[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63480-63508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25807]



[[Page 63479]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 197

October 12, 2011

Part V





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 
Petition To List Two South American Parrot Species; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 63480]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-ES-2011-0071; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List Two South American Parrot Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: 12-month finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a status 
review (12-month finding) on a petition to list the blue-headed macaw 
(Primolius couloni) and grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera) 
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that listing the blue-headed macaw or 
grey-cheeked parakeet is not warranted at this time. However, we ask 
the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available 
concerning the threats to these species or their habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 12, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R9-ES-2011-0071. 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, Endangered Species Program, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203.

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 Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains 
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the 
species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the 
date of receipt of the petition. 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 threatened or endangered, 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

Petition History

    On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January 
29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental 
Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting we 
list 14 parrot species under the Act. The petition clearly identified 
itself as a petition and included the requisite information required in 
the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)). On July 14, 2009 
(74 FR 33957), we published a 90-day finding in which we determined 
that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial 
information to indicate that listing may be warranted for 12 of the 14 
parrot species.
    In our 90-day finding on this petition, we announced the initiation 
of a status review under the Act to list as threatened or endangered 
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 (C. alba)
Yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria)
Yellow-crested cockatoo (C. sulphurea)

    We initiated this status review to determine if listing each of the 
12 species is warranted, and opened a 60-day period to allow all 
interested parties an opportunity to provide comments and information 
on the status of these 12 species. The public comment period closed on 
September 14, 2009.
    On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court 
(CV-10-357, D. D.C.) in which the Service agreed to submit to the 
Federal Register by July 29, 2011; September 30, 2011; and November 30, 
2011, respectively, determinations on whether the petitioned action is 
warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing 
actions for no fewer than four of the petitioned species. On August 9, 
2011, the Service published in the Federal Register a 12-month status 
review and proposed rule for the following four parrot species: Crimson 
shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and yellow-crested 
cockatoo (76 FR 49202).

Current Action

    In this status review, we make a determination whether the 
petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but 
precluded by other listing actions for the blue-headed macaw and grey-
cheeked parakeet. This Federal Register document complies, in part, 
with the second deadline in the court-approved settlement agreement 
mentioned above.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on 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 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

[[Page 63481]]

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.
    Below is a species-by-species description and analysis of the five 
factors. The species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning 
with the blue-headed macaw, followed by the grey-cheeked parakeet.

I. Blue-Headed Macaw (Primolius couloni)

Species Description

    The blue-headed macaw is a small species of macaw belonging to the 
family Psittacidae, the parrot family. It measures approximately 41 
centimeters (cm) (16 inches (in)) in length. Average male and female 
wing length measures approximately 226 millimeters (mm) (8.9 in) and 
220 mm (8.6 in), respectively. Average tail lengths for males and 
females measure 223 mm (8.7 in) and 204 mm (8.0 in), respectively 
(Forshaw 1973, p. 386). There is little sexual dimorphism between males 
and females (Lee 2010, p. 5). Adults are characterized by green general 
plumage with slightly more yellowish underparts. The entire head, 
except for the grey bare facial area, is blue. Primaries and primary-
coverts (wing feathers) are blue and secondaries and outermost upper 
wing-coverts are blue edged with green. The upperside of the tail is 
blue, whereas the undersides of flight and tail feathers are a dusky 
yellow. The bill is grey-black, which becomes horn-colored on the 
culmen (the upper ridge of the bill) and at the tip of the upper 
mandible. The iris is yellow, and legs are flesh-pink. Immature blue-
headed macaws have not been described (Forshaw 1973, p. 386).
    The blue-headed macaw occurs mainly in eastern Peru, in the 
departments of Loreto, Hu[aacute]nuco, Pasco, Ucayali, Cusco, Madre de 
Dios, Ayacucho, Puno, and Jun[iacute]n; but it also occurs just inside 
the border of extreme western Brazil, in the States of Acre and 
Rond[ocirc]nia, and just inside the border of northern Bolivia, in the 
departments Pando, Beni, and La Paz (BirdLife International (BLI) 
2011a, unpaginated; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007b, pp. 1-6). It has been 
recorded from 61 localities, with no significant association with 
forest type, riverine habitats, degree of disturbance, or altitude. 
Records of the blue-headed macaw occur in both foothill regions and 
lowlands ranging in elevation from 200 meters (m) (656 feet (ft)) to 
1,500 m (4,921 ft), and in a wide range of habitats, including terra 
firme forests (forests not inundated by flood waters), mature 
floodplain forests, successional river edge forests, and Mauritia palm 
swamps. One study found that this species was slightly more common in 
degraded areas than in pristine forests (Brightsmith 2009, personal 
communication (pers. comm.); Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 126, 129-
130).
    The estimated total global range for this species is 609,494 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (235,326 square miles (mi\2\)) and spans large areas 
of remote and unexplored terrain. The extent of occurrence (the global 
range, excluding disjunctions and major areas of inappropriate habitat) 
has been calculated as 460,000 km\2\ (177,606 mi\2\), an area larger 
than previously thought (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.; Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, pp. 126, 129, 133). However, the extent of occurrence 
may be underestimated, as data is lacking from Brazil, the global range 
is more than 90 percent forested, and data suggest anthropogenic 
pressures have not eliminated this species from any large areas (Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 129). Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) notes 
that the blue-headed macaw is not absent from any portion of its 
historical range.
    In 1990, Lambert et al. (2003, as cited in Tobias and Brightsmith 
2007, p. 127) estimated the global population of blue-headed macaws to 
be 10,000 individuals. In 2003, Gilardi estimated the global population 
to be well under 1,000 mature individuals; BLI revised the global 
estimate to 1,000-2,499 mature individuals in 2005 (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 127). It is unclear why population estimates have 
varied, but may be due to few published sources, anecdotal accounts, 
poor data quality (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 127), or differences 
in methodology. The most recent data suggest that this species occurs 
at a conservative density of one mature individual per 10-50 km\2\ 
(3.0-19.3 mi\2\); using the calculated 460,000 km\2\ extent of 
occurrence, Tobias and Brightsmith (2007, p. 126) estimate the 
population to be 9,200-46,000 mature individuals and 11,500-57,500 
individuals if immature birds are included (Tobias and Brightsmith 
2007, p. 133). Most of the 61 localities where this species has been 
recorded are easily accessible by road or river, potentially causing a 
bias towards areas affected by trapping and underestimating abundance. 
Furthermore, much of the global range has yet to be surveyed (Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133).
    BLI (2011a, unpaginated), based on Tobias and Brightsmith (2007, 
pp. 126-138), reports that the population is declining at a slow-to-
moderate and ongoing pace. However, Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) 
notes that this conclusion is not based on real evidence from wild 
populations. In fact, Tobias and Brightsmith (2007, p. 134) and 
Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) note that based on sightings data, 
there is no evidence of a decline in range or numbers of blue-headed 
macaws in the wild and that the possibility that the blue-headed macaw 
is increasing with the spread of degraded forests along rivers cannot 
be discounted (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133). Hennessey 
(2011, per. comm.) also notes that populations in Peru and Bolivia have 
remained healthy. There is no place within its range where this species 
has been searched intensively and does not occur (Brightsmith 2009, 
pers. comm.). At the Tambopata Research Center, blue-headed macaws have 
been steadily increasing since the year 2000 (Brightsmith 2009, pers. 
comm.). Sightings of the blue-headed macaw in Peru have also increased 
in the past 10 years (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.). Additionally, the 
lowlands of southeastern Peru, the core of the species' range, are the 
home of a wide variety of international research stations; parrot 
populations are monitored annually, so if the blue-headed macaw begins 
to decline, the research community would note this and begin specific 
protection and recovery actions (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.).
    The diet of the blue-headed macaw has not been observed; however, 
parrots generally feed on seeds, ripe and unripe fruit, and flowers, 
but may also utilize other plant parts, such as nectar, leaves, and 
bark (Lee 2010, p. 6; Brightsmith 2006, p. 2; Cowen no date (n.d.), pp. 
5, 17). Cowen (n.d., p. 16) found that a psittacine community, which 
included the blue-headed macaw, mainly fed on three tree species: 
Ochroma pyramidale (balsa), Euterpe precatoria (a species of palm), and 
Cecropia peltata (trumpet tree). This species may undergo some form of 
nomadism to track food across the landscape (Tobias and Brightsmith 
2007, p. 132). Parrots may travel a few kilometers to hundreds of 
kilometers in search of food resources (Lee 2010, p. 8). Because 
parrots feed primarily on fruits and flowers, they are linked to the

[[Page 63482]]

fruiting and flowering patterns of trees; fluctuations in abundance and 
availability of these food sources may change diets, result in 
movements to areas with greater food availability, and influence local 
seasonal patterns of bird abundance (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Lee 2010, 
p. 7; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 132; Brightsmith 2006, p. 2; 
Renton 2002, p. 17; Cowen n.d., pp. 5, 23). In some locations within 
its range, the blue-headed macaw is not considered uncommon and is 
recorded throughout the year, but appears scarce in others or varies 
seasonally in response to food availability (BLI 2011a, unpaginated).
    Geophagy, the intentional consumption of soil, is known for parrots 
(Brightsmith 2004a, p. 534). In South America, parrots, including the 
blue-headed macaw, gather at riverbanks to consume soil; these sites 
are referred to as ``clay licks'' (Brightsmith 2004c, pp. 134, 137; 
Brightsmith 2004b, p. 5; Brightsmith 2004a, p. 535). Clay lick usage by 
blue-headed macaws is regular at several sites, and occurs year-round 
at Tambopata, Peru (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 131). There have 
been many theories proposed to explain why birds consume soil, 
including mineral supplementation, mechanical aid to digestion, pH 
buffering, treatment for endoparasites, and adsorption of dietary 
toxins (Brightsmith 2004c, p. 143; Brightsmith 2004b, p. 1; Brightsmith 
2004a, p. 534-535). The reasons for soil selection may vary, with sites 
depending on the needs of the birds and the characteristics of the 
soils present (Brightsmith 2004a, p. 542). Research in Peru has shown 
that parrots consume soil to obtain sodium (mineral supplementation) 
and assist in the adsorption of dietary toxins (Brightsmith 2004c, p. 
134; Brightsmith 2004b, pp. 3-4; Brightsmith 2004a, pp. 541-542). 
Furthermore, research conducted at the Tambopata Research Center in 
Peru found that local clay lick use by parrots varied seasonally, with 
low use occurring at a time when parrots appear to leave the area due 
to low fruit availability and peaks occurring during the breeding 
season (Brightsmith 2004b, p. 3). Peak clay lick use coincided with the 
breeding season when adults feed clay to young chicks during the period 
of maximum growth and least resistance to natural toxins found in their 
diet (Brightsmith 2004b, p. 4).
    The blue-headed macaw is reported to occur in pairs or groups of 
three. However, groups of 4 or more are routinely reported throughout 
the range, groups of 10 or more have been reported from 13 localities, 
and 2 groups were reported to have 53 and 60 individuals, respectively 
(Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 131-132). Few courtship displays have 
been described for parrots, but are assumed to be simple and include 
actions such as bowing, wing-drooping, wing-flicking, tail-wagging, and 
foot raising (Austin 1961, p. 33). Most parrot species are monogamous 
and remain paired for long periods of time, even for life. The age at 
which parrots reach sexual maturity varies but, in general, is between 
3 and 4 years in larger species and 1 to 2 years in smaller species 
(Austin 1961, p. 32). In captivity, the age in which the species is 
able to breed ranges from 2.5 to 5 years (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, 
p. 132). The nesting season of the blue-headed macaw is not known, but 
for other species of parrots and macaws found at the same site, the 
nesting season runs from June to November and November to March, 
respectively (Brightsmith 2006, pp. 7, 9). Although nesting has not 
been recorded for the blue-headed macaw, most parrots use natural tree 
cavities or cavities within cliffs (Lee 2010, p. 4). This species is 
reported to have low reproductive output in the wild (CITES 2002, p. 
1), but this may be based on little data (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, 
p. 32). In captivity, the clutch size for blue-headed macaws is 
reported to be 2-4 eggs (Vit 1997, as reported in Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 132). Female parrots generally incubate the eggs 
and rely on the male for food, although in some species the males 
contribute to incubation (Lee 2010, p. 5; Austin 1961, p. 33). Parrot 
chicks are born blind and naked or with sparse down, which is white in 
most species. The young of small parrots develop slowly and remain in 
the nest for 3-4 weeks (Austin 1961, p. 33). Adult longevity in the 
wild is unknown for the blue-headed macaw, but a congeneric (a species 
belonging to the same taxonomic genus as another species), the blue-
winged macaw (Primolius maracana), is reported to live at least 31 
years in captivity (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 132).

Conservation Status

    The blue-headed macaw is currently classified as ``vulnerable'' by 
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and listed in 
Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Species included in CITES 
Appendix I are the most endangered CITES-listed species. They are 
considered threatened with extinction, and international trade is 
permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally 
precludes commercial trade.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Blue-Headed Parrot

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

    One of the main threats to neotropical parrot species, in general, 
is deforestation (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 98). The Amazon region has the 
world's highest absolute rate of deforestation (Laurance et al. 2002, 
p. 738) and is currently threatened by increasing legal and illegal 
logging, road projects, conversion of forests to agriculture, cattle 
ranching, oil and gas extraction, and mining (Lee 2010, p. 2; MacLeod 
2009, p. 6; Cowen 2007, p. 9; Magrin et al. 2007, p. 590; Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134; Hume et al. 2006, p. 10; Asner et al. 2005, 
p. 480; Alverson et al. 2001, p. 113; Laurance et al. 2001, p. 309; 
Snyder et al. 2000, p. 98; Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505). However, in 
western Amazonia, especially in Peru and Bolivia where this species 
occurs, the proportion of forest cover is still high and large tracts 
of intact forests continue to exist even though some forests have been 
cleared around some major towns (Finer et al. 2008, pp. 1, 6; Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134; Kometter et al. 2004, p. 6). Information 
on the extent of deforestation within the States or departments where 
the blue-headed macaw occurs is limited; most information is at the 
national level and may not necessarily apply to this species, 
especially in Bolivia and Brazil where it occurs just inside the 
borders of these countries.
Logging
    Tropical forests, especially the Amazon, have experienced 
increasing rates of deforestation for the past few decades, largely for 
the conversion of land to food crops or pastures, and selective 
harvesting of timber has increased in rate and extent (Granoff 2008, p. 
553; Asner et al. 2005, p. 480; Laurance 1999, p. 112; Laurence 1998, 
p. 411).
    Selective logging targets older, larger trees that parrot species 
depend on for nesting and food (Cowen 2007, p. 9; Hume et al. 2006, p. 
11). The loss of these keystone trees may pose a threat to parrot 
populations by creating a shortage of suitable nesting sites, 
increasing competition, and causing the loss of current generations 
through an increase in infanticide and egg destruction (Lee 2010, pp. 
2, 12). If not managed correctly, selective logging may also cause 
widespread collateral

[[Page 63483]]

damage to remaining trees, subcanopy vegetation, and soils (Asner et 
al. 2005, p. 480). An additional 10 to 40 percent of the living biomass 
of a forest may be damaged by a poorly managed logging harvest process 
(Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505) and can double the total amount of forest 
degraded by human activities (Asner et al. 2005, p. 481). The loss of 
trees may influence the availability and abundance of food sources for 
the blue-headed macaw and may result in changes in diet or movement to 
areas with greater food availability. Although individual blue-headed 
macaws, nests, or eggs may be affected by logging activities, we have 
no information to indicate impacts are occurring at a level affecting 
the status of the species.
    Typically, logging involves a low rate of extraction (less than 3 
cubic meters (m\3\) per ha (106 cubic feet (ft\3\) per ac) and, if 
implemented correctly, only removes as many trees as the forest can 
regenerate (Colitt 2010, unpaginated; Rodr[iacute]guez and Cubas 2010, 
p. 78). Because the valuable timber removed is often very old, long 
intervals are needed for timber stands to recover from harvest 
(Laurance 1999, p. 114), and if provisions are made for the 
regeneration of these commercial trees, the effects of logging on tree 
diversity and species composition may be short-lived (Fredericksen 
2003, p. 10). In fact, if well managed, selective logging can mimic 
natural disturbances, and if hunting pressure is low, most wildlife 
species can persist in logged forests or recolonize harvested areas 
from nearby unlogged patches (Laurance 1999, p. 114). Studies have 
indicated a relatively minor impact on some wildlife species from 
logging, and among those that may actually benefit are frugivorous 
birds, such as the blue-headed macaw, due to the positive impact on 
fruit abundance (Fredericksen 2003, p. 11). Additionally, frugivores 
usually tolerate fragmentation better and are capable of using 
deforested areas (Sekercioglu 2007, p. 285). Many parrots are not 
habitat specialists and thrive in mosaics of different successional 
habitats (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Many species of lowland forest 
habitat seem to do relatively well in modified human environments, as 
long as a mosaic of habitats in different successional stages is 
maintained and poaching and trapping are controlled (Snyder et al. 
2000, p. 99). Although the blue-headed macaw could potentially benefit 
from some logging activities, we found no information to what extent, 
if any, this species benefits from these activities. However, species 
experts have stated that the possibility of the species increasing with 
the spread of degraded forests along rivers cannot be discounted 
(Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133) and Hennessey (2011, pers. 
comm.) has stated that the blue-headed macaw populations in Peru and 
Bolivia have remained healthy.
Peru
    With approximately 68 million forested hectares (ha) (168 million 
acres (ac)) covering 53 percent of its land area, Peru has the second 
most extensive forests in Latin America, after Brazil (FAO 2011, p. 
118; Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610). In the early 2000s, Peruvian 
Amazonia experienced a series of forestry reforms, including the 
implementation of forest concessions (forest leases), which led to a 
rush for newly allocated timber resources (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 
609; Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 2). More than 7 million ha (17.2 million 
acres; approximately 10 percent of the country's forest) are now 
designated as forest concessions in the regions of Ucayali, Loreto, 
Madre de Dios, San Martin, and Huanco; another 18 million ha (44.5 
million ac; nearly a quarter of Peruvian forests) are still potentially 
available for concession designation in the near future 
(Rodr[iacute]guez and Cubas 2010, p. 79; Salo and Toivonen 2009, pp. 
609-610).
    The aim of the forestry reform was to target issues such as control 
and enforcement of forestry activities, as well as illegal forestry 
activities (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610). Part of the new forestry 
reform included a new forestry law (See Factor D) which classified 
Peru's forests into 6 categories, including permanent production 
forests. This category includes those forests in which forest 
concession contracts can be assigned. A concession contract gives the 
holder the right to exploit the resources within a given area, but also 
gives the holder responsibility to manage the resources (Salo and 
Toivonen 2009, p. 611). Studies have shown that forest concessions in 
Peru have provided forests with protection from deforestation (Salo and 
Toivonen 2009, p. 620; Oliveira et al. 2007, pp. 2-3). Although we do 
not know the exact location of the recently designated 7 million ha 
(17.2 million acres) of forest concessions, they do not appear to have 
impacted the blue-headed macaw, given that the range has remained 90 
percent forested and there is no evidence in a decline in the range or 
population of this species. We do not know where the 18 million ha 
(44.5 million ac) of potential forest concessions are located in 
regards to locations of blue-headed macaw; however, if located within 
the range of this species, data suggest that these concessions could 
provide forests with protection against deforestation.
    To date, the forests of Peru, including large areas within the 
range of the blue-headed macaw, have mainly been subjected to selective 
logging (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, 
p. 134; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10), which has contributed to only 2.5 
percent of Peru's overall deforestation (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 
610). Nonetheless, there are reports of illegal logging in Peru, 
including one study that found evidence of illegal logging within the 
Muruanahua Reserve and Alto Pur[uacute]s National Park in Peru, which 
is a known location for the blue-headed macaw (Upper Amazon Conservancy 
2010, unpaginated; World Wildlife Fund in Indian Country Today 2007, 
unpaginated). However, there is no evidence that selective logging 
removes habitat for this species (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). 
Furthermore, it is possible that the blue-headed macaw could benefit 
from logging given that frugivores tend to benefit from logging due to 
the increase in fruit availability, and lowland habitat species, such 
as the blue-headed macaw, do well in modified human environments if 
successional forests are left intact and poaching is controlled. In 
addition, species experts have stated that the possibility that the 
species is increasing with the spread of degraded forests along rivers 
cannot be discounted (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133). 
Because the range of the blue-headed macaw has remained 90 percent 
forested and there is no evidence of a decline in either the range or 
population, we have no indication that selective logging or illegal 
logging has impacted the blue-headed macaw. Large areas within the 
range of the blue-headed macaw are slated for selective logging (Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134); however, because there is no evidence 
that selective logging removes habitat, and in fact the species may 
benefit from selective logging, we have no reason to believe that 
future selective logging activities in Peru will be a threat to this 
species.
    In summary, we find that deforestation via current forest 
concessions and selective logging have not impacted the status of the 
blue-headed macaw based on the fact that the range has remained 90 
percent forested and there is no evidence of a decline in the range or 
population of this species. Although we do not know the locations of 
the forest concessions that may be designated in the future, if they 
are located within the range of the blue-headed macaw, they may provide

[[Page 63484]]

protection to blue-headed macaw habitat from deforestation. 
Furthermore, we found no information indicating that the known areas of 
the blue-headed macaw's range that are slated for selective logging 
will impact the status of the species; in fact, it is possible that the 
species could benefit. Additionally, there are several conservation 
programs being implemented in Peru to address deforestation (see 
Conservation Programs below). Therefore, we have reason to believe that 
future deforestation will not impact the status of this species in 
Peru.
Bolivia
    Approximately 57.2 million ha (141.3 million ac) (53 percent) of 
Bolivia's total area is forested (FAO 2011, p. 118); of this forested 
area, 38.9 million ha (96.1 million ac) are within the Bolivian Amazon 
and constitute 5 percent of the total Amazon forest (Locklin and Haack 
2003, p. 774). Large tracts of primary forest remain in Bolivia, but it 
is likely that some of these will be subjected to logging (Fredericksen 
2003, p. 13) as forest products contribute to Bolivia's national 
exports (Byers and Israel 2008, p. vi). As of 2006, 89 timber companies 
held the rights to 5.8 million ha (14.3 million ac) of logging 
concessions (Pacheco 2006, p. 208). The forests of Bolivia have mainly 
been subjected to selective logging (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; 
Fredericksen 2003, p. 10), which has been done at very low levels and 
with low human pressure, allowing them to remain largely intact 
(Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). There are management issues that still need 
to be addressed, including sufficient regeneration time for commercial 
species (Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). However, given that Bolivia 
constitutes only a small part of this species' range, and the fact that 
we found no information indicating that logging has impacted the blue-
headed macaw range or population in any of its range countries, we have 
no reason to believe that logging is a threat to the species in 
Bolivia. Furthermore, we have no information indicating any future 
logging activities will impact the blue-headed macaw.
Brazil
    Brazil contains 519.5 million ha (1.2 billion ac) of forested area, 
62 percent of the total land area (FAO 2011, p. 118). Logging 
concessions total only 150,000 ha (370,658 ac) (Colitt 2010, 
unpaginated). However, by the end of 2010, Brazil was to have auctioned 
off an additional 1 million ha (2.5 million ac) of forest concessions 
to private companies in an effort to reduce the demand for illegal 
logging. Concessions help establish control over public areas usually 
occupied illegally (Colitt 2010, unpaginated).
    Logging is occurring in blue-headed macaw habitat in extreme 
western Brazil, but this species is a generalist and can exist within 
degraded habitats. Rond[ocirc]nia and Acre are among Brazil's major 
timber-production states (Asner et al. 2005, p. 480); however, this 
species occurs just inside the border of western Brazil and we found no 
information suggesting that the range or population of the blue-headed 
macaw have been impacted by logging in Brazil and no information 
indicating logging may affect this species in the future.
    Large areas within the range of the blue-headed macaw have 
experienced, or are slated for, selective logging (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134), and designation of forest concessions could 
potentially cause changes in land-use practices, perhaps affecting 
plant and wildlife species composition and diversity of an assigned 
area (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). 
However, BLI (2011a, unpaginated) reports that ``much of the forest 
within the species' range is still intact, and although the Bolivian 
forest is threatened by expansion of the logging industry, this species 
may benefit from the consequent patchwork clearance.''
    Ninety percent of the range of the blue-headed macaw remains 
forested, and there is no evidence of a decline in either the range or 
the population. Logging could affect individual blue-headed macaws 
though the loss of food or nesting resources; however, considering the 
extent of intact forests within the range of this macaw and no evidence 
of a decline in the population (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134), 
as well as the possibility that the blue-headed macaw is increasing 
with the spread of degraded forests along rivers (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133), we have no evidence to suggest that 
logging is affecting the blue-headed macaw to a degree that it is 
affecting the status of the species. Additionally, we have no 
information to suggest that logging may become a threat to the status 
of the blue-headed macaw in the future.
Roads and Infrastructure
    Oliveira et al. (2007, p. 2) estimated that 75 percent of the total 
Peruvian Amazon forest damage was within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the nearest 
road. In Bolivia, studies have detected small-scale roadside 
deforestation extending over 30 km (18.6 mi) from major roads 
(Steininger et al. 2001, p. 132). Studies on the effects of roads on 
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon have shown a 30 percent forest 
loss within 10 km (6.2 mi) of roads and highways, with highways causing 
an additional 20 percent forest loss within 11-25 km (6.8-15.5 mi), and 
15 percent loss within 26-50 km (16-31 mi) (Zambrano et al. 2010, p. 
158). Despite the deforestation occurring along roads and highways, the 
range of the blue-headed macaw is 90 percent forested, and we found no 
information indicating that the species has been impacted by roads or 
any subsequent deforestation. In fact, species experts (Hennessey 2011, 
pers. comm. and Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) indicate that this 
species is doing well, despite some localized impacts from 
infrastructure and roads.
    The Initiative of the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of 
South America (IIRSA) is a plan endorsed by the South American 
presidents, which includes around 350 infrastructure projects, such as 
highways, bridges, railways, ports, airports, and transmission 
corridors, to accomplish regional economic integration and facilitate 
trade (Babbitt 2009, pp. 28-29). At the center of this plan is the 
nearly complete Transoceanic Highway, a 1,000-km (621.3-mi) highway 
that connects the Brazilian State of Acre to the Peruvian coast, 
passing through Puerto Maldonado (Garcia-Navarro 2009, unpaginated; 
Babbitt 2009, p. 28; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) and near 
several other locations in which the blue-headed macaw has been 
recorded, bisecting its range (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). 
The blue-headed macaw occurs within the immediate outskirts of Puerto 
Maldonado, one of the areas with significant disturbance, suggesting 
that this species is not greatly affected by anthropogenic pressures 
(Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 129).
    Future urban expansion in Puerto Maldonado resulting from the 
highway may put pressure on the protected area of Tambopata (Delgado 
2008, p. 27), where the blue-headed macaw has been recorded. Although 
the Transoceanic Highway is not located within Bolivia, the connection 
between Cobija, Bolivia, and Brasil[eacute]ia, Brazil, allows Cobija, a 
recorded location for the blue-headed macaw, to benefit from the road 
project and potentially grow in the future (Delgado 2008, p. 31). 
Additionally, IIRSA plans to build another highway that would branch of 
from the Transoceanic Highway in Rio Branco, the capital of Acre. If 
completed, this highway will run through the forests of Serra do 
Divisor National Park, a known

[[Page 63485]]

location for the blue-headed macaw (Babbitt 2009, p. 31). In spite of 
this information, we found no indication that the range, habitat, or 
population of the blue-headed macaw has been impacted by the 
Transoceanic Highway. Given that the species has not been adversely 
affected by road construction or other infrastructure, we have no 
information suggesting that the status of this species may be impacted 
in the future by the Transoceanic Highway.
    Although there has been road development within Peru, Bolivia, and 
Brazil, and individual blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected 
by road development through the loss of food and nesting resources, we 
have no information indicating that the status of the species has been 
adversely impacted by this development in the past. The range remains 
90 percent forested and there is no evidence that the range or 
population has declined. Furthermore, Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) 
notes that although road construction and related deforestation may 
affect part of the blue-headed macaw's range, habitat analyses to date 
show no evidence that deforestation will adversely affect the species 
in the future.
Agriculture and Ranching
    Logging and modern roads facilitate infiltration into pristine 
forests by migrant settlers who use slash-and-burn methods for 
agriculture and cattle pastures (Laurance 1998, p. 411). Slash-and-burn 
agriculture involves the clearing of land and burning of debris 
(Locklin and Haack 2003, p. 775; Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505). Often, 
plots are abandoned after only two or three cycles, and then more 
forests are cleared to establish new plots (Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al. 
2007, p. 406; Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). Production may be limited 
to subsistence farming if roads are in poor condition or if the cost of 
transportation is high. However, if roads are in good condition and 
provide access to international and national markets, production may 
expand to cash crops (Zambrano et al. 2010, p. 158; Locklin and Haack 
2003, p. 780).
    Agriculture is considered the main cause of deforestation in the 
lowlands of Bolivia (Pacheco 2006, p. 215). With pressures for 
agriculture expansion, large areas are being cleared for both soybean 
farms and cattle ranches (Pacheco 2006, pp. 213, 216; Duery and Vlosky 
2005, p. 10; TNC 2001, unpaginated: Laurance 1998, p. 411). The San 
Buenaventura-Puerto Heath road runs through the Madidi National Park, a 
known location of the blue-headed macaw. The greatest human-caused 
impact along this road was the conversion of forest via slash-and-burn 
agriculture, although rates of deforestation were relatively low 
(Locklin and Haak 2003, pp. 775, 778). Forest clearance patterns of 
indigenous communities practicing shifting cultivation have been 
observed, particularly along rivers, throughout Beni, Pando, and La Paz 
(Steininger et al. 2001, p. 131). Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al. (2007, p. 
406) found that the Tsimane', a native Amazonian society within Beni, 
practice slash-and-burn agriculture and abandon their plots after one 
or two cultivation cycles to establish new plots. This society is also 
moving from subsistence farming towards cash crops, which requires 
additional forest clearing and contributes to further deforestation 
(Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al. 2007, p. 407). We have no information 
indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been or will be impacted by 
agriculture in Bolivia, and given that Bolivia is such a small portion 
of the species' range, we have no reason to believe agricultural 
expansion is affecting or will affect this species at the population 
level.
    Current expansion of deforestation in Bolivia Amazonia is also 
associated with cattle ranching (Pacheco 2006, p. 216). Its 
contribution to deforestation is expected to increase in the future due 
to topographical limitations of mechanized agriculture. In Beni, the 
impacts of cattle ranching may be a greater concern, as 65 percent of 
all the cattle herds in Bolivia are located here (Pacheco 2006, pp. 
215-216). However, the species' range in Bolivia is limited to just 
inside the border and we have no information indicating that the blue-
headed macaw has been impacted, or could be impacted, by cattle 
ranching in that area of its range.
    In Brazilian Amazonia, cattle production is the dominate land use 
in deforested areas and is the main factor driving deforestation 
(Pacheco 2006, p. 223; Laurance 1999, p. 113; Fearnside 1996, p. 21). 
Large-scale ranchers (those that own over 100 ha (247 ac)) are thought 
to be responsible for 70-75 percent of all the deforestation in this 
region (Laurance 1999, p. 113). Furthermore, illegal slash-and-burn 
practices have already destroyed 20 percent of the Brazilian Amazon 
(Colitt 2010, unpaginated). The States of Rond[ocirc]nia and Acre, 
where the blue-headed macaw occurs, are currently experiencing 
conversions of forest for agriculture and cattle ranching (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). However, given this species' limited range 
just inside the border of Brazil and its ability to thrive in altered 
habitat, coupled with no information indicating that cattle ranching 
has impacted, or will impact, the blue-headed macaw within its limited 
range in Brazil, we do not believe that cattle production is currently, 
or will be a threat to this species, now or in the future.
    Although the migration of settlers, and the subsequent farming, has 
been named by some as a contributing factor to deforestation in Peru 
(Painter 2008, unpaginated; Hume et al. 2006, p. 3), we found little 
information on the extent of deforestation due to agriculture. In 
Man[uacute] National Park, 63,500 ha (156,911 ac) of 1.7 million ha 
(4.2 million ac) were deforested up to the year 2005 for agricultural 
activities (Cabieses 2009, p. 26). However, since 2006, the Integrated 
Programme to Strengthen the Local Capacity of Small Farmers of the 
Man[uacute] Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone of Peru has worked with 
families within the park to foster activities compatible with organic 
farming and incorporate natural resource management into agricultural 
activities. By 2008, 530 families helped reforest 151 ha (373 ac) with 
mostly native species (Cabieses 2008, pp. 26-27). In the area 
surrounding Cordillera Azul National Park (a recorded location for the 
blue-headed macaw), the rate of deforestation due to the coffee and tea 
plantations and cereal grain farms (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557) has 
increased. The core zone of the Park is largely free of human 
inhabitants, with the exception of one rancher with 220 ha (543.6 ac) 
of pasture and some reports of indigenous people in the southeastern 
part of the Park. In 2008, the Peruvian government granted a 20-year 
contract to the Peruvian NGO Centro de Conservaci[oacute]n, 
Investigaci[oacute]n y Manejo de Areas Naturales Cordillera Azue (CIMA) 
that allows CIMA to manage the park under the supervision of the State 
and according to clearly defined guidelines. (Ostoic n.d., p. 1). In 
addition, we found no information indicating agriculture in any of the 
range states has impacted, or will impact, the blue-headed macaw, thus 
we do not believe it will impact the species in Peru, especially given 
the limited and localized nature of agriculture activities.
    Agriculture and cattle ranching activities are currently taking 
place within the range of the blue-headed macaw, especially within 
Bolivia and Brazil. However, given that these two countries make up a 
minimal part of the species range, it is unlikely to have any effect on 
the species. Although it is possible that individual blue-headed macaws 
could be affected by these activities through the loss of food or 
nesting resources, we have no information indicating the species has 
been adversely impacted by either

[[Page 63486]]

activity; in fact, the blue-headed macaw seems to benefit from some 
fragmented habitat. There is no evidence of a decline in the range or 
population of the blue-headed macaw and 90 percent of the species' 
range remains forested. Both agriculture and cattle ranching are 
expected to expand in the future; however, we have no information on 
the extent of this expansion and no information indicating either 
activity will be a threat to the species in the future.
Oil and Gas
    The western Amazon contains large reserves of oil and gas, many 
that are yet untapped (Finer et al. 2008, p. 1). Global demand for 
energy and record oil prices have launched unprecedented levels of oil 
and gas exploration and extraction in western Amazonia, with some of 
the most intense activity occurring in Peru (Kolowski and Alonso 2010, 
p. 917; Babbitt 2009, p. 31; Finer et al. 2008, p. 1).
    National governments have delineated specific areas, or blocks, 
that are zoned for hydrocarbon (e.g., natural gas and petroleum) 
activities; these blocks may be leased to state and multinational 
energy companies for exploration and production (Finer et al. 2008, p. 
1). In western Amazonia, there are approximately 180 oil and gas blocks 
covering about 688,000 km\2\ (265,638 mi\2\), which are operated by at 
least 35 multinational companies (Finer et al. 2008, p. 2). These oil 
and gas blocks may bring new access routes throughout the area, 
contributing to deforestation, as it did in eastern Amazonia and the 
southern Brazilian Amazon (Finer et al. 2008, p. 6).
    In 2003, Peru reduced royalties to encourage investment and sparked 
an exploration boom. As of 2008, 72 percent of the Peruvian Amazon was 
zoned for oil and gas by the government into 64 separate blocks; 48 of 
these blocks are currently active, the others may be subjected to 
active exploration in the near future (Kolowski and Alonso 2010, p. 
917; Finer et al. 2008, pp. 2, 5). The only areas fully protected from 
oil and gas activities are national parks and national and historic 
sanctuaries, which cover approximately 12 percent of the Peruvian 
Amazon. However, 20 blocks overlap with 11 less strictly protected 
areas, such as communal reserves and reserved zones (Finer et al. 2008, 
p. 2). Although oil and gas exploration and production are occurring in 
Peru, we have no information indicating that the blue-headed macaw has 
been impacted, or will be impacted, by oil and gas activities in Peru.
    In Bolivia and Brazil, areas open to oil and gas explorations are 
increasing rapidly (Finer et al. 2008, p. 2). In Bolivia, two leased 
blocks, covering 15,000 km\2\ (5,791 mi\2\), include large parts of 
Madidi National Park, a recorded location for the blue-headed macaw, as 
well as other parks where the blue-headed macaw has not been recorded; 
exploration in this region is imminent. The primary task of a newly 
created oil company, comprised of the State oil companies of Bolivia 
and Venezuela, is to explore for oil in newly created blocks 
surrounding Madidi National Park. Many other blocks in Bolivia overlap 
with protected areas (Finer et al. 2008, p. 5). We have no information 
indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been adversely impacted by 
oil and gas exploration in Bolivia; species experts have indicated that 
there is no evidence of a decline in the range or population of the 
blue-headed macaw (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) . Furthermore, 
we do not have information to indicate that the species will be 
impacted by future oil and gas exploration in Bolivia.
    In Brazil, a 400-km (248.5-mi) gas pipeline was completed in 2009, 
running from Urucus gas field (State of Rond[ocirc]nia) to Manaus 
(State of Amazonas). Another 500-km (310.6-mi) pipeline has been 
proposed to carry gas to Porto Velho in Rond[ocirc]nia. Additionally, 
Brazil's National Petroleum Agency has announced plans to look for oil 
and gas in the State of Acre, on the border with Peru and Bolivia 
(Finer et al. 2008, p. 5), an area that contains known locations for 
the blue-headed macaw. Oil and gas exploration and production do not 
necessarily impact parrots. Drilling operations often have a smaller 
footprint than other extractive activities, and this is further reduced 
once the well is installed. Further, we found no information that 
existing oil and gas operations have impacted any parrot populations in 
any of the range countries. Because there is no evidence of a decline 
in the range or population of the blue-headed macaw in Brazil, we have 
no information indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been impacted 
by oil and gas exploration in Brazil. Furthermore, we do not have 
information to indicate that the species will be impacted by future oil 
and gas exploration in Bolivia.
    Pending oil and gas projects are the primary threats to Peru's 
Camisea region and Bolivia's Madidi region (Finer et al. 2008, p. 6). 
Although individual blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected by 
oil and gas explorations through the loss of food or nesting resources, 
there is no evidence of a decline in the range or population of the 
blue-headed macaw, and we have no information indicating that the 
species has been adversely impacted by oil and gas exploration. 
Furthermore, we have no information to indicate that the species will 
be impacted by future oil and gas exploration.
Mining
    Over the last decade, the price of gold has increased 360 percent, 
with an annual rate of increase of approximately 18 percent; 
subsequently, the number of non-industrial gold mining operations in 
developing countries has risen (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 1). Many of 
these operations are illegal, as they are set up by residents without 
permits or formal title to the land, and without an environmental 
impact analysis or miner education (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 1).
    In Peru, the expansion of gold mining has been encouraged by the 
Transoceanic Highway, which has drawn impoverished Peruvians into the 
lowlands in search of a livelihood and hoping to strike it rich 
(Garcia-Navarro 2009, unpaginated). Madre de Dios is currently 
undergoing a new gold rush due to the high price of gold, increased oil 
and gas activities, and the completion of infrastructure projects 
(Hajek et al. 2011, in press). This region is Peru's third largest 
producer of gold and accounts for 70 percent of Peru's artisanal 
(small-scale or subsistence miner) gold production (Swenson et al. 
2011, p. 2). Concurrent with increasing annual gold prices, mining 
deforestation has been increasing since 2003. From 2003 to 2006, annual 
mining deforestation was approximately 292 ha (721.5 ac) per year. From 
2006 to 2009 this rate increased to 1,915 ha (4,732 ac) per year, a 
six-fold increase (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 4). Furthermore, Swenson et 
al. (2011, pp. 4-5) found that mining deforestation in this area is 
outpacing deforestation due to settlements, although this scenario 
might be different for areas with more secondary roads, which tend to 
correlate with higher rates of deforestation. One study found that 
forest recovery following small-scale gold mining was extremely slow 
and qualitatively inferior to regeneration following other human-caused 
disturbances (Mol and Ouboter 2003, p. 202). However, these operations 
are typically small and require very little land-clearing. Given the 
relatively small amount of land conversion for gold mining, we found no 
information indicating that deforestation via mining has impacted the 
blue-headed macaw, nor did we find any information

[[Page 63487]]

indicating this species will be impacted by mining in the future.
    In addition to deforestation, impacts to the environment from gold 
mining stem from acid mine drainage and air and water pollution from 
contaminants, such as mercury. During gold processing, mercury is 
released into sediments, waterways and the atmosphere. As parrots are 
known to use riverside clay licks, they may be at risk of mercury 
entering their systems when they ingest soil particles. Many developing 
countries have reached agreements with large gold mining companies that 
do not use mercury, but regulating small-scale, artisanal mines 
continues to be a struggle (Swenson et al. 2011, pp. 1, 5). 
Furthermore, gold miners might actively erode riverbanks, which may 
include essential clay licks used by parrots (Lee 2010, p. 12). 
However, we have no information indicating that mining has affected the 
blue-headed macaw.
    Permits for mining require an environmental impact report. Madre de 
Dios has the highest number of unapproved mining permits in Peru; 
moreover, there is little effective enforcement of unapproved permits 
or illegal miners, and therefore, little incentive to apply for a 
permit (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 2). Miners are able to use waterways 
for transportation and are capable of invading far reaches of 
communities and protected areas. Lack of funding, staff, and staff 
training makes patrolling these remote areas difficult (Swenson et al. 
2011, p. 5). Two of the three mining sites studied by Swenson et al. 
(2011, p. 4) are located less than 7 km (4.3 mi) from the Amarakaeri 
Communal Reserve and less than 70 km (43.5 mi) from Manu National Park. 
In a study of 54 national parks in Latin America, mining was considered 
a threat in approximately 20 (37 percent) of the parks, of which 11 (55 
percent) were located in Peru (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 4). Peru's newly 
created Ministry of Environment is working to control illegal mining, 
and a recent effort was made through a moratorium on new mining 
concessions (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 5).
    In addition to the major mining growth centers, there are many 
small expanding areas of mining scattered across Madre de Dios, which 
are harder to detect (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 5). Rising annual gold 
prices and an increasing number of miners setting up illegal mines may 
fragment once large areas of pristine forests. Although individual 
blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected by mining through the 
loss of food or nesting resources, we have no information that the 
species has been adversely impacted by mining. In fact, this species 
tends to benefit from patchwork clearance of forests (BLI 2011a, 
unpaginated). Furthermore, we do not have any information indicating 
the species may be impacted by future mining operations.
Conservation Programs
    A 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 logging, mining, or 
oil and gas, 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). REDD 
projects are emerging in many regions (Hajek et al. 2011, in press); 
however, we do not yet know the occurrence of these projects within the 
range of the blue-headed macaw and how successful these projects will 
be.
    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). To date, more than 670,000 ha (1.6 million ac) of 
Peru's forest have achieved FSC certification (Rodriguez and Cubas 
2010, p. 78). Bolivia has the largest area of FSC-certified tropical 
forests in the world; by the mid-2000s, Bolivia announced that 2.2 
million ha (5.4 million ac) of humid tropical forests were certified 
(Killeen et al. 2007, p. 600; Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 14). In 2004, 
Brazil announced that 1.2 million ha (2.9 million ac) of native Amazon 
forests and 1.0 million ha (2.4 million ac) of plantations were 
certified (WWF 2004, unpaginated). The FSC promotes ``the equitable 
incorporation of social and environmental considerations when decisions 
are taken to manage forests. Under FSC certification, civil and 
indigenous rights are respected, areas of high social and environmental 
conservation value are maintained or enhanced, natural forests are not 
converted, highly hazardous pesticides and genetically modified trees 
are prohibited, and harvesting must meet national laws and 
international treaties.'' Furthermore, forests that are ``FSC certified 
forest products'' are verified from the forest of origin through the 
supply chain. The FSC label ensures that the forest products used are 
from responsibly harvested and verified sources (FSC n.d., 
unpaginated).
    In 2008, Peru announced its intention to reach zero deforestation 
within just 10 years. The Peruvian government stated that more than 80 
percent of the country's primary forests could be saved or protected 
with about $20 million U.S. dollars (USD) a year from the international 
community. However, there are major obstacles to achieving this goal. 
Additionally, Peru launched in 2010 its National Program for the 
Conservation of Forests and Mitigation of Climate Changes. This program 
aims to preserve 54 million hectares (133 million acres) of the 72 
million hectares (178 million acres) of tropical forest in the Peruvian 
Amazon, although it is expected that the entire area consisting of 72 
million hectares will be included (La Cruz 2010, unpaginated). 
Similarly, Brazil announced a plan to cut deforestation rates by 70 
percent over the next 10 years with the help of international funding. 
Brazil's plan calls on foreign countries to find $20 billion USD by 
2021 (Painter 2008, unpaginated). All three countries have committed to 
protecting their forest resources in the future and have moved towards 
their goals to reach zero deforestation by certifying nearly 4 million 
ha (10 million ac) of forests.

[[Page 63488]]

There are many obstacles to overcome to reach these goals, including 
annual funding. If these programs are implemented and goals reached, 
deforestation in the Amazon will be significantly reduced.
Summary of Factor A
    It is clear that the forests of the Amazon are being deforested for 
various economic activities, and deforestation rates have been 
increasing for several decades. How a species responds to this type and 
level of habitat disturbance depends on the preferences of the 
individual species, and the distance of undisturbed rainforest near 
disturbed areas. Many parrots are not habitat specialists and thrive in 
mosaics of different successional habitats. Many species of lowland 
forest habitat seem to do relatively well in modified human 
environments, as long as a mosaic of habitats in different successional 
stages is maintained and poaching and trapping are controlled (Snyder 
et al. 2000, p. 99).
    Although we do not know the exact extent of current deforestation 
within the specific areas occupied by the blue-headed macaw, especially 
within Bolivia and Brazil where the species occurs just inside the 
countries' borders, there is no evidence that deforestation has 
impacted the blue-headed macaw. Ninety percent of this species' range 
is still forested. There is no evidence of a decline in the range or 
population and populations within Peru and Bolivia have remained 
healthy. At a minimum, the population numbers 11,500 individuals 
(including immature individuals), and this may be an underestimate as 
the entire global range has not been surveyed. Furthermore, blue-headed 
macaws at the Tambopata Research Center have been increasing since 
2000, and sightings of the blue-headed macaw in Peru have increased 
over the last 10 years. Additionally, it has been found in a wide range 
of habitats, and is slightly more common in degraded habitats than 
pristine forests. The blue-headed macaw still occurs on the outskirts 
of Puerto Maldonado, Peru, one of the areas with significant 
disturbance, suggesting that this species is not greatly affected by 
anthropogenic pressures. Species experts have even suggested that the 
blue-headed macaw may increase with the spread of degraded forests 
along rivers.
    Although there is evidence that forest habitat within the species 
range is subject to selective logging, the patchwork clearance as a 
consequence of logging may benefit the species. Furthermore, we found 
no information that selective logging has adversely impacted the 
species. Additionally, road construction and related deforestation that 
are likely to affect the region in which the blue-headed macaw occurs 
is not likely to adversely affect the species. It is possible that 
individual blue-headed macaws may be affected by economic activities 
involving deforestation, such as logging, road development, agriculture 
and cattle ranching, oil and gas exploration, and mining, through the 
loss of food or nesting resources; however, we have no evidence to 
suggest that deforestation is affecting the blue-headed macaw to a 
degree that it is affecting the status of the species. Based on the 
best scientific and commercial information available, we find that 
deforestation from various economic activities, as discussed above, is 
not adversely impacting the blue-headed macaw and has not affected the 
range or status of the species. Additionally, we do not anticipate 
significant modification to the blue-headed macaw's habitat or 
curtailment of its range due to deforestation in the foreseeable 
future. A vast amount of the species' range has remained forested 
through current rates of deforestation. Significant amounts of the 
forests within Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil have been FSC-certified, 
indicating they are subject to sustainable harvesting, which may 
improve its habitat. Furthermore, all three countries have noted their 
commitment to protecting their forests, ensuring that harvest is done 
sustainably, and each has a goal of reaching zero deforestation within 
ten years. Some of the operations within the range of the blue-headed 
macaw that contribute to deforestation have smaller footprints than 
other extractive activities and require little land clearing (e.g., oil 
and gas operations and mining). Although increased deforestation is 
anticipated in Bolivia and Brazil, these areas represent only a small 
portion of the species' range. Therefore, based on the best scientific 
and commercial information available, we find that future deforestation 
from various economic activities, as discussed above, is not a threat 
to the status of the blue-headed macaw at this time.
    We found no information suggesting that habitat loss is a current 
threat to this species or may become a threat to this species in the 
future such that it may contribute to the risk of extinction of this 
species. Therefore, based on the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is not a 
threat to the blue-headed macaw in any portion of its range now or in 
the foreseeable future.

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

    Parrots, in general, are long-lived with low reproductive rates, 
traits that make them particularly sensitive to increased mortality 
(Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711). 
Hunting of parrots is widespread, and locals are known to hunt macaws 
at clay licks, which provide easy wait and shoot opportunities, for 
food and ornamental feathers (Tobias or Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). 
Logging operations are known to contribute to increased hunting in 
areas opened by the logging roads and subsequent settlements (Lee 2010, 
p. 3; Hume et al. 2006, p. 11; Fredericksen 2003, p. 11). However, 
there are no direct reports of hunters targeting the blue-headed macaw. 
Furthermore, hunters generally target larger species of macaw for food; 
since the blue-headed macaw is a small species, it is unlikely that it 
is targeted as a food source. Additionally, the feathers of this 
species have not been observed in local handicrafts, and therefore, it 
is likely not targeted for this purpose either (Tobias or Brightsmith 
2007, p. 134).
    Trapping parrots for the bird trade has occurred since pre-European 
times, as Amerindians valued macaws, parrots, and feather ornaments as 
ritualistic and trade objects (Snyder et al. 2000, pp. 98-99). Today, 
owning a wild parrot as a pet remains socially acceptable in most 
neotropical countries, even if it is illegal (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 
99). Despite laws to protect wild parrots, the black market continues 
to supply a large part of the pet parrot trade in national and 
international markets. Illegal trade is thought to contribute to the 
threatened status of 66 parrot species worldwide, including 27 species 
in South America (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, p. 1).
    In 1981, the blue-headed macaw was listed in Appendix II of the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES). CITES is an international agreement between 
governments to ensure that the international trade of CITES-listed 
plant and animal species does not threaten 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 reexport of specimens, parts, and 
products of CITES-listed plants and animal species (also see Factor D). 
Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and

[[Page 63489]]

certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Scientific and 
Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES 2010a, unpaginated).
    In 2002, a CITES document proposed an uplisting of blue-headed 
macaw from Appendix II to Appendix I based on increasing numbers of 
blue-headed macaws in legal and illegal trade and the effects of trade 
on a species with low reproductive output (CITES 2002, pp. 1, 4-5). 
Sources cited in the document stated that the blue-headed macaw was 
offered in Brazilian markets by the hundreds, possibly originating from 
Peru, and was well known in Bolivian markets. Sources also stated that 
traders showed interest in buying more blue-headed macaws and for 
higher prices (CITES 2002, p. 4). Prices for blue-headed macaws were 
found to be very high, ranging from $300 to 12,500 USD. Prices are set 
according to demand and may be influenced by the species' rarity. 
Wright et al. (2001 in CITES 2002, p. 3) found that prices above $500 
USD were significantly related to high poaching rates. In view of the 
significant interest in blue-headed macaws by aviculturist and 
commercial breeders, increased numbers of birds kept illegally, and the 
assumed high demand based on prices, capture pressure was believed to 
likely increase and have detrimental impacts to the species' survival 
due to the species rarity, low reproductive rate, and limited 
distribution (CITES 2002, pp. 5-6).
    In January 2003, the blue-headed macaw was uplisted to Appendix I 
of CITES. An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with 
extinction whose trade is permitted only under exceptional 
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The import 
of an Appendix-I species requires the issuance of both an import and 
export permit. Import permits 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 that the 
specimen will not be used 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)). On the same day the 
blue-headed macaw was uplisted to Appendix I, the Philippines entered a 
reservation stating that it would not be bound by the provisions of 
CITES relating to trade of blue-headed macaws (CITES 2011, 
unpaginated). A reservation means that the Philippines is treated as a 
non-CITES party with respect to the species concerned. Countries with 
CITES reservations may only trade with other countries that have the 
same reservation on the same species at the next level lower, in this 
case Appendix II. If both countries do not have a reservation on that 
species, then the animal remains on Appendix I.
    Based on data obtained from United Nations Environment Programme-
World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database, 
from the time the blue-headed macaw was uplisted to CITES Appendix I in 
January 2003 through 2009, 338 specimens of this species were reported 
in international trade. Of this total, 276 were live birds, 61 
scientific specimens, and 1 body. In analyzing these reported data, 
several records appear to be over counts due to slight differences in 
the manner in which the importing and exporting countries reported 
their trade, and it is likely that the actual number of specimens of 
blue-headed macaws reported in international trade to UNEP-WCMC from 
2003 through 2009 was 312, including 252 live birds, 59 scientific 
specimens, and 1 body. Of these specimens, 58 (19 percent) were 
reportedly exported into Mexico, Belgium, and South Africa from Peru 
(UNEP-WCMC 2011, unpaginated). With the information given in the UNEP-
WCMC database, from 2003 through 2009 only 26 wild specimens of blue-
headed macaws were reported in trade, and these were non-living 
specimens traded for scientific purposes; the other 286 specimens 
reported in trade (252 live birds, 33 scientific specimens, and 1 body) 
were captive-bred or captive-born specimens.
    Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties to CITES 
adopted a process, termed the National Legislation Project, to evaluate 
whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to successfully 
implement the Treaty (CITES 2010b, pp. 1-5). In reviewing a country's 
national legislation, the CITES Secretariat evaluates factors such as 
whether a Party's domestic laws designate the responsible Scientific 
and Management Authorities, prohibit trade contrary to the requirements 
of the Convention, have penalty provisions in place for illegal trade, 
and provide for seizure of specimens that are illegally traded or 
possessed. The Governments of Peru and Brazil were determined to be in 
Category 1, which means they meet all the requirements to implement 
CITES. Bolivia was determined to be in Category 2, meaning legislation 
does not meet the requirements to implement CITES; however, Bolivia has 
submitted a CITES Legislation Plan and draft legislation to the 
Secretariat for comments (www.cites.org, SC59 Document 11, Annex p. 1). 
Generally this means that Bolivia has not completed all the 
requirements to effectively implement CITES. However, since the blue-
headed macaw is listed as an Appendix-I species under CITES, commercial 
legal international trade is very limited. Because the majority of the 
specimens of this species reported in international trade (81 percent) 
are captive-bred or captive-born and the few wild specimens reported in 
trade were scientific specimens traded for scientific purposes, we 
believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is 
not a threat to the species. In addition, Bolivia's category 2 status 
under the National Legislation Project does not appear to be impacting 
the blue-headed macaw.
    There is evidence of a large market for national and international 
parrot trade, much of which involves illegally traded birds in Peru, 
Bolivia, and Brazil (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, p. 5; Lee 2010, p. 
12; Herrera and Hennessey 2007, pp. 296-297; Tobias and Brightsmith 
2007, p. 134; CITES 2002, p. 4). One study found illegal trade of CITES 
Appendix-I and Appendix-II listed species, although the blue-headed 
macaw was not recorded (Herrera and Hennessey 2007, p. 298). In Peru, 
there are reports of trappers working unprotected clay licks the blue-
headed macaw is known to use; however, it is not known whether the 
species was targeted or if it was actually caught (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). It was thought that foreign traders 
purchased blue-headed macaws in and around towns in Peru, Bolivia, and 
Brazil with an unverified report of ``hundreds'' passing through some 
Brazilian markets (CITES 2002 in Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134), 
but this report is from before the species was listed in CITES Appendix 
I in 2003. Three recent studies on domestic parrot trade found little 
to no evidence of blue-headed macaws being traded, and certainly not by 
the hundreds; one study found one report of two birds being present in 
a single market (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, pp. 5-6; Brightsmith 
2009, pers. comm.; Herrera and Hennessey 2007, pp. 298-299). It appears 
that although there may be some evidence of blue-headed macaws in the 
illegal pet bird trade, these numbers are likely low, as there is no 
solid supporting data that this species occurs in local markets in 
large quantities (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.), and furthermore, the 
report of

[[Page 63490]]

``hundreds'' of blue-headed macaws in Brazilian markets referred to 
above occurred prior to the listing of the species in CITES Appendix I. 
What little illegal international trade may be occurring does not 
appear to have a significant impact on the blue-headed macaw, given a 
population ranging from 11,500 to 57,500 (Brightsmith 2009, pers. 
comm.).
Summary of Factor B
    We found no evidence indicating that the blue-headed macaw is 
hunted as a food source or for ornamental feathers. Although trapping 
for the pet bird trade may have occurred in large numbers, we have no 
evidence that this is currently occurring. Since the CITES Appendix-I 
listing, legal commercial international trade has been very limited. 
Furthermore, recent studies of the parrot trade in Peru, Bolivia, and 
Brazil found no evidence of this species in markets, suggesting that 
illegal trade may only be occurring in small numbers, if at all, or is 
very well hidden. In addition, we are not aware of any information 
currently available that indicates the use of this species for any 
recreational or educational purpose. According to the WCMC Trade 
Database, from 2003 through 2009, 26 specimens were traded for 
scientific purposes. Given the estimated population size of 11,500-
57,500 individuals, we find that trade for scientific purposes is 
insignificant. Based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to the blue-headed 
macaw in any portion of its range now or in the foreseeable future.

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). 
Research on diseases affecting the blue-headed macaw specifically, 
either in captivity or in the wild, is lacking. Most of the available 
research on diseases in macaws and parrots address captive-held birds; 
information on the health of macaws in the wild is scarce (Karesh et 
al. 1997, p. 368). It is not clear how prevalent diseases which are 
common in birds held in captivity affect this species in the wild. Some 
of the common diseases in macaws are discussed below.
Proventricular Dilatation Disease
    One serious disease that has been reported to infect psittacines is 
Proventricular dilatation disease (PDD), which is also known as avian 
bornavirus (ABV) or macaw wasting disease. It is a fatal disease that 
poses a serious threat to domesticated and wild parrots worldwide, 
particularly those with very small populations (Kistler et al. 2008, p. 
1; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 288). This contagious disease causes damage 
to the nerves of the upper digestive tract, so that food digestion and 
absorption are negatively affected. The disease has a 100-percent 
mortality rate in affected birds, although the exact manner of 
transmission between birds is unclear. In 2008, researchers discovered 
a genetically diverse set of novel ABVs that are thought to be the 
cause (Kistler et al. 2008, p. 1). The researchers developed diagnostic 
tests, methods of treating or preventing bornavirus infection, and 
methods for screening for the anti-bornaviral compounds (Kistler et al. 
2008, pp. 1-15).
Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease
    Psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD) has been documented in 
over 35 psittacine species, but all psittacines should be regarded as 
potentially susceptible (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 296). This viral 
disease, which originated in Australia, affects both wild and captive 
birds, causing chronic infections resulting in either feather loss or 
deformities of beak and feathers (Cameron 2007, p. 82). PBFD causes 
immunodeficiency and affects organs such as feathers, the liver, and 
brain. Suppression of the immune system can result in secondary 
infections due to other viruses, bacteria, or fungi. The disease can 
occur without obvious signs (de Kloet and de Kloet 2004, p. 2,394). 
Birds usually become infected in the nest by ingesting or inhaling 
viral particles. Infected birds develop immunity, die within a couple 
of weeks, or become chronically infected. No vaccine exists to immunize 
populations (Cameron 2007, p. 82).
Newcastle's Disease
    Newcastle's disease (ND) is a contagious and fatal viral disease 
that affects all species of birds, both domestic and wild (South Dakota 
Animal Industry Board (SD AIB) 2010, p. 2). Introduction of this 
disease to wild populations may come from infected birds in aviaries, 
although this is a low likelihood; exposure is more likely to come from 
infected domestic chickens or people carrying the disease on clothing 
and footwear (Styles et al. 2008, p. 93). ND affects the respiratory, 
nervous, and digestive systems. Symptoms include sneezing, gasping for 
air, nasal discharge, coughing, diarrhea, depression, tremors, dropping 
wings, paralysis, partial to complete drop in egg production, thin 
shelled eggs, swelling of tissue around the eyes and in the neck, and 
sudden death (SD AIB 2010, p. 2; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 300). Once in 
a population, this disease can cause severe mortality (Styles et al. 
2008, p. 93). This disease is classified as a Foreign Animal Disease in 
the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service requires that all imported birds be tested 
and quarantined for disease before entering the country. Birds 
illegally smuggled into the United States are not quarantined and, 
therefore, may introduce this disease to captive birds (SD AIB 2010, p. 
4). There is no treatment for this disease (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 
300).
Psittacosis
    Psittacosis, also known as Parrot Fever, is an infection caused by 
the bacteria Chlamydophilia psittaci. An estimated 1 percent of all 
birds in the wild are infected and act as carriers. Those that live in 
a stable environment appear to have little complications from the 
disease; however, stress, due to the loss of food source or habitat, 
will invoke the disease (Jones 2007, unpaginated). In pet birds, 
psittacosis can cause ruffled feathers, depression, diarrhea, 
respiratory problems, loss of appetite, weight loss, and even death. 
This disease can be transferred to humans and cause mild flu-like 
infections or serious pneumonia. Psittacosis can be treated with 
antibiotics (Michigan Department of Agriculture 2002, pp. 1-2).
    Although there are many diseases that could negatively affect 
macaws in captivity and in the wild, we are unaware of any information 
indicating that any of those diseases are impacting the blue-headed 
macaw at a level that may affect the status of the species as a whole 
and to the extent that it is considered a threat to the species 
(Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.; World Parrot Trust 2009, pers. comm.).
Predation
    Although the blue-headed macaw has not been recorded as the prey of 
other predators, there are various bird and mammal species found in the 
lowland forests of the Amazon that could potentially prey on macaws 
(CITES 202, p. 3). While feeding at clay licks, parrots are 
particularly vulnerable to raptors, especially those that can catch 
them in flight; eagles may be a potential predator, as other macaws 
have been observed leaving clay licks when an eagle approaches (Burger 
and Gochfeld 2003, pp. 33; CITES 2002, p. 3). Additionally, jaguars 
(Panthera onca)

[[Page 63491]]

could also prey on macaws, given the chance (Burger and Gochfeld 2003, 
pp. 33). In one study that found evidence of nest predation in tree 
cavities in Peru, the author suggested birds, such as toucans, arboreal 
mammals, such as monkeys, and possibly snakes are significant nest 
predators (Brightsmith 2005, p. 79). Although blue-headed macaws may be 
subject to predation, there is no evidence that this is occurring at a 
level that poses a threat to the species (Brightsmith 2009, pers. 
comm.; World Parrot Trust 2009, pers. comm.).
Summary of Factor C
    We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that 
indicates disease or predation poses a threat to this species. As a 
result, we find that disease and predation are not threats to the blue-
headed macaw in any portion of its range now or in the future.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Peru
    The blue-headed macaw is considered ``vulnerable'' by the Peruvian 
Government under Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG (2004, p. 276855). This 
Decree prohibits hunting, take, transport, and trade of protected 
species, except as permitted by regulation. We found that hunting and 
trade are not threats to the blue-headed macaw at this time (Factor B), 
possibly because this species may not be hunted due to its smaller 
size. In addition, this species has not been recently found in the 
domestic trade markets within its range, therefore, this regulation 
appears to be contributing to adequate protection against hunting and 
trade.
    In 2000, Peru created a new Forest and Wildlife Law (Ley Forestal y 
de Fauna Silvestre No 27308) to govern the forestland and improve 
control of wildlife trade (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, p. 2; Granoff 
2008, p. 533). This law provides a regime for effective regulation of 
efficient and productive commercial forestry. Most notably, the law 
requires management plans for all forestry-related harvesting 
activities, including long-term plans and annual operating plans, which 
are submitted to Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), the 
Peruvian government organization in charge of the protection of flora 
and fauna of the country (Granoff 2008, p. 552; WWF 2006b, 
unpaginated). However, implementation is limited by the scarce 
resources of INRENA (Indian Country Today, 2007, unpaginated).
    The Forest and Wildlife Law also regulates the commercialization of 
wild species, provides minimum requirements for their harvest, 
collection, and transportation, and establishes a maximum collection 
quota for each species from their natural environment (Gasta[ntilde]aga 
et al. 2010, p. 2). INRENA annually sets a quota for certain species, 
which is published in the government newspaper. In 2007 and 2008, there 
were seven parrot species listed for legal wildlife trade; however, 
trade in the blue-headed macaw was not permitted (Gasta[ntilde]aga et 
al. 2010, p. 2). As trade is not currently a threat to this species 
(Factor B), this regulation may contribute to adequate regulation of 
trade in this species.
    Recent studies by the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA) 
have concluded that there are approximately 5,000 laws and regulations 
directly or indirectly related to environmental protection and natural 
resource conservation in Peru. However, many of these are hindered by 
lack of resources and enforcement capabilities (Muller 2001, pp. 1-2). 
The forests of the Amazon, including forests in Peru, are being 
deforested for various economic activities, and deforestation rates 
have been increasing for several decades. In spite of this, we found 
that habitat loss as a result of deforestation has not been a threat to 
this species; therefore, it appears that although existing forest 
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate, the inadequacy of these 
mechanisms in Peru is not affecting the blue-headed macaw.
Bolivia
    The 1975 Law on Wildlife, National Parks, Hunting and Fishing 
(Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1-34) has the fundamental objective of 
protecting the country's natural resources. This law governs the 
protection, management, utilization, transportation, and selling of 
wildlife and their products; the protection of endangered species; 
habitat conservation of fauna and flora; and the declaration of 
national parks, biological reserves, refuges, and wildlife sanctuaries, 
tending to the preservation, promotion, and rational use of these 
resources (Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1-34; Environmental Law 
Alliance 2003, p. 2). Although this law designates national protection 
for all wildlife, there is no information as to the actual protections 
this confers to the blue-headed macaw. Law No. 12,301 (1975, pp. 1-34) 
also placed into public trust all national parks, reserves, refuges, 
and wildlife sanctuaries. However, there is no specific information as 
to the governmental protections afforded within the protected areas to 
either the blue-headed macaw or its habitat. Additionally, this 
regulation is very weak as it is 36 years old and the institutional 
framework has changed completely (Environmental Law Alliance 2003, p. 
2). We found that hunting and trade are not threats to the blue-headed 
macaw at this time (Factor B); therefore, this regulation may 
contribute to adequate protection against unsustainable trade of the 
species.
    Bolivia passed an overarching environmental law in 1992 (Law No. 
1,333 1992), with the intent of protecting and conserving the 
environment and natural resources and promoting sustainable development 
(Environmental Law Alliance 2003, p. 1). Article 111 of this law states 
that all persons involved in unauthorized trade, capture, and 
transportation of wild animals are subject to a 2-year prison sentence 
and a fine equivalent to 100 percent of the value of the animal 
(Herrera and Hennessey 2007, pp. 295-296). However, there is no 
specific legislation to implement this law (Environmental Law Alliance 
2003, p. 1). Nevertheless, we found that trade is not a threat to the 
blue-headed macaw at this time (Factor B); therefore, existing 
regulations may contribute to adequate protection against unsustainable 
trade.
    Before 1996, timber companies were not required to write or use 
management plans and based their harvesting on selective extraction; 
this resulted in poor forest management, resource degradation, and a 
steep reduction in timber values (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). In 
1996, Bolivia implemented a new Forestry Law (Ley Forestal No. 1700) to 
regulate the protection and sustainable use of forests and balance the 
interests of society and the economic and ecological health of the 
country (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). This law requires approved 
management plans and compliance with best management practices, 
including a 5-year forest management plan that incorporates forestry 
inventory data, timber stocking maps, and annual operation plans (Duery 
and Vlosky 2005, p. 10; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). A typical forestry 
management plan subdivides the forest into parcels; one is used each 
year in a rotational system, typically providing for a 19-year 
regeneration period (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). Additionally, the 
Deforestation and Slash-and-Burn Plan that is part of this Forestry Law 
requires a payment to the forestry office for

[[Page 63492]]

slash-and-burn activities (Locklin and Haak 2003, p. 780).
    In Bolivia, selective logging has been done at very low levels and 
with low human pressure, allowing them to remain largely intact 
(Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). Given that the species occurs just inside 
the border of Bolivia, and we found that habitat loss as a result of 
deforestation is not a threat to this species, it appears that the 
existing forest regulatory mechanisms in Bolivia may provide adequate 
protection for the blue-headed macaw.
Brazil
    In 1998, Brazil passed the Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 9605/
98). Section I of this law details crimes against wild fauna, which 
include: the killing, harassment, hunting, capturing, or use of any 
fauna species without authorization (Clayton 2011, p. 4; UNEP, n.d., 
unpaginated). Additionally, except for the State of Rio Grande do Sul, 
commercial, sport, and recreational hunting are prohibited in Brazil. 
Penalties include a jail sentence of 6 months to 1 year, and/or a fine; 
the penalty is increased by half if the crime is committed under 
certain circumstances, including against rare species or those 
considered endangered, or within a protected area. However, it is not 
considered a crime to kill an animal when it is to satisfy hunger; to 
protect agriculture, orchards, and herds if authorized; or if the 
animal has been characterized as dangerous. This law also protects 
against other crimes involving the fauna species of Brazil. With 
respect to bird species, this law prohibits inhibiting reproduction 
without authorization; modifying or destroying nests or shelters; 
selling, offering, exporting, purchasing, keeping, utilizing, or 
transporting eggs, as well as products derived from fauna species 
without authorization; and introducing species into the country without 
license. Although this law provides protection to the fauna species of 
Brazil, it is more permissive than the prior law, the Fauna Protection 
Act (Law No. 5.197/1967), which provided more severe punishments 
(Clayton 2011, p. 4). We found that hunting and trade are not threats 
to the blue-headed macaw at this time (Factor B); therefore, this 
regulation may contribute to adequate protection against trade.
    Section II of the Environmental Crimes Law details the crimes 
against flora, which include the destruction and damaging of forest 
reserves; cutting trees in forest reserves, causing fire in forests; 
extracting minerals from public forests or reserves without 
authorization; receipt of wood or vegetable products for commercial or 
industrial purposes without requesting a copy of the supplier's 
license; polluting the environment at levels which may cause damages to 
the health of human beings, or death of animals or significant 
destruction of plants; and research or extraction of mineral resources 
without authorization. Penalties vary according to the crime and may be 
increased under certain circumstances; for example, the penalty may be 
increased by one sixth to one third if the crime results in a decrease 
of natural waters, soil erosion, or modification of climatic regime 
(Clayton 2011, p. 5; UNEP, n.d., unpaginated).
    The Public Forests Management Law (Law No. 11284, 2006) was passed 
to protect and preserve forests that belong to the Federal, State, or 
local governments, with environmental, economic, and social benefits. 
This law is expected to help end illegal land occupation by delineating 
public forests (WWF 2006a, unpaginated); three management models are 
provided: creating conservation units (e.g., national forests), 
allocating forest areas for community use free of charge (e.g., forest 
settlements), and signing forest concession contracts (Patriota 2009, 
p. 615). The Brazilian government will open some forest areas under 40-
year contracts to allow logging under a sustainable development plan. 
Logging is banned in nature reserves and indigenous lands (WWF 2006a, 
unpaginated).
    In Brazil, there have been improvements in environmental 
legislation and public awareness; however, enforcement capabilities are 
lacking (Laurance et al. 2001, p. 309). The forests of the Amazon, 
including Brazil, are being deforested for various economic activities, 
and deforestation rates have been increasing for several decades. 
However, this species occurs just inside the border of Brazil and we 
found that habitat loss as a result of deforestation is not a threat to 
this species; therefore it appears that the inadequacy of existing 
forest regulatory mechanisms in Brazil is not affecting the blue-headed 
macaw.
Protected Areas
    The Peruvian national protected area system includes several 
categories of habitat protection. Habitat may be designated as any of 
the following: (1) Parque Nacional (National Park, an area managed 
mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation); (2) Santuario 
(Sanctuary, for the preservation of sites of notable natural or 
historical importance); (3) Reserva Nacional (National Reserve, for 
sustainable extraction of certain biological resources); (4) Bosque de 
Protecci[oacute]n (Protection Forest, to safeguard soils and forests, 
especially for watershed conservation); (5) Zona Reservada (Reserved 
Zone, for temporary protection while further study is under way to 
determine their importance); (6) Bosque Nacional (National Forest, to 
be managed for utilization); (7) Reserva Comunal (Communal Reserve, for 
local area use and management, with national oversight); and (8) Cotos 
de Caza (Hunting Reserve, for local use and management, with national 
oversight) (Rodr[iacute]guez and Young 2000, p. 330). National 
reserves, national forests, communal reserves, and hunting reserves are 
managed for the sustainable use of resources (IUCN 1994, p. 2). The 
designations of National Parks, Sanctuaries, and Protection Forests, 
are established by supreme decree that supersedes all other legal claim 
to the land and, thus, these areas tend to provide more habitat 
protection. All other protected areas are established by supreme 
resolution, which is viewed as a less powerful form of protection 
(Rodr[iacute]guez and Young 2000, p. 330).
    Peru has 8 national parks and 41 additional protected areas 
(Chatterjee 2009, p. 558). The blue-headed macaw has been recorded in 
at least 6 of these areas: Cordillera Azul National Park (Loreto, 
Huanco, and Ucayali); Manu National Park (Madre de Dios and Cuzco); 
Alto Pur[uacute]s Communal Reserve and National Park (Madre de Dios); 
Los Amigos Conservation Concession (Madre de Dios); Tambopata National 
Reserve (Madre de Dios); and Bahuaja-Sonene National Park (Madre de 
Dios) (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134).
    In Bolivia, habitat is protected either on the national or 
departmental level through the following designations: (1) Parque 
(Park, for strict and permanent protection of representative of 
ecosystems and provincial habitats, as well as plant and animal 
resources, along with the geographical, scenic and natural landscapes 
that contain them); (2) Santuario (Sanctuary, for the strict and 
permanent protection of sites that house endemic plants and animals 
that are threatened or in danger of extinction); (3) Monumento Natural 
(Natural Monument, to preserve areas such as those with distinctive 
natural landscapes or geologic formations, and to conserve the 
biological diversity contained therein); (4) Reserva de Vida Silvestre 
(Wildlife Reserve, for protection, management, sustainable use and 
monitoring of wildlife); (5) Area Natural de Manejo Integrado (Natural 
Area of Integrated Management, where

[[Page 63493]]

conservation of biological diversity is balanced with sustainable 
development of the local population; and (6) Reserva Natural de 
Inmovilizaci[oacute]n (``Immobilized'' Natural Reserve, a temporary (5-
year) designation for an area that requires further research before any 
official designations can be made and during which time no natural 
resource concessions can be made within the area) (Supreme Decree No. 
24,781 1997, p. 3). Within parks, sanctuaries and natural monuments, 
extraction or consumption of all resources are prohibited, except for 
``scientific research, eco-tourism, environmental education, and 
activities of subsistence of original towns, properly described and 
authorized.'' National protected areas are under the management of the 
national government, while departmental protected areas are managed at 
the department level (eLAW 2003, p. 3; Supreme Decree No. 24,781 1997, 
p. 3).
    There are 22 protected areas in Bolivia covering 24 percent of its 
territory (Byers and Israel 2008, p. vi; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). The 
blue-headed macaw has been recorded in at least two of these areas: 
Madidi National Park (La Paz) and Reserva Nacional Amazonica Manuripi-
Heath (Pando) (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134).
    There are various regulatory mechanisms (Law No. 11.516, Act No. 
7.735, Decree No. 78, Order No. 1, Act No. 6.938) in Brazil that direct 
Federal and State agencies to promote the protection of lands and that 
govern the formal establishment and management of protected areas to 
promote conservation of the country's natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, 
pp. 5-7). These mechanisms generally aim to protect endangered wildlife 
and plant species, genetic resources, overall biodiversity, and native 
ecosystems on Federal, State, and privately owned lands (e.g., Law No. 
9.985, Law No. 11.132, Resolution No. 4, Decree No. 1.922). Brazil's 
formally established protection areas were developed in 2000 and are 
categorized based on their overall management objectives. These include 
national parks, biological reserves, ecological reserves, ecological 
stations, environmental protection areas, and national forests (Rylands 
and Brandon 2005, pp. 612-618). These areas allow varying uses and 
provide varying levels of protection for specific resources (Costa 
2007, pp. 5-19). For example, Biological Reserves are restricted to a 
greater extent than the National Parks. Official uses of reserves 
include scientific study, environmental monitoring, and scientific 
education (Costa 2007, p. 9).
    There are 84 decreed protected areas within Rond[ocirc]nia, Brazil 
alone, covering 45 percent of the territory (Ribeiro et al. 2005, p. 
1). The blue-headed macaw has been recorded in one protected area, the 
Serra do Divisor National Park, in Acre (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, 
p. 134).
    In summary, the blue-headed macaw occurs in at least 10 major 
protected areas, covering a combined 110,216 km\2\ (42,554 mi\2\), or 
18.7 percent of its global range, although this does include large 
areas of unsuitable habitat within three of the protected areas (Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). In Peru, the Alto Pur[uacute]s Communal 
Reserve and National Park is surrounded by other important protected 
areas, including Manu National Park and the Tambopata Reserve and 
Bahuaja Sonene National Park; combined with Brazil's and Bolivia's 
important natural protected areas close to the border with Peru, these 
areas constitute an important protected corridor in South America 
(ParksWatch 2003, p. 17).
    Studies have shown that protected areas have been successful in 
providing protection from poaching, logging, and other forest damage, 
especially when compared to unprotected areas (Lee 2010, p. 3; Killeen 
et al. 2007, p. 603; Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1234; Asner 2005, p. 480; 
Ribeiro et al. 2005, p. 2; Gilardi and Munn 1998, p. 641). There is 
evidence of some habitat destruction within protected areas, including 
resource extraction, and information to suggest habitat destruction 
within protected areas is a potential future threat, especially when in 
close proximity to roads and subsequent settlements and agriculture and 
pasture conversion (Upper Amazon Conservancy 2010, unpaginated; 
Chatterjee 2009, p. 557; Cabieses 2009, p. 26; Killeen et al. 2007, p. 
603; Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1233; Ribeiro et al. 2005, pp. 1-2; 
ParksWatch 2005a, unpaginated; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10; CITES 2002, p. 
7).
    A number of conservation organizations have developed programs to 
support the protected areas of Peru. The Wildlife Conservation Society 
is executing a wide range of projects aimed at strengthening the 
management of Madidi National Park. This program is based on three main 
actions: (1) Park management, (2) natural resources management, and (3) 
scientific research (ParksWatch 2005a, p. 35). CARE-Bolivia has also 
implemented projects to raise local awareness on the importance of 
watershed protection and sustainable agricultural practices. 
Additionally, CARE-Bolivia and the Wildlife Conservation Society 
collaborated on the park's management plan, organized specific training 
courses for park rangers, and donated basic management equipment 
(ParksWatch 2005a, p. 38). Also, since the Tambopata Reserve and 
Bahuaja Sonene National Park was created, a series of conservation and 
research projects have been developed, including, among others, 
Rainforest Expeditions' Macaw Ecological Research Project (ParksWatch 
2002, p. 7). The projects carried out by these organizations will help 
conserve the habitat of the park and will ultimately benefit the blue-
headed macaw.
    We found no evidence that habitat destruction within protected 
areas is a threat to this species now or in the foreseeable future; 
therefore, it appears that the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms for protected areas in Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil are not 
adversely affecting the blue-headed macaw.
International Wildlife Trade
    The European Union (EU) Wildlife Trade Regulation (Council 
Regulation No. 338/97) went into effect in 1997. The purpose of this 
regulation is to protect wild animals and plants currently or likely to 
become threatened by international trade by regulating trade in these 
species (UNEP-WCMC n.d., unpaginated). The blue-headed macaw is listed 
under Appendix A (Council Regulation No. 709/2010 amending No. 338/97). 
Appendix A includes species listed under CITES Appendix I or species 
that may be in demand for utilization in the EU or for international 
trade, and which is either threatened with extinction or so rare that 
any level of trade would imperil the survival of the species (Article 
3(1)(a), (b)). Additionally, there has been an EU import suspension for 
the blue-headed macaw from Bolivia since 1986 and from Brazil since 
1988 (Article 4.6(b) (CITES 2002, p. 3; UNEP-WCMC n.d., unpaginated). 
As discussed under Factor B, we do not consider international trade to 
be a threat impacting this species. Therefore, protection under this 
Regulation is an adequate regulatory mechanism.
    The blue-headed macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES. CITES is an 
international treaty among 175 nations, including Peru, Bolivia, 
Brazil, and the United States, entered into force in 1975. In the 
United States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended. 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

[[Page 63494]]

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 reexport of 
CITES-listed animal and plant species. As discussed under Factor B, we 
do not consider international trade to be a threat impacting this 
species. Therefore, protection under this Treaty is an adequate 
regulatory mechanism.
    The import of blue-headed macaws 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 is biologically 
sustainable and is 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. 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 blue-headed macaw is not part of a 
Service-approved cooperative breeding program and does not have an 
approved management plan for wild-caught birds.
    International trade was significantly reduced during the 1990s as a 
result of tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, stricter measures 
under EU legislation, and adoption of the WBCA, along with adoption of 
national legislation (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). As discussed under 
Factor B, we found that commercial legal international trade has been 
very limited and illegal trade currently occurs in small numbers, or is 
very well hidden. Taking into consideration the restrictions under the 
EU Wildlife Trade Regulation, CITES, and WBCA, and the lack of evidence 
for this species occurring in substantial numbers in the illegal pet 
bird trade, we believe that these regulation are adequately protecting 
the species from international trade.
Summary of Factor D
    We found no evidence that hunting or trade poses threats to the 
blue-headed macaw; therefore, existing regulatory mechanisms addressing 
these activities may be providing adequate protection for this species. 
As discussed under Factor A, some deforestation, oil and gas 
exploration and extraction, mining, and infrastructure plans may occur 
in forests in Peru, and perhaps within the limited range of this 
species in Bolivia and Brazil. However, we found that habitat loss as a 
result of any of those activities is not a threat to this species in 
any portion of its range now or in the foreseeable future; therefore, 
it appears that the existing forest regulatory mechanisms throughout 
the range of this species is not adversely affecting the blue-headed 
macaw.

E. Other Natural or Man-Made Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

    We are not aware of any scientific or commercial information that 
indicate other natural or man-made factors pose a threat to this 
species. As a result, we find that other natural or man-made factors 
are not threats to the blue-headed macaw in any portion of its range 
now or in the 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 blue-
headed macaw 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 blue-headed macaw. 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.
    We evaluated the potential threats to the blue-headed macaw, 
including habitat loss, national and international trade, disease and 
predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or 
manmade factors such as climate change. We found no evidence that this 
species is being hunted. Legal international trade of this species has 
been very limited and most of the birds involved were captive-bred. We 
also found that illegal trade, disease, and predation were not threats 
to this species. We had no information on other natural or man-made 
factors on which to evaluate the effects on the blue-headed macaw.
    As discussed under Factor A, logging, illegal logging, agriculture, 
ranching, slash-and-burn activities, oil and gas exploration and 
extraction, and illegal mining are occurring in Peru, and potentially 
in the area just inside the borders of Bolivia and Brazil, and 
deforestation rates have continued to increase in those countries. The 
best available scientific and commercial information indicates that 
although these activities could affect individuals of this species, it 
does not appear that these activities are affecting the species at the 
population level. We did not find information that the extent of future 
deforestation or the potential impacts to this species will occur at a 
level that will elicit a species-level response and contribute to the 
risk of extinction of the species. All of the range countries of the 
blue-headed macaw have laws and regulations to protect the species, or 
wildlife in general, and habitat. Existing regulatory mechanisms have 
not impacted the species such that it rises to a level that it would be 
considered a threat to the continued existence of the species.
    Based on the lack of threats of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude acting on this species, we find that the blue-headed macaw is 
not in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all 
of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the blue-headed macaw as 
a threatened or endangered species is not warranted throughout all of 
its range.
    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
status of, or threats to, the blue-headed macaw or its habitat to our 
Branch of Foreign Species (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes 
available. New information will help us monitor this species and 
encourage its conservation.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having determined that the blue-headed macaw is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are 
any significant

[[Page 63495]]

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

Conclusion of 12-Month Finding

    We do not find that the blue-headed macaw is in danger of 
extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Therefore, listing the species as endangered or threatened under 
the Act is not warranted at this time. We request that you submit any 
new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the grey-
cheeked parakeet to our Endangered Species Program, Branch of Foreign 
Species (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. New information 
will help us monitor this species and encourage its conservation. If an 
emergency situation develops for the grey-cheeked parakeet or any other 
species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

II. Grey-Cheeked Parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera)

A. Species Description

    The grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhopterus synonym 
Psittacus pyrrhopterus) belongs to the family Psittacidae, and is one 
of 8 recognized species within its genus, with 17 recognized subspecies 
(Ribas et al. 2009, p. 1713; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 490; Collar 
1997; Forshaw 1989).
    This species is characteristically recognized by its distinctive 
grey-cheeks. It is also known as a pocket parrot. Adults primarily have 
green plumage with pale yellow on their under parts. The forehead is 
grey with a blue-green crown. The side of its head and chin is pale 
grey and it has a slight brown tinge on lesser and median wing-coverts. 
Its primary covert feathers are dark blue; under wing coverts and 
axillaries are orange. Its interior feathers are narrowly edged with 
yellow, and the legs are pale pink (Forshaw 1989).
    The grey-cheeked parakeet is endemic to southwestern Ecuador and 
northwestern Peru (Nores 2004, p. 1; Best et al. 1993). It occurs 
primarily in forests in a narrow dry band of habitat known as the 
Tumbesian (also known as Tumbesan) Region (Best et al. 1996 p. 69; Best 
and Kessler 1995, p. 8, 155; Parker et al. 1995, p. 202). This region 
has distinct ecological characteristics (Nores 2004, p. 149) based on 
drier climate and local terrain. The grey-cheeked parakeet prefers dry, 
deciduous forests dominated by Ceiba trichistandra (Kapok or Ceibo 
tree) (Williams and Tobias 1994 in Best et al. 1995, p. 237; IUCN 
2008g). Smaller numbers have been seen in semihumid forest as well as 
fragmented forests, arid scrubland, and semi-open agricultural land 
where remnant stands of larger trees that are suitable for nesting are 
present (Forshaw 1989, p. 531). This area is unique because it is at 
the equator; its climate is influenced by the Humboldt current, and its 
natural boundary is defined by the Pacific Coast and the Andes 
mountains (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 3). To the north and south of this 
climate zone are the Choc[oacute] wet forest and the Peruvian coastal 
desert. Three to nine months of the year are arid (Best and Kessler 
1995, p. 27). In El Ni[ntilde]o years, which occur at 3-16-year 
intervals, rainfall may be 200 times as high as a very dry year (World 
Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2007). The significant biodiversity in this region 
has been recognized for many years (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 3). 
Conservation International, WWF, and BLI all consider this region to be 
globally important due to the high level of endemic species that exist 
here.
    Although this species' potential range is estimated to be 9,300 
km\2\ (3,591 mi\2\) (BLI 2011b, p. 1), it does not occur throughout its 
potential extent of occurrence. Within this area, its actual area of 
occurrence is confined to suitable habitat, which contains areas for 
nesting, breeding, and feeding. It occurs in the lowlands, generally 
from sea level to 300 meters (984 ft), but has been observed as high as 
1,550 m (5,085 ft) in the southern part of its range (Best et al. 1992 
in Best et al. 1995, p. 241). In 1964, Brosset (1964, pp. 112-134) 
reported it as being very common in southwestern Ecuador; he described 
large flocks that were seen in the vicinity of banana plantations.
    In Ecuador, this species has been documented west of the Andes in 
the

[[Page 63496]]

Chone River district (Forshaw 1989, p. 531). In the early 2000s, it was 
observed in the areas of Achiotes, El Faique, Mangaurquillo, Manabi, 
Progreso, Guayas, Los Rios, and El Oro, and in the Sozoranga area of 
Loja (Bonaccorso et al. 2006, p. 63; Freile et al. 2004, pp. 18-19; 
Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, p. 67). In addition to its native habitat, 
this species has also been observed in urbanized areas (Ridgely and 
Greenfield 2001, p. 67). It is found in El Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon, which 
was declared a Ramsar site in 1996, and which is one of the 32 
identified wetlands in Ecuador's coastal region (Alava et al. 2007, p. 
224). It has also been observed in three protected areas in 
southwestern Ecuador: the Cerro Blanco Protected Forest (Sheets 2005, 
personal observation; Pople et al. 1996, p. 3), Manglares Churute 
Ecological Reserve (MCER), and Arenillas Military Reserve (Best et al. 
1995, p. 241), which shares a small portion of its border with Peru. 
MCER, within Guayas Province, was created in 1979 and consists of 
35,000 ha (86,487 acres (ac)) 40 km (25 mi) south of Guayaquil (Pobles 
et al. 1996, p. 3). MCER consists of mangrove stands, a salt-flat area, 
and a forested section. Cerro Blanco Reserve, within Guayas Province, 
is 2,000 ha (4,942 ac). In 1995, it was described as a small area of 
semi-evergreen forest on a ridge. It is managed by Fundaci[oacute]n 
Natura and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque. The Arenillas Military Reserve 
is 17,083 ha (42,213 ac) in area and has limited access. It is managed 
by military personnel and requires prior authorization from the 
Ministry of Defense to enter (http://www.ambiente.gov.ec, accessed June 
14, 2011).
    In northwest Peru, this species is reported to be locally common in 
lowland dry deciduous forest (Walker 2001, p. 6; Parker et al. 1995, p. 
212; Parker et al., 1982). In 1995, this species was described as being 
scarce at Campo Verde and Cotrina, Peru (Parker et al. 1995, p. 212). 
This species has been observed in the Tumbes Reserved Zone (TRZ), 
specifically at El Caucho and Quebrada Faical, with daily counts of 
between 50 and 120 individuals (Best et al. 1995, pp. 241, 242; Parker 
et al. 1995, p. 212). TRZ is a part of the Northeast Biosphere Reserve 
(NBR) which covers 231,402 ha (571,807 ac), and includes the Cerros de 
Amotape National Park and El Angulo Hunting Preserve (Walker 2001, p. 
1). In the late 1980s and historically, this species was documented as 
common in the NBR, Tumbes Department (Best et al. 1995, p. 242; 
Wiedenfeld et al. 1985, p. 313). The TRZ was formerly designated as the 
Tumbes National Forest (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 6), and was established in 
1957 to protect against overharvest of forest products (ParksWatch 
2005b, p. 12). It is somewhat more protected than it was in the past 
due to changes at the border that have resulted from the Peace 
Agreement between Peru and Ecuador, and the subsequent decrease in the 
pressures on the TRZ for natural resources due to fewer human 
inhabitants in the area (Walker 2001, p. 2).
    The most recent population estimate is prior to 1995, when it was 
estimated that there were 15,000 mature individuals of this species 
remaining in the wild, principally in Ecuador (BLI 2011b, p. 1; Best et 
al. 1995, p. 242). At that time, the population was estimated to have 
experienced approximately a 70 percent population decline over 10 years 
(BLI 2011b, p. 1). This is significant for two reasons: this estimate 
was made only shortly after the enactment of regulatory mechanisms such 
as the implementation of trade bans, and the estimate was also done 
only a few years after trade restrictions were put in place through the 
WBCA. The population information prior to 1995 does not likely 
represent the current status because regulatory measures, particularly 
the implementation of CITES and WBCA, are currently in place which have 
mitigated international trade, the major threat to this species. 
Additionally, in 1991, the European Union banned the import of this 
species (Best et al. 1995, p. 234). International trade data indicates 
that trade has dramatically decreased.
    There are several recent reports that describe this species as 
common; large flocks have recently been observed in many areas within 
its range (WorldLand Trust 2011, p. 2; Woods 2010, p. 34; Van den 
Schoor 2007, p. 12; Elwonger et al. 2004, pp. 3, 20). A local report 
(2007) documented this species in Guayas in the Reserva Ecologica 
Manglares-Churute (http://www.xeno-canto.org, Accessed September 28, 
2011). It is consistently seen in flocks on birding trips (Denton 2009; 
Coopmans et al., 2006; Coopmans 2005) in Southern Ecuador. In Cerro 
Blanco Protected Forest (BPCB), which is 14 km (8.7 mi) west of 
Guayaquil, Ecuador, this species was described as abundant in 1996, 
with flocks of up to 40 observed (Pople et al. 1996, p. 2). This area 
is owned by La Cemento Nacional, Ecuador's national cement company, but 
the reserve has been managed by the NGO Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque 
since 1993 (Pople 1996, p. 1). In 1996, this species was also observed 
in another area 25 km (15.5 mi) northwest of BPCB consisting of 600 ha 
(1,483 ac) known as Hacienda Gonzalez, also owned by La Cemento 
Nacional, that was established as a forest reserve. This species was 
described as not as abundant in this reserve as in BPCB (Pople 1996, p. 
2). However, as of 2000, it was reported to be still locally common in 
suitable habitat remnants within its range (Juniper and Parr 1998 in 
BLI 2011b, p. 1).
    Additionally, various bird surveys are conducted periodically in 
Peru and Ecuador to determine presence and absence in areas, and to 
conduct counts of birds observed (Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12; Elwonger 
et al. 2004, p. 20; Walker 2001, p. 5). In 2001, a birding trip to the 
TRZ encountered groups of between 5 and 30 of this species and 
described the occurrence of this species as being common (Walker 2001, 
p. 5). This species was also described as being fairly common during a 
birding trip in the Quebrada Faical area of the TRZ in November and 
December 2004 (Elwonger et al. 2004, pp. 3, 20). In 2006, over 60 birds 
were observed in the wild (Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12). Although there 
is no current estimate of this species' population size, there are 
several recent reports describing this species as common; large flocks 
have recently been observed in many areas within its range (WorldLand 
Trust 2011, p. 2; Woods 2010, p. 34; Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12; 
Elwonger et al. 2004, pp. 3, 20; Denton 2009; Coopmans et al., 2006; 
Coopmans 2005). It is commonly found in at least four reserves in 
Ecuador, and one in Peru. In 2003 and 2007, it was documented in Loja, 
Ecuador, where it had been described as scarce during 1990-1991 surveys 
(Spencer, pers. comm.; Williams and Tobias 1994 in Best et al 1995, p. 
242). An additional consideration in their population is their larger 
clutch size. Because they generally lay between 4-6 eggs (http://www.greycheekparakeet.com/Genus_brotogeris.html, accessed August 22, 
2011), they have a higher reproductive potential than those species 
that have a clutch size of 1-2 eggs.
    Unlike other species within the Brotogeris genus, the grey-cheeked 
Parakeet does not generally congregate in large flocks. Flocks of 4 to 
10 birds normally are observed (Freile et al. 2004), and they will 
sometimes flock with other species (Best et al. 1995, p. 243). 
Brotogeris species primarily nest higher in the canopy (Brightsmith 
2000, p. 529). They lay between 4 and 6 eggs, with 5 eggs usually 
observed (Arndt 1986 in Best et al. 1986, p. 243). Their average life 
span is thought to be

[[Page 63497]]

approximately 15 years (Brouwer et al. 2000, pp. 299-316).
    Because parrots feed primarily on fruits and flowers, they are 
linked to the fruiting and flowering patterns of trees. It is thought 
to be a seasonal migrant, based on food availability (Parker et al. 
1995, p. 212). This species is a food generalist, consuming petals, 
seeds, flowers, and fruits, particularly bananas (Juniper and Parr 
1998, p. 490). Fluctuations in abundance and availability of food 
sources may change this species' diet, resulting in movements to areas 
with greater food availability, and influencing local seasonal patterns 
of bird abundance (Lee 2010, p. 7; Brightsmith 2006, p. 2; Renton 2002, 
p. 17; Cowen undated, pp. 5, 23).
    This species exhibits preference for a variety of nesting 
substrates, but primarily nests in tree cavities (Juniper and Parr 
1998, p. 490; Forshaw 1989, p. 532; Berg in litt. in Best et al. 1985, 
p. 243). It prefers larger trees with larger potential cavity size for 
its nests. The grey-cheeked parakeet is known to form nests in arboreal 
termite nests (termateria) (Brightsmith 2000, p. 530). Termites do not 
seem to be disturbed by avian nesting behavior (Brightsmith 2000, p. 
531; Harris 1985 in Best et al. 1985, p. 243). The species has also 
been observed laying eggs on decaying wood and moist moss in hollow 
tree limbs and trunks (Harris 1985 in Best et al. 1985, p. 243). It 
shows preference for particular tree species, such as: Erythrina (coral 
erythrina), Bombax (cotton tree), Chorisa or Ceiba (silk-floss), 
Cavanillesia platanifolia (macondo, cuipo, or hamel[iacute]), Ficus 
(fig), and Cecropia (trumpet tree) (Parker et al. 1995, p. 212; Best et 
al. 1985, p. 243).

Conservation Status

    This species is listed as endangered by the IUCN. This 
categorization was primarily based on rapid rates of population decline 
caused by past trapping for the pet trade (IUCN 2011, p. 1). IUCN's 
website states that ``this species qualifies as endangered because it 
[was] affected by very rapid rates of population decline caused by 
trapping for the cagebird trade, plus habitat loss. Future population 
declines are projected to be slower, but still a serious cause for 
concern.'' However, this is primarily based on information compiled by 
Birdlife International, which relies heaviliy on information from 
before 1995. Note that IUCN rankings do not confer any actual 
protection or management. This species has been listed in Appendix II 
of CITES since 1981; it is listed on Appendix I of the Convention on 
Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention); and it is protected by the 
WBCA. It is listed as vulnerable in Peru (Peru Lista oficial del 
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales 2011, p. 2; Supreme Decree No. 
034-2004-AG 2004, p. 276855), and it is also considered vulnerable by 
the Ecuador Government (Decree No. 3,516 of 2003; Unified Text of the 
Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of Environment (EcoLex 2003b, pp. 
1-2 and 34). Additionally, in 1991, the European Union (EU) banned the 
import of B. pyrrhopterus from Peru (Best et al. 1995, p. 234). The EU 
ban and the implementation of the WBCA effectively halted the 
international trade in this species, which was the largest driver of 
its population decline (BLI 2011, p. 1 ; Best et al. 1995, pp. 234-
235).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Grey-Cheeked Parakeet

    Potential factors that were suggested to affect the species or its 
habitat or range are evaluated in this section, including: (1) Trapping 
for the pet trade; (2) habitat destruction, primarily through logging, 
conversion to agricultural areas, and gravel extraction; (3) disease or 
predation; and (4) El Ni[ntilde]o events. Information pertaining to the 
grey-cheeked parakeet in relation to the five factors provided in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In making these 
findings, information pertaining to each species in relation to the 
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. 
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, we 
must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to 
evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that 
causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor 
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and 
during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant a 
threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to 
the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants 
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the 
Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a species 
negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species 
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to 
suggest that the potential threat has the capacity (i.e., it should be 
of sufficient magnitude and extent) to affect the species' status such 
that it meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.

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

    Habitat loss was indicated to be a factor affecting this species 
(BLI 2011, p. 1). Although habitat loss can be one of the most 
significant threats to wildlife, particularly in developing countries, 
the best available information does not indicate that habitat loss is 
negatively affecting this species as discussed below. This species 
exists primarily in southwest Ecuador and northwest Peru 
(Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 1; BLI 2011, p. 1; Alava et al. 2007; 
p. 1; Bonaccorso et al. 2007, p. 61). In Peru, at the border of Peru 
and Ecuador, this species exists primarily in a protected area, the 
Tumbes Reserved Zone (TRZ). Forms of deforestation occur in and around 
the TRZ and include timber extraction, gravel extraction, encroachment, 
honey harvest, and roads (ParksWatch 2005b, pp. 8-9, 12). In addition, 
the park boundaries have not been clearly described or effectively 
protected, and people have established crops in the park. Land titles 
and ownership have also been disputed (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 10).
    The activities described above have occurred in the Tumbesian 
Region since Peru and Ecuador were colonized; and the region has 
undergone many changes. In 1957, a total of 75,102 ha (185,581 ac) were 
designated as a national forest (now known as the TRZ) in order to 
provide some protections to the resources in this area. Significant 
changes occurred particularly in the 1980s when both Peru and Ecuador 
experienced economic problems. The transfer of the presidency in 1985 
was Peru's first transfer of power from one democratically elected 
leader to another in 40 years. During the early 1980s, Peru experienced 
inflation, economic hardship, and terrorism (U.S. State Department 
2011, p. 3), all of which had significant implications with respect to 
habitat degradation and deforestation. Overall, however, the TRZ has 
for the most part remained unaltered (ParksWatch 2005, p. 3).
    Species respond differently to habitat fragmentation (Blanchet et 
al. 2010, p. 8). Deforestation is generally a process of conversion of 
forests into a matrix consisting of patches of remaining forest at 
various stages of degradation and remaining timber, agricultural lands, 
urban areas, and pastures for grazing (Turner 1996, p. 200). Various 
studies have been conducted in order to try to quantify effects of 
habitat loss and fragmentation (Lees and Perez 2006, p. 206; Fahrig 
2003, p. 487; Debinski and Holt 2000, p. 342; Brooks et al. 1999a,

[[Page 63498]]

p. 211; Fahrig 1997, p. 603; Turner 1996, p. 200). However, if 
selective logging is well managed, this practice can mimic natural 
disturbances, and many species can persist in logged forests or they 
can recolonize harvested areas from nearby unlogged patches (Putz et 
al. 2008, p. 1427; Pe[ntilde]a-Carlos et al. 2008, p. 1458; Laurance 
1999, p. 114). Some studies have found that the impact on certain 
wildlife species from logging is minimal (Fredericksen and Putz 2003, 
p. 1445). Some generalist species, such as the grey-cheeked parakeet, 
can successfully adapt to changes in habitat particularly if they have 
varied diets. Although this species is endemic to Peru and Ecuador, it 
has shown it can persist in altered habitats and is common within 
several reserves throughout its range. Not only does this species 
exhibit success in using altered habitats, its population appears to be 
increasing in some parts of its range (WorldLand Trust (WLT) 2011, p. 
2). WLT reports that it is increasing locally in a new reserve, 
Buenaventura, which is in the foothills of the Andes in El Oro 
province, southwestern Ecuador (2011, pp. 1-2).

Peru

    Although a permanent logging ban was enacted in the TRZ in 1974, it 
was reported that wood was being illegally harvested from the TRZ, 
processed at a hardwood floor factory in Zarumilla Department, and 
being exported to Ecuador (ParksWatch 2005b, pp. 12, 14). ParksWatch 
(2005, p. 15) reported that people come from the cities of Tumbes, 
Cerro Blanco, and Zarumilla to harvest wood such as trumpet trees 
(Tabebuia sp.), which is a species used for parquet floors. Frequently 
these illegal harvesters cross the border from Ecuador (ParksWatch 
2005b, p. 4). Most of these trucks come through El Tutumo, allegedly 
because the Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA, 
translated as the National Institute of Natural Resources) control 
posts were often not staffed, and the illegal timber harvesters took 
advantage of their absence (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 14). These problems 
were intensified by lack of security and coordination (ParksWatch 2005, 
p. 3). Despite these problems this species is described in its range as 
being common. Current birding trips to the TRZ encounter this species 
frequently (Elwonger 2004, p. 6), and there is no indication that 
logging affects this species such that it is a threat to the species 
overall.
Gravel extraction
    ParksWatch reported that, as of 2003, construction materials such 
as sand, rocks, and gravel were regularly extracted from La Angostura 
Creek which is part of the buffer zone of TRZ (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 
16). The heavy machinery associated with the gravel pits also has 
secondary impacts (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 16). These impacts include 
compaction of soil by the trucks, which can cause hydrologic changes, 
damage to wildlife and plants, erosion, and increased recovery time for 
vegetation communities. However, there is no indication that this 
activity affects this species.
Roads
    Illegal activities can increase with the construction of roads, 
leading to increased access by humans (Fimbel et al. 2001 in Lee 2010, 
p. 3). Roads are planned by all levels of government and may encourage 
legal and illegal activities such as agriculture, cattle ranching, 
poaching, or logging (Nature and Culture International (NCI 2011, p. 
1)). However, roads in the TRZ were destroyed during the El Ni[ntilde]o 
event of 1997-1998, and as of 2001, there were no plans to rebuild them 
(Walker 2001, p. 2). This lack of road access minimizes human entry 
into the species' habitat. In addition, the human population density in 
this area is low--there are two communities consisting of approximately 
330 people (ParksWatch 2005, p. 9), and there is no evidence to suggest 
that roads used for gravel extraction are negatively affecting the 
species.
Honey Harvest
    Within the TRZ, detrimental practices of honey harvesting occur 
(ParksWatch 2005b, p. 18), which can further degrade habitat. Bees 
generally have positive ecosystem effects--they pollinate native 
species and they contribute to the biodiversity of ecosystems such as 
the TRZ (Kearns et al. 1998, pp. 83, 90; Pearson and Dressler 1985, p. 
38). However, due to the demand for honey, non-native bee colonies 
(which are aggressive--Apis melifera for example) are being established 
(ParksWatch 2005b, p. 18). Non-native bees often outcompete native bees 
(Kearns et al. 1998, p. 93), which have a vital role in ecosystems. 
Some bees within the Centris genus (which are likely native to this 
region) use decaying wood as habitat (Kearns et al. 1998, p. 90). 
Decaying wood is also used by the grey-cheeked parakeet as nesting 
substrate. The use of decayed wood by bees may discourage the grey-
cheeked parakeet from using it as nesting substrate. Additionally, in 
order to obtain honey, some harvesters may chop down grey-cheeked 
parakeet nesting trees, which contributes to habitat degradation. The 
practice of honey harvesting may affect individual birds; however, 
there is no evidence that this practice occurs to an extent that it is 
a threat to the species or is likely to occur in the future.

Ecuador

    There is less information available with respect to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the grey-
cheeked parakeet's habitat or range in Ecuador. We know that this 
species is observed regularly in southwest Ecuador (Woods 2010, p. 34; 
Bonaccorso et al. 2007, p. 64, Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12). It has been 
documented in the areas of Achiotes, El Faique, and Progreso and Jorupe 
reserve, Macar[aacute], Loja province, Buenaventura Reserve, El Oro 
Province, and Cerro Blanco Reserva, Guayas. There are several accounts 
of this species being documented between the early 2000s and 2011 
(Bonaccorso 2007, p. 64; http://www.xeno-canto.org, 
www.avesecuador.com, http://ibc.lynxeds.com/species/grey-cheeked-parakeet-brotogeris-pyrrhopterus, all accessed August 22, 2011). Flocks 
of up to 12 birds have been observed recently; one group of 60 was 
observed in 2006 (Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12). A recent report 
indicated that in El Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon, Ecuador, cattle ranching, 
deforestation, agriculture development (rice crops and farms) may be 
affecting the species' habitat (Alava et al. 2007, p. 224). However, 
this species is a habitat generalist that seems to persist in altered 
habitat, and it is frequently observed on birding trips in Ecuador 
(Greenfield 2011, p. 1; Woods 2010, p. 34; Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12).
    Additionally, there is no recent information on forest cover (Food 
and Agriculture Organization 2011, accessed June 17, 2011). Various 
estimates indicate that around 50 percent of Ecuador's land area is 
covered with forests (about 12 million ha (29.6 million ac)) (Sierra et 
al. 1999, p. 135; STCP Engenharia de Projetos Ltda. (STCP) 2006, 
unpaginated). However, in Ecuador's Tumbesian Region, 5,600 km\2\ 
(2,162 mi\2\) are designated as protected forests. Of these, 25 percent 
of this area retains the original composition of species (Bonaccorso et 
al. 2007, p. 64). Bonaccorso et al. (2007, p. 64) also concluded that 
all of the areas where the grey-cheeked parakeet was observed had 
relatively extensive forest based on satellite imagery. Although 
southwestern Ecuador is densely populated, habitat has been reserved 
for wildlife (such as Jorupe Reserve, Buenaventura Reserve, and Cerro 
Blanco Reserve), and this species

[[Page 63499]]

appears to remain common in these protected areas.
    The Ecuadorian government recognizes 31 different legal categories 
of protected lands (e.g., national parks, biological reserves, geo-
botanical reserves, bird reserves, wildlife reserves, etc.) (see Factor 
D). As of 2006, the amount of protected land (both forested and non-
forested) in Ecuador totals approximately 4.67 million ha (11.5 million 
ac) (ITTO 2006, p. 228). As of 2006, 38 percent of these lands had 
appropriate conservation measures in place to be considered protected 
areas according to international standards (i.e., areas that are 
managed for scientific study or wilderness protection, for ecosystem 
protection and recreation, for conservation of specific natural 
features, or for conservation through management intervention). At that 
time, 11 percent had management plans (ITTO 2006, p. 228).
    Additionally, since 2006, other factors have occurred that are 
improving the quality of the habitat in this species' range. Ecotourism 
is occurring in areas where this species occurs, which is bringing 
awareness and funding for conservation projects. The success of 
ecotourism and land protection has been demonstrated in the past, 
particularly in Ecuador (Wunder 1999, p. 18). Ecotourism is 
characterized by small groups working in remote locations that have not 
yet been largely affected by commercialization (Lindsay 2003, p. 2) 
Ecotourism is an opportunity to preserve ecosystems and biological 
diversity by generating income to support conservation and research 
efforts. Ecotourism fees provide a mechanism for long-term protection 
of the land and its resources. In addition, NGOs are involved in 
working with Ecuador's protected areas. Fundaci[oacute]n Jocotoco is a 
key player in Ecuadorian conservation and ecotourism; it was 
established to protect areas that are important for the conservation of 
endangered birds and their habitats. Some NGOs such as Fundaci[oacute]n 
Jocotoco are buying additional land that will be protected in southern 
Ecuador (www.worldlandtrust.org/projects/ecuador-reserves, accessed 
September 14, 2011).
    Although within this species' existing range some habitat has 
decreased in the past, since that time both the Ecuador and Peruvian 
have formally protected this species' habitat (Bonaccorso et al. 2006, 
p. 61). Some habitat loss, conversion to other uses, and degradation 
within some parts of the grey-cheeked parakeet's range occurs, but we 
do not have information as to the extent of degradation (ParksWatch 
2005b, pp. 9, 12). Studies have found that conditions inside the parks 
compared with the surrounding areas were in significantly better 
condition than their surrounding areas (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). In 
40 percent of parks, land that had formerly been under cultivation and 
that was incorporated into park boundaries had recovered. This 
subsequently led to an actual increase in vegetative cover. The study 
found that 83 percent of parks were successful at mitigating 
encroachment (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). This was confirmed in a more 
recent study that found that forests in conservation units were four 
times better at protecting against deforestation than unprotected areas 
(Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1235). In further support, ParksWatch (2005, 
p. 3) reports that the forests of TRZ have remained unaltered for 
centuries and have become a wildlife refuge. Additionally, both Ecuador 
and Peru are implementing policies and actions to combat deforestation 
and habitat degradation (refer to Factor D) and this will continue into 
the future.
    Since the Peace Accord between Peru and Ecuador was signed in 1998, 
the habitat has experienced dramatic changes in the TRZ (Walker 2001, 
p. 2). The Peace Accord between Peru and Ecuador was to resolve border 
differences that had sparked violent confrontations. Prior to 1988, 
military troops were based at El Caucho near Quebrada Faical, Peru. 
Apparently, hunting supplemented the diet of the troops, and since the 
Peace Accord, many game species have returned and have become more 
prevalent according to local communities (Walker 2001, p. 2). These 
species likely play a significant role in the grey-cheeked parakeet's 
ecosystem; they may serve to distribute seeds, contribute to the 
quality of leaf fodder, or other roles that are not as evident (Estes 
et al. 2011, p. 301). As of 2001, the former military posts are only 
manned by two Peruvian border police, and although the guards continue 
to supplement their diets with hunting, the pressure is less severe on 
typical game species (Walker 2001, p. 2). In 2001, the quality of 
habitat on the Peruvian side of this border was characterized as 
excellent and improving. On the Ecuadorian side, habitat was described 
as more inhabited by humans and having limited suitable habitat--cattle 
and towns had replaced forested areas (Walker 2001, p. 2). Despite the 
increase in human inhabitants in this area, this species exhibit 
success in using altered habitat and it exists in protected areas where 
ecotourism and environmental education is prevalent. The grey-cheeked 
parakeet is commonly seen in reserves and protected areas, and in some 
cases there are anecdotal reports that it is actually increasing in 
population (WLT 2011, p. 2).
Conservation Programs
    The biodiversity of the southern Ecuadorian area is recognized by 
the government; and the link between ecotourism and conservation has 
strengthened in the past decade. In 1999, a case study about ecotourism 
focusing on Ecuador was published that highlighted the link between 
income from ecotourism and forest conservation (Wunder 1999, p. 1). 
Since 2001, many efforts have been initiated to protect, conserve, and 
improve habitat in this species' range. These activities are achieved 
through ecotourism, environmental education, and other projects. Land 
is being purchased to designate formally as reserves (http://www.wanconservancy.org, accessed September 14, 2011). Additionally, the 
United States pledged $40 million for the Peru-Ecuador border 
integration project (U.S. State Department 2011b, p. 7) and another $4 
million to support Peruvian and Ecuadorian de-mining efforts along 
their common border (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35762.htm, 
accessed June 10, 2011). The presence of fewer military troops is 
alleviating pressure on the TRZ. All of these activities are likely to 
reduce any impacts to species and habitat along the border.
    Many collaborative and innovative conservation projects to conserve 
land have occurred recently. Several NGOs such as Birdlife 
International, WorldLand Trust, Nature and Culture International, and 
local organizations such as Fundaci[oacute]n EcoCiencia, Loro Parque 
Fundacion, ProNaturaleza, and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque, are working 
to protect areas in Tumbesian Ecuador. Fundaci[oacute]n EcoCiencia's 
mission is to conserve biological diversity through scientific 
research, recovery of traditional knowledge, and environmental 
education. The Foundation was created in 1989 and has six program 
areas: Biodiversity Research and Monitoring; Environmental and 
Conservation Training Capacity; Natural Resources Management, 
Environmental Policies; and Information and Environmental Economy. This 
NGO has contributed towards research of the grey-cheeked parakeet. The 
Loro Parque Fundaci[oacute]n (LPF) is headquartered in Loro Parque, 
Tenerife, Spain, and works to conserve threatened parrot species and 
their habitats, through education, applied research, responsible 
breeding

[[Page 63500]]

programs, and community-based conservation activities that use these 
species as ambassadors for nature. LPF has also contributed funding 
towards projects that involved the grey-cheeked parakeet. ProNaturaleza 
(Peruvian Foundation for the Nature Conservancy) was created in 1984. 
It is dedicated to the conservation and preservation of Peru's 
environment, particularly sustainable use of the natural resources. 
ProNaturaleza has been involved in the protection of the TRZ by 
promoting local involvement, establishment of agreements between 
national and international organizations, restoration of mangrove 
ecosystems, regulation of extractive activities, and environmental 
education since 1988 (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 7). In addition to habitat 
protections in place for this species, it also benefits through 
conservation efforts by these NGOs.
    The World Land Trust and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque are working in 
the Cerro Blanco Reserve area with local communities, focusing on 
Puerto Hondo, where young local people, with guidance and training from 
Foundation staff, lead tourists on guided canoe trips through a rich 
mangrove estuary (http://www.wlt.org, accessed June 15, 2011). Between 
2006 and 2010 some 235 hectares (581 ac) of degraded lands have been 
reforested with over 250,000 saplings of 30 native species. In 2004 an 
environment education centre was constructed for use by the local 
community, and a children's ecology club runs weekly activities. A 
community park warden program is building local awareness for this 
unique reserve and its wildlife. WLT and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque 
are seeking to expand the Cerro Blanco Reserve through additional land 
purchase. This includes both unprotected and critically threatened 
forest habitat near the existing reserve, as well as land that has been 
deforested but can be replanted.
    International and local NGOs are also actively involved in working 
towards forest protection. Several reserves have been established. 
Fundaci[oacute]n Jocotoco, an Ecuadorian organization established to 
protect land for the conservation of Ecuador's endangered birds such as 
the grey-cheeked parakeet, buys lands and manages them as private 
ecological reserves. Ecotourism activities, particularly focusing on 
birding expeditions, in the Tumbesian region are abundant. Many of the 
ecotourism companies advertise the grey-cheeked parakeet as an 
ecotourism draw (Woods 2010, p. 34; Van den Schoor 2007, p. 13; 
Elwonger et al. 2004, pp. 3, 20). All of these efforts are likely to 
have a significant positive effect on grey-cheeked parakeet habitat, 
particularly in the absence of the international pet trade, which was 
the greatest threat to the species prior to the 1990s. New reserves are 
being created within this species range (WLT 2011, p. 1), and its 
population has increased in at least one reserve, Buenaventura (WLT 
2011, p. 2). Ecotourism generates income in local communities, 
environmental education programs conducted by NGOs increase awareness.
    These and other NGOs have been involved in some form of protection 
of this species' habitat for many years and are likely to be involved 
in the future. Although these partnerships and conservation activities 
are discretionary and not regulatory mechanisms; they are having 
positive effects on this species and its habitat by providing data 
through scientific research, environmental education, and community-
based conservation programs; and they partner with both the governments 
of Peru and Ecuador in carrying out their activities.
    The governments of Ecuador and Peru are also investing in 
reforestation efforts. Despite no laws existing in Peru that require 
reforestation activities, Peru is implementing reforestation projects, 
in part through carbon credits. Peru recently implemented its National 
Reforestation Plan. One aspect of this plan is to convert degraded 
lands back to natural habitat by planting native species. Although 
there is some indication that there may be insufficient funds for full 
implementation (Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) 
2010, p. 7), this type of reforestation is a priority activity in the 
plan, especially in rural areas (National Reforestation Plan 2005, p. 
2). In 2008, Ecuador also implemented a national forest conservation 
plan, called Programa Socio Bosque, in order to conserve over 5 million 
ha (12.4 million ac) of forest (Conservation International 2008, p. 1).
Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
    In connection with the National Reforestation Project, Ecuador and 
Peru are working towards reducing emissions from deforestation and 
forest degradation by using a concept of reducing emissions from 
deforestation and forest degradation (termed REDD) to protect forested 
areas (CarbonTree.org, http://www.climate-standards.org; http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD, accessed May 16, 2011). REDD creates incentives 
through carbon credits which promote reforestation.
    The Government of Ecuador implemented the REDD program through the 
Ministry of Environment to stem the current rate of deforestation in 
Ecuador (1.46 percent per year), thereby reducing deforestation (http://www.un-redd.org, accessed June 17, 2011). In 2008, the Socio Bosque 
Program (PSB) was launched, providing economic incentives to land 
owners such as indigenous communities, who voluntarily protect their 
forests. Goals of Socio Bosque include decreasing deforestation and the 
resulting production of greenhouse gases, and preserving native forests 
and native ecosystems in part by providing needed financial resources 
to people in rural areas. Though the program is still in its early 
stages, its inception implies a commitment by the Ecuadorian government 
to protect its natural resources, initiate reforestation programs, and 
protect habitat for species such as the grey-cheeked parakeet.
    Additionally, in March 2011, the 8,795 ha (21,730 ac) Angostura-
Faical Regional Conservation Area, in the Tumbes Department, was 
protected by presidential decree as a carbon offset project. This was 
in cooperation with the Regional Government of Tumbes and two 
nongovernmental organizations: The Carbon Tree Conservation Fund, and 
Nature and Culture International (NCI). The park, which is 
approximately 20 km (12 mi) north of the TRZ, had been primarily 
threatened by an advancing agricultural frontier and degradation by 
selective illegal logging. Approximately 65 percent of Ecuador's native 
forests are owned by indigenous communities (Palacios 2005 in 
H[uuml]benthal et al. 2010, p. 4). Because one aspect is to create 
sustainable livelihoods (alternatives to unsustainable use of forested 
areas) for indigenous communities and is within this species' range, 
this project is likely to have a positive impact on this species' 
habitat.
Summary of Factor A
    The grey-cheeked parakeet, although native to a relatively small 
area, has been documented in a wide range of habitat types such as 
disturbed humid forest, evergreen forest, deciduous Ceiba trichistandra 
forest and scrub, arid scrubland, and semi-open agricultural land (Best 
et al 1995, p. 243). Land use changes have the potential to cause 
forest fragmentation and studies have shown that over time that some 
resident bird diversity declines within forest fragments (Turner 1996, 
p. 202). However, other studies have indicated that some species, 
particularly smaller species such as the grey-cheeked parakeet, are 
able to adapt to habitat changes (Ibarra-Macias et al. 2011, p.

[[Page 63501]]

703; Moore et al. 2008, p. 961). Timber extraction, gravel extraction, 
encroachment, honey harvest, roads, or other forms of deforestation 
occur in some areas of grey-cheeked parakeet range; however, there is 
no indication that it is impacting this species at the population 
level. The range countries are working to combat deforestation. Recent 
commitments by both countries to stem deforestation under the REDD 
program indicate a continued commitment to protect forest habitat, 
including that utilized by the grey-cheeked parakeet. Both governments' 
economies are fairly strong, which has a positive correlation with 
wildlife conservation (Davies et al. 2006, p. 2130). The protected 
areas in which this species occurs both in Peru and Ecuador offer 
safeguards from development to populations of grey-cheeked parakeet in 
addition to the species persisting in altered habitat.
    This species is commonly seen throughout its range, in groups of 
12-60 birds (Woods 2010, p. 12; Van den Schoor 2007, p. 12). Although 
some of its habitat may be affected by deforestation, this species 
appears not to be adversely affected and it can persist in altered 
habitats (Best et al 1995, p. 243), including urban environments. This 
species occurs in several protected areas. Of these, Cerro Blanco 
Protection Forest, Ecuador, and Tumbes Reserved Zone, Peru, are 
particularly important, with recent daily counts of over 50 individuals 
having been observed. This species is observed regularly on birding 
trips; and it appears to be common within its range in Ecuador's 
protected reserves. The governments of Ecuador and Peru are both 
working on reforestation initiatives and this is likely to continue 
into the future. NGOs are purchasing and preserving lands. Local 
ecotourism companies promote conservation of the species and its 
habitat. They advertise this charismatic species to draw people to 
these areas. Additionally, since the pressure of poaching for the 
international pet trade has been alleviated due to restrictions put in 
place in the 1980s and 1990s, grey-cheeked parakeets are commonly 
observed in the wild and populations appear to be increasing (WLT 2011, 
pp. 1-2). Though individual grey-cheeked parakeets may be affected by 
some of these activities, there is no evidence to indicate that the 
grey-cheeked parakeet is negatively impacted at the population level. 
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is not a threat to the 
grey-cheeked parakeet in any portion of its range now or in the future.

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

Pet Trade
    The grey-cheeked parakeet has always been a popular pet in part 
because of its ability to mimic human voices (Feigelstock 2009, p. 3). 
In Peru and Ecuador, it is common to have a parrot as a pet (Bergman 
2009, p. 2; Williams and Tobias 1994 in Best et al. 1995, p. 244). 
Illegal bird trade (the uncontrolled selling of bird species) is common 
in markets and street vendors in both countries (Bergman 2009, pp. 1-5; 
Alava et al. 2007, p. 230; Gonzalez 2003, p. 438; Best et al. 1995, pp. 
233-250). Unlike in the United States and the European Union, the 
origin of many pet birds in Latin America is from the wild, and the 
practice of poaching for the domestic pet trade, while it is less 
common, continues in Peru and Ecuador (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, 
pp. 79-80; Weston and Memon 2009, pp. 77, 79, 82; Gonzalez 2003, p. 
438). Several studies have investigated the harvesting, local trade, 
and conservation of parrots in northeastern Peru and Ecuador. Despite 
the local trade in this species, discussed below, the primary factor 
contributing to its decline was the massive international trade in this 
species, which has been effectively halted through regulatory 
mechanisms.
    In the early 1970s, Ecuador and Peru banned the export of wildlife. 
In the late 1970s, Peru lifted the moratorium (Fuller et al. 1987 in 
Best et al. 1995, p. 234). By 1983, Ecuador had restricted exports of 
wildlife and Peru had implemented quotas for wildlife exports (Fuller 
et al. 1987, p. 289). However, even in 1987, this species was found in 
markets in Lima, Peru, and sold for $10-$12 USD each (Plowden 1987 in 
Best et al. 1995, p. 244). Between 1984 and 1988 (prior to the 
enactment of the WBCA in 1992), approximately 42,000 live grey-cheeked 
parakeets were reported to have been imported into the United States 
(UNEP-WCMC, accessed May 3, 2011; Mulliken and Thomsen 1990 in Parker 
et al. 1995, p. 213). In 1989, the trade decreased, but rose again in 
1990-1991 (Mulliken in litt. 1995 in Best et al. 1995, p. 245). Best et 
al. (1995, p. 246) indicated that trade data may have been exaggerated 
by misdeclaring other parrot species as this species. In 1993, Peru 
again implemented a moratorium on exports of this species, after a 
recommendation by the CITES Animal Committee (Best et al. 1995, p. 
246).
    Prior to this species being protected by various regulatory 
mechanisms (refer to Factor D) in the early 1990s, this species had 
been heavily traded (Collar and Juniper 1998, p. 14; Best et al. 1995, 
pp. 245). Trade in parrots was extremely common in the 1980s due to 
huge demand from developed countries (Rosales et al. 2007; Best et al., 
1995, pp. 234-235). The UNEP-WCMC Trade Database reported 96,018 live 
grey-cheeked parakeets were imported by reporting countries between 
1981 and 1990 (accessed September 14, 2011). This is an average of 
10,668 birds per year. Exports of over 5,000 live grey-cheeked 
parakeets per shipment occurred in the 1980s. Between 1981 and 1985 it 
was the fifth most common Neotropical psittacine species imported into 
the U.S.A (Best et al. 1995, p. 244). Between 1983 and 1988, it 
constituted 34 percent of Peru's parrot trade (p. 244). In 1984, Peru 
exported in excess of 20,000 grey-cheeked parakeets; and the U.S.A. was 
the principal consumer (Best et al. 1995, p. 245). Since 2000, only 12 
live grey-cheeked parakeets were reported to have been in international 
trade (UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade database, accessed May 12, 2011), and only 
one of those was from Peru or Ecuador. International trade in this 
species, which was the primary factor impacting the population decline 
of this species, is now negligible.
    Although poaching still occurs, public sentiment is changing due to 
educational awareness programs in Peru and Ecuador (Fundaci[oacute]n 
Jocotoco 2011). In the late 1990s, income from the sale of young 
parrots in Peru could yield between $10 and $30 USD per day, while 
other sources of income such as agriculture and day labor would only 
yield $5 per day (Kvist et al. 2001 in Lee 2010, p. 3; Gonzalez 2003, 
pp. 437-446). In 1998, in the United States, this species sold for 
between $175 and $400 (Marsh 1998, p. 2). Prior to the implementation 
of many regulatory protections that were initiated in the 1990s, an 
entire brood of parrot chicks would often be taken from nests and sold 
locally (Best et al. 1995, p. 244). Poaching was occurring in the late 
1990s even in areas designated as protected. A study by 
Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. examined nest poaching and illegal trade of 
parrots, including the reasons for poaching, methods, seasons, and 
locations where the sale and actual poaching of parrots occurred. This 
study found that this species is still being poached in the wild 
(Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, pp. 79-80), even in protected areas and 
despite national protections in

[[Page 63502]]

place. Although during the study in 2007 and 2008, 385 specimens of 
grey-cheeked parakeet were found in 5 markets for sale in Peru, the 
study also found that where protections and enforcement have been 
implemented, such as in Cusco, there were no parrots for sale in 
markets. This study was over a 12-month period between 2007 and 2008. 
In the 20 markets in eight cities visited, the grey-cheeked parakeet 
was found in five of those eight cities; but significantly, not in 
Lima. The study indicated that wildlife markets are well known, and 
they believed that they had identified all the wildlife markets in 
seven out of the eight cities (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al., p. 78). The 
survey was conducted over four quarterly periods in these 20 markets in 
eight cities. This species is commonly found distributed throughout its 
historic range within an area of 9,300 km\2\ (3,591 mi\2\). Compared 
with an average of 10,668 birds per year, 385 specimens of grey-cheeked 
parakeet found in 5 markets for sale in Peru is minimal.
    Poaching has been found to be significantly lower at protected 
sites (Pain et al. 2006, p. 322; Wright et al. 2002, p. 719). For 
example, Gonzalez (2003, pp. 437-446) found evidence of poaching, 
particularly during nesting seasons, in the Pacaya-Samiria National 
Reserve, a protected area in the Loreto Department, Peru, during his 
1996-1999 study. However, he also found that poaching decreased during 
the 1998 harvest season (Gonzalez 2003, p. 444), which he attributed to 
increased numbers of birds confiscated by regional authorities, which 
subsequently discouraged poaching (also see Factor D). An additional 
factor is that this species may be less accessible than other parrot 
species, due to its preference for forested habitat that consists of 
complex canopy layers.
    In the U.S., this species is no longer common (Feigelstock 2009, p. 
3; Low 2003, p. 2) possibly due to its relatively short lifespan, the 
difficulty of breeding this species in captivity, and susceptibility of 
this species in captivity to a wide range of diseases (see Factor C). 
The best available information indicates that poaching is becoming less 
frequent due to involvement by NGOs, minimal international demand for 
the species, and improved enforcement by authorities (Gasta[ntilde]aga 
et al. 2011, p. 82; UNEP-WCMC Trade Database). Recently, this species 
has been the focus of many conservation, public awareness and 
ecotourism projects. This species attracts birders, and it is 
advertised on many ecotourism internet sites for Tumbesian Ecuador and 
Peru. Conservation programs, particularly with a focus on endemic bird 
species, involve local communities, and many NGOs conduct local 
educational awareness of the species' value in the wild 
(Fundaci[oacute]n Jocotoco 2011).
Summary of Factor B
    Although overutilization for the pet trade was a threat to this 
species in the past, we have no information indicating that the grey-
cheeked parakeet is currently being overutilized and we have no reason 
to believe the levels of trade that occurred in the past will become a 
threat to the species in the future. The protections in place are 
becoming more effective, and international trade is now negligible. 
This species exists in several protected habitats, and there is no 
evidence the species is decreasing in population (Woods 2010, p. 34, 
Elwonger et al. 2004, p. 3; Van den Schoor, 2007). In some cases it 
appears to be increasing (WLT 2011, p. 2). It is observed regularly in 
three of Ecuador's protected reserves (Jorupe, Buenaventura, and Cerro 
Blanco Reserve), in El Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon, and in Peru's TRZ. We 
acknowledge that poaching continues to occur, but the primary impact to 
the species that contributed to its several population decline, the 
international pet trade, essentially no longer exists. The primary 
impact to the species, removal of the wild for the international pet 
trade, has been reduced to the point where it is no longer a threat. 
Since 2000, only one live grey-cheeked parakeet was reported to have 
been exported from either Peru or Ecuador by CITES-reporting countries. 
Poaching may occur in a limited number of areas, but to the best of our 
knowledge, it is not occurring in all locations where this species 
occurs. Additionally, environmental awareness campaigns by local NGOs 
are decreasing the levels of poaching. Based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a 
threat to the grey-cheeked parakeet now or in the future.

C. Disease or Predation

    This species is susceptible to many diseases (Pesaro et al. 2005 
pp. 321, 325; USGS 1999, pp. 93-99; Butcher et al. 1990, p. 1025; 
Panigrahy et al. 1983, p. 1166). However, most of the available 
research addresses captive-held birds which may have a higher incidence 
of disease than wild birds due to their exposure to sick birds, 
unsanitary conditions, improper husbandry methods, etc. It is not clear 
how prevalent disease factors into wild populations of this species. A 
discussion of diseases that are known to affect this species follows.
    Avian polyomavirus (APV) is one of the most significant viral 
pathogens of cage birds (Pesaro et al. 2005, p. 321). This species is 
susceptible to APV infection, which appears in birds up to 
approximately 14 weeks of age, after which infection is asymptomatic. 
The mortality peak in some Psittacine species occurs between 4 and 8 
weeks of age (Pesaro et al. 2005 pp. 321, 325). Most birds infected 
with APV are mildly affected (Gonzalez et al. n. d., p. 2). The extent 
to which this disease and others addressed below occur in wild 
populations is unclear, but these diseases have been found to occur in 
the wild (USGS 1999, p. 94). USGS indicates that disease is more likely 
to exist where there are major bird concentrations. APV is likely to 
affect this species more frequently if this species is exposed to 
humans through an increase of activities such as ecotourism (Factor E) 
or logging (Factor A), or other disease vectors such as cattle.
    Avian tuberculosis (also known as avian mycobacteriosis 
(Mycobacterium avium) is known to occur in both wild and captive-held 
Brotogeris species (USGS 1999, p. 96; Butcher et al. 1990, p. 1025; 
Rosskopf et al. 1986, p. 219; Panigrahy et al. 1983, p. 1166). There 
are 20 types of M. avium. Mycobacteriosis is seen fairly frequently 
among parakeets and other parrots in captivity (USGS 1999, Chapter 8, 
p. 96), and can cause die-offs in captive flocks. In captivity, 
parakeets such as the grey-cheeked parakeet are likely to be exposed to 
mycobacterium; however, cases of tuberculosis have become less frequent 
(Butcher et al. 1990, p. 1023). Birds are more susceptible if their 
diet is inadequate, and if they are subjected to stressful conditions 
such as crowded or unsanitary conditions in cages or cold temperatures 
(USGS 1999, p. 95); fecal exposure is the main route of transmission. 
This disease causes chronic wasting characterized by weight loss, 
diarrhea, difficulty breathing, and tumors of the skin and eyes 
(Butcher et al. 1990, p. 1023; USGS 1999, Chapter 8, pp. 93-97). Tumors 
may also affect the spleen, liver, lungs, air sacs, skin, and bone 
marrow. It is spread through inhalation, direct contact with infected 
birds, and ingestion of contaminated food or water. Parrots can obtain 
also tuberculosis from pigs (USGS 1999, p. 1); however, it is unclear 
if humans can transmit M. avium to parakeets (USGS 1999, p. 93). M. 
avium has been found to persist outside of a host for over 40 months 
(USGS 1999, p. 97). It persists

[[Page 63503]]

longest in poultry litter, and can also occur in wastewater, sewage 
effluent, and fertilizers (USGS 1999, p. 97). It is unclear the extent 
to which tuberculosis affects this species in the wild; however USGS 
reported in 1999 (p. 96) that tuberculosis has rarely been found to be 
the cause of a major die-off.
    Although captive birds may be more susceptible to diseases in 
captivity, in most areas where this species occurs, the habitat is 
relatively undisturbed and exposure to disease is likely minimal. 
Variation in spatial distribution affects patterns of disease. In 
captivity, this species may be in close quarters, under stress, and 
potentially exposed to diseases that it does not encounter in its 
natural, wild environment. Research has indicated that populations that 
exist in separate, smaller, more isolated patches slows the dispersal 
rate and increases the probability of local extinction of pathogens 
(Carlsson-Graner and Thrall 2002, p. 97). This species prefers forested 
habitat with complex canopy layers, in areas that are fairly distant 
from human establishments. The species exists in fairly small groups 
with large home ranges. Without clear evidence that these diseases 
negatively affect this species in the wild, we do not consider diseases 
discussed above to occur at a level such that we consider them to be a 
threat to the species.
Ectoparasites
    We examined whether ectoparasitism by lice and mites is a threat to 
this species. Many mites have evolved symbiotic relationship with avian 
species (Atyeo 1989, p. 101). Not all bird-mite relationships are 
parasitic; some might be benign or beneficial (Proctor and Owens 2000, 
pp. 358, 362). Many mites are nonparasitic scavengers and use nests or 
bird feathers as habitat. Despite the presence of mites found in nests 
of this species, there is no evidence that mites cause mortality or 
disease, or that they have a negative effect on this species (Atyeo 
1989, p. 101). We conducted a search of available information, and 
there is no other information indicating that lice and mites negatively 
affect the species.
Predation
    In 2005, a study of nest competition, which examined preference of 
substrate material, age of nesting cavity, and depredation of several 
bird species, indicated that eggs are heavily predated in Peru 
(Brightsmith 2005, entire). Although this study concluded that nests 
are heavily predated in Peru, the study did not include B. pyrrhoptera. 
Predators included birds, marsupials, termites, monkeys, and rodents 
(Brightsmith 2005, p. 78). This researcher found that of 47 nests, 
including 23 nests in termitarium (termite mounds), 12 primary cavity 
nests, and 13 secondary cavity nests, between 4 and 17 percent of the 
nests in termitarium were preyed upon, and 77 percent of the secondary 
nests were preyed upon (Brightsmith 2005, p. 78). Secondary nests are 
previously used tree cavities, and primary nests are newly excavated 
tree cavities. The study found that newly excavated nests had lower 
rates of predation.
    Over time, bird species such as the grey-cheeked parakeet develop 
mechanisms in order to counter the effects of predation. All of the 
predators in the study described above are native to Peru and Ecuador; 
so a natural predator-prey balance has likely developed over time. This 
species lays between 4 and 6 eggs, usually 5 eggs. This behavior may be 
a mechanism that has developed in order to combat pressures such as 
predation. While predation may be a source of mortality, there is no 
evidence that it is a limiting factor for population growth for this 
species. Another response mechanism to predation is building nests in 
new sites; the research above found that these nests were less affected 
by predation. Although predation occurs on this species, predation is a 
normal ecological interaction in the wild. The best available 
information does not indicate that predation is a threat to the 
species.
Ants
    There is only one report of ant predation on Brotogeris species. 
Research in Peru found that termateria inhabited by two other species 
of Brotogeris (B. sanctithomae and B. cyanoptera) were coinhabited by 
Dolichoderus ants (Brightsmith 2000, p. 536). In another study, ants 
(species unknown) had drilled a hole in an egg and had consumed the 
contents (Brightsmith 2005, p. 76). The 2005 study did not include 
predation by ants or termites in its results, but ants and termites 
also were found to depredate nests (Brightsmith 2005, p. 77). At this 
time, it is unclear why the study did not include predation by ants and 
termites. It may be that predation by ants and termites was minimal 
compared with the mutualistic benefit of sharing termateria between 
ants, termites, and avian species. Observations suggest that ants 
consume the feces of bird species, thereby keeping the nests clean 
(Brightsmith 2000, p. 537). Although it is unclear which species of ant 
had depredated this nest, overall, it appears that there is a 
mutualistic relationship between some species of ants and Brotogeris 
parakeets (Brightsmith 2005, p. 77; Brightsmith 2000, p. 536). Although 
ants have the potential of being a localized threat, the best available 
information does not indicate that this factor affects the species such 
that it is a threat to the species throughout all or a significant part 
of its range.
Summary of Factor C
    We have no evidence of adverse impacts to wild-populations of grey-
cheeked parakeet from disease or predation. Disease and predation are 
normal occurrences within wild populations. With respect to the grey-
cheeked parakeet, there is no indication that these are occurring to an 
extent that they are threats. We conclude, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, that neither disease nor 
predation is a threat to the grey-cheeked parakeet in any portion of 
its range now or in the future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Each range country manages this species differently. Within each 
country, not only is there a wide variability in the amount of 
information available about the species, but also about the level of 
management and monitoring of the species. Existing regulatory 
mechanisms that could have an effect on potential threats to the grey-
cheeked parakeet include (1) local land use laws, processes, and 
ordinances; (2) Federal laws and regulations; and (3) international 
treaties. Because most of the available information addresses the grey-
cheeked parakeet in protected reserves, the discussion below focuses on 
national laws.
Ecuador
Laws
    Ecuador has numerous laws and regulations pertaining to 
conservation of its species, forests, and forestry management (also 
refer to Factor B). These include its Forestry Act (comprised of Law 
No. 74 of 1981-Forest Act and conservation of natural areas and 
wildlife (Faolex 1981, pp. 1-54)--and Law No. 17 of 2004--Consolidation 
of the Forest Act and conservation of natural areas and wildlife 
(Faolex 2004, pp. 1-29)); the Ecuadorian Strategy for Forest 
Sustainable Development of 2000 (Estrategia para el Desarrollo Forestal 
Sostenible); and Decree 346, which recognizes that natural forests are 
highly vulnerable (ITTO 2006, p. 225). The Ecuadorian government 
recognizes different legal categories of protected

[[Page 63504]]

lands. As of 2006, the amount of protected land (both forested and non-
forested) in Ecuador was approximately 4.67 million ha (11.5 million 
ac) (ITTO 2006, p. 228). Ecuador's National System of Protected Areas 
(Sistema Nacional de [Aacute]reas Protegidas or SNAP) is a network of 
lands held by various entities including national, privately owned, and 
community-owned lands (H[uuml]benthal et al. 2010, p. 5).
    Additionally, the grey-cheeked parakeet is protected under 
Ecuadorian law by Decree No. 3,516 of 2003 as vulnerable (Unified Text 
of the Secondary Legislation of the Ministry of Environment (EcoLex 
2003b, pp. 1-2, 34) (also see discussion under Factor B). This decree 
summarizes the laws governing environmental policy in Ecuador and 
mandates that the country's biodiversity is protected and used 
primarily in a sustainable manner. Appendix 1 of this Decree lists the 
Ecuadorian fauna and flora that are categorized as critically 
endangered (En peligro critico), endangered (En peligro), or vulnerable 
(Vulnerable) (EcoLex 2003a, p. 16). The grey-cheeked parakeet's status 
confers protections to the species under Resolution No. 105 of 2000 and 
Agreement No. 143 of 2003 (Standards for the control of hunting seasons 
and licenses for hunting of wildlife). Resolution No. 105 and Agreement 
No. 143 regulate and prohibit commercial and sport hunting of all wild 
bird species, except those specifically identified by the Ministry of 
the Environment or otherwise permitted (EcoLex 2003a, p. 1; EcoLex 
2000, p. 1). Under this law, the Ministry of the Environment does not 
permit commercial or sport hunting of the grey-cheeked parakeet (EcoLex 
2003b, p. 17). Although Ecuador allows hunting, and removal of this 
species from the wild by indigenous people is legal for subsistence 
purposes (Bergman 2009; pp. 1-5), there is no evidence that this 
practice occurs at an unsustainable level.
Protected Areas
    There are at least 30 protected areas throughout the country. These 
protected areas include national parks, biological reserves (one is a 
marine reserve), ecological reserves, wildlife production reserves, 
wildlife sanctuaries, national recreational areas, and a bi-national 
park, El C[oacute]ndor, through the Peace Agreement signed with Peru 
(www.ambiente.gov.ec; www.parks.it, accessed June 10, 2011). A study in 
2001 found that tropical parks have been surprisingly effective at 
protecting ecosystems and species within boundaries designated as parks 
or other protected status despite underfunding and pressures for 
resources (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 126). The study found that protected 
areas are especially effective in preventing land clearing. It also 
found that in 40 percent of parks, land that had formerly been under 
cultivation and that was incorporated into park boundaries had 
recovered. This subsequently led to an increase in vegetative cover. 
The study found that 83 percent of parks were successful at mitigating 
encroachment (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). The study concluded that the 
conditions inside the parks compared with the surrounding areas were in 
significantly better condition than their surrounding areas (Bruner et 
al. 2001, p. 125). A later study supported this finding; it found that 
forests in conservation units were four times better at protecting 
against deforestation than unprotected areas (Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 
1235).
Government Incentives
    In the past few years, many advances have been made in protections 
for this species; such as incentives initiated by the government for 
communities to conserve this species. In 2006, some researchers 
indicated that despite official protections in place, there were few 
actual effective local protections in Ecuador (Bonaccorso et al. 2006, 
p. 61). NGOs had also expressed concern that Ecuador was not 
effectively managing its wildlife and resources. In 2006, the 
International Tropical Timber Organization considered ecosystem 
management and conservation in Ecuador, including effective 
implementation of mechanisms that would protect grey-cheeked parakeet 
habitat, to be lacking (ITTO 2006, p. 229). In 2007, another 
organization indicated that the Forestry and Wildlife Service, Office 
of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment, was not adequately 
implementing conservation measures for the Manglares Churute Ecological 
Reserve (MCER), where this species was recently observed. The NGO 
indicated that the management plan in MCER had not been fully applied 
(Alava et al. 2007, p. 231). However, since that time, the government 
of Ecuador has adopted a national forest plan. In 2008, Ecuador 
implemented this forest conservation plan, called Programa Socio Bosque 
(``Forest Partners'') in order to conserve over 5 million ha (12.4 
million ac) of forest (Conservation International 2008, p. 1). This 
program, which is administered through the Minister of the Environment, 
offers incentives to landowners and indigenous communities willing to 
conserve their forests. Goals are to reduce carbon emissions by 13.5 
million tons per year and to reduce poverty by providing additional 
income to more than two million people in Ecuador. This program has the 
support and involvement of many NGOs, both local and international. In 
the range of this species, many areas are receiving more protection 
now, and this species is being used as an ecotourism magnet. 
Additionally, many NGOS are involved in land conservation and species 
protection in Ecuador (refer to discussion under factor A), and we 
expect these activities to continue into the future.
    Although the governmental institutions responsible for natural 
resource oversight in Ecuador may be under-resourced and there is a 
lack of law enforcement on the ground, the country is making progress 
in its conservation. Ecuador's Ministry of Environment's Socio Bosque 
subsidy program has encouraged many large forest owners to participate 
in this program. Many NGOs are actively involved in conservation 
programs in Ecuador, particularly in southern Ecuador, where this 
species resides. Ten percent of all of Ecuador falls under some form of 
environmental protection or special status. As of 2006, 500,000 
hectares (1,235,527 ac) are covered by management plans, and management 
plans have been prepared for two other reserves 13,000 ha (32,125 ac) 
in size (ITTO 2006, p. 228). The grey-cheeked parakeet exists in 
several protected areas such as El Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon, which was 
declared a Ramsar site in 1996, and is one of the 32 identified 
wetlands in Ecuador's coastal region (Alava et al. 2007, p. 224).
NGOs
    As discussed under factor A, many collaborative and innovative 
conservation projects to conserve land have occurred recently. Several 
NGOs such as Birdlife International, WorldLand Trust, Nature and 
Culture International, and local organizations such as Fundaci[oacute]n 
EcoCiencia, Loro Parque Fundaci[oacute]n, ProNaturaleza, and 
Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque, are working to protect areas in Tumbesian 
Ecuador. The World Land Trust and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque are 
working in the Cerro Blanco Reserve area with local communities, 
focusing on Puerto Hondo, where young local people, with guidance and 
training from Foundation staff, lead tourists on guided canoe trips 
through a rich mangrove estuary (http://www.wlt.org, accessed June 15, 
2011). Between 2006 and 2010 some 235 hectares (581 ac) of degraded 
lands have been reforested with over 250,000

[[Page 63505]]

saplings of 30 native species. In 2004 an environment education centre 
was constructed for use by the local community, and a children's 
ecology club runs weekly activities. A community park warden program is 
building local awareness for this unique reserve and its wildlife. WLT 
and Fundaci[oacute]n Pro-Bosque are seeking to expand the Cerro Blanco 
Reserve through additional land purchase. This includes both 
unprotected and critically threatened forest habitat near the existing 
reserve, as well as land that has been deforested but can be replanted. 
In addition to habitat protections in place for this species, it also 
benefits through conservation efforts by these NGOs.
Trade
    Ecuador continues to strengthen its regulatory mechanisms. The 
decline in population numbers of this species primarily occurred in the 
1980s due to significant trade that occurred of this species (UNEP-WCMC 
CITES trade database, accessed September 14, 2011). Between 1984 and 
1988 (prior to the enactment of the WBCA in 1992), approximately 42,000 
live grey-cheeked parakeets were reported to have been imported into 
the United States (UNEP-WCMC, accessed May 3, 2011). The WBCA 
effectively halted imports of wild-origin birds into the United States. 
Since 2000, only 12 live grey-cheeked parakeets were reported to have 
been in international trade (UNEP-WCMC, accessed May 12, 2011); and 
only one of those was reported to be from either Peru or Ecuador. 
Because of adequate regulatory mechanisms such as CITES and the WBCA, 
both at the domestic and international level, we believe that the 
primary threat to this species, poaching for the international pet 
trade, has been alleviated. In addition, Ecuador continues to design 
and implement new regulatory and conservation strategies to address 
issues such as poaching for the pet trade that affect this species. 
Based on the negligible amount of international trade (also refer to 
discussion in Factor B), we do not find that the international trade in 
this species is a threat to the species. Therefore, the best available 
information indicates that regulatory mechanisms are adequate in 
Ecuador to protect this species and its habitat.
Peru
Laws
    This species is listed as vulnerable in Peru under Supreme Decree 
No. 034-2004-AG (2004, p. 276,855). This decree prohibits hunting, 
take, transport, and trade of protected species, except as permitted by 
regulation. Poaching for the domestic pet trade does occur; however, 
poaching does not appear to occur at a level such that it impacts the 
species. Other laws that Peru has enacted to protect parrot species 
such as the grey-cheeked parakeet have generally been effective 
(Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 77), particularly since enactment of 
Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre No 27308. This law regulates the 
commercialization of wild species, and the minimum requirements for 
their harvest and their collection and transportation; and it 
establishes a maximum collection quota for each species from their 
natural environment (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 77). INRENA 
annually sets a quota for certain species, trade in the grey-cheeked 
parakeet is not permitted (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 77).
Protected Areas
    The Peruvian National Protected Area System includes several 
categories of habitat protection. Habitat may be designated as any of 
the following: (1) Parque Nacional (National Park, an area managed 
mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation); (2) Santuario 
(Sanctuary, for the preservation of sites of notable natural or 
historical importance); (3) Reserva Nacional (National Reserve, for 
sustainable extraction of certain biological resources); (4) Bosque de 
Protecci[oacute]n (Protection Forest, to safeguard soils and forests, 
especially for watershed conservation); (5) Zona Reservada (Reserved 
Zone, for temporary protection while further study is under way to 
determine their importance); (6) Bosque Nacional (National Forest, to 
be managed for utilization); (7) Reserva Comunal (Communal Reserve, for 
local area use and management, with national oversight); and (8) Cotos 
de Caza (Hunting Reserve, for local use and management, with national 
oversight) (Rodr[iacute]guez and Young 2000, p. 330). National 
reserves, national forests, communal reserves, and hunting reserves are 
managed for the sustainable use of resources (IUCN 1994, p. 2). The 
designations of National Parks, Sanctuaries, and Protection Forests are 
established by supreme decree that supersedes all other legal claim to 
the land and, thus, these areas tend to provide more habitat protection 
than unprotected areas.
    Progress has been made in establishing protected areas and 
implementing protections where this species occurs: the TRZ, the Cerros 
de Amotape National Park and El Angolo Game Preserve form the Noroeste 
Biosphere Reserve. During the process of establishing these protected 
areas, they were initially described as core zone, protected zone, and 
transition zone. The TRZ essentially encompassed El Caucho and Campo 
Verde, the buffer zone was essentially El Angolo Game Preserve, and the 
transition zone was the adjoining areas. The TRZ has had protected 
status since 1957, but it has always experienced pressures from timber 
harvest (ParksWatch 2005, p. 5). In 1970, a 10-year logging moratorium 
was implemented. In Tumbes, sawmills were closed, but some illegal 
timber harvest still occurred in the 1970s, despite government efforts 
(ParksWatch 2005, p. 5). There had been reports of some local 
Ecuadorians who crossed the border into the protected zone to hunt, cut 
wood, and sometimes establish lots for agriculture (Walker 2001, p. 2). 
However, the involvement of an NGO, ProNaturaleza, in 1988 increased 
the effectiveness of protections in this area. Their activities have 
included promoting local involvement, establishment of agreements 
between national and international organizations, restoration of 
mangrove ecosystems, regulation of extractive activities, and 
environmental education (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 7). The implementation of 
these additional protection measures are likely to also improve the 
habitat for the grey-cheeked parakeet.
Domestic Trade
    Most of the parrots in the illegal trade come from the wild, where 
they have been harvested by small local communities and traded to other 
people who transport them to wildlife markets in major cities (Rosales 
et al. 2007 in Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2011, p. 77; Gonzales 2003, p. 
438). Despite the illegal sale of this species in some Peruvian 
markets, efforts to curtail poaching and sale seem to be improving 
(note that Gonzales's study was conducted between 1996 and 1999). In 
2007 and 2008, 385 grey-cheeked parakeets were found in five of the 
eight markets surveyed. The survey was conducted over four quarterly 
periods in these 20 markets in eight cities. However, in cities such as 
Cusco and Puerto Madonado, where INRENA and the ecological police have 
increased enforcement of wildlife protection laws, there were no grey-
cheeked parakeets or other parrots found for sale (Gasta[ntilde]aga et 
al. 2011, p. 82). The illegal parrot trade has decreased in these 
areas; indicating that when enforcement is in place, protections are 
effective.
International Wildlife Trade
    Removal of this species from the wild for the pet trade had the 
greatest impact

[[Page 63506]]

on this species. In 1981, the grey-cheeked parakeet was listed in 
Appendix II of CITES, and in 1992, this species was protected by the 
WBCA. The WBCA effectively shut down imports of this species into the 
United States; one of the largest importers of this species. CITES 
requires CITES Parties to have in place adequate legislation for its 
implementation. Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties 
to CITES adopted a process, termed the National Legislation Project, to 
evaluate whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to 
successfully implement the Treaty (CITES 2010b, pp. 1-5). In reviewing 
a country's national legislation, the CITES Secretariat evaluates 
factors such as whether a Party's domestic laws designate the 
responsible Scientific and Management Authorities, prohibit trade 
contrary to the requirements of the Convention, have penalty provisions 
in place for illegal trade, and provide for seizure of specimens that 
are illegally traded or possessed. The Government of Peru was 
determined to be in Category 1, which means they meet all the 
requirements to implement CITES. Ecuador was determined to be in 
Category 2, with a draft plan, but not enacted (http://www.cites.org, 
SC59 Document 11, Annex p. 1). The international legal trade in this 
species has substantially decreased and is now negligible. As discussed 
under factor B, between 2000 and 2009, only 12 live specimens were 
reported in international trade (UNEP-WCMC); and only one was from a 
range country (Peru). With respect to international trade, the 
implementation of the WBCA and CITES, and the Governments of Peru and 
Ecuador have effectively controlled international trade of this 
species. Based on the best available information, the Governments of 
Ecuador and Peru are adequately enforcing their respective legal 
frameworks. Based on the decrease in reported trade, we believe that 
international trade has been adequately curtailed by regulatory 
mechanisms.
Summary of Factor D
    We considered the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to 
protect the grey-cheeked parakeet. Peru and Ecuador have enacted 
numerous laws and regulatory mechanisms to protect and manage wildlife 
and their habitats. Studies by the Peruvian Society for Environmental 
Law (SPDA) concluded that there are approximately 5,000 laws and 
regulations directly or indirectly related to environmental protection 
and natural resource conservation in Peru. In 2001, Muller (2001, pp. 
1-2) indicated that many of these are not effective due to limited 
implementation and/or enforcement capability. However, one of the most 
significant threats to the species prior to the 1990s was the 
international pet trade, but this trade has been negligible since 2000. 
Both Ecuador and Peru's economies are improving, and both countries are 
implementing many projects and mechanisms that are having a positive 
impact on this species and its habitat.
    The grey-cheeked parakeet is listed as ``vulnerable'' under both 
Ecuadorian and Peruvian law. It occurs within at least four protected 
areas in Peru and Ecuador. This species is commonly observed in both 
Ecuador and Peru in protected areas; and flocks of this species are 
frequently observed. Some habitat degradation continues, including 
within protected areas (see factor A). However, we find that the 
existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to mitigate these 
activities throughout the grey-cheeked parakeet's range. The most 
significant threat, poaching for the international pet bird trade, has 
declined significantly, and the population has had time to recover. 
There is no indication that the population is currently declining; it 
appears to be thriving in protected areas based on numerous recent 
birding expeditions. The international pet trade that contributed to 
the species' past decline, is now negligible.
    Other factors that influenced our decision are that these 
governments are both implementing reforestation efforts (see factor A) 
and forest conservation programs. Lands are being purchased and are 
converted to reserves. Ecotourism such as birding trips in these 
reserves, which in part provides funding, appears to be prevalent in 
the Tumbesian region. Although some limited poaching may continue to 
occur, there is no evidence to suggest that they are having significant 
population level effects. This species exists in several protected 
habitats and is commonly observed throughout its range. There is no 
evidence that its population is still declining (WLT 2011, p. 2; Woods 
2010, p. 34, Elwonger et al. 2004, p. 3; Van den Schoor, 2007). It is 
observed regularly in three of Ecuador's protected reserves (Jorupe, 
Buenaventura, and Cerro Blanco Reserve), it was observed in El 
Cancl[oacute]n Lagoon (Alava et al. 2007) and in Campo Verde in 2006; 
and in Peru's TRZ. The grey-cheeked parakeet is also protected under 
CITES and the WBCA, which we find have been effective in mitigating the 
impact to this species from international trade. Because there have 
been so few individual live grey-cheeked parakeets in trade since 2000, 
we believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits 
is not a threat to the species. Based on the best available scientific 
and commercial information, we find that inadequate mechanisms are not 
a threat to the grey-cheeked parakeet in any portion of its range now 
or in the future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

El Ni[ntilde]o Events
    The arid terrestrial ecosystem of northwest Peru, where the grey-
cheeked parakeet occurs, is influenced by El Ni[ntilde]o events 
(Rodriguez et al. 2005, p. 1), which has the potential to have profound 
and long-lasting effects (Mooers et al. 2007, p. 2; Holmgren et al. 
2006a, p. 87). An El Ni[ntilde]o weather phenomenon in 1982-1983, 
caused widespread flooding in some parts of the country and severe 
droughts in others (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35762.htm, 
accessed May 5, 2011). El Ni[ntilde]o-southern oscillation (ENSO) 
cycles increase the risk of fire because these events are often 
followed by years of extremely dry weather (Block and Richter 2007, p. 
1). Accumulated biomass dries and adds to the fuel load in the dry 
season (Power et al. 2007, p. 898; Block and Richter 2007, p. 1). 
Evidence suggests that the fire cycle in Peru has shortened, 
particularly in coastal Peru and west of the Andes (Power et al. 2007, 
pp. 897-898), which could have broad ecological consequences (Block and 
Richter 2007, p. 1; Power et al. 2007, p. 898), and ENSO cycles have 
increased in periodicity and severity (Richter 2005, pp. 24-25). 
However, research suggests that ENSO events can also have positive 
rather than negative effects. The amount of rainfall during an El 
Ni[ntilde]o year can be more than 25 times greater than during normal 
years in northern Peru (Holmgren et al. 2006a, p. 90; Rodriguez et al. 
2005, p. 2). El Ni[ntilde]o events are important triggers for 
regeneration of plants in semiarid ecosystems, particularly in the dry 
forest of northwest Peru (Holmgren et al. 2006a, p. 88; Lopez et al. 
2006, p. 903; Rodr[iacute]guez et al. 2005, pp. 2-3). During El 
Ni[ntilde]o events, plant communities and barren lands are transformed 
into lush vegetation, as seeds germinate and grow more quickly in 
response to increased rainfall (Holmgren et al. 2006a, p. 88; Holmgren 
et al. 2006b, pp. 2-8; Rodr[iacute]guez et al. 2005, pp. 1-6). This 
species is a food generalist and exists in a climate zone that is 
fairly stable (it is in a narrow latitudinal band). Thus, we

[[Page 63507]]

find that the grey-cheeked parakeet is likely to be less affected by 
ecosystem changes due to El Ni[ntilde]o events than other species.
Tourism
    Tourism can have both positive and negative aspects. One form of 
tourism, ecotourism, has the potential to have a positive effect by 
providing economic incentives for communities to protect their natural 
areas. This in turn makes them less reliant on the resources within a 
protected area, and encourages sustainable practices. In many cases, 
local communities may contribute to the habitat degradation or remove 
the species from the wild. Ecotourism projects, by creating alternative 
sources of income, can be a way to create awareness of a species' 
plight, and also can attract conservation funding to an area. Community 
conservation projects have demonstrated that if local communities 
understand the benefit of conserving the resource and are provided 
alternative sources of income, they have incentive to protect the 
resource rather than overutilize the resource (Lee 2010, p. 13). There 
is increasing awareness to minimize environmental impacts of visitors. 
Ecotourism is being conducted in a manner that is not disturbing to the 
species. As of 2005, TRZ was attracting 500 tourists annually, and the 
tourists generally only visited particular areas (ParksWatch 2005b, p. 
11). Based on the positive effects of low-impact ecotourism, and also 
the potential positive effects of ecotourism, we do not find that 
tourism has a significant impact on the species.
Summary of Factor E
    We evaluated other natural or manmade factors that might affect the 
continued existence of the grey-cheeked parakeet. Neither El 
Ni[ntilde]o events nor tourism were found to be threats to the species. 
The grey-cheeked parakeet exists in protected areas in both Ecuador and 
Peru that provide suitable habitat. Lowland bird species such as the 
grey-cheeked parakeet are adapted to El Ni[ntilde]o events, and this 
climate zone is fairly stable in its weather patterns. Tourism occurs 
at low levels, and the tourism is likely very minimal in protected 
areas where this species exists. Based on the best available scientific 
and commercial information, we find that other natural or manmade 
factors are not a threat to the grey-cheeked parakeet in any portion of 
its range now or in the future.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the grey-cheeked parakeet is threatened or endangered 
throughout all of its range. Section 3 of the Act defines an 
``endangered species'' as ``any species which is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' and a 
``threatened species'' as ``any species which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.''
    We examined the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the 
grey-cheeked parakeet. We reviewed the petition, information available 
in our files, and other available published and unpublished 
information, and we consulted with experts. We believe the species does 
not warrant listing for the following reasons. There are no indications 
that the population of this species is currently declining. Both IUCN 
and BLI's population trend justification are from population studies 
conducted prior to 1995; and the categorization was primarily based on 
rapid rates of population decline caused by past trapping for the 
international pet trade. The EU ban and the implementation of the WBCA 
effectively halted the international trade in this species. 
International trade, which was the primary reason for its decline prior 
to the 1990s, is now negligible. Further, both Peru and Ecuador, the 
range countries for this species, categorize this species as 
vulnerable.
    Additionally there has been significant NGO involvement in the 
protection of endemic bird areas in the range of grey-cheeked parakeet. 
The World Land Trust (WLT) indicated that in a recently purchased area 
near the Buenaventura Reserve, the grey-cheeked parakeet has increased 
locally, but did not give specific population estimates (WLT 2011, pp. 
1-2). Habitat loss is often a threat to wildlife; however, in this 
case, both Peru and Ecuador are implementing reforestation programs, 
and this species exists in several protected areas, as well as areas 
outside of protected areas. The species appears to adapt to altered 
habitat (Best et al. 1995, p. 233). Several birding surveys have 
focused on the Tumbesian biome, which extends 130,000 km (80,778 mi) 
into southern Ecuador and northern Peru. Surveys in the early 2000s to 
determine biodiversity in the Loja Province observed this species 
fairly regularly in forested areas. The Tumbesian area still has 
primary and secondary forested areas that are protected--in Ecuador, 
this species exists in MCER, Jorupe Reserve, Buenaventura Reserve, and 
Cerro Blanco Reserve, and in Peru, the species exists in Tumbes 
Reserved Zone (TRZ), specifically at El Caucho and Quebrada Faical.
    Habitat loss and degradation (Factor A) and poaching (Factor B) 
still occur in Peru and Ecuador. We acknowledge that these activities 
affect individuals, but there is no evidence that they are having 
significant impacts such that they are threats to the species. We find 
that these activities are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude to indicate that the grey-cheeked parakeet is in danger of 
extinction (endangered) or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future (threatened), throughout its range. The distribution 
of its population in many reserves in Ecuador and Peru helps contribute 
to the viability of the species overall; and its distribution is 
providing a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic 
events, strengthening the redundancy of the species. This species 
exists in protected habitat in both countries, and legal international 
trade, formerly the most significant threat to this species, has been 
very limited since international trade has been regulated. Illegal 
domestic trade (Factor B), while occurring in some areas, is not having 
a significant impact such that it is a threat. Disease and predation 
(Factor C) are not impacting this species such that they are threats. 
Additionally, the involvement of NGOs in protecting more of this 
species' habitat is likely to positively impact the species. Based on 
the lack of threats to the grey-cheeked parakeet throughout its range, 
as described above, we determine that the grey-cheeked parakeet is not 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, we find that listing the grey-cheeked parakeet as a 
threatened or endangered species is not warranted.
    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
status of, or threats to, the grey-cheeked parakeet or its habitat to 
our Branch of Foreign Species (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes 
available. New information will help us monitor this species and 
encourage its conservation.
Significant Portion of the Range
    Having determined that the grey-cheeked parakeet is not in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we must next consider whether there are 
any significant portions of the range where the grey-cheeked parakeet 
is in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future.

[[Page 63508]]

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

Conclusion of 12-Month Finding

    We do not find that the grey-cheeked parakeet is in danger of 
extinction now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Therefore, listing the species as endangered or threatened under 
the Act is not warranted at this time. We request that you submit any 
new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the grey-
cheeked parakeet to our Endangered Species Program, Branch of Foreign 
Species (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes available. New information 
will help us monitor this species and encourage its conservation. If an 
emergency situation develops for the grey-cheeked parakeet or any other 
species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

References Cited

    A list of all references cited in this document is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0071, or upon 
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species 
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Author

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

Authority

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

    Dated: September 29, 2011.
Cynthia T. Martinez,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25807 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P