``endangered species'' under the ESA, we conclude 
that the species qualifies as a threatened species. The current 
distribution of white cockatoos within its range and its disbursed 
distribution on two islands provides resiliency to the population 
against the threats such that the species is not currently in danger of 
extinction, but may become so in the foreseeable future.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having determined that the white cockatoo meets the definition of 
threatened throughout its range, we must next consider whether there 
are any significant portions of its range that meet the definition of 
endangered. See our discussion under the crimson shining parrot for how 
we make this determination. For the purpose of this analysis, we 
consider a portion of the white cockatoo's range to be significant if 
it is important to the conservation of its range because it contributes 
meaningfully to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of its 
range (see Redford et al. 2011). The best available information 
indicates that threats to the species occur throughout its range. 
Although declines on Halmahera have been quantified to some extent, the 
lack of any information, including quantitative population trend 
information for Bacan Island, precludes a comparison of the declines in 
these two portions of its range. Further, we found no information 
indicating that the threats are of greater magnitude or extent in any 
portion of its range on Halmahera Island. The limited information 
available for the white cockatoo does not allow us to determine what 
portion of the range if any, would be impacted to a significant degree 
more than any other. Therefore, we conclude that the threats to the 
species are uniform throughout its range, and no portion of its range 
is currently in danger of extinction.

Species Information

D. Yellow-Crested Cockatoo (Cacatua sulphurea)

Taxonomy and Description

    There are four recognized subspecies of the yellow-crested 
cockatoo: Cacatua sulphurea abbotti (Oberholser, 1917), C. s. 
citrinocristata (Fraser, 1844), C. s. sulphurea (Bonaparte, 1850), and 
C. s. parvula (Gmelin, 1788). IUCN and BLI recognize C. sulphurea at 
the species level only. All four subspecies are recognized by ITIS 
(http://www.itis.gov). These four subspecies are endemic to Timor-Leste 
(an independent state which is adjacent to West Timor, a part of 
Indonesia) and Indonesia. The yellow-crested cockatoo inhabits forest, 
forest edge, scrub, and agricultural land (IUCN 2008j; BLI 2010d, p. 
1), but prefers primary lowland forest. Historically, it was found 
throughout the Lesser Sundas, on Sulawesi and its satellite islands, on 
Nusa Penida (off Bali), and the Masalembu Islands (in the Java Sea). 
These subspecies (hereafter collectively referred to as the species) 
are found in forested habitat in the lowlands up to 500 m (1,640 ft) on 
Sulawesi and up to 800 m (2,625 ft), and sometimes 1,200 m (ft), in the 
Lesser Sundas (Collar 1994; Jones et al. 1995; Snyder 2000, p. 69). 
They prefer large, mature trees with nesting areas higher in the 
canopy, and they prefer internal forested areas to forest edges (Jones 
et al. 1995, pp. 27-28, 39).
    There is substantial discussion in scientific literature that 
debates the classification of island species and whether they deserve 
species status rather than subspecies status (Phillimore 2010, pp. 42-
53; James 2010, pp. 1-5; Pratt 2010 pp. 79-89). This is sometimes 
significant with respect to conservation measures, particularly when 
considering the criteria used by organizations such as the IUCN. 
Assessments of subspecies are only accepted by IUCN provided there is a 
global assessment of the species as a whole. These four subspecies may 
all be in fact species, but for the purpose of this proposed rule and 
12-month finding, these four subspecies essentially face the same 
threats, are all generally in the same region of Indonesia, and all 
have quite small populations. Absent peer-reviewed information to the 
contrary and based on the best available information, we recognize all 
four subspecies as being valid. For the purpose of this rule, it is 
prudent to propose listing C. sulphurea, which includes all subspecies.

Use of Scientific Names in This Section

    It is generally our practice to use the scientific name of the 
species in the beginning of the document for avian species, and, 
subsequently, refer to each species by their common name; however, in 
this section, we will generally refer to the species by their 
scientific names. There are many similar cockatoo species, some of 
which have similar sounding common names and may be confused. For 
example, the yellow-crested cockatoo is also referred to as the lesser 
sulphur-crested cockatoo, which is Cacatua sulphurea, but there is also 
the sulphur-crested cockatoo, which is C. galerita. Additionally, 
because there are four recognized subspecies of C. sulphurea, using 
their scientific names is more precise and clear. Finally, because 
there are various local common names, it is more effective to refer to 
these species by their scientific names.

General Biology

    Nest holes have been observed to be 6 to 18 m (20 to 60 ft) above 
ground (Setiawan 1996 in Prijono 2008, p. 3). Two tree species used by 
Cacatua sulphurea for nesting include Sterculia foetida (wild almond 
tree) and Tetrameles nudiflora (Binong) (Widodo 2009, p. 85). There 
does not appear to be a set or restricted breeding season (Prijono 
2008, p. 3); the breeding season may coincide with the availability of 
nutrients in food sources. Incubation is shared by both parents. 
Incubation lasts 28 days, and the nestling period is 65 days until 
fledging (Cameron 2007, p. 140).
    Their diet includes Mangifera indica (mango); Carica papaya 
(papaya); Ficus spp. (fig); Psidium guajava (guava); Eugenia 
malaccensis (jambu bol); Opuntia elation (prickly pear); Annona 
squamosa (srikaya); flowers of Cocos nucifer (coconut); Tamarindus 
indica (tamarind); flowers and fruit of Avicennia (mangrove); fruit of 
Dehaasia (marangtaipa) and young leaves of Sonneratia (mangrove); and 
ninifo, thought to be within the Canarium genus (Nandika 2006, p. 10).

Feral Populations

    Feral populations of released or escaped captive-held yellow-
crested

[[Page 49228]]

cockatoos have established themselves outside of their native range; 
however, they exist in low numbers (Ling and Lee 2006, p. 188). Between 
1986 and 2000, 11 feral yellow-crested cockatoos were observed in 
Taiwan (Ling and Lee 2006, p. 190). Cacatua sulphurea has also become 
feral in places such as Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Western 
Australia. In 1998, the species was described as being locally common 
in south and east Singapore, including the islets of St. John's and 
Sentosa, and reportedly breeding in gardens and parks, with possibly 
between 30 and 50 birds existing there (PHPA/LIPI/BirdLife 
International-IP 1998 in BLI 2001, p. 1652).

Population Estimates

    This species was formerly locally common throughout much of its 
range. There is evidence of substantial population declines on 
Sulawesi, where it may already be beyond recovery (Andrew and Holmes 
1990; Cahyadin and Arif 1994; Gilardi 2011, pers. comm.), and the 
Lesser Sundas, where it is believed to be close to extinction on 
Sumbawa and Flores. It is still fairly common in the Komodo National 
Park (Butchart et al. 1993; Holmes in litt. 1994; Prijono et al. 2008, 
p. 7). As of 2001, Cacatua sulphurea sulphurea only existed in tiny 
remnant numbers, except perhaps for a small population in Rawa Aopa 
Watumohai National Park (BLI 2001, p. 1648). C. sulphurea is extinct on 
Lombok (BirdLife-IP in litt. 1997). C. s. abbotti is at a critically 
+low population level; C. s. parvula is doing fairly well on Komodo in 
Komodo National Park; and C. s. citrinocristata persists but was 
steadily declining on Sumba (BLI 2001, p. 1648). On Nusa Penida, this 
subspecies was last recorded in 1986 (van Helvoort in van Balen 1994).
    Population estimates for each subspecies vary in part due to the 
remoteness of the islands where they exist. The BLI 2010 Web site 
reported that there are between 2,500 and 9,999 mature individuals 
collectively remaining in the wild; however, these data have not been 
updated based on recent information reported from a local organization 
in Indonesia. Population estimates for each subspecies are as follows: 
Cacatua sulphurea abbotti, 40; C. s. citrinocristata, 100 to 2,000; C. 
s. parvula, 800 to 1500; C. s. sulphurea, 100 to 150. The population 
estimates and a discussion of the subspecies' status are presented in 
more detail below.

Cacatua sulphurea abbotti

    Abbott's cockatoo, the largest of the yellow-crested cockatoos, is 
only known from a single island, Solombo kecil (or Masalembu kecil 
pulau), which is 500 ha (1,235 ac) and in the Masalembu Archipelago in 
the Sulawesi Strait. This island is in the Java Sea, north of the 
cities of Surabaya and Bali, and east of southern Sumatra. The 
subspecies is considered to be extirpated from Masalembu Island (also 
known as Salembo Besar) (Indonesian Parrot Project 2010). C. s. abbotti 
has a mostly white body with a brilliant yellow, forward-curving crest, 
and slight yellow on its ear covert feathers. The species prefers very 
large trees within the Datiscaceae family for nesting (Snyder 2000, p. 
69). When Abbott first found the endemic form abbotti in 1907, he 
``reported it in hundreds'' on Masalembu (Oberholser 1917 in BLI 2001, 
p. 1651). Only between 8 and 10 individuals of the subspecies abbotti 
were located in 1993 on the Masalembu Islands (Jones et al. in prep. in 
Cahyadin and Arif 1994), and 6 to 8 birds were found in 1998. In 2008, 
a few individuals were found on Solombo kecil Island. In IPP's last 
population survey, they found that on Solombo kecil, only about 30 
individuals remain (Metz 2010, pers. comm.). The population of this 
subspecies as a whole has declined over 80 percent within three 
generations (45 years). Although the Indonesian Parrot Project has 
started a conservation program for this subspecies, it is too early to 
report on progress of the conservation program.

Cacatua sulphurea citrinocristata

    The subspecies citrinocristata is found on Sumba, where the 2002 
estimate of the population was between 565 and 2,054 individuals 
(Cahill et al. 2006, p. 265; Persulessy et al. 2003 in Prijono 2008, p. 
5). Another 2002 survey by WCS found a density of 4.3 birds per km\2\ 
within the two national parks, Manupeu-Tanadaru and Laiwangi-Wanggameti 
(Kinnaird 2003 in Prijono 2008, p. 5). On Sumba. C. s. 
citrinocristata's population in 1995 was estimated to be just over 
3,000 (Jones et al. 1995, p. 39). Earlier surveys in 1989 and 1992 
(Marsden 1995 in Prijono 2008, p. 5) estimated the total population of 
C. s. citrinocristata was between 1,150 and 2,644 birds. On Sumba, C. 
s. citrinocristata populations increased between 1992 and 2002, likely 
due to moratoria on international trade and local protections (Cahill 
et al. 2006, p. 162). The most recent survey is not publicly available, 
but the population on Sumba is now thought to be roughly 100 birds 
(Gilardi 2011a, pers. comm.). The earlier population estimates may have 
been overly optimistic based on surveying techniques, or the population 
has rapidly declined.
    Sumba Island is located in the Lesser Sundas in southeastern 
Indonesia. The island is 12,000 km\2\ (4,633 mi\2\), 210 km (130 mi) in 
length, and 50 km (31 mi) south of Flores Island. Its highest point is 
Gunung Wanggameti at 1,225 m (4,019 ft). Precipitation is between 500 
and 2,000 mm annually (20 to 79 inches). As of 1995, forest covered 
less than 11 percent of the island (McKnight et al. in prep in Jones et 
al. 1995, p. 22) and was confined to relatively small and fragmented 
pockets.
    The two national parks, covering 1,350 km\2\ (521 mi\2\), were 
established on Sumba through Ministerial Decree No. 576/Kpts-II in 
1998. Manupeu-Tanadaru (280 km\2\ or 108 mi\2\) seems to have the 
healthiest population of cockatoos. It had the highest density of 
cockatoos when surveyed both in 1992 and 2002 (Cahill et al. 2006, p. 
164). However, of 33 forest patches surveyed, cockatoos were recorded 
in only 17 (O'Brien et al. 1997 in Cahill et al. 2006, p. 166).

Cacatua sulphurea parvula

    Historically, C. s. parvula was found on most of the Lesser Sunda 
Islands (also known as Nusa Tenggara) including Penida, Lombok, 
Sumbawa, Moyo, Komodo, Flores, Pantar, Alor, Timor, and Semau Islands. 
Now this subspecies is found on Alor, Pantar, Komodo, and Sumbawa 
Islands. In the past 10 years, populations of more than 10 cockatoos 
have been found at only two locations (Setiawan et al. 2000; Prijono 
2008, p. 6). In 1994, on Sumbawa, this subspecies was observed at three 
sites and reported by islanders to occur at 14 more, although in very 
low numbers (Setiawan et al. 2000; Widodo 2009, p. 84). In 2000, 80 
individuals were observed on Alor Island; the population estimate was 
678 to 784 individuals.
    As of 2001, it was thought that West Timor and other small islands 
in the Lesser Sundas could only support a few individuals (PHKA/LIPI/
BirdLife International-IP 1998; Setiawan et al. 2000; Agista & Rubyanto 
2001). The most recent population estimate on Timor-Leste (East Timor) 
is between 500 and 1,000 individuals (Trainor et al. in litt. 2004). On 
Timor-Leste, C. s. parvula was recorded in six locations (Tilomar, 
Fatumasin, Sungai Clere, Lore, Monte Paitchau-Iralalora, Mount Diatuto) 
(Trainor 2002, pp. 93-99). Below is a summary of recent observations 
and population estimates for this subspecies.

[[Page 49229]]

     Alor Island: 80 individuals observed; population estimate 
was 678 to 784 individuals (Setiawan et al. 2000 in Widodo 2009, p. 
84).
     Flores Island: 14 individuals observed (Ria; Watubuku 
forest, part of Lewotobi area, see Butchart et al. 1996 in Widodo 2009, 
p. 84).
     Komodo Island: 137 individuals observed; population 
estimate was 150 (Imansyah et al. 2005).
     Moyo Island: 10 individuals observed (Setiawan et al. 
2000).
     Pantar Island: 29 individuals observed; population 
estimate was 444 to 534 individuals (Setiawan et al. 2000).
     Sumbawa Island: 14 individuals observed in 1996; 
subspecies observed at three sites and reported by islanders to occur 
at 14 more, although in very low numbers (Setiawan et al. 2000).
     East Timor (Timor-Leste): Population estimate was 500 to 
1,000 individuals in 2004 (Trainor et al. 2005, pp. 121-130).
     West Timor: 8 individuals observed (Setiawan et al. 2000).
    The largest known population, which is on Komodo Island (311 km\2\ 
(120 mi\2\) in size) in Komodo National Park, was previously thought to 
be doing well, but the subspecies' population is declining even here 
although the exact reasons are unclear (Imansyah et al. 2005, 2 pp.). 
Cockatoo poaching is believed to be effectively eliminated due to 
surveillance and enforcement, and there is negligible loss of mature 
trees or forest loss due to illegal logging (Ciofi & de Boer 2004 in 
Prijono 2008, p. 8). Flocks of 20 to 30 birds were seen during 
observations between 1989 and 1995, and, in 1999, an estimated 100 
birds were observed (Agista & Rubyanto 2001 and BirdLife 2001 in 
Prijono 2008, p. 8). In Komodo National Park, C. s. parvula was still 
relatively common prior to 2001, and was most frequently recorded in 
dry tropical forest (from sea level to 350 m (1,148 ft)) dominated by 
T. indicus (common name: date or tamarind) and Sterculia foetida (Java-
olive, poon tree, or skunk tree) (Agista & Rubyanto 2001). The total 
population size in Komodo National Park, which spans several islands, 
is estimated to be approximately 150 individuals on Komodo Island 
(Imansyah et al. 2005, p. 2) and about 100 individuals on Rinca Island 
(BLI 2010f).

Cacatua sulphurea sulphurea

    The most recent information from local NGOs suggests that only 
about 100 to 150 individuals of this subspecies remain in the wild, and 
they are likely only on Sulawesi Island. C. s. sulphurea was formerly 
widely distributed in Sulawesi (formerly called Celebes); however, 
since the early 1980s, this subspecies has become very rare (Prijono 
2008, pp. 2-3). This was due to high rates of poaching (CITES 2004a, p. 
2). In 2001, between 7 and 15 individuals were observed on Pasoso 
Island; however, the south and central parts of the island have limited 
suitable habitat consisting of mixed secondary forest, scrub, and 
dryland agricultural plots (Agista et al. 2001 in Prijono 2008, p. 5).
    Now, the subspecies is believed to occur only in a small region of 
Sulawesi (Metz 2010, pers. comm.). Approximately 10 years ago, it was 
documented in Rawa Aopa Watumohai National Park (RAWNP) (Agista et al. 
2001 in Prijono 2008, p. 5). Older studies suggested that although some 
small populations of this subspecies may exist elsewhere, the remaining 
cockatoos were likely confined to two locations in southern Sulawesi: 
RAWNP and Buton Island and in central Sulawesi on Pasoso Island. Of 
these, RAWNP is clearly the most significant site. RAWNP is unique 
because it has seven ecosystem types: tidal mudflats, mangrove forest, 
wooded savannas, hill forest, swamp forest, peat swamp, and 
cultivation. Therefore this is a significant site to concentrate 
conservation efforts. However, it is unlikely that this species occurs 
here currently, although a separate species, C. galerita, is believed 
to occur in this park.

Conservation Status for the Yellow-Crested Cockatoo

    In 1981, Cacatua sulphurea (and all of its subspecies) was listed 
in CITES Appendix II. In 2005, it was uplisted to Appendix I, thus 
commercial trade is generally prohibited (see above discussion with 
respect to CITES for additional information). C. sulphurea is listed on 
the IUCN Redlist as Critically Endangered. It is also protected in the 
U.S. by the WBCA (refer to discussion under the Crimson Shining Parrot, 
factor D).
    It is against Indonesian law to capture Cacatua sulphurea for the 
export trade. C. sulphurea is protected by the Act on the Conservation 
of Biological Resources and their Ecosystems (Act No. 5 of 1990), and 
there has been no catch quota for this species since 1994. Violation of 
this law by capture, possession, or trade in this species could result 
in up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 200 million rupiahs 
($22,870 USD; Prijono 2008, p. 13). In 1997, C. sulphurea was protected 
within Indonesia by Forestry Ministerial Decrees No. 350/Kpts-II/1997 
and No. 522/Kpts-II/1997. Although a cooperative recovery plan has been 
developed and put into place for C. sulphurea, it is unclear how 
effective it is; there are no clear indications that the species' 
situation is improving. Protections exist in several areas such as the 
Rawa Aopa Watumohai and Caraente National Parks (on Sulawesi), which 
may support approximately 100 individuals (Nandika 2006, pp. 10-11); 
Suaka Margasatwa Nature Reserve on Pulau Moyo; Komodo National Park; 
and two national parks on Sumba, Manupeu-Tanahdaru and Laiwangi-
Wanggameti. The Nini Konis Santana National Park in Timor also may have 
a population of approximately 100 birds (Trainor 2002 in Prijono 2008, 
p. 9). In Timor-Leste, BirdLife International identified 16 Important 
Bird Areas (IBAs). Although this designation does not confer any 
measure of protection, some of these IBAs may be vital to this species, 
particularly since the majority of the IBAs are located in coastal 
areas (BirdLife International 2007).
    For Cacatua sulphurea abbotti, the Indonesian Parrot Project (IPP) 
initiated an intensive conservation program on Solombo kecil Island. 
Visits were made to junior and senior high schools to teach students 
about the principles of conservation, increase their awareness of the 
plight of this species, and foster pride in this species, emphasizing 
that it is their rare and unique bird. Laws to protect these birds have 
been passed but only in the distant ``kabupatan'' (district) of Madura. 
These decrees are out of date, but there are plans to update them and 
extend them locally to the islands of the Masalembu Archipelago 
themselves, where they are more likely to be enacted. Officers from the 
local armed forces and police were taught about the protections already 
in place nationally and internationally, and were encouraged to 
conserve the birds (IPP 2008, pp. 3-4). Nest boxes and use of wardens 
are other conservation methods used. Konservasi Kakatua Indonesia (KKI, 
also known as Cockatoo Conservation Indonesia) is another NGO working 
to protect this species.
    There are only about 100 to 150 Cacatua sulphurea sulphurea left in 
the wild, solely on Sulawesi Island. IPP recently instituted a 
conservation program for this subspecies; however, it is still in its 
preliminary stages.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Yellow-Crested Cockatoo

    We examine the effects on the species based on each of the 5 
factors listed under the section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Under the ESA and 
our implementing regulations, a species may warrant

[[Page 49230]]

listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The yellow-crested cockatoo is highly 
restricted in its range and the threats to it occur throughout its 
range. Therefore, we assessed the status of the species throughout its 
entire range. The threats to the survival of this species occur 
throughout the species' range and are not restricted to any particular 
portion of its range. Accordingly, our assessment and proposed 
determination applies to the species throughout its entire range. 
Unless our status review finds that there is a unique threat to a 
particular subspecies, we will consider all of the subspecies to be 
facing equivalent threats, as their habitats are very similar and they 
are all island endemics in the same region. Like the white cockatoo, 
the greatest threats to cockatoos in Indonesia and other range 
countries is poaching from the wild for the illegal pet trade (usually 
nestlings are taken), logging, and other forms of deforestation and 
habitat destruction. In order to be efficient, if the threats are the 
same threats affecting a species discussed above, we will summarize 
these threats and refer to a discussion in the document above if it is 
not unique to this species or subspecies.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

    Habitat destruction such as that described above for white 
cockatoos also threatens Cacatua sulphurea. Deforestation is pervasive 
throughout Indonesia and Timor-Leste (Costin and Powell 2006, p. 2; 
Laurance 2007, p. 1,544). For example, on Solombo kecil Island, trees 
that have suitable habitat to provide food and nest holes for C. s. 
abbotti are logged. Their habitat on this island has been essentially 
destroyed and replaced with coconut palms. Almost total destruction of 
habitat flora, such as kapuk trees (Ceiba pentandra) and mangrove 
(Avicennia apiculata) which are preferred by the species, has occurred 
(IPP 2008, p. 3). Cockatoos consume fruit of tall timber trees such as 
``kayu besi'' (Intsia bijuga), the source of ``ironwood'' for building, 
and tangkalase (scientific name unknown), a deciduous hardwood tree 
(Nandika 2006, p. 10). These trees are disappearing or gone from the 
island. In the past, cockatoo nests seemed to be safe from trappers if 
they were sufficiently high. The decrease in such trees likely played a 
vital role in the species' decline (Marsden and Jones 1997 in Snyder 
2000, p. 70) in two ways: by decreasing suitable trees for nesting 
sites and by forcing cockatoos to locate nesting sites lower in the 
canopy.
    This type of habitat loss affects all four subspecies. In the case 
of Cacatua sulphurea abbotti, coconut palms have been planted, 
displacing their favored habitat flora such as kapuk trees and 
mangrove. The main cause of forest loss for C. s. citrinocristata has 
been the clearing and repeated burning of vegetation to provide land 
for grazing and cultivation, although between 1992 and 2002, there was 
no evidence of additional forest loss (Cahill et al. 2006, p. 165). 
Removal of trees for local use occurs, but there is no commercial 
logging on Sumba. In many areas, as a result of the shifting 
cultivation and annual burning for cattle grazing, the original 
vegetation has been replaced by fire-resistant trees, shrubs, and 
grasses. Where grazing and burning have been particularly intensive, 
the grasslands have become degraded and soil erosion is evident. A 
study found that on Sumba Island, birds were absent or rare in forest 
areas of less than 10 km\2\ (Kinnaird et al. 2003 in Prijono 2008, p. 
4). Jones et al. indicated that in order to protect the few remaining 
C. s. citrinocristata, the areas of remaining forest on Sumba Island 
must be preserved (1995, p. 49).
    For Cacatua sulphurea parvula, the largest population is thought to 
be on Komodo Island in Komodo National Park. This park includes three 
major islands: Komodo, Rinca and Padar, in addition to several smaller 
islands (http://www.komodonationalpark.org, accessed March 3, 2011). 
Its total marine and land surface area is 1,817 km\2\ (701 mi\2\). Due 
to the dryer climate, wildfires are a problem (Imansyah, unpublished, 
in Imansyah et al. 2005, p. 2). Researchers believe that the species' 
decline may be due to the lack of nesting sites.
    The yellow-crested cockatoo resides in lowland forests 
predominately between 100 to 600 m (328 to 1,968 ft) throughout these 
islands, with the highest densities of birds occurring in little-
disturbed forests. The locations where the subspecies is thought to 
exist currently, as well as the most recent population estimates, may 
be found below under the Factor B discussion. Both legal and illegal 
logging have been the primary threats to the habitat of this species, 
with the threats occurring throughout the islands in lowland forests, 
decreasing available habitat (Prijono 2008, p. 1; Widodo 2009, p. 81). 
For example, research found that for every 100 km\2\ (38.6 mi\2\) of 
Seram's primary forests that were selectively logged in the last 6 
years, 700 birds were likely lost from the cockatoo population (Marsden 
1992, p. 12). Similarly, for every 100 km\2\ of locally disturbed 
secondary forest that were converted to plantations, 600 birds were 
likely lost from the cockatoo population. Even when habitat is 
protected, there is generally little undisturbed habitat available, and 
it is of less suitable quality.
    Cockatoos are highly impacted by selective logging of primary 
forests, especially since reduced-impact logging techniques are seldom 
applied. Selective logging, which targets mature trees, has a 
substantial negative impact on tree-cavity nesters such as Cacatua 
sulphurea. The abundance of cockatoos is positively related to the 
density of its preferred nest trees (large trees that would be impacted 
by logging).
    Once the primary forest is logged, land use on other Indonesian 
islands shows that the secondary forest is generally converted to other 
uses or logged again rather than being allowed to return to primary 
forest. Therefore, although cockatoos may continue to inhabit secondary 
or degraded forests on their respective islands, their populations will 
be at substantially lower numbers. The trend of high loss of primary 
forests and degradation of secondary forests is of concern because 
little is known about the reproductive ecology of Cacatua sulphurea in 
the wild, including breeding success in mature forests versus secondary 
forests, and whether these cockatoos will survive in degraded forests 
in the long term. However, surveys indicate that the species is 
declining in the wild.
    In summary, extensive logging, both legal and illegal, has damaged 
Cacatua sulphurea habitat. In some areas, deforestation and habitat 
degradation are still occurring. The populations have decreased on all 
islands, and there is no sign of improvement. Therefore, we find that 
the present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat is a threat to the continued existence of this species 
throughout all of its range.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Poaching for the pet trade is a factor that also affects Cacatua 
sulphurea. Not only are cockatoos desirable pets, but this species is 
also very vocal and conspicuous, making it an easy target for poaching 
(Jepson and Ladle 2005, pp. 442, 447; Prijono 2008, pp. 4-5). Extremely 
heavy trade during the 1970s and 1980s was indicated as the main cause 
of the decline of this species (BirdLife International-IP, 1998; BLI 
2004 in Cahill et al. 2006, p. 161).

[[Page 49231]]

Between 1981 and 1992, 96,785 C. sulphurea were reported to have been 
exported from Indonesia (UNEP-WCMC, in Cahill 2006, p. 162). In 1992, 
cockatoos were worth approximately $55 USD to the wholesalers who 
export birds to Java (Marsden 1995 in Cahill et al. 2006, p. 165).
    From the data collected by ProFauna about animal markets in Java 
and Bali, the domestic trade in parrots is still at a high level 
(ProFauna 2008, pp. 2-8). Many investigations indicate that these 
cockatoos could fairly easily be exported and at some point their 
origin would be unknown, yet indicated as captive-origin (BLI 2003, p. 
2).

 Table 2--Live Exports of Cacatua sulphurea Between 2000 and 2009 (UNEP-
                               WCMC 2010)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of specimens exported............................     4,806
Total number of specimens exported as captive.................     4,719
Total number of specimens exported as wild....................        50
Total other or unknown........................................        23
No source code reported.......................................         9
Top 3 exporters:
    Number of specimens exported from South Africa............     1,799
    Number of specimens exported from Indonesia...............       508
    Number of specimens exported from the Philippines.........       481
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This number does not report specimens exported as Cacatua
 sulphurea citrinocristata. There was data reported in the UNEP-WCMC
 database for this subspecies but not for the other C. sulphurea
 subspecies (http://www.unep-wcmc.org).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sumba Island, evidence of cockatoo trapping was seen in 1996 
(Kinnaird 1999), and shipments of cockatoos were confiscated on Sumba 
in 1998 and again in 2002 (when 32 were seized). In 2002, an 
investigation found that one collector in Waikabubak exported 52 
yellow-crested cockatoos to other islands (Persulessy et al. 2003 in 
CITES 2004a, p. 6). In 2002, evidence was found of cockatoo trapping at 
Manupeu and Langgaliru, mainly in the form of snaring. Many nests at 
Poronumbu even had ladders attached to them for nest raiding, 
suggesting that trapping activity was relatively high at this site even 
in 2002 (Cahill et al. 2006, p. 166).
    IPP, a local NGO which is actively working to protect Cacatua 
sulphurea, noted specific threats to the subspecies on Solombo kecil 
Island. They found that usually nestlings, rather than adult birds, are 
taken. According to ProFauna, nestlings are worth 2 to 3 times more 
than adults (2008, p. 8). Historically, cockatoos were trapped in large 
numbers by outside visitors who took them to Bali and Sumbawa Islands. 
Studies by social anthropologists of locals in Seram and Halmahera 
showed that parrot catching accounted for 25 to 30 percent of their 
cash income (Badcock in litt. 1997, in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 60). 
Among the Halafara people of the Manusela valley on Seram, locals would 
catch and sell parrots to raise their bride price (Badcock in litt. 
1997, in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 60). Now, with the marked decline in 
their numbers, the birds are even sought by government officials, who 
keep them as pets due to the prestige of owning such a rare bird (IPP 
2008, p. 3).
    Due to high demand for cockatoos and based on trade reports in 
1993, the CITES Standing Committee recommended that countries suspend 
imports from Indonesia, pending surveys to assess the status of the 
species after a significant trade review (CITES 2001, AC17 Inf. 3 p. 4; 
CITES Notification to the Parties No. 737). Singapore continued to re-
export wild-caught birds originating from Indonesia after the export 
suspension of Indonesia in 1994 (CITES 2001, AC17 Inf. 3 p. 4). In 
total, 1,229 wild-caught birds were reported to be re-exported from 
Singapore between 1994 and 1999 (CITES 2001, AC17 Inf. 3 p. 4; WCMC 
2001 in CITES 2004a, pp. 9-10). Although trade was recognized to be a 
problem, this species was not listed on Appendix I of CITES until 2005. 
Poaching for the pet trade, as with all cockatoo species referenced in 
this rule, is a significant threat to this species as well.
    Although some subspecies are monitored and are on remote islands, 
poaching still occurs. Poaching can be extremely lucrative, and there 
is relatively low risk involved in poaching. None of these subspecies 
is fully protected from the illegal pet trade. Based on our review, we 
find that overutilization, specifically poaching for the pet trade, 
continues to be a threat to Cacatua sulphurea throughout its range.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    There is no evidence that disease or predation is a threat to 
Cacatua sulphurea in the wild. Our review did not find any indication 
that disease is a threat to C. sulphurea. With respect to predation, 
two predators, a spotted kestrel (Falco moluccensis) and a white 
bellied sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), have been observed 
attacking cockatoos (Prijono 2008, pp. 4-5). Although C. sulphurea has 
natural predators, to our knowledge, these predators are not having a 
negative impact on the species. After a review of the best scientific 
and commercial information, we conclude that neither disease nor 
predation are threats to C. sulphurea.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    After surveys conducted in the late 1990s by the Directorate-
General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) and 
BirdLife International-Indonesia, it was determined that Cacatua 
sulphurea populations had collapsed (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 59). Prior 
to 1993, at which time legal trade was prohibited, there was a reported 
average of 1,600 C. s. citrinocristata individuals being removed from 
Sumba annually, yet the 1992 population was only approximately 3,200 
(Cahill et al. 2006, p. 161). This level of trade was quite obviously 
unsustainable. The population had increased, likely due to the 
moratorium on international trade and local protections (Cahill et al. 
2006, p. 164); however, the population is declining now (BLI 2010d; 
Metz 2010, pers. comm.). In 1992, the Regent of West Sumba (Decree no. 
147) banned trapping and transport of cockatoos. This was followed by a 
similar decree in East Sumba (Decree no. 21), and in 1994, the 
government of Indonesia imposed a zero export quota (Cahill et al. 
2006, p. 162). In 1997, this species was provided additional protection 
by the Forestry Ministerial Decrees No. 350/Kpts-II/1997 and No. 522/
Kpts-II/1997.
    According to a CITES 2004 proposal to uplist Cacatua sulphurea to 
Appendix I, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, and Indonesia 
were the main countries exporting captive-bred specimens of Cacatua 
sulphurea. In Indonesia and Singapore, there has been a ``sudden turn 
up of captive bred specimens since 1994, the time the legal trade in 
wild specimens stopped'' (CITES 2004, p. 5). In 2004, two captive 
breeding operations of C. sulphurea were identified in Indonesia: PT. 
Bali Exotica Fauna and PT. Anak Burung Tropikana. Both of these 
companies were located in Bali Province (CITES 2004a, p. 5). Currently, 
however, there are no CITES-registered operations for breeding C. 
sulphurea for commercial purposes (CITES 2010d, npn.).
    When the proposal to transfer the Cacatua sulphurea from Appendix 
II to Appendix I (CITES CoP13, 2-14 October, Bangkok, Thailand) was 
being considered in 2004, BLI noted in their position paper that the 
difficulty in distinguishing captive-bred birds from wild ones is 
facilitating both illegal capture from the wild and illegal 
international trading of the captured birds (BLI 2003). They pointed to

[[Page 49232]]

examples of these birds found in markets in Indonesia (BLI 2003 p. 2).
    Between 2000 and 2009, the UNEP-WCMC Trade Database indicated that 
4,837 live specimens of Cacatua sulphurea were exported (subspecies are 
unknown). Between the same time period, an additional 1,648 live 
specimens of C. s. citrinocristata were reported to be exported. In 
2009 alone, 11 live specimens of C. s. citrinocristata were exported 
from South Africa to the United Arab Emirates, one of the countries 
most frequently importing cockatoos (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/citestrade). Nearly all of these were documented as captive-bred, but 
wildlife laundering does still occur (ProFauna 2008; 2010; 
Cant[uacute]-Guzm[aacute]n et al. 2007, 121 pp.) and is quite 
lucrative.
    A 2003 IUCN review found that Cacatua sulphurea is readily 
available in Indonesian bird markets (BLI 2003, pp. 1-2). Poaching is 
relatively easy, poverty is widespread, and there is little incentive 
or awareness for local communities to conserve their resources. 
Although the species occurs within a number of protected areas and a 
recovery plan was initiated in 1998, declines are still occurring. 
Birds are still likely smuggled to and exported from Singapore and the 
Philippines, at a minimum (ProFauna 2008). Continued trapping and 
large-scale logging that are not sufficiently regulated or mitigated by 
the Indonesian government remain threats to the species. For some 
subspecies, there are specific local protections in place, but they are 
inadequate to combat the threats facing the species according to a 
local NGO who works on the conservation of this species. For example, a 
local law for the protection of C. s. abbotti exists, which IPP 
assisted in obtaining in 2010 (Metz 2010, pers. comm.).
    With respect to the adequacy of internal government controls within 
Indonesia, we find that they are inadequate (refer to discussion and 
finding under Factor D for the white cockatoo, which faces the same 
threats with respect to this factor). Poaching and illegal trade of 
this species continue to occur. This species continues to experience 
population declines, and the protections in place are inadequate to 
protect this species. CITES regulates international trade of this 
species, and we have no evidence to suggest that CITES is inadequate in 
regulating legal trade of this species. Therefore, we find that the 
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms is a threat to Cacatua sulphurea 
throughout its range.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

Interspecific Competition
    The Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) preys upon eggs and uses 
nests of Cacatua sulphurea during the species' arboreal phase. 
Observations have been made of competition between the dragon and 
cockatoo when using the tree Sterculia foetida for nesting (Agista & 
Rubyanto 2001 in Prijono 2008, p. 4). Although individuals of C. 
sulphurea may be subject to occasional competition with Komodo dragons, 
there is no evidence that this is occurring at a level which may affect 
the status of C. sulphurea on Komodo Island as a whole.
Small and Declining Population
    All four subspecies of Cacatua sulphurea have very limited 
geographic ranges and small, declining populations. Their existing 
populations are extremely localized, and sometimes geographically 
isolated from one another, leaving them vulnerable to localized 
extinctions from habitat modification and destruction; natural 
catastrophic changes to their habitat (e.g., flood scour, drought); 
other stochastic disturbances; and decreased fitness from reduced 
genetic diversity. It is likely that fewer than 1,000 to 2,000 
individuals representing each subspecies remain in the wild; in the 
case of C. s. abbotti and C. s. sulphurea, there are likely fewer than 
100 of each subspecies (Metz 2010, pers. comm.) (see Table 3).

          Table 3--Yellow-Crested Cockatoo Population Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Where found and
                                     date of          Estimated number
            Species                 population     remaining in the wild
                                     estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellow-crested cockatoo         Indonesia and      2,500 to 6,000*
 (Cacatua sulphurea).            Timor-Leste.
Subspecies:
    C. s. abbotti.............  Sulawesi Strait    30
                                 (2010).
    C. s. citrinocristata.....  Sulawesi Strait    565 to 2,054
                                 (2002).
    C. s. parvula.............  Sulawesi Strait    500 to 2,000
                                 (2000, 2009).
                                Timor (2000,       500
                                 2004).
    C. s. sulphurea...........  Sulawesi Strait    100 to 150
                                 (2010).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Number includes all four subspecies.

    Species with limited geographic ranges and small, declining 
populations are extremely vulnerable. Demographic stochasticity may 
affect this species as well, and is defined as chance changes in the 
population growth rate for a species (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 
27). Population growth rates are influenced by individual birth and 
death rates (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27), immigration and 
emigration rates, and changes in population sex ratios. Natural 
variation in survival and reproductive success of individuals and 
chance disequilibrium of sex ratios may act in concert to contribute to 
demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27).
    Genetic stochasticity is caused by changes in gene frequencies due 
to genetic drift, diminished genetic diversity, effects due to 
inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression), or a combination of these 
factors (Lande 1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have individual or 
population-level consequences, either by increasing the phenotypic 
expression (the outward appearance, or observable structure, function, 
or behavior of a living organism) of recessive, deleterious alleles or 
by reducing the overall fitness of individuals in the population 
(Charlesworth and Charlesworth 1987, p. 231; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). 
Environmental stochasticity is defined as the susceptibility of small, 
isolated populations of wildlife species to natural levels of 
environmental variability and related ``catastrophic'' events (e.g., 
severe storms, extreme cold spells, wildfire) (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 
9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Young 1994, pp. 410-412). Each risk 
will be analyzed specifically for each species.
    Small, isolated populations of wildlife species that have gone 
through a reduction in population numbers can be

[[Page 49233]]

susceptible to demographic and genetic problems (Shaffer 1981, pp. 130-
134). These threat factors, which may act in concert, include: Natural 
variation in survival and reproductive success of individuals; chance 
disequilibrium of sex ratios; changes in gene frequencies due to 
genetic drift; diminished genetic diversity and associated effects due 
to inbreeding (i.e., inbreeding depression); dispersal of just a few 
individuals; a few clutch failures; a skewed sex ratio in recruited 
offspring over just one or a few years; and chance mortality of just a 
few reproductive-age individuals. These small populations are also 
susceptible to natural levels of environmental variability and related 
catastrophic events, which we will refer to as environmental 
stochasticity (Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; 
Young 1994, pp. 410-412).
    Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, 
we conclude that Cacatua sulphurea's very small and rapidly declining 
populations are a threat to the species throughout its range, 
particularly when combined with other threats to this species.

Finding for the Yellow-Crested Cockatoo

    As required by the ESA, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether Cacatua sulphurea is endangered or threatened throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by C. sulphurea. We reviewed the petition, 
information available in our files, and other available published and 
unpublished information.
    We analyzed the potential threats to Cacatua sulphurea, including 
habitat loss and habitat degradation, take for the pet trade, disease 
and predation, and the inadequacy of regulatory controls. We found that 
habitat loss as a result of deforestation is a threat to C. sulphurea, 
and the subspecies are declining rangewide. This species faces 
immediate and significant threats, primarily from the destruction and 
modification of its habitats from logging (Factor A). Efforts such as 
reforestation and building of nest boxes may continue to improve the 
habitat of this species, which may subsequently increase their numbers. 
However, no improvement has been seen yet as a result of conservation 
efforts (Metz 2010, pers. comm.). We conclude that the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range is a significant threat to C. sulphurea.
    We found information that poaching for the pet trade is also a 
significant threat to the species. Illegal poaching of the cockatoo for 
the pet trade is still common, despite existing laws, education, and 
public awareness campaigns. Pet birds are an important part of 
Indonesian culture, with large numbers of wild-caught parrots traded 
domestically and internationally. Trappers remain active, and wild-
caught birds are openly sold in Asian markets (Prijono 2008, p. 18). 
Efforts to curtail illegal trade are hampered by Indonesia's large 
coastline and enforcement officials with limited resources and 
knowledge. The continuing illegal trade of the cockatoo is a threat to 
the survival of the species. Therefore, we find overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor 
B) is a threat to Cacatua sulphurea throughout its range.
    We found no evidence that diseases significantly affect Cacatua 
sulphurea in the wild. Other avian species may be susceptible to 
certain diseases, but there is no evidence that disease occurs to an 
extent that it is a threat to this species. Predation was not found to 
affect C. sulphurea populations; however, we will continue to monitor 
this factor. Based on the best available information, we conclude that 
neither disease nor predation (Factor C) is a threat to the species 
throughout its range.
    Although Indonesia has a good legal framework to manage wildlife 
and their habitats, implementation of its laws and regulatory 
mechanisms has been inadequate to address the threats to Cacatua 
sulphurea. Logging laws and policies are frequently ignored and rarely 
enforced, and illegal logging is rampant, even occurring in national 
parks and nature reserves (Prijono 2008). The illegal trade of this 
species continues to occur. The current range of C. sulphurea is much 
smaller than its historical range. The population estimates for each 
subspecies range from 30 to 2,054 individuals. Threats to C. sulphurea 
continue, and based on the best available information, the population 
trends are declining. Thus, we conclude that inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms are a threat to C. sulphurea throughout its range.
    Finally, we conclude that small, declining populations of Cacatua 
sulphurea are a threat to the species, particularly when combined with 
the other threats to the species (Factor E).
    Despite the conservation measures in place, this species faces 
severe threats, and the population trend for this species continues to 
decline. Based on our review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that 
Cacatua sulphurea is in danger of extinction (endangered) throughout 
all of its range. Therefore, we propose to list C. sulphurea as 
endangered under the ESA.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal 
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition 
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results 
in conservation actions by Federal and State governments, private 
agencies and interest groups, and individuals.
    The ESA and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and 
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in 
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to ``take'' (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the 
United States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, 
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate commerce in the course 
of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or 
foreign commerce any endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to 
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife 
that has been taken in violation of the ESA. Certain exceptions apply 
to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are 
codified at 50 CFR 17.22. 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 ESA.

Special Rule

    Section 4(d) of the ESA states that the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) may, by regulation, extend to threatened species 
prohibitions provided for endangered species under section 9 of the 
ESA. Our implementing regulations for threatened wildlife at 50 CFR 
17.31

[[Page 49234]]

incorporate the section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife, except 
when a special rule is promulgated. For threatened species, section 
4(d) of the ESA gives the Secretary discretion to specify the ESA 
prohibitions and any exceptions to those prohibitions that are 
appropriate for the species. A special rule allows us to include 
provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the 
threatened species and which may be more or less restrictive than the 
general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.
    The proposed special rule for the white cockatoo, in most 
instances, adopts the existing conservation regulatory requirements of 
CITES and the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the 
import and export of certain captive white cockatoos. It would also 
allow interstate commerce. However, import and export of birds taken 
from the wild after the date this species is listed under the ESA, 
take, and foreign commerce would need to meet the requirements of 50 
CFR 17.31 and 17.32. ``Take'' under the ESA includes both harm and 
harass. When applied to captive wildlife, 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 conducting an activity 
that could take or incidentally take wildlife, a permit under the ESA 
is required.
    If adopted, the proposed special rule would allow import and export 
of certain white cockatoos and interstate commerce of this species 
without a permit under the ESA as explained below.
    Import and export. The proposed special rule would apply to all 
commercial and noncommercial international shipments of live white 
cockatoos and parts and products, including the import and export of 
personal pets and research samples. It proposes to allow a person to 
import or export a specimen that was held in captivity prior to the 
date this species is listed under the ESA or that was captive-bred 
provided the import is authorized under CITES and the WBCA and export 
is authorized under CITES. The terms ``captive-bred'' and ``captivity'' 
used in the proposed special 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. The proposed special rule 
would apply to birds captive-bred in the United States and abroad. 
Import and export of specimen that have been held in captivity prior to 
the date this species is list under the ESA or that was captive-bred 
would be allowed without a permit under the ESA provided the provisions 
of CITES and WBCA are met. With respect to captive-bred specimens, the 
CITES import and export permits would need to indicate that the 
specimen was not taken from the wild by using a source code on the face 
of the permit other than U (unknown) or W (taken from the wild). If the 
specimen was taken from the wild prior to the date this species is 
listed under the ESA, the importer or exporter would need to 
demonstrate that the cockatoo was taken from the wild prior to that 
date. Under the special rule, a person would need to provide records, 
receipts, or other documents when applying for permits under CITES and 
WBCA to show the specimen was held in captivity prior to the date this 
species is listed under the ESA.
    We assessed the conservation needs of the white cockatoo in light 
of the broad protections provided to the species under the WBCA and 
CITES. The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of exotic 
birds and to ensure that international trade involving the United 
States does not harm exotic birds. The white cockatoo is also protected 
by CITES, a treaty which contributes to the conservation of the species 
by monitoring international trade and ensuring that trade in Appendix 
II species is not detrimental to the survival of the species (see 
Conservation Status for the white cockatoo). The best available 
commercial data indicate that the current threat to the white cockatoo 
stems from illegal trade in the domestic and international markets of 
Indonesia and surrounding countries. Thus, the general prohibitions on 
import and export contained in 50 CFR 17.31, which only extend within 
the jurisdiction of the United States, would not regulate such 
activities. Accordingly we find that the import and export requirements 
of the proposed special rule provide the necessary and advisable 
conservation measures that are needed for this species.
    Interstate commerce. Under the proposed special rule, a person may 
deliver, receive, carry, transport, ship, sell, offer to sell, 
purchase, or offer to purchase a white cockatoos in interstate 
commerce. Although we do not have current data, we believe there are a 
large number of white cockatoos in the United States. Current ISIS 
(International Species Information System) information shows 252 white 
cockatoos are held in U.S. zoos (ISIS 2008, p. 4). This number is an 
underestimate, as some zoos do not enter data into the ISIS database. 
We have no information to suggest that interstate commerce activities 
are associated with threats to the white cockatoo or would negatively 
affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the 
species. At the same time, the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.31 
would apply under this special rule, and any interstate commerce 
activities that could incidentally take cockatoos would require a 
permit under 50 CFR 17.32.

Pet Birds

    A ``Pre''-ESA (or ``Pre-Act'') specimen of a species is one that 
was made or obtained prior to the species being listed under the ESA 
and has not been involved in a commercial transaction since that time. 
Specimens of species held in captivity or in a controlled environment 
on (a) December 28, 1973, or (b) the date of publication in the Federal 
Register for a final species listing, whichever is later, are exempt 
from prohibitions of the ESA, provided such holding or any subsequent 
holding or use of the specimen was not in the course of a commercial 
activity (any activity that is intended for profit or gain). An 
affidavit and supporting material documenting pre-ESA status must 
accompany the shipment of any listed species. A pre-ESA exemption does 
not apply to wildlife, including parts and products, offered for sale. 
In order to export a pet bird, an owner would need to provide 
information that the specimen was acquired or held in a controlled 
environment on or before (a) December 28, 1973, or the date when the 
species was listed, and (b) has not entered into commerce (e.g., been 
bought, sold, or offered for sale by you or anyone else) since December 
28, 1973, or the date when listed. Any specimens of an endangered or 
threatened species born in captivity from pre-ESA parents are fully 
protected and are not considered pre-ESA. See http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-23.pdf for additional information.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect 
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened 
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated. 
However, given that these species are not native to the United States, 
we are not

[[Page 49235]]

designating critical habitat for these species under section 4 of the 
Act.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative 
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' that was 
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding 
this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing 
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analysis. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer 
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We 
will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment 
period, on the specific assumptions and the data that are the basis for 
our conclusions regarding the proposal to list as endangered the 
Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia) and the yellow-crested 
cockatoo (C. sulphurea), and to list as threatened the white cockatoo 
(C. alba), under the ESA.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

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:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) 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 the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us 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 rule 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 list of all references cited in this document is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0099, or upon 
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species 
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section).

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Branch 
of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service.

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 amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding new entries for ``Cockatoo, 
Philippine,'' ``Cockatoo, white,'' and ``Cockatoo, yellow-crested'' in 
alphabetical order under BIRDS to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, 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
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cockatoo, Philippine.............  Cacatua               Philippines........  Entire.............  E                       786           NA           NA
                                    haematuropygia.
Cockatoo, white..................  Cacatua alba........  Indonesia..........  Entire.............  T                       786           NA     17.41(d)
Cockatoo, yellow-crested.........  Cacatua sulphurea...  Indonesia and Timor- Entire.............  E                       786           NA           NA
                                                          Leste (East Timor).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Amend Sec.  17.41 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.41  Special rules--birds.

* * * * *
    (d) White cockatoo (Cacatua alba).
    (1) Except as noted in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this 
section, all prohibitions and provisions of Sec. Sec.  17.31

[[Page 49236]]

and 17.32 of this part apply to the white cockatoo.
    (2) Import and export. You may import or export a 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-
bred), ``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 the date this species was 
listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.): You must provide documentation to demonstrate that the 
specimen was held in captivity prior to the date the species is listed 
under the ESA. Such documentation may include copies of receipts, 
accession or veterinary records, CITES documents, or wildlife 
declaration forms, which must be dated prior to the date this species 
was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
    (3) Interstate commerce. Except where use after import is 
restricted under Sec.  23.55 of this subchapter, you may deliver, 
receive, carry, transport, ship, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or 
offer to purchase in interstate commerce a live white cockatoo.

    Dated: July 26, 2011.
James J. Slack,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-19532 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P