[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62016-62034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25808]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0082; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Red-Crowned Parrot

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the red-crowned parrot (Amazona 
viridigenalis) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific 
and commercial information, we find that listing the red-crowned parrot 
as endangered or threatened is warranted. Currently, however, listing 
the red-crowned parrot is precluded by higher priority actions to amend 
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon 
publication of this 12-month petition finding, we will add the red-
crowned parrot to our candidate species list. We will develop a 
proposed rule to list the red-crowned parrot as our priorities allow. 
We will make any determination on critical habitat during development 
of the proposed listing rule. During any interim period, we will 
address the status of the candidate taxon through our annual Candidate 
Notice of Review (CNOR).

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 6, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R9-ES-2011-0082. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered 
Species Program, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 
22203. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or 
questions concerning this finding to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; 
telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal List of Threatened and 
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing a species may be warranted, we make 
a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In 
this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not 
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other 
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January 
29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental 
Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting we 
list 14 parrot species under the Act. The petition clearly identified 
itself as a petition and included the requisite information required by 
the Service's implementing regulations for the Endangered Species Act 
(50 CFR 424.14(a)). On July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957), we published a 90-
day finding in which we determined that the petition presented 
substantial scientific and commercial information to indicate that 
listing may be warranted for 12 of the 14 parrot species. In our 90-day 
finding on this petition, we announced the initiation of a status 
review to list as endangered or threatened under the Act the following 
12 parrot species: Blue-headed macaw (Primolius couloni), crimson 
shining parrot (Prosopeia splendens), great green macaw (Ara ambiguus), 
grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera), hyacinth macaw 
(Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), military macaw (Ara militaris), 
Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia), red-crowned parrot 
(Amazona viridigenalis), scarlet macaw (Ara macao), white cockatoo 
(Cacatua alba), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria), and yellow-
crested cockatoo (Cacatua sulphurea). We initiated a status review to 
determine if listing each of the 12 species is warranted, and initiated 
a 60-day public comment period to allow all interested parties an 
opportunity to provide information on the status of these 12 species of 
parrots. The comment period closed on September 14, 2009.
    On October 24, 2009, and December 2, 2009, the Service received a 
60-day notice of intent to sue from Friends of Animals and WildEarth 
Guardians, for failure to issue 12-month findings on the petition. On 
March 2, 2010, Friends of Animals and WildEarth Guardians filed suit 
against the Service for failure to make timely 12-month findings within 
the statutory deadline of the Act on the petition to list the 14 
species (Friends of Animals, et al. v. Salazar, Case No. 10 CV 00357 
D.D.C.). On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the 
Court (CV-10-357, D. D.C.), in which the Service agreed to (in part) 
submit to the Federal Register by September 30, 2011, a determination 
whether the petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted 
but precluded by other listing actions for no less than four of the 
petitioned species. This Federal Register document complies with the 
second deadline in that court-ordered settlement agreement. We will 
announce the 12-month findings for the remaining parrot species for 
which a 90-day finding was made on July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957) in 
subsequent Federal Register notices.

Biological Information

Species Description

    The red-crowned parrot belongs to the Amazona genus within the 
parrot family Psittacidae. It is a mid-sized Amazona species, measuring 
approximately 33 centimeters (cm) (13 inches (in)) in length and 
weighing approximately 316 grams (g) (0.70 pounds) (Enkerlin and Hogan 
1997, unpaginated). Average male and female wing length measures 
approximately

[[Page 62017]]

207.5 millimeters (mm) (8.2 in) and 200.4 mm (7.9 in), respectively. 
Average tail lengths for males and females measure 108.6 mm (4.3 in) 
and 102.4 mm (4.0 in), respectively (Forshaw 1989, p. 603). Adults have 
a bright green overall plumage distinguished by bright yellow-green 
cheek areas, bright red on the crown (top of head) and lores (area 
between eye and bill), and a violet-blue band extending from behind 
each eye down each side of the crown and neck. The back of the head and 
neck is scaled with black-tipped feathers. The flight feathers are 
bluish-black overall, with the outer secondary flight feathers also 
bearing a red patch. The tail feathers are tipped with yellowish green. 
The bill is cream-yellow colored, the iris is yellow, and the orbital 
ring and feet are pale gray. Juveniles are similar to adults except 
that the bright red feathers on the head are limited to the forehead 
and lores, and the violet-blue band on the sides of the crown tends to 
form a broad band over and behind the eye (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, 
unpaginated; Foreshaw 1989, p. 603).

Range and Distribution

    The red-crowned parrot is endemic to northeastern Mexico. In 
addition, several introduced populations occur in urban area of the 
United States, Puerto Rico, and Mexico. Evidence suggests populations 
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley consist, at least partly, of naturally 
occurring populations (Walker and Chapman 1992, pp. 38-39; Neck 1986, 
entire; Brush 2005, pp. 97-99; Arvin 1982, p. 872). Thus, in our status 
review we treat the Lower Rio Grande Valley populations as native 
populations. In Mexico, the species' distribution is confined to the 
lowland plains (Atlantic coastal plain) and the low eastern slopes of 
the Sierra Madre Oriental (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 4; Collar et 
al. 1992, p. 423). Historically, the species is known from central and 
southern Tamaulipas, central Nuevo Leon, eastern San Luis Potosi, and 
northern and central Veracruz (Collar et al. 1992, p. 423; Enkerlin and 
Hogan 1997, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 603; Ridgely 1981, p. 351). 
Howell and Webb (1995, p. 342) also include small portions of eastern 
Queretaro, Hidalgo, and north-northeast Puebla as part of the natural 
range of the species.
    A study to determine the current status of populations throughout 
the species' range in Mexico was conducted during 2002 and 2003. The 
study found that red-crowned parrots occur at only 19.2 percent of 
surveyed locations at which they were recorded historically (Macias and 
Enkerlin 2003, p. 17). The species was present in Tamaulipas, eastern 
San Luis Potosi, and northern Veracruz, and absent in Nuevo Leon and 
central Veracruz (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 3). The authors estimate 
the current range of the species in Mexico to be 32,500 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (12,548 square miles (mi\2\)), representing a 77 
percent decrease from the species' estimated original range of 140,000 
km\2\ (54,054 mi\2\) (p. 14). Most of the species' current distribution 
occurs in Tamaulipas followed, in order of importance, by Veracruz and 
San Luis Potosi (p. 12), and habitat within this range is fragmented. 
As a result, the species occurs in only small, isolated populations 
across its range (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 3). In addition to the 
results of Macias and Enkerlin's research, recent reports confirm the 
species' native occurrence in northeast Queretaro (p. 12). Within the 
LRGV, the red-crowned parrot occurs in Hildago and Cameron Counties, 
from Hidalgo, Mission, McAllen, and Edinburg east to Brownsville, Los 
Fresnos, and Harlingen (Hagne 2011, pers. comm.; Brush 2011, pers. 
comm.; McKinney 2011, pers. comm.). The species also occurs in some 
towns on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande (Hagne 2011, pers. comm.), 
although specific locations have not been reported.

Habitat

    The red-crowned parrot generally occurs in tropical lowlands and 
foothills, inhabiting tropical deciduous forest, gallery forest, 
evergreen floodplain forest, Tamaulipan thornscrub, and semi-open 
areas. It generally occurs between sea level and 500 meters (m) (1,640 
feet (ft)) elevation, with most birds found within 200-500 m (656-1,640 
ft) (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 10; Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, 
unpaginated). In winter, it sometimes visits dry pine and pine-oak 
forests up to 1,200 m (3,937 ft) elevation to forage (Macias and 
Enkerlin 2003, p. 10; Clinton-Eitniear 1986, p. 22; Clinton-Eitniear 
1988, p. 28; Martin et al. 1954, p. 46). Enkerlin and Hogan (1997, 
unpaginated) describe typical habitat as being diverse deciduous 
tropical forest with a relatively open, 15-20 m (50-65 ft) high canopy 
layer, and dominant canopy vegetation that includes Ficus cotinifolia 
(strangler fig), Bumelia laetevirens (coma), Pithecellobium flexicaule 
(ebony), Bursera simaruba (gumbo-limbo), Phyllostylon brasiliensis 
(cer[oacute]n), Brosimum alicatrum (ojite), and Helietta parvifolia 
(barreta). Gelhbach et al. (1976, pp. 54-55) described a floodplain 
forest habitat as evergreen forest dominated by Pithecellobium 
flexicaule with Ehretia, Bumelia, and Condolia subdominant. Altered 
habitats are also used. The species is known to occur in partially 
cleared and cultivated landscapes with woodlots and woodland patches 
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 425), and, in reduced numbers, in agricultural 
areas where a few large trees remain standing for nesting and roosting 
(Ridgley 1981, p. 351). In the LRGV, red-crowned parrots occur 
primarily in urban (town) areas (Hagne 2011, pers. comm.). Although 
little information on urban habitat use specific to the LRGV is 
available, in cities where the species is introduced it is reported to 
prefer areas with large trees that provide both food and nesting sites 
(Froke 1981, Hall 1988, in Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated).

Movements

    Red-crowned parrots are nonmigratory (Enkerlin and Hogan, 
unpaginated), but are apparently nomadic during the winter (non-
breeding) season when large flocks range widely to forage (Collar et 
al. 1992, p. 426; Clinton-Eitniear 1986, pp. 22-23). Regional movements 
spanning up to ``tens of kilometers'' have been reported for 
Tamaulipas, Mexico (Aragon-Tapia 1986, in Enkerlin and Hogan, 
unpaginated).

Diet and Foraging

    The red-crowned parrot usually forages in the crowns of trees, but 
will occasionally feed on low-lying bushes. Foraging appears to be 
opportunistic. Its diet includes a variety of primarily seeds and 
fruits, but also buds and flowers (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, 
unpaginaged; Sutton and Pettingill 1942, p. 14). In a study conducted 
in northeast Mexico, red-crowned parrots were observed feeding on 9 
plant species (Enkerlin 1995, p. 113). They fed most frequently on the 
seeds of the most abundant trees in the study site: Pithecellobium 
flexicaule (Texas ebony), Ficus cotinifolia (strangler fig), and 
Bumelia laetevirens (woolly buckthorn). They also frequently fed on 
Myrcianthes fragans (Guyabillo) fruit. In Mexico, they have also been 
reported feeding on Pinus (pine) seeds (Martin et al. 1954, p. 46), 
Ehretia anaqua (anacua) berries (Gehlbach 1976, p. 55), Melia azederach 
(chinaberry) berries, and acorns (Clinton-Eitniear 1988, p. 28), and 
have been reported to be pests in corn fields (Martin 1954, p. 46). 
Insects have also been found in crop (a structure in the digestive 
tract where food is stored) samples taken from chicks (Enkerlin and 
Hogan 1997, unpaginaged). In Texas, as in Mexico, Pithecellobium 
flexicaule is a common food item, as is Ehretia anaqua (Brush 2005, p. 
99).

[[Page 62018]]

Red-crowned parrots in Texas have also been observed eating the seeds 
and fruits, and leaves or flower buds, of a variety of other species 
(Brush 2005, p. 99).

Reproduction

    As with other Amazona species, red-crowned parrots nest in pre-
existing tree cavities, including those created by other birds and 
those resulting from tree decay. They will also use artificial cavities 
(Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated). They've been reported nesting 
in a variety of tree species, including Taxodium mucronatum (Montezuma 
cypress), Bumelia laetivirens, and Brosinum alicastrum (breadnut) 
(Gelhbach 1987, Perez and Equiarte 1989, in Collar et al. 1992, p. 
426), as well as Pithecellobium flexicaule, Ficus cotinifolia, Bumelia 
laetevirens, Helietta parvifolia, Bursera simaruba, and others 
(Enkerlin 1995, p. 35). In a study in Tamaulipas within a habitat 
mosaic of forest, windbreaks, wooded pastures, and open pastures, the 
availability of suitable cavities for nesting did not appear to be 
limited, as parrots used only a small fraction of available cavities 
classified as suitable for nest sites (Enkerlin 1995, pp. 43-44, 54). 
Trees in which red-crowned parrot nests occurred ranged from 39-229 cm 
(15-90 in) diameter at breast height, and nest cavities were located 
380-1,350 cm (150-531 in) above the ground (Enkerlin 1995, p. 36). 
Results of the same study show that red-crowned parrots appeared to 
preferentially select nests in open and wooded pastures rather than in 
heavily forested areas, but the effect of possible sample bias due to 
lower detectability of nests in forests could not be ruled out 
(Enkerlin 1995, pp. 43-44).
    Nests of red-crowned parrots appear to be clumped because the 
nearest neighbor (the nest closest to the nest in question) tends to be 
a nest of the same species (Enkerlin 1995, p. 42). Fidelity to specific 
nest sites is lower than in other Amazona (Enkerlin 1995, p. 75), 
although individuals show attachment to a general area when selecting 
nests (Enkerlin 1995, p. 66). Nests in which greater than one young 
fledge have a greater likelihood of being reused (Enkerlin 1995, p. 
69).
    Nesting by red-crowned parrots occurs from March to August 
(Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated). Second clutches are not known 
to occur, although evidence (i.e., late season clutches) suggests it 
may occur irregularly (Enkerlin 1995, p. 104). Clutch size ranges from 
2 to 5 (average = 3.4) eggs, and eggs hatch after an average of 27 
days, with young fledging an average of 53 days after hatching 
(Enkerlin 1995, pp. 65, 86). Parents feed young for at least 10 weeks 
after the young fledge. In northeast Mexico, progression of the young 
to independence is assumed to occur within 3-4 months, as young are no 
longer with adults in November (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated).
    Enkerlin (1995, p. 96) shows that, on average, a pair of red-
crowned parrots within the species' native range in Mexico produced 3.4 
eggs but fledged only 1.43 young, indicating that only 43 percent of 
eggs resulted in fledged young. As with most other parrots, there is a 
low proportion of breeding adults in red-crowned parrot populations and 
reproductive success is low, indicating that populations do not have 
the capacity to recover quickly from pressures to which they are 
subjected (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 16).
    In a study conducted by Enkerlin (1995, pp. 89-93) the main causes 
of egg and chick mortality were nest abandonment due to unknown causes, 
brood reduction, and predation. Most nest failure occurred during the 
early nestling period, and snakes, especially indigo snakes (Drymarchon 
corais), were a major source of predation. Other predators included 
hawks (Buteo sp.), which were observed preying on juveniles, and coati 
(Nasua nasua) and skunk (Spilogale putorius), which were documented 
preying on incubating females (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated).

Abundance

    Historical numbers of red-crowned parrots are believed to have 
exceeded 100,000 (Enkerlin 1998, p. 8). Records up through the 1950s 
indicate the species was clearly relatively common in appropriate 
habitat from central Tamaulipas south to eastern San Luis Potosi and 
northern Veracruz, even being described in some areas as a ``pest'' 
species (Collar et al. 1992, p. 424). By the 1970s, Ridgely (1981, p. 
351) noted that, although locally common, the consensus among long-term 
observers was that there had been a large overall decline in the 
species' numbers over the previous several decades, and that much of 
its range had been, or was being, modified for agricultural use. 
Ridgely (1981, p. 351) also reported that, where formerly hundreds 
could be seen, it was now only seen in scattered pairs or, at most, 
small flocks. The Mexico population in 1994 was estimated to be 3,000-
6,500 birds (UNEP-WCMC 2002, in Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 15).
    Density estimates of red-crowned parrots in Tamaulipas during the 
1970s to 1990s differ by an order of magnitude and have been cited as 
evidence for population declines (Birdlife International (BLI) 2011, 
unpaginated). Castro (1976, in Enkerlin 1995, p. 117) estimated a 
density of 25.2 birds per 100 hectares (ha) (247 acres (ac)) during the 
1970s; Perez and Eguiarte (1989, in Enkerlin 1995, p. 117) 11.5 birds 
per 100 ha (247 ac) during 1985; Aragon-Tapia (1986, in Enkerlin 1995, 
p. 117) 4.72 birds per 100 ha (247 ac) in 1986; and Enkerlin (1995, p. 
117) 5.7 birds per 100 ha (247 ac) during the period 1992-1994. These 
estimates, however, were made using different methodologies (Ekerlin 
1995, p. 117) and therefore may reflect differences in methods used by 
different researchers rather than differences in abundance. Enkerlin 
(1995, p. 124) also suggests some of the variation in density estimates 
may be due to differences in the abilities of different researchers to 
distinguish red-crowned from red-lored parrots (Amazona autumnalis) in 
the field.
    Partners in Flight (PIF), an international coalition of Federal and 
State agencies and non-government groups, uses a peer-reviewed process 
to assess the status of bird species (Rich et al. 2004, entire; Panjabi 
et al. 2005, entire). They base these assessments on ``wild'' 
populations of the species, which do not include populations known to 
be introduced (Panjabi 2011, pers. comm.). Their assessment of the 
status of red-crowned parrot includes populations within the species' 
historical range in Mexico and in the LRGV. PIF assessed the status of 
the global red-crowned parrot population, as well as the portion of the 
global population occurring within a defined ``Bird Conservation 
Region.'' Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ``ecologically distinct 
regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and 
resource management issues'' (North American Bird Conservation 
Initiative (NABCI) undated, unpaginated). The BCR in which red-crowned 
parrots were assessed is the Tamaulipan Brushlands BCR. This BCR 
comprises the plain that extends from southern Texas into northeastern 
Mexico (NABCI 2000, p. 22). It includes the LRGV and northern portions 
of the Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila. PIF 
estimates the global population of red-crowned parrots to be fewer than 
5,000 individuals and the recent population trend as having decreased 
greater than or equal to 50 percent over 30 years (Berlanga et al. 
2010, pp. 38-39; PIF 2007, unpaginated; PIF 2005a, unpaginated). They 
estimate that

[[Page 62019]]

individuals within the Tamaulipan Brushlands BCR comprise 43 percent of 
the global population, and categorize the population trend as being 
highly variable or having an unknown change over 30 years, which they 
qualitatively define as an uncertain population trend (PIF 2005b, 
unpaginated). Numbers and trend of the species within the Texas portion 
of this BCR are largely unknown, and speculative (Hagne 2011, pers. 
comm.; Brush 2011, pers. comm.; McKinney 2011, pers. comm.), although 
an earlier PIF assessment (Rich et al. 2004, p. 70) estimated that 
approximately 50 percent of the rangewide population (not including 
introduced populations (Panjabi 2011, pers. comm.)) occurred in the 
United States.

Conservation Status

    Red-crowned parrots are listed as endangered in Mexico (GOM 2002, 
p. 22), and are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; see Factor 
D). The species is classified by the IUCN as endangered (BLI 2008, 
unpaginated), and by the Service (2008, pp. 52, 66) as a Species of 
Concern. PIF has placed the species on its Watch List for Land Birds, 
and has classified it as a species of High Tri-national Concern (Rich 
et al. 2004, p. 17; Berlanga et al. 2010, pp. 38-39).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species 
to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 
Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be 
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to the red-crowned 
parrot in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act is discussed below.
    In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of 
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential 
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate 
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that 
causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that 
might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a 
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include 
evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly 
or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are 
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of 
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or 
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.

Factor A: Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Habitat or Range

    Habitat destruction and modification is one of the main threats to 
the red-crowned parrot (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 4). As a result of 
extensive deforestation, red-crowned parrot habitat has changed 
substantially since the early 1970s (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 14). 
Over 80 percent of the species' lowland habitat in Tamaulipas, Mexico, 
has been lost (CITES 1997, p. 2; Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 14), and 
Rios (2002, in Macias & Enkerlin 2003, p. 14) estimates the species has 
lost 31 percent of its rangewide habitat. The habitat that remains is 
fragmented, occurring only in isolated patches in different parts of 
the species' range (Macias & Enkerlin 2003, p. 3). Further, according 
to PIF, extreme deterioration in the future suitability of conditions 
in the species' breeding and nonbreeding ranges is expected (Berlanga 
et al. 2010, pp. 38-39).

Mexico

    Mexico has suffered extensive deforestation (conversion of forest 
to other land uses) and forest degradation (reduction in forest biomass 
through selective cutting, etc.) over the past several decades. In more 
recent decades, Mexico's deforestation has been rapid (Blaser et al. 
2011, pp. 343-344). For example, between 1990 and 2000, Mexico lost 
forest at a net rate (which factors in natural regeneration of degraded 
forest and planting of forest in areas that previously did not have 
forest) of 344,000 ha (850,043 ac) per year (Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) 2010, p. 21). During 1990-2010, Mexico lost 
approximately 6 million ha (approximately 15 million ac) of forest, and 
had one of the largest decreases in primary forests worldwide (FAO 
2010, pp. 56, 233). Although Mexico's rate of forest loss has slowed in 
the past decade, it still continues. The current rate of net forest 
loss in Mexico is 155,000 ha (383,013 ac) per year, with an estimated 
250,000-300,000 ha (617,763-741,316 ac) per year degraded (Government 
of Mexico (GOM) 2010b, in Blaser et al. 2011, p. 344; FAO 2010, p. 
233). Tamaulipas, the state with which the largest number of locations 
with recent records of the red-crowned parrot (Macias and Enkerlin 
2003, p. 12), experienced a net loss of 0.1 to 0.3 percent of its 
forest area per year between 2003 and 2007. The other states in which 
the species primarily currently occurs, Veracruz and San Luis Potosi, 
experienced a net loss of greater than 0.6 percent, and a net gain of 
0.1 to 0.3 percent of its forest area, respectively, during this period 
(Masek et al. 2011, pp. 9-10). Currently, Mexico has 64.8 million ha 
(160.1 million ac) of forest (FAO 2010, p. 228) and 50 percent of these 
forests are considered degraded (Masek et al. 2011, p. 9). By 2030, 
forest area in Mexico is projected to decrease, with anywhere from just 
under 10 percent to nearly 60 percent of mature forests lost, and 
approximately 0 to 54 percent of regrowth forests lost (Commission for 
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 2010, pp. 45, 75).
    Deforestation and forest degradation occur in all forest types in 
Mexico (GOM 2010, p. 22). Their main drivers are conversion of forest 
to pasture, slash and burn agriculture, and uncontrolled logging 
(overexploitation and illegal logging) (GOM 2010, pp. 22-24). Factors 
that put lands at greatest risk are favorable topographic conditions, 
road access, and proximity to human settlements (Munoz et al. 2003, in 
GOM 2010, p. 23).

Agriculture (Livestock and Crop Production)

    Within Mexico, red-crowned parrot habitat is threatened primarily 
by conversion of forests to cultivated land and expansion of livestock 
grazing areas without attempting to preserve patches of native trees 
and vegetation (Berlanga et al. 2010, pp. 38-39; Enkerlin and Hogan 
1997, unpaginated; Enkerlin 2000, in Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 18). 
The lowland area in which the large majority of the red-crowned 
parrot's range occurs is within the Gulf of Mexico coastal plain, one 
of the most productive regions of intensive agricultural use in Mexico, 
especially for cattle grazing (V[aacute]zquez & Arag[oacute]n-Tapia 
1993, in Enkerlin 1998, p. 79; GOM 2010, p. 22). In contrast to 
agriculture in many other parts of the country, many of the crop-
producing farms in northern Mexico are large and mechanized. 
Consequently, large areas are cleared of forest and converted to

[[Page 62020]]

agricultural lands for production of cash crops such as sorghum (Rochin 
1985, entire). Pastures differ in the amount of vegetation cleared, 
ranging from being completely cleared to being selectively cleared of 
only understory vegetation (Enkerlin 1995, p. 20). Consequently, the 
density of large trees that still remain in pastures varies between 
farms and between pastures within a ranch. However, few ranchers manage 
the land for maintenance of tree density or regeneration, resulting in 
a continuing decline of tree density within treed pastures (Enkerlin 
1995, pp. 20-21; Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated).
    As with most parrots, the red-crowned parrot requires trees for 
nesting, feeding, and roosting. Deforestation via conversion of land to 
agricultural use is a threat to red-crowned parrots because it directly 
eliminates forest habitat, removing the trees that support the species' 
nesting, roosting, and dietary requirements. It also results in 
fragmented habitat that isolates red-crowned parrot populations (U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID) 2009, p. 48; Macias and 
Enkerlin 2003, pp. 3-4), potentially compromising the genetics of these 
populations through inbreeding depression and genetic drift. Forest 
degradation as a result of incomplete clearing, such as for grazing 
land, is also a threat to red-crowned parrots because in the absence of 
management for maintenance of tree density or regeneration, it 
eventually leads to full deforestation (GOM 2010, p. 32). With respect 
to the few ranches and farms that maintain large trees, although red-
crowned parrots are known to use partially cleared and cultivated 
landscapes (Collar et al. 1992, p. 425), they are only able to do so if 
the landscape maintains enough large trees to support the species' 
nesting, feeding, and roosting requirements. A reduced number of trees 
will reduce the availability of adequate nest sites and food resources 
across the landscape, resulting in a reduction in the number of red-
crowned parrots the landscape can support and, thus, a reduction in the 
red-crowned parrot population.
    The indirect effects of deforestation and forest degradation due to 
conversion of land to agricultural use also pose a threat to red-
crowned parrots. Clearing of land for agriculture use provides easier 
access by humans to the forests and trees the species uses, and thus 
increases the vulnerability of the species to illegal poaching, one of 
the leading threats to the species (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, 
unpaginated) (see Factor B discussion) along with habitat destruction 
and modification.
    Deforestation via forest conversion to agriculture uses remains a 
major driver of land transformation in Mexico (CEC 2008, p. 24). 
Agricultural production is projected to double within the country by 
2030, with little variation in projections under different future 
scenarios (CEC 2010, pp. 34, 70). Although some of this increase in 
production is expected to be due to an increase in productivity on 
previously converted land, total agricultural land area in Mexico is 
projected to increase by 6,300 to 41,400 ha (15,568 to 102,302 ac) by 
2030 (CEC 2010, p. 75).

Logging

    Only 5 percent of Mexico's forested area is designated as 
production forest (FOA 2010, p. 244), although casual unsustainable 
tree removal by communities in the vicinity of forests also occurs, for 
example for firewood or charcoal production, or for timber for local 
use, rather than for large-scale trade (GOM 2010, p. 32). Almost all 
domestic timber production is currently supplied by low-management 
natural forests (Comisi[oacute]n Nacional Forestal 2008, in USAID 2009, 
p. 50). Commercial harvesting is mainly conducted via shelterwood 
(temporary maintenance of some canopy trees, to protect understory 
growing trees, until an even-aged stand is produced) or partial cutting 
of up to 40 percent of standing volume (Masek et al. 2011, p. 4). 
These, and other, logging practices reduce the number of large trees in 
harvested areas (Putz et al. 2000, p. 40), and alter forest structure 
and composition by the selective extraction of certain tree species 
(CEC 2008, p. 24). A reduced number of large trees may reduce the 
availability of suitable nest sites for the red-crowned parrot, and 
smaller trees may not possess cavities large enough for the species to 
nest in. Altering the composition of tree species, or reducing the size 
or number of trees (or both), may reduce the availability of food for 
the species. Thus, forests degraded by logging may result in a 
reduction in the number of individuals of the species the forest can 
support and therefore a further reduction in the population. Logging 
can also cause widespread collateral damage in the remaining forest 
(Putz et al. 2000, pp. 7-8). In addition to the direct removal of trees 
that could potentially support nesting or dietary requirements of 
parrots, an additional 5 to 50 percent of both soil and remaining trees 
are damaged by logging in tropical forests (Putz et al. 2000, p. 8), 
contributing to the total amount of forest degraded by human 
activities. The additional degradation could potentially further 
contribute to shortages of red-crowned parrot food resources due to the 
death of damaged trees or lower tree recruitment due to damaged soils.
    Indirectly, logging affects red-crowned parrot populations because 
logging roads increase access of forested areas to humans. An increase 
in access to forested areas also increases access to the species within 
those forests. As a result, logging operations multiply the harvest of 
animals from tropical forests (Putz et al. 2000, pp. 16, 23). Thus, 
logging is an indirect threat to red-crowned parrots because it 
increases the vulnerability of the species to illegal poaching, one of 
the leading threats to the species (see Factor B discussion). Logging 
also threatens the species because increased access to forests is also 
often followed by full deforestation as lands are cleared for 
agricultural use (Kaimowitz and Angelsen 1998, in Putz et al. 2000, p. 
16) (see Agriculture (Livestock and Crop Production) above).
    While logging, if conducted according to a well-designed forest 
management plan, can potentially protect ecosystem services and 
biodiversity, the compatibility of logging with biodiversity 
conservation is complicated (Putz et al. 2000, pp. 11, 7). Logging in 
tropical forests is carried out over a wide range of intensities, using 
a variety of techniques which may be applied carefully or in ways that 
result in extensive collateral damage (Putz et al. 2000, p. 7). In 
Mexico, most (53 percent to 80 percent (Perron 2010, p. 5)) natural 
forests are owned and managed by approximately 8,500 different 
communities (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 345). Use and management on 
community-owned property varies (Bray et al. 2005, in Masek pp. 14-15), 
and although some good examples of successful community forest 
management exist, most communities lack forest management plans 
(Sarukhan and Merino 2007, p. 1) and the organization and funding to 
implement sustainable forest management practices (Blaser et al. 2011, 
p. 351; GOM 2010, p. 24). Further, illegal logging, which is conducted 
without consideration for minimizing impacts on ecosystems or species, 
is widespread in Mexico, accounting for approximately 8 percent of the 
country's deforestation (USAID Center for International Forestry 
Research (CIFOR) 2010, p. 12; USAID 2009, pp. 56-57).
    According to future scenarios evaluated by CEC (2010, p. 36), 
Mexico is projected to see a 5-10 percent decline in production of 
selected wood products by 2030, reflecting a greater emphasis on 
agricultural production. Although commercial wood production may 
decrease, we are not aware of any

[[Page 62021]]

information indicating that illegal logging or casual unsustainable 
removal of trees by communities, or the indirect effects of these 
activities, will decrease.

Texas

    Within the past few decades, the LRGV has experienced rapid human 
population growth and subsequent rapid urbanization. In the two Texas 
counties in which the red-crowned parrot occurs, the human population 
increased by 36.1 percent (Hidalgo County) and 21.2 percent (Cameron 
County) between 2000 and 2010 (US Census Bureau 2011, unpaginated), and 
each county's population is projected to increase by about 50 percent 
between 2010 and 2040 (Texas State Data Center 2008, unpaginated). In a 
study investigating land cover and land use change in the region using 
analysis of satellite imagery, Huang et al. (2011, unpaginated) found 
that between 1993 and 2003, urbanization increased by 59.7 percent in 
Hidalgo County and 58.2 percent in Cameron County. Red-crowned parrots 
are known to colonize urban areas, as evidenced by their establishment 
as introduced populations in several urban areas of the United States 
and Mexico. Although red-crowned parrots occur in urban habitats within 
the LRGV, suggesting their population in the LRGV may increase with 
future increases in urbanization, it is also possible that continued 
population growth could result in current urban areas becoming more 
densely developed with more infrastructure and fewer trees, reducing 
the availability of red-crowned parrot nest sites and food resources. 
Although red-crowned parrot populations may be influenced by future 
growth in the LRGV, we found no information indicating whether future 
growth may positively or negatively affect the red-crowned parrot 
population in the region. Further, we found no information specifically 
regarding any other threats to red-crowned parrot habitat in the 
region.

Conservation Measures

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)

    Mexico has initiated several PES programs that provide financial 
incentives to rural communities and private landowners for the design 
and implementation of carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, 
agroforestry, and watershed protection projects. These programs were 
designed to pay participating forest owners for the benefits of these 
environmental services where commercial forestry cannot compete, 
economically, with agriculture and ranching, the primary causes of 
deforestation in Mexico (Munoz et al. 2008, pp. 725-726; Corbera et al. 
2011, p. 54). Research on Mexico's PES programs has shown mixed results 
in relation to their impact on deforestation; while early analyses 
showed inconclusive results, recent work indicates a positive but not 
substantive reduction in net deforestation rates (Corbera et al. 2011, 
p. 17).

Reduced Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)

    A related, new mechanism is emerging that may raise funds to 
protect forests from deforestation as well as mitigate climate change. 
This mechanism is known as ``reduced emissions from deforestation and 
forest degradation'' (REDD). As forests are destroyed for agriculture, 
logging, and other uses, the carbon stored in the trees is released as 
carbon dioxide, which adds to the concentration of greenhouse gases; 20 
percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are thought to be from 
deforestation (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557). Lawmakers and businesspeople 
around the world are beginning to consider investing in REDD programs 
as a way to mitigate climate change. Under this type of program, 
developing countries would be paid to protect their forests and reduce 
emissions associated with deforestation. Funds would come from 
foundations, governments, or financial agencies such as World Bank; 
industries in developed countries would receive credits for saving 
trees in developing countries (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557). If REDD 
projects are able to generate revenue comparable to those of activities 
such as logging and agriculture, and revenues are distributed equally 
among stakeholders, this would give standing forests value and an 
incentive for forest conservation (Hajek et al. 2011, in press). Mexico 
has been very active in REDD discussions under the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change, is developing a national REDD 
strategy, and is working on the design and implementation of regional 
and local pilot projects (USAID CIFOR 2010, p. 34; Corbera et al. 2011, 
p. 316). However, we do not yet know how successful Mexico's REDD 
strategy or projects will be.

Forest Certification

    Another program being implemented is certification of forests. The 
basis for certification is for consumers to be assured by a neutral 
third-party that forest companies are employing sound practices that 
will ensure sustainable forest management. By being certified, a 
company can differentiate their products and potentially acquire a 
larger share of the market (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 12). To be 
certified companies must follow standards set by the Forest Stewardship 
Council (FSC). Certification companies not only certify forests, but 
also forest products that come from well-managed forests, and may also 
provide a means to track logs and remove illegally logged trees from 
the market (Duery and Vlosky 2005, pp. 13-14; Kometter et al. 2004, p. 
9). As of February 2011, approximately 614,000 ha (1,517,227 ac) (9 
percent) of Mexico's forest were certified, mostly outside the tropics 
(Blaser et al. 2011, p. 348). Only about 32,600 ha (79,074 ac) of 
tropical forest were certified, most of which was planted forest 
(Blaser et al. 2011, p. 348).

Protected Areas

    Conservation strategies in Mexico rely heavily on natural protected 
areas, and Biosphere Reserves comprise most of the designated protected 
area in the country (Figueroa and Sanchez 2008, pp. 3324, 3234). The 
red-crowned parrot is protected in or near two biosphere reserves: the 
Reserva de la Biosfera El Cielo, in Tamaulipas; and the Reserva de la 
Biosfera Sierra Gorda, in Quer[eacute]taro (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, 
p. 22). However, the best conserved portions of habitat in these two 
reserves are at elevations greater than 500 m (1,640 ft), while the 
red-crowned parrot occurs primarily below 500 m (1,640 ft) (see 
Habitat). Further, in a study of the effectiveness of Mexico's 
protected areas for preventing land use and land cover change, Figueroa 
and Sanchez (2008, entire) found that Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve 
was ineffective (as opposed to effective or weakly-effective). They did 
not evaluate El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, but they found that, overall, 
approximately 54 percent of protected areas, including 65 percent of 
Biosphere Reserves, were effective.

Summary of Factor A

    Forest loss and degradation due to the conversion of forest to 
grazing and farm land have caused extensive red-crowned parrot habitat 
loss in the past. These activities are still occurring within the range 
of the species and the fact that (1) these activities are projected to 
increase in Mexico, and (2) the Gulf of Mexico coastal plain, in which 
a large portion of the red-crowned parrot's historical range occurs, is 
one of the most productive regions of agricultural use in Mexico, 
indicates these activities will continue within the species' range into 
the foreseeable future. It is unlikely that the direct effects of 
logging are threat to

[[Page 62022]]

the species, as red-crowned parrots are known to use degraded habitats. 
However, the indirect effects of logging, including increased human 
access to forests, which increases the vulnerability of the species to 
poaching, and often leads to conversion of newly accessible forest to 
agriculture, appear to be a threat to the species. Although commercial 
logging is projected to decrease within Mexico, it is projected to 
continue albeit at a lower level. Also, illegal logging is widespread 
in Mexico, and we are not aware of any information indicating that the 
extent of illegal logging will be reduced in the future. Further, 
because many people within Mexico rely on forests for their 
livelihoods, and because sustainable practices are not used, it is 
likely that casual, unsustainable removal of trees by communities for 
purposes such as firewood and local timber use will also continue to 
degrade and ultimately deforest red-crowned parrot habitat in the 
future.
    Habitat conservation measures within Mexico do not appear to be 
sufficient to stem future red-crowned parrot habitat losses. Programs 
for the payment of ecosystem services have yet to show substantive 
reductions in deforestation rates; only 9 percent of forests are 
certified as employing sustainable practices, most outside the tropics. 
The best habitat within the two Biosphere Reserves occupied by red-
crowned parrots is above the elevation at which the species usually 
occurs. Further, at least one of these two Biosphere Reserves is 
ineffective with respect to prevention of land-use change within its 
boundaries.
    Currently the population of red-crowned parrots is extremely small 
(less than 5,000 individuals) and fragmented, and a large portion 
(approximately half) of the population occurs within the species' 
historical range in Mexico. Activities causing or leading to 
deforestation in Mexico are likely to continue to result in red-crowned 
parrot habitat loss within the country. Therefore, based on the best 
available scientific and commercial data available, we find that the 
present and threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 
red-crowned parrot's habitat is a threat to the species.

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

    Parrots have been traded commercially in Mexico for centuries and 
capture of adults and nestlings for the pet trade represents one of the 
main threats to the red-crowned parrot (Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 
18). In terms of populations, capturing individuals for trade 
essentially mimics mortality in that it removes individuals from the 
wild population. Parrots, in general, have long lifespans and low 
reproductive rates. Consequently, they are particularly sensitive to 
increased mortality because their populations are slow to recover from 
it (Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; Wright et al. 2001, p. 
711); removal of individuals year after year can stop population growth 
and cause local extirpations (Cantu et al. 2007, p. 14).
    Mexico's proximity to the United States, the largest pet market in 
the world, resulted in extensive legal and illegal export of several 
Amazona species to the United States during the 1960s to 1990s. Between 
1970 and 1982, 16,490 red-crowned parrots, mostly nestlings, were 
legally exported from Mexico to the United States. A similar number is 
estimated to have been illegally exported during this period, with pre-
export mortality estimated at greater than 50 percent. Combining legal 
and illegal trade, and their associated mortality, the approximate 
minimum level of harvest during this time was estimated to be 5,000 
individuals per year (Inigo and Ramos 1991, in Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, 
unpaginated; Enkerlin and Packard 1993, in Macias and Enkerlin 2003, p. 
20). Population declines were first noted for the species during this 
period (see Abundance).
Legal Trade
    Imports of red-crowned parrots into the United States were 
restricted by passage of the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA; 16 
U.S.C. 4901 et seq.) in 1992, and international trade in general was 
restricted by the listing of the species in Appendix II of CITES in 
1981 and, in 1997, its transfer to the more restrictive Appendix I. The 
WBCA banned the import into the United States of specimens of most 
CITES-listed bird species, including restricting U.S. imports of red-
crowned parrots (see Factor D discussion). CITES, an international 
agreement between governments, ensures that the international trade of 
CITES-listed plant and animal species does not threaten those species' 
survival in the wild. There are currently 175 CITES Parties (member 
countries or signatories to the Convention). Under this treaty, CITES 
Parties regulate the import, export, and re-export of specimens, parts, 
and products of CITES-listed plants and animal species (see Factor D 
discussion). Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and 
certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Scientific and 
Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES 2010, unpaginated). 
In 1981, the red-crowned parrot was listed in Appendix II of CITES, 
which includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but 
in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization 
incompatible with their survival (CITES 2010, unpaginated; CITES 2011, 
unpaginated). In June of 1997, the species was proposed for transfer 
from Appendix II to Appendix I based on extensive illegal trade in the 
species and habitat loss. It was placed in Appendix I in September of 
1997. An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with extinction 
whose trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which 
generally precludes commercial trade. The import of an Appendix-I 
species requires the issuance of both an import and export permit. 
Import permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are 
made that the import would be for purposes that are not detrimental to 
the survival of the species in the wild and would not be for primarily 
commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)). Export permits for 
Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are made that the 
specimen was legally acquired and trade is not detrimental to the 
survival of the species in the wild, and if the issuing authority is 
satisfied that an import permit has been granted for the specimen 
(CITES Article III(2)).
    Based on CITES trade data obtained from United Nations Environment 
Programme--World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade 
Database, from the time the red-crowned parrot was placed in CITES 
Appendix I in 1997 through 2009, 1,297 specimens of this species were 
reported in international trade. These included 297 live birds, 5 
bodies, 6 eggs, 7 feathers, 1 skin, and 981 generically labeled 
``specimens,'' with the latter category typically referring to parts or 
pieces of an animal--for example, blood samples collected for 
laboratory analysis--rather than whole birds. In analyzing these 
reported data, several records appear to be overcounts due to slight 
differences in the manner in which the importing and exporting 
countries reported their trade, and it is likely that the actual 
numbers of specimens of red-crowned parrots reported to UNEP-WCMC in 
international trade from the time the species was placed in CITES 
Appendix I in 1997 through 2009 was 1,218, including 261 live birds, 5 
bodies, 6 eggs, 7 feathers, 1 skin, and 938 ``specimens.''
    Because the red-crowned parrot is listed as an Appendix-I species 
under

[[Page 62023]]

CITES, commercial legal international trade is very limited. Of the 
1,218 specimens that were likely in trade between 1997 (when the 
species was placed in CITES Appendix I) and 2009, 1,014 were wild 
specimens and an additional 53 specimens were from sources unspecified 
in the data. Of these specimens, 94 percent (953) were specimens traded 
for scientific purposes (937 of the generically labeled ``specimens'', 
6 eggs, 7 feathers, and 3 bodies). The remaining were 113 live birds 
(59 of wild origin and 54 from sources unspecified in the data) and 1 
``specimen'' from a source unspecified in the data. Of these 113 live 
birds, 12 were reported as imported into Mexico for re-introduction 
into the wild, 11 as being for personal use, 5 as being for commercial 
purposes, 31 as being previously seized specimens traded for law 
enforcement purposes, 8 as being specimens born or obtained prior to 
the listing of the species under CITES (pre-Convention), and 46 that 
were seized or refused entry into the United States.
    Although 1,218 specimens of red-crowned parrot were reported in 
trade, most (953, or 78 percent) were scientific specimens traded for 
scientific purposes, and the large majority of these (98 percent) were 
generically labeled ``specimens,'' rather than whole birds. Of the 265 
non-scientific specimens traded, 154 (58 percent) were live birds that 
were captive-bred, captive-born, or pre-Convention.
    Because the majority of the specimens of this species reported in 
international trade are generically labeled scientific ``specimens,'' 
or are captive-bred, captive-born, or pre-Convention birds, we have 
determined that legal international trade controlled via valid CITES 
permits is not a threat to the species. However, the number of live 
wild birds reported as seized or refused entry into the United States 
due to lack of CITES certification or WBCA authorization suggests 
reason for concern with respect to the illegal trade of the species.
Illegal Trade
    Illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products is extensive in 
Mexico because of their high demand and lucrative profits (Valdez et 
al. 2006, p. 276). According to Valdez et al. (2006, p. 276), the 
greatest percentage of this trade is sold to the United States. The 
number of red-crowned parrots illegally exported from Mexico since the 
species was listed in Appendix I of CITES is unknown. The Service 
inspects approximately 25 percent of declared wildlife shipments at the 
U.S. border. It generally does not inspect undeclared shipments except 
during planned investigations, during seasonal periods when certain 
illegally obtained wildlife have a higher probability of being imported 
into the United States, or if they have reason to suspect that the 
shipment could be contraband (Congressional Research Service 2008, p. 
24). As a result, it is likely that the 46 wild red-crowned parrots 
that were reported as seized or refused entry into the United States 
since the species was listed in CITES Appendix I represent only a 
portion of those smuggled out of Mexico. Also, as pre-export mortality 
of captured red-crowned parrots is estimated to be greater than or 
equal to 50 percent (Enkerlin and Packard 1993, in Macias and Enkerlin 
2003, p. 20), it is also likely that smuggled birds represent only half 
(or less) of the number removed from the wild for illegal export. 
Further, Cantu et al. (2007, pp. 58-59) report that, although the 
overall illegal export of parrots from Mexico into the United States 
appears to have decreased since 2000, with only an estimated 4-14 
percent of parrots now exported out of the country, illegal exports of 
some species, including the red-crowned parrot, appear to be on the 
rise.
    With respect to domestic trade, commercial trade of red-crowned 
parrots has been illegal in Mexico since 1982 (CITES 1997, pers. 
comm.). Other species of parrots were legally traded in Mexico until 
2008, but due to a lack of enforcement of laws and regulations 
controlling this trade, the illegal parrot trade in Mexico has been 
extensive (Cantu et al. 2007, entire). The office of the 
Procuradur[iacute]a Federal de Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente (PROFEPA; 
Federal Prosecutor for Environmental Protection) is responsible for 
enforcing environmental laws, regulations, and legal standards in 
Mexico, including those pertaining to the parrot trade. PROFEPA employs 
a little over 500 inspectors for the entire country, and they are 
responsible for enforcement of wildlife, forestry, industrial 
pollution, marine environment, and other environmental laws, 
regulations, and standards (Cantu et al. 2007, p. 45). Although 
capacities for law enforcement have been increasing in Mexico since the 
late 1990s, PROFEPA still lacks the funding and human resources to 
effectively enforce wildlife and other environmental laws (USAID CIFOR 
2010, p. 46; GOM 2010, p. 24; Valdez et al. 2006, p. 276).
    As a result of the lack of enforcement capacity, the laws and 
regulations for controlling the parrot trade in Mexico, including 
illegal trade in red-crowned parrots, have not been effective (Cantu et 
al. 2007, entire). For instance, prior to 2008, when Article 602 of 
Mexico's General Wildlife Law (see below, and Factor D discussion) went 
into effect, only parrot species authorized by the government for trade 
in any given year could be legally trapped and traded that year (Cantu 
et al. 2007, pp. 9, 24-25). No parrot trapping had been authorized by 
wildlife officials between 2003 and late 2006, yet unsustainable 
capture of wild parrots, including red-crowned parrots and other at-
risk species, continued unabated (Cantu et al. 2007, p. 7). Based on 
interviews with parrot trappers and trapper unions in Mexico during 
2005 and 2006, Cantu et al. (2007, pp. 35, 57) estimated that 65,000-
75,000 parrots were illegally captured each year in Mexico, mostly (86-
96 percent) for Mexico's domestic market. Red-crowned parrots were 
among the species illegally captured and traded as evidenced by the 
studies of Macias and Enkerlin (2003, pp. 18-19, 22) and Cantu et al. 
(2007, pp. 35, 45-59). Macias and Enkerlin (2003, p. 19), during a 
study conducted from 2002-2003, found that 28 percent of local people 
interviewed within the historical range of the red-crowned parrot 
reported that ``looting'' of red-crowned parrot chicks from nests for 
the pet trade occurred in their community at a rate of 1-10 chicks per 
year. The greatest proportion of reports was from Veracruz, where 48 
percent of those interviewed reported that taking of chicks occurred in 
their community. With respect to adult birds, 15 percent of community 
members interviewed reported adult red-crowned parrots were captured 
for trade in their community and that capture rates ranged from 25-50 
adults per year to 50-100 adults per year. Cantu et al. (2007, p. 35) 
estimate fewer than 600 red-crowned parrots are captured per year based 
on interviews with trappers, trapper unions, and others, although they 
indicate that their estimates for some species are very conservative 
and may be underestimates.
    In October 2008, Mexico passed Article 60 2 of its General Law 
Wildlife Law. The article bans the capture, export, import, and re-
export of any species of the Psittacidae (parrot) family whose natural 
distribution is within Mexico (see Factor D discussion). The law could 
potentially reduce the number of red-crowned parrots illegally traded 
domestically. It could also potentially reduce the number illegally 
traded internationally by making it more difficult for smugglers to 
capture the species within Mexico and transport them to the U.S. 
border. Based on an

[[Page 62024]]

increased number of citizen complaints to authorities about illegal 
parrot sales and a decreased number of seizures of parrots by 
authorities during 2008-2010, Cantu and Sanchez (2011, entire) conclude 
that illegal trade in parrots in Mexico has decreased since the law 
took effect. However, this conclusion assumes that law enforcement 
effort increased with the increased number of complaints filed, and it 
is unknown if, or to what extent, this was the case. Although the 
parrot trade in Mexico may have decreased since Article 60 2 was 
implemented, without data on the relationship between filed complaints 
and enforcement, we are unable to determine whether a decrease occurred 
or, if it did, the extent of such a decrease. We also do not know 
whether or not such a decrease would necessarily pertain to the red-
crowned parrot. Cantu et al. (2007, p. 59) report that illegal exports 
of the red-crowned parrot appear to be increasing.
    Also, according to USAID CIFOR (2010, p. 46), there are areas in 
Mexico where government officials have limited access due to the 
presence of organized groups of illegal loggers, guerrilla groups 
challenging local and federal authorities, and drug traffickers (USAID 
CIFOR 2010, p. 46). The latter is particularly relevant to red-crowned 
parrots. Mexico's northeast states have experienced dramatic increases 
in narcotics-related violence in the past 2 years (U.S. Department of 
State 2011, unpaginated; Rios and Shirk 2011, p. 1). The levels of 
violence have been such that the U.S. Department of State has issued 
several travel warnings for the area including recommendations for U.S. 
citizens to defer nonessential travel to the entire state of Tamaulipas 
and parts of San Luis Potosi, and exercise caution in parts of Nuevo 
Leon. Considering much of the red-crowned parrot's historical range, 
and many of the locations with recent records of the species, are 
within the state of Tamaulipas, and that smaller portions of the 
species' historical range occur in San Luis Potosi and Nuevo Leon, it 
is reasonable to conclude that levels of violence in these areas are 
likely hindering wildlife law enforcement efforts, at least to some 
degree.
    For all of these reasons, we consider the study by Cantu and 
Sanchez (2011, entire) to be inconclusive regarding the effects of 
Mexico's new parrot law on the levels of trade of red-crowned parrots. 
Further, we are unaware of any other evidence that may indicate the 
level of trade in the species has decreased in recent years, or will 
decrease in the foreseeable future, in Mexico.
    We are unaware of any information indicating that trade is a threat 
to red-crowned parrots within the LRGV of Texas.
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Use
    We are unaware of any information indicating that recreational, 
scientific, or educational use of the red-crowned parrot is a threat to 
the species.

Summary of Factor B

    Red-crowned parrots currently are estimated to number fewer than 
5,000 individuals within their native range, and these individuals 
occur in fragmented and isolated populations. Further, red-crowned 
parrot populations do not have the capacity to respond quickly to 
increased levels of mortality. For these reasons, increased mortality 
can out-pace the species' reproductive rate, causing reductions in the 
species' population. Evidence indicates that, relative to the size of 
the species' current population and low reproductive rate, large 
numbers (hundreds) of red-crowned parrots are removed from the wild for 
the illegal pet trade and that these include potentially 100 or more 
breeding birds (adults) per year. Evidence also indicates that illegal 
export of the species to the United States appears to have increased in 
recent years. Further, we are not aware of any reliable evidence 
indicating that the level of illegal capture and trade of the red-
crowned parrot has declined since Mexico's ban on native parrot species 
was implemented in 2008. Although we are unaware of information 
indicating that capture of wild individuals for trade is a threat to 
the red-crowned parrot in the LRGV of Texas, populations of the species 
in Mexico represent half or more of the species' small global 
population. Further, it is possible that the viability of the LRGV 
population may rely on occasional supplementation from populations in 
Mexico (see Biological Information). For these reasons, we conclude 
that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes is a threat to the red-crowned parrot.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

    Infectious diseases can pose many direct threats to individual 
birds as well as entire flocks (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 287). Most of 
the available research on disease in parrots addresses captive-held 
birds; information on the health of parrots in the wild is scarce 
(Karesh et al. 1997, p. 368). Further, few studies on diseases 
affecting the red-crowned parrot, specifically, exist. In one study, 
Stone et al. (2005, entire) sampled 10 red-crowned parrot nestlings 
from 4 nests of free-ranging red-crowned parrots in Tamaulipas, Mexico, 
as part of a study to provide baseline data for species at high risk of 
exposure to disease. The population sampled was in a densely human-
populated region of Mexico, where poultry and captive parrots (both 
potential disease risks) are numerous. Each bird sampled was visually 
examined for external parasites; had blood samples taken and tested for 
antibodies to psittacid herpesvirus-1, polyomavirus, and avian 
influenza; and had fecal samples collected and examined for the eggs 
and oocysts (egg cells) of internal parasites. All blood and fecal 
samples tested were negative. Stone et al. (2005, pp. 246-247) indicate 
that negative results of tests on the blood and fecal samples could 
indicate absence of disease or parasites, but could also potentially be 
a result of the methods used or the stage during the nestling cycle in 
which samples were taken. External parasites found on nestlings were 
adult lice (Paragoniocotes mexicanus) and adult hematophagous nest 
mites (Ornithonyssus sylviarum), but the effect of these parasites on 
nestling health is uncertain (Stone et al. 2005, p. 247).
    A second study sampled 16 red-crowned parrots and 21 yellow-headed 
parrots (Amazona oratrix) maintained in captivity from 1 to 7 years. In 
that study, birds were tested for several diseases including avian 
influenza, avian polyomavirus, psittacine circovirus, Newcastle disease 
virus, psittacid herpesvirus-1, and psittacosis (Chlamydophilia 
psittaci). All results were negative. Examination and tests for 
protozoa or helminthes also showed no evidence of these in sampled 
birds (Paras and Lamberski 1997, in Stone et al. 2005, pp. 245-246).
    Although many diseases, such as those mentioned above, and others, 
could negatively affect parrots in captivity and in the wild, the 
studies conducted specifically on red-crowned parrots did not indicate 
disease may be limiting the population. We are unaware of any 
information indicating that any diseases are impacting the red-crowned 
parrot at a level which may affect the status of the species as a whole 
and to the extent that it is considered a threat to the species.
    Snakes, red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), roadside hawks (B. 
magnirostris), gray hawks (B. nitidus), coatis, and skunks have been 
reported to prey on red-crowned parrots. Of these, only snakes, 
particularly the indigo snake, appear to be a major source of

[[Page 62025]]

predation (Enkerlin and Hogan 1997, unpaginated). In a study of three 
Amazona species in southern Tamaulipas, which included the red-crowned 
parrot, Enkerlin (1995, p. 89-98) found that approximately 10 percent 
of the chicks lost were lost via predation by indigo snakes. Although 
red-crowned parrots are subject to predation, and indigo snakes may be 
a major source of that predation, we found no evidence that predation 
is occurring at a level which poses a threat to the species.

Summary of Factor C

    We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that 
indicates disease or predation poses a threat to red-crowned parrots, 
either now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, based on our review 
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find 
that neither disease nor predation is a threat to the species.

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Trade
    As discussed above under Factor B, the red-crowned parrot is listed 
in Appendix I of CITES. CITES is an international treaty among 175 
nations, including Mexico and the United States, which entered into 
force in 1975. In the United States, CITES is implemented through the 
U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) The Secretary of the Interior has delegated the Department's 
responsibility for CITES to the Director of the Service and established 
the CITES Scientific and Management Authorities to implement the 
treaty. Under this treaty, member countries work together to ensure 
that international trade in animal and plant species is not detrimental 
to the survival of wild populations by regulating the import, export, 
and re-export of CITES-listed animal and plant species.
    The import of red-crowned parrots into the United States is also 
regulated by the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) (16 U.S.C. 4901 et 
seq.), which was enacted on October 23, 1992. The purpose of the WBCA 
is to promote the conservation of exotic birds by ensuring that all 
imports to the United States of exotic birds are biologically 
sustainable and are not detrimental to the species. The WBCA generally 
restricts the importation of most CITES-listed live or dead exotic 
birds, except for certain limited purposes such as zoological display 
or cooperative breeding programs. Import of dead specimens is allowed 
for scientific specimens and museum specimens. The Service may approve 
cooperative breeding programs and subsequently issue import permits 
under such programs. In addition to other approved purposes, wild-
caught birds may be imported into the United States if they are subject 
to Service-approved management plans for sustainable use. At this time, 
the red-crowned parrot is not part of a Service-approved cooperative 
breeding program and does not have an approved management plan for 
wild-caught birds.
    Within Mexico, the red-crowned parrot is considered an endangered 
species as per Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM; Official Mexican Standard) 
NOM-059-ECOL-2001. Endangered and threatened species are regulated 
under the general terms of the Ley General del Equilibrio 
Ecol[oacute]gico y Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente (LGEEPA; General Law 
of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection), the Ley General de 
Vida Silvestre (LGVS; General Wildlife Law), and also under the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES) to which Mexico is a Party (CEC 2003, unpaginated). 
NOM-059-ECOL-2001 establishes a list of wildlife species classified as 
either in danger of extinction (endangered), threatened, under special 
protection, and probably extinct in the wild (GOM 2002, p. 6). All use 
and development of endangered and threatened species requires a special 
permit from the Secretar[iacute]a del Medio Ambiente y Recursos 
Naturales (SEMARNAT; Secretariat of the Environment and Natural 
Resources). Under the General Wildlife Law, the use of at-risk species, 
including the red-crowned parrot, may be authorized only when priority 
is given to the collection and capture for restoration, repopulation, 
and reintroduction activities (CEC 2003, unpaginated; Comisi[oacute]n 
Nacional Para El Conocimiento Y Uso De La Biodiversidad 2009, 
unpaginated). Further, in October 2008, Mexico passed Article 60 2 of 
the General Wildlife Law. The article bans the capture, export, import, 
and re-export of any species of the Psittacidae (parrot) family whose 
natural distribution is within Mexico. It allows for authorizations for 
removal of individuals from the wild to be issued only for conservation 
purposes, or to accredited academic institutions for scientific 
research (Animal Legal & Historical Center 2008, unpaginated).
    As discussed above under Factor B, we consider illegal trade to be 
a threat impacting the red-crowned parrot. As a result, we consider the 
inadequacy of the laws and regulations discussed above to be a threat 
to the red-crowned parrot. We are not aware of any information 
indicating that the regulatory mechanisms controlling illegal trade, or 
extent of enforcement of these mechanisms, will change in the future. 
Therefore, we consider the inadequacy of these regulatory mechanisms to 
be a threat to the red-crowned parrot now and in the foreseeable 
future.

Habitat Destruction and Modification

    The Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable (LGDFS; General 
Law on Sustainable Forest Management), passed in 2003, governs forest 
ecosystems in Mexico, including red-crowned parrot habitat. This law 
formalizes the incorporation of the forest sector in a broader 
environmental framework. Under this law, harvesting of forests requires 
authorization from SEMARNAT. It also requires that authorizations to 
forest owners for harvesting forests be based on a technical study and 
a forest management plan (GOM 2010, p. 24). A number of additional laws 
complement the 2003 law in regulating forest use. The LGEEPA regulates 
activities for protecting biodiversity and reducing the impact on 
forests and tropical areas of certain forest activities; the LGVS 
governs the use of plants and wildlife found in the forests; Ley 
General de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable (the General Law on Sustainable 
Rural Development) provides guidance for activities aimed at protecting 
and restoring forests within the framework of rural development 
programs; and Ley Agraria (the Agrarian Law) governs farmers' ability 
to use forest resources on their land (Anta 2004, in USAID 2011, 
unpaginated).
    Another law regulating portions of the red-crowned parrot's habitat 
is the Sistema Nacional de [Aacute]reas Naturales Protegidas (SINANP; 
National System of Protected Natural Areas). These Protected Natural 
Areas are created by Presidential decree and the activities on them are 
regulated under the LGEEPA, which requires that the Protected Natural 
Areas receive special protection for conservation, restoration, and 
development activities (Comisi[oacute]n Nacional de [Aacute]reas 
Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) 2011, unpaginated). These natural areas 
are categorized as: Biosphere Reserves, National Parks, Natural 
Monuments, Areas of Natural Resource Protection, Areas of Protection of 
Flora and Fauna, and Sanctuaries (CONANP 2011, unpaginated). The red-
crowned parrot is known to occur in two biosphere reserves: Reserva de 
la Biosfera El Cielo, in Tamaulipas; and Reserva de la Biosfera Sierra 
Gorda, in

[[Page 62026]]

Quer[eacute]taro (Macias & Enkerlin 2003, p. 22) (see Factor A 
discussion).
    As discussed above under Factor A, we consider the destruction and 
modification of red-crowned parrot habitat to be a threat impacting the 
red-crowned parrot. Therefore, we consider the laws and regulations 
discussed above that address this threat to be inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms for protection of red-crowned parrot habitat and, 
consequently, a threat to the species. We are not aware of any 
information indicating that the regulatory mechanisms controlling 
habitat destruction or modification, or the extent of enforcement of 
these mechanisms, will change in the future. Therefore, we consider the 
inadequacy of these regulatory mechanisms to be a threat to the red-
crowned parrot now and in the foreseeable future.

Summary of Factor D

    As discussed above under Factors A and B, we consider destruction 
and modification of habitat and illegal trade to be threats to the red-
crowned parrot in Mexico. As a result, based on a review of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we consider the 
inadequacy of existing mechanisms that regulate these threats to also 
be a threat to the red-crowned parrot.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' 
Continued Existence

    We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that 
indicates other natural or manmade factors pose a threat to this 
species. As a result, we find that other natural or manmade factors are 
not threats to the red-crowned parrot now or in the foreseeable future.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the 
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the red-
crowned parrot is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the red-crowned parrot. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information.
    In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of 
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential 
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate 
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that 
causes an actual impact to the species. The identification of threats 
that might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel 
a finding that the species warrants listing. The information must 
include evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either 
singly or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are 
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of 
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or 
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.
    This status review identified threats to the red-crowned parrot 
attributable to Factors A, B, and D. The primary threats to the red-
crowned parrot are habitat loss, illegal capture for the pet trade, and 
the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms that address these threats. 
Habitat destruction and modification (Factor A) in the form of 
conversion of native forest to crop and grazing land and deforestation 
due to the indirect effects of logging are likely occurring throughout 
the species' range in Mexico. Illegal capture for the pet trade (Factor 
B) is also likely occurring throughout the species' range in Mexico, 
and is exacerbated by deforestation because deforestation increases 
access to the species. Regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are inadequate 
to prevent further loss of forest habitat and continued capture and 
trade of the species throughout the red-crowned parrot's range.
    The global population of red-crowned parrots has experienced a 
large (greater than 50 percent) decline in recent decades (Berlanga et 
al. 2010, pp. 38-39), primarily due to habitat destruction and 
modification and capture for the pet trade within Mexico (Macias and 
Enkerlin 2003, p. 3). As a result, the current global population is 
estimated to be fewer than 5,000 individuals. Half or more of the 
global population, most of the current range, and all of the historical 
range of the red-crowned parrot occurs in Mexico. As a result, threats 
that impact the species within Mexico have had and will continue to 
have impacts on the rangewide status of the species. Although 
population numbers and trends are uncertain outside of Mexico (i.e., 
within the LRGV of Texas), historical records indicate that the species 
occurred periodically in the LRGV prior to occurring year-round in the 
region (see Biological Information), indicating periodic occurrence in 
the region of birds from Mexico. Therefore, it is possible that birds 
from Mexico still periodically occur in the LRGV. It is also, 
therefore, possible that the viability of the LRGV population is 
dependent on periodic influxes of birds from Mexico.
    Given (1) the large extent of the decline in the global population 
of the species in recent decades due to habitat destruction and 
modification and capture for the illegal pet trade, (2) that these 
threats likely continue within the range of the red-crowned parrot, (3) 
that existing regulatory mechanisms addressing these threats are 
inadequate, and (4) we found no information indicating that these 
threats will be ameliorated in the foreseeable future, we find that 
these threats are likely to continue to cause declines in the red-
crowned parrot population into the future.
    On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we find that the petitioned action to list the red-crowned 
parrot as endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a 
determination on the status of the red-crowned parrot as endangered or 
threatened when we complete a proposed listing determination. However, 
as explained in more detail below, an immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing this action is precluded by higher priority 
listing actions, and progress is being made to add or remove qualified 
species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants.
    We have reviewed the available information to determine if the 
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of 
extinction now such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily 
listing the species in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act is 
warranted. We have determined that issuing an emergency regulation 
temporarily listing the red-crowned parrot is not warranted for this 
species at this time because there are no impending actions that might 
result in extinction of the species that would be addressed and 
alleviated by emergency listing. However, if at any time we determine 
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the red-
crowned parrot is warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

    The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), 
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for 
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of 
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species 
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled 
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority 
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy

[[Page 62027]]

and magnitude of threats, and the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by 
assigning priority in descending order to monotypic genera (genus with 
one species), full species, and subspecies (or equivalently, distinct 
population segments (DPSes) of vertebrates). We assign the red-crowned 
parrot a listing priority number (LPN) of 2, based on our determination 
that the primary threats are high in magnitude and imminent. These 
threats include habitat destruction and modification, capture for the 
illegal pet trade, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Our rationale 
for assigning the red-crowned parrot an LPN of 2 is outlined below.
    Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the 
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The 
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat 
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. The 
primary threats to the red-crowned parrot (habitat loss and 
modification, capture for the illegal pet trade, and inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms) are affecting a large portion of the species' 
population throughout the historical range of the species in Mexico, 
and we have no information on threats or population trends in the 
species' remaining range in the LRGV. For Factors A, B, and D, we 
consider the magnitude high because the current population is small, a 
large portion of the population is affected, and these factors may lead 
to extirpation in Mexico. Further, we have no information indicating 
the LRGV populations can persist in the absence of the Mexico 
populations. Because we find that threats under these three factors (A, 
B, and D) are high, we find the overall threats that the red-crowned 
parrot is facing to be high in magnitude.
    Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that the species that face actual, 
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats 
are only potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not 
known to be presently facing such threats. Factors A, B, and D are 
considered imminent because they are occurring now and are expected to 
continue to occur in the future. These actual, identifiable threats are 
covered in detail under the discussion of Factors A, B, and D of this 
finding. Because we find that threats under the three factors (A, B, 
and D) are imminent, we find the overall threats that the red-crowned 
parrot is facing to be imminent.
    The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote 
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated 
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The red-crowned parrot is a valid 
taxon at the species level, and therefore receives a higher priority 
than subspecies or DPSes, but a lower priority than species in a 
monotypic genus. The red-crowned parrot faces high magnitude, imminent 
threats, and is a valid taxon at the species level. Thus, in accordance 
with our LPN guidance, we have assigned the red-crowned parrot an LPN 
of 2.
    We will continue to monitor the threats to the red-crowned parrot, 
and the species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or 
the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of 
the LPN.
    Work on a proposed listing determination for the red-crowned parrot 
is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute 
statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing 
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with 
funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work includes all the actions listed 
in the tables below under expeditious progress.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in 
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative 
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given 
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible 
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether 
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing 
actions.
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for 
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the 
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the 
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded 
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; 
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, 
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating 
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and 
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The 
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive 
and may include, but is not limited to: gathering and assessing the 
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses 
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; 
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer 
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant 
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can 
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those 
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more 
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding 
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with 
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical 
habitat, $305,000.
    We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program 
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since 
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended 
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for 
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent 
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example, 
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see 
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
    Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat 
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the 
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure 
that some funding is available to address other listing activities'' 
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to 
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the 
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing 
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of 
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while 
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 
proposed listing determinations, we did use some

[[Page 62028]]

of this money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed 
listing determinations so that the proposed listing determination and 
proposed critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule, 
thereby being more efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we 
plan to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 
listing determinations.
    We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to 
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first 
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. 
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of 
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations, 
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money 
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds 
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated 
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our 
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis 
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The 
Conference Report accompanying Pub. L. 97-304 (Endangered Species Act 
Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory deadlines 
and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the amendments 
were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay commencing the 
rulemaking process for any reason other than that the existence of 
pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a greater 
degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a petition 
[that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that 
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent 
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a 
``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made at the point 
when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a status review 
that will determine the degree of threats facing the species, and 
therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more relevant to the 
use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is made when the 
Service has already determined the degree of threats facing the species 
and is deciding whether or not to commence a rulemaking.
    In FY 2011, on April 15, 2011, Congress passed the Full-Year 
Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-10), which provides funding 
through September 30, 2011. The Service has $20,902,000 for the listing 
program. Of that, $9,472,000 is being used for determinations of 
critical habitat for already-listed species. Also $500,000 is 
appropriated for foreign species listings under the Act. The Service 
thus has $10,930,000 available to fund work in the following 
categories: compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement 
agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations 
be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions 
with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, 
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010, 
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list 
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is 
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to 
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance 
effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, the Service 
is only able to initiate a few new listing determinations for candidate 
species in FY 2011.
    In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the 
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority, 
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. 
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to 
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to 
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work on 
listing actions for foreign species, which reduces funding available 
for domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been 
allocated for this function. Although there are no foreign species 
issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many 
actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus 
increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific 
listing action are identified in the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table 
(part of our record).
    For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for 
the red-crowned parrot is precluded by court-ordered and court-approved 
settlement agreements, and listing actions with absolute statutory 
deadlines.
    Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number 
of species with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, we assign each 
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats 
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or 
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of 
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a 
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, or distinct 
population segment)). The lower the listing priority number, the higher 
the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have 
the highest listing priority).
    Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have 
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the 
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest 
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the 
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and 
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, 
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species 
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority 
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we 
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we 
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN 
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate 
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened 
species to endangered species are lower priority, because as listed 
species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and 
implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may 
choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered 
if we can combine this with work that is subject to a court-determined 
deadline.
    With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have 
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible 
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the 
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing 
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species 
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same 
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into 
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine 
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount 
of time and

[[Page 62029]]

resources required to complete each listing action.
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding, 
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the 
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for 
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not 
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in 
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of 
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate 
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. So far 
during FY 2011, we have completed delisting rules for three species.) 
Given the limited resources available for listing, we find that we are 
making expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This 
progress included preparing and publishing the following 
determinations:

                                        FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Publication date                  Title                 Actions                     FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010                         Endangered Status for  Proposed Listing       75 FR 61664-61690
                                   the Altamaha           Endangered.
                                   Spinymussel and
                                   Designation of
                                   Critical Habitat.
10/7/2010                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     75 FR 62070-62095
                                   Petition to list the   petition finding,
                                   Sacramento Splittail   Not warranted.
                                   as Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
10/28/2010                        Endangered Status and  Proposed Listing       75 FR 66481-66552
                                   Designation of         Endangered
                                   Critical Habitat for   (uplisting).
                                   Spikedace and Loach
                                   Minnow.
11/2/2010                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       75 FR 67341-67343
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Bay Springs            Not substantial.
                                   Salamander as
                                   Endangered.
11/2/2010                         Determination of       Final Listing          75 FR 67511-67550
                                   Endangered Status      Endangered.
                                   for the Georgia
                                   Pigtoe Mussel,
                                   Interrupted
                                   Rocksnail, and Rough
                                   Hornsnail and
                                   Designation of
                                   Critical Habitat.
11/2/2010                         Listing the Rayed      Proposed Listing       75 FR 67551-67583
                                   Bean and Snuffbox as   Endangered.
                                   Endangered.
11/4/2010                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     75 FR 67925-67944
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Cirsium wrightii       Warranted but
                                   (Wright's Marsh        precluded.
                                   Thistle) as
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
12/14/2010                        Endangered Status for  Proposed Listing       75 FR 77801-77817
                                   Dunes Sagebrush        Endangered.
                                   Lizard.
12/14/2010                        12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     75 FR 78029-78061
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   North American         Warranted but
                                   Wolverine as           precluded.
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
12/14/2010                        12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     75 FR 78093-78146
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Sonoran Population     Warranted but
                                   of the Desert          precluded.
                                   Tortoise as
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
12/15/2010                        12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     75 FR 78513-78556
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Astragalus             Warranted but
                                   microcymbus and        precluded.
                                   Astragalus
                                   schmolliae as
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
12/28/2010                        Listing Seven          Final Listing          75 FR 81793-81815
                                   Brazilian Bird         Endangered.
                                   Species as
                                   Endangered
                                   Throughout Their
                                   Range.
1/4/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 304-311
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Red Knot subspecies    Not substantial.
                                   Calidris canutus
                                   roselaari as
                                   Endangered.
1/19/2011                         Endangered Status for  Proposed Listing       76 FR 3392-3420
                                   the Sheepnose and      Endangered.
                                   Spectaclecase
                                   Mussels.
2/10/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 7634-7679
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Pacific Walrus as      Warranted but
                                   Endangered or          precluded.
                                   Threatened.
2/17/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 9309-9318
                                   Petition To List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Sand Verbena Moth as   Substantial.
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
2/22/2011                         Determination of       Final Listing          76 FR 9681-9692
                                   Threatened Status      Threatened.
                                   for the New Zealand-
                                   Australia Distinct
                                   Population Segment
                                   of the Southern
                                   Rockhopper Penguin.
2/22/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 9722-9733
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Solanum conocarpum     Warranted but
                                   (marron bacora) as     precluded.
                                   Endangered.
2/23/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 9991-10003
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Thorne's Hairstreak    Not warranted.
                                   Butterfly as
                                   Endangered.
2/23/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 10166-10203
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Astragalus             Warranted but
                                   hamiltonii,            precluded & Not
                                   Penstemon flowersii,   Warranted.
                                   Eriogonum soredium,
                                   Lepidium ostleri,
                                   and Trifolium
                                   friscanum as
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
2/24/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 10299-10310
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Wild Plains Bison or   Not substantial.
                                   Each of Four
                                   Distinct Population
                                   Segments as
                                   Threatened.

[[Page 62030]]

 
2/24/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 10310-10319
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Unsilvered             Not substantial.
                                   Fritillary Butterfly
                                   as Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
3/8/2011                          12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 12667-12683
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Mt. Charleston Blue    Warranted but
                                   Butterfly as           precluded.
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
3/8/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 12683-12690
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Texas Kangaroo Rat     Substantial.
                                   as Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
3/10/2011                         Initiation of Status   Notice of Status       76 FR 13121-13122
                                   Review for Longfin     Review.
                                   Smelt.
3/15/2011                         Withdrawal of          Proposed rule          76 FR 14210-14268
                                   Proposed Rule to       withdrawal.
                                   List the Flat-tailed
                                   Horned Lizard as
                                   Threatened.
3/15/2011                         Proposed Threatened    Proposed Listing       76 FR 14126-14207
                                   Status for the         Threatened; Proposed
                                   Chiricahua Leopard     Designation of
                                   Frog and Proposed      Critical Habitat.
                                   Designation of
                                   Critical Habitat.
3/22/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 15919-15932
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Berry Cave             Warranted but
                                   Salamander as          precluded.
                                   Endangered.
4/1/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 18138-18143
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Spring Pygmy Sunfish   Substantial.
                                   as Endangered.
4/5/2011                          12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 18684-18701
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Bearmouth              Not Warranted and
                                   Mountainsnail, Byrne   Warranted but
                                   Resort                 precluded.
                                   Mountainsnail, and
                                   Meltwater Lednian
                                   Stonefly as
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
4/5/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 18701-18706
                                   Petition To List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Peary Caribou and      Substantial.
                                   Dolphin and Union
                                   population of the
                                   Barren-ground
                                   Caribou as
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
4/12/2011                         Proposed Endangered    Proposed Listing       76 FR 20464-20488
                                   Status for the Three   Endangered; Proposed
                                   Forks Springsnail      Designation of
                                   and San Bernardino     Critical Habitat.
                                   Springsnail, and
                                   Proposed Designation
                                   of Critical Habitat.
4/13/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 20613-20622
                                   Petition To List       Petition Finding,
                                   Spring Mountains       Substantial.
                                   Acastus Checkerspot
                                   Butterfly as
                                   Endangered.
4/14/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 20911-20918
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Prairie Chub as        Substantial.
                                   Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
4/14/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 20918-20939
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Hermes Copper          Warranted but
                                   Butterfly as           precluded.
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
4/26/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 23256-23265
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Arapahoe Snowfly as    Substantial.
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
4/26/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 23265-23271
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Smooth-Billed Ani as   Not substantial.
                                   Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
5/12/2011                         Withdrawal of the      Proposed Rule,         76 FR 27756-27799
                                   Proposed Rule to       Withdrawal.
                                   List the Mountain
                                   Plover as Threatened.
5/24/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 30082-30087
                                   Petition To List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Spot-tailed Earless    Substantial.
                                   Lizard as Endangered
                                   or Threatened.
5/26/2011                         Listing the Salmon-    Final Listing          76 FR 30758-30780
                                   Crested Cockatoo as    Threatened.
                                   Threatened
                                   Throughout its Range
                                   with Special Rule.
5/31/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 31282-31294
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Puerto Rican           Warranted but
                                   Harlequin Butterfly    precluded.
                                   as Endangered.
6/2/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 31903-31906
                                   Petition to            Petition Finding,
                                   Reclassify the         Substantial.
                                   Straight-Horned
                                   Markhor (Capra
                                   falconeri jerdoni)
                                   of Torghar Hills as
                                   Threatened.
6/2/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 31920-31926
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Golden-winged          Substantial.
                                   Warbler as
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
6/7/2011                          12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 32911-32929
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Striped Newt as        Warranted but
                                   Threatened.            precluded.
6/9/2011                          12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 33924-33965
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Abronia ammophila,     Not Warranted and
                                   Agrostis rossiae,      Warranted but
                                   Astragalus             precluded.
                                   proimanthus,
                                   Boechera (Arabis)
                                   pusilla, and
                                   Penstemon gibbensii
                                   as Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
6/21/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 36049-36053
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Utah Population of     Not substantial.
                                   the Gila Monster as
                                   an Endangered or a
                                   Threatened Distinct
                                   Population Segment.

[[Page 62031]]

 
6/21/2011                         Revised 90-Day         Notice of 90-day       76 FR 36053-36068
                                   Finding on a           Petition Finding,
                                   Petition To            Not substantial.
                                   Reclassify the Utah
                                   Prairie Dog From
                                   Threatened to
                                   Endangered.
6/28/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 37706-37716
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Castanea pumila var.   Not warranted.
                                   ozarkensis as
                                   Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
6/29/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 38095-38106
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Eastern Small-Footed   Substantial.
                                   Bat and the Northern
                                   Long-Eared Bat as
                                   Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
6/30/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 38504-38532
                                   Petition to List a     petition finding,
                                   Distinct Population    Not warranted.
                                   Segment of the
                                   Fisher in its United
                                   States Northern
                                   Rocky Mountain Range
                                   as Endangered or
                                   Threatened with
                                   Critical Habitat.
7/12/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 40868-40871
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Bay Skipper as         Substantial.
                                   Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
7/19/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 42631-42654
                                   Petition to List       petition finding,
                                   Pinus albicaulis as    Warranted but
                                   Endangered or          precluded.
                                   Threatened with
                                   Critical Habitat.
7/19/2011                         Petition To List       Notice of 12-month     76 FR 42654-42658
                                   Grand Canyon Cave      petition finding,
                                   Pseudoscorpion.        Not warranted.
7/26/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 44547-44564
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Giant Palouse          Not warranted.
                                   Earthworm
                                   (Drilolerius
                                   americanus) as
                                   Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
7/26/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 44566-44569
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Frigid Ambersnail as   Not warranted.
                                   Endangered.
7/27/2011                         Determination of       Final Listing          76 FR 45054-45075
                                   Endangered Status      Endangered,
                                   for Ipomopsis          Threatened.
                                   polyantha (Pagosa
                                   Skyrocket) and
                                   Threatened Status
                                   for Penstemon
                                   debilis (Parachute
                                   Beardtongue) and
                                   Phacelia submutica
                                   (DeBeque Phacelia).
7/27/2011                         12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 45130-45162
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Gopher Tortoise as     Warranted but
                                   Threatened in the      precluded.
                                   Eastern Portion of
                                   its Range.
8/2/2011                          Proposed Endangered    Proposed Listing       76 FR 46218-46234
                                   Status for the         Endangered.
                                   Chupadera
                                   Springsnail
                                   (Pyrgulopsis
                                   chupaderae) and
                                   Proposed Designation
                                   of Critical Habitat.
8/2/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 46238-46251
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Straight Snowfly and   Not substantial.
                                   Idaho Snowfly as
                                   Endangered.
8/2/2011                          12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 46251-46266
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Redrock Stonefly as    Not warranted.
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
8/2/2011                          Listing 23 Species on  Proposed Listing       76 FR 46362-46594
                                   Oahu as Endangered     Endangered.
                                   and Designating
                                   Critical Habitat for
                                   124 Species.
8/4/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 47123-47133
                                   Petition To List Six   Petition Finding,
                                   Sand Dune Beetles as   Not substantial and
                                   Endangered or          substantial.
                                   Threatened.
8/9/2011                          Endangered Status for  Final Listing          76 FR 48722-48741
                                   the Cumberland         Endangered.
                                   Darter, Rush Darter,
                                   Yellowcheek Darter,
                                   Chucky Madtom, and
                                   Laurel Dace.
8/9/2011                          12-Month Finding on a  Notice of 12-month     76 FR 48777-48788
                                   Petition to List the   petition finding,
                                   Nueces River and       Not warranted.
                                   Plateau Shiners as
                                   Threatened or
                                   Endangered.
8/9/2011                          Four Foreign Parrot    Proposed Listing       76 FR 49202-49236
                                   Species [crimson       Endangered and
                                   shining parrot,        Threatened; Notice
                                   white cockatoo,        of 12-month petition
                                   Philippine cockatoo,   finding, Not
                                   yellow-crested         warranted.
                                   cockatoo].
8/10/2011                         Proposed Listing of    Proposed Listing       76 FR 49408-49412
                                   the Miami Blue         Endangered,
                                   Butterfly as           Similarity of
                                   Endangered, and        Appearance.
                                   Proposed Listing of
                                   the Cassius Blue,
                                   Ceraunus Blue, and
                                   Nickerbean Blue
                                   Butterflies as
                                   Threatened Due to
                                   Similarity of
                                   Appearance to the
                                   Miami Blue Butterfly.
8/10/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 49412-49417
                                   Petition To List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Saltmarsh Topminnow    Substantial.
                                   as Threatened or
                                   Endangered Under the
                                   Endangered Species
                                   Act.

[[Page 62032]]

 
8/10/2011                         Emergency Listing of   Emergency Listing      76 FR 49542-49567
                                   the Miami Blue         Endangered,
                                   Butterfly as           Similarity of
                                   Endangered, and        Appearance.
                                   Emergency Listing of
                                   the Cassius Blue,
                                   Ceraunus Blue, and
                                   Nickerbean Blue
                                   Butterflies as
                                   Threatened Due to
                                   Similarity of
                                   Appearance to the
                                   Miami Blue Butterfly.
8/11/2011                         Listing Six Foreign    Final Listing          76 FR 50052-50080
                                   Birds as Endangered    Endangered.
                                   Throughout Their
                                   Range.
8/17/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 50971-50979
                                   Petition to List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Leona's Little Blue    Substantial.
                                   Butterfly as
                                   Endangered or
                                   Threatened.
9/01/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 54423-54425
                                   Petition to List All   Petition Finding,
                                   Chimpanzees (Pan       Substantial.
                                   troglodytes) as
                                   Endangered.
9/6/2011                          12-Month Finding on    Notice of 12-month     76 FR 55170-55230
                                   Five Petitions to      petition finding,
                                   List Seven Species     Warranted but
                                   of Hawaiian Yellow-    precluded.
                                   faced Bees as
                                   Endangered.
9/8/2011                          12-Month Petition      Notice of 12-month     76 FR 55623-55638
                                   Finding and Proposed   petition finding,
                                   Listing of             Warranted; Proposed
                                   Arctostaphylos         Listing Endangered.
                                   franciscana as
                                   Endangered.
9/8/2011                          90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 55638-55641
                                   Petition To List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Snowy Plover and       Not substantial.
                                   Reclassify the
                                   Wintering Population
                                   of Piping Plover.
9/13/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 56381-56391
                                   Petition To List the   Petition Finding,
                                   Franklin's Bumble      Substantial.
                                   Bee as Endangered.
9/13/2011                         90-Day Finding on a    Notice of 90-day       76 FR 56608-56630
                                   Petition to List 42    Petition Finding,
                                   Great Basin and        Substantial and Not
                                   Mojave Desert          substantial.
                                   Springsnails as
                                   Threatened or
                                   Endangered with
                                   Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that 
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to 
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the 
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in 
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory 
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the 
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These 
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as 
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on 
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a 
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats 
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together 
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and 
funding, when compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of 
them in the future.

       Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 parrot species (military     12-month petition finding.
 macaw, yellow-billed parrot,
 red-crowned parrot, scarlet
 macaw) \5\.
4 parrot species (blue-headed  12-month petition finding.
 macaw, great green macaw,
 grey-cheeked parakeet,
 hyacinth macaw) \5\.
Longfin smelt................  12-month petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's June beetle..........  Final listing determination.
5 Bird species from Colombia   Final listing determination.
 and Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk......  Final listing determination.
Ozark hellbender \4\.........  Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\.....  Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia..  Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist  Final listing determination.
 National Marine Fisheries
 Service) \5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN =   Final listing determination.
 2), snuffbox No LPN) \5\.
CA golden trout \4\..........  12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross.......  12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\  12-month petition finding.
Kokanee-Lake Sammamish         12-month petition finding.
 population \1\.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl   12-month petition finding.
 \1\.
Northern leopard frog........  12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander.  12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero................  12-month petition finding/Proposed
                                listing.
Dusky tree vole..............  12-month petition finding.

[[Page 62033]]

 
Leatherside chub (from 206     12-month petition finding.
 species petition).
Platte River caddisfly (from   12-month petition finding.
 206 species petition) \5\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva,  12-month petition finding.
 Sphingicampa blanchardi,
 Agapema galbina) (from 475
 species petition).
3 South Arizona plants         12-month petition finding.
 (Erigeron piscaticus,
 Astragalus hypoxylus,
 Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from
 475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel         12-month petition finding.
 species (3 from 475 species
 petition).
14 parrots (foreign species).  12-month petition finding.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\...  12-month petition finding.
Western gull-billed tern.....  12-month petition finding.
OK grass pink (Calopogon       12-month petition finding.
 oklahomensis) \1\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\........  12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald.............  12-month petition finding.
Eagle Lake trout \1\.........  90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks  90-day petition finding.
 species (snails and slugs)
 \1\.
Spring Mountains checkerspot   90-day petition finding.
 butterfly.
10 species of Great Basin      90-day petition finding.
 butterfly.
404 Southeast species........  90-day petition finding.
American eel \4\.............  90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\..............  90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\...  90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying          90-day petition finding.
 squirrel \5\.
Bicknell's thrush \5\........  90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\.......  90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants         90-day petition finding.
 (Graptopetalum bartrami &
 Pectis imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\....................  90-day petition finding.
Humboldt marten..............  90-day petition finding.
Desert massasauga............  90-day petition finding.
Western glacier stonefly       90-day petition finding.
 (Zapada glacier).
Thermophilic ostracod          90-day petition finding.
 (Potamocypris hunteri).
Sierra Nevada red fox \5\....  90-day petition finding.
Boreal toad (eastern or        90-day petition finding.
 southern Rocky Mtn
 population) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Maui-Nui candidate species  Proposed listing.
 \2\ (17 plants, 3 tree
 snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2
 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN =
 8).
8 Gulf Coast mussels           Proposed listing.
 (southern kidneyshell (LPN =
 2), round ebonyshell (LPN =
 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN
 = 2), southern sandshell
 (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN
 = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN =
 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5),
 and tapered pigtoe (LPN =
 11)) \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2)    Proposed listing.
 and white bluffs bladderpod
 (LPN = 9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\.  Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho     Proposed listing.
 mucket (LPN = 2) &
 Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\.  Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN =    Proposed listing.
 2) \4\.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger    Proposed listing.
 Beetle (LPN = 2) \5\.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN =  Proposed listing.
 2).
4 Texas salamanders (Austin    Proposed listing.
 blind salamander (LPN = 2),
 Salado salamander (LPN = 2),
 Georgetown salamander (LPN =
 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN
 = 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales        Proposed listing.
 Spring Snail (LPN = 2),
 Diamond Y springsnail (LPN =
 2), Phantom springsnail (LPN
 = 2), Phantom Cave snail
 (LPN = 2), Diminutive
 amphipod (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden   Proposed listing.
 gladecress (Leavenworthia
 texana) (LPN = 2), Neches
 River rose-mallow (Hibiscus
 dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus      Proposed listing.
 (Echinomastus erectocentrus
 var. acunensis) (LPN = 3),
 Fickeisen plains cactus
 (Pediocactus peeblesianus
 fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3),
 Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
 lemmonii) (LPN = 8),
 Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea
 gierischii) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\  Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida  Proposed listing.
 semaphore cactus (Consolea
 corallicola) (LPN = 2),
 shellmound applecactus
 (Harrisia (=Cereus)
 aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN
 = 2), Cape Sable
 thoroughwort (Chromolaena
 frustrata) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species     Proposed listing.
 \5\ (includes 8 candidate
 species--6 plants & 2
 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1
 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =
 4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie         Proposed listing.
 species (9 subspecies of
 pocket gopher (Thomomys
 mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3),
 streaked horned lark (LPN =
 3), Taylor's checkerspot
 (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper
 (LPN = 8)) \3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted     Proposed listing.
 kidneyshell (LPN = 2),
 slabside pearlymussel (LPN =
 2)) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander      Proposed listing.
 (LPN = 2) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
  previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
  in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
  competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.


[[Page 62034]]

    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are 
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given 
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions 
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
    The red-crowned parrot will be added to the list of candidate 
species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to 
monitor the status of this species as new information becomes 
available. This review will determine if a change in status is 
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing 
procedures.
    We intend that any proposed listing action for the red-crowned 
parrot will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to 
accept additional information and comments from all concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested party concerning this finding.

References Cited

    A list of all references cited in this document is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0082, or upon 
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species 
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

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

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 27, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25808 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P