[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16522-16540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 15 and 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0176; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB29


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the 
Scarlet-Chested Parrot and the Turquoise Parrot From the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 
the scarlet-chested parrot (Neophema splendida) and the turquoise 
parrot (Neophema pulchella) from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). Our review of the status of these parrots shows that the 
threats have been eliminated or reduced and populations of both species 
are stable, with potential increases noted for the turquoise parrot in 
some areas. These species are not currently in danger of extinction, 
and are not likely to again become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future in all or significant portions of their ranges. 
After the effective date of this final rule, the scarlet-chested and 
the turquoise parrots will remain protected under the provisions of the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES). To date, the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots 
remain on the Approved List of Captive-bred Species under the Wild Bird 
Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA).

DATES: This rule becomes effective May 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public 
inspection at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-
2015-0176. Comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in 
this rulemaking will be available by appointment during normal business 
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, 
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone, 703-358-2171; facsimile, 703-
358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 
Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone, 
703-358-2171; facsimile, 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    This document contains a final rule to remove the scarlet-chested 
parrot and the turquoise parrot from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife.

[[Page 16523]]

    Purpose of the regulatory action--We are delisting the scarlet-
chested parrot and the turquoise parrot throughout their ranges due to 
recovery under the Act. Species experts now widely characterize 
populations of the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot as 
stable, with potential increases noted for the turquoise parrot in some 
areas. Trade in wild specimens is strictly regulated under Australia's 
national laws as well as through CITES, the Lacey Act Amendments of 
1981, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3371, et seq.), and the WBCA (16 U.S.C. 
4901-4916).
    Basis for the regulatory action--Under the Act, a species may be 
determined to be an endangered species or threatened species because of 
any of 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. We must consider the same factors in 
delisting a species. We may delist a species if the best scientific and 
commercial data indicate the species is neither endangered nor 
threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is 
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or 
endangered; or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the 
species was classified were in error. We consider both the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots to be ``recovered'' because threats to 
these parrots have been reduced or eliminated, and populations of both 
species are now stable, with potential increases noted for the 
turquoise parrot in some areas.
    Peer review and public comment--We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our determination that these species have 
recovered is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our status 
reviews for the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot. We 
also considered all comments and information received during the 
reopening of the comment period (see Previous Federal Actions, below).

Previous Federal Actions

    The scarlet-chested and the turquoise parakeets of the genus 
Neophema are listed under the Act, as endangered throughout their 
entire ranges. The scarlet-chested parakeet was listed on December 2, 
1970 (35 FR 18319). The turquoise parakeet was listed on June 2, 1970 
(35 FR 8491). Both species were originally listed under the Endangered 
Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275 (1969)) 
as part of a list of species classified as endangered. This list was 
retained and incorporated into the Act, and both species have remained 
listed as endangered under the Act since that time. In addition, both 
species were included by regulation in the Approved List of Captive-
bred Bird Species under the WBCA in title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations at 50 CFR 15.33. The WBCA Approved List includes bird 
species that are in the appendices of CITES, and which occur in 
international trade only as captive-bred specimens. (Both species are 
listed on the WBCA Approved List and in the CITES appendices as 
``parrots''; we use the term ``parrots'' in this final rule for reasons 
set forth below in Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule.) Captive-
bred individuals of species on the WBCA Approved List may be imported 
or exported without a WBCA permit. For additional information regarding 
protections under the Act and WBCA, please see Existing regulatory 
mechanisms, below.
    On September 22, 2000, we announced a review of all endangered and 
threatened foreign species in the Order Psittaciformes (parrots, 
parakeets, macaws, cockatoos, and others; also known as psittacine 
birds) listed under the Act (65 FR 57363). Section 4(c)(2) of the Act 
requires such a review at least once every 5 years. The purpose of the 
review is to ensure that the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
(List), found in 50 CFR 17.11, accurately reflects the most current 
status information for each listed species. We requested comments and 
the most current scientific or commercial information available on 
these species, as well as information on other species that may warrant 
future consideration for listing. If the current classification of a 
species is not consistent with the best scientific and commercial 
information available at the conclusion of a review, we may propose 
changes to the List accordingly. Based on the 2000 review, one 
commenter suggested that we reevaluate the listing of the scarlet-
chested parrot and the turquoise parrot and provided enough scientific 
information, including information and correspondence with Australian 
Government officials, to merit our further review of these species.
    On September 2, 2003, we published a proposed rule (68 FR 52169) to 
remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List under 
the Act because the endangered designation no longer correctly 
reflected the current conservation status of these birds. On January 
21, 2016, we announced the reopening of the public comment period on 
our September 2, 2003, proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and 
turquoise parakeets from the List (81 FR 3373). We took these actions 
to determine whether removing these species from the List is still 
warranted, and to ensure that we sought, received, and made our 
decision based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding these species and their status and threats.

Background

    This is a final rule to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise 
parakeets from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 
This final rule contains updated information from the information 
presented in the proposed rule to remove these species from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (68 FR 52169, September 2, 
2003) and is based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding these species and their status and threats.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This final rule includes information summarized from status reviews 
we conducted in 2016-2017 for the scarlet-chested and the turquoise 
parrots. These status reviews are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as supporting documentation for Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2015-0176.
    Sections from the status reviews were added (in part or entirely) 
to the preamble to this final rule. These new sections in the preamble 
are updates or additions to information that was presented in the 2003 
proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the 
list (68 FR 52169, September 2, 2003). We made changes to Previous 
Federal Actions, Summary of Status Review, and Significant Portion of 
Its Range Analysis. More detailed information about both parrots is in 
our 2016-2017 status reviews.
    In earlier rulemaking documents we used the common names ``scarlet-
chested parakeet'' and ``turquoise parakeet'' for Neophema splendida 
and N. pulchella, respectively. However, both CITES and the WBCA use 
the common names ``scarlet-chested parrot'' and ``turquoise parrot,'' 
and these common names are also used widely in the range country of 
Australia, and in the scientific literature. Therefore, we have adopted 
the use of the term ``parrot'' instead of ``parakeet'' in the

[[Page 16524]]

common name for these species in this final rule and in our 2016-2017 
status reviews.
    When these two species were included in the Approved List of 
Captive-bred Bird Species under the WBCA, the Service footnoted the 
species that require an ESA permit under 50 CFR part 17 for importation 
or other prohibited acts to avoid any confusion for the public (59 FR 
62255, 62261-63; December 2, 1994). With this final rule, these two 
species will no longer require an ESA permit under 50 CFR part 17. 
Accordingly, in order to avoid confusion, in this final rule we are 
also amending 50 CFR 15.33(a) simply to make technical corrections to 
delete the informational footnote superscripts from the entries for 
these two species and to reflect that the informational footnote now 
applies to only one species on the WBCA Approved List. These changes 
are being made with this final rule because they are noncontroversial 
actions necessary for clarity and consistency that are in the best 
interest of the public and should be undertaken in as timely a manner 
as possible.

Scarlet-Chested Parrot

Summary of Status Review

Taxonomy

    Both the scarlet-chested (Neophema splendida) parrot and the 
turquoise parrot (N. pulchella) belong to the genus Neophema, which 
contains six species, all native to Australia. Both Birdlife 
International (BLI 2016 a&b, unpaginated) and the Integrated Taxonomic 
Information System (ITIS 2016 a&b, unpaginated) recognize the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots as distinct full species. We have 
reviewed the available information and conclude that the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots are valid full species in a multispecies 
genus.

Species Description

    The scarlet-chested parrot is a relatively small, very colorful 
parrot found in the dry central portions of southern Australia. Adult 
size is approximately 19-21 centimeters (cm) (7.5-8.3 inches (in)) in 
length (Higgins 1999, p. 585). The male scarlet-chested parrot is 
bright green above with yellow below. The face, throat, and cheeks are 
blue, and flight feathers are also edged in blue (BLA 2016a, 
unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 585). Males are easily distinguished from 
females by their scarlet chest; the chest of the female is light green 
(BLA 2016a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 585). Juvenile birds are 
similar in appearance to the female (del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 384), but 
colors are somewhat duller (BLA 2016a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 
585)

Biology

    The scarlet-chested parrot inhabits open woodlands or shrublands 
among sand plains of the dry inland portions of the Australian 
``outback'' or ``rangelands.'' Typical vegetation in these shrublands 
includes Eucalyptus species (mallee), Acacia aneura (mulga), or 
Eucalyptus salubris (gimlet), usually with sparse spinifex (Triodia 
species; hummock grass) ground cover (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; 
Forshaw 1989, p. 288; Jarman, 1968, p. 111). The term ``mallee'' can 
mean both: (1) The various low-growing shrubby Eucalyptus species and 
(2) areas of shrub that are dominated by mallee bushes, typical of some 
arid parts of Australia. Throughout this document, we use the term 
``mallee'' to refer to the former and ``mallee shrubland'' to refer to 
the latter. Similarly, we use the term Acacia shrublands to refer to 
arid landscapes dominated by Acacia species.
    The scarlet-chested parrot is adapted to country that is usually 
waterless, with average annual rainfall less than 25 cm (10 in) (Jarman 
1968, p. 111). It is frequently found far from water and is thought to 
obtain moisture by drinking dew or eating succulent (water-storing) 
plants (NSW 2014a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288; Jarman 1968, p. 
111). The species feeds primarily on grass seeds (Juniper and Parr 
1998, p. 367; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 384) and seeds from Acacia 
species and herbaceous and succulent plants found near or on the ground 
(BLA 2016a, unpaginated; NSW 2014a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288; 
Jarman 1968, p. 111). The scarlet-chested parrot appears to favor areas 
that have been recently burned and are regenerating for forage (Collar 
2016a, unpaginated; BLA 2012, unpaginated; del Hoyo et al. 1997 p. 384; 
Robinson et al. 1990, p. 11).
    The species is described as nomadic--birds will appear in an area, 
nest for several years, and then disappear again (Collar 2016a, 
unpaginated; Rowden pers. comm. 2016; Higgins 1999, p. 587; Juniper and 
Parr, 1998, p. 366; Forshaw 1989, p. 288; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 
384). The species is also described as ``irruptive,'' meaning that it 
is capable of building up large numbers in response to favorable 
environmental conditions (Andrew and Palliser 1993, as cited in Snyder 
et al. 2000, p. 57; Forshaw 1989, p. 288). However, in general, 
movements or patterns of abundance for the scarlet-chested parrot are 
not well understood (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 587).
    The scarlet-chested parrot is typically seen in isolated pairs or 
small groups of fewer than 10 birds (Forshaw 1989, p. 288), but larger 
flocks have been reported outside of the breeding season (NSW 2014a, 
unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 588; Forshaw 1989, p. 288). Age at 
maturity is about 3 years (Garnett & Crowley 2000a, p. 346), and 
generation time is estimated at 4.9 years (BLI 2012a, p. 8). The 
species breeds mostly from August through January, but timing likely 
depends on rain events and resultant food availability (BLA 2016a, 
unpaginated; Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288).
    Woodland and shrubland tree hollows (e.g., hollows in Eucalyptus 
species) are important for nesting and may be a limiting habitat 
feature for the scarlet-chested parrot in some areas (see Competition 
for nesting hollows and food, below). The scarlet-chested parrot lays 
four to six eggs on a bed of wood dust or debris in tree hollows (BLA 
2016a, unpaginated; Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288). 
The female incubates the eggs, but both the male and female rear the 
young (AFD 2014, unpaginated, Hutchins and Lovell, 1985 as cited in 
Higgins 1999, p. 589). Incubation lasts for about 18 days, and the 
nestling period is about 30 days (Forshaw 1989, p. 288). The species is 
thought to raise just one brood per season (Jarman 1968, p. 118) but 
may produce two broods under good conditions (Sindel and Gill undated 
as cited in Higgins 1999, p. 589), consistent with irruptive species 
population ecology.

Distribution

    This species once had a wide distribution (Juniper and Parr 1998, 
p. 366) within the drier portions of southern Australia from the west 
coast of Australia to the western portions of New South Wales (Higgins, 
1999, pp. 585-586).
    Today, the population is sparsely distributed across the arid 
interior of southern Australia, ranging from approximately Kalgoorlie 
(Western Australia) to western portions of New South Wales in the east 
and as far north as southern portions of the Northern Territory (NSW 
2014a, unpaginated). The species is primarily concentrated in the 
better vegetated areas of the Great Victoria Desert located in 
southwestern Australia (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, 
p. 366).
    The estimated distribution of the scarlet-chested parrot is very 
large (262,000 km\2\ (101,159 mi\2\); BLI 2016a, unpaginated). However, 
there appears to be a reduction in the extent of the historical range 
in the west within the

[[Page 16525]]

vicinity of the Western Australian goldfields, with just one record 
from the west coast since 1854 (Dymond in litt. 2001, as cited in BLI 
2016a, unpaginated). Similarly, reductions have been noted in the east 
with fewer records from New South Wales in the 20th than in the 19th 
century (BLI 2016a, unpaginated), and no confirmed records from 
Victoria since 1995 (Clarke in litt. 2016).
    The scarlet-chested parrot at one point historically was thought to 
have gone extinct, as a result of no sightings of this species for 
upwards of 20 to 60 years (Jarman 1968, p. 111; Anon. 1932, p. 538). 
The current population has not been quantified, but it is estimated to 
be larger than 10,000 mature individuals (BLI 2012a, p. 1); and 
population trends appear to be stable, with no evidence of decline in 
the last 20 years (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; BLI 2012a, p. 4). The 
population does not appear to be fragmented, and subpopulations can 
travel great distances (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57).

Captive-Bred Specimens

    The scarlet-chested parrot is bred in captivity for the pet trade 
and may number between 10,000 and 25,000 held in captivity in Australia 
alone (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366; del 
Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 384), although estimates of the size of the 
captive population after the late 1990s could not be found.

Conservation Status

    The scarlet-chested parrot was listed in CITES Appendix I in 1975, 
but transferred to Appendix II in 1977 (UNEP 2011a, unpaginated). The 
Order Psittaciformes was listed as a whole in Appendix II in 1981 (UNEP 
2011a, unpaginated). Listing in CITES Appendix II allows for regulated 
international commercial trade based on certain findings.
    International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources (IUCN)--In 1988, the scarlet-chested parrot was listed as 
``Threatened'' on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species (BLI 2012a, 
p. 1). The species was recategorized as ``Vulnerable'' in 1994, to 
``Lower Risk'' in 2000, and to ``Least Concern'' in 2004; the status 
remains at ``Least Concern'' (BLI 2012a, p. 1).

Australia

    Commercial exports of the scarlet-chested parrot from Australia 
have been prohibited since 1962; these prohibitions are now codified in 
Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 
1999 (EPBC Act). The scarlet-chested parrot is not included in the EPBC 
Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017a, unpaginated). 
Inclusion on EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna promotes recovery via: 
(1) Conservation advice, (2) recovery plans, and (3) the EPBC Act's 
assessment and approval provisions (Australian DEE 2017b). The scarlet-
chested parrot was not included on the List of Threatened Fauna either 
because it was never nominated for consideration, or if it was 
nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous scientific assessment 
of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 2017b, unpaginated).
    Additionally, the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett 
and Crowley 2000a, p. 346) listed the scarlet-chested parrot nationally 
as ``Least Concern,'' but this designation was removed in the 2010 
Action Plan (Garnett et al. 2011, entire). As such, there is no 
national recovery plan for the scarlet-chested parrot, though 
recommended actions were outlined for the species in the 2000 Action 
Plan (Garnett and Crowley 2000a, p. 346). There was no justification 
provided for the removal of the scarlet-chested parrot from the 2010 
Action Plan. Justification was provide for removal of the turquoise 
parrot form the 2010 Action Plan, which noted that the population was 
too large to be considered ``near threatened'' and that there was no 
evidence of a recent decline (Garnett et al. 2011, p. 429). We assume 
that similar criteria were considered for the removal of the scarlet-
chested parrot from the 2010 Action Plan.
    At the state level, the scarlet-chested parrot is listed as ``Near 
threatened'' in the Northern Territory (NT GOV 2016, unpaginated), and 
``Rare'' in South Australia (South Australia 2016, unpaginated). It 
does not appear on the list of threatened fauna in Western Australia 
(WAG 2015, unpaginated). Although sightings are rare in New South 
Wales, the State has listed the scarlet-chested parrot as 
``Vulnerable'' and has identified management actions for its 
conservation (NSW 2014a, unpaginated). The species is currently listed 
as ``Threatened'' in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 
1988 (FFG Act 2016, p. 3; Vic DSE 2013, p. 12), although there have 
been no confirmed records there since 1995 (Clarke in litt. 2016).
    Additionally, portions of suitable habitat for the scarlet-chested 
parrot are protected. For example, nearly 30 percent of the state of 
South Australia is now in the Natural Reserve System, which includes 
government reserves, indigenous protected areas, private protected 
areas, and jointly managed protected areas (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). 
Reserve lands in South Australia include portions of the Great Victoria 
Desert, a primary concentration area for the scarlet-chested parrot. 
Also, nearly 22 percent of Western Australia, 19 percent of the 
Northern Territory, 9 percent of New South Wales, and 18 percent of 
Victoria are part of the Natural Reserve System (CAPAD 2014, 
unpaginated). Because we do not reliably know the degree to which the 
Natural Reserve System protects the scarlet-chested parrot and its 
habitat, we did not rely on these protected areas in our determination 
of whether or not the parrot meets the definition of threatened or 
endangered.

Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot

    The following paragraphs provide a summary of the past, current, 
and potential future stressors for the scarlet-chested parrot and its 
habitats. In cases where the stressors were common to both the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots, we discuss potential effects to both 
parrot species for efficiency.

Land Clearing in Australia

    In this section, we consider the term ``land clearing'' to mean the 
removal of Australian native vegetation for agriculture, development, 
or other purposes (COAG 2012, p. 2). Thus, we consider clearing of the 
native habitats occupied by both the scarlet-chested and turquoise 
parrots as ``land clearing,'' including clearing of forests, woodlands, 
scrub- or shrublands, and grasslands. When Europeans began colonizing 
Australia in the late 18th century, approximately 30 percent of the 
continent was covered in forest (Barson et al. 2000 as cited in 
Bradshaw 2012, p. 110). Since colonization, Australia has lost nearly 
40 percent of its forests, and much of the remaining vegetation is 
highly fragmented (Bradshaw 2012, p. 109). In the late 18th and the 
early 19th centuries, deforestation occurred mainly on the most fertile 
soils closest to the coast (Bradshaw 2012, p. 109). Land clearing 
continues in more recent timeframes--with Australia having the sixth 
highest annual rate of land clearing in the world from 1990 to 2000 
(Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, p. 230).
    Although land clearing is listed as a ``key threatening process'' 
under the EPBC Act (Australian DEE 2016a, unpaginated), the 
Commonwealth has no jurisdiction over state actions (Lindenmayer and 
Burgman 2005, p. 233). Throughout this document, the term ``key 
threatening process'' means a ``threatening process that threatens or

[[Page 16526]]

may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a 
native species or ecological community'' (EPBC Act; Australian DEE 
2016b, unpaginated).

Land Clearing and the Scarlet-Chested Parrot

    Europeans settled Australia's semi-arid or arid landscapes (i.e., 
areas used by the scarlet-chested parrot) 150 years ago (Benson et al. 
2001, p. 26). Determining impacts to the scarlet-chested parrot from 
land clearing is not straightforward, partly because the area known to 
be available to the parrot is large (BLI 2012, p. 1), and the parrot is 
capable of traveling great distances (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57). 
Habitat clearing has caused major losses of the mallee shrublands used 
by the scarlet-chested parrot in some areas, such as in southern South 
Australia and northwestern Victoria, but large fragments remain (CAPAD 
2014, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000a, p. 346). Overgrazing by 
exotic herbivores (i.e., cattle, sheep, and rabbits) and resultant 
vegetation modification is also attributed to the decline of many arid-
zone birds (Reid and Fleming, 1992, pp. 65, 80), though trends for the 
scarlet-chested parrot are less discernible due, in part, to their use 
of remote desert regions (Garnett 1992 as cited in Reid and Fleming, 
1992, p. 74). Clearance and harvesting of mallee shrublands and Acacia 
shrublands affects nest hollow availability (NSW 2014a, unpaginated; 
Joseph 1988, p. 273), although the extent of the impacts to the 
scarlet-chested parrot is unknown.

Fire in Australia

    Fire is an essential component of Australia's natural environment. 
The indigenous people of Australia learned to live in a fire-prone 
environment and used fire as a primary land management tool (Whelan et 
al. 2006, p. 1). When early Europeans arrived, they feared and fought 
bushfires (wildfires) but used managed fires to clear native vegetation 
for agriculture (Whelan et al. 2006, p. 1). Today, land managers use 
fire for biodiversity conservation, to promote pasture production, and 
for the protection of life, property, and other assets (e.g., to manage 
fuel loads and prevent wildfire) (Whelan et al. 2006, p. 1). Fire is 
also an important process in the formation of tree hollows used for 
nesting species, such as the scarlet-chested parrot. Australia lacks 
primary tree excavator species, such as woodpeckers, so hollows are 
generally started by fire or limb loss, and hollow formation continues 
over long time periods via invertebrates, fungi, or bacteria (Haslem et 
al. 2012, p. 213).

Altered Fire Regimes and the Scarlet-Chested Parrot

    Frequency, extent, and intensity of wildfires appear to be 
increasing across most of the scarlet-chested parrot's range (see 
Climate change in Australia, below). The role these increases play in 
the ecology of the scarlet-chested parrot is difficult to discern. The 
scarlet-chested parrot uses and prefers recently burned and 
regenerating areas for forage (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; BLA 2012, 
unpaginated; del Hoyo et al., 1997 p. 384; Robinson et al. 1990, p. 
11). However, altered fire regimes (e.g., more frequent fire intervals) 
have probably been detrimental in some areas (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; 
Collar 2016a, unpaginated; NSW 2014a, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 
2000a, p. 346). Woodland birds of the mallee shrublands, occupied by 
the scarlet-chested parrot in a large portion of its range, are 
sensitive to altered fire regimes (Clarke in litt. 2016). Time-since-
fire (and resultant older vegetation stages) are important variables 
for species richness (Taylor et al. 2012, entire) and occupancy (Clarke 
in litt. 2016, Brown et al. 2009, entire; Clarke et al. 2005, pp. 174, 
178, 179) in mallee shrublands.
    Long fire-free periods are important in the formation of tree 
hollows (Haslem et al. 2012, entire), which the parrots depend upon for 
breeding. Mid- to late-successional stages of vegetation (greater than 
20 years) are important to many bird species in semi-arid shrublands in 
southeastern Australia (Watson et al. 2012, p. 685). More frequent fire 
intervals can prevent these stages from occurring.
    In summary, although habitat loss and degradation has occurred in 
the arid and semi-arid habitat occupied by the scarlet-chested parrot 
over the last 150 years, the degree to which land clearing for 
agriculture, overgrazing by introduced herbivores and altered fire 
regimes have acted on, are presently acting on, or will act on the 
scarlet-chested parrot in the foreseeable future, is difficult to 
assess. Mallee shrublands in southern South Australia and northwestern 
Victoria have been lost, but large fragments remain (CAPAD 2014, 
unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000a, p. 346). Availability of nest 
hollows in the dwindling mallee shrublands is a concern over the long 
term (Joseph 1988, p. 273). Although habitat destruction and 
modification is a likely stressor for the scarlet-chested parrot, we do 
not consider it to be a major stressor to the species throughout its 
entire range now or in the foreseeable future because the scarlet-
chested parrot has evolved in dynamic environmental conditions, the 
area available to the parrot is large, and the parrot is capable of 
traveling great distances.

Illegal Collection and Trade (for Both Scarlet-Chested and Turquoise 
Parrots)

    Trapping or nest robbing of scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots 
for the caged bird industry may have been a significant stressor in the 
past (NSW 2014a&b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, pp. 587 & 576), but 
current rates of trapping are unknown. It may no longer be much of a 
stressor because these species are readily captive-bred and kept in 
large numbers (Garnett 1992 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57). 
However, if illegal trapping is still occurring, it could be 
significant in some areas if only a small number of birds are present 
(NSW 2014a, unpaginated). For example, the scarlet-chested parrot was 
the subject of illegal bird trappers at Gluepot Reserve in eastern 
South Australia in the 1970s, where there may be a small resident 
population (MacKenzie in litt. 2016). Additionally, practices used in 
illegal trapping can destroy nest hollows (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; 
Baker-Gabb 2011, p. 10). Both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots 
are still thought to be illegally trapped at some level (NSW 2014a&b, 
unpaginated), but trapping is no longer thought to be a major stressor 
(Garnett 1992 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57; Joseph 1988, p. 
274).
    Legislation by the states within these species' range prohibits, or 
limits by permit, the capture of these species from the wild (See 
Existing regulatory mechanisms, below). Legitimate state permit holders 
(such as zoos, breeders, or pet shops) must prove that they are 
qualified to care for the animals and keep detailed records in a 
logbook (Barry 2011, unpaginated). However, the limited permissions for 
removal of wildlife and associated recordkeeping are, at times, abused. 
A practice called ``leaving the book open'' is a common way to launder 
wildlife--where permit holders sometimes head to the bush to replace a 
permitted animal that died, or pass off a wild animal as captive-bred 
(Barry 2011, unpaginated). Although there are thousands of state 
wildlife permit infringements and seizures each year in Australia, only 
a small number go to court (e.g., as few as 12 cases per year), and 
punishments across the states vary (Barry 2011, unpaginated). Under 
Australian Federal law, maximum fines for wildlife permit violations 
are $110,000 AUS ($83,194 US) and 10 years in prison, but across the 
states,

[[Page 16527]]

penalties range from $220,000 AUS ($158,824 US) and 2 years jail in New 
South Wales to $10,000 AUS ($7,563 US) and no jail time in Western 
Australia (Barry 2011, unpaginated).
    International trade in wild-caught specimens is strictly limited by 
domestic regulation (in Australia) and through additional national and 
international treaties and laws (See Existing regulatory mechanisms, 
below). However, the fact that so many species of native Australian 
birds have appeared overseas during the years of prohibition is 
evidence that some smuggling has been successful (Parliament of 
Australia 2016, unpaginated).
    Despite domestic and international protections for wild birds, 
captive-bred scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are widely 
available, and their market value is relatively low compared to other 
species of parrots, especially for birds sold in Australia. Scarlet-
chested parrots sold in Australia are valued at approximately $20 to 
$50 AUS ($15 to $38 US) (Findads.com 2016, unpaginated). Prices for 
scarlet-chested parrots in the United States are approximately five 
times higher, or more--approximately $99 to $165 AUS ($75 to $125 US) 
(Hoobly Classifieds 2016, unpaginated). Market value for turquoise 
parrots is lower--approximately $15 AUS ($11 US) for birds sold in 
Australia and $50 AUS ($38 US) for birds sold overseas (Parliament of 
Australia 2016, unpaginated).

Levels of Legal International Trade (for the Scarlet-Chested Parrot)

    Between 1980 and 2014, there were very few wild scarlet-chested 
parrots in trade. There were 22,612 recorded exports of the species in 
international trade (19,337 recorded as imports). Of these, only 32 
specimens were recorded as exports from Australia (7 recorded as 
imported). With few exceptions, specimens in trade were captive-bred 
for the pet trade. Within this same time period there were 295 recorded 
imports (and 168 recorded exports) to the United States. Of those 
imports, 23 specimens were confiscated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (UNEP 2016a).
    In summary, poaching for the pet trade may be occurring at a low 
level that is not likely to affect wild populations. Small, possibly 
resident, subpopulations may face some risk from poaching, but we are 
not aware of any significant poaching since the 1970s. Nor are we aware 
of any information indicating that overutilization for recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes is a stressor to the scarlet-
chested parrot.

Disease (for Scarlet-Chested and Turquoise Parrots)

    Information regarding diseases and their potential effect to wild 
scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots is limited. Psittacine beak and 
feather disease (PBFD) is a viral disease that occurs in a fatal form 
and a chronic form in both old and new world parrots (Fogell et al. 
2016, pp. 2059 and 2060). In 2001, PBFD was listed as a ``key 
threatening process affecting endangered psittacine species'' (Peters 
et al. 2014, p. 289; Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). Cases of PBFD 
are pervasive in Australia, having been reported in more than 61 
psittacine species (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated).
    The virus particularly affects juveniles or young adults, but all 
ages are susceptible (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). The chronic 
form of PBFD results in feather, beak, and skin abnormalities, with 
most birds eventually dying (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). 
Symptoms of the acute form of PBFD include feather abnormalities and 
diarrhea, with death likely within 1 to 2 weeks (Australian DEH 2004, 
unpaginated). PBFD is readily transmitted through contact with 
contaminated feces, feather dust, crop secretions, surfaces, or objects 
(Gerlach 1994 as cited in Ritchie et al. 2003, p.109) and can also be 
passed directly from a female to her young (Fogell et al. 2016, p. 
2060).
    PBFD can probably survive for many years in tree hollows and other 
nest sites (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). To date, the disease has 
not been reported for the scarlet-chested or turquoise parrots (Fogell 
et al. 2016, pp. 2063-2065), but recent phylogenetic analyses of the 
virus indicate that all endangered Australian psittacine birds are 
susceptible to, and equally likely to be infected by, the disease 
(Raidal et al. 2015, p. 466). PBFD may be less of a danger to larger, 
non-threatened populations of Australian psittacine species because 
they are generally better able to sustain losses to the disease, and 
individuals that survive infection develop immunity (Australian DEH 
2004, unpaginated). Because PBFD is so pervasive in Australia, scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots are likely susceptible, but population 
sizes (i.e., approximately 10,000 scarlet-chested and 20,000 turquoise 
parrots) may provide some resiliency from the disease.

Predation From Non-Native Cats and Foxes in Australia

    Nonnative cats (Felis catus) were introduced and became established 
soon after European settlement and are now found throughout mainland 
Australia (Australian DEE 2015, p. 7). Predation by feral cats was 
identified as a key threatening process in 1999 (Australian DEE 2015, 
p. 5). In response, a feral cat threat abatement plan was developed by 
the Australian Government in 2008, and the most recent plan was 
published in 2015. It establishes a national framework for cat control, 
research, management, and other actions needed to ensure the long-term 
survival of native species and ecological communities affected by feral 
cats (Australian DEE 2015, p. 5).
    The non-native European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) was introduced in 
the mid-1800s and now occupies much of mainland Australia (Australian 
DSEWP&C 2010, unpaginated), including the range of the scarlet-chested 
and turquoise parrots. Predation by the European red fox is listed by 
the Australian Government as a key threatening process in 1999 
(Australian DEE 2015, p. 5). In response, the Australian Government 
developed a threat abatement plan that outlines conventional control 
techniques such as shooting, poisoning, and fencing as well as research 
and management actions (Australian DSEWP&C 2010, unpaginated). To date, 
it is not known if these efforts are resulting in a reduction in these 
predators.

Predation and the Scarlet-Chested Parrot

    Predation by feral cats and European red foxes could be a stressor 
for the scarlet-chested parrot, but the degree of predation is not 
known. Both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrot were assessed as 
``high risk'' from these predators within the rangeland environment in 
the Western Division of New South Wales based on variables such as 
predator density, body weight, habitat use, and behavior (Dickman et 
al. 1996, p. 249). The Western Division of New South Wales represents 
the eastern edge of the current distribution of the scarlet-chested 
parrot. Additionally, the night parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis), which 
shares some habitat (Triodia grass) with the scarlet-chested parrot, 
may have experienced a decline partly due to nonnative predators such 
as foxes and cats (Joseph 1988, p. 274). Lastly, the provisioning of 
water for livestock has made some areas that were, perhaps, once too 
dry for these predators more hospitable. However, we did not find any 
information indicating that predation by foxes and cats is affecting 
the scarlet-chested parrot.

[[Page 16528]]

Competition for Nesting Hollows and Food

    Competition for suitable nest hollows has the potential to limit 
reproductive success by limiting the number of pairs that can breed, or 
by causing nest mortality as a result of competitive interactions. All 
but four species of Australian parrots are dependent on tree hollows 
for nesting (Forshaw 1990, p. 58), and at least 14 species of parrots 
are known to use mallee shrublands (Schodde, 1990, p. 61). Availability 
of nest hollows in the dwindling mallee shrublands is a concern over 
the long term (Joseph 1988, p. 273). Additionally, the provisioning of 
water for livestock in semi-arid and arid rangelands may have caused 
increases and competitive advantage (e.g., for food and nest hollows) 
to more water-dependent parrots (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Garnett and 
Crowley 2000a, p. 346; del Hoyo et al., 1997, p. 384). National 
legislation, policy, and strategic management plans are in place to 
protect hollow-bearing trees in Australia; however, prioritization and 
implementation of actions at the local level may be limited or lacking 
(Treby et al. 2014, entire).
    In summary, disease, predation, and competition are all potential 
stressors for the scarlet-chested parrot. Although PBFD has not been 
confirmed in the scarlet-chested parrot, it is likely susceptible to 
the disease at some level. We are not aware of other diseases or 
pathogens that affect the wild population. Predation and competition 
may be occurring at low levels. Disease, predation, and competition do 
not appear to be significant stressors to the species because 
populations of the scarlet-chested parrot appear to be stable with an 
estimated 10,000 individuals and no evidence of decline in the past 20 
years.

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (for Both Scarlet-Chested and Turquoise 
Parrots)

    In Australia, legislation from all states within these species' 
range prohibits, or limits by permit, the capture of the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots from the wild. Commercial exports of 
these species from Australia have been banned since 1962. The 
prohibition is now codified under the EPBC Act. Individuals who violate 
this act, for example to export native species for commercial reasons, 
can face serious penalties, such as lengthy imprisonment and hefty 
fines.
    These species are listed in Appendix II of CITES (50 CFR 23.91). 
CITES, an international agreement between governments, ensures that the 
international trade of CITES-listed plants and animals does not 
threaten the survival of the species in the wild. Under this treaty, 
CITES Parties regulate the import, export, and reexport of specimens, 
parts, and products of CITES-listed plants and animals (CITES 2016, 
unpaginated). Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and 
certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Scientific and 
Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES 2016, unpaginated). 
The United States implements CITES through the Act and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 23. It is unlawful for any person subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in any trade in any 
specimens contrary to the provisions of CITES, or to possess any 
specimens traded contrary to the provisions of CITES, the Act, or part 
23. Protections for CITES-listed species are provided independently of 
whether a species is a threatened species or endangered species under 
the Act.
    In the United States, the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are 
currently listed as endangered and protected by the Act. Conservation 
measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under 
the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and 
prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing 
results in public awareness, and encourages and results in conservation 
actions by Federal and State governments, private agencies and interest 
groups, and individuals.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions that are to be conducted within the United States or upon 
the high seas, with respect to any species that is proposed to be 
listed or is listed as endangered or threatened. Specifically, section 
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure those actions they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or adversely 
modify its critical habitat. However, because foreign species are not 
native to the United States, critical habitat is not designated. 
Regulations implementing the interagency cooperation provision of the 
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited 
financial assistance for the development and management of programs 
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful 
for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign 
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to 
encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to 
provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the 
training of personnel.
    Section 9(a)(1) of the Act and our implementing regulations set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make 
it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States to ``take'' (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the United 
States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any 
means whatsoever, in the course of commercial activity; or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered 
wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation 
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    Under section 10 of the Act, permits may be issued to carry out 
otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered species under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 
CFR 17.22 for endangered species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a 
permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific 
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species and for 
incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    Two other laws in the United States apart from the Act provide 
protection from the illegal import of wild-caught birds into the United 
States: the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) and the Lacey Act. The 
WBCA was passed in 1992 to ensure that exotic bird species are not 
harmed by international trade and to encourage wild bird conservation 
programs in countries of origin. Under the WBCA and our implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 15.11), it is unlawful to import into the United 
States any exotic bird species listed under CITES except under certain 
circumstances. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may issue permits to 
allow import of listed birds for scientific research, zoological 
breeding or display, cooperative breeding, or personal pet purposes 
when the applicant meets certain criteria (50 CFR 15.22-15.25). All 
Neophema are protected under the WBCA (USFWS 2004). The WBCA allows 
import into the United States of captive-bred birds of certain species

[[Page 16529]]

included in the WBCA Approved List (50 CFR 15.33), such as scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots, which meet the following criteria (50 
CFR 15.31):
    (a) All specimens of the species known to be in trade (legal or 
illegal) must be captive bred;
    (b) No specimens of the species may be removed from the wild for 
commercial purposes;
    (c) Any importation of the species must not be detrimental to the 
survival of the species in the wild; and
    (d) Adequate enforcement controls must be in place to ensure 
compliance with paragraphs (a) through (c).
    The Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900 and was the first 
Federal law protecting wildlife. Today, it provides civil and criminal 
penalties for the illegal trade of animals and plants. Under the Lacey 
Act, in part, it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, 
receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, possessed, 
transported, or sold: (1) In violation of any law, treaty, or 
regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal 
law, or (2) in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife 
taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or 
regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law. Therefore, 
for example, because the take of wild-caught Australian parrots would 
be in violation of Australia's EPBC Act, the subsequent import of such 
parrots would be in violation of the Lacey Act. Similarly, under the 
Lacey Act it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, 
acquire, or purchase specimens of these species traded contrary to 
CITES.
    In this section, we reviewed the existing regulatory mechanisms 
governing collection and trade of wild scarlet-chested parrots. While 
we note the conservation measures that would no longer be in place 
under the Act as a result of a delisting, such as the prohibitions on 
take within the United States or on the high seas, and import, export, 
or re-export into or out of the United States, we did not rely on the 
conservation measures provided by a listing under the Act in reaching 
our determination of whether or not the species meets the definition of 
threatened or endangered. As described above, the EPBC Act (which 
controls commercial export), Lacey Act, CITES, and WBCA all provide 
protection to scarlet-chested parrots that minimize or eliminate 
threats from trade to the species independently of the listing of the 
species under the Act. Thus, we do not expect declines in the species 
due to the removal of the protections of the Act. As discussed under 
the other sections in Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, we 
do not find major stressors adversely affecting the species or its 
habitat. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the regulatory 
mechanisms addressing these potential stressors are adequate at 
protecting the species at a domestic and global level.

Small Population Size

    We discussed the nomadic behavior and the irruptive species 
population ecology of the scarlet-chested parrot in the Biology section 
above and noted that the species can experience range contractions and 
low numbers (Runge et al. 2014, pp. 870, 874). Although the current 
population has not been quantified, it is estimated to be larger than 
10,000 mature individuals (BLI 2012a, p. 1); and population trends 
appear to be stable, with no evidence of decline in the last 20 years 
(BLI 2016a, unpaginated; BLI 2012a, p. 4). Because the scarlet-chested 
parrot can experience large range contractions and low numbers, we 
considered whether small population size in combination with other 
stressors might act as a stressor to the species. Small populations are 
generally at greater risk of extinction from habitat loss, predation, 
disease, loss of genetic diversity, and stochastic (random) 
environmental events such as wildfire and floods.
    Species that naturally occur in low densities, however, are not 
necessarily in danger of extinction merely by virtue of their rarity. 
Many naturally rare species have persisted for long periods, and many 
naturally rare species exhibit traits (e.g., nomadic behavior and 
irruptive species population ecology of the scarlet-chested parrot) 
that allow them to persist despite their small population sizes. 
Consequently, the fact that a species is rare or has small populations 
alone does not indicate that it may be in danger of extinction now or 
in the foreseeable future. Additional information beyond rarity is 
needed to determine whether the species may warrant listing. In the 
absence of information identifying stressors to the species and linking 
those stressors to the rarity of the species or a declining status, we 
do not consider rarity alone to be a threat. Further, a species that 
has always had small population sizes or has always been rare, yet 
continues to survive, could be well-equipped to continue to exist into 
the future.
    We considered specific potential stressors that may affect or 
exacerbate rarity or small population size for the scarlet-chested 
parrot. Although low genetic diversity could occur with some small 
populations, the scarlet-chested parrot population is not known to be 
fragmented (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57). We are not aware of any genetic 
studies on the scarlet-chested parrot and have no evidence that low 
genetic diversity is a problem for the species. Additionally, the 
scarlet-chested parrot is capable of building up large numbers in 
response to favorable environmental conditions, and has historically 
survived changes to its habitat, including wildfire and other 
stochastic events.
    In summary, the best available information does not indicate that 
lack of genetic variability and reduced fitness is acting on the 
scarlet-chested parrot now or will do so in the future.

Global Climate Change

    Described in general terms, ``climate'' refers to the mean and 
variability of different types of weather conditions over a long period 
of time, which may be reported as decades, centuries, or thousands of 
years. The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean 
or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature, 
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades 
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human 
activity, or both (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; (IPCC 
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or 
indirect effects on species, and these may be positive or negative 
depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the 
effects of interactions with non-climate conditions (e.g., habitat 
fragmentation). We use our expert judgment to weigh information, 
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of 
climate change that are relevant to the scarlet-chested and turquoise 
parrots. Global climate change predictions include increases in 
intensity and/or duration of heat waves and droughts, as well as 
greater numbers of heavy precipitation events (IPCC 2013, p. 7).

Climate Change in Australia

    Over the last century, Australia has experienced an average 
increase of 1.0 [deg]C (1.8 [deg]F), with the most pronounced and rapid 
warming occurring in eastern Australia from the 1950s to the present 
(Nicholls 2006 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116). Along with this 
warming, there has been an increased frequency of hot days and nights, 
and a decrease in cold days and nights (Deo 2011 as cited in Bradshaw 
2012, p. 116). Rainfall patterns have shifted over this period, with 
decreased rainfall in the southeastern and southwestern regions and 
increases in the northwest (Nicholls

[[Page 16530]]

and Lavery 1992 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116). An increase in 
annual total rainfall of approximately 15 percent was experienced in 
New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and the Northern Territory, 
with little change in the other states (Hughes 2003, p. 424). In 
eastern Australia, since 1973, drought periods are becoming hotter 
(Nicholls 2004 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116).
    Climate change projections for Australia show significant 
vulnerability to changes in temperature and rainfall. The IPCC Fourth 
Assessment Report identified agriculture and natural resources as two 
key sectors likely to be strongly affected (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41). 
Temperatures in Australia are projected to increase by 1-5 [deg]C (1.8-
9 [deg]F), depending on location and the emissions scenarios. The most 
warming is projected for the dry interior of the continent, 
particularly for the northwest (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41). 
Accompanying these temperature increases will be an increase in the 
frequency of hot days and warm nights (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41).
    Rainfall projections for Australia are less reliable with some 
dryer and wetter trends predicted within a large range of uncertainty 
(Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41). Projections focusing on median rainfall 
show a general pattern of drying across the continent, with the 
strongest drying trends in the southwest and the weakest in the east 
(Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41). Seasonal rainfall is expected to be 
reduced in winter and spring in the south. Rainfall intensity is 
expected to increase in most of the country, particularly in the north 
(Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41). Frequency in the incidence of drought is 
also expected to increase--with up to 40 percent more droughts 
predicted for eastern Australia and 80 percent more droughts in the 
southwest by 2070 (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41).

Climate Change and the Scarlet-Chested Parrot

    Based on the information for Australia above, climate patterns over 
the last century within the known range of the scarlet-chested parrot 
included: (1) Increased average temperature of 1.0 [deg]C (1.8 [deg]F) 
(Nicholls 2006 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); (2) increased 
frequency of hot days and warm nights (Deo 2011 as cited in Bradshaw 
2012, p. 116); (3) decreased rainfall in the southeastern and 
southwestern regions (Nicholls and Lavery 1992 as cited in Bradshaw 
2012, p. 116); and (4) increased annual total rainfall of approximately 
15 percent in South Australia, New South Wales, the Northern Territory 
and Victoria (Hughes 2003, p. 424). Similarly, a summary of climate 
projections for areas within the known range of the scarlet-chested 
parrot includes: (1) Temperature increase of 1-5 [deg]C (1.8-9 [deg]F) 
with most warming in the dry interior (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41); (2) 
increases in the frequency of hot days and warm nights (Stokes et al. 
2008, p. 41); (3) a large range of uncertainty for rainfall, but (using 
median rainfall) a general pattern of drying, with less rain in the 
spring and winter in the south, and increased intensity of rain, 
particularly in the north (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41); and (4) 
increased frequency and intensity of drought (up to 40 percent in 
eastern areas and 80 percent in the southwest by 2070) (Stokes et al. 
2008, p. 41).
    Habitats used by the scarlet-chested parrot will respond 
differently to projected warmer and drier conditions and the variable 
rain predictions. Habitats such as woodland areas used by the scarlet-
chested parrot that do not receive adequate rain to produce needed 
fuels may actually see a decrease in fire frequency (Bradstock 2010, p. 
145). However, fire frequency is likely to increase in areas with ample 
fuel and connectivity, such as hummock grasses interspersed with shrubs 
including mallee shrubland (Garnett et al. 2013a, p. 16).
    Although there is still some variability in climate change 
predictions for Australia, the increased warming and frequency and/or 
intensity of droughts are of concern for the scarlet-chested parrot and 
its habitats; however, the information at this time is too speculative 
for us to draw conclusions as to the scale and timing of any effects. 
Two recent studies analyzed the capacity of woodland birds in dry 
woodlands and riparian areas in southeastern Australia to resist the 
pressures of extended drought and then recover once drought conditions 
abated (Selwood et al. 2015, entire; Bennet et al. 2014, entire). 
Overall, these studies indicated long-term decline in the face of more 
frequent and extended droughts in southeastern Australia (Selwood et 
al. 2015, entire; Bennet et al. 2014, entire).
    A recent climate-change-adaptation model using a ``Business as 
Usual'' projection (i.e., the ``worst-case'' scenario with increasing 
greenhouse gasses through time), predicted that the distribution of 
climate, similar to that currently used by the species, may contract to 
approximately one third of its current range by 2085, shifting suitable 
habitat to more southerly portions of Western Australia and South 
Australia (Garnett et al. 2013b, interactive model results). Although 
the model does well to incorporate species-specific traits, it also 
includes a number of uncertainties that may limit its predictive power 
(Garnett et al. 2013, pp. 76-77). Basic model assumptions such as that 
trends into the future will follow simple linear extrapolations of 
existing relationships, and assumptions regarding (scaled down) 
projected climate change itself, may limit its accuracy (Garnett et al. 
2013, pp. 76-77). Given the variability in the existing climate and 
uncertainties in modelling, it can be concluded that climate change 
does not pose a substantial threat to the species in the next 50 years 
based on current knowledge (Garnett in litt. 2016a).
    The scarlet-chested parrot has evolved in a landscape where 
environmental conditions are dynamic, and its nomadic strategies may 
help it to recover from periods of range contraction and low numbers 
(Runge et al. 2014, pp. 870, 874), but too rapid an environmental 
change (e.g., from climate change effects) may outpace the species' 
abilities to respond to spatial and temporal shifts (Runge et al. 2014, 
pp. 870, 874).
    In summary, effects from past and predicted climate change are 
difficult to assess for the scarlet-chested parrot. Because it is 
adapted to dry habitat, the parrot would likely fare better than more 
water-dependent birds in times of drought. However, within areas of 
increased rainfall, vegetation shifts may occur, fuel loads and 
wildfire risk may be altered, and competition with water-dependent 
species may increase. Although long-term range contraction was 
indicated in the climate-change-adaptation model (Garnett et al. 2013b, 
interactive model results), there are uncertainties in the model and 
variability in the climate data on which it relies. Due to species' 
adaptability to arid landscapes and ability to travel great distances, 
climate change is not likely to be a major stressor for the scarlet-
chested parrot, within the next 50 years.

Turquoise Parrot

Summary of Status Review

    Taxonomy--Please see Taxonomy section above, which includes 
taxonomy for both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots.

Species Description

    The turquoise parrot is a relatively small, colorful parrot found 
in eastern and southeastern Australia. Adult size is approximately 20-
22 cm (7.9-8.7 in) in length (Higgins 1999, p. 573). Adult coloration 
is primarily bright green

[[Page 16531]]

above with bright yellow below, with a bright blue face and shoulder 
patch. Males are distinguished from females by a small red shoulder 
band or patch and more blue on the face; the red shoulder patch and 
blue facial coloration of juvenile males is less extensive than that of 
adult males (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; NSW 2014b & 2009, unpaginated; 
Higgins 1999, p. 573; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3; Jarman 1973, p. 
240).

Biology

    The turquoise parrot occurs in many parts of eastern and 
southeastern Australia, particularly the foothills of the Great 
Dividing Range (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 
345; Juniper and Parr 1988, p. 365). Typical habitat is hill country 
including woodlands, open forest, and timbered grasslands (Collar 
2016b, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286). Within this habitat, the 
parrot prefers the transition zones between open and closed areas, such 
as the edges of woodland adjoining grasslands and tree-lined creeks 
(Collar 2016, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286).
    The turquoise parrot tends to feed on or near the ground (BLA 
2016b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999b, p. 574; Quin and Reid 1996, p. 250), 
usually under the cover of trees (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; Higgins 
1999b, p. 574). The species also feeds in farmland, mainly pasture with 
remnant trees (Higgins 1999, p. 574). The turquoise parrot must have 
access to drinking water (Jarman 1973, p. 239), and its habitat usually 
receives more than 38 cm (15 in) of annual rainfall (Jarman 1973, p. 
240). The species feeds on a generalized diet of seeds from grasses, 
herbaceous plants, and shrubs; it also feeds on flowers, nectar, fruit, 
leaves, and scale-insects (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 
1993, p. 15). Turquoise parrots can exploit disturbed environments and 
use a variety of colonizing plants as food sources (Quin and Baker-Gabb 
1993, p. 27). The turquoise parrot eats from both native and non-native 
plants, and researchers credit its ability to partially adapt to 
modified habitats as contributing to its recovery (Quin 1990 as cited 
in Quin and Reid 1996, p. 253).
    Type and quality of the pasture land used for food is important. 
Although the species can use partially modified habitats, use of highly 
modified habitats, such as ``highly improved'' pasture, is less likely. 
Improved pastures, in general, are sown with a proportion of non-native 
plant species to promote productive growth of both the pasture and 
grazing animals. Introduced non-native pasture species are usually 
grasses, in combination with legumes. In a study of the species near 
Chiltern, a town bordering the hill country in northeast Victoria, 
almost all habitat types in forest and unimproved pasture were 
potentially useful for feeding in at least one season. However, use of 
highly improved pasture and cropped land was rare (Quin and Baker-Gabb 
1993, p. 15).
    The turquoise parrot is usually seen in pairs, in small groups, or, 
in flocks of up to 30 birds (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 
574; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16). Rarer sightings of larger flocks 
of 100 to 200 birds have also been reported (Higgins 1999, p. 574; Quin 
and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16).The species is described as mainly 
sedentary or resident with some post-breeding movement from woodland to 
pastures (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366), and some sporadic local 
movement, likely related to rainfall (del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383). 
The turquoise parrot disperses mostly less than 10 kilometers (km) (6.2 
miles (mi)), using the protection of treed corridors for dispersal (NSW 
2009, unpaginated). The turquoise parrot reaches maturity at about 3 
years of age (Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345).
    The species breeds in pairs primarily from August to January with 
some nesting noted in February, and even from April to May (Collar 
2016b, unpaginated; Quin in litt. 2016; Juniper and Parr 1988, p. 366; 
del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383). Four to five eggs, and less commonly, 
six or seven eggs, are laid in hollows of trees, stumps, fallen logs, 
or even fence posts (Collar 2016b, unpaginated; Quin in litt. 2016; 
Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383; Quin 
and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 9; Forshaw 1989, p. 286; Juniper and Parr 1988, 
p. 366; Jarman, 1973, p. 241), often within approximately 1-2 meters 
(m) (3-6 feet (ft)) of the ground (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Quin and 
Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 9). The female incubates the eggs and is fed by the 
male during incubation; both parents rear the chicks (BLA 2016b, 
unpaginated). In some areas, the species will have two clutches per 
year (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; NSW 2009, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 
1998, p. 366). Incubation lasts about 18-20 days, followed by a 
nestling period of about 30 days (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Juniper and 
Parr 1998, p. 366; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383). After fledging, 
juveniles remain dependent on their parents for at least 1 week, and 
continue to be fed by the male while the female begins a second clutch 
(NSW 2009, unpaginated). Breeding productivity is estimated at 2.8 
young per successful nest (NSW 2009, unpaginated).

Distribution

    A little more than a century ago, the turquoise parrot was common 
through many parts of eastern Australia, ranging from eastern 
Queensland to south-central Victoria (Higgins 1999, p. 575; Jarman 
1973, p. 239), though it is unknown whether the historical range was 
continuous (Jarman 1973, p. 240). Between 1880 and 1920, the species 
went through a major population crash with associated contractions in 
its range (Quin and Reid 1966, p. 250; see below).
    Although the turquoise parrot is still not found in central 
Queensland, it is now distributed through much of its former range, 
from southeastern Queensland through eastern New South Wales and into 
Victoria (west to Bendigo, Victoria) (del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383; 
Juniper and Parr 1989, pp. 365-366). The species' distribution is not 
continuous but rather occurs in patches of suitable habitat throughout 
this broader range (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286). 
Based on distribution and density information (Barret et al. 2003 as 
cited in NSW 2009, unpaginated), about 90 percent of the population is 
thought to occur in New South Wales (NSW 2009, unpaginated).
    The reasons for the turquoise parrot population crash between 1880 
and 1920 are not fully understood. Likely contributing factors 
included: (1) Habitat loss from European settlement, including 
competition for food (grasses) from grazing livestock and rabbits, (2) 
an intense period of drought from 1895 to 1902, and (3) trapping for 
the pet trade (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; del Hoyo 1997, p. 383; Juniper 
and Parr 1989, p. 365). Some have also suggested that disease may have 
played a role because of the steep decline in numbers (Collar 2016b, 
unpaginated, Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3; 
Morse and Sullivan 1930, p. 289), but there is no evidence that disease 
was a factor. Other potential factors were predation by the non-native 
European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) and 
indiscriminate shooting (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated).
    The return of the turquoise parrot to portions of its former range 
was reported by the 1930s and 1940s (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; Higgins 
1999, p. 575), though it did not reappear in Victoria until the 1950s 
(Tzaros 2016, unpaginated). By the time we listed the species as 
endangered under the Act in 1970, recovery was continuing and the

[[Page 16532]]

parrot was generally considered rare (Smith 1978 and IUCN 1966 & 1981 
as cited in Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3). Further recovery during 
the 1970s and 1980s was, in part, attributed to the removal of 
livestock from reserve lands in northeastern Victoria (Quin and Baker-
Gabb 1993, p. 3). Increases in both numbers and range were apparent in 
Victoria by the mid to late 1980s, though the species was still 
regarded as rare (Traill 1988, p. 267). The global population of 
turquoise parrots is currently estimated at 20,000 individuals (BLI 
2012b, p. 1; Garnet and Crowley 2000b, p. 345; Juniper and Parr, p. 
366) and appears to be stable with increases reported in some areas 
(BLI 2016b, unpaginated; Garnett & Crowley 2000b, p. 345).

Captive-Bred Specimens

    The turquoise parrot is bred in captivity for the pet trade with 
about 8,000 held in captivity in Australia (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 
366); estimates of the size of the captive population after the late 
1990s could not be found.

Conservation Status

    The turquoise parrot was listed in CITES Appendix III in 1976, as 
part of a listing for the Family Psittacidae, and was later listed in 
Appendix II in 1981, along with all Psittaciformes (UNEP 2011b, 
unpaginated; see Conservation status for the scarlet-chested parrot 
above for more information on implications of listing in CITES Appendix 
II).
    International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources (IUCN)--The turquoise parrot was listed on the International 
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List 
of Threatened and Endangered Species in 1988 as ``Lower Risk'' and 
transferred to ``Least Concern'' in 2004; the status remains at ``Least 
Concern'' (BLI 2012b, p. 1).

Australia

    Commercial exports of the turquoise parrot from Australia have been 
prohibited since 1962; these prohibitions are now codified in 
Australia's EPBC Act. The turquoise parrot is not included in the EPBC 
Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017a, unpaginated). 
Inclusion on the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna promotes recovery 
via: (1) Conservation advice, (2) recovery plans, and (3) the EPBC 
Act's assessment and approval provisions (Australian DEE 2017b). The 
turquoise parrot was not included on the List of Threatened Fauna 
either because it was never nominated for consideration, or if it was 
nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous scientific assessment 
of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 2017b, unpaginated).
    Additionally, the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett 
and Crowley 2000b, p. 345) listed it nationally as ``Near Threatened,'' 
but this designation was removed in the 2010 Action Plan for Australian 
Birds, which noted that the population was too large to be considered 
``near threatened'' and that there was no evidence of a recent decline 
(Garnett et al. 2011, p. 429). As such, there is no national recovery 
plan for the turquoise parrot, though recommended actions were outlined 
for the species in the 2000 Action Plan (Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 
345).
    At the state level, the species is currently listed as ``Rare'' in 
Queensland under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and ``Threatened'' in 
Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG; FFG 2016, 
p. 3). It was subsequently recommended for downlisting to ``Near 
Threatened'' by an FFG Scientific Advisory Committee in 2013; however, 
it is still officially ``Threatened'' in Victoria (Vic DSE 2013, p. 13; 
NSW 2009, unpaginated). In 2009, the New South Wales Scientific 
Committee determined that the turquoise parrot met criteria for listing 
as ``Vulnerable'' under the New South Wales Threatened Species 
Conservation Act 1995 (NSW 2009, unpaginated), and this classification 
is still in place (BLA 2016b, unpaginated).
    Additionally, portions of suitable habitat for the turquoise parrot 
are protected. For example, about 8 percent of Queensland is now in the 
Natural Reserve System that includes government reserves, indigenous 
protected areas, private protected areas, and jointly managed protected 
areas (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). Approximately 9 percent of New South 
Wales and 18 percent of Victoria are also part of this Natural Reserve 
System (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). Because we do not reliably know the 
degree to which the Natural Reserve System protects the turquoise 
parrot and its habitat, we did not rely on these protected areas in our 
determination of whether or not the parrot meets the definition of 
threatened or endangered.

Factors Affecting the Turquoise Parrot

    The following sections provide a summary of the past, current, and 
potential future stressors for the turquoise parrot and its habitats. 
In cases where the stressors were common to both the scarlet-chested 
and turquoise parrots, we discuss potential effects to both parrot 
species in the section for the scarlet-chested parrot for the sake of 
efficiency.
    Land clearing--See Land clearing in Australia under Factors 
Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.

Land Clearing and the Turquoise Parrot

    Typical turquoise parrot habitat is hill country including 
woodlands, open forest, and timbered grasslands (Collar 2016b, 
unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286). Since the 1970s, southeastern 
Queensland and northern New South Wales have experienced the greatest 
rates of deforestation in Australia, and Victoria is now the most 
deforested state or territory in Australia (Bradshaw 2012, p. 109).
    Unlike New South Wales and Victoria, most of the land clearing in 
Queensland has occurred in the last 50 years (Bradshaw 2012, p. 113; 
McAlpine et al. 2009, p. 22) with high rates of vegetation loss in the 
last several decades (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, p. 233). Clearing 
was predominantly in central and southern regions where native forests 
and woodlands were converted for intensive cropping and improved 
pastures for cattle (McAlpine et al. 2009, p. 23). In 2004, Queensland 
enacted clearance restrictions to phase out broad-scale clearing by the 
end of 2006 (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, p. 233). As of 2014, about 
8.16 percent of Queensland's jurisdiction was in protected areas (CAPAD 
2014, unpaginated).
    Victoria is heavily cleared (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw 
2012, p. 114), having lost an estimated 66 percent of its native 
vegetation (Victoria Department of Sustainability and the Environment 
2011 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, pp. 113-114). Most of the clearance 
occurred prior to the 1890s when the wheat and livestock industries 
were developing (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 114). 
Land clearance was estimated to have continued at a slow, steady rate 
of about 1 percent per year until 1987, when anti-clearing legislation 
was introduced (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 114). 
Despite this legislation, proportional clearance rates from 1995-2005 
remained high and even increased near the end of this decade (Bradshaw 
2012, p. 114). Although Victoria is now the most cleared of the three 
states, it also contains the highest proportion of protected land. As 
of 2014, about 17.63 percent of Victoria's jurisdiction was in

[[Page 16533]]

protected areas (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated).
    New South Wales was one of the first regions settled by Europeans 
and generally has a higher human population than other parts of 
Australia. Most of the land clearing and damage to forest ecosystems 
happened during the nineteenth century (Bradshaw 2012, p. 112). More 
than 50 percent of the forest and woodland in New South Wales has been 
cleared (Lunney 2004, Olsen et al. 2005 and Johnson et al. 2007 as 
cited in NSW 2009, unpaginated). As of 2014, about 9.10 percent of New 
South Wales' jurisdiction was in protected areas (CAPAD 2014, 
unpaginated).
    Forest fragmentation as a result of land clearing can also affect 
the turquoise parrot, which is mostly sedentary but capable of short-
distance dispersal (generally less than 10 km (6.2 mi)) along treed 
corridors) (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16). 
Therefore, gaps between forest remnants may cause fragmentation of 
turquoise parrot populations in heavily cleared landscapes (NSW 2009, 
unpaginated).
    Altered fire regimes--see Fire in Australia under Factors Affecting 
the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.

Altered Fire Regimes and the Turquoise Parrot

    Prescribed fire and timber-cutting have negatively affected the 
turquoise parrot and its habitat (NSW 2009, unpaginated). Both 
practices have the potential to cause the loss of hollow-bearing trees, 
which can be a limiting habitat feature for the turquoise parrot (NSW 
2014b). Similarly, firewood collection and selective removal of dead 
wood and dead trees reduce the availability of nest hollows (NSW 2014b, 
unpaginated; NSW 2009, unpaginated).
    In summary, land clearing for agriculture in combination with other 
stressors (i.e., drought, trapping) was likely a significant cause of 
the population crash between 1880 and 1920. While most of the land 
clearing occurred in the late 18th and the early 19th centuries, more 
recent forest clearance rates are of concern for the three states that 
support the turquoise parrot. Forest fragmentation as a result of 
clearing has the potential to isolate turquoise parrot populations, 
which are mostly sedentary but capable of short-distance dispersal (and 
population expansion) along treed corridors. Management actions such as 
prescribed fire, selective logging, and reforestation should be 
carefully applied and adapted to benefit parrot habitat. Managing for 
protection of nesting hollows is particularly important.
    The advent of anti-clearing legislation since approximately the 
1990s (Bradshaw 2012, p. 116) and the growing proportion of lands in 
protected areas are positive signs for further turquoise parrot 
recovery, but researchers caution that conservation efforts such as 
reforestation should be carefully planned and implemented at the local 
level. The turquoise parrot population has continued to recover since 
the historic crash and through periods of subsequent deforestation, 
with no evidence of recent decline (Garnett et al. 2011, p. 429). While 
habitat destruction and modification is a likely stressor for the 
turquoise parrot, we do not consider it to be a major stressor to the 
species throughout its entire range now or in the foreseeable future.

Removal From the Wild for Food

    About a century ago, turquoise parrots were shot for food for pie-
filling (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; Seth-Smith 1909 as cited in Higgins 
1999, p. 576) and, in some cases, were indiscriminately shot (Tzaros 
2016, unpaginated). These are no longer reported as stressors for the 
turquoise parrot.
    Illegal collection and trade--see Illegal collection and trade (for 
both scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots) under Factors Affecting the 
Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.

Levels of Legal International Trade (for the Turquoise Parrot)

    Between 1980 and 2014, there were very few wild turquoise parrots 
in trade. There were 44,244 turquoise parrot specimens exported in 
international trade (27,248 recorded imports). More than 99 percent of 
these were captive-bred live parrots (UNEP 2016b).
    In summary, use as food and poaching for the pet trade were noted 
as stressors in the past. Presently, poaching may be occurring at a low 
level that is not likely to affect wild populations. We are not aware 
of any information indicating that overutilization for recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes are current stressors to the 
turquoise parrot.
    Disease--See Disease (for scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots) 
under Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
    Predation--See Predation from non-native cats and foxes in 
Australia under Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.

Predation and the Turquoise Parrot

    The turquoise parrot nests in tree hollows close to the ground, 
making it vulnerable to predation from introduced terrestrial predators 
such as feral cats and European red foxes (Rowden pers. comm. 2016; NSW 
2014b and 2009, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, pp. 3, 26). 
Feral cat control and feral predator control are identified objectives 
in management plans for the turquoise parrot (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; 
Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 26). 
Both feral cats and foxes were predators of the turquoise parrot at 
Chiltern in Victoria in the 1980s (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 26), 
and more fox control was likely needed in the area at that time (Quin 
in litt. 2016). Additionally, the turquoise parrot and the scarlet-
chested parrot were assessed as ``high risk'' from these predators 
within the rangeland environment in the Western Division of New South 
Wales based on variables such as predator density, body weight, habitat 
use, and behavior (Dickman et al. 1996, p. 249). However, we could not 
find recent information regarding the predation rate of feral cats or 
foxes on the turquoise parrot.
    Foxes dig at active turquoise parrot nests and usually take the 
female and the nestlings, if they can be reached. Some predation of 
turquoise parrots by foxes can be mitigated by physically reinforcing 
degraded natural nest hollows to avoid digging out of these nests by 
foxes (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 22). Similarly, placement of 
artificial nesting material higher in the host tree can generally keep 
them out of reach of foxes (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 22). There are 
ongoing efforts to improve turquoise parrot nesting habitat, 
particularly in Victoria (see Competition for nesting hollows, below).

Competition for Nesting Hollows

    Competition for suitable nest hollows has the potential to limit 
reproductive success of the turquoise parrot by limiting the number of 
pairs that can breed, or by causing nest mortality as a result of 
competitive interactions. All but four species of Australian parrots 
are dependent on tree hollows for nesting (Forshaw 1990, p. 58). 
Competition for nest hollows (both intraspecific and interspecific) was 
noted at Chiltern in Victoria, where limited nest hollows likely 
limited reproductive success of the turquoise parrot (Quin and Baker-
Gabb 1993, p. 12). National legislation, policy, and strategic 
management plans are in place to protect hollow-bearing trees in 
Australia; however, prioritization and implementation of actions at the 
local level may be limited or lacking (Treby et al. 2014, entire).

[[Page 16534]]

    Placing artificial nest hollows in areas that appear to be nest-
hollow limited seems to be successful, and programs that construct and 
strategically place artificial nests are supported at the State level 
and appear to be ongoing. For example, early experimental efforts to 
hollow-out naturally occurring stumps in the Warby Ranges (in Victoria, 
near Chiltern) were successful but ended in the 1990s (Tzaros 2016, 
unpaginated). In 2010, Monash University researchers placed artificial 
nests around the Warby-Ovens State Park (also near Chiltern), and the 
hollows were readily occupied by turquoise parrots (Tzaros 2016, 
unpaginated). More recent efforts to improve habitat for turquoise 
parrots include those of two land-care networks in northeastern 
Victoria. The Broken Boosey Conservation Management Network has made 
and installed 200 potential nest sites for the species (Tzaros 2016, 
unpaginated), and the Ovens Land-care Network received a $4,600 AUS 
($3,525 US) grant that aims to raise awareness of the increasing risk 
to hollow-dependent species by the non-native Indian (common) myna bird 
(Acridotheres tristis) (Quin in litt. 2016; Tzaros 2016, unpaginated).

Competition for Food

    Grazing by livestock can directly affect available food resources 
for the turquoise parrot (NSW 2009, unpaginated). As livestock grazing 
ended in some protected areas of Victoria, numbers of turquoise parrots 
in those areas increased (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 7; Juniper and 
Parr 1989, p. 366; Forshaw 1989, p. 286), indicating that a reduction 
in grazing may benefit the species' recovery.
    Competition for food by grazing sheep, cattle, and European wild 
rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) was noted as a possible contributing 
factor in the crash of the turquoise parrot population between 1880 and 
1920 (Collar 2016b, unpaginated, Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3). 
Around the time of the parrot's population crash, rabbit numbers 
swelled to plague proportions, forcing some farmers out of business 
(Tzaros 2016, unpaginated). Turquoise parrot habitat and food sources 
were undoubtedly adversely affected by this plague, but the degree to 
which they were affected is unknown. Application of Myxomatosis, a 
disease that is spread by mosquitoes and affects only rabbits, has 
succeeded in keeping rabbit numbers at approximately 5 percent their 
former high abundance in wetter areas (Australian DSEWP&C 2011, 
unpaginated). Current rates of competition between rabbits and 
turquoise parrots for food are not well understood but are assumed to 
be much less than they were a century ago.
    In summary, disease, predation, and competition are all potential 
stressors for the turquoise parrot. Although PBFD has not been 
confirmed in the turquoise parrot, it is likely susceptible to the 
disease at some level. We are not aware of other diseases or pathogens 
that affect the wild population. Predation and competition may be 
occurring at low levels, but there are active plans in place to control 
feral cats, foxes, and rabbits. Use of artificial nests may be helping 
to mitigate fox predation and competition for nest hollows where this 
is a limiting habitat feature. While disease, predation, and 
competition may be affecting the turquoise parrot at low levels, they 
do not appear to be significant stressors to the species because 
populations of the turquoise parrot are stable with an estimated 20,000 
individuals and may be increasing in some areas.
    Existing regulatory mechanisms--see Existing regulatory mechanisms 
(for both scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots) under Factors 
Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
    In this section, we reviewed the existing regulatory mechanisms 
governing collection and trade of wild turquoise parrots. As described 
above, the EPBC Act (which controls commercial export), the Lacey Act, 
CITES, and the WBCA all provide protection to turquoies parrots that 
minimize or eliminate threats from trade to the species. As discussed 
under the other sections in Factors Affecting the Turquoise Parrot, we 
do not find major stressors adversely affecting the species or its 
habitat. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the regulating 
mechanisms addressing these potential stressors are adequate at 
protecting the species at a domestic and global level.
    Climate change--see Global climate change and Climate change in 
Australia under Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.

Climate Change and the Turquoise Parrot

    Based on the information presented in Climate change in Australia 
above, a summary of climate patterns over the last century, within the 
known range of the turquoise parrot includes: (1) Increased average 
temperature of 1.0 [deg]C (1.8 [deg]F) with pronounced and rapid 
warming in eastern Australia since the 1950s (Nicholls 2006 as cited in 
Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); (2) increased frequency of hot days and warm 
nights (Deo 2011 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); (3) decreased 
rainfall in the southeastern regions (Nicholls and Lavery 1992 as cited 
in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); and (4) increased annual total rainfall of 
approximately 15 percent in New South Wales and Victoria (Hughes 2003, 
p. 424). Similarly, a summary of climate projections for areas within 
the known range of the turquoise parrot includes: (1) Temperature 
increase of 1-5 [deg]C (1.8-9 [deg]F) (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41); (2) 
increases in the frequency of hot days and warm nights (Stokes et al. 
2008, p. 41); (3) a large range of uncertainty for rainfall, but (using 
median rainfall) a general pattern of drying, with less rain in the 
spring and winter in the south, and increased intensity of rain (Stokes 
et al. 2008, p. 41); and (4) increased frequency and intensity of 
drought (up to 40 percent in eastern areas by 2070) (Stokes et al. 
2008, p. 41).
    Climate change is projected to affect pasture habitat used by the 
turquoise parrot. Rainfall is expected to be the dominant influence on 
pasture growth; fewer, more intense rain events are anticipated as well 
as (from year to year) more frequent droughts (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 
41). Increased temperatures could benefit pasture growth and growing 
seasons in the cooler southern climates, but depletion of moisture in 
the soil due to this growth might adversely affect spring pasture 
growth (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41).
    Increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) will affect rangeland 
function, with a projected increase in pasture production but potential 
loss in forage quality (e.g., declines in forage protein content) 
(Stokes et al. 2008, p. 42). Fire danger will increase over much of 
Australia (Hughes 2003, p. 427). Increased pasture growth will produce 
heavier fuel loads (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 42; Hughes 2003, p. 427). 
The risk of wildfires could increase and make prescribed burns more 
difficult to manage (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 42).
    Projections for more droughts could also negatively affect the 
turquoise parrot. A recent study analyzed the capacity of woodland bird 
species in north-central Victoria to resist the pressures of extended 
drought (i.e., the 13-year ``Millennium drought'' or the ``Big Dry'') 
and then recover once drought conditions abated (i.e., the 2-year ``Big 
Wet'') (Bennet et al. 2014, entire). Results indicated a substantial 
decline (42-62 percent) in the reporting rates of bird species between 
the early and late surveys in the Big Dry (Bennet et al. 2014, pp. 
1321, 1326).
    Additionally, a recent climate-change-adaptation model using a 
``Business as Usual'' projection (i.e., the ``worst-case'' scenario 
with increasing greenhouse gasses through time), predicted that the

[[Page 16535]]

distribution of climate, similar to that currently used by the species, 
may contract by approximately one half to the southern part of its 
current range (i.e., dropping out of Queensland but remaining in 
portions of New South Wales and Victoria) by 2085 (Garnett et al. 
2013c, interactive model results). Although the model does well to 
incorporate species-specific traits, it also includes a number of 
uncertainties that may limit its predictive power (Garnett et al. 2013, 
pp. 76-77). Basic model assumptions such as that trends into the future 
will follow simple linear extrapolations of existing relationships, and 
assumptions regarding (scaled down) projected climate change itself, 
may limit its accuracy (Garnett et al. 2013, pp. 76-77). Although there 
is much uncertainty in these trends (given the variability in the 
existing climate and uncertainties in modeling), effects from climate 
change may rise to the level of a stressor in the next 50 years based 
on our current knowledge (Garnett in litt. 2016b).
    Potential responses and adaptability of the parrot to the projected 
effects from climate change are difficult to predict. Since the parrot 
is mainly resident, it is not known if it would relocate if local 
conditions degrade (e.g., drought); however, one group of turquoise 
parrots did move into an area of central Victoria during the mid-1990s, 
probably in response to drought conditions elsewhere at this time (del 
Hoyo, p. 383; Quin and Reid 1996, p. 250).
    In summary, other than the projected increases in temperature and 
CO2 levels, there is a relatively high level of uncertainty 
associated with other projected climate change variables (particularly 
patterns of rainfall) for Australia and across the occupied range of 
the turquoise parrot. These uncertainties are a component of the 
climate-change-adaptation model for the turquoise parrot. Climate 
distribution modeling and a study of declines in woodland birds over a 
recent and extended drought period indicate that effects from climate 
change have the potential to become a stressor for parrots in the next 
50 years (Bennet et al. 2014, pp. 1321, 1326; Garnett et al. 2013c, 
interactive model results). However, we found no information indicating 
that climate change is currently affecting the turquoise parrot 
specifically, coupled with the fact that it has shown some adaptability 
to drought conditions in the past. Stress to the species from climate 
change will likely occur within the next 50 years, but climate change 
variables in the area occupied by the parrot and the parrot's response 
to these variables are currently mostly speculative, and we cannot 
conclude that climate change is significant enough to result in the 
species being in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We reviewed all comments we received from the public and peer 
reviewers for substantive issues and new information. All substantive 
information was incorporated into the status reviews for each species 
and into this final rule, as appropriate. The following section 
summarizes issues and information we consider to be substantive from 
peer review and public comments, and provides our responses.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot and their habitats, 
biological needs, and threats. In all, we contacted eight individuals 
seeking peer review for the scarlet-chested parrot and five individuals 
for the turquoise parrot. We found that there were a limited number of 
individuals who had worked with these parrot species because: (1) They 
are not listed species in Australia and thus have not been the subject 
of many dedicated studies, and (2) scarlet-chested parrots are often 
difficult to find and study due to their nomadic behavior and irruptive 
species population ecology.
    We received responses from three peer reviewers for the scarlet-
chested parrot and two peer reviewers for the turquoise parrot. We 
reviewed all the peer reviewers' comments for substantive issues and 
information regarding the status of and threats to these species. The 
peer reviewers generally concurred with our summaries and conclusions 
regarding these species and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions. We incorporated all peer reviewer 
information into the status reviews for each species, and the majority 
of the information provided in the peer review is also incorporated 
into this final rule, where appropriate. Status reviews and peer 
reviewer comments for the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrot are 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as supporting 
documentation for Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0176.
    Comment: Two peer reviewers commented on our evaluation of the 
effects of altered fire regimes on the scarlet-chested parrot. They 
relayed that there is new information that altered fire regimes affect 
mallee shrublands used by the species and shared relevant literature.
    Our Response: Based on these peer reviewers' comments and the 
information provided, we updated the Altered fire regimes sections in 
the scarlet-chested parrot status review and this final rule.
    Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the scarlet-chested parrots 
observed at Gluepot Reserve may not actually be a resident population. 
Additionally, the same reviewer commented that, while the overlap of 
Bourke's parrot with the scarlet-chested parrot is considerable, the 
scarlet-chested parrot tends to be found at greater distances than the 
Bourke's parrot from the pastoral (better-watered) country.
    Our Response: We changed the text in the scarlet-chested parrot 
status review to reflect: (1) Uncertainty regarding whether or not the 
scarlet-chested parrots at Gluepot are resident; and (2) that the 
scarlet-chested parrot tends to be found at greater distances than the 
Bourke's parrot from the better-watered, pastoral areas.
    Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the climate change section in 
our status review for the scarlet-chested parrot contained outdated 
information and shared relevant literature. The same peer reviewer 
referred us to two publications that examine the capacity of woodland 
birds (in dry woodlands and riparian areas in southeastern Australia) 
to resist the pressures of drought and then recover once drought 
conditions are lifted. He suggested that these publications indicate a 
trend for long-term decline in the face of more frequent and extended 
droughts in southern Australia as predicted by recent climate 
modelling. A second peer reviewer referred us to a recent publication 
and interactive model that allowed us to project potential future 
reductions in ``climate space'' for both the scarlet-chested parrot and 
the turquoise parrot.
    Our Response: We reviewed the information provided and updated our 
evaluation of climate change as a stressor to the scarlet-chested 
parrot and its habitat. Further, in our review of the new material, we 
found that one of the publications was also helpful in assessing 
extended drought as a potential stressor to the turquoise parrot. 
Therefore, we updated the Climate Change sections for both the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots in both status reviews and this final 
rule.
    Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the percentages of protected 
lands

[[Page 16536]]

for the scarlet-chested parrot were outdated and did not reflect the 
large proportion that is Aboriginal-held land.
    Our Response: We found updated information for proportions of 
protected land in the states and territories within the range of both 
the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots and reflected these updates 
in our estimates in both status reviews and this final rule.
    Comment: One peer reviewer commented on distribution of the 
turquoise parrot, relaying that: (1) There are parts of the historical 
range in Victoria where the species has not returned, and (2) a small 
population of the species occurs at Bunyip State Park in West 
Gippsland, Victoria.
    The same peer reviewer provided the following observations 
regarding the population of turquoise parrots near Chiltern in 
northeastern Victoria: (1) The numbers of turquoise parrots currently 
in this area appear significantly fewer than the numbers that were 
there during the late 1980s to the early 1990s; (2) the decrease in 
numbers is likely due to a decrease in grass abundance either from the 
Millennium drought or an increase in herbivore abundance, or both; and 
(3) more fox control was likely needed in this area in the late 1980s.
    Lastly, this peer reviewer provided information on two ongoing 
land-care networks that are working to improve turquoise parrot habitat 
in northeastern Victoria and commented that more intensive surveys are 
needed to determine population size of the turquoise parrot in all the 
regions of Victoria where the turquoise parrot is found.
    Our Response: We added information about turquoise parrots in 
Victoria to the turquoise parrot status review and this final rule, 
where appropriate: (1) The decreases at Chiltern and likely causes; (2) 
the small population at Bunyip State Park; (3) the land-care networks; 
and (4) the recommendation for more extensive surveys.

Public Comments

    We published a proposed rule to remove the scarlet-chested and 
turquoise parakeets from the List on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 52169), 
and we requested that all interested parties submit written comments at 
that time. Additionally, because considerable time had passed since the 
2003 proposal, we published a reopening of the public comment period in 
January 2016, which closed on February 22, 2016 (81 FR 3373, January 
21, 2016). We took this action to ensure that we sought, received, and 
made our decision based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available on these species and their status and threats, in 
order to determine whether removing these species from the List is 
warranted. Comments summarized below are from our reopening of the 
public comment period in January 2016 (81 FR 3373).
    We received 18 public comments relating to the proposed delisting 
of scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets during the public comment 
period. More detailed information about the comments we received and 
our responses are below.
    Comment: Several commenters noted that the Act placed restrictions 
on trade in captive-bred individuals that have limited imports into the 
United States and, by extension, the genetic diversity of U.S. captive-
bred populations.
    Our Response: Although we considered captive individuals in our 
review of both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots, these 
comments fall outside the scope of our analysis. Removal of the 
scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List will eliminate 
the need for an import permit under the Act. Trade in captive-bred 
scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots will still be regulated under 
CITES, and, to date, import of captive-bred scarlet-chested and 
turquoise parrots into the United States is currently allowed under the 
WBCA Approved List (50 CFR 15.33) without requiring a permit.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that more information is needed 
on the status of populations, or that conservation measures were needed 
for these species before they can be removed from the List.
    Our Response: We have reviewed the status of and threats to both 
parrots, and the best available scientific and commercial information 
indicates that populations of the scarlet-chested parrot presently 
appear to be stable, with no evidence of decline in the last 20 years, 
and populations of the turquoise parrot are stable and may be 
increasing in some areas. Populations of both parrots are doing well 
despite the stressors noted in the Factors Affecting the Scarlet-
chested Parrot and Factors Affecting the Turquoise Parrot sections, 
above. Although the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are not 
included in the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna, Australia 
prohibits exports of wild specimens of these species under the EPBC 
Act, and removal of these species from the wild is strictly controlled. 
Additionally, there are numerous ongoing conservation efforts in 
Australia by Federal and state governments, indigenous peoples, and 
private organizations and landowners that likely benefit these species 
including, but not limited to: (1) Protected areas; (2) recent anti-
clearing legislation; (3) protections and initiatives for nest hollows; 
(4) non-native predator and competitor control programs (e.g., feral 
cats, red foxes, rabbits); and (5) programs for construction and 
placement of artificial nest hollows for the turquoise parrot.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed their view that our listing 
proposal was procedurally invalid under the Act because finalizing a 
12-year-old proposed delisting rule violates section 4(b)(6) and 
section 4(c) of the Act, which require that the Service finalize any 
proposed rule within 1 year of publication of the proposed rule unless 
narrow exceptions apply. These commenters opined that the Act requires 
the Service to withdraw the proposed rule if those exceptions do not 
apply.
    Our Response: We disagree. The Service's proposal has not been 
invalidated, and with this final rule, all procedural requirements 
under section 4(b) of the Act have been met. Further, consistent with 
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(3), the Act does 
not allow for withdrawal of a proposed listing determination solely 
because of the passage of time; any withdrawal must be based upon a 
finding that the available evidence does not justify the action 
proposed by the rule. Additionally, as explained above, the purpose of 
the scientific review under section 4(c) of the Act is to ensure that 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife accurately reflects the 
most current status information for each listed species. In our 2000 
review, we requested comments and the most current scientific or 
commercial information available on these species, and based on that 
review, we reevaluated the listing of the scarlet-chested parrot and 
the turquoise parrot.
    On September 2, 2003, we published our review of the status of 
these species and a proposed rule (68 FR 52169) to remove the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parakeets from the List under the Act because the 
endangered designation no longer correctly reflected the current 
conservation status of these birds, as the best available information 
indicated that they had recovered. We explained that our review of the 
best available information showed that the wild populations of these 
species were stable with more than 20,000 turquoise parakeets and 
10,000 scarlet-chested parakeets found throughout their range. 
Furthermore, trade in wild-caught specimens was strictly limited, and 
the species were protected through domestic regulation within the range

[[Page 16537]]

country (Australia), as well as through additional national and 
international treaties and laws.
    On January 21, 2016, because considerable time had passed since the 
2003 proposal, we published the reopening of the public comment period 
on our proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets 
from the List (81 FR 3373). We took these actions to determine whether 
removing these species from the List is still warranted, and to ensure 
that we sought, received, and made our final decision based on the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding these species 
and their status and threats. This final rule is based on the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding these species 
and includes information summarized from status reviews we conducted in 
2016-2017 for the scarlet-chested and the turquoise parrots. These 
status reviews are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as supporting documentation for Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2015-0176. Sections from the status reviews were added (in part or 
entirely) to the preamble to this final rule. These new sections in the 
preamble are updates or additions to information that was presented in 
the 2003 proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets 
from the list (68 FR 52169, September 2, 2003).

Finding

    Our regulations direct us to determine if a species is endangered 
or threatened due to any one or a combination of the five threat 
factors identified in the Act (50 CFR 424.11(c)). We examined the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, 
present, and future threats faced by the species. We reviewed 
information available in our files and other available published and 
unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized species and 
habitat experts and representatives of the range country (Australia).

Scarlet-Chested Parrot

    We consider cumulative effects to be the potential stressors to the 
species in totality and combination, and the degree to which there 
might be any synergistic effects among any of the stressors (e.g., 
increased fire frequency and potential decline in nesting hollows). 
This finding constitutes our cumulative-effects analysis. In the 
discussions above, we evaluated the individual effects of the following 
potential stressors to the scarlet-chested parrot: Land clearing and 
altered fire regimes (Factor A); limited nest hollows (Factor A); 
illegal collection and trade (Factor B); Psittacine beak and feather 
disease (Factor C); predation from non-native species (Factor C); 
competition for nest hollows (Factor C); effects from small population 
size (Factor E); and effects from climate change (Factor E). Although 
one or some of these stressors may be acting on the species in some 
manner, we found no data to indicate that these stressors, individually 
or cumulatively, are causing the species to be in danger of extinction, 
either now or in the foreseeable future. In the face of these 
stressors, the population appears to be stable, with no evidence of 
decline in the last 20 years. We have concluded that this stability is 
not due to listing under the Act; thus, we do not expect declines due 
to the removal of the protections provided by the listing under the 
Act.
    The Australian Government does not include the scarlet-chested 
parrot in the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017, 
unpaginated) either because it was never nominated for consideration, 
or if it was nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous 
scientific assessment of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 
2017b, unpaginated). The 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds listed 
it nationally as ``Least Concern'' and then did not list it in the 2010 
Action Plan for Australian Birds. As such, there is no national 
recovery plan for the scarlet-chested parrot.
    The species is listed on the IUCN Red List as ``Least Concern.'' 
Domestic and international trade in wild-caught specimens is limited 
and strictly regulated. The species is protected through domestic 
regulation in Australia and through additional national and 
international treaties and laws.
    As with all species, the scarlet-chested parrot is subject to some 
stressors. As discussed above, however, we reviewed those stressors and 
conclude that individually and cumulatively they are currently not 
having a significant impact on the species. This determination is 
evidenced by the apparent stability of the population of the species 
for the last 20 years. Therefore we conclude, based on our review of 
the best available scientific and commercial data, that the scarlet-
chested parrot is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all 
of its range. In addition, we considered whether the impact of any of 
the stressors is likely to significantly increase, individually or 
cumulatively, within the foreseeable future. We conclude, based on our 
review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that 
stressors are not likely to increase such that they would cause 
significant population declines within the foreseeable future, or 
otherwise to result in the species becoming in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Turquoise Parrot

    We consider cumulative effects to be the potential stressors to the 
species in totality and combination, and the degree to which there 
might be any synergistic effects among any of the stressors (e.g., nest 
predation by foxes and the loss of nesting hollows); this finding 
constitutes our cumulative-effects analysis. In the discussions above, 
we evaluated the individual effects of the following potential 
stressors to the turquoise parrot: Land clearing and forest 
fragmentation (Factor A); altered fire regimes (Factor A); limited nest 
hollows (Factor A); removal from the wild for food (Factor B); illegal 
collection and trade (Factor B); Psittacine beak and feather disease 
(Factor C); predation from non-native species (Factor C); competition 
for food and nest hollows (Factor C); and effects from climate change 
(Factor E). Although one or some of these stressors may be acting on 
the turquoise parrot in some manner, we found no data to indicate that 
these stressors, individually or cumulatively, are causing the species 
to be in danger of extinction, either now or in the foreseeable future. 
In the face of these stressors, the population appears to be stable and 
may be increasing in some areas.
    The Australian Government does not include the turquoise parrot in 
the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017, 
unpaginated), either because it was never nominated for consideration, 
or if it was nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous 
scientific assessment of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 
2017b, unpaginated). The 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds listed 
it nationally as ``Near Threatened'' but then did not list it in the 
2010 Action Plan for Australian Birds because the population was too 
large to be considered ``near threatened'' and there was no evidence of 
a recent decline (Garnett et al. 2011, p. 429). As such, there is no 
national recovery plan for the turquoise parrot.
    The species is listed on the IUCN Red List as ``Least Concern.'' 
Domestic and international trade in wild-caught specimens is limited 
and strictly regulated. The species is protected through domestic 
regulation in

[[Page 16538]]

Australia and through additional national and international treaties 
and laws.
    As with all species, the turquoise parrot is subject to some 
stressors. As discussed above, however, we reviewed those stressors and 
conclude that individually and cumulatively they are currently not 
having a significant impact on the species. This is evidenced by the 
apparent stable population of approximately 20,000 individuals with 
increases reported in some areas. Therefore, we conclude, based on our 
review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that the 
turquoise parrot is not currently in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range. In addition, we considered whether the impact of any 
of the stressors is likely to significantly increase, individually or 
cumulatively, within the foreseeable future. We conclude, based on our 
review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that 
stressors are not likely to increase such that they would cause 
significant population declines within the foreseeable future, or 
otherwise to result in the species becoming in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available and determined that the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots 
are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all their respective 
ranges, nor are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis

    Having examined the status of the scarlet-chested and turquoise 
parrots throughout all of their ranges, we next examine whether these 
species are in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in a 
significant portion of their respective ranges. Under the Act and our 
implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered 
species'' as any species which is ``in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species'' 
as any species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any subspecies of fish or 
wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' 
We published a final policy interpreting the phrase ``significant 
portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
    The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be 
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, 
the entire species is listed as an endangered or a threatened species, 
respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the 
species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is 
``significant'' if the species is not currently endangered or 
threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution 
to the viability of the species is so important that, without the 
members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general 
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time 
the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any 
particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is 
endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that 
significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than 
the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
    The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including 
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and 
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether 
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status 
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the 
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its 
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and 
no SPR analysis is required. If the species is neither in danger of 
extinction nor likely to become so throughout all of its range, we 
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we 
list the species as an endangered or a threatened species, 
respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not 
warranted.
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the species' range 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 
endangered or threatened. 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 in those portions or likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future.
    We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is 
not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened 
throughout a significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in 
determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. 
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 affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely 
to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of 
threats applies only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet 
the biologically based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of 
that portion clearly would not be expected to increase the 
vulnerability to extinction of the entire species), those portions will 
not warrant further consideration. If we identify any portions that may 
be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened, we engage in 
a more detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are 
indeed met. To determine whether a species is endangered or threatened 
throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that 
we use to determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout 
its range.
    Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats 
it faces, it may be more efficient to address 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.''

Scarlet-Chested Parrot

    Applying the process described above, we evaluated portions of the 
scarlet-chested parrot's range that may be significant, and examined 
whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that 
would indicate that those portions of the range may be in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The range 
available to the scarlet-chested parrot is very large (262,000 km\2\ 
(101,159 mi\2\); BLI 2016a, unpaginated). Within this range, the

[[Page 16539]]

Great Victoria Desert, located in southwestern Australia, may be of 
biological or conservation importance to the scarlet-chested parrot, 
because the species is primarily concentrated in the better vegetated 
areas of this region (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 
366). Therefore, the Great Victoria Desert has the potential to be of 
greater biological or conservation importance than other areas and may 
constitute a significant portion of the parrot's range.
    We next examined whether any stressors are geographically 
concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in 
danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in this portion. We 
examined potential stressors, including land clearing, altered fire 
regimes, limited nest hollows, illegal collection and trade, Psittacine 
beak and feather disease, predation from non-native species, 
competition for food and nest hollows, small population size, and 
effects from climate change. All these stressors appeared to be uniform 
across the range of the species, with the exception of potential 
effects from climate change (See Climate change and the scarlet-chested 
parrot above). A recent climate-change-adaptation model indicated a 
long-term range contraction to the southern portion of its range (to an 
area that includes the Great Victoria Desert) (Garnett et al. 2013b, 
interactive model results). However, given the uncertainty in the 
modelling of future climate scenarios, particularly patterns of 
precipitation, we are unable to reliably discern if the areas projected 
to be lost will result in any significant threat. While regions of the 
Great Victoria Desert may be significant, information and analyses 
indicate that the species is unlikely to be in danger of extinction or 
become so in the foreseeable future in this portion.
    All other stressors appear to be uniform across the range of the 
species. The scarlet-chested parrot is adapted to arid landscapes and 
able to travel great distances. The population is not known to be 
fragmented (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57) and appears to be stable, with 
no evidence of decline in the last 20 years (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; 
BLI 2012a, p. 4). Therefore, based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, no portion warrants further consideration to 
determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a 
significant portion of its range.

Turquoise Parrot

    We evaluated portions of the turquoise parrot's range that may be 
significant, and examined whether any threats are geographically 
concentrated in some way that would indicate that those portions of the 
range may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. The turquoise parrot occurs in many parts of 
eastern and southeastern Australia, particularly the foothills of the 
Great Dividing Range (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000b, 
p. 345; Juniper and Parr 1988, p. 365). The Great Dividing Range is 
formed from multiple mountain ranges that dominate the eastern 
Australia landmass. The species' distribution is not continuous but 
rather occurs in patches of suitable habitat throughout this broader 
range (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286), and about 90 
percent of the population is thought to occur in New South Wales (NSW 
2009, unpaginated). We did not identify any natural divisions within 
the range that may be of biological or conservation importance with the 
exception that the central portion of the parrot's current range (in 
New South Wales) could be considered significant based on the 
concentration of parrots there.
    We next examined whether any stressors are geographically 
concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in 
danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. 
We examined potential stressors, including land clearing, altered fire 
regimes, limited nest hollows, illegal collection and trade, Psittacine 
beak and feather disease, predation from non-native species competition 
for food and nest hollows, and effects from climate change. All these 
stressors appeared to be uniform across the range of the species, with 
the exception of potential effects from climate change (See Climate 
change and the turquoise parrot above).
    A recent climate-change-adaptation model indicated a long-term 
range contraction by about one half to the southern part of its current 
range (i.e., dropping out of Queensland but remaining in portions of 
New South Wales and Victoria) by 2085 (Garnett et al. 2013c, 
interactive model results). This reduced climate space includes 
developed regions near Sydney and in and around Melbourne (Garnett et 
al. 2013c, interactive model results). Currently, approximately 90 
percent of the population is distributed in eastern portions of New 
South Wales. Based on the modeling, the species would experience a 
reduction in climate space in New South Wales that is approximately a 
little more than one half of what is currently modeled. The modeled 
climate space in Victoria may improve somewhat with more areas becoming 
suitable for the parrot. However, given the uncertainty in the 
modelling of future climate scenarios, particularly patterns of 
precipitation, we are unable to reliably discern if the areas projected 
to be lost will result in any significant threat. While areas in New 
South Wales may be significant to the parrot, information and analyses 
indicate that the species is unlikely to be in danger of extinction or 
become so in the foreseeable future in this portion.
    All other stressors appear to be uniform across the range of the 
species. The population of the turquoise parrot now numbers more than 
20,000 individuals. The population appears to be stable and may be 
increasing in some areas. Therefore, based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, no portion warrants further consideration to 
determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a 
significant portion of its range.

Summary

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data 
available and have determined that the scarlet-chested and turquoise 
parrots are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or 
significant portions of their respective ranges, nor are they likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future. As a consequence of this 
determination, we are removing these species from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Effects of the Rule

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parakeets from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife. As of the effective date of this rule (see DATES), 
the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, 
particularly through sections 7, 8 and 9, no longer apply to these 
species. The scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots will remain 
protected under the provisions of the Convention on International Trade 
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). To date, the 
scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots remain on the Approved List of 
captive-bred species under the WBCA, which allows import or export of 
captive-bred individuals of these species without a WBCA permit.

[[Page 16540]]

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with 
listing or reclassification of a species as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2015-0176 or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    This final rule was authored by staff of the Branch of Foreign 
Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 15

    Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 15 and part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 15--WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916.

0
2. Amend Sec.  15.33(a) by:
0
a. Amending the entries in the table for ``Neophema pulchella \1\ 
(Turquoise parrot.)'' and ``Neophema splendida \1\ (Scarlet-chested 
parrot.)'' by removing the footnote superscripts; and
0
b. Revising footnote 1 following the table to read as follows:


Sec.  15.33  Species included in the approved list.

    (a) * * *
    \1\ Note: Permits are still required for this species under part 
17 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.11  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by removing the entries for ``Parakeet, 
scarlet-chested'' and ``Parakeet, turquoise'' under BIRDS in the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

     Dated: March 3, 2017.
James W. Kurth
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-06663 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P